Posted on 04/22/2015 11:50:07 AM PDT by NYer
Question: I had a former theology teacher at my parish’s school tell me that Vatican II changed the Church’s teachings on Adam and Eve and that the first few chapters of Genesis are to be considered as myths. Is that true?
Answer: No, it is not. Below are nine teachings of the Church regarding the first three chapters of Genesis. These teachings can be found in a document which was issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and confirmed by Pope St. Pius X in 1909. These teachings have been the constant teachings of the Church throughout the centuries, and the Pontifical Biblical Commission expounded them in 1909 as a response to the errors of the Modernists that had developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Modernists were, among other things, denying the reality of Adam and Eve.
Now, you might say, “John, this was before Vatican II, the question is: didn’t Vatican II change all of this?” No, it did not. We can find every single one of these nine teachings of Pope St. Pius X, as expounded by the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) that was published in 1994.
So, here they are, the nine teachings of the Church regarding chapters 1-3 of Genesis, as expounded in the 1909 document from the Pontifical Biblical Commission, followed each time by the paragraphs of the 1994 Catechism that carry the corresponding teachings:
1. The creation of all things out of nothing by God at the beginning of time...and including time; CCC #’s 296-299
2. The special creation of man; CCC #’s 355-359
3. The creation of woman from man [Eve was created from Adam’s rib — well, the Church doesn’t say that it absolutely happened in exactly that way, but it does teach that woman was created from man in some manner]; CCC #371
4. That all of humanity is descended from an original pair of human beings — Adam and Eve; CCC #’s 54-55, 359-360, 375, 390-392, 402-405, 407, 416-417
5. That Adam and Eve were created in an original state of holiness, justice, and immortality; CCC #’s 374-379, 384, 398, 415-416
6. That a Divine Command was laid upon man to prove his obedience to God “Thou shalt not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” - again, exactly what that means, we don’t know. Was it really a tree with fruit that they weren’t supposed to eat? Probably not, but we don’t really know. But we do know that there was some command from God, laid upon man, to prove his obedience.]; CCC #’s 396-397, 399
7. The transgression of that Divine Command at the instigation of Satan; CCC #’s 379, 390-392, 394-395, 397-398, 413-415
8. The loss of the state of holiness, justice, and immortality of our 1st parents, because of their disobedience — Adam and Eve were kicked out of Paradise; CCC #’s 379, 390, 399-400, 410
9. The promise of a future Redeemer, a Savior — Gen 3:15, the protoevangelium, the first “good news”; CCC #’s 410-411
I doubt anyone will contend that the Catechism is pre-Vatican II. So, if the teachings of the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission on Adam and Eve are also found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, then it is obvious that Vatican II did not change the Church’s teachings in regard to Adam and Eve.
G_P_H...A better question: Which Catholics interpret the Bible infallibly?
The answer to both of those questions is NO ONE ..That is why Protestants study and read.. and write commentaries.. struggling to understand what God is telling us in His word
The apostles had spent years in the direct presence of God.. yet after the resurrection Jesus had to point out to them that the OT was all about HIM...
One day He will show us the meaning of all of the scripture..
Until then we look through a glass darkly
So God’s left us in the dark?
You've just admitted that Protestants can't interpret Scripture infallibly.
You also claim that the Catholic Church can't, either.
But WE believe that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded AND that it can teach infallibly.
"...which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." --St. PaulThe Church has the power to "bind and loose." What does this phrase mean?"If he won't listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." --Jesus
"Binding and loosing is an originally Jewish phrase which appears in the New Testament, as well as in the Targum. In usage to bind and to loose mean simply to forbid by an indisputable authority, and to permit by an indisputable authority." --WikipediaJesus affirms the teaching authority of the Pharisees (their power to "bind and loose.""Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus ("B J." i, 5, § 2), "became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind." --Jewish Encyclopedia
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,[a] that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do."Jesus, to Peter:
"And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”Jesus to the Apostles:
Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.The Catholic Church can trace Her origin to Apostolic times. Lutheranism can be traced back to Luther. His church has no divine teaching authority.
Which of course is wretched out of context. Anyone who believes this speaks about Rome's authority should fear for their eternal soul.
Quote-I think he would be a bit saddened that the reformation is still going on, but also be shocked on how nutty all of Christendom has become.
I’m curious what Luther and many of the first reformers would have to say about a roman calendar named after a Pope being the timekeeping ‘authority’ in these last days.
Who cares?
"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours." — Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. — Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1
Mighty bold talk for a fella who has hitched his wagon to the RCC.
So MANY of it's 'churches' seen in the bible were teaching massive error.
Tell us ignorant Prots: Just HOW does that happen?
Did He leave the disciples in the dark??
The fact is if you desire a serious relationship with someone you have to get to know them intimately ... it is no different with our relationship with God...If we really want a relationship with our Father we need to be willing to take time and learn of Him ..that is only done through His word..
The unregenerate do not understand this..
1 Cor 2:12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. 14But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.…
That is the result of the work of doctrine by a committee of competing factions for the one true church, in contrast to those which have divisions.
The source was my own substantiated research, and it certainly is in the NAB Bibles cited, the footnotes (if not the Bible helps) of which you can see on the Vatican's own site, and, and that of USCCB, both of which I cited.
And RC testimony was also provided, as in, "a Roman Catholic apologist using the 1992 version also lists some of the same errors described below, and is likewise critical of the liberal scholarship behind it (though he elsewhere denigrated Israel as illegally occupying Palestine), while a Roman Catholic cardinal is also crtical of the NAB on additional grounds. "
Check you own, but you will need a NAB study Bible with the Bible helps.
The Google Books online Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible, with the latest stamps being 2005, lacks the Bible helps section i referenced but still examples the liberal revisionism of relegating historical events as fables, yet which the NT treats as liberal,
In the preface to Jonah we read,
" The story may be termed a fable..it can also be termed a parable," and attributes late compilation to it."
On pp. 34,35 it states,
Which means that if the Lord was referring to a fable when He predicted His death and resurrection, then souls could say that was a fable as well:
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40)
>In addition, the story of the Israelites' ancestors in Genesis is composed of numerous,. originally independent folk tales.
And it proceeds ( p. 36 ) to assert that the events of the story of the Hebrews deliverance from Exodus are "historically impossible," and falsely claim the story was a result of writers who took traditions and "constructed from them a dramatic and persuasive written narrative, " and even "the actual events no longer resembled the traditions and cannot be reconstructed from them.
Which mess somehow must be what Steven referred to in Acts 7:
He brought them out, after that he had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years. (Acts 7:36)
Thus the sppsd one true church that is promoted as being led into all truth (missing the asterisks) to which we are to submit to, attributes to the Spirit of God that of teaching fables and folk tales as facts! And this is only a small sample!
1) The NT church was not theRoman Catholic church ... It was not the church of the pope, or mary..it had no priesthood, no mass, no 7 sacraments, no holy water, no confessional ...It was more like my church than yours
2)There is no "apostolic succession" taught in the scripture Those are all RC fairy tales used to hook people into their church ...nothing more..
Those that believe this have trusted their eternal soul to a system of lies, deceit and fairy tales..They have find no security in the cross, or the work or words of Christ
Glory to God for what is good.
Using OCR software, here is the first find of the online NAB. p. 10, eph. mine, referred to in my last post:
In the Mesopotamian creation- flood stories, the gods created the human race as slaves whose task it was to manage the universe for them —giving them food. clothing. and honor in temple ceremonies. In an unforeseen develop- ment, however, the human race grew so numer- ous and noisy that the gods could not sleep. Deeply angered. the gods decided to destroy the race by a universal flood. One man and his fam- ily, however, secretly warned of the flood by his patron god. built a boat and survived. Soon re- gretting their irnpetuous decision, the gods cre- ated a revised version of humankind. The new race was created mortal so they would never again grow numerous and bother the gods. The authors of Genesis adapted the creation-flood story in accord with their views of God and hu- manity. For example. they attributed the fault to human sin rather than to divine miscalculation (6:5-7) and had God reaffirm without change the original creation (9: l-7). I
[See here and here on who copied who, etc. in such things.]
In the biblical version God is just, powerful, and not needy. I-low should modern readers interpret the ere- ation-flood story in Gn 2-I I. The stories are nei- ther history nor myth. “Myth” is an unsuitable term, for it has several different meanings and connotes untruth in popular English. “History” is equally misleading, for it suggests that the events actually took place. The best term is creation- flood story. Ancient Near Eastern thinkers did not have our methods of exploring serious questions. Instead. they used narratives for issues that we would call philosophical and theological. 'I1tey added and subtracted narrative details and varied the plot as they sought meaning in the ancient sto- ries. Their stories reveal a privileged time. when divine decisiom were made that determined the future of the human race. The origin of something was thought to explain its present meaning, e.g., how God acts with justice and generosity, why human beings are rebellious. the nature of sexual attraction and marriage. why there are many peo- ples and languages. Though the stories may ini- tially suilte us as primitive and naive, they are in fact told with skill. compression. and subtlety. they provide profound answers to perennial about God and human beings.
Going to church meeting. Hope to get back with more later.
But in the mean time, you consider yourself in the dark as you try to figure out what God’s Word means. How do you know when you figured correctly?
How do you??
oh we’ve been down this road before. You know the answer for a Catholic...you just don’t like it. You, on the other hand, don’t have an answer.
You’re right: you are in the dark.
That's not to say that I don't understand how one could infer otherwise from either the NAB or the CCC. I do not think, however, that either source deliberately intended to imply that there are no elements whatsoever in Gen 1-11 that are historically factual, but simply that the overall narrative of those chapters was not intended to be historical in the modern sense of the word (i.e., a strict chronological rendering of events).
In any event, I do appreciate the time and effort you took to respond, and would still like to be alerted to any Catholic writing that unambiguously asserts that the Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve are myths. Such an assertion would directly contradict what I hope I have demonstrated to your satisfaction is the "official" teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the historical reality of Adam and Eve (see post 84 above).
Sr. Delores Duffner, Dan Schutte, and Marty Haugen.
Isaac Watts, Charles Wesley, and JS Bach.
I rest my case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.