Interesting.Byblos wrote:But you are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom sin originated and propagated to the human race. That is de fide hugh.
Can you post the proof of that?
Interesting.Byblos wrote:But you are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom sin originated and propagated to the human race. That is de fide hugh.
RickD wrote:Interesting.Byblos wrote:But you are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom sin originated and propagated to the human race. That is de fide hugh.
Can you post the proof of that?
No, I'm not; and no, it isn't. Would you care to justify your claim? I have already mentioned the International Theological Commission's calling Adam the 'symbol of the original unity of the human race', and you may care to review the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the subject. I believe it is on the point of a new edition, but in the meanwhile you could try Part One Section Two Chapter One Article One Paragraphs Six and Seven (so easy to navigate...). Although there is a quotation from St Paul in the elucidatory text, which we are not required to believe, the only mention of Adam in Section Six is Statement 375: "The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice". This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life"." Given the subsequent teachings of Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis, it is clear that 'interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way' is only one way (probably the easiest) of expressing the meaning of Adam and Eve, and that, by extension, there are other ways, less easy to understand theologically, but perhaps more historically likely. Given my previous interpretation earlier, there is no de fide compulsion to believe that Adam was an individual person rather than a group of people.Byblos wrote:But you are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom sin originated and propagated to the human race. That is de fide, Hugh.
Hugh,hughfarey wrote:Incidentally, in some ways it's a pity that the Religious affiliation declaration at the side of each post only gives: Christian: Yes or No, as information. As a Catholic, I would not dream of telling, say, members of the Evangelical Methodist Church what they are 'required to believe', but I find that anybody with a bible in his bookshelf thinks they know what Catholics are required to believe. As it happens, I think, from an earlier comment, that Byblos is a Catholic, which is why I have separated this comment from the previous one, but let this be fair advice to anybody else who thinks I'm a heretic...
Hugh this is direct from Catholic answers and it states that Adam and Eve were 2 actual persons and not symbolic .hughfarey wrote:No, I'm not; and no, it isn't. Would you care to justify your claim? I have already mentioned the International Theological Commission's calling Adam the 'symbol of the original unity of the human race', and you may care to review the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the subject. I believe it is on the point of a new edition, but in the meanwhile you could try Part One Section Two Chapter One Article One Paragraphs Six and Seven (so easy to navigate...). Although there is a quotation from St Paul in the elucidatory text, which we are not required to believe, the only mention of Adam in Section Six is Statement 375: "The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice". This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life"." Given the subsequent teachings of Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis, it is clear that 'interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way' is only one way (probably the easiest) of expressing the meaning of Adam and Eve, and that, by extension, there are other ways, less easy to understand theologically, but perhaps more historically likely. Given my previous interpretation earlier, there is no de fide compulsion to believe that Adam was an individual person rather than a group of people.Byblos wrote:But you are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom sin originated and propagated to the human race. That is de fide, Hugh.
And, it's fun to see Catholics disagreeing with each other for a change.De fide (of the faith) is a "theological note" or "theological qualification" that indicates that some religious doctrine is an essential part of Catholic faith and that denial of it is heresy.
Ok. And here's paragraph 6. It seems to me that it says that Adam was the first man. So, not only was he historical and literal, he was also first.hughfarey wrote:This is Part One Section Two Chapter One Article One Paragraph Seven, which continues the story of Paragraph Six. Paragraph Six is the one dealing with the appearance of Adam, and Paragraph Seven deals with what happened to him. The character of Adam is thus contingent on the Adam described in the previous Paragraph.
Yes! My comments. They are the ones headed "hughfarey". The one relevant to yours above was posted as long ago as six hours previously (so easy to forget, I guess). It said:RickD wrote:Am I missing something?
There is NO credible Biblical establishment of the office of Pope - there is no mandate in Scripture for such office or for ANYONE to be the head of the worldwide church. And IF one believes that to be so, they must also ask themself 1) how so many of their official proclamations, by so many Popes, contradict, not only many specific Scriptures, but 2) why have these Popes also contradicted the teachings of each other - IF they have spoken on the behalf of God, or given the authority to do such? And, do you not realize that when the disciples, just told Jesus is soon to leave them behind, and as a consequence they immediately begin to argue over who would be left in charge - instead of Jesus saying something like, "Pete's my man! Obey him!" I mean, if Peter is being anointed as head of the church, what better time to assert that, right? And if not then, WHEN - a Jesus was immediately to be put to death. Instead, Jesus not only doesn't establish any such office or leader, He chastises them by telling them the Church is not to be run like human institutions. Plus, during the 40 days of Jesus' post-Resurrection appearances, this hugely supposed important office and it's head, are not mentioned as such, not even ONCE! Additionally, after Jesus returns to Heaven, Peter himself doesn't view himself as some supreme leader of the church. He merely calls himself a FELLOW ELDER: (1 Peter 5) "So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and as a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; 2 not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock."Bippy: Did you, in fact, read my comment, or the Catholic Answers tract, before posting it? I am well aware of what Pope Pius XII stated in Humani generis. I made specific mention of it in an earlier comment. Even there the Pope admits that Adam and Eve's bodies may have evolved, but that their souls were created especially for them (Paragraph 36). But that was in 1950. Catholic Answers' comments are no more 'required belief' than yours or mine. It is a lay-run information organisation founded in 1979 in California, originally to defend Catholicism against other Christians!
Oh, wise guy huh?Hugh wrote:
Yes! My comments. They are the ones headed "hughfarey". The one relevant to yours above was posted as long ago as six hours previously (so easy to forget, I guess). It said: