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.
The word, 'remembrance".
Wrong. "this" is taking and eating. Look at the context. There was no hocus pocus prayer.
Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
An orthodox Lutheran Synod
Father Luther would be so proud...
Ultraa wrong.....take and eat of this "THIS IS MY BODY"....Take and drink of this "THIS IS A CUP OF MY BLOOD WHICH WILL BE SHED FOR THE REMISSION OF SIN"
Do THIS in memory of me
Yes indeed I hear crickets and they are not in season yet:)
Unfortunately for you, it doesn’t mention saying ‘hocus pocus” over bread and turning it into Christ body.
and this you know exactly how...?
The word, ‘remembrance”.
ah, yes, because’in remembrance of’ and ‘in memory of’ express such polar opposite thought patterns...
the more you ‘explain’ the more foolish your position becomes...
That's very astute and the thought has caused me to spend a lot of time with the definition of liberal. It's all about a liberal interpretation. It's about taking liberties with something that should be revered. It's like taking liberties with a ... virgin. How very ironic.
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.
No need for snark. Dust of the earth? OK, but HOW did he do tha?
I’ve probably read the Bible more times than you can count, but I still have questions.
Vatican II made changes re: religious liberty and ecumenism, but not Adam and Eve.
Yes there is. And will remain so as long as you hypocrites insist on subjecting the bringing into being of everything from nothing to "scientific laws" while still believing that a virgin gave birth through her side so her hymen would remain intact. Why no "scientific laws" to explain that, hmm?
Dust of the earth? OK, but HOW did he do tha?
What "natural laws" did he use to cause the resurrection? The multiplication of loaves and fishes? Don't tell me . . . those where "miracles." But the creation of man has to be "natural!"
I’ve probably read the Bible more times than you can count, but I still have questions.
So? What have "questions" to do with rejecting the Biblical narrative and insisting on scientific uniformitarianism?
But since you bring it up, tell me in scripture where to find the doctrine of sola scripture. And what is your take on John 6?
There you go. This whole thread is about Adam and Eve but rather than answer aimhigh's question you immediately invoke the only verses which the Catholic Church interprets literally. Why don't you answer the question about Adam and Eve? Why do you dodge it?
I take this as a back door admission that you don't believe the events narrated in Genesis actually happened. After all, that's "heretical" for a Catholic (or an Orthodox), isn't it?
You know what's really crazy? Aside from Augustine most of your church fathers were young-earth creationists. They never felt the need to limit the literal details of Genesis like their so-called followers do. But every statement in which they agree with Fundamentalist Protestants is dismissed because "they were relying on the science of their time and didn't know what we know today." Yet every teaching on which they disagree with Fundamentalist Protestants is treated as untouchable divinely-revealed truth!
What a lousy attitude to have!
When I point out the rather severe theological issues this presents, I have been called a fundamentalist Catholic hater. When I show them the parts of the Catholic Catechism quoted the article.. Well I was asked to leave.
You mean like all those Catholic bibles that teach the documentary hypothesis and that Adam and Eve are myths?
How do you reconcile such bibles with the claim made in the article at the head of this thread?
Where are you guys? Why isn’t this issue important to you???
A bible in the hand of a Catholic is like the constitution in the hands of a liberal.
Now kindly retract the claws.
I see that English is your second language.
I never disputed the Genesis account at all.
Are you Christophobic, maybe?
Again, refer to my second sentence.
Get some coffe, man. You’re still hung over.
As far as getting into a debate about the literal truth of Adam and Eve and whether it is important to me? I find a number of things important to me, but I also recognize that there is just so much one can say. Case in point: the ongoing "debate" with Protestants about the Eucharist and whether it is literal. I don't argue with them about that anymore because it's pretty clear their minds are closed. That doesn't mean it isn't important to me.
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.