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.
Given the consequences of Vatican II, one should seriously question whether it was the Holy Spirit these men were listening to.
This is a good question. I will look into this.
Luke's Gospel states that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived in her womb, by the Overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. She is the Mother of Jesus, chosen to be so by God Himself, and thus deserving of respect, if nothing else.
Catholics believe that Jesus was born in a way that was just as miraculous as the way He was conceived, and that Mary always was a virgin and is in perpetuity.
Yes, we get it. Many non-Catholics do not believe that Mary remained a virgin afterward. The semantics training for that are on every Marian thread we conduct here.
Well, if words are that important, then maybe the phrasing of those words into arguments ought to be, as well. The inaccurate and unnecessarily graphic statement of our Catholic beliefs regarding the Virgin Birth was offensively and inappropriately stated.
God made the human body, and it is a beautiful thing, but is a sarcastic mention of human genitalia necessary in a religious forum, when it is the mother of Jesus who is spoken of on such a way?
We are all the fruit of our mother's wombs, but does one speak of their own mother and the external intimate parts of her body? I should hope not. Not the place for it. Not certain there is one, except where medical problems are concerned. Either way, NOT HERE.
I was taught to respect, not only my parents, but other people's parents as well. Phrasing a comment about the mother of Our Savior in such a way, is disrespectful to Him, as well as to her, and to we Catholics who regard Mary as our Mother.
Very seldom in these forums does one see proclaimed a love for Jesus and gratitude for His Sacrifice for us; there is so much time spent insulting and attempting to decry our beliefs about Mary. Love for Jesus is not shown simply by attempting to refute what one perceives as false beliefs- praising, loving, and honoring Him should be intrinsic to forum: respect for Mary, and love for Jesus are not mutually exclusive. Love of Jesus, and speaking crudely of His mother that way are not compatible.
This is a discussion forum, not an episode of "Jersey Shore." Can we please keep it that way, for Jesus' sake, and that of the Mother whom He loved?
Could you please produce the magisterium infallible teaching on genesis and the creation story??Please cite the source of the document.Here's the last magisterial word on whether Adam is mythical or real:
[T]he faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.... [O]riginal sin ... proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam ...Humani generis, Pius XII, August 12, 1950. (Emphasis added).
So Pius the V was a lukewarm Catholic?
[T]he faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.... [O]riginal sin ... proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam ...
Humani generis, Pius XII, August 12, 1950. (Emphasis added).
It is not the last word so long as Catholic bibles with the "nihil obstat" and "imprimatur" continue to teach in the commentary that Adam and Eve are myths and to teach the groundless and blasphemous documentary hypothesis.
Besides, once again you are avoiding the real issue. Pius' quote deals only with a theoretical "adam," not the Biblical Adam, who was a very specific individual, created on the Sixth Day, husband of Eve (who was taken from his side), father of Cain, Abel, Seth, and their sisters, and who died at the age of 930. Catholics may very well believe in a theoretical "adam" taught by science, but they do not believe in the Adam who is written of in Genesis. Do you get it now?
You Catholics attack Protestants for not interpreting John 6 literally. Of course, a literal John 6 has negative implications for Protestantism (and in fact I acknowledge that it is the historical chrstian position). But Genesis doesn't have any negative implications for Catholicism. Why then are Catholics so uniformly and implacably hostile to it?
I beg your pardon! ;-)
No you do not get it! In fact, you are avoiding the entire issue, which is the Catholic Church's denial and hostility to the literal truth of Genesis!
I merely brought up the "miraculous birth" story to point out the hypocrisy of Catholics (and Orthodox) who become pietistic fideists when it comes to the "miracles" of the "new testament" but who loudly deny that the Book of Genesis can be literally true because "science says it couldn't possible have happened!"
Bottom line: if you accept the anti-scientific "virgin birth," then you have no legitimate grounds to reject the Creation account of Genesis on "scientific" grounds!
What is it with you people? Why are you so thick-headed on this subject???
Catholic bibles were dismissing Adam and Eve and Genesis as "mythology" long before VII.
I am sorry if I misinterpreted your post.
I see you are a Southern Baptist. I know that Southern Baptists accept Genesis. However, the "unchanging" Catholic Church does not. And they hypocritically do so in the name of "science," which, taken logically and consistently, also would indicate that the "virgin birth" never happened either.
My quarrel is not with people who are consistent. It is with those hypocrites who are scientists when it comes to Genesis and "faithful little children" when it comes to the "new testament."
And my first language is Southern, thank you very much.
A bible in the hand of a Catholic is like the constitution in the hands of a liberal.
Now kindly retract the claws.
No. Not so long as you and your co-religionists use "science" as an excuse to dismiss Genesis while throwing that same "science" in the garbage can when it comes to the "miracles" of the "new testament."
It is only natural that anyone who subscribes to sola scriptura would make this comparison. They interpret the bible in a "strict sense," much as Jeffersonians interpret the Constitution. Compared to this those of us who do not subscribe to sola scriptura (and this includes me, btw) seem like the "loose construction" and "implied powers" of the Hamiltonians.
I do not believe in sola scriptura. I acknowledge both an authoritative oral interpretive tradition and contemporary religious authorities. That is not my quarrel with the Catholic and Orthodox churches. My quarrel is their uncalled for yet apparently undying hatred for the literal truth of Genesis. That is what this is about and I will continue to point out such hypocrisy as long as it is practiced.
Can you provide a link?
Calling A-mighty G-d a liar (G-d forbid!!!) because He allegedly didn't tell us the truth in Genesis, which He Himself wrote, is disrespectful. Don't you think?
You want your supernaturalistic beliefs respected? Stop attacking the truth of Genesis!!!
St Pius V participated in evils, at least according to the standard applied to others in his time. Just looking for clarification, in light of a world of sin. I think we'd both agree that ISIS consists of no Catholics regardless of temperature. The lack of response to their depredations from the US is evil IMO, and I doubt Catholics would claim another Dem pol like 0bama in their orbit.
Yes, I agree that ultimately Fundamentalists are hypocrites when they reject the literal interpretation of John 6 literally. When I converted to Catholicism, one reason I did so was because it taught John 6 literally, and I'll take as much of the supernatural as I can get. My policy is: I like my religion with a lot of zapping in it. It's possible that had it not been for Catholic liberalism on every other issue I would be a member of the Catholic Church to this day.
Fundamentalist Protestants, in order to remain Protestants, are forced to reject the literal interpretation of John 6 for two very simple reasons:
1)It implies that "salvation" is a lifelong process in which one grows and in which one must be fed. Since Fundamentalist Protestantism believes in an instantaneous permanent salvation on the basis of a vicariously damned "divine" scapegoat, they can have no room for process in their soteriology.
2)In order to accept the "miracle of the mass," one would have to accept the authenticity of the succession of those possessing these powers. This of necessity drags in acceptance of the Catholic/Orthodox priesthood, and with them comes the whole of Catholic/Orthodox theology.
You can see here why Fundamentalist Protestant theology could not survive the acceptance of the literal interpretation of John 6. I like to think that if they could find a way to neutralize the two above issues, Fundamentalist Protestants would interpret John 6 as literally as they do everything else.
Now let me ask you this: what is the Catholic excuse for rejecting Genesis and (in fact) the vast majority of the entire Hebrew Bible? What in Genesis overturns Catholic theology or soteriology? What in it automatically requires a Protestant worldview? Admit it: there isn't anything. Catholics/Orthodox are without excuse for their antipathy to Genesis. There is one and only one logical explanation: an antipathy to the people with whom a literal interpretation of Genesis is associated; ie, a hatred of simple rural American people. These same people idealize the illiterate peasants of the Middle Ages and of today, but they have no room in their heart for the simple American yeoman farmer. This antipathy disgusts me. It is hateful. It drove me from the Catholic Church (granted, ultimately doing me a favor). But this hypocrisy, to accept every supernatural claim outside the Hebrew Bible and to celebrate every people on earth except for the American "redneck"--this is all to similar to liberalism. And some very hateful remarks about simple Americans have been made by Catholic FReepers over the years (Billy Bob's Glory Barn, snake-handlers, brain-dead bibliolators, etc.).
You need to understand something. Catholic FReepers can post all they want about how flawed Protestant ecclesiology or knowledge of church history is. They may justify every Catholic practice that Protestants object to. But so long as Catholics insist that Genesis is "didactic mythology" no Fundamentalist Protestant will ever join or have any other feeling towards it than emnity. There is about the denial of Genesis the smell of sulfur. And there is simply no reason for Catholic or Orthodox chrstians to oppose it the way they do. It is a groundless prejudice . . . nothing more, nothing less.
And regardless of the fact that Genesis might be important to a few traditionalist Catholics here and there, it is not high on the list of concerns and is almost never brought up in traditionalist attacks on liberal Catholicism.
I don't know what more I can say.
“Where are you guys?”
I actually was making a living.
“Why isn’t this issue important to you???”
It is, but when I see you hyperventilating over it I am disinclined to participate.
Dude ... chill. You don’t even know my views on the Genesis story. Didn’t even ask me.
Lighten up.
You're the one showing hatred here ... not me.
That is not an infallible papal or magisterial proclamation. It is simply a “current” position of Rome. Subject to change. Simply man’s opinion
That is not an infallible papal or magisterial proclamation. It is simply a “current” position of Rome. Subject to change. Simply man’s opinion
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.