Did Adam and Eve REALLY exist?

Yes Adam and Eve really did exist. And we are bound to believe it since its a teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima)

Its explained very clearly and concisely in Ott which I recommend all Catholics get a copy of (Ott, L. (1957). Fundamentals of Catholic dogma.)

"The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)

Against the Pre-Adamite Theory (first expounded by the Calvinist Isaac de la Peyrère, 1655), and the view of certain modern scientists, according to which the various races are derived from several separated stems (polygenism), the Church teaches that the first human beings, Adam and Eve, are the progenitors of the whole human race (monogenism). The teaching of the unity of the human race is not, indeed, a dogma, but it is a necessary pre-supposition of the dogma of Original Sin and Redemption. According to a decision of the Bible Commission, the unity of the human race is to be reckoned among those facts which affect the foundations of the Christian religion, and which, on this account, are to be understood in their literal, historical sense (D 2123). The Encyclical “Humani Generis” of Pius XII (1950) rejects polygenism on account of its incompatibility with the revealed doctrine of original sin. (D 3028)."

image from the 'Public domain' via wikimedia commons.  Adam and Eve  by Cranach, 1533

'Donʻt be a HERETIC!' - Gallicanism

Gallicanism, initially most prominent in the 17th century in France, was the ʻtendency to enlarge the prerogatives of a national church—in the particular case, of the church of France—and to restrict proportionately the authority of the Holy See.ʻ ( W. Addis and T. Arnold. A Catholic Dictionary. , 1887)

In 1682 some French Clergy convened the writing of the ʻGallican Articlesʻ which clarified their position. Their most sticking article, which still rears its head today in the liberal factions of the those who claim to be Catholic, is the concept that Papal Power (in matters of Faith and Morals) is not absolute and that “The Pope has the principal share in questions of faith; his decrees regard all the churches and each church in particular; nevertheless his judgment is not irreformable, unless the consent of the Church be added.” (ibid)

Gallicanism was condemned by several Popes including Alexander VIII in his ʻInter multiplicesʻ (Aug. 4, 1690) Clement IX, and also Pius VI. 

Furthermore, with the Vatican I definition of ʻPapal Infallibilityʻ it was declared dogmatically that "the decisions, ex cathedra, of the Popes are “of themselves,” that is, without the intervention of a further authority, immutable and not by reason of the assent of the whole Church, as the Gallicans taught" (Ott, Ludwig. FCD, 1957.)

Today this heresy often manifests its ugly head through the concept of papal teaching NOT being binding because the ʻSensus Fideiʻ (sense of the Faithful) has not accepted it. Some hold that if a bulk of Catholics DO NOT accept a particular Papal teaching, then it is NOT something we are bound to . . . . This is often the favored heretical reasoning of cafeteria catholicism.  

A proper understanding of the ʻSensus Fideiʻ would be that those who deny a Papal definition would  ipso facto NOT be a part of the true Catholic Faithful ʻSenseʻ they claim to represent.

Listen to the Solemn Teachings of the Pope. DO NOT be a Gallican 

image from the 'Public domain' via wikimedia commons.  Auto-da-fé by Pedro Berruguete, 1500

Also see other 'Don't be a Heretic' posts here: Gallicanism / Ebionism

Will we need to eat food after the resurrection of the dead? (The Angelic Doctor answers)

A few weeks ago a friend of mine asked the question of whether or not we will require food in our resurrected state, after the resurrection of the dead. He further asked why, if we do NOT need food in our resurrected bodies, why did Christ eat with his disciples after his resurrection.

St. Thomas gives us a solid answer in addressing the question: "Whether All Will Rise Again to Animal Life so as to Exercise the Functions of Nutrition and Generation?" He answers the question about whether Jesus requires food in his resurrected state and more broadly answers the same question as it applies to us after the resurrection

“Objection 1. It would seem that they will rise again to the animal life, or in other words that they will make use of the acts of the nutritive and generative powers. For our resurrection will be conformed to Christ’s. But Christ is said to have ate after His resurrection (John 21, Luke 24). Therefore, after the resurrection men will eat, and in like manner beget.” (STh., Supplementum q.81 a.4 obj.1)

“I answer that, The resurrection will not be necessary to man on account of his primary perfection, which consists in the integrity of those things that belong to his nature, since man can attain to this in his present state of life by the action of natural causes; but the necessity of the resurrection regards the attainment of his ultimate perfection, which consists in his reaching his ultimate end. Consequently those natural operations which are directed to cause or preserve the primary perfection of human nature will not be in the resurrection: such are the actions of the animal life in man, the action of the elements on one another, and the movement of the heavens; wherefore all these will cease at the resurrection. And since to eat, drink, sleep, beget, pertain to the animal life, being directed to the primary perfection of nature, it follows that they will not be in the resurrection.

Reply Obj.1. When Christ partook of that meal, His eating was an act, not of necessity as though human nature needed food after the resurrection, but of power, so as to prove that He had resumed the true human nature which He had in that state wherein He ate and drank with His disciples. There will be no need of such proof at the general resurrection, since it will be evident to all. Hence Christ is said to have ate by dispensation in the sense in which lawyers say that a dispensation is a relaxation of the general law: because Christ made an exception to that which is common to those who rise again (namely not to partake of food) for the aforesaid motive. Hence the argument does not prove.” (STh., Supplementum q.81 a.4 resp.–ad.1)

So the Angelic Doctor clarifies that we will have no need of food in our resurrected bodies and that Christ partook of food (after the resurrection), not because he needed it, but to  prove to his disciples that he did indeed resurrect and did resume a real human nature (albeit glorified)

image from the 'Public domain' via wikimedia commons. Resurrection of the Flesh, by Luca Signorelli, 1502

When in Rome, do as the Romans do . . .

The famous adage ʻWhen in Rome, do what the Romans doʻ is often attributed to St. Augustine.  More specifically, however, the phrase is actually a paraphrase of the wisdom of  his mentor St. Ambrose that St. Augustine records in his 36^th and 54^th letter.

Here is the relevant passage from his 54^th letter:

“When my mother followed me to Milan, she found the Church there not fasting on Saturday. She began to be troubled, and to hesitate as to what she should do; upon which I, though not taking a personal interest then in such things, applied on her behalf to Ambrose, of most blessed memory, for his advice. He answered that he could not teach me anything but what he himself practised, because if he knew any better rule, he would observe it himself. When I supposed that he intended, on the ground of his authority alone, and without supporting it by any argument, to recommend us to give up fasting on Saturday, he followed me, and said: “When I visit Rome, I fast on Saturday; when I am here, I do not fast. On the same principle, do you observe the custom prevailing in whatever Church you come to, if you desire neither to give offence by your conduct, nor to find cause of offence in another’s.” When I reported this to my mother, she accepted it gladly; and for myself, after frequently reconsidering his decision, I have always esteemed it as if I had received it by an oracle from heaven.”

(Augustine of Hippo. "Letters of St. Augustin". Trans. J. G. Cunningham. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Ed. Philip Schaff, 1886.)

image from the 'Public domain' via wikimedia commons. Ambrosius Francisco de Zurbarán 

The Inerrancy of Holy Scripture

The doctrine of the ʻInerrancy of Scriptureʻ, though modernists try to force ambiguous concepts on it to blur its meaning, is quite simple to understand:

1. God cannot err nor could He author any error (Because He is God)

2. God is the Author of Scripture, both the Old and New Testaments (As declared in the Council of Florence as well as the 4th session of the Council of Trent) [DS 1333] [DS 1501]

3. Therefore Holy Scripture is COMPLETELY without error

Leo XIII, in Providentissimus Deus (1893), sums it up succinctly:

“The books, all and entire, which the Church accepts as sacred and canonical, with all their parts, have been written at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; so far is it from the possibility of any error being present to divine inspiration, that it itself of itself not only excludes all error, but excludes it and rejects it as necessarily as it is necessary that God, the highest Truth, be the author of no error whatsoever.”[DS 3292]

image from the 'MORGUEfile' via creative commons

Rules for an Infallible Solemn Papal Definition

The solemn definition concerning the Infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff was given in the 4th session of Vatican 1:

"We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, is, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable." (McNabb, V. (1907). The Decrees of the Vatican Council. 46–47)

This same teaching was reaffirmed in the new Catechism of Catholic Church:

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith—he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals"(CCC 891)

The definition of Vatican 1 and its reaffirmation in Vatican 2 can be summarized into 3 core criteria

1. The Pope speaking  as pastor and teacher of the universal Church (The SUBJECT)

2. He DEFINES (The ACT)

3. A doctrine of faith or morals (The OBJECT)

(This criteria summary, including the allocation of the subject, act, and object, comes from the book ʻCathedra Veritatisʻ by John P. Joy, S.T.L. Its an excellent book that addresses the extent of Papal Infallibility. You can purchase the book at http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com . I highly recommend it!)

The two most noted examples of solemn Papal definitions are ʻIneffabilis Deusʻ of Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception as well as Pius XIIʻs ʻ Munificentissimus Deusʻ on the definition of Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. A quick look at those definitions is good way to see the rubrics set up in Vatican I in action. Ill add, in bold, the notes of subject, act, and object

"Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own [subject] : "We declare, pronounce, and define [act] that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God [object] and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." (Apostolic Constitution, "Ineffabilis Deus". Pope Pius IX,  Dec 8, 1854.)

"Accordingly, after We directed Our prayers in supplication to God again and again, and invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God, who lavishes His special benevolence on the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the victor over sin and death, for the increasing glory of the same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the whole Church, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority [subject] We pronounce, declare, and define [act] that the dogma was revealed by God [object], that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, after completing her course of life upon earth, was assumed to the glory of heaven both in body and soul." (Apostolic Constitution, “Munificentissimus Deus,” Nov. I, 1950)

In future blog posts Ill go through some of the other ʻsolemn papal definitionsʻ listed by modern theologians, under the criteria of Vatican I.

image from the 'Public domain' via wikimedia commons (PD1923). Vatican I. Karl Benzinger

The Birthday of the great G.K. Chesterton!

Today is the birthday of the great Catholic writer G.K. Chesterton (1874 - 1936) He is definitely one of my heroes and I pray daily for his Beatification. Here are just 3 of my favorite quotes

“An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered; an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered.” – On Running After Ones Hat, All Things Considered

"Lying in bed would be an altogether perfect and supreme experience if only one had a coloured pencil long enough to draw on the ceiling." - On Lying in Bed

"Paradox simply means a certain defiant joy which belongs to belief" - Heretics

image from the 'Public domain' via wikimedia commons.Chesterton in his study