|
Catholic Dogma and Teaching on
Creation and the Fall
And he said: Let us make man to
our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea,
and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every
creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to his own
image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created
them....And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed
into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. And the Lord
God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning: wherein he placed
man whom he had formed....And the Lord God took man, and put him into the
paradise of pleasure, to dress it, and to keep it. And he commanded him,
saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: But of the tree of
knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou
shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death. (Genesis
1:26-27; 2:7-8, 15-17 Douay-Rheims)
For God created man incorruptible,
and to the image of his own likeness he made him. But by the envy of the
devil, death came into the world...
(Wisdom 2:23-24 Douay-Rheims)
Wherefore as by one man sin
entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men,
in whom all have sinned. (Romans
5:12 Douay-Rheims)
Dogmas and teachings on Creation
and the Fall from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (TAN
Books, 1974), pages 79-122 on "The Divine Act of Creation" and
"The Divine Work of Creation" :
- God was moved by His Goodness to create the world.
(De Fide)
- The world was created for the Glorification of God.
(De Fide)
- The Three Divine Persons are one single, common
Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
- God created the world free from exterior compulsion
and inner necessity. (De Fide)
- God has created a good world. (De Fide)
- The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
- God alone created the world. (De Fide)
- God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
- God, through His Providence, protects and guides all
that He has created. (De Fide)
- The first man was created by God. (De Fide)
- Man consists of two essential parts -- a material
body and a spiritual soul. (De Fide)
- Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De
Fide)
- Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with
sanctifying grace. (De Fide)
- The donum immortalitatis, i.e. the divine gift
of bodily immortality of our first parents. (De Fide)
- Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously
through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De Fide)
- Through the original sins our first parents lost
sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De
Fide)
- Our first parents became subject to death and to the
dominion of the Devil. (De Fide)
The highest degree of certainty
appertains to immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on
the authority of God revealing (fides divina), and if the Church,
through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in
Revelation, one's certainty is then also based on the authority of the
Infallible Teaching Authority (Magisterium) of the Church (fides catholica).
If truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope
or of a General Council, they are "de fide definita" (or
simply De Fide).
There are other levels of
certainty as well: faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides
ecclesiastica); a teaching proximate to faith (sententia fidei proxima);
a teaching pertaining to the faith (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e.
theologice certa); a common teaching (sententia communis);
lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, or
well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene
fundata); there are also pious opinions (sententia pia); and the
least degree of certainty is tolerated opinion (opimo tolerata).
With regard to the doctrinal
teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of
the Teaching Authority (Magisterium) of the Church on questions of faith and
morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are
infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole
episcopate, and the Papal Decisions declared Ex Cathedra (cf. the 1869-70
Vatican Council I definition).
The ordinary and usual form of the
Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the
Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Biblical Commissions -- see below) are not
infallible.
From philosopher Dennis Bonnette, Origin
of the Human Species (2003), chapter "The Truths of Revelation"
:
The Catholic Church's teaching
magisterium has clearly identified essential facts whose literal and
historical meaning Catholics may not call into question because they touch
upon fundamental Christian teachings. The 1909 Pontifical Biblical
Commission affirms
these facts include:
"...the creation of all
things which was accomplished by God at the beginning of time; the special
creation of man; the formation of the first woman from man; the unity of the
human race; the original happiness of our first parents in a state of
justice, integrity, and immortality; the divine command laid upon man to
prove his obedience; the transgression of that divine command at the
instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the fall of our first
parents from their primitive state of innocence; and the promise of a future
Redeemer." (from Acta apostolis sedis, 1 [1909 Pontifical Biblical
Commission], pages 567-69, translated in Rome and the Study of Scripture,
7th edition, and cited from Origin of the Human Species by Dennis
Bonnette, page 145)
Not all of these doctrines touch
directly upon science. Sanctifying grace is not subject to empirical
speculation. The theory of evolution cannot confirm or falsify concrete
historical acts of God (e.g. miracles) or human beings such as (1) the divine
command to Adam and Eve, (2) the transgression and fall, or (3) the promise
of a Redeemer. God's creation of the world in time concerns evolution's
preconditions, not evolution as such (from Bonnette, page 145-146).
Theologian Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals
of Catholic Dogma, comments:
"The doctrine of evolution
based on the theistic conception of the world, which traces matter and
life to God's causality and assumes that organic being, developed from
originally created seed-powers (St. Augustine) or from stem-forms (doctrine
of descent), according to God's plan, is compatible with the doctrine of
Revelation. However, as regards man, a special creation by God is
demanded, which must extend at least to the spiritual soul [creatio
hominis peculiaris Denz 2123]. Individual Fathers, especially St.
Augustine, accepted a certain development of living creatures.....The
question of the descent of the human body from the animal kingdom first
appeared under the influence of the modern theory of evolution. The Biblical
text does not exclude this theory. Just as in the account of the creation of
the world, one can, in the account of the creation of man, distinguish
between the per se inspired religious truth that man, both body and
soul, was created by God, and the per accidens inspired, stark
anthropomorphistic representation of the mode and manner of the Creation. While
the fact of the creation of man by God in the literal sense must be closely
adhered to, in the question as to the mode and manner of the formation of the
human body, an interpretation which diverges from the strict literal sense,
is, on weighty grounds, permissible." (Ott, pages 93-94, 95,
emphasis added)
- Question 1: on the literal and historical sense of Genesis 1-3
- Question 2:
on whether Genesis 1-3 is purely fable or legend or "myth"
- Question 3:
on whether essential truths the Church has defined in Genesis can be
called into question
- Question 4:
on opinions and interpretations of Genesis that the Church has not
defined
- Question 5:
on words and phrases and metaphor in Genesis
- Question 6:
on allegorical interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis
- Question 7:
on the "science" of the early chapters of Genesis
- Question 8:
on the "six days" of Genesis 1
|
English Translation
Question
I: Whether the various exegetical systems which have been
proposed to exclude the literal historical sense of the three first
chapters of the Book of Genesis, and have been defended by the pretense of
science, are sustained by a solid foundation? -- Reply: In the
negative.
|
Original Latin
Dubium I.: Utrum varia systemata exegetica, quae ad excludendum
sensum litteralem historicum trium priorum capitum libri Geneseos
excogitata et scientiae fuco propugnata sunt, solido fundamento fulciantur?
Resp.: Negative.
|
Question
II: Whether, when the nature and historical form of the
Book of Genesis does not oppose, because of the peculiar connections of the
three first chapters with each other and with the following chapters,
because of the manifold testimony of the Old and New Testaments; because of
the almost unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers, and because of the
traditional sense which, transmitted from the Israelite people, the Church
always held, it can be taught that the three aforesaid chapters of Genesis
do not contain the stories of events which really happened, that is, which
correspond with objective reality and historical truth; but are either
accounts celebrated in fable drawn from the mythologies and cosmogonies of
ancient peoples and adapted by a holy writer to monotheistic doctrine,
after expurgating any error of polytheism; or allegories and symbols,
devoid of a basis of objective reality, set forth under the guise of
history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or, finally,
legends, historical in part and fictitious in part, composed freely for the
instruction and edification of souls? -- Reply: In the negative to
both parts.
|
Dubium II.: Utrum, non obstantibus indole et forma historica libri
Geneseos, peculiari trium priorum capitum inter se et cum sequentibus
capitibus nexu, multiplici testimonio Scripturarum tum Veteris tum Novi
Testamenti, unanimi fere sanctorum Patrum sententia ac traditionali sensu,
quem, ab Israelitico etiam populo transmissum, semper tenuit Ecclesia,
doceri possit: praedicta tria capita Geneseos continere non rerum vere
gestarum narrationes, quae scilicet obiectivae realitati et historicae
veritati respondeant; sed vel fabulosa ex veterum populorum mythologiis et
cosmogoniis deprompta et ab auctore sacro, expurgato quovis polytheismi
errore, doctrinae monotheisticae accomodata; vel allegorias et symbola,
fundamento obiectivae realitatis destituta, sub historiae specie ad
religiosas et philosophicas veritates inculcandas proposita, vel tandem
legendas ex parte historicas et ex parte fictitias ad animorum
instructionem et aedificationem libere compositas? Resp.: Negative
ad utramque partem.
|
Question
III: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense
can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the
same chapters, which pertain to the foundation of the Christian religion;
for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the
beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first
woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original
happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and
immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the
transgression of the divine command through the devil's persuasion under
the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first
state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer? -- Reply:
In the negative.
|
Dubium III.: Utrum speciatim sensus litteralis historicus vocari in
dubium possit, ubi agitur de factis in eisdem capitibus enarratis, quae
christianae religionis fundamenta attingunt: uti sunt, inter cetera, rerum
universarum creatio a Deo facta in initio temporis; peculiaris creatio
hominis ; formatio primae mulieris ex primo homine; generis humani unitas,
originalis protoparentum felicitas in statu iustitiae, integritatis et
immortalitatis, praeceptum a Deo homini datum ad eius obedientiam
probandam; divini praecepti, diabolo sub serpentis specie suasore,
transgressio; protoparentum deiectio ab illo primaevo innocentiae statu;
nec non Reparatoris futuri promissio? Resp.: Negative.
|
Question
IV: Whether in interpreting those passages of these
chapters, which the Fathers and Doctors have understood differently, but
concerning which they have not taught anything certain and definite, it is
permitted, while preserving the judgment of the Church and keeping the
analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which everyone has
wisely approved? -- Reply: In the affirmative.
|
Dubium IV.: Utrum in interpretandis illis horum capitum locis, quos
Patres et Doctores diverso modo intellexerunt, quin certi quippiam
definitique tradiderint, liceat salvo Ecclesiae iudicio servataque fidei
analogia, eam, quam quisque prudenter probaverit, sequi tuerique sententiam?
Resp.: Affirmative.
|
Question
V: Whether all and everything, namely, words and phrases
which occur in the aforementioned chapters, are always and necessarily to
be accepted in a special sense, so that there may be no deviation from
this, even when the expressions themselves manifestly appear to have been
taken improperly, or metaphorically or anthropomorphically, and either
reason prohibits holding the proper sense, or necessity forces its
abandonment? -- Reply: In the negative.
|
Dubium V.: Utrum omnia et singula, verba videlicet et phrases,
quae in praedictis capitibus occurrunt, semper et necessario accipienda
sint sensu proprio, ita ut ab eo discedere numquam liceat, etiam cum
locutiones ipsae manifesto appareant improprie, seu metaphorice vel
anthropomorphice usurpatae, et sensum proprium vel ratio tenere prohibeat
vel necessitas cogat dimittere? Resp.: Negative.
|
Question
VI: Whether, presupposing the literal and historical sense,
the allegorical and prophetical interpretation of some passages of the same
chapters, with the example of the Holy Fathers and the Church herself
showing the way, can be wisely and profitably applied? -- Reply: In
the affirmative.
|
Dubium VI.: Utrum, praesupposito litterali et historico sensu,
nonnullorum locorum eorundem capitum interpretatio allegorica et prophetica,
praefulgente sanctorum Patrum et Ecclesiae ipsius exemplo, adhiberi
sapienter et utiliter possit? Resp.: Affirmative.
|
Question
VII: Whether, since in writing the first chapter of Genesis
it was not the mind of the sacred author to teach in a scientific manner
the detailed constitution of visible things and the complete order of
creation, but rather to give his people a popular notion, according as the
common speech of the times went, accommodated to the understanding and
capacity of men, the propriety of scientific language is to be investigated
exactly and always in the interpretation of these? -- Reply: In the
negative.
|
Dubium VII.: Utrum, cum in conscribendo primo Geneseos capite non
fuerit sacri auctoris mens intimam adspectabilium rerum constitutionem
ordinemque creationis completum scientifico more docere, sed potius suae
genti tradere notitiam popularem, prout communis sermo per ea ferebat
tempora, sensibus et captui hominum accommodatam, sit in horum
interpretatione adamussim semperque investiganda scientifici sermonis
proprietas? Resp.: Negative.
|
Question
VIII: Whether in that designation and distinction of six
days, with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the
word (dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural
day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with
regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among exegetes? --
Reply: In the affirmative.
|
Dubium VIII.: Utrum in illa sex dierum denominatione atque
distinctione, de quibus in Geneseos capite primo, sumi possit vox Yom
(dies) sive sensu proprio pro die naturali, sive sensu improprio pro quodam
temporis spatio, deque huiusmodi quaestione libere inter exegetas
disceptare liceat? Resp.: Affirmative.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment