6

This question already has an answer here:

It is known that many Catholics believe that Adam and Eve is a story better left to the metaphorical imagination, rather than literal interpretation (though other denominations may feel differently). Going off of this belief, wouldn't that imply that since it is just a metaphor, and not literal, that it never really happened, and if it never really happened, then there is no REAL original sin?

If it is a metaphor and there is no original sin, then why did Jesus come to earth? Why did he have to repent us of this non-existent sin?

marked as duplicate by bruised reed, 3961, Narnian, Affable Geek, Flimzy Sep 10 '14 at 13:10

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • Welcome to the site. We are glad you decided to participate. I had to edit your question to bring it more into site guidelines. I hope you are okay with that. I removed the opinion, forum style paragraphs; the site works on a strict question and answer format. I also removed the add-on questions at the end; they made the post too broad. You can ask another question, however. I hope to see you post again soon. – 3961 Sep 9 '14 at 0:13
  • 4
    Down-voted because this question has a false premise. Catholics cannot believe in a "metaphorical Adam and Eve". See my answer below. – Geremia Sep 9 '14 at 2:08
  • 1
    Please don't close this question as it now concerns the "Metaphorical interpretation of scripture" as opposed to the "literal interpretation of scripture" which are completely different things. – Peter Turner Sep 9 '14 at 3:48
  • The real question is not "Why did he have to repent us of this non-existent sin?" but why would anyone think that the sin God cares about is two people eating an apple thousands of years ago rather than your personal sins? That's why Jesus came, not because two doofuses ate an apple, but because we all sin in our own lives. – david brainerd Sep 9 '14 at 4:27
  • @Geremia Downvoting because of a false premise makes no sense. Many questions come from misunderstanding, which is something an answer should address. By downvoting in this fashion you are discouraging legitimate questions. Then you answered anyway. You actions appear duplicitous. – 3961 Sep 9 '14 at 5:43
1

This question is based on a confusion about the term "original sin." There are at least two concepts to which this term can refer, and they don't imply each other. From the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine's statement: "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin" (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary stain that is dealt with here. As to the sin of Adam we have not to examine the circumstances in which it was committed nor make the exegesis of the third chapter of Genesis.

Your question assumes that both meanings are tied to each other, which is a position that Catholicism does not hold.

Catholics which do not hold to a literal Adam and Eve would also not hold to a literal original sin in the first sense mentioned in the encyclopedia above.

  • I'm not sure this is correct. Catholics do believe that original sin in your sense (2) is the consequence of the original sin in sense (1); in what sense then is it true that Catholicism does not hold that the two senses are connected? Additionally... – Matt Gutting Sep 9 '14 at 23:32
  • ...it appears from the encyclical Humani Generis that Catholics are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve. – Matt Gutting Sep 9 '14 at 23:34
  • 1
    @MattGutting: Catholics are not required to believe in a literal 7-day creation, or that Genesis 1-3 are literal, so requiring a belief in a literal Adam seems a bit odd. – Flimzy Sep 10 '14 at 12:27
  • see here and here. – Matt Gutting Sep 10 '14 at 12:59
5

Catholics cannot believe in a "metaphorical Adam and Eve" for at least these reasons:

  1. The Fathers of the Church all taught that Adam and Eve were two, real people, the first parents of the entire human race (monogenism, contra polygenism, which says humanity has more than two first parents), and Catholics must interpret scripture according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers (cf. Council of Trent Session IV, the Decree concerning the Canonical Scriptures, or the First Vatican Council's Dei Filius).
  2. The 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission decided:

The first three Chapters of Genesis contain the stories of events which really happened, i.e., which correspond with objective reality and historical truth (rerum vere gestarum narrationes quae scilicet obiectivae realitati et historicae veritati respondeant); no myths, no mere allegories or symbols of religious truths, no legends. D 2122.

  • It seems as if the Catholics that I have talked to on this matter do not have the correct doctrine. I figured this was possible. Thank you for the clarification. – Joseph Orlando Sep 9 '14 at 2:10
  • 1
    How does the Church apply paragraph 2(c) (specifically the first sentence, "It is not necessary to understand all individual words and sentences in a literal sense") to Genesis 3? – Matt Gutting Sep 9 '14 at 3:06
  • 2
    @joey I'm not sure this tells the entire picture. It's correct, but doesn't concern what it means to be human. I think there has to be more to the story than this and I'll try and dig up a more complete answer. – Peter Turner Sep 9 '14 at 3:47
  • @MattGutting: What specifically about Genesis 3? – Geremia Sep 9 '14 at 18:12
  • Here we're discussing the extent to which Catholics are required to believe that not only was there a literal fall, but a literal Adam and Eve, and perhaps a literal serpent, and literal trees, and so on. Does the Church teach that all of these beliefs are required in order to believe the central teaching of Genesis 3, that of the Fall? – Matt Gutting Sep 9 '14 at 18:27

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.