It appears you are yet again in error, mgist. Please read the following article, entitled The Second Adam, from America: The National Catholic Weekly:
The paintings on the walls of the Brancacci Chapel in Florence show Masaccio (1401-28) at his artistic and spiritual best—not least in the way he links Adam and Eve with Christ. Driven from the Garden of Eden, our first parents are in despair. Weeping and weighed down with terrible pain and loss, they move along a path of sorrows. But the same path brings them toward the next scene: Christ on the shores of Lake Galilee surrounded by his apostles, who will found the church. In his own brilliant fashion, Masaccio follows a tradition that reaches back to St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians (Ch. 15) and his Letter to the Romans (Ch. 5), the contrast between the first Adam, who initiated the whole story of human sin and the new Adam, who has brought the blessings of grace and eternal life.
Calling Christ the second Adam is a solidly traditional practice. In the second century St. Irenaeus developed the differences between the first and last Adam. By referring twice to Adam, an early liturgical text, the Exultet or Easter Proclamation (still sung at the Easter Vigil) implies Christ’s role as the second or new Adam. In the medieval mystery plays, the actor who played Adam usually reappeared to play Christ—a vivid way of connecting the first and second Adam. A contrast between the damage done by the first Adam and the gifts of the second Adam entered into the Council of Trent’s 1547 decree on the justification of sinful human beings. Right down to the 21st century, images of Adam and Christ are still wonderfully joined in icons used in the official liturgy of the Eastern Christian tradition and in the decoration of its churches.
The remainder of the article, entitled , in America: The National Catholic Weekly can be found at http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3540
You are absolutely right, I was wrong in terms of scriptual meaning. Aren’t we all fallable? That is why as a Catholic, I usually prefer to rely on the Cathechism for scriptural doctrine, which clearly shows you are right in terms of scripture. I guess I should have refered to the Cathechism in the first place, but the real point I was trying to make is that we all interpret scripture. Catholics have the Catechism to refer to for interpretation. It is a necessity, not an “evil tool from the RC church”. Like I said, I don’t understand those who interpret scripture, and accuse others for doing the same.