A Discussion on one of the subjects of Glossa Ordinaria "Mary is the New Eve"

Medieval Gloss on Genesis - Dr. Samuel J. Klumpenhouwer
Classical Christian Thought | 18 Dec. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YfW_Mn_UT8

Jónatas Machado

@jonatasmachado7217

If Mary is the New Eve, there had to be an original Eve.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

There was.

Tony L

@tonyl3762

You might check out what Jimmy Akin has to say for some balance and perspective on what the current Magisterium allows one to believe.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tonyl3762 Jimmy Akin's position is not even compatible with CCC § 390, let alone with actually Catholic magisterium, like the Council of Trent, Session V, Decree on Original Sin, canons 1, 2 and 3.

Proclivitytolife

@Proclivitytolife

Great video. Will be getting this book.

Tony L

@hglundahl If you read my comment more carefully and listen more carefully to what Akin says, you will see he is NOT even advocating a position. He is explaining how the Magisterium has recently allowed for the symbolic position.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tonyl3762 I recall Akin's position, at least his tentative one, as:

• there were many couples in the days of Adam and Eve,
• they were specially chosen to represent the rest,
• if they had succeeded, the rest would have won original justice for their descendants, like they, as they lost, the rest also get original sin for their descendants.

§ 390 is however making the story of Adam and Eve figurative, in a way even he doesn't. Of the CCC obviously.

Tony L

@hglundahl Please cite your source for "his position." I follow him very closely. My understanding is that he always gives the options that are available to the Catholic based on recent magisterial statements without actually picking one as his own.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tonyl3762 Here is a direct quote, and I may have misconstrued him as picking only the last of the three:

"In addition to Adam and Eve being symbols and Adam and Eve being 43:07 just the only two literal individuals that existed, there's also another position, which is 43:13 that Adam and Eve were two historical individuals within a larger population. 43:19 And so you can adopt that position as well. People have adopted that position. 43:27 So we shouldn't think that the only alternative to Adam and Eve being two solo individuals is Adam 43:35 and Eve are symbols. There's also the idea that they were individuals just within a larger 43:41 population, and as the heads or leaders of that population under corporate or federal headship, 43:48 their actions affected the way the whole population went. So there are multiple possible 43:56 positions here. No, but wouldn't that mean that there was already death in the world prior to Adam and Eve? Sure, but that's not 44:08 incompatible with the Christian faith"

Can Catholics Believe Theistic Evolution? - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World
Jimmy Akin | 29 March 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBssnELtE94

If he's open to all three, it's worse than I thought and if recent magisterial positions are open to symbolic and purely literary Adam and Eve, that makes the apostasy in the physical buildings of the Vatican even worse than I thought.

I was charitably presuming he had no time for that nonsense! Even if "representative" is bad enough.

@tonyl3762 In the quote given, I misread "literal" for "literary", but I did not make the latter up:

"Jesus is the new Adam, Mary 41:50 is the new Eve. All of the spiritual life flows from them, and so consequently 41:57 you can compare Jesus and Mary to Adam and Eve regardless of whether Adam and 42:04 were historical individuals because Jesus and Mary do perform these functions for the new humanity and thus you can describe them as new Adam and 42:15 new Eve the same way as if you know I don't believe Sherlock Holmes was a real 42:20 individual but if I met like the greatest detective ever I could say oh 42:26 man that guy is the new Sherlock Holmes and people would know exactly what I meant, because he does perform a function that is like that of Sherlock Holmes."

Same video. Is this also supposed to be acceptable to "recent magisterium"?

Tony L

@hglundahl Can you give me the title of the video? I'm certain Akin said that since I remember the Sherlock Holmes comparison. But he typically prefaces or caveats such comments by saying that this is an acceptable view based on recent magisterial statements since Humani Generis, during pontificates of JP2 and/or B16, not that it is his own position. So yes, he argues it is an acceptable view and cites his sources, one being a review of a national catechism by the Vatican. I'd have to watch video again to see the other source or two he provides. It's not as if he's just making this up out of thin air or from non-ecclesial sources.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tonyl3762 "he typically prefaces or caveats such comments by saying that this is an acceptable view based on recent magisterial statements"

I actually believe you he did.

In fact I took for granted that the last one he mentioned would be his own, like when St. Robert Bellarmine will say "the fifth opinion and the true one" (on whether a Pope can lose papacy by heresy) or when Riccioli took the celestial mechanics problem and prefaced his own (last mentioned) opinion as "the fourth opinion and the most common one"

I think I tried to give the link, but youtube swallowed that? The title anyway is "Can Catholics Believe Theistic Evolution? - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World" and it's from 29 March 2023.

"It's not as if he's just making this up out of thin air or from non-ecclesial sources."

I didn't say it was.

It's more like if the magisterium he accepts accepts such positions, he should start considering the fifth position mentioned by St.Robert Bellarmine.

It's not that papacy can never be lost whatever the person believes.