Pope John Paul II and the nature/grace debate

[thinkandmull]

Aquinas himself taught that reality is understood according to the mode of the intellect, in a simpler form than it truly is in itself

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

von Balthasar thought the same as de Lubac on this issue, correct?

“What the pope intended to express by this mark of distinction, and of honor, remains valid, no longer only private individuals but the Church itself, in its official responsibility, tells us that he is right in what he teaches of the faith.” (Card. Ratzinger about vB)

I’m not very familiar with the work von Balthasar. I’ve studied de Lubac, Daniélou, and Congar.

My point only regards whether the natural desire to see God is an elicited desire to see God as the knowable to the natural light of the human intellect or extends beyond that to an innate desire for the vision of God as given in grace.

The church has indicated that human nature does not require the supernatural finality it has been gratuitously given in order to be human. Yet if the desire were innate, it would require it, with the result that the supernatural order would not be gratuitous but required for human nature to be what it is.

Again, Feingold is good on this.

Furthermore, von Balthasar is not wholly in de Lubac’s court on this issue either, as one can read in his work , Ignatius Press, 1983The Theology of Henri De Lubac (in German 1976), p. 76 n 36.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Yes. On that particular point I think he meant well but got it wrong. For the reasons I gave: in arguing that we have an innate inclination for the supernatural order he actually departs from Aquinas and endangers the gratuity of the supernatural order by effectively making the supernatural essentially necessary to human nature in order for human nature to be what it is.

Has the Church officially sided with Aquinas on this issue on whether the end is how you determine the essence of something (in this case, man)?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Has the Church officially sided with Aquinas on this issue on whether the end is how you determine the essence of something (in this case, man)?

One discerns the essence of something by familiarity with its entire life history, IOW, by knowing it through the full actualization of its potentials. E.g., we know the essence of a tomato plant by familiarity not with one stage of development, but by knowledge of it all the way through its production of red ripe tomatoes to its death as an annual.

I don’t think the Church has made a dogmatic pronouncement on this point. But it does use it as a philosophical truth.

In the present question the Church maintains that the essence of man does not require a supernatural destiny. Without it he would still possess all that is necessary for him to be a human being. The elevation of his nature to a supernatural destiny, to the vision of God, is beyond what his nature (essence in operation) can attain.

The church has pronounced on this, though, I would say at Vatican I, as well as in Humani Generis.

Indeed, it must be attributed to this divine revelation that those things, which in divine things are not impenetrable to human reason by itself, can, even in this present condition of the human race, be known readily by all with firm certitude and with no admixture of error. Nevertheless, it is not for this reason that revelation is said to be absolutely necessary, but because God in His infinite goodness has ordained man for a supernatural end, to participation, namely, in the divine goods which altogether surpass the understanding of the human mind, since “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love Him.” (1 Cor 2:9).
[Vatican I, *Dei Filius]

Others destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision.
[Pius XII, *Humani Generis, #26

 

[thinkandmull]

Aquinas says we can’t see the substance-essense of something, nor can we know it aside from the mode of our intellect. In his treastise on angels he says this even about angels vision of God. He thinks we understand the world in a “simpler” form then it truly is in itself,.

 

[CrossofChrist]

In the present question the Church maintains that the essence of man does not require a supernatural destiny. Without it he would still possess all that is necessary for him to be a human being. The elevation of his nature to a supernatural destiny, to the vision of God, is beyond what his nature (essence in operation) can attain.

I agree and de Lubac agreed. It’s tough because, at least right now, it’s difficult to see how you can do away with at least the idea of pure nature. His way of looking at this question is I think the same as St. Francis de Sales. Maybe one way of getting around the idea of pure nature is saying that there is more to nature in its present existence than the essence of what it is.

So here’s my attempt at an analogy for this:

Imagine a tree: in and of itself it doesn’t need to become a colorful and bright tree in Autumn–it keeps it’s essence even if it only makes it to July. But it’s nature is “modified” in a way so that it “naturally desires” the become a tree in Autumn (and for some reason it can’t do that without divine help).

The only way around getting rid of pure nature, as far as I can see right now, is if you take nature as something that is not only as it is per se, but as it is in its existence.

But, to me at the moment it seems like Rahner’s or the neo-Scholastic way is more plausible for being a reality since they have the idea of “pure nature”.

The church has pronounced on this, though, I would say at Vatican I, as well as in Humani Generis.

I agree, but I don’t think de Lubac’s POV has been officially denounced by the Church. Otherwise he wouldn’t have been made a Cardinal.

Are you familiar with what Ratzinger thought about this topic? I can’t find anything that has him take a stance that isn’t generic–i.e he’s just affirming what we already know and not delving into the debate.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I agree and de Lubac agreed. It’s tough because, at least right now, it’s difficult to see how you can do away with at least the idea of pure nature. His way of looking at this question is I think the same as St. Francis de Sales. Maybe one way of getting around the idea of pure nature is saying that there is more to nature in its present existence than the essence of what it is.

One answer can be “the more” is obediential potency, the capacity to receive a supernatural perfection that exceeds the natural capacities of a being.

So here’s my attempt at an analogy for this:

Imagine a tree: in and of itself it doesn’t need to become a colorful and bright tree in Autumn–it keeps it’s essence even if it only makes it to July. But it’s nature is “modified” in a way so that it “naturally desires” the become a tree in Autumn (and for some reason it can’t do that without divine help).

The only way around getting rid of pure nature, as far as I can see right now, is if you take nature as something that is not only as it is per se, but as it is in its existence.

But, to me at the moment it seems like Rahner’s or the neo-Scholastic way is more plausible for being a reality since they have the idea of “pure nature”.

I think obediential potency covers it for the supernatural.

But becoming a tree in autumn is within the potentialities of the informed matter of a tree. We both agreed that the supernatural order is beyond the potentialities of human nature. It is of a different order.

I agree, but I don’t think de Lubac’s POV has been officially denounced by the Church. Otherwise he wouldn’t have been made a Cardinal.

Right. But I do think the theological dangers in the direction he was heading were cautioned against by Rome. Plus, bear in mind, ecclesiology was one of his dominant themes as well as the social nature of Christianity and the spiritual interpretation of scripture, all of which were unambiguously both orthodox and forward looking. Nature-grace was not the topic he covered. And there he clearly felt the heat given that he published two further works clarifying and attempting to respond to the criticisms of Surnaturel.

Again, I would take the time to read Feingold’s book. It pays off. Message me if you do. It’s worth the time.

Are you familiar with what Ratzinger thought about this topic? I can’t find anything that has him take a stance that isn’t generic–i.e he’s just affirming what we already know and not delving into the debate.

No, unfortunately.

 

[oldcelt]

One answer can be “the more” is obediential potency, the capacity to receive a supernatural perfection that exceeds the natural capacities of a being.

I think obediential potency covers it for the supernatural.

But becoming a tree in autumn is within the potentialities of the informed matter of a tree. We both agreed that the supernatural order is beyond the potentialities of human nature. It is of a different order.

Right. But I do think the theological dangers in the direction he was heading were cautioned against by Rome. Plus, bear in mind, ecclesiology was one of his dominant themes as well as the social nature of Christianity and the spiritual interpretation of scripture, all of which were unambiguously both orthodox and forward looking. Nature-grace was not the topic he covered. And there he clearly felt the heat given that he published two further works clarifying and attempting to respond to the criticisms of Surnaturel.

Again, I would take the time to read Feingold’s book. It pays off. Message me if you do. It’s worth the time.

No, unfortunately.

All human interpretations of the fundamentally unknowable.

 

[CrossofChrist]

One answer can be “the more” is obediential potency, the capacity to receive a supernatural perfection that exceeds the natural capacities of a being.

Yep, and I’m inclined to agree that’s the right answer (I’m leaning toward Rahner’s explanation but certainly I haven’t made up my mind). I guess that could lead to another question: can we fulfill our human nature as it exists–elevated by the dignity given by Christ–without the help of grace? (That was probably worded terribly, but whatever… ) I think the neo-scholastics would say that we can we fulfill our nature without the help of grace, while Rahner (other transcendental Thomists too?) would say we can’t because of the degree to which grace and nature have become interconnected by Christ’s Incarnation.

Anyway…moving on.

I’m just trying to make sense of what de Lubac is saying.

But becoming a tree in autumn is within the potentialities of the informed matter of a tree. We both agreed that the supernatural order is beyond the potentialities of human nature. It is of a different order.

That’s where the analogy falls off.

Again, I would take the time to read Feingold’s book. It pays off. Message me if you do. It’s worth the time.

It sounds intriguing but I have a couple of other books that come first on my list. I wouldn’t be surprised if I get around to it eventually though.

No, unfortunately.

Darn. :doh2:

 

[CrossofChrist]

All human interpretations of the fundamentally unknowable.

That doesn’t preclude speculating. Perhaps we will eventually find and determine something within this issue that can become known with certainty.