THE LIVING GOD

                   (c)Copyright,1993 by William G.Most

                  I - Revelation 

1)Natural Knowledge of God
    Vatican I defined (DS 3026) defined that the existence of God
can be known with certainty through the  use of natural reason.

    Problem: How can the Church define anything about revelation,
when the right of the Church to teach needs first to be
established from revelation found in Scripture? Is there not a
vicious circle?

    Solution: We begin with the Gospels, but do not at first look
upon them as sacred or inspired. We treat them as ancient
documents, and give them the same sort of checking we give other
ancient documents -- transmission of the text shown by textual
criticism -- Is it possible to have any reliable history at all
(historicism)? -- Can one trust even eyewitnesses? --What is the
genre of the Gospels -- Can one distinguish between facts and
interpretations,i.e.is there such a thing as a non-interpreted
statement? (Distinguish simple physical facts from complex
realities, and note that some things are so simply perceived
there is no room for interpretation, e.g., if a leper stands
before Jesus, asks to be healed, and He says: I will it: be
healed.) --Did the authors live at a time when information was to
be had -- Did they have motive to report accurately.-- 

     The  foregoing are preliminaries. Once we know that the
Gospels can give us at least a few simple physically observable
facts, we look for and find six of them: (1) There was a man
named Jesus;  (2) He claimed to be a messenger sent by God;  (3)
He did enough to prove this, by miracles in contexts such that a
connection was established between the claim and the miracle. (On
the side: show by modern instances, Lanciano, Lourdes, Guadalupe
-- that miracles are possible because science proves they do
happen - contrast  view of R.Bultmann,who said: "Conclusive
knowledge is impossible in any science or philosophy" [Kerygma
and Myth ,ed.H.W.Bartsch, tr. R.H.Fuller, N.Y., Harper & Row,
Torchbooks, 1961, 2d ed. volume I- hereafter KM -KM 195] and "It
is impossible to use electric light and wireless...and at the
same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and
miracles."[KM 5];  (4) As expected, He had an inner circle to
whom He spoke more; (5) Also as expected, He told them to
continue His work, His teaching; (6)He also - a thing one would
expect if the messenger from God had the means to do it -
promised God would protect their teaching: "He who hears
you,hears me"(Lk 10.16).---  After this point, that body,
commissioned to teach by a messenger from God, and promised
protection on its teaching, can tell us that Scripture is
inspired, and that it contains revelation. There is no other
means to know which books are inspired - cf.Luther,Calvin,and
Gerald Birney Smith in  Biblical World 37 (1910) pp.19-29.Cf.
W.Most. Free From All Error hereafter FFAE Cap 2.

    So the Epistle to the Romans is inspired, and it tells us in
1.20 that we can know the existence of God by thinking about  His
works in creation. Hence Vatican I could define that God can be
known in this way.

    The Council did not specify which proofs are valid -
philosophers work on that, but must admit that in some way it can
be proved.

    Did St.Paul mean formal argumentation - or just thinking in
general on creation? Unclear. But the intricate structure of
creation, observed by the naked eye, or with the help of modern
science, reveals the wonders of design, which suppose a designer.
Cf.on complexity of creation:E.S.Ayensu (Smithsonian Institution)
and Philip Whitfield (King's College,Univ.of London), Editors,
The Rhythms of Life, Crown Publishers,NY.1981.

    This does not rule in or out theistic evolution. It of course
rules out atheistic evolution. (More on evolution later, in unit
III).

    Ontological Argument: The most famous form of it comes from
St.Anselm in 11th century. In his Proslogium, chapter 2, he
argues: "Certainly that than which a greater cannot be thought of
cannot exist in the intellect alone. For if it exists in the
intellect alone it can be thought of as also existing in the
world of reality -- which is greater. If therefore, that than
which a greater cannot be thought of, exists solely in the
intellect, the very thing than which a greater cannot be thought
of, is that than which a greater can be thought of. But this
surely cannot be. [It is a direct contradiction]. Without a
doubt, therefore, there exists something than which a greater
cannot be thought of, both in the world of the intellect and  the
world of reality". The trouble is that the idea does not
guarantee the extramental existence of the Being.

    St.Thomas :Specially famous are the five ways of St.Thomas
Aquinas, Summa I.2.3.

     Aristotelian Proof: Aristotle  himself did not develop this
argument as we are giving it, but it is based on his own
principles: 1.Something has a change -- it rises from Potency to
Act.- It cannot rise on its own, for it cannot give itself the
extra being it does not yet have.( We call it a rise since at the
top of the rise, after the change, more or higher being is
present - before the change there was a privation to be filled).  
           2.So it needs to get its actuality from another being
or source that is already in act, i.e, has the added being. But
that being earlier had to get up from potency to act - and so on,
but not infinitely, or we would never have a solution to the
problem. 
           3.So finally, we need to find a being that does not
have the problem of getting up to act, because it simply is Act: 
That is the First Cause, or Ultimate Mover, or God. (If it had
potency, it would still have the problem of getting up to act,
and so we would not yet have reached the answer to our problem).

           4.What is this Act like:
              a)It is unmoved - for it has no potency, and
potency is needed for anything to be moved.            b)It is
eternal- (Taking eternity in strict sense of a duration with no
change, with everything simultaneously present). Time is a
measure of change - no potency = no change.

              c) It is Infinite. Potency is not only capacity but
limit - a 12 oz.glass has a potency for 12 oz, but it also is
limited to 12 oz.

              d)It is One  - If there were two Infinites, they
would coincide. 
              e)It is Spiritual - Matter is potency. This First
Cause has no potency, and so, no matter.

              f) It is the cause of existence of all else - To
reach existence is a rise from potency to act. That rise needs
the First Cause. -- So, we see another reason why the First Cause
is Infinite -- The rise from zero to something is an infinite
rise. 
              NOTE:1.All this reasoning can be made without
becoming religious; to be religious we would have to add
reverence or worship. We have given a purely intellectual
exercise. Hence to say there was creation, is not necessarily
religious.-- Further, the translation of Genesis 1.1 is
debatable. It could also be:"When God set about to form heaven
and earth."

                   2.Aristotle was uncertain how many unmoved
movers there are. He used two starting points (a)From Reason: he
said that if a simpler answer will do, it is better, (b) From
Astronomy: he said in Meta 12.6.1073b that the number of unmoved
movers,"must be investigated by the aid of that branch of
mathematical science which is most akin to philosophy, i.e.,
astronomy." Astronomy in his day held for many  spheres in the
skies. Unclear how many Aristotle thought, probably either 49 or
55. See G.E.LLoyd, Aristotle,The Growth and Structure of His
Thought (Cambridge,1968)pp.148-53.

2)Man's need of revelation: 
    a)Some truths are inaccessible to human knowledge,e.g.,the
Holy Trinity.To know these,revelation is indispensable.
    b)Some truths can be known by reason,but only with difficulty
.
         1)Plato,Phaedo 85 D: Simmias says, after trying to
follow difficult arguments: "I think, as you probably do, that to
know clearly about such matters in this present life is either
impossible, or altogether difficult...for it is necessary to do
one of two things: either to find where truth is, or if that be
impossible, to pick the best and hardest to refute of human
reasonings, and to sail through life as it were dangerously, on a
raft, unless he could make his journey more safely and less
dangerously on some more secure conveyance, a divine revelation." 

          2)Aristotle wrote (Meta 2.1): " The search for truth is
in a way hard,in a way easy.A sign of this is the fact that no
one gets it fully, but we do not all miss it altogether."

         3)History of Philosophy: Shows that no matter what
standard we would use to grade a philosopher ,most of them of all
times get less than 60% of the truth.-- This does not mean give
up - it means be very careful - and, like Simmias, wish for a
divine revelation. We have that. We can compare truths reached by
reason with revelation - this is like looking up the answers in
the back of a mathematics book. 
    In this sense, we can have a Catholic philosophy. Problem:
can there be such, since philosophy uses only reason, not
authority? Yes, if we work the way we do with a math book. If we
are working in philosophy we try to work by reason first, as in
the math book, we work problems without looking in the back. If
we are in theology, we use revelation first.

         4)Eunomius (follower of Arius). He seems to have said
that we can completely understand God in this life, in that he
insisted divinity consists in being agennetos -- no other
designations count. -- Was answered by St.Basil and St.Gregory of
Nyssa in their  Against Eunomius. Cf.Gregory,Book II: "They
maintain that the divine nature is simply being agennetos per se,
and declare this to be sovereign and supreme, and they make this
word comprehend the whole greatness of divinity."

         Note: There are two similar Greek words: agennetos,from
gennao to beget; an agenetos from ginomai (= older gignomai) to
become,to be born. Both were used alike before the Council of
Nicea. Thus the Creed from Nicea has (DS 125)  gennethenta ou
poiethenta: begotten,not made). Compare  Creed of  Constantinople
DS 130.

         The Fathers,in contrast to the errors of Eunomius
understood God is inexpressible:

          a)Arnobius,Against Nations 1.31:"To understand you, we
must be silent, and for fallible conjecture to trace you even
vaguely, nothing must even be whispered."                 
b)Pseudo-Dionysius,Mystical Theology 1.2:God is best known by
"unknowing".
          c)St.Gregory of Nyssa,Life of Moses PG 44.376:"The true
vision of the One we seek, the true seeing, consists in this: in
not seeing. For the One Sought is beyond all knowledge."
         d)St.Augustine,De Doctrina Christiana  1.6.6:"He must
not even be called inexpressible, for when we say that word we
say something."          e)St.Thomas Aquinas  (In:Maritain,
Angelic Doctor,S.W.London,1933  p.51): "Such things have been
revealed to me that the things I have written and taught seem
slight to me." He never went back to his Summa after that
revelation.          f)Plato,Republic 6.509B:Good (which he
probably identifies with God) is "beyond being".

        5)St.Thomas Aquinas.Summa I.1.1."It was necessary for
human salvation that there be a certain doctrine according to
divine revelation, in addition to philosophical disciplines....
First, because man is ordered to God as to a certain end which
goes beyond the comprehension of reason...But the end should be
known to men in advance, who should order their intentions and
actions to the goal... even for those things which can be
investigated by human reason it was necessary that man be
instructed by divine revelation.For the truth about God which can
be investigated by reason would be known by few,and for a long
time,with a mixture of many errors." 
         6)Salvation of Infidels.The above comments of St.Thomas
might tempt one to think there is no hope of salvation for those
who do not know the Church.We must not take his images like a
picture of a material road.The real question on reaching the goal
is this:What does God want me to do? God makes this essential
known  within each one by the moral law known in conscience,as we
see from the following: 
         a)St.Justin Martyr in his Apology 1.46 wrote  "Christ is
the Logos (Divine "Word] of which the whole race of men
partake.Those who lived according to Logos are Christians even if
they were considered atheists, such as, among the Greeks,
Socrates and  Heraclitus. In  Apology 2.10 he ads that the Logos
is within each one of us.  Now, the Logos,a Spirit,does not take
up place. When we say a  Spirit is present we say it is producing
an effect there.What effect? We turn next to Romans 2: 14-16.

              b)Romans 2.14-16:"The gentiles who do not have the
law,do by nature the things of the law.They show the work of the
law written on their hearts,while their conscience bears witness
along with [their good life,or: with the law,in their hearts] and
their thoughts will in turn either accuse or even defend them on
the day on which God will judge the secret things of
men,according to my Gospel,through Jesus Christ."  

     COMMENT 1:Some commentators refuse to admit Paul teaches
gentiles can be saved - they do not see that Paul alternates
between de facto and focused views. In a focused view of the law
(As if we are loking through a tube,and so see only the things
within the circle made by te tube) , for example,Paul would
say:The law makes heavy demands -gives no strength - to be under
heavy demands without strength makes a fall certain.Hence he can
saw dresdful things about the law: no on can keep; it is the
ministry of condemnation etc. In the factual view he talks
differently: The law makes heavy demands, gives no strength - BUT
-- off to the side,in no relation to the law there is grace given
even in anticipation of Christ. With it, one need not fall etc.
In fact he calls the law a great privilege of the people of God
e.g,in Romans 3 and 9 ,and says in Phil 3:6 that he kept it
perfectly. Here he uses a de facto view. This is supported by the
Magisterium texts we shall shortly quote.

     COMMENT 2:Some think Socrates was homosexual.Far from it.
PLato frequently quotes Socrates as sayaingathat the manawho
seeks the truth,to be a philosopher, must have as litle as
possible to do with the things of the  body: Phaedo 82-83;66;
Republic 485-86,519.

              c)Pius IX, Quanto conficiamur moerore,August
10,1862:"God...in His supreme goodness and clemency,by no means
allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments,who does
not have the guilt of voluntary fault.But it is also a Catholic
dogma that no one outside the Catholic Church can be saved,and
that those who are contumacious against the authority of the same
Church [and ] definitions and who are obstinately [pertinaciter]
separated from the unity of the Church and from the Roman
Pontiff...cannot obtain eternal salvation." 

     COMMENT: Pius IX stresses need of the Church,and at the same
time,the truth [in saying that this  point "is also a Catholic
dogma,he implies that the fact that no one is lost without grave
personal fault is also a Catholic dogma.He does not explain HOW
this works out.He makes clear that if someone keeps the moral law
as he knows it,he will actually be saved- so that  somehow-- he
does not say how-- this requirement of membership will be
fulfilled.He does help,however,by noting that only those who are
obstinately and contumaciously rejecting the Church are lost.
This implies that those who reject in good faith,without
obstinacy,can be saved For full treatment of the solution,cf.the
Appendix to W.Most, Our Father's Plan.     
              d) Holy Office,by order of Pius XII,in a letter of
August 9,1949, and basing itself on  teaching in Mystici
Corporis,condemned L.Feeney:"It is not always required that one
be actually incorporated as a member of the Church,but this at
least is required: that one adhere to it in wish and desire.It is
not always necessary that this be explicit...but when a man
labors under invincible ignorance,God accepts even an implicit
will,called by that name because it is contained in the good
disposition of soul in which a man wills to conform his will to
the will of God." Pius XII,in Mystici Corporis had taught that a
man can be "ordered to the Church by a certain desire and wish of
which he is not aware."(DS 3821).
              
              e) Vatican II,On the Church #16:"For they who
without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and
His Church,but yet seek God with sincere heart,and try,under the
influence of grace,to carry out His will in practice, known to
them through the dictate of conscience,can attain eternal
salvation."
               
             f)John Paul II,Redemptoris missio, Dec.7,1990:"The
universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to
those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the
Church. Since salvation is offered to all,it must be made
concretely available to all.But it is clear that today, as in the
past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or
accept the Gospel Revelation or to enter the Church.... For such
people, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace
which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church,does
not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in
a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material
situation."

              NOTE:We compare St.Justin Martyr,Apology 1.46 with
the above, and note it carries same ideas as Romans 2.14-16:
"Christ is the Logos [Divine Word], of whom the whole race of men
partake.Those who lived according to Logos are Christians,even if
they were considered atheists,such as,among the Greeks,Socrates
and Heraclitus."

              The above texts show merely the FACT that some can
be saved without formal entry into the Church. As to thee HOW.we
will add theological reasoning later, in speaking of the election
of Israel.


3)The concept of salvation history;words and deeds of God

    In studying any part of Scripture,we must first deterine the
literary  genre. The case of Genesis 1-11 is special. Starting
with chapter 12 man think the genre shifts to epic.        

      Genre of Genesis 1-11:         

       (1) Pius XII,Humani generis,DS 3898:"We must deplore a  
certain way of interpreting the historical books of the Old
Testament too freely. The first 11 chapters of Genesis,though
they do not strictly conform to the rules of historical writing
used by the great Greek and Latin historians or historians of our
time, yet pertain to history in a true sense, to be further
studied and determined by Scripture scholars." 
         COMMENT: We could satisfy this requirement by saying
that these chapters do report, by the vehicle of stories, things
that really happened -- in this way they do pertain to history in
a true sense. Chiefly the following: God made all things; in some
special way He made the first human pair; He gave them some sort
of command (we do not know its nature),they   violated it,and
fell from His favor. (Note that favor even though the word is not
used in the text, would be chen in Hebrew, which is the closest
word to grace. Hence they lost grace,and did not have it to pass
on to their descendants.(Cf. New Catholic Encyclopedia
s.v."grace,in the Bible"). So  original sin is contained in the
narrative. Really, if we said God did no more than smile at a
person,and gave him nothing, and the person could do good by his
own power - it would be Pelagianism. Hence favor must imply
grace.          
       (2) John Paul II,Audience of Sept 19,1979: "The whole
archaic form of the narrative...manifests its primitive mythical
character."   In note 1, he cites at length P.Ricoeur,speaking of
"the Adamic myth". However, on Nov 7,1979 the Pope also
said:"...the term 'myth' does not designate a fabulous content,
but merely an archaic way of expressing a deeper   content." Also
in note 1 on Sept 19: "If in the language of the rationalism  of
the 19th century, the term 'myth' indicated what was not
contained in reality...the 20th century as modified the concept
of myth.... M.Eliade discovers in myth the structure of the
reality that is inaccessible to rational and empirical
investigation. Myth, in fact, transforms the event into a
category and makes us capable of perceiving the transcendental
reality." 

     ADDENDUM: On Sept 12,1979:"...the first account of man's
creation is chronologically later than the second.The origin of
this latter is much more remote. This more ancient text is
defined as 'Yahwist.'"   -- In note 1 on Nov.7: "After the
creation of the woman, the Bible text continues to call the first
man 'adam (with the definite article), thus expressing his
'corporate personality', since he has become the 'father of
mankind', its progenitor and representative...." -- God called
Adam  after the fall and Adam replied: "I was afraid because I
was naked, and I hid myself."-  
     It is easy to gather what the inspired writer meant to
convey by this narrative. Before the sin, Adam was naked; after
the fall, the same. But before the fall it did not bother him,
afterwards it did. Clearly, the sex drive, the most rebellious of
all, had begun to assert itself. Before the fall Adam must have
had some gift that made it easy to keep all drives in proper
balance. Each was good in itself, but each would work blindly,
without regard for the other drives or for the whole person.
So,as we said,a coordinating gift was needed. It used to be
called the Gift of Integrity. 

    History of the term salvation history

         1)W.Vatke,a disciple of Hegel,in his  The Religion of
Israel,1835 spoke of Heilsgeschichte [salvation history]:True
religion he said was revealed slowly, going through the stages of
simile, allegory, myth, and climaxing in the historical
revelation of Jesus Christ.
         2) J.T.Beck,1804-78 in reacting against rationalistic
biblical interpretation dropped the dictation theory of
inspiration, said that the Bible is an organic whole and that the
unity and continuity of the OT  are to be found in salvation
history.          3)J.von Hofmann,1810-77,similarly viewed the OT
as a the history of salvation. 
     Stages of salvation history

         There are two separate,though related,developments we
must follow: (1)The prophecies of eternal salvation for all
through the Messiah. (2)The choice of Israel as God's special
people--a help to eternal salvation.The word salvation has three
meanings in Scripture: (a)rescue from temporal evils; (b)entry
into the Church of the NT; (c)Final eternal salvation: heaven.

    The promise of the Messiah actually referred to eternal
salvation.The Jews,and perhaps the Sacred Writers too,seem not to
have understood this fact at first.They tended to think of the
Messiah as going to rescue them from temporal evils.And the
promises God made at Sinai,choosing them as a special
people,literally referred at first to temporal things - the land
plus added favor.As the centuries went on, the tendency grew to
reinterpret the promise to refer to eternal life,as St.Paul
does,for example,in Galatians 3.15ss.Yet the Apostles seem to
have taken the Messiah as a temporal savior,and hence did not
grasp His prophecies about His death and resurrection. 
         We will consider each current separately.(Choice or
election will be later on) 
         (1)Prophecies of the Messiah
    We will make much use of the Targums here. They are ancient
Aramaic versions of th Old Testament,mostly free,and with
fill-ins which show how the Jews understood them without seeing
them fulfilled in Christ.

            Date of the Targums.Many scholars today ignore the
Targums,out of ignorance or because they think the dates too
uncertain. Some of these same exegetes say the OT prophecies of
the Messiah are so vague one can get something out of them only
by hindsight,e.g.,R.E.Brown,The Virginal Conception & Bodily
Resurrection of Jesus,Paulist,1973,pp.15-16.     But we can be
sure of an early date of at least the Messianic prophecies in
them for the following  reasons: 
                a)Jacob Neusner,in  Messiah in Context made a
complete survey of all Jewish literature after 70 AD up to and
including the Babylonian Talmud (completed 500-600 AD).He found
that up to,not including that Talmud,there was scant interest in
the Messiah.In the Talmud interest revived,but even then,the only
one of the great prophecies spoken of was that the Messiah would
be of the line of David. It is hardly conceivable that these
Targums on the prophecies could have been composed in a period
when there was no,or  later,little interest in the material they
covered. 
                b)Samson Levey, The Messiah,An Aramaic
Interpretation, Hebrew Union College,1974, helps us to know that
the rabbis even steered clear of some Messianic things in the
Targums. Ps.80,15-18 asked God to visit this vine "and the stock
which your right hand has planted.... Let your hand be upon the
man of your right hand,upon the son of man whom you have
strengthened for yourself." Levey comments (pp.119-20):"It would
appear that the Targum takes the Messiah to be the son of
God,which is much too anthropomorphic and Christological to be
acceptable in Jewish exegesis." He notes that neither the earlier
nor the later rabbis picked  up this interpretation of the
Targum.Instead,he says that some of the later rabbis "carefully
steer clear of any messianic  interpetation" from the Targum  for
this passage.So the Targum interpretation could hardly have been
written at that period.  
     Interestingly,Ps 80,as cited above,even uses the words son
of man to refer to the Messiah. Not for certain,but probably,the
rabbis would not have written this Targumic line after Jesus
began to use the expression to refer to Himself. 
     Similarly Ps 45,7-8 says:"Your throne,God is ever and
ever.... God your God has anointed you with the oil of
rejoicing." Even though some think that Psalm was occasioned by
the marriage of Joram to Athalaia,the Targum saw it as
messianic.Levey even remarks (pp.111-12) that the Hebrew word for
king, melech "in verses 2,6,12,15 and 16 is understood as God."
And the passage in general means the Messiah according to the
Targum,Yet:"Rabbinic views of this Psalm are not Messianic."
Again,this Targumic passage could not have been written late.     
 In 445 BC,Ezra may have begun the practice of giving an Aramaic
paraphrase after the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures. In
Nehemiah 8:7-8:[while Ezra read the Law] "...the Levites helped
the people to understand the law.... And they read from the
book,from the law of God,clearly,and they gave the sense,so that
the people understood the reading."-- There must have been period
of oral Targums before they were written down.

      Regardless of the date of the Targums,they surely show the
ancient Jewish understanding made without the use of
hindsight,without seeing them fulfilled in Jesus,whom they hated.

      We have the following Targums on the Pentateuch:
Onkelos,Pseudo- Jonathan,Neofiti,and Fragmentary Targum (also
called Jerusalem Targum.  For the prophets,we have Targum
Jonathan. For the prophets: Targum Jonathan. For the
Hagiographa,Aramaic renderings did evolve except for Daniel and
Ezra-Nehemiah.  
    We will now examine the chief messianic prophecies,with the
help of the Targums and the Magisterium.

                 Genesis 3:15

         (a)Targums: Fragmentary Targum says God will put enmity
between the serpent and the woman,and between the offspring of
serpent's children and hers. When the woman's children toil at
Torah and keep it,they will strike the serpent on the head and
kill it; when they refuse to toil, the serpent's offspring will
bite their heel. "There will be a remedy for the children of the
woman,but for you [serpent], there will be no remedy. They will
make peace with one another in the days of the King Messiah."
Pseudo-Jonathan is about the same.Neofiti is about same but uses
singular: "There will be a remedy [for his wound] for the son of
the woman,but for you,serpent,no remedy."--Onkelos,as so
often,does not speak of a messianic nature. 
         Neusner, Messiah in Context,p.242:"In the days of the
King Messiah,the enmity between the serpent and woman will come
to an end Gen 3:15....)" 
                NOTE:The Jews seem on the whole not to have
thought of original sin, from this verse or elsewhere. However it
is easy to see: God had given our first parents not only human
nature,but also grace and the gift of integrity.They lost all but
human nature by their fall - so they lost His favor,and therefore
did not have grace - and so did not have that to pass on to their
children. To arrive in this world without favor/grace is the same
as to come with original sin. Cf.A.M.Dubarle,OP,Le P‚ch‚ Originel
dans l'Ecriture,Cerf.1958 edition,pp.39-74.

         (b)Pius IX,Ineffabilis Deus:"The Fathers and
ecclesiastical writers...in commenting on the words,' I will put
enmity between you and the woman,and your seed and her seed',
have taught that by this utterance there was clearly and openly
foretold the merciful Redeemer of the human race...and that His
Most Blessed Mother,the Virgin Mary,was designated,and at the
same time,that the enmity of both against the devil was
remarkably expressed." -- We notice that PiusIX does not say in
his own words that Gen 3:15 is messianic.He says that the Fathers
and ecclesiastical writers say that.               
          (c)Pius XII,Munificentissimus Deus: "We must remember
especially that,since the 2nd century,the Virgin Mary has been
presented by the Holy Fathers as the New Eve,who,although subject
to the New Adam,was most closely associated with Him in that
struggle against the infernal enemy which,as foretold in the
protoevangelium, was to result in that most complete victory over
sin and death.Wherefore,just as the glorious resurrection of
Christ was an essential part and final sign of this victory,so
also that struggle,which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her
Son,had to be close by the glorification of her virginal body."

       COMMENT: He speaks of the struggle against the infernal
enemy as foretold in the protoevanglium, Gen.3.15. Even though he
does so in passing, yet he clearly takes it for granted that the
protoevangelium does foretell that victory, a victory which is an
essential part of his thought. Incidentally we notice the strong
language on coredemption -- the "struggle" was a work in common,
so much in common that there had to be a common result from a
common cause - glorification for both Him and for her. [In
passing: John Paul II,in Osservatore Romano, English, March  
11,1985 spoke of "Mary's role as co-redemptrix"].          
              
           (d)Pius XII,Fulgens corona(1953):"...the foundation of
this doctrine [Immaculate Conception] is seen in the very Sacred
Scripture in which God...after the wretched fall of
Adam,addressed the...serpent in these words,which not a few of
the Holy Fathers and doctors of the Church,and most approved
interpreters refer to the Virgin Mother of God:"I will put
enmity....'"

    COMMENT: If the IC is contained in Gen 3:15,then of course
she is contained in it. 
              
            (e)Vatican II,Dei Verbum 3:"After their fall,by
promising the redemption,He lifted them up into the hope of
salvation (cf.Gen 3,15...)." 
    Yet LG 55,below, indicates we cannot be sure that the
original writers of Gen 3:15 and Is 7:14 saw in those texts what
the Church now sees. This is possible: at first Adam and Eve did
peceive the promise of a Redeemer.Later,by the time Genesis was
written,that knowledge had been forgotten.
              
             (f)Vatican II,Lumen gentium 55:"These primeval
documents,as they are read in the Church and are understood in
the light of later and full revelation,gradually bring more
clearly to light the figure of the woman,the Mother of the
Redeemer. She,in this light,is already prophetically foreshadowed
in the promise,given to our first parents,who had fallen into
sin,of victory over the serpent (cf.Gen 3,15)."  
       COMMENTS:  The council was careful not to say flatly that
the original human author of Genesis saw her as the woman - hence
the cf.   Yet later and full revelation, guided by the Holy
Spirit, does see that she is the one. 2) In Dei verbum   12, the
Council said: "Since however in Sacred Scripture God has spoken
through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred
Scripture, to see what He intended to communicate with us, must  
investigate attentively what the sacred writers really intended
to convey and what it pleased God to manifest by their words."
The Theological Commission commented (Cf.A.Grillmeier in
H.Vorgrimler, Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, Herder &
Herder, 1969, III, p.220)commented on the under lined words "and
what":  If quidque be written [instead of et quid] the question
[on the existence of a fuller sense] would be settled in the
affirmative. The expression [actually used] is neutral." "Fuller
sense" would be the position that the Holy Spirit, the Chief
Author might have in mind and intended to express more than
the human author saw. At this point, the Council had a chance to
positively endorse the idea of a fuller sense, but instead chose
ambiguous language. Quidque, using the enclitic -que to mean and
would tie the two clauses more closely than the actual et quid
for et is a looser conjunction. So all this means that the
Council at this point refused to  explicitly approve or
disapprove the position of a fuller sense. But yet in   its
practice, as in LG 55, it did use it on Gen 3.15 and Isa 7.14.
Really, it is clearly possible that the Holy Spirit,the chief
author, could have in mind more than the human writer saw.
Jeremiah 31.31 ff., the prophecy of the New Covenant,seems to
be an example. Jeremiah hardly saw that the essential obedience
of the New Covenant would be that of Christ. Also, St.Irenaeus,
in his knot comparison (3.22.4) implied more than he likely saw.
And it seems Vatican II also,in LG chapter 8, said more than it
realized. At the start,it said it would not settle debates in
Mariology. Yet one can make a fine case that it did:
cf.W.Most,"Mary's Cooperation in the   Redemption" in Faith and
Reason, 1987,pp.28-61. In fact, Msgr.G.Philips of Louvain,chief
drafter of that chapter, seems not to have fully understood what
he wrote:cf.ibid,pp. 54-55.         

       COMMENT: Now in spite of the cf.the text says flatly that
after the fall God gave them hope of redemption.The only place
that could be is Gen 3.15. So that text is clearly called
messianic. John Paul II, in Mulieris dignitatem II  11: "At the
same time it [Genesis] contains the first foretelling of victory 
over evil, over sin. This is proved by the words which we read in
Genesis   3:15...." Further, in Redemptoris Mater  24 he links
together the use of the word "woman" in Genesis 3:15, Cana, the
foot of the Cross, and Apocalypse/Revelation 12. The word seems
chosen to show she is the same one in each text.         
         
         2)Genesis 49.10: "The scepter shall not depart from
Juda,nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,until Shiloh
comes,and his shall be the obedience of the peoples."

                Targums:Neofiti:"Kings shall not be lacking from
the house of Judah...until the time at which King Messiah will
come." Onkelos (which sees messianism only here and in Numbers
24.17-24 (Balaam) agrees,as do Pseudo- Jonathan,and Fragmentary
Targum.

                Levey. the Messiah:An Aramaic
Interpretation,p.8:"Other rabbinic sources,both Midrashic and
Talmudic,also take this passage as Messianic." Genesis Rabbah
98.8 "Until Shiloh comes:he to whom kingship belongs." Sanhedrin
98b:"What is His [Messiah's] name? The school of R.Shila
said,'Shiloh" as it is written,until Shiloh come." Lamentations
Rabbah I.16.51:"The school of R.Shila said:The Messiah's name is
'Shiloh", as it is stated, Until Shiloh come (Gen xxlix,10),where
the word is spelt Shlh." Levey adds in note 23(p.149):"A play on
the similarity of the names,thus rendering honor to their
teacher.The Talmud continues that the school of R.Jannai claimed
the Messiah's name was Jinnon,and the school of R.Hananiah said
it was Hananiah,each quoting an appropriate
proof-text."Cf.G.F.Moore,Judaism II,pp.348-49 for  a similar
claim. COMMENT: Levey overlooks the fact that all but the school
of Shila have no basis that is solid- The School of Shila does
have such a base in the Targumic and Rabbinic view,and in the MT
reading,Shiloh.Cf.Moses Aberbach & Bernard Grossfeld,Targum
Onkelos on Genesis 49 Scholars Press.Missoula,p.14.

                Neusner, Messiah in Context,p.242:"It is
difficult to imagine how  Gen 49:10 could have been read as other
than a messianic prediction." 
    There may be echoes of Gen 49.10 in Ez 21.17:"It will not be
restored until he comes to whom it rightly belongs.To him I will
give it". and Jer 33.14 :"Behold the days are coming-- Oracle of
Yahweh- and I will perform the good word which I spoke to the
house of Israel and the house of Judah." The word seems to be
that of Gen 49.10.

    Modern scholars object that the Hebrew is corrupt because
shiloh is feminine while the verb is masculine. Reply: 1)Shiloh
stands for a man,agreement by sense. 2)There are some parallels
in OT: Jer 49.16 where a feminine noun,tiplaset,your horror, has
a masculine verb.Also Ezech 1.5-10 where the noun hayoth is
feminine,yet the suffixes in the next verses referring to the
living creatures shift between masculine and feminine. This sort
of shift was common in Mishnaic Hebrew. 
    Historical fulfillment: The Jews did have some sort of ruler
from tribe of Judah until Rome imposed Herod on them as Tetrarch
in 41 BC- soon (38 BC) he made self king.Herod was Jewish by
religion (Jews had forced it on Idumea),but lived up to it poorly
and,most importantly,by birth he was not of the tribe of Judah -
half Idumean,half Arab. The fulfillment would have been more
glorious had they not been so unfaithful so often. Neusner
reports that Messianic expectation was strong at the time of
Christ.

         3)Isaiah 9.5-6:"For a child is born to us, a son is
given to us, and the government shall be upon his shoulder. And
his name shall be called:Wonderful Counsellor,Mighty God,
Everlasting Father,Prince of Peace." 
    We take up this text before Is 7.14 since it is easier to
study,and since it is generally agreed today that both texts
belong to the same Book of Emmanuel (6.1- to 12.6).Hence the
child is the same in both texts.

    The Targum definitely takes 9.5-6 as Messianic.The
translation of the Targum is debated. J.F.Stenning of Oxford:"And
his name has been called from of old,Wonderful counsellor,Mighty
God,He who lives forever,the Anointed one (or,Messiah),in whose
days peace shall increase upon us." We note that Stenning does
say Mighty God is part of His name. Samson Levey(p.45) renders:
"And his name has been called by the One who gives wonderful
counsel,the Mighty God,He who lives forever: Messiah,in whose day
peace shall abound for us." 
    Levey can so translate because he takes Aramaic  min qedem to
be mean  by.This is linguistically possible.Stenning takes the
same words to mean "from of old".That too is linguistically
possible. Levey's version has a strain in it,in that it is hard
to know which titles belong to the one who calls, which to the
one who is named. It is certain that the Jews would have had a
hard time digesting the idea that the Messiah was God.-- Yet,we
do have the evidence of Psalms 45 and 80, cited above,which seem
to say that.We could add also Mal 3.1:"Behold,I send my
messenger,and he will prepare the way before my face. And the
Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple,the messenger
of the covenant in whom you delight." Even R.H.Fuller
observes,speaking of the citation of the text by Jesus in Mt
11.14 (Foundations of NT Christology,p.48): "The starting point
for this expectation is Mal 4:5f. (Mt 3:23f).In this passage,an
editorial note commenting on Mal 3:1,Elijah appears as the
forerunner not of the Messiah but of Yahweh himself...followed by
the coming of Yahweh to  his temple for the eschatological
judgment...." (Fuller uses the numbering 4.5, with some English
versions and the Vulgate, for what the Hebrew and most others
number as 3.23-24). Jesus in  Mt 11.3-10 identifies John with
Elijah (multiple fulfillment), which implies that the one for
whom John was the forerunner was Yahweh Himself= Jesus.

    The Targum,however,does not speak of Mal 3.1 as Messianic.We
can gather that as a matter of fact it was messianic,fulfilled
when Jesus came to the Temple. 
    El gibbor [Mighty God] occurs also in: Is 10.22; Dt.10.17;
Jer 32.18; Neh.9.32. It always means only Mighty God, and Levey
so renders it in his versions of the Hebrew and of the Targum.It
does not mean God-Hero as the NAB has it.      
         4)Isaiah 7.14 :"Behold, the almah shall conceive and
bear a son,and she shall call his name Immanuel."

    The Targum as we have it does not call this verse messianic.
Yet the child in it is clearly the same as that of 9.5-6,which is
marked as messianic by the Targum. And  Neusner, Messiah in
Context ,p.174 cites Hillel,great teacher of the time of Christ:"
R.Hillel said.There shall be no Messiah for Israel,because they
have already enjoyed him in the days of Hezekiah."(Citing from
Sanhedrin 99a). Levey, note 33 (found on p.154) cites R.Johanan
b.Zakkai: "Prepare a throne for Hezekiah,king of Judah,who is
coming". Berakot 28b. Levey adds: "Johanan's statement is
especially significant,for it was he who salvaged what little he
could in 70 C.E." Levey also gives reference to Bar Kappara in
Lamentations Rabbah on 1:16. 
    Neusner on p.190 says:"Since Christian critics of Judaism
claimed that the prophetic promises of redemption had all been
kept in the times of ancient Israel,so that Israel now awaited
nothing at all,it was important to reject the claim that Hezekiah
had been the Messiah."

    So this is why Targum does not call 7.14 Messianic. Levey, on
p.152, in note 10  says that  "Christians tended to base their
arguments against Judaism on verses of Scripture,and the Targum
interpretation of those verses was often deliberately designed to
exclude the Christian argument." (Levey is quoting J.Bowker,and
agrees substantially. H.J.Schoeps, Paul  p.129: "...it was felt
to be undesirable to lend support to the Christian interpretation
[of Is 53]. Again with the same motive and in order to eliminate
the reference of Isaiah 53 to Christ,atoning power was imputed to
the death of Moses."

    The Septuagint does take Hebrew almah as parthenos [virgin].
Laurentin,in the original French edition of his Les Evangiles de
l'Enfance du Christ,argued on p.486 that the Septuagint is loose
in use of parthenos - he pointed to case of  Gen 34.4 - Dina is
called a virgin after being violated. He did not check the Hebrew
or the Greek, used only a French translation. LXX has
paidisken,which is vague [young women]. Hebrew has yaldah,also
vague.In the English translation of the same book, he moved back
to Gen 34.3,which is ambiguous -- probably is a case of
concentric ring presentation. I have personally checked every
instance where LXX uses parthenos,found all are accurate.In
fact,the LXX is sometimes more precise than the Hebrew,as judged
by the Hebrew context. There are a few doubtful examples of
looseness in pagan Greek, but even if they were clear, pagan
usage does not prove LXX usage.

    Laurentin also says that the LXX in reading "you will call"
receded from the Hebrew tradition "she will call". We reply: a) 
Sometimes the Mother did give the name, when not a virgin: Gen
4.1 & 25; 19.36-38. 29.32   b)The text of the Masoretic Text was
not yet stabilized at the time the LXX was made - they could have
had a reading different from our MT.

    Who was the child of 7.14?  Some today say Hezekiah -- the
sign should not be something far in the future.A heir to the line
of David would be a sign.On other hand,the description of the
child in 9.5-6 is too grandiose for Hezekiah.And the solemnity of
the scene--offering a sign in the sky or in the depths-- suggests
more than just an ordinary heir to the throne. So it is probable
this is a case of multiple fulfillment. On that cf.Free From All
Error, chapter 5.

         5)Isaiah 53.The Hebrew speaks of the Suffering Servant
as having no form or comeliness,despised and rejected by men,he
has borne our griefs and was wounded for our
transgressions.He was oppressed and afflicted,yet did not open
his mouth,like a lamb being
led to the slaughter.

         The Targum recognizes this as messianic,yet distorts it
greatly. Hebrew v.3:"He was despised and rejected by men."
        Targum:"Then the glory of all kingdoms will be despised
and cease." 
        Hebrew v.5:"He was wounded for our transgressions,he was
bruised for our iniquities."
        Targum: "He will rebuild the sanctuary, polluted because
of our sins,handed over because of our iniquities."

        Hebrew v.7:He was "like a lamb being led to the
slaughter."         Targum: "He will hand over the mighty ones of
the peoples,like a lamb to the slaughter."

    Why? 1)The belief was common the Messiah would be a conqueror
and live forever.This would be strengthened by  2 Sam 7.11-16
where God promised David's line would last forever. 2)This was
probably written or revised  at time of the revolt of Bar Kokhba
(132-35AD),whom many thought was the Messiah. 3)There was
probably deliberate distortion to keep Christians from using
it.Cf.remarks of Levey and H.J.Shoeps cited above.

         This is a case of "the Lady doth protest too much".

         6)Micah 5.1-3. When the Magi came,Herod consulted the
Jewish scholars,who without hesitation replied (Mt 2.5):"They
said to him,in Bethlehem of Juda,for so it is written by the
prophet: And you,Bethlehem of the land of Judah are no the least
among the rulers of Juda.For out of you shall come forth the
captain who shall govern my people Israel." Micah said:"And
you,Bethlehem Ephrathah,you are little to be among the thousands
of Judah.From you shall come for me one who is to be ruler in
Israel,whose origin is from of old,from the days of eternity."    
     Targum Jonathan:"From you will come forth before me the
Messiah...whose name was spoken from days of old,from the days of
eternity." Levey comments (p.93) that the words "from of old,from
the days of eternity" seem to imply a pre-existent Messiah. The
Targum could be taken the same way.

    B.Talmud,Pesahim 4.4.54a:"Seven things were created before
the creation of the world, namely, Torah, repentance,
paradise,gehenna,the throne of majesty ,the temple and the name
of the Messiah.--Pesikta Rabati (a Midrash from about 8th century
AD) Piska 33.6:"You find that at the very beginning of the
creation of the world,the king Messiah had already come into
being,for he existed in God's thought even before the world was
created."
E.Isaac,editor of 1 Enoch in J.H.Charlesworth, The Old  Testament
Pseudepigrapha I,p.9:"The Messiah in 1 Enoch,called the Righteous
One,and the Son of Man,is depicted as a preexistent heavenly
being who is resplendent and majestic,possesses all dominion,and
sits on the his throne od glory passing judgment upon all mortals
and spiritual beings." The actual text of 1 Enoch 48.1-6
(Charlesworth,p.35):"...even before the creation of the sun and
moon,before the creation of the stars,he was given a name in the
presence of the Lord of Spirits..he was concealed in the presence
(of the Lord of Spirits) prior to the creation of the world and
for eternity." Isaac thinks 1  Enoch originated in Judea,and was
in use in Qumran before the Christian period.--Levey,p.70 in
giving rabbinic parallels to Targum on Jer 23.1-8 says:"'What is
the name of the King Messiah? R.Abba b.Kahana said: His name is
'the Lord' as it is stated.And this is the name whereby he shall
called.The Lord is our righteousness (Jer 23.6)" Lamentations
Rabbah 1.51.  Levey's note  83,on p.156 gives the Hebrew of Lord
in the above quote as Yahweh.

    COMMENTS ON ALL THE ABOVE TEXTS:
    1)There are many more texts on the Messiah himself,and on his
age.There are also texts where we can see things by hindsight
that the Jews did not see. 
    2)If even the stiff-necked Jews (cf.Ex.33.3 and 5.Dt 9.6 & 12
and 31.27). could see this much without the help of hindsight --
(cf.R.Brown, Virginal Conception, p.15) -- how much more could
she who was full of grace would see? Cf.W.Most,"The Knowledge of
Our Lady" in Faith & Reason, XI.1985,pp.51-76. 
3) Sacred Scripture

    a)Revelation compared to inspiration:.Revelation conveys new
information. Inspiration as such does not do that.

     b)Nature of Inspiration of Scripture

          (1)God is principal Author- and so no error of any
kind: 
            (a) Vatican I DS 3006:"The Church considers them
(books of Scripture) sacred and canonical,not that they were
written by mere human diligence and then approved by her
authority,nor only that they contain revelation without error,but
because,being written with the Holy Spirit inspiring them,they
have God as their author and as such were handed down to the
Church herself".

            (b) Leo XIII,Providentissimus Deus (1893):"It is
altogether not permitted to either limit inspiration to only some
parts of Sacred Scripture,or to say that the sacred author
himself was in error.Nor is the method tolerable which to get out
of the difficulties just mentioned,does not hesitate to say that
divine inspiration pertains to matters of faith and morals and
nothing more.... For all the books,the complete books,which the
Church receives as sacred and canonical,were written,with all
their parts,at the dictation of the Holy Spirit.It is so far from
possible that any error could underlie divine inspiration that it
of itself not only excludes all error,but excludes and rejects it
as necessarily as it is necessary to say that God,the supreme
Truth,is the author of no error."

         (c) Pius XII,Divino afflante Spiritu (1943)(EB538)
quoted the words of Vatican I cited above and commented:"But when
certain Catholic authors,contrary to this solemn definition of
Catholic doctrine...dared to restrict the truth of Holy Scripture
to matters of faith and morals...our predecessor of immortal
memory,Leo XIII,in the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus...rightly
and properly refuted those errors." 

         (d) Vatican II,Dei Verbum 11:"Since,then,everything that
the inspired authors or hagiographers assert should be held as
asserted by the Holy Spirit,hence the books of Scripture are to
be professed as teaching firmly,faithfully and without error,the
truth which God for the sake of our  salvation willed to be
confided to the Sacred Letters."

         The Council in note 4 refers us to Leo XIII (EB
121,124,126-27. EB 124 was cited above,excluding errors of every
kind) and Pius XII (EB 539 - which cites EB 124- 25 of Leo XIII,
insisting we may not limit inspiration to just some parts of
Scripture. Rather error is necessarily excluded since God is the
Author of all of Scripture).Three notes,1-3, on the previous
paragraph refer us also, inter alia, to Vatican I DS 3006,cited
above,and to Pius XII EB 556, cited above saying the human writer
is the instrument of the Holy Spirit,but the human still,under 
transcendence,uses his own faculties,and writing style). 

         NOTES: 1. In spite of the above,Cardinal Koenig at the
Council on Oct.2,1964 charged errors in Scripture.(Cf.A
Grillmeier,in his commentary on this chapter in
H.Vorgrimler,ed.,Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II,Herder
& Herder,1969,III pp.205-06).

          2.R.Brown, Critical Meaning of the Bible,p.18:"Many of
us think that at Vatican II the Catholic Church 'turned the
corner' in the inerrancy question by moving from the  a priori to
the  a posteriori  in the statement of  Dei verbum 11." - cited
above. Brown thinks the words we underlined above allow us to say
inspiration covers only those things needed for salvation.All
else-- matters of natural science,history and religion not needed
for salvation-may be in error.He give examples,especially on pp
16.17 of Job 14.13-22,and says to try to explain Job otherwise is
"an unmitigated disaster". Realy,it is easy to
explain.Cf.Wm.Most, Free From All Error,pp.39-46. 
    Brown ignores the fact that the claims of Cardinal Koenig
were not put into the final document.He ignores the references
the Council gave,as we noted above,to earlier documents insisting
on no error of any kind at all.He ignores fact Pius XII
said,cited above,that the words of Vatican I on this were a
solemn definition.Brown admits, p.18,that the words in question
are ambiguous- then how can be claim the Church contradicted a
solemn definition, did so in unclear form,and giving references
to texts that reaffirm?
    Brown in New Jerome Biblical Commentary,p 1169 strongly
repeats the same position.

    3.Thomas Hoffman,S.J.in CBQ  44(1982) p.451.n.17 says " the
term inerrancy is dropped in this paper as having no positive
theological contribution to make." He added (p.452) that to try
to answer all charges of error is "basically patching holes on a
sinking ship". And on p.467  he said if one has real faith he
will not want such answers! (Cf.Bultmann saying faith should have
no foundation:KM 211).On p.457 he says that what the Apostolic
Church meant by an inspired work was one "in which they
experienced the power,truth etc., of the Spirit of Christ." --
Sounds like Calvin! 
    4. New Methods. It is ironic at the very time when we can
solve problems formerly insoluble that so many,like Hoffman,are
claiming they cannot be solved. Especially  the use of literary
genres helps,plus some help from form & redaction criticism. 
         (a)Some examples of eye-closing:       

              (1)J.Fitzmyer,Paul and His theology,Prentice
Hall,1978,p.12-- speaks of three problems in accounts of Paul's
conversion, comments:"Puzzling ,however,are the variant details
in the account....The failure to harmonize such details reflects
Luke's  lack of concern for consistency."

              (2)Joseph a Callaway,"The Settlement in Canaan: in:
Ancient Israel, ed.Hershel Shanks,Biblical Archaeology
Society,Washington,1988,p.84."...there are two or three
traditions in 1 Samuel that give conflicting opinions. In 1
Samuel  8:6-22 Samuel is instructed by Yahweh to oppose the
appointment of a king; in 1 Samuel 9:15-24,Samuel is instructed
to anoint Saul secretly as king." COMMENT: really:6-22 reports
God told Samuel to pick a king even though Samuel did not like
it.  Here it seems the author is eager to find a contradiction
where there is none,instead of resolving real conflicts.--There
can be variant traditions and still no error- cf.FFAE chapter 15.

              (3)Many more instances in appendix 3 of W.Most,
Catholic Apologetics Today.

     How Inspiration functions:

    Pius XII,Divino afflante Spiritu, EB 556:"The sacred
writer,in producing the sacred book,is the organon,that is,the
instrument of the Holy Spirit,an instrument living and endowed
with reason.... He,working under inspiration,still uses his own
faculties and powers in such a way that all can easily gather
from the book he produces 'the proper character,and as it
were,the individual lines and characteristics'" of the human
writer. (Internal quote from Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus EB
448). 

    As we  mentioned in passing above, the Holy Spirit can  use
the human writer,leave him free as to his style,and yet see that
he writes all He wills,and only what He wills,and without
error.This can be through transcendence - i.e., God is above and
beyond all our categories and classifications. 
    To illustrate: we know either in the active or the passive
mode. In the passive, we take on an impression and information we
lacked,and we are passive --B ut  God cannot lack anything,cannot
receive anything,so this is not possible in Him. In the active
mode,a blind man knows a chair is moving only because he is
pushing it - but we surely cannot limit or reduce God to the
level of a blind man. 
    So we say: He works above and beyond our categories.

    Some not understanding this,claim He knows only by causing
things,i.e,in the active mode. St.Thomas Aquinas many
times,e.g,in De veritate 2.12.c explains God's ability to know
future contingents by saying that although as future,they are
unknowable,yet to Him they are present,by way of eternity.But he
stops there - does not say how they are known within eternity.He
does not know,nor do we,except that we invoke transcendence.
There would be no reason for Thomas to carefully explain how
eternity can make a future contingent present, if he believed God
knows only by causing things.Then Thomas could have said at once:
God know what will be because He intends to cause it.-- So,no
need to mention eternity at all. Cf.W.Most, New Answers to Old
Questions    463-79.

    Still more remarkably,He knows the futuribles, as we can see
from Scripture,e.g,1 Sam 23.10-13; Jer 38.17-23; Mt 11.21-23; Lk
10.13. - A futurible is what would be if some conditions would be
present. Eternity cannot make a futurible present,but it never
will be,it only would be. Further,it is general teaching that if
one prays for something that would be harmful if it would be
granted,God will not grant it- implying He knows futuribles.But
in knowing these, recourse to eternity to make them present does
not help-- for they never will be,only would be.Some authors,who
think He knows only by way of causality,say He does not know the
futuribles- - would require an infinite set of decrees within
Him.Cf.P.de Lesdema, De Divinae Gratiae Auxiliis,a.18.

    Again,Plato,Republic 6.509B (cf.Plotinus, 6.8.9) speaks of
Good,which he seems to identify with God,as beyond being.He means
that the word good,as applied to creatures,and as applied to
God,has something in common,but far more difference- hence,the
only slightly exaggerated statement: He is beyond being. 
    In a parallel way,we can say the Holy Spirit moves the human
writer and leaves him free as to style.

     Relation of Scripture and Tradition 

    (a)The debates at Vatican II on Dei verbum were long and
bitter. (Cf.H.Vorgrimler,ed., Commentary on the Documents of
Vatican II, Herder & Herder 1969,vol III -- various authors.).The
first draft by the Theological Commission, November 1962, was
rejected.The majority wanted it rewritten. The vote was less than
2/3 but John XXIII overrode,called for rewriting. Rewritten
version was ready for second session,1963. Brought up for more
discussion and votes at 3rd session,1964. More changes. Some last
minute changes suggested by Paul VI. Finally approved by almost
unanimous vote on Nov.18,1964.

    (b)Three questions were especially hot: )Tradition: What is
it in itself? Relation of Scripture & Tradition:one or two
sources? 2)Inerrancy  3) Historicity of the Gospels.

    The preface to DV said that the Council "adhering to the
steps of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I,intends to propose
the true doctrine about divine revelation and about its
transmission." But Joseph Ratzinger (In Vorgrimler,p,167)
said:"The brief form of the Preface and the barely concealed
illogicalities that it contains betray the confusion from which
it has emerged."

    (c)Revelation of a Person and of Doctrines:There was a
tendency to say (Ratzinger,p.171):"Instead of the legalistic view
that sees revelation largely as the issuing of divine decrees,we
have a sacramental view." That is,God has revealed Himself in
Christ - true - but tends to leave out the fact that He also has
revealed specific truths, many by the mouth of Christ.

    (d)End of public revelation.It is true however that the
Christian economy is definitive. DV 4:"The Christian economy,as
the new and definitive covenant,will never pass away,and no new
revelation is now to be expected before the glorious
manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." St.Paul expressed this
forcefully in Gal.1.8- 9: "Even if we, or an angel from the sky,
were to preach to you other than we have preached,let him be
cursed." Montanus,a mid-second century heretic, tried this, with
his third stage of revelation.So did Joseph Smith,founder of
Mormonism. 
    (e)Judaism.The fact that the Christian economy is definitive
implies also that Judaism is no longer sufficient.It was a
preparation for Christ,is fulfilled in Christ. The Jews who
rejected Christ have falllen out of the original olive tree,the
People of God,and so are no longer members of the People of
God.God still calls them to become members,but they are not
accepting:Rom 11:1 and 11:29.To say they could be saved without
accepting Christ means they did not need Him, as a Redeemer! It
is also true that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism,of
its prophecies of the Messiah and aspirations. Christians are,as
St.Paul puts it,engrafted into the tame olive true,which stands
for the original People of God: Romans 11.17-21.

    (f)Private revelations We notice DV speaks of no new
revelation - it means no new public revelations.Public revelation
is that which is contained in Scripture and Tradition,and this is
complete.The promise of Christ to send the Holy Spirit to lead
into all truth (John 16:13 did not mean new public
revelations,but a deeper penetration into the original deposit of
faith.Hence we have had new definitions and new clarity even in
our day.Cf.the case of the Immaculate Conception.The commission
of the Church to teach,which we saw in our sketch of
Apologetics,refers only to public revelation.Any other revelation
is called private,even if addressed to the world,as Fatima
was.The Church does not have the commission to interpret private
revelation.At most it can do the following - often does nothing:
1)can declare the private revelation does not clash with public
revelation.If it did ,that part would have to be rejected. 2)May
add that it seems to deserve human acceptance, in contrast to the
virtue of faith. As to our response to the Church on private
revelations: 1)We are not obliged to believe a decision on
authenticity,since Church claims no commission on these.We should
be respectful at least  2)If the local Bishop prohibits
pilgrimages to the site of an alleged revelation,he has that
authority,even if his decision on authenticity might be in
error.So we must obey. If there seem to be further apparitions 
after disobedience on this point,we can be sure they are
spurious.God and His Saints will not appear in order to promote
disobedience.

    g)Ongoing revelation?:Gabriel Moran and Sister Maria
Harris,in "Revelation and Religious" ,in National Catholic
Reporter,Nov.22,1967,p.6:"...revelation as used here denotes a
present happening. .... It is impossible to come to a
present,personal,social revelation by building upon a thing that
is handed down from the past. .... God reveals himself in the
fleshly existence of each man. He reveals himself too ,in the
universal drives of a mankind that seeks to improve the
cosmos.The one way that God does not speak is in generalities to
the general mass."-- Of course,this contradicts DV 4,which we
just saw.But the theory of Moran had great influence on
catechetics.

    h)Interpreting revelation.DV 10:"the task of authentically
interpreting the word of God,whether written or handed on,has
been entrusted exclusively (soli) to the living Magisterium of
the Church,whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus
Christ."--This is really the conclusion we reached in our sketch
of apologetics.Only the magisterium of the Church has been
commissioned to teach by Jesus,the Messenger sent from God. No
one else has that right.

    In studying Scripture there should be two phases:1)Work by
the best exegetical methods - this is a human means, 2)Then
compare with the statements of the Magisterium,which alone are
final. If there are no statements on a given text - and there are
such on very few texts-- then we note DV 12:"Since Sacred
Scripture is to be read and interpreted by the same Spirit by
which it was written,to rightly extract the sense of the sacred
texts,one must look not less diligently to the content and unity
of all of Scripture,taking into account the living Tradition of
the whole Church and the analogy of faith." We gather two things:

     (a)Since all Scripture has for its principal Author the Holy
Spirit,therefore,there can be no contradiction.We may find
differences in scope and presentation in different parts,e.g,in
different Gospels.But there will never be a clash.   
    (b)We must see how our proposed interpetation fits with the
living Tradition of the Church,i.e.,its ongoing teaching,and with
the "analogy of faith." This means that even where there is no
explicit statement of the Church on a given text,yet any
interpretation that clashes,even by implication,with any of the
established truths taught by the Church,must be rejected. In this
way we have a means of ruling out in advance many false
interpretations.This is largely a negative sort of help - ruling
out the false.It may not give us much on the positive side,i.e.,
what positively is true. Part of this analogy of faith is also
found in what LG 12 speaks of:"The entire body of the
faithful,anointed as they are by the Holy One,cannot err in
matters of faith." This is sometimes called passive
infallibility.It means that if the whole Church,people and
authorities both,have ever,even for one period of
history,believed (accepted as revealed) some truth,that cannot be
in error.It is infallible. 
    Four levels of teaching:In regard to the texts  of the
Magisterium too,we need to notice that there are four levels of
teaching,all binding; 
    First level: the solemn definition. LG 25 repeats the fact 
that the Pope can act alone,without collegiality,even in defining
if he so wills.As a matter of fact,practically all major
decisions in past history have been collegial. LG 25 adds that
his definitions need no assent of the Church or approval of
anyone else,nor do they admit room for appeal to any authority at
all. 
     Second Level:LG 25:"Although individual bishops do not have
the prerogative of infallibility,they can yet teach Christ's
doctrine infallibly. This is true even when they are scattered
around the world,provided that,while maintaining the bond of
unity among themselves and with the successor of Peter,they
concur in a teaching as the one which must
be definitively held." 

     Third Level.Pius XII,in Humani generis,1950, DS 3885:"Nor
must it be thought that the things contained in Encyclical
letters do not of themselves require assent of the mind on the
plea that in them the pontiffs do not exercise the supreme power
of their magisterium. These things are taught with the ordinary
magisterium,about which it is also true to say,'He who hears
you,hears me'" (Lk 10.16).And Pius XII added:"If the supreme
pontiffs in their Acta expressly pass judgment on a matter
debated until then,it is obvious to all that the matter,according
to the mind and will of the same pontiffs cannot any longer be
considered a matter open for discussion among theologians."

    So these statements,under the conditions given,come under the
promise:"He who hears you,hears me." Now he who hears Christ is
never in error- so these teachings are really also
infallible.Hence it follows that the matter in question is no
longer open for debate among theologians or others.

    LG  25 seeming to speak of the same thing specifies only
"religious submission",instead of something that depends on faith
in the words of Christ. Even so,it remains true that if a Pope
intends to make anything definitive,it is infallible. No special
form of words is needed.For example,in the familiar form of "si
quis dixerit...AS" from  Councils sometimes we find only
disciplinary matters, not definitions. Yet in Vatican I (DS 3006)
we read that the books of Scripture have God as their author. But
this,though in a capitulum,not in a canon,was called a "solemn
definition" by Pius  XII,in Divino afflante Spiritu (EB 538). So
all that is required to make something infallible, and coming
under the virtue of faith,is the intent to make the item
definitive, plus writing in such a way as to make that intent
clear.  The conditions given by Pius XII in Humani generis, cited
above,do make that clear, namely, removing a thing from
debate,and bringing it under Lk 10:16.So such things are
infallible. LG  25 states that the Pope,without consulting
anyone,can define. This is true since he can speak for the whole
Church. (Similarly LG  22 speaks of the Pope's supreme authority
in giving commands,without consulting anyone else).

       Fourth level:Canon 752:"Not indeed an assent of faith,but
yet a religious submission of mind and will must be given to the
teaching which either the supreme pontiff or the college of
bishops pronounces on faith and morals when they exercise the
authentic magisterium,even if they do not intend to proclaim it
by a definitive act." 
    We notice there are some things not taught by a definitive
act- not intended to be completely final.The intention is the
critical factor.So these are not infallible,and do not fall under
the virtue of faith,hence the assent called for is a religious
submission." 
    Vatican II,in LG 25 spoke broadly enough to cover both levels
3 and 4:"Religious submission of mind and of will must be shown
in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman
pontiff even when he is not defining,in such a way,namely,that
the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to  according to
his manifested mind and will,which is clear either from the
nature of the documents,or from the repeated presentation of the
same doctrine or from the manner of speaking."--So again,the
intention of the Pope is critical.He may intend to make something
definitive,when he explicitly teaches a position on a previously
debated matter,or when his teachings form part of a thing taught
repeatedly on the ordinary magisterium level (below level 1).Such
things are infallible.But he may also not make clear that he
wants a thing to be definitive,or may speak in such a way that we
at least cannot be sure it is meant that way.Then we have a
teaching that comes on level 4.  Yet we notice again that LG  25
is not fully clear,since it speaks only of religious assent,not
of assent of faith,as explained above.

    How can we make an assent to a teaching which is not intended
to be infallible? In everyday life we do this - we eat food from
a can,without a lab check for botulism. A criminal court may
sentence a man to life in  prison or death even though the judge
has told the jury they should find his guilt proved only "beyond
reasonable doubt." Not every tiny doubt need be excluded.This is
what is called moral certitude - enough for practical living.

    An example of Scriptural work that ignores the fact that the
Holy Spirit  is author of all of Scripture,and so feels free to
claim that one Gospel can contradict another is found in  many
authors today,e.g, Wilfrid Harrington ( Mark,
Glazier,Wilmington,l979,pp. 47-48).He thinks that Mk 3.31-35
speaks of the same group as those in 3.20-21,and concludes His
Mother did not believe in Him and so the passage "may be seen to
distinguish those who stood outside the sphere of salvation,and
those who are within it." She then would be outside the sphere of
salvation.This would clash with Luke,who praises her faith from
the beginning.It is outrageous!

    i)Tradition: In itself it is merely the ongoing teaching of
the Church. It is found in Patristic writings,but also in today's
teachings.We distinguish Tradition from tradition with a small
t-- merely customary things. 

    It grows as the Holy Spirit leads the Church into ever deeper
penetration into the deposit of faith.     

     There was a striving for unclarity at Vatican II- some
wanted to say,to please Protestants,that there is only one
source.The final statement is in DV 9:"Both,coming from the one
divine source coalesce as it were into one and tend to the same
end." This is unfortunate lack of clarity.It really means:There
is only one source,God.But what He reveals is found in two
places,Scripture and Tradition.For Tradition contains things not
found in Scripture. at least not clearly,e.g.,the Immaculate
Conception. 
    It is only Tradition that lets us know which books are
inspired. Luther,trying to make Scripture stand aside against the
Church, tried to find a criterion for inspiration.He said if a
book preaches justification by faith strongly,it is inspired.
Foolish! He could have written such a book,and I too,but the
books would not have been inspired. And he had not proved such
was the criterion. Calvin thought a book is inspired if it gives
edifying thoughts. Terribly subjective.Many Protestants today
give up the attempt,cf.Professor Gerald Burney Smith,who in 1910
gave a paper to the 28th annual Baptist Congress-- published next
year in Biblical World 38,pp.19-29. He reviewed all ways of
trying to find out,concluded it could be done only if we had a
teaching authority to tell us.He did not think we did.Details 
chapter 2 of FFAE.

    j) Historicity of the Gospels. There was intense discussion
at Vatican II on this. Behind it was the idea that there are
errors in Scripture,as we saw above. 
    DV 18: "The Church always and everywhere has held and still
holds that the four Gospels have an Apostolic origin." This is
not the same as saying they are  all by Apostles-- Mark and Luke
surely are not. And even with Matthew and John - the statement is
not precise enough to make definite that those Apostles were the
authors. Really, a question of authorship is not a matter of
revelation.But there is apostolic origin for certain in this: DV
18:"The things which the Apostles,by command of Christ,preached
later,they themselves,and apostolic men,handed down to us,the
foundation of the faith,namely the four-fold Gospel,according to
Matthew,Mark,Luke and John". So the Apostles were the
origin,whether or not they were the authors of the writing.

    Really,as Form and Redaction Criticism has shown, there are
three stages in  the genesis of the Gospels: (1)the words and
acts of Jesus,with His words adapted to His current audience. 
(2)The way the Apostles and others reported these-- again,with
adaptation in wording to their audience (3)Some individuals
within the Church,inspired by the Holy Spirit,put down in writing
some part of that original teaching.

    DV 19 adds:"Holy Mother Church firmly and most constantly has
held and does hold that the four Gospels just mentioned,whose 
historicity she affirms without hesitation,faithfully hand down
what Jesus,the son of God,living among men,really did and taught
(reapse fecit et docuit) for their eternal salvation...." 
    We note the word 'historicity." The writers of DV shied away
from the word history, since, thanks to confusion in
Germany,there is a distinction: Geschichte is not the event in
itself,but what the proclamation conjures up in the
mind,irrespective of its actual content.  Historie  is the
grasping of the event through reason according to the laws of
historical criticism." R.Bultmann had said we can know hardly
anything about Jesus in Himself,beyond His existence .We believe
the proclamation - and there is a problem of what is the gap
between the reality and the proclamation. 
    Paul VI had suggested,not commanded, using "vera seu
historica fide digna"= true,worthy of historical belief, instead
of what we actually find,"quae reapse fecit et docuit." The
problem of the two German words led to not following his
suggestion. Bede Rigaux,in his commentary on this passage in
Vorgrimler,p.259,wrote: "Throughout all these discussions and
misgivings we can see the clear will of the Church to accord to
these synoptic Gospels their value as testimony to the reality of
the events that they narrate and to the certainty with which they
present us with the Person,the words and acts of Jesus."

    DV 19 adds that "The Apostles indeed,after the ascension of
the Lord,handed on to their hearers what He had said and done,
with the fuller understanding which they enjoyed after being
instructed by the glorious events of Christ and taught by the
light of the Spirit of Truth." - This was not a process of first
idealizing,then divinizing. No, rather, they understood more
fully that He was really was divine,and this would spur their
memories,and make them all the more careful to report things
correctly,knowing that their eternity depended on the truth about
Jesus.They did not hide their own dullness and lack of
understanding that was shown earlier.(Cf.Acts 1:6 shows that even
just before His ascension they still did not have the true notion
of the Messiah. But they did,then,later,grasp the full meaning of
things they had not really seen before,and they understood His
prophecies --especially of His death and resurrection-- and
probably the OT Prophecies about Him as well.Definitely we can
see that the primitive Church saw Him in Isaiah 53-- the Targums
also saw the Messiah there,but distorted,as we saw above.Another
example: John 2.19-21 ("Destroy this temple,and in three days I
will rebuild it.").Pther examles: Jn 3:22; 6:6; 12:16; 20:9.

    DV 19 adds:"Moreover,the sacred authors of the four
Gospels,selecting certain things out of many things, handed down
orally or in writing,putting certain things into a synthesis,or
explaining them for the state of the Church,finally,kept the form
of preaching in such a way that they always communicated to us
the honest truth (vera et sincera) about Jesus." This implies we
watch for the genre of the Gospels - but it is such a genre that
there are two things in it- facts are reported,with proclamation
or presentation designed for faith.But that second point did not
lead to any distortion or inaccurate reporting.They told rather
"what He really did and said." 
    So it is likely that Matthew grouped sayings into the Sermon
on the Mount.And Luke grouped parables.

    Also from DV 19:"The fact that the Evangelists report the
words or deeds of the Lord in different order does not affect at
all the truth of the narrative, for they keep the sense,while
reporting His statements,not to the letter but in different
ways." 
    This means for one thing,that the order was not always
chronological.It also means that in presenting things--as we
noted in describing the three stages of the genesis of the
Gospels-- they might change the words,to adapt to their
audience,and to the special scope of each Gospel.But they would
give the truth faithfully even so. 
    k) What is faith,our response? We distinguish the full
Pauline sense of the word faith from the narrower sense of
intellectual acceptance. 
    As to intellectual acceptance,we explained what is required
in speaking of the four levels of teaching.

    As to the fuller Pauline sense of faith- DV 5 explains: "The
'obedience of faith ' (Rom 16,26, cf.Rom 1.5; 2 Cor 10,5-6) by
which a man commits himself wholly and freely to God,' giving to
God who reveals full obedience of mind and will' and voluntarily
assenting to the revelation given by Him."(DS 3008). 
    This full sense of faith, or total commitment to God,includes
the following things:1)If God speaks a truth,we must believe it
in our minds; 2) if He makes a promise,we must be confident He
will fulfil it; 3)if He tells us to do something,we do it,the
'obedience of faith" i.e,the obedience that faith is.4)All is to
be done in love,for faith works through love (Gal 5.6).(Actually,
to love God is to obey Him). 
    With this sense of the word faith,we can hold as St.Paul
does,for justification by faith.However,Luther took faith to mean
merely confidence that the merits of Christ have been applied to
me- giving infallible salvation, for no matter how many sins I
have  committed,or am committing or will commit- His merits
always outweigh them. Hence Luther could write to Melanchthon
(Letter 501,Aug.1,1521):"Pecca fortiter,sed crede fortius." Even
if you sin greatly,believe more greatly - that it is all paid
for. So you cannot help being saved, no matter what sins you will
commit. (And they have the nerve to say indulgences are a
permission to sin!) .Luther also said  (Weimar Edition vol 3,cap
26.p.412): "No sin will separate us from the Lamb even though we
commit fornication and murder a thusand times a day."        

       

 
 
                        II. The Nature of God 
  
 
l.Our knowledge of God is entirely analogical: that is,the words 
we use to apply to Him and to creatures are partly same in
sense,partly  different. 
 
     Example:In Mt 19.17 ff a young man asked Jesus:"Good Master,
what must I do to attain eternal life?" Jesus answered him
dramatically;  "Why do you call me good? One is good." God. He
meant that the word  good,when applied to God,and when applied to
all else,has meaning part same,part different - but the 
differences are much greater than the  similarity. Cf.W.Most, Our
Father's Plan, Introduction & Cap 1. Cf.also Plato saying that
Good is "beyond being", Republic 6.509B and Plotinus, Enneads
6.9.     
 
       Failure to understand this has led to the foolish, "Death
of God" positions of Thomas Altizer and others: "'God is dead'
are  words that only truly may be spoken by...the radical
Christian who  speaks in response to an Incarnate Word that
empties Itself of Spirit so as to appear and exist as flesh."
(Radical Theology and the Death of God, Indianapolis,
1966,p.54). 
 
 2.God is a Spirit: Cf.John 4.24 (to Samaritan woman). Here we 
are using a term that designates an object of which we have no
experience. We mean the opposite of material. Yet in early
centuries, some thought spirit and matter were not opposite,e.g.,
cf.A.Grillmeier, Christ in  Christian Tradition, I.p.119:"By the
substance of God, Tertullian  understands a light,fine,invisible
matter which while being a unity is differentiated within
itself." He got the idea from the Stoics. Cf.Tertullian,  
On the Soul 5.2:"It is the Stoics I am speaking of,who will
easily  prove that the soul is a body,even though they almost
agree with us in saying that the soul is a spirit; for spirit and
breath are very  nearly the same thing." Tertullian got to this
point because he thought body and substance were the same, and
wanted to say the soul is substantial.  Tertullian was early,and
terminology and classifications had not yet developed. 
 
     We can show from Aristotle's principles that God is not
material,since He is Pure Act, and matter is potency.
 
      In OT, ruah  means basically breath, then can extend to  
wind,or movement of air.It is also thought of as a power or force 
that comes from God to do what He wills. It does not seem,in OT
to  have taken on the meaning of disembodied soul. 

      2 Cor 3.17-18 speaks of  God as the Spirit. 

      When St.Paul uses the word spirit,we need to watch to see
sense from context -- he may use OT sense at times.  
 
 3.Attributes of God. As we said,all are identified with His  
nature.Some of the chief attributes are: Simplicity,
immutability,  eternity, immensity, infinity, unicity.These are
negative -- we will  speak of positives when we take up the
divine operations. 
 
4.Simplicity of God: Vatican I: "He is one,singular,altogether  
simple,and unchangeable spiritual substance". DS 3001. 
 
     As we already said,He is a Spirit.But a spirit has no
parts.We also saw above that He is Pure Act,no potency.Hence He
is not composed of really distinct essence and existence.In
creatures these are really distinct.In Him,they are not really
distinct,for His very nature is to exist.Other beings need not
exist.If they were necessary,we would say their essence or nature
is to exist.The probable meaning of Yahweh: He  who is. Some
thing it means "causes to exist." But that would have  
to be a hiphil form of the Hebrew verb to be - not known on that
verb.  It is probably an (imperfective) verbal form of Hebrew
haya,(perhaps  originally hwy) to be.   The name  occurs on the
Moabite  Stone and may be a part of some names in
Egyptian,Ugaritic,Nabatean and Amorite,and also Eblaite. In
postexilic times Jews gradually developed such reverence for this
name that they did not pronounce it in public  reading,but used
instead said Adonai, Lord. Only the priests were allowed to say 
it on Yom Kippur and in blessing the people (Numbers 6.23ff). At
Qumran,they  wrote the word in ancient Hebrew script,out of
reverence. Modern devout Jews often substitute ha shem,the
name.Only the consonants were written,of course.The Masoretes
used the vowel points for Adonai to remind the reader to say
Adonai,not Yahweh. Jehovah is merely  a mistake,reading what was
never intended to be there. 
 
     Yet even with this absolute simplicity,God takes care of
almost infinite details. Cf.Mt 10;30:"The very hairs of your head
are all numbered." And in Mt 10.29 we find that not even a
sparrow falls to the ground without His permission.  
 
     An old Portuguese proverb says that God can write straight
with  crooked lines. 
  
5.Immutability of God: The text cited above from Vatican I on 
simplicity also speaks of immutability. He is immutable in
Himself,and  also in His decrees.When the OT speaks of Him as
repenting,it is only  an anthropomorphism,meaning human
conditions have changed,and so His rules apply differently to the
different picture.From this immutability flows the conclusion
that He is eternal,in the sense of having a duration that has
only present,no past,no future - that would involve change. 
 
     Of course,His eternal decrees are always there, but He can
order them to have their effects at any point on the scale of
time He designates. 
  
6.Eternal. Vatican I,DS 3001 teaches this. It  is a consequence 
of immutability .Time is a restless unending succession of
future-  present-past.But if God is immutable,there is no past,no
future for Him. Our poor minds cannot begin to picture this. We
say He created  the world,a past statement.But to Him it is
present.We say Christ  will return,a future statement.But to His
eye it is present. St.Thomas Aquinas,as we saw above, uses this
fact to start to explain how He can know future contingents.But
Thomas then stops,and does not say HOW He knows,once they are
present to Him. 
 
     The eternity we speak of here is not what Aristotle had in
mind -  he meant unending time, unending change. Our eternity
really is the  simultaneous possession of all of perfect life.
Eternity allows for no change at all. Time allows all sorts of
changes, and includes constant accidental change.Aristotle says
time is a measure of change on a scale of before and after. In 
between there is aevum - for which we have no English word.It  
is a kind of duration that allows no substantial change,or
constant  accidental change,but only accidental change at some
points.We say  when someone dies he goes to eternity - a loose
use of the word. Strictly, it  applies only to God. Aevum is the
duration for departed souls, and for  angels,and for devils.  
 
7.Immensity and ubiquity. Defined by Vatican I in DS 3001,cited 
above. 
 
     Hebrews 4.13:"And before Him no creature is hidden,but all
are  open and laid bare to His eyes." 
 
     Acts 17.27:"He is not far from each one of us,for in Him we
live  and move and have our being." 
 
     2 Chron.6.18:"Behold,heaven and the highest heaven cannot
contain  thee; how much less this house which I have built." 
 
     Isa.40.15:"Behold,the nations are like a drop from a
bucket,and  are accounted as dust on the scales." 
 
     A spirit does not need or use space.A spirit is present
wherever it produces an effect.So God is present everywhere in
that He keeps  all things in existence.He is present more or
again in a soul in grace,in  which He lives,transforming
it,making it radically capable of taking part in the life of the
Holy Trinity. He can be said to come again when in Confirmation
and Holy Orders, He produces additional effects. 
  
8.Infinite in perfection: All perfections seen in creatures come 
from HIm,.So they are in Him too,after removing all
imperfections, and raising them to the highest degree. Through
them we know Him, "though a glass in a dark manner" 1 Cor 13.12.  
9.Unicity. There is only one God.He is infinite,and so would 
coincide with any other infinite. 
    
10.Love: 1 John 4.8 says "God is love." Love is a will for the 
wellbeing and happiness of another for the other's sake. If not
for the  other's sake, one would be using the other,not loving.
The Three Persons love one another,and give selves to one another
so fully that the Three are One. 
 
     As to creatures: God wills all men to be saved - this is
willing supreme happiness and wellbeing to creatures.Hence this
salvific will is another expression of His love. Hence Ba¤ez and
Cajetan who say that the salvific will is only a voluntas signi
or eminent will in God, are terribly wrong. One can as it were
measure love by what obstacles it can surmount to bring happiness
to the other.The obstacle He surmounted was the terrible death of
His Son. Hence in Rom 5.8,"God proves His love for  us."  
 
     The Glory of God.Vatican I defined (DS 3025) that God
created for His own glory. However the sense intended was
explained by Bishop Gasser, President of the Deputatio de Fide
(Collectio Lacensis, VII,116): "Nam utique de fine creati et non
creantis, sermo est, quia  dicitur in canone,'aut mundum ad Dei
gloriam conditum....'" this means  that God did not create to
acquire glory (finis creantis) but that  creatures might reach
God by glorifying Him (finis creati)." That is, He created to
give, not to receive - He cannot receive anything.  
 
     This love for us is brilliantly explained in the Haurietis 
aquas Encyclical on the Sacred Heart, of Pius XII.  The Heart of
Jesus is as it were the organ of divine love for us. He has a
threefold love: (1)The love in as much as He is God; (2) The love
in His human spiritual will; (3) A love in the sphere of
feeling,since He as a real humanity.. 

      Still further, so no one could suspect that His Heart,being
divine, has ways that are above our ways as the heavens are above
the earth  (Isa 55.8-9),and so we could not feel secure about His
love - improper suspicion - He has added the love of the
Immaculate Heart of Mary for us -- a Heart fully in unison with
the Heart of God,yet a heart that is entirely human. 
 
     Pius XII,ibid, taught that devotion to the Sacred Heart is
not a peripheral thing,but part of the mainline of our religion -
for it is honor paid to the love of God for us, as found in the
Heart of His  Son. 
 
     His love is also expressed in the New Covenant,in which He
paid the price of redemption (cf.1 Cor 6.20) and therefore the
Father pledged a similarly infinite gift,an inexhaustible
treasury (claim to ) of grace  and forgiveness.This is not just
for the human race in a block, but for each individual human: Gal
2.20. Vatican II, Church in Modern World #22, explained:"Each one
of us can say with the Apostle: the Son of God loved me,and gave
Himself for me." Hence there is in favor of each one,an infinite
objective claim to grace and forgiveness. --  How then could
anyone fail? Could someone live it up and pull up short at the
end? Reply: Then he would become hardened,and incapable of 
perceiving the light of grace. Cf.Mt 6.21: "Where your treasure
is,there is your heart also" , as explained in Our Father's Plan,
cap.19. On the covenants which really are infinity  beyond
infinity, cf.OFP, chapters 3-11. (More in our treatment of
Providence  and Predestination). 
  
 
11.He is identified with His perfections: It is theologically 
accurate to say God is love,for He is identified with His
perfections.  Similarly,we must say He does not have intellect or
will,but He is intellect and will.And He is justice,He is mercy -
therefore justice and mercy are identified in Him. We can only
begin to understand how that can be. We think of a man who gets
drunk for the first time.  Next day,since it was the first
time,he will have guilt feelings, from the clash of  his faith
and his actions. But our nature tries to get rid of clashes, and 
it will happen: either he will align his acts with his faith,or
his  beliefs will be pulled into line with his actions. As a
result,after  some time,he will no longer see anything wrong with
getting drunk.And  since moral truths,and others too are
interconnected,his whole belief  structure can be altered over a
period of time.We could compare this to a spiral that feeds on
itself,getting larger as it goes out. There is a spiral in the
good direction too. If someone lives strongly on  his faith that
this world is of scant worth compared to the next,his  ability to
see spiritual truth grows,again,in a spiral. 
 
     Now in both spirals we see simultaneously mercy and justice. 
In the bad spiral, he deserves to be blinded, yet that blinding
is also mercy,for the more we know the greater our responsibility
(responsibility at the time of sinning is less --if he foresaw
earlier he would become thus,and went ahead,he contracted added
guilt then - probably did not foresee it). On the  good spiral we
see mercy,for the light given,like all gifts of God  are in the
most basic sense mercy: no one can by his own power establish  a
claim on God. Yet it is also justice,for his  actions have (in a
secondary sense) earned greater light. 
 
12.Truths beyond reason.We can learn many things about God by 
reason- as we saw in our first section,and also now.But to go
farther,revelation is needed,especially on truths like the Holy
Trinity,which reason alone could never discover,and cannot in
this life understand. -- We  will study the Holy Trinity more
later in this course -- (Some help now:God is love. Love is
desire for wellbeing of other,and leads to gift of  self -- in
Holy  Trinity,each Person gives self so fully that all  are
one,distinguished only by relationships of origin). 
  
13.All works outside the divine nature are common to the Three 
Persons. Defined by Lateran Council (not general,but held with
Pope Martin I, and has an anathema in  the canon):DS 501.Also
Pius XII,Mystici Corporis, DS 3814. 
 
       Yet here we encounter transcendence again.For if all are
common,how can only the Second Person be Incarnate? (Can we
say:relationship is given to the humanity only to the Second
Person?) And theological reasoning forces us to say that God does
not change in becoming Incarnate - yet that seems to mean that
the humanity  has a relation to the Second  Person,but the Second
Person has no relation to the humanity (else  would acquire
something not had before,have passivity). Yet we appropriate 
some works to one Person rather than to another - creation to the
Father, redemption to Second Person, sanctification to the Holy
Spirit. Redemption really is proper to the Second Person alone -
other things are common to all three. 
  
13.Providence: The universal preaching of the Church,which is 
infallible (LG 25) has always taught this providence.It is all
over  Scripture. 

      Providence governs nature,e.g,Wisdom 8.1:"[Wisdom] reaches
from end to end mightily and governs everything well." Jesus
spoke beautifully  of God's care for the lilies,the sparrows,sun
and  rain etc: Mt 6.25-34; 10,28-31. 
 
     Providence also governs human beings.Prov.21.1:"The heart of 
the king is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord.He turns it 
wherever He wills." Wisdom 6.8-9 says man is like the clay of the 
potter in His hand. 

      Here we distinguish internal and external economies.     
External  economy: Deals with the question of what position a
person will  have in the ordering of the world: will he be a
doctor,lawyer,shoemaker  etc.It also deals with the course of the
events of nations - hence  Prov.21.1 says the heart of the king
is turned wherever God wills.   
 
     Internal economy : this deals with all that directly or  
indirectly control the eternal salvation of a man.  

      As to internal economy: God does not ordinarily move
infrustrably in this economy (in such a way that He makes the
first decision and  the human seconds it freely  but infallibly.
This would be secondary, not primary freedom):a) If He did, there
could be no one lost, for God could not say He wills all to be
saved (1 Tim 2.4) and at the same time so move a man that he
would not attain salvation. He can,in extraordinary  cases, move
one infrustrably toward good - this is the case with
extraordinary  graces (cf.Fatima request to pray and make
sacrifices for sinners for many are lost if no one does that for
them).   b) He has given free  will.In infrustrable
movement,there is only secondary liberty,i.e.,to  second what God
was the first to determine.This would be a reduced liberty.As we
said,God can do this extraordinarily, for good, of course, not 
for evil. The conversion of St.Augustine was such a case.It
happens when someone puts into the scales of the objective order
and extraordinary weight,heroic actions, to call for and as it
were balance an extraordinary grace. 
 
     As to the external economy:  the reasons given under  (a)
with regard to final salvation, do not apply to merely external 
matters, who will be a doctor or shoemaker etc.Nor does God
contradict  Himself if He uses such movements here (cf.b) above)
for He has not  made a commitment here to grant primary liberty
(that in which the first decision comes from the human,not from
God),since eternal salvation is not at stake.Cf Wm. Most, New
Answers to Old Questions    116-44. 
 
     In the internal economy,since there is primary freedom and
salvation is at stake,there arises the question of human
interaction with the  power or grace of God. St.Paul has two sets
of statements: 2 Cor 3.5  and Phil 2.13 speak of our need of Him
to have a good thought and to make a good act of will,and to
carry it out.On the other hand, 2 Cor 6.1 -- and all of
Scripture,exhorting us to turn to God -- imply  we control in
some way the outcome even when grace comes. To explain  the HOW
of these truths has brought bitter and long debates. On them  cf.
New Answers to Old Questions    342 -60.  Aristotle's potency/act 
is helpful here. God can actualize the potency of a man's mind to
see something as good - or refrain from doing so, and by this
way, affect the outcome. E.g.,Jesus did not at first actualize
the potency of the disciples' minds to know Him as they walked to
Emmaus - after a bit,He did so.So there was no deception -- just
not providing actualization. 
 
     God brings good out of evil,e.g,Genesis 50.19-20 where
Joseph tells his brothers they planned evil,but God brought good
out of it. 
 
     Various Dualisms argue: There are good things in the
world,so a good God made them; but there are evils,so some other
power (not  necessarily a god) made them.- The error is in the
notion of evil -  they think it a positive, it is really a
privative negative. 
 
     Providence has promised to protect the teaching of the
Church -  and God has also given free will.Often enough these two
go in opposite  directions.So He draws a fine line,a sort of
brinkmanship. As a result, in reading documents of Magisterium,we
must read the text with great care,and study the history of the
document to see what senses they attached to the words - for
words often shift in meaning. But when  we know,historically,that
a certain idea was in the mind of the writers, but  did not get
down on paper,we must hold tightly to only what is put  down on
paper.Thus the drafters of the teaching on transubstantiation 
had in mind Thomistic philosophy, but did not canonize it.We take 
the word substance in the everyday sense,not the technical sense. 
Again Gregory XVI,Pius IX and Leo XIII may have had in mind more
stringent  demands against Protestants than they managed to set
down on paper. So we draw again the tight line,and there is no
contradiction with Vatican  II, On Religious Liberty. The
strongest text, from Pius IX, Quanta cura,  said the state has an
obligation to do more than just suppress things where public
order demands that. Vatican II said religious liberty -liberty
from being coerced by the state-- is only within due limits." But
Vatican II also added in   7 that the state must exercise "due
custody for public morality" and also in   4 said protestant
churches must abstain from any action that would involve
"improper persuasion aimed at the less intelligent or the poor." 
  
      God's knowledge: When we know,we do it either actively,by
causing something, or  passively,by taking on an impression and
information we had lacked.  God cannot lack anything,so the
passive mode seems wrong for Him. But neither should we say He
knows only what He causes - He would then be like a blind man.The
Thomists commonly do say He knows only by causing. But St.Thomas,
to explain His knowledge of future contingents, has  recourse to
eternity to make them present. Then Thomas stops short, and does
not try to explain HOW He knows them when they are present. If
Thomas really had in mind that God knows all by infrustrable
causality, then no need to appeal to eternity,for then even as
future they would be knowable. He would know them by intending to
cause them.
 
     So we appeal to transcendence,as we did above in  speaking
of inspiration: He is above and beyond all our categories.This is
especially clear in His knowledge of the futuribles -  which 
eternity cannot make present,since they will not be, but only 
would be. Yet Scripture shows Him as knowing these. 
 
     Attempts to explain the knowledge of God have resulted in
bizarre  errors: Aristotle (Metaphysics 12.9) thought He thought
only of thinking,and so did not know other things. Plotinus
thought Him unconscious: else a duality, He and His thought. 
  

14.Predestination: This is an arrangement of Divine Providence 
to see that someone (or some people) gets something.Gets what?
Either  of two things: full membership in the Church/People of
God - or, gets to Heaven. OT never speaks of predestination. NT
in a few places,chiefly Rom 8.29ff and Eph.1.4ff,speaks of
predestination,but only of predestination to full membership in
the Church - failure to notice this context led to the bitter
debates starting in 1597 by order of Clement VIII,ended by Paul V
in 1607. Cf.Our Father's Plan chapter 12. 
  
     The "Thomists" have held and do hold that God decides both
predestination to heaven and negative reprobation, without taking
into account how a person lives, merits and demerits.But this
leaves no room for the universal salvific will of 1 Tim 2.4:"God
wills all men to be saved". Later Thomists and Thomists today try
to say there is room, but the founder of the system,Domingo Ba¤ez
OP explicitly wrote that there is no room. He  said (Scholastica
Commentaria in primam partem...Romae,1584.In  1.19.6.c.col 363)
that that will to save all is not in God formally,but  only
eminently - that is,He Himself does not will all men to be saved
--  He causes people to wish that,and so we could attribute it to
Him.The eminent Dominican theologian, Cardinal Cajetan, agreed
with Ba¤ez (cf.New Answers to Old Questions, p.93   55). And when
we know that the whole theory is really a refurbished version of
St.Augustine's massa damnata, we can really see the truth. For
St.Augustine in at least 5 places insists that God does NOT want
all  to be saved (cf.New Answers to Old Questions,   206) -- only
a small percent,whom He picks blindly -  and so does not really
care about any individual.  He rescues some few, just to make a
point,to show mercy. The rest,He deserts to show justice.(New
Answers to Old Questions,    209-10). 
        
     We offer two pieces of evidence for the above: 
 
     First evidence:we notice how the theory really works.Many  
Thomists claim that negative reprobation means God decides to
permit sins He will not forgive -- and then positively condemns
people for those sins.(Some Thomists think reprobation is a
positive exclusion from glory as from something not due: John of
St.Thomas, Alvarez, Salmanticenses and others: Garrigou-
Lagrange,De Deo uno,p.532). But the usual Thomist theory holds
there are two kinds of actual graces -- sufficient,and 
efficacious.If God sends a sufficient grace,it gives the full 
power  to do a good thing - but it is absolutely certain the man
will not  do good, but will sin.The reason is that he still lacks
the application of that sufficient grace,without which it is
metaphysically impossible to do good with the grace. (A
comparison: fire has the power to cook food, but will never do it
unless a cook applies the fire to the food or vice versa.
Cf.St.Thomas, Contra Gentiles 3.67). They sometimes add: If a
person does not resist a sufficient grace, or prays, then he will 
get the efficacious grace.-- But this does not solve the problem
- for they say he needs an efficacious grace of nonresistance or
an efficacious grace of prayer, so they are back at square one.
This is not willing all men to be saved -- and further,did not
Jesus earn all graces by His death,so that St.Paul could say in
joy (Rom.5.9):"But  God proves His love for us in that while we
were yet sinners,Christ  died for us.Since therefore we are now
justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved  by him  from
the wrath of God." And similarly  (Romans 8.32): "He who did not
spare his own Son, but gave Him up for  us all, will he not also
give us all things with him?"-- In other words:God went so far as
to send His Son to a horrible death to save us when we were still
enemies -- now that we have been justified, will He withhold 
anything that His Son has earned for us? Of course not.So He will 
not, for no fault in a man, withhold the grace that without which
it is not possible for a man to do good instead of sinning.
Also,St.Paul says in Gal 2.20: "The Son of God loved me,and gave
Himself for me."  That is, He died for each individual person.
Vatican II, Church in Modern World   22 says,"Each one of us can
say with the Apostle, the Son of God loved me,and gave Himself
for me.So there is an infinite objective title to grace in favor
of each individual man. How then could He simply decide not to
give what Jesus earned? Would He withhold it so as to permit sin
for the purpose of showing justice by punishing? What kind of
justice, when the person is metaphysically incapable of not
sinning when he gets only a sufficient grace?  And, according to
them, efficacious grace is not extraordinary, it belongs to the
ordinary sphere. 
 
     Second evidence: Garrigou-Lagrange,a great defender of  the
Thomist position, gave away the truth when he wrote (De Deo 
uno,p.525): "This principle of predilection is revealed in these 
words of St.Paul,1 Cor 4.7:"'Who has distinguished you?'" Hence
(p.363):"According  to these words of St.Paul,the distinguishing
of one from the other ultimately must be sought not in the human
will,but in God,who by His grace distinguishes one from the
other." So then God will determine  the eternal fate of a person
without taking into account any condition  within the person.How
then could He still say He wills all men to be saved? - It is
true, we will have no good unless God gives it to us. But
Garrigou forgot that God does not give us our resistance to grace
- we do that on our own. So there is something in man on which a
difference can be made. Further,in 1 Cor 4.7 Paul was really
blocking -  if one does not ignore the context -- the pride of
the Corinthians who were proud they got into the Church and got
into a special faction within the Church. To blunt their pride,
Paul says (1 Cor 12.26-31): Look at your community: There  are
not many distinguished people in it, as the world counts things.
He  was not speaking of predestination or reprobation to heaven
or hell. 
  
   Molinists said God decrees predestination and reprobation only 
after considering merits and demerits.But He could not decree
predestination  after merits,since merits are the result of His
own gift - it would be  a vicious circle. 
  
     New Answers to Old Questions solution: There are 3 logical
moments in God's decisions on this: (1)He wills all to be saved -
really and  strongly, (2)He sees some resisting His graces
gravely and so persistently that they could not be saved - with
regret, He reprobates them, (3) All others He predestines -
without merits yet being seen, and not even  because of the lack
of grave and persistent demerits, but because, in stage 1,that is
what He wanted from the start,and they are not stopping Him.This
is also parallel to the relation of children to parents in a
normally good family.It may be seen implied in Rom 6.23:"The 
wages (what we earn) of sin is death,but the free gift of God
(unearned)  is eternal life." Hence Paul often speaks of heaven
as an inheritance, e.g.,1 Cor 6.9 & 10. We do not earn an
inheritance,but we could earn to forfeit it. 
 
     We will consider later predestination to full membership in
the People of God,and the election of Israel and the problem of
"No salvation outside the Church". 
     
     Luther held a blind predestination (The Bondage  of the 
Will,tr.J.L.Packer,& O.R Johnston ,Flemming H.Revell Co.,Old
Tappan.N.J.,1957,pp.103-04: "So man's will is like a beast
standing between two riders.If God rides,it wills and goes where
God wills....If Satan rides,it wills and goes where Satan
wills.Nor may it choose to which rider it wil run...the riders
themselves fight to decide who shall have and hold it."

     St.Thomas Aquinas was not the real author of the system of
Ba¤ez.Thomas saw two starting points. In Contra Gentiles
3.159:"...a man by the movement of free will can neither merit
nor obtain divine grace,yet he can block himself from receiving
it..... But they alone are deprived of grace who set up in
themselves an impediment to grace,just as,when the sun shines on
the world, he deserves blame who shuts his eyes if any evil comes
thererby even though he could not see without having the light of
the sun."


     Had Thomas followed up this train of thought he might have
reached the solution we offered above.

     Thomas had  a second starting point,namely the errors of 
Augustine commenting on Romans 8:29ff. But in CG 3.163 Thomas
folllowed Augustine: "some by the divine working are directed to
their ultimate end...but others ,deserted by the help of grace
fail to rreach the ultimate end and because all things that God
does are provided and ordained from eternity.According therefore
as He directed certain ones from eternity to be sent  to their
ultimate end,He is said to have predestined them....But those to
whom He planned from eternity that He would not give grce,He is
said to have reprobated or hated.....'

     In 3.159 God is like the sun who offers light to all.But in
3.161 God foreordains not to give light to some.

     In his Commentary on Romans  9.2 &3 he has a mixture:"
inasmuch that is,as God proposes to punish the wicked for
sins,which they have of themselves,not from 
God,but He proposes to reward the just because of merits which
they do not have of themselves.Osee 13,9:"Your ruin is from
yourself,Israel,only in me is your help".

                   III.Creation 
 
 
1.Philology The word bara could be used broadly,for  making.
Cf.use in Numbers 16.30; Isaiah 4.5;41.20.  Yet even
philologically, from context, it is more likely making out of
nothing.  Notes on the New Translation of The Torah,ed.Harry
M.Orlinsky (Jewish Publication Society,Phila.1969) p.51:"The
implications of the new translation  ["When God began to create"]
are clear.The Hebrew text tells us nothing  about 'creation out
of nothing' ( creatio ex nihilo),or about  the beginning of
time....the first thing God did when He created the  universe,as
ancient man knew it,was to create light....light ('or) was the
first element to receive a name (that is, official existence) 
from God." 
 
     However, the translation given by Orlinsky seems not to have
been  known earlier than Rashi (Rabbi Shelomoh Ben Yishaq) --
1040- 1105 AD. The rendering "when...began" which some claim, are
justified  thus:The Hebrew of the first words is:Bereshith
bara.The question turns about that first word: Is it really two
words: be reshith, as the usual translation takes it,or is it
just one word in what is called a construct state (indicating
that there is felt an English of after it in translation? The
first vowel, be, not ba indicates construct, not absolute state.
Construct state would not have an article,and hence would have
be. Absolute state would take an article,which would give its
vowel a  to the be making it ba. It is also argued that the
ending -th points to construct state.-- On the other hand: there
are some other words ending in th that are absolute, e.g,
esheth,wife.Further,if we want to take bereshith as construct, we
would have to amend bara to bero (construct infinitive. But not
even Rashi did that. Also, the ancient versions seem to suppose 
the traditional translation: Targum Onkelos ("In ancient times
the Lord created"), and Targum Neofiti ("From the beginning with
wisdom the son of the Lord perfected (shaklil) the heavens and
the earth"). 
  
     a)Creation proved by reason alone: (1) When something
changes,  it rises from potency to act. In this, higher or new
being appears. No one gives what he does not have.So where does
the extra come from?  Perhaps the one who acts has that added
being somewhere within himself. But then: where did that part of
him get it? So we look for an outside source or cause. We may
imagine a long or short chain of such causes, but the problem is
not solved as long as we look only at beings that had to get up
from potency to act. (3)The problem has no final answer  until we
reach a mover that does not labor under the problem of getting 
up from potency to act,because it is simply actuality.That is the 
Unmoved Mover.If He were compound of potency and act, He would
have the problem of getting up from potency to act. (4)Matter too
in its very existence, has the same problem of getting up from
potential to actual existence. That  potency cannot exist alone.
So the Mover that caused its existence brought it up from
something that did not exist alone to reality. -- Aristotle  did
not see this himself. He tried in vain to prove that the spheres 
in the sky always existed and were always in  movement (Physics
8.1). But  his principles call for creation.  

     It would be possible for God to have created ab aeterno -
since He always has the power to create. We prove that the world
did not always exist by  Magisterium (below) or from natural
science (measurements of decay of radioactivity).      

     The proof just given for creation is not religious - it does
not bring in reverence or worship,it is a purely intellectual
exercise. Hence to teach creation in a school, by nature need not
be religious - though  of course it could be presented in a
religious way. 
  
     b)Magisterium:Defined by IV Lateran in 1215: DS 800: "God...
from the beginning of time, made both kinds of creatures,
spiritual and bodily, out of nothing." 
  
     c)Documentary Hypothesis:This is the theory that 4 documents 
are to be found in the Pentateuch: Elohist 1 (E); Elohist 2 (P --
name  changed to Priestly source); Yahwist (J); Deuteronomist
(D). 

      Richard Simon,a priest ( 1638-1712) thought some "public
secretaries"  gradually added to the Pentateuch up to time of
Ezra (5th cent). A Protestant.H.B.Witter,in 1711, was the first
to suggest that different names for God could point to different
documents. J.Astruc, a Catholic, in  1753, was the first to
divide Genesis into documents. Karl Ilgen in 1798 divided Elohist
into E l and E 2 (latter now is P). Julius Wellhausen 
(1844-1918) refined the theories. Thought Pentateuch and Joshua
reached  present form after Exile, c.450 BC. Earlier, he thought
Israel had a naturist religion, then the prophets introduced
ethical monotheism. (Wellhausen's interpretation of texts and
events was based on pagan Arabic parallels. He, like the 19th
century in general, did not have good data on the ancient world
And he admitted he was influenced by Hegelian concepts).
  
     This theory has been dominant until recently. The Pontifical
Biblical  Commission,on June 27,1906 while holding Mosaic
authorship of Pentateuch, said perhaps Moses entrusted work to
one or several men to write, and finally approved it. It also
said that there could have been modifications in the Pentateuch
after the death of Moses, by an inspired author, and that the
language forms could have been updated. John Paul II in his 
general audience talks on Genesis, e.g., on Sept 12 & 19, 1979,
Jan 2,1980,  spoke favorably, took for granted the theory is
true. 
 
     But it is now under heavy attack. Yehuda Radday, coordinator
of the Technion Institute (Israel) project, fed Genesis into a
computer programmed to make a thorough linguistic analysis of
words,phrases and passages. His conclusion:It is most probable
that the book of Genesis was written by one person. (Newsweek
,Sept 28, 1981, p.59 and Y.T.Radday & H.Shore, Genesis: An
Authorship Study in Computer-assisted Statistical Linguistics, in
Analecta Biblica 103,1985). Eugene Maly,in Jerome Biblical
Commentary (I,p.5,   24,1968 ed.) wrote: "Moses...is at the heart
of the Pentateuch and can,in accord with the common acceptance of
the ancient  period,correctly be called its author." Joseph
Blenkinsopp,in his review  of R.N.Whybray,The Making of the
Pentateuch,JSOT Suppl. 5., Sheffield, 1987, wrote (CBQ  Jan,1989,
pp.138-39): "It is widely known by now that the documentary 
hypothesis is in serious trouble, with no viable alternative yet
in  sight.... He [Whybray] has no difficulty in exposing the
fragility of many of the arguments advanced in support of the
documentary hypothesis in its classical Wellhausenian form. The
criteria for distinguishing one source from another called for an
unreasonable level of consistency  within the sources, leading
the documentary critic to postulate a multitude  of subsidiary
sources...and thus pointing to the collapse of the hypothesis
from within. Curiously, too, the same consistency was not
required of the redactors, who left untouched the many
inconsistencies and repetitions which called forth the hypothesis
in the first place." Whybray proposes that the Pentateuch is the
work of a single "controlling genius" (p.235)  no earlier than
6th century B.C., who used a wide variety of sources not all of
high antiquity. -  Problem with that proposal is that it does not
seem to take into account the  probable long development of the
legal tradition of Israel.-- Cf.also Isaac M.Kikawada,& Arthur
Quinn,  Before Abraham Was, Abingdon, Nashville,1985. (This work
tries to find elaborate patterns which would cut across the lines
of the supposed sources. The authors think the sin was refusing
to fulfill the command, "Increase and Multiply": pp.68 & 81.n.9.
But such a refusal would spread over a long period, whereas the
Genesis account seems to portray a single occasion sin with a
specific temptation. To refuse to have sex so as to multiply --
what sort of temptation would it be to make the refusal?). (For
an earlier attack, very thorough, see U.Cassuto, Professor of
Hebrew University, Jerusalem, The Documentary Hypothesis, tr.from
Hebrew by Israel Abrahams,1961. Jerusalem,Magnes press, Hebrew
University. It is distributed in British Commonwealth and Europe
by Oxford University Press. Hebrew original was 1941).  Cf.also
K.A.Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, InterVarsity
Press, Downer's Grove,Il, 1966, for an answer to the reasons
proposed for the existence of several sources, by comparison with
other Near Eastern literature.
 
     d)Enuma Elish?: It is often said today that the author of
Genesis  used Mesopotamian myths. But the similarity is
practically nonexistent. 
 
     Here are the opening lines of the Enuma Elish: 
 
     "When on high the heaven had not yet been named [did not  
      exist],  firm ground below had not yet been called by name, 
     naught but primordial Apsu [sweet water] their begetter 
      and Mummu-Tiamat [salt water sea], she who bore them all, 
      their waters commingling as a single body; no reed hut had  
    been matted, no marsh land had appeared, 
      when no gods whatever had been brought into being, 
      uncalled by name,their destinies undetermined: 
      then it was that the gods were formed within them...." 
  
     The only similarity is that all starts with something like a 
chaos - yet not entirely so, for there are two distinct bodies,
sweet  water and salt water. Really, this was a generalization
from the experience of the Mesopotamians, who saw new land
appearing at the point where the two kinds of waters met,i.e., at
the point where the Tigris and  Euphrates entered the Persian
Gulf. This is a crude notion, and has nothing in common with
Genesis. The really common feature is one found  in many Near
Eastern cultures: to name is the same as to bring into 
existence. [So, when the Messiah is said in many Rabbinic
documents  to have been named before the world began, it is apt
to mean he had  a preexistence].- on the Enuma Elish, see,
Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis,Univ.of Chicago,1951.
Heidel thinks the poem goes back to the First Dynasty of Babylon,
which he dates 1894- 1595 BC, with  strands still older going
back to Sumer. He gives complete text in translation, and other
Mesopotamian variants, and discussion of similarities to OT. He
sees too many similarities (p.129), which are too general. Enuma
Elish does have the same sequence of creation of light,
firmament, dry land, luminaries, man. But most of this is on only
one of the 7 tablets,on tablet V. Most of the story is quite
other. Heidel admits, p.130: "In fact, the divergences are much
more far-reaching and significant than are the resemblances."
Even so, he thinks there must be a relation of Genesis and Enuma
Elish - but the grounds are insufficient. Further, Heidel did not
notice that Enuma Elish is based on observation of the way land
formed by the mixing of waters - no  such thing in Genesis, no
such process. 

     Heidel also has another work, The Gilgamesh Epic, Univ.of
Chicago,1949. There is one part within it,the story of the
flood,which  really is remarkably similar to the account of the
flood in Genesis.   

     Generalization from experience shows also in a common
Egyptian  creation myth: The god Atum (meaning: totality - later,
Ra-atum) stood  on a mud hillock which arose out of the
primordial waters (nun). He  named the parts of his body,and so
produced the first gods. A different  version of the myth says
since he had no female mate, he produced seed by masturbation.
Then the resulting male and female deities took up  the task of
generation, produced further things. This myth seems to have been
one of the oldest in Egypt. When Memphis became dominant, the
question came up: where did Atum come from? They replied: Ptah,
the god of Memphis, was the heart and tongue of the gods. Through
the thought of the heart and the expression of the tongue, Atum
himself and all other gods came into being. (Cf.John A.Wilson,
The Culture of Ancient Egypt, Univ.of Chicago Press, 1951.
esp.pp.58-60). -- The Egyptian myth, like the Mesopotamian, was
generalization  from Egyptian experience. When the annual flood
of the Nile began to  recede, the first things to appear were mud
hillocks, sticking up through the water. In the heat and
moisture, they were very fertile.  
 
 
2.Angels and Their Fall 
     a)Existence of angels: Lateran IV. DB 428.DS 800:
"God...from the beginning of time, made both kinds of creatures,
spiritual and bodily, out of nothing, that is angelic and
worldly....For the devil and other demons were created good by
nature by God, but they of themselves became wicked." - Some
claim the definition covers only the fact that God created all,
only indirectly the existence of angels. Even so, the doctrine is
infallible by repetition on Ordinary Magisterium, and by
universal belief (cf.LG  12). Vatican  I-- DB 1783.DS 3002
repeated these words of Lateran IV. 
 
     Some exegetes said that an angel may be only a literary
device-  cf.Judges, chapter 6, where there is a sort of
alternation between the angel speaking and God speaking. It is
quite possible that at an early period the inspired author did
not know of separate beings, and really  did intend to use just a
literary device. However, later texts of OT and texts all over NT
make clear that angels are separate beings.  Since we ought to
understand Scripture the way the original readers did, there is
no doubt they knew of separate beings. 
 
     b)Choirs of Angels: St.Paul speaks of angels, and once of an
archangel (1 Th 4.16.). Ephesians 1.21 speaks of "every
principality, power, virtue and domination". Col 1.16 speaks of
"thrones, dominations, principalities or powers." Between Col and
Eph we have 5 kinds (not counting angels and archangels). If we
add the Cherubim (eg.Gen 3.24) and Seraphim (e.g., Is  6.2) of
the OT we get nine classes. However St.Paul seems to regard 
these beings as evil spirits: Eph 6.12; Col 2.15. In Eph and Col
he is  fighting against the claims found in those churches that
we must worship such spirit powers besides Christ. So he says
they are just evil spirits. We are not sure if he is fighting
against Gnostic ideas or those of Jewish  Apocalyptic. (The
imagery of cherubim seems derived from monstrous composite
animals with wings found in much Near Eastern art and in Egypt.) 
 
     It was Pseudo-Dionysius, in his Celestial Hierarchy who  
first proposed the nine choirs. 
 
     We conclude: there is no Scriptural basis for the nine
choirs  of angels. 
  
     c)Spirituality of angels: 
 
          (1) Some Fathers thought they might have bodies.       
Thus, St.Justin Martyr, alluding it seems to Gen.6.1-4, wrote
(Apology 2.5): "The angels transgressed this arrangement [taxin]
and, captivated by love of women, begot children who are those
that are called demons." (Implies some beings could be evil by
nature!). And in Dialogue 37.2:"It is evident that they  are
nourished in the heavens, even though they are not nourished by 
food similar to what humans use -- for about the food of manna,
which  nourished our fathers in the desert, Scripture says thus,
that men ate the bread of angels." (Ps.77.25 in LXX:"Man ate the
bread of angels").  (Justin does not notice the matter of genre). 

      St.Fulgentius, De Trinitate 9: "Great and learned men
assert that they are of two kinds of substance, that is, of
incorporeal spirit...and of the body by which at times they
appear to men.... So they say that the angels have an ethereal
body, that is, of fire, but that the wicked  angels...have an
airy body." (COMMENT: Does he mean they always have the body,or
only take it on to appear?) 
 
     St.Augustine, City of God 21.10: "Unless that demons have
certain bodies of their own, as it seems to learned men, of this
crass and humid air whose impulse is felt when the wind blows." 
 
     St.Bernard, Sermon on Canticles 5.7: "The Fathers seem to
have had diverse views...and I admit I do not know." 
 
     Cajetan,On Ephesians 2.1; "I would believe that the demons
are airy spirits.... But by the word air I do not mean the
element of air,but a subtle body unknown to our senses."
(Elsewhere, commenting on Summa I.q.50) he seems  to think them
pure spirits. 
  
          (2) Some Fathers rule out a body: Lactantius (R 646);
Eusebius  of Caesarea (R 667); St.Gre