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.
But of what worth is that if they do not believe the the whole story? You can believe that A+E were two real people, and even that sin followed Adam's sin, but then you can deny that the story of how that happened was real, and that the Tower fo Babel, the Flood, and other historical miracles were real. So why not doubt the story of Adam and Eve?
Even the USSCB and the NAB commentary do not call it myth, but they can and have relegated it to being a fable, even if it had some core reality. Like as the NAB commentary on events of Exodus, that 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." (The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible, p. 36)
I can say with confidence that she does not, the NAB commentary and the CCC notwithstanding....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).
That restricted aspect hardly goes far enough, and is also makes the RC error of presuming what one teaches consists of what is merely said, versus what she does and effectually conveys, which for decades now has been that of uncensored liberal revisionism. It also presumes that all that is in an encyclical is infallible, and cannot be further defined even if it seems to contradict previous teaching, as EENS does, and that your interpretation of what a pope wrote settles the matter instead.
Thus you have RCs contending for gencentrism as being church teaching based upon historical documents.
Another pope said,
"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
And your own bishops say- without any censor from Rome - the same thing as the NAB commentary given before :
The plot of Gn 2–11 (creation, the flood, renewed creation) has been borrowed from creation-flood stories attested in Mesopotamian literature of the second and early first millennia.
How should modern readers interpret the creation-flood story in Gn 2–11? The stories are neither 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. - http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/0
Likewise Cardinal George Pell said,
the existence of Adam and Eve was not a matter of science but rather a mythological account. “It’s a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world,” he said. “It’s a religious story told for religious purposes.” - http://consciouslifenews.com/catholic-cardinal-adam-eve-didnt-exist/
Fr. Joe answers "Must Catholics believe as an article of faith that all human beings have descended from two real human beings, Adam and Eve?" by saying,
In short,there is no necessary contradiction between scientific theories of evolution Catholic belief. Moreover, Catholics are not obligated to believe that the story of “first parents” named Adam and
Eve as told in the book of Genesis is historical fact. They are, however, called to believe the religious truths which the Genesis story proclaims, namely:
1. That God played the ultimate role in all creation.
2. That God played the ultimate role in the creation of the human being.
3. That God created the soul which gives the human person an inherent dignity and the capacity for a relationship of love with God. - http://bustedhalo.com/questionbox/must-catholics-believe-as-an-article-of-faith-that-all-human-beings-have-descended-from-two-real-human-beings-adam-and-eve>
Then we have The New Jerome Bible Handbook, page 16:
Mesopotamian culture, the model for most of the stories in Genesis 1-11, scribes explored beginnings through stories, not through abstract reasoning. . . The biblical writers have produced a version of a common Mesopotamian story of the origins of the populated world.
Some readers even end up concentrating on defending a “literal interpretation” of chapters 1-3, in particular, against modern evolutionary theory, something that the ancient authors of Genesis, with their tolerance of different versions, would never have done.
Yet if Rome does not concur with them, then it leaves you with a church which claims to be led into all Truth yet which effectually teaches contradictory major things for decades to multitudes, right in its own Bible commentary, and by the American Bishops. And which does not discipline its publicly known errant (and liberal) teachers - a lax church which RCs have the audacity to insist conservative evangelicals who left liberal Prot churches (which are usually those closest to Rome) need to join this unholy amalgam.
In reality what Rome really believes is manifest by what she does and effectually conveys.
In-credible: you (like so many other RCs) once again resort to post this polemical assertion, and thus once again comes the questions which you have continually refused to answer, which must be affirmed if your assertion is to have any weight. You simply need to affirm,
That being the historical instruments and stewards of Holy Writ means such is the infallible interpreters and authorities on it.
And thus willful dissent from them is rebellion against God, and invalidates any claim to authority?
If not, then of what import does you assertion have?
In the light of what your own officially approved Bible commentary and bishops say, as shown in posts 123 (to you, but no reply) 125 , and 151 and 155 and 161 substantiate, has your opinion changed the Nihil Obstat and an imprimatur indicates that a book is without significant error, and what Catholics (led by bishops) teach about Genesis being literal?
Which begs the questions:
1. Is perpetual infallibility essential for discerning, understanding and preserving faith? And for providing assurance of faith?
2. Who was promised perpetual infallibility in interpreting Scripture?
3. How do you know this for sure?
4. How many texts of Scripture has your church infallibly interpreted?
5. Are Protestants excluded from ever correctly interpreting a part of Scripture without error?
When you can and will answer these then get back to us.
You mean if I want to go back on the merry-go-round? No, thanks.
All cult members, from the RCC to INC, to JWs, LDS, Bhuddists, Hindus, Quiboloys and so forth have done this. One of the stark things I recall, after getting saved, was the incredible spiritual blindness I had. The preaching of the cross was foolishness to me. It was like riddles, spiritually discerned. There was no way I was going to understand spiritual principles until I was quickened by the Holy Spirit, and not a moment before. There isn't a snow balls chance of me ever taking a dip in the Tiber, not now, not ever. The sad thing is, no one needs to be in that position. God made a provision for our sin. Unfortunately, only a few people will be saved. I remember what D L Moody said, that he felt like a lifeboat on the sea, so he was to use the time God gsve him to win as many to Christ as possible. I heard he had a revival in Chicago in Oct of 1871. He asked people to go home and think about the claims of Christ. That night, the great Chicago Fire killed about 300 people. Moody vowed never again would he let people go, without pressing for s decision for Christ. 🇵🇭
Well, examination of its premise and presuppositions is what the RC argument must face, and her merry-go-round is what it leads to. You are wise to jump off it.
No, the merry-go-round is arguing with protestant heretical beliefs.
Meaning you want to argue that an infallible magisterium is essential for knowing "what God’s Word means" but do not want to follow where that logic means by dealing with the questions this demands.
Because Rome says she is, which is a false belief that is no substitute for that which refutes it.
"...which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." --St. Paul
So where is this text infallibly interpreted to mean Rome possesses perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility? Or even as requiring assent as meaning what you invoke it for?
And if it is not, then how does 8 words in Greek, (church living God pillar and ground the truth), one of which only occurs here, with both pillar and ground denoting support, translate into the church being the supreme infallible authority on Truth?
"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." --Wikipedia
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,[a] that observe and do,
Then how could souls be correct if they did not submit to the indisputable OT authority to whom this applied to under the OT?
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.”
Why does this authority necessitate perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, whenever it speaks according to Rome's formula, which excludes the possibility of valid dissent from it?
Where is this power spiritually restricted to said magisterium?
The Catholic Church can trace Her origin to Apostolic times. Lutheranism can be traced back to Luther. His church has no divine teaching authority.
To clarify then, your argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?
The Catholic Study Bible was designed for advanced students of the Scriptures by today's top Catholic scholars.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Catholic-Study-Bible-American/dp/0195283929
Indeed some aspects of the story cannot be historical. The sheer magnitude of the event, that the firstborn male of every Egyptian household died, that the entire Egyptian army pursued the Israelites to the sea and were subsequently drowned; that the number of Israelites who escaped from Egypt were 603,550 men of fighting age, not counting Levites, old men, women, and children, renders it historically impossible.
If this is the case then the Passover did not happen either. For if it is not possible for God to move against the first born of the Egyptians, then what is the point of the Passover account.....and Passover itself?
If you follow catholic logic then the catholic has to bring into question the rest of the Biblical account....of everything....and I mean everything.
Was Moses real?
Was Abraham real?
Isaac?
David?
Solomon?
Adam?
Eve?
The list could go on and on.
It renders Luke who wrote in Acts 7:36-41 as a liar. You might as well lump Paul in there as well.
If this reflects what today's "top" catholic scholars can come up with, I'm beginning to understand the problems with catholicism.
The ignorance and disbelief is stunning.
So...the Roman Catholic Cult is now God?
God gave us the Scriptures. This whole lie of the Catholic Cult "giving" us the Binle is tired old bilge. If any group provided Gods Word to the world, it would be those who defied the Cult to print the Bible for mass consumption and faced martyrdom for it. But the whole truth is that God provided us with scripture -- DESPITE the machinations of the Roman Catholic Church.
Every time I read a Cultist make this claim I am amazed by the hubris shown by the Roman Catholic Church and gullibility of those who believe it.
Hoss
Even though only a few will be saved.. we must keep on..
I'm with you on that one!
It is easier just to go to mass on Sundays..eat christ and then go home and watch football, than to consider the things of God....Let the "church" do that
Either that or they invented and own Christianity.
Indeed. And yet this unholy amalgam is what RCs insist we must be part of, based upon the error of sola ecclesia (the Roman church alone is the supreme authority on Truth).
Division because of Truth is superior to unity in error.
For a approx. 50 min ritual. When i was a kid my mom would say how strict the CC was, but we had Nazarene neighbors, the Davis family with 4 kids about our age, and spent hours at church, and IIRC they could not play afterwards. Later they moved to Vermont to a farm.
I get this impression some of the canned ‘apologetics’ we see here is just to get attention. Throw something really provocative out there and fill their pings with responses.
If there are lurkers here I think they see it too. They probably wonder why we respond.
Tis a slippery slop they have woven ...
Indeed some aspects of the story cannot be historical. The sheer magnitude of the event, that the firstborn male of every Egyptian household died, that the entire Egyptian army pursued the Israelites to the sea and were subsequently drowned; that the number of Israelites who escaped from Egypt were 603,550 men of fighting age, not counting Levites, old men, women, and children, renders it historically impossible.
But "the assumption" of mary, eating the real physical body of christ , and all those "visions" are all completely possible
1 Cor 1:For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." 20Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?…
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.