Creation
I. A look at Humane Generis
II. Creation
A. Why does God Create
1. The created universe exists, we say, for God's honor and glory, each thing necessarily glorifying God simply by being what it is: neither creation as a whole nor any element of it could have any other reason for existence that is not subordinate to that first reason. (Sheed, Pg 66)
B. How does (in what manner) He create
· We must not misunderstand the statement that God made the universe of nothing. It does not mean that God used nothing as a kind of material that He proceeded to shape into a universe. It means that God used no material whatever in the making of the universe. That He could do this goes with His infinity. (Sheed, Pg 68)
1. Matter- creation the first
sacrament
2. Other persons
III. The Fall- Original Sin
A. Enter the demonic
B. Of men
C. Lasting effects of the Fall What
was passed on
IV. Promise of a Redeemer- Protoevangelium
· Definition: Means "First Gospel" or "First Gospel" (Greek proto = first, evangelium = gospel).
· Context: Spoken by God to the serpent: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel" (Gen 3:15).
· Theological Meaning: It promises that a Messiah (the offspring) will destroy Satan, predicting the fall of evil and the promise of salvation.
· Catholic Interpretation (Mary): Catholic tradition often views "the woman" as Mary and her seed as Jesus, with the promise foreshadowing her Immaculate Conception and role in salvation history.
· Usage in Theology: It is referenced in Catechism paragraph 410 and 411 as the initial proclamation of the "New Adam" (Jesus) who overcomes the disobedience of the first Adam.
Creation HW #1
Instructions: Read, understand and be able to recall
the major points of the excerpts below.
Due date: Prior to our next class on Nov. 1, 2025.
Humane Generis
Excerpts Pius 12th
Given at Rome, at
St. Peter's, 12 August 1950, the twelfth year of Our Pontificate.
accessed 9-30-25
25. It is not
surprising that novelties of this kind have already borne their deadly fruit in
almost all branches of theology. It is now doubted that human reason, without
divine revelation and the help of divine grace, can, by arguments drawn from
the created universe, prove the existence of a personal God; it is denied that
the world had a beginning; it is argued that the creation of the world is
necessary, since it proceeds from the necessary liberality of divine love; it
is denied that God has eternal and infallible foreknowledge of the free actions
of men - all this in contradiction to the decrees of the Vatican Council.[5]
5. Cfr. Conc.
Vat., Const. De Fide cath., cap. 1, De Deo rerum
omnium creatore.
26. Some also
question whether angels are personal beings, and whether matter and spirit
differ essentially. Others destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order,
since God, they say, cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and
calling them to the beatific vision. Nor is this all. Disregarding the Council
of Trent, some pervert the very concept of original sin, along with the concept
of sin in general as an offense against God, as well as the idea of
satisfaction performed for us by Christ. Some even say that the doctrine of
transubstantiation, based on an antiquated philosophic notion of substance,
should be so modified that the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist be
reduced to a kind of symbolism, whereby the consecrated species would be merely
efficacious signs of the spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union
with the faithful members of His Mystical Body.
31. If one
considers all this well, he will easily see why the Church demands that future
priests be instructed in philosophy "according to the method, doctrine,
and principles of the Angelic Doctor,"[8] since, as we well know from the
experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas is singularly preeminent both of
teaching students and for bringing truth to light; his doctrine is in harmony
with Divine Revelation, and is most effective both for safeguarding the
foundation of the faith and for reaping, safely and usefully, the fruits of
sound progress.[9]
8. C. I. C. can.
1366, 2.
9. A.A.S.,
vol. XXXVIII, 1946, p. 387.
(acts of the
apostolic see)
36. For these
reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in
conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology,
research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take
place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into
the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -
for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by
God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both
opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be
weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and
provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom
Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred
Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly
transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the
human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain
and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning
on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine
revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
11. Cfr. Allocut
Pont. to the members of the Academy of Science, November 30, 1941: A.A.S., vol.
XXXIII, p. 506.
37. When, however,
there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the
children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot
embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on
this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation
from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain
number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can
be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents
of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin,
which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which,
through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]
12. Cfr. Rom.,
V, 12-19; Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.
(council of Trent)
38. Just as in the
biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences
there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by
the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free
interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor
this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which
was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission
on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the
first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to
the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent
authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which
however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters,
(the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the
mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which
are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the
origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred
writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded),
it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine
inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in
selecting and evaluating those documents.
13. January 16,
1948: A.A.S., vol. XL, pp. 45-48.