DIVINE WORD SEMINARY, Tagaytay city
Compiled by ARNOLD C. BIAGO, SVD
DOGMA
INTRODUCTION
In recent times, being “dogmatic” is often understood negatively.
How Dogmas entered into/started in the Church?
· Dogmas were declared every time there was a crisis in the Church’s belief.
· The Church believes that in Sacred Scriptures and Tradition, God’s will is revealed to the ecclesial community, thus dogmas arise; the Church’s authority could authoritatively interpret and promulgate this truth.
DEFINITION OF DOGMA
Nancy Ring –
“Dogma refers to the Church’s belief that in Scripture and Tradition, God’s intention for humankind has been revealed to the ecclesial community and the community’s leadership can authoritatively interpret and promulgate this truth.”
Karl Rahnner –
“A Dogma is a proposition which the Church explicitly expound as revealed by God in such a way that its denial is condemned by the Church as heresy and anemathized.
Nancy Ring’s Descriptions:
1. Dogma is always within the context of revelation [Revealed Truth – Scriptures and Tradition)]
- One cannot do dogmatic theology without going to Scriptures and great traditions.
- A truth can be a dogma if it is a part of revelation, the Word of God. But not all revealed truth is a dogma because not all elements of revelation are declared as Dogma.
- “Are there elements of revelation that have not declared as Dogma? Yes, they don’t have to be declared, “E.g. Jesus eats with sinners. We do not need a dogma formulation saying that we can eat with sinners.
- Are all dogma based on revelation? YES. The context of DOGMA is Revelation as revealed by SCRIPTURE and TRADITION.
For Nancy Ring:
- The purpose of Dogma is to serve Revelation
- Dogma is not just to make sure that people towing the line but to facilitate peoples encounter with God so that it becomes an experience – to be able to experience God saving’s plan for humanity.
2. Revelation is not Equal to Dogma
o There are many truths about the Revelations which were not declared Dogma because they don’t have to be declared as in the example above.
o But dogmas are part of revelation even before they are declared as such.
o But both revelation and dogma has the same purpose:
§ To know the truth within the mind
§ To engage the whole person in a loving response to the God who reveals, leading to salvation.
3. Dogma is not only situated in Revelation but it is also situated in the Church.
- Dogmas are born out of the belief that the Church is a recipient of revelation; stewards of revelation
- Discerned by the Church through her leaders (college of Cardinals/Bishops). Her leaders can discern in history, through crises, the saving truth. Thus crises are also moments of grace for these are the times that the truth is discerned.
- Dogma is the fruit of the Church discerning the Revealed Truth.
- The Church discerns, declares, and proposes as something to be believed in by the individual through an Ecumenical Council or Ex-Cathedra teaching of the Pope.
- The Church does not invent Dogma.
- (Side note: Anemathized – outside the faith of the Church)
- The Church intervenes in the declaration of the Dogma. E.g. of Ex-Cathedra Teaching of the Church: Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary.
- Not all declarations of the Church are Dogma. Not all pronouncements of the Pope are Dogma.
- Though there are many Dogmas, in the end, it will only lead to one truth: GOD OFFERS SALVATION.
“IN DOGMATIC THEOLOGY YOU SHOULD THINK WITH THE CHURCH”.
DOGMA vs. DOCTRINE | |
| DOGMA | DOCTRINE |
| Revealed Truth as defined by the Church | Explanations and ways of teaching the Dogma |
I. CREATION
1. What is theological anthropology? What does it mean to say that theology is anthropology? What is the contemporary situation of theological anthropology in the face of contemporary scientific, ideological, and secularistic developments and the search for meaning, the struggle with alienation and the quest for identity?
What is Theological Anthropology?
- Study of human being in theological point of view, in the eyes of faith and revelation.
- Tools for Theological Anthropology are Faith and Revelation; who is human being as revealed by God? What is human being according to God’s perspective?
- Theological Anthropology does not necessarily oppose other anthropologies. At times, it adapts and even complements to other disciplines. But Theological anthropology is also unique in itself. There may also be times that it may oppose other disciplines. Thus, a) both are interdisciplinary and unique, and b) it has to be a prophet to other disciplines.
Theology is Anthropology
Whatever branch, it is dealt in the light of human experience
- Strictly speaking, the object of theology is God & his offer of salvation (cf. DV No.2)
- The subject of theology is the human being, the recipient of salvation.
1. Revelation is not just for the sake of revelation itself, it is revelation of God to us, in oder that we’ll know ourselves, as God has designed us, i.e. for salvation.
- As God reveals Godself, ourselves is also revealed. We understand who we are and what we are supposed to be. (cf Ps.8)
2. Christian revelation presupposes a recipient, i.e. Human Beings.
- Theological Anthropology presupposes the Human Being as having the capacity to receive revelation from God.
- The revelation is for the benefit of man. It is the recipient of God’s grace
- Thus, Vat. II says that all theologies must be Pastoral.
- Christ is a true God (Theology) and true man (Anthropology). Christ reveal who God is and what a person is.
Theological Situation of Theological Anthropology.
1. Scientific Advances
- threat to the Church’s teaching of the created world. Science tries to play God today.
- Genetic Engineering to control and manipulate life: is it really God who creates the human being?
- Planet earth is a small fragment in the universe. And so is man. How can we claim that humans are the crown of creation? Is not this an anthropocentric approach?
2. Ideology
-Marxist ideology, for example, has no room for the spirit. For him man is a product of forces.
3. Secularistic Developments
- man has lost the sense of the sacred; no room for faith.
4. Man’s Search for Meaning
- man experiences a lot of senselessness.
- how can theological anthropology help people to find meaning in life.
5. Struggle with Alienation
- Our world “alienates”
- how can we speak of God when people are alienated?
6. Quest for Identity
- modernity confuses the identity of people. Man can not “handle” the world.
2. What is the Filipino understanding of the Creator God, the human being in the world?
I. Filipino understanding of the Creator God:
- The myths of the early Filipinos spoke of a creator God this human affiliation.
1. For Tagalogs, God is Bathala, who is also Maylikha, Maykapal, Maylalang.
- it all speak of a God who is a creator and providential.
2. For the Bisayas, Laon, which means eternal; to Bicolanos, Kagurangon
- The Filipino understood that a God is so powerful that he could create the world , and that this God should be worshipped and trusted. But this powerful God is also merciful.
- The Filipino deals and relates with God in a personal, intimate manner, and not in the mental and rational way.
II. The Filipino understanding of human being.
1. Life is “borrowed” from God.
The Filipino believes that this life is only lent to us by God, and thus we don’t have the full control over it.
2. Humans are finite beings
-The Filipino acknowledges his limits, and this has positive and negative repercussions.
-For positive effect, it humbles
- For negative effect, it makes people lazy and compromising
4. The Human being is a social being.
-As Filipino Christian says, “mamatay tayo hindi sa sakit, kundi sa lungkot”
-The value of “pakikisama” has its positive and negative effect.
III. The Filipino World Views
1. The Filipino mind is integrative; they see everything as part and connected to a whole.
- sees the world as Sangnilikha. “Savior” is one who speaks of unity and harmony.
2. The Cyclic View
- For the Filipino, the future is determined by the past and by destiny.
- thus, Filipinos become at times fatalistic, resulting in “bahala na” mentality.
3. How does the OT and NT understand the human situation? What are some of the contemporary explanations of the human being as a unity of body and soul? Discuss the unity of body and soul as anthropological, soteriological and eschatological problem.
The focus of question No. 3 is the Problematic Body and Soul – the composition of Human Being of Body and Soul
A. HOW DOES OT & NT UNDERSTAND THE HUMAN SITUATION?
- We don’t have the definition of Human Being.
- We have there a consideration of human situation/conditions.
- 3 inscriptions of Human Conditions in OT/Holy Scriptures
1. Body = basar
2. Soul = Nephes
3. Spirit = Ruah
- In OT/NT, they are not parts of Human Being. Each talks about the whole; each a dimension of it. So it’s not correct to say I have my body, and I have my soul. If the two separates, I collapse. If we talk separation of Body, Soul and Spirit, so we give an idea that they are parts. It’s a wrong way of understanding Human Being.
- The total Human Being is looked in these 3 different aspects or conditions:
Body (basar) = about Human Being in their material condition/dimension.
- Being earthly
- Being part of creation
- Being in solidarity of the world
- Being one element of creation
- The dimension of carnality
- This has taken also a negative connotation. If we talk about flesh, it has taken a weight of being sinful – a condition of being hungry. We feel the condition of being a body.
- We are human beings inserted in this cosmic reality
- The following are conditions realizing that we are a body: sickness, hunger, not being to fulfill our dreams (creaturehood), etc.
- Limitations are not being bad. Being body is not really bad. It just being part of reality.
Just imagine if we do not have limitations. Just imagine a table if it does not any limit. Its width, length will go as far as measureless. Will it be a table anymore.
- Limitations are part of our being creature, our being a body. It’s not bad. It’s a part of knowing who we are.
- Biblical Reference: Mk
Soul ( Hb: Nephes; Gr. Psyche) = a description of Human condition in terms of emotion and feelings. e.g. He is alive, how? - in the presence of feelings; in the presence of emotions
- Biblical Reference: Gen. 2:7; Numbers 6:6;
Spirit (Ruah) = a Human condition of being capable of the Divine.
- It is the Human Being seen in the capacity for the divine where we are open to God. This includes knowing and loving God.
- HB in her/his transcendent dimension – the capacity to relate with God.
- Here we can say, I am Ruah – our dimension of being close to God – closeness which is real for me.
- Does this mean that we lost our body? No.
- E.g. “buhay na buhay ang mga bata” (“They are souls”).
- In John and Paul: The human condition of being Ruah is due to the Holy Spirit that indwells in us. We do not become ontologically the Holy Spirit. E.G. In Rom. 8,
So, to summarize:
They are not parts (Body, Spirit, & soul). But the total HB in different conditions and situations in life: Body, a condition of materiality, Corporal Condition of Sinfulness of ourselves (
If asked by a question: What part of me is body? The question is wrong because human being is in different condition. [ E.g. An El Shaddai member is praying: a) the one praying is the person. B) the condition is Spirit].
According to Staner:
Human Condition based on relationship:
· Body – relationship with the World
· Soul – relationship with Life
· Spirit – relationship with God
B. CONTEMPORARY EXPLANATION
UNITY OF THE BODY AND SOUL:
The idea of body and soul is assimilated from Greek Philosophy by Christianity. In the Greek World, it becomes: “a person has a body”, “a person has a soul”, “a person has a Spirit”. In Greek Anthropology, a person has a body and soul component. With this, there is a fallacious understanding that the body is evil, and body needs renewal.
But even if the Greek Anthropology entered Christianity, Christian theology defended and maintained the sacredness of the body. Christianity affirms that both (body and soul) are from God.
St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th C.
“Anima Forma Corporis” = the soul is the form of the body. “Form” is what makes a thing what it is.
· He is stressing the substantial unity of the Body and Soul.
o There can no body without the soul and the soul cannot function without a body.
· There is a heroic attempt using the Greek philosophy to eliminate the dichotomy (Stoicism).
o A body without the soul is not a human being
o A soul without a body is not a human being
- On burying a dead: its still a person because its still a body and soul in a frozen form – awaiting to be resurrected
- If a soul lost its connection with the human body, whose soul is that? It’s not anymore a human being.
Council of
· TCF 405: If the person doesn’t see the soul as the form of the body, he is to be censured as heretic.
Lateran the V 1513:
· TCF 410: To say that there is only one soul that we share which is mortal is erroneous.
· Therefore, Soul is not only the form of the body, it’s also immortal and there are as many souls as there are bodies (Tagle).
GS 14
· Stresses the unity of the Human Being
Contemporary Theology
- There is a strong move to retrieve the biblical wholistic view of the human person
§ There are those who even say that we should not say a human person “has a body or has a soul”. For Rahner, the Human Person is a body; is a soul.
Proponent of this view:
- Karl Rahner
§ Being-in-the world; spirit-in-the-world: The body is the manifestation ofa the interiority of the person.
- Political/liberation theology
- PCP II
§ Life is not dichotomized but a whole
- Philosophers and theologians like Marcel, Schillebeeckx
- Marxistic view: Marx does not believe in the soul. The essence of human beings is their fulfillment in society.
- Psychological view: stress on self-development, ego, super-ego, etc.
C. UNITY OF BODY AND SOUL IN THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL, SOTERIOLOGICAL, AND ESCHATOLOGICAL PROBLEM.
1. Anthropological
- We want to view the Human Person as a whole.
- Distinction becomes a separation.
2. Soteriological
- When we focus on one dimension, we over emphasize one and dispense the other.
- But we believe in the salvation of Human Person as total, not only of the soul but also of the body (Resurrection of the whole person).
3. Eschatological
- The experience of death is not only the death of the body, but of the whole person.
4. Explain the biblical foundations of the doctrine of the human being as the image and likeness of God and its theological and systematic development. Discuss the theological, social, cosmic and historical functions of this dogmatic teaching and its relevance to the man/woman.
BIBLICAL FOUNDATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF HUMAN BEING
Old Testament - two sets of passages: a) Gen. 26-27; 5:1; 9:6; b) Sirach 17: 1-4; Wisdom 2:23-24.
Three major meanings of Image and Likeness:
1. Human beings are “Capax Dei” (they have the capacity to relate to God)
· As created in the image and likeness of God, we are created given the capacity to relate with God. To related is the primary vocation of each human being
· It’s not so much with physical likeness but metaphorical.
· The whole person is ‘in the image and likeness of God’ not only some of his parts (e.g. soul)
· Both man and woman are in God’s image and likeness.
· Image and likeness remained even after sin.
2. Dominion over all other creation
· Dominion is not to exploit but to be steward, in the spirit of care.
· Naming the creature and put it under our care.
· We do not become owners and creators but we are steward (... the will of the creator).
3. Communion with Other Human Being
· Male and Female, He created them (Gen.) to form humanity.
· This is the social dimension of Human Being
· Thus, we are apart from other creatures, we are the apex of creation. This makes Human Being sacred.
New Testament (
Christ is the image of the invisible God.
· Christological interpretation of Human Being:
o JPII: “Jesus Christ reveals to us what it means to be truly human”. He reveals man to Himself.
o Become like Christ: He is the way, the life and the truth.
o To become truly human, imitate Jesus
o In not committing sin, Jesus shows to us what it means to be truly human.
o Christ is the fulfillment of human vocation.
· Hope of New Image
o All Human Beings are invited to follow Christ, to be fransforemd in the image of Christ.
o We are the image of God, but the fulfillment of it is through Christ, the true image of God.
o 1 Jn. 3:2 = Jesus is the final target of human existence. Jesus, as the image of God, sets our orientation.
o Rom. 8 = The whole creation is groaning.
o 1 Cor 15:45-49 = with a new Adam, a new creation will happen. “… we will also bear the image of the man of heaven…”
o “re-creation” means to follow Christ; bring us back to our original status in the plan of God.
THEOLOGICAL AND SYSTEMATIC DEVELOPMENT
A. The Church Fathers.
The Fathers of the Church emphasized the exemplarity (exemplar = model) of the Word of God. Word of God (Jesus) is the model. The dominant concept is that Christ as the image of God because He is the Son, that is, Christ is the exemplar/model of the image of God. We can be more and more image of God if we follow Him.
How do we follow Christ? There are 2 different School of Thoughts that give us 2 different answers.
· Alexandrian School (Clemens, Origen, Augustine)
§ What part of Jesus is the image of God?
· Image of God is pre-existent Word, that is, the Word that pre-existed before creation and incarnation.
· He was truly the image before the incarnation.
· It is in the preexistent Word that became flesh that we should pattern our life.
· He was most in the image of God in Pre-existent Word.
- Thus, it focused on the soul, the soul that makes us image of God. (To be truly human, you have to live in the eternal realm).
§ Christology from above (descending Christology)
·
§ The image of God is the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ
§ Jesus becomes more the image of God in the incarnation.
§ We are created in the image of God in both body and soul.
§ Christology from below (ascending Christology)
B. VATICAN II
In Vat II there is a tension. All are in the image and likeness yet all are called to become in god’s image and likeness through the grace of Christ. Our wounded image must be restored in all its beauty by Christ.
Gaudium et Espes 12
§ The fundamental question is “who are we?”, the mystery of human being (Image and likeness)
§ It emphasizes the following :
o We have the capacity to know and love God
o We have dominion over creature
o Interpersonal relationship
Gaudium et Espes 22
§ The mystery of the incarnation sheds light on the mystery of the Human Being.
o We understand the HB in the light of Christ, the image of God.
FUNCTIONS
A. Theological Function
§ Could be used to promote human dignity and the sacredness of human life.
B. Social Function
§ Social and interpersonal communion is part of our vocation. Human society is part of our being in the image and likeness of God..
o We promote a society of equals (Justice, Equality)
o Collective response of the whole human race
C. Cosmic Function
§ Stewardship of Creation
o Be involved in Ecological project
o Are we being true to our humanity, to our deep calling as steward?
o Not to exploit, misuse and abuse creation but to care.
D. Historical Function
§ History is pushed, co-written by human beings.
§ We are responsible for the world, history, to give and co-direct it.
§ How can we rewrite and participate in the unfolding of history of Christianity which involves a new humanity that is involved in Jesus Christ.
RELEVANCE TO MAN/WOMAN QUESTION
Human Being is the image of God, in Male and Female form. Therefore, we should not look negatively on women anymore. The thrust now is for us to observe gender equality.
5. What is the official teaching of the church regarding sin and evil? What are the biblical foundations of this doctrine? What are some of the contemporary explanations of original and personal sin? Take a theological position or against the dilemma posed by
I. SIN & EVIL – Official Teaching
The Synod of
Ø Between Pelagius and Augustine
Ø Pelagius’ doctrines
o The sin of Adam did not bring about death
o The baby has no original sin; thus no need for infant baptism
o Saints have no sin
Ø Augustine’s answers (
o Grace is indispensable aid to avoid sin
o Accepts the reality of sin
The Council of
Ø Pelagius doctrines
o Only the body was affected by sin, but the soul remains intact.
o Adam’s sin bound only himself, but not his descendants
o What is passed on is the consequence of sin, but not the guilt itself.
Ø
o It affirms sin, but gives more importance to God’s redemptive will; and grace.
The Council of
Ø Decree on Original Sin
o (1) All of Adam was changed for the worse through his offense against God, he lost innocence and justice.
o (2) The injury is also done to his descendants.
o (3) Original Sin is transmitted through propagation and through imitation.
o (4) Concupiscence disposes man/woman toward sin but concupiscence is not sin in itself.
o (5) There is only one mediator, Christ, who can overcome sin, so there is necessity of baptism.
o (6) Even if there is sin, the free will is not totally lost but only weakened.
Vat II (GS No. 11)
Ø The corruption of the human heart is seen in the absence of the necessary, ultimate orientation (in Moral Theology, it is called Fundamental Option)
o Sin weakens the fundamental option which is always towards God and it degenerates the human person.
o Cf Naumer – Depui paragraph 501, 504-5, 527-13
II. BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR THE DECREE OF SIN/ORIGINAL SIN
OT
Ø Gen. 2-11 Story of the Fall
o The opening chapters gives awareness of the wide-special sinning and sill spreading sin.
Ø Gen. 4:1-6 sin of first couple, then the 1st brothers, Cain and Abel.
Ø Gen. 6:1-7 – the intermarriage of the angels
Ø Gen. 11:1-9 – the
Ø Gen. 2-7 – the prototypal act of sinning, and the primordial experience of sin. All sins we patterned in these:
1. Turning away from God who is the source of life.
2. A greedy seizure for oneself of some good stemming from God.
3. Refusal to obey divine commands
4. Making an absolute of self-interest in the point of self-deification.
5. Disregard of boundaries laid down at creation.
6. The fall not only out of weakness, but also out of human decision, consciously-willed.
7. Human beings are responsible for sin and not God!
* Adam implies the solidarity of the human race; his identity as a corporate person.
NT
Ø Sin in the NT is considered as power structure that makes us feel helpless, that rules humanity. (Cf.
Ø
o Death comes to all because all sinned and died in Adam.
o It is not only the human person that sinned, but the whole of creation was alienated, subjected to futility (Cf. Rom. 8)
o But we are also saved through one man, i.e. Jesus Christ!
§ A greater power intervened, i.e. the power of God via Christ.
§ Cf.
o Christ is the last Adam, to whom all can find salvation, thus salvation is not through the law, but through Jesus Christ.
III. CONTEMPORARY EXPLAINATION OF ORIGINAL SIN AND PERSONAL SIN.
Some locate sin outside the person in the sinful situation where the persons resides. Human nature is itself good and not corrupted at the beginning.
Piet Shoonenberg
Ø Takes Johanine expression “sin of the world” as the reality of Original Sin.
o Original Sin is the sinful situation into which Human Being is born.
o All was born into a broken world/situation, manifested in different ways.
Ø Since we are born into a sinful world, we need Christ’s redemption.
Some still speak of original sin as a areality inside the person. Thus, human nature is seen as corrupted.
Alfredo Vanneste
Ø Takes Original Sin in the other end, i.e, Original Sin is the biggest proof of the universal need of all human being of Christ.
o This need is manifested in our lack of capacity to love ith out whole heart.
o Thus we need Jesus Christ to teach us to love.
Ø But his doctrine is controversial because it locates sin in the person himself, and not from Adam.
Contemporary Theology of Original Sin makes use of Factual Experiences:
Ø That all of us from childhood see in us that we are inclined to sin, and that it has a social and communicative character.
Ø There is a nexus of guild, a collective alienation.
Ø Thus, the redemption that is needed is also universal.
6. Explain the biblical doctrine of the creation of the world and contemporary theological explanations against dualistic, pantheistic and materialist conceptions of the world.
I. BIBLICAL DOCTRINE
OT
a.) Faith of
Ø
1. Yhwh has control of both history and creation, and uses it to save.
b.) In Dt Isaiah 40-55
Ø Considered as the theologian of Creation (The Babylonian Exile)
1.
Ø The “consolations” of Dt Is:
1. Yahweh is the only God.
· God controls all and saves.
· The savior God was also regarded as the creator God.
· Exegetes explains that author of Dt. Is. was to counter the influence of Enuma Elish.
· The Story Enuma Elish:
o Apsu-god of fresh water; and Tiamat, god of salt water, are both evil.
o Tiamat gave birth to Ea (god of water and earth), and Marduk (god of light).
o Apsu decided to kill the children. Ea cast a spell and killed Apsu; Tiamat get angry but Marduk killed Tiamat. Marduk split Tiamat.
·
· This story also later influenced Genesis book, manifested in the ‘division’ context.
Ø The Theology of Genesis
1. Yhwh is the only God who always exists.
2. Yhwh is not the personification of some cosmic forces; a person and covenant; above cosmic forces.
3. Yhwh does not struggle against forces. His words (dabar) is enough.
4. Yhwh is the absolute master of all that exists, because all that exists came from Yhwh’s words.
5. In the Babylonian myths, there were gods. In Genesis, all creatures are just things made by Yhwh which are only for signs.
6. The world is basically good because it is an expression of God’s goodness and action.
7. Belief is action leads to belief in a covenant and salvation.
NT (The Theology of the New Testament)
- We can trust God because he is savior and has creative power.
- Creation is now Christological
Ø Cf Hebrews 1:10
o God created through, in, and for Christ.
Ø Cf 1 Cor 8:6,
- We were created so that we could be adopted children of grace through Jesus Christ.
Ø Creation
Ø Filiation
Ø Divination
Ø We are created for salvation
Ø Thus the theology of creation is not only about the origin of the world, but is closely related to salvation.
Contemporary Explanations against various conceptions of the world:
Dualistic
- Says that creation comes from the opposition of two forces, Good and bad. But for Christians all creation is Good and was created by Good God out of love.
Pantheistic
- It says that everything is God (because God is in everything). But for Christians, God is in all but God is not identified with creatures. God does not need creation.
Materialistic
- It says that creation is the product of material processes and principles. Product of evolution and case. But for Christians, God created the world out of love.
7. What is the Trinitarian character of creation? Was God free in creating the world? What is meant by creation out of nothing? What is mean by divine providence?
I. TRINITARIAN CHARACTER
Ø It is the Trinity that is the creator; creation is a Trinitarian act.
Ø
o Creation is by the Father through the Son, and is perfected and fulfilled by the Holy Spirit.
Ø The classical dictum of creation:
o Every creation “ad extra” is a free work of the three persons.
o Cf Jn: Christ don’t do anything alone.
Ø Creation, salvation, and sanctification are the works of the Trinity.
II. THE FREEDOM OF GOD
1. God was free because he has no need of anything outside of himself; God is self-sufficient (cf: AA
2. There was no opposition from outside forces.
Ø based on love and salvation
Ø not blocked by external enemies
Ø even without sin, there is salvation.
III. CREATIO EX NIHILO
Ø In Gen 1 – God, when created, there was already something.
Ø In Wisdom
Ø Creation ex Nihilo is first affirmed in 2 Mac. 7:28-29.
Ø But the point is not how god created and out of what?
o The point is: God’s absolute independence and sovereignty.
o God’s sole authorship of the world, not dependent on anything.
IV. DIVINE
Ø The planning will of God by which God created the world, specially humanity for the goal predetermined.
Ø Sacred Scriptures tells us how God guides history, without eliminating human freedom.
o Thus God has his plan/goal of creation but acknowledges the freedom of humans.
o OT –
§ Cf: Wisdom 6:7; 14:3; 17:2
§ Cf: Job
o NT –
§ Cf: Eph 1:3-14 – speaks about God’s providence the plan of salvation
§ Christological focus: Christ is the manifestation of God’s providence.
Ø Systematic Reflection:
o
o But the beautiful plan of God is always blocked by man’s freedom, so now the focus shifts to the human being’s participation through obedience.
o Creation is but a part of God’s biggest plan. God accompanies the creatures along the way, from creation to salvation/fulfillment.
o Divine providence: God’s care for the world, guidance of history, and human affairs towards the fulfillment of his purpose.
8. Why is evolution a theological problem? What is the official teaching of the Church concerning creation and evolution? Explain Teilhard de Chardin’s evolutionary view of the World?
I. EVOLUTION IS A THEOLOGICAL PROBLEM
Ø The main proponent of Evolution is Charles Darwin, who claimed that, through natural selection, present living beings developed gradually from less complex forms (1859: “The Origin of the Species”).
Ø It is a Theological problem because this theory eliminates the creator. The world’s origin can be explained without God’s intervention.
Ø The human being (body, soul and spirit) has developed by continuous transformations.
II. THE OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE CHURCH CONCERNING CREATION AND EVOLUTION
1. Humani Generis by Pius XII, 1950:
Ø The Church does not forbid dissensions about the doctrine of evolution.
o Left the question of evolution open
Ø But as to the soul, the Church affirms that it immediately comes from God.
Ø “Adam” should not be taken as plural, i.e., as a polygenic symbol, because it opposes the doctrine of Original Sin.
2. Vat I: Dei Filus (1870)
Ø God created the world to manifest his perfection
3. Vat II: GS (1965)
Ø Man is:
1. the crown of creation
2. created in God’s likeness
3. has dignity
4. all men are equal
5. human beings are social beings
6. the whole of creation has one common origin and destiny
III. TEILLHARD DE CHARDIN’S EVOLUTIONARY VIEW
Ø His views could be grasped into a teaching concepts:
1. Hyper physics
o Cosmos is a process which mirrors the inner life of God.
o Despite cosmos’ pain, absurdities, and failure, creation is destined to share the life of the trinity.
o The goal of the universe reveals its meaning.
2. Evolutive Creation
o All life is developmental, a process
o This process is supervised by God.
3. Directedness of Creation
o Cosmo genesis
· The universe as a cosmos is developing into a process direction, from the A point to Z point.
· Thus is an upward sweeping despite the pressures of dispersed and disintegration.
· This upward sweep is supervised by God, the creator and presence, and is directed to God himself, the unifier and the omega point of creation.
9. Why is the evolutionary understanding of the origin of the human species and of the individual human person a theological problem?
A. EVOLUTION AS A THEOLOGICAL PROBLEM
Ø Evolution holds the theory of Polygenism, where humanity originated from several pairs, because:
o One pair would be a weak genetic base.
o Emergence of new species comes from several kinds, thus, there must be more than one pair.
Ø It is a problem because it opposes the Church’s teaching on Original Sin which is connected to monogenism.
Ø Pius XII attacked polygenism on this basis, while Paul VI said that polygenism is not proven. Modern exegetes claims “Adam” as a generic for mankind, but it would give the same problem.
B. ORIGIN OF INDIVIDUAL PERSON AS A PROBLEM
Ø Evolution theory becomes a theological problem when it claimed that even the soul of person evolved from the animals.
Ø For
Ø God, in a special way, as involved in the creation of individuals because:
1. man is created in God’s image.
2. man has dignity.
3. each individual is unique.
4. each has a special and immediate relation to God.
10. Does the Filipino expect the “new heavens and the new earth? What is the Filipino understanding of history? Discuss the relationship between creation and eschatology.
I. DOES FILIPINO EXPECT NEW HEAVEN AND EARTH?
Ø Traditional eschatology presents the new heavens and the new earth as a time when Christ will come to reign, and there will be no more suffering, no more pain, no more death.
Ø The Filipino has a tendency to look back to understand his present life.
o The Filipino also hopes and expects a better future, where all the pains and struggles will be nor more.
o The Filipino considers the good things that happen to him as “heaven” and all the bad as “hell”.
o Thus, implicitly, though not always religious, Filipino wants a “new heaven and new earth”, as he always say with a sigh “Balang araw, nakakaraos din tayo”.
II. FILIPINO UNDERSTAND OF HISTORY
Ø Unlike the Western concept of history which is linear, the Filipino understands history as experiential. He may not be accurate with the date, but the experience of the events is significance to him, he will never forget.
Ø Filipinos thus at times escapes the present by living in the past, as at times forget the past and concentrate on the now and in the future.
III. RELATIONSHIP OF CREATION AND ESCHATOLOGY
Ø Theology tells us that Creation and Eschatology is related because God created us for a purpose.
o He didn’t leave us alone after creation and entrusted our fate to ourselves.
o God has a grand plan when he created.
Ø Eschatology is the fulfillment of God’s plan set forth in creation.
o As to the Filipino understanding, though he hopes for a better future as earlier mention, he is not much worried with the future. The main concern of the Filipino is the now.
o For the Filipino, whatever will come, will come, if its God’s will.
o Filipino always tends to stick to what is traditional, and the future is to be left alone.
Ø New Heaven/Earth:
o 2 directions
v Worldly – a better life
v Religious – heaven which is God.
No comments:
Post a Comment