Excerpt: Third Article: Whether In Christ There Was Faith

CHRIST THE SAVIOR

Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange

Digg It!

no comments yet.

What is Eternity? | Excerpt from Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s Providence

Providence by
Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.

The primary object of contemplation is, in fact, God Himself and His infinite perfections, especially
His goodness, His wisdom, and His providence.

What is eternity?

10. The Eternity Of God
Having discussed the divine immensity in its relation to space, we must now consider God’s eternity in relation to time. Without it we can have no conception of Providence, whose decrees are eternal.

Let us examine the wrong notion people sometimes have of this divine eternity, and then we shall better understand the true definition of it, which is likewise a very beautiful.

What is eternity?

There is a partially erroneous conception of the divine eternity current among those who are content to define it as a duration without beginning and without end, thinking of it vaguely as time without limit either in the past or in the future.

Such a notion of eternity is inadequate: because a time that had no beginning, no first day, would always be, nevertheless, a succession of days and years and centuries, a succession embracing a past, a present, and a future. That is not eternity at all. We might go back in the past and number the centuries without ever coming to an end, just as in thinking of the time to come we picture to
ourselves the future acts of immortal souls as an endless series. Even if time had no beginning, there would still have been a succession of varying moments.

The present instant, which constitutes the reality of time, is an instant fleeting between the past and the future ("nunc fluens, " says St. Thomas), an instant fleeting like the waters of a river, or like the apparent movement of the sun by which we count the days and the hours. What, then, is time? As Aristotle says, it is the measure of motion, more especially of the sun’s motion, or rather that of
the earth around the sun, the rotation of the earth on its axis constituting one day as its revolution around the sun constitutes one year. If the earth and the sun had been created by God from all eternity and the regular motion of the earth around the sun had been without beginning, there would not have been a first day or a first year, but there would always have been a succession of years and centuries. Such a succession would then have been a duration without either beginning or end, but a duration, nevertheless, infinitely inferior to eternity; for there would always have been the distinction between past, present, and future. In other words, multiply the centuries by thousands and thousands, and it will always be time; however long drawn out, it will never be eternity.

If, then, to define the divine eternity as a duration without either beginning or end is inadequate, what is it? The answer of theology is that it is a duration without either beginning or end, but with this very distinctive characteristic, that in it there is no succession either past or future, but an everlasting present. It is not a fleeting instant, like the passing of time, but an immobile instant which never
passes, an unchanging instant. It is "the now that stands, not that flows away, " 67 says St. Thomas (Ia, q. 10, a. 2, obj. Ia), like a perpetual morning that had no dawn and will know no evening.

How are we to conceive this unique instant of an unchanging eternity? Whereas time, this succession of days and years, is the measure of the apparent motion of the sun or the real motion of the earth, eternity is the measure or duration of the being, thought, and love of God. Now these are absolutely immutable, without either change or variation or vicissitude. Since God is of necessity the infinite
fullness of being, there is nothing for Him to gain or to lose. God can never increase or diminish in perfection; He is perfection itself unchangeable.

This absolute fixity of the divine being necessarily extends to His wisdom and His will; any change or progress in the divine knowledge and love would argue imperfection.

The unchangeableness, however, is not the unchangeableness of inertia or death; it is that of supreme life, possessing once and for all everything it is possible and right that it should possess, neither having to acquire it nor being able to lose it.

Thus we come to the true definition of eternity: an exceedingly profound and beautiful definition, one full of spiritual instruction for us.

Digg It!

no comments yet.

Some thoughts on Ames, Shank & Predestination

Predestination has been debated literally for centuries. The difficulties surrounding the topic has occupied the time of Biblical scholars considerably. The immediate problem of predestination can be stated as this: How do we reconcile the sovereignty of God to save and the free will of man? What is questionable when predestination is discussed is whether God is sovereign or whether man is a free agent. Can the two coexist? Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange stated it this way: “How can predestination, which is infallible in its effect, be reconciled with the will to save all mankind, since the salvation of many will not be realized?”[1]

Those of the reformed tradition claim there is not a problem with predestination. God is simply sovereign and man is not free as a sinner. Salvation is of the Lord; man takes no part in it. On the opposite side of the spectrum is the Arminian view which says man is a free agent and chooses salvation for himself. These two extremes are stated simply here and will be looked at with greater detail and scrutiny. An examination of Scriptures and relevant authors reveal why the tension exists and why the arguments have prevailed for as long as they have. Perhaps the last question to ask is whether there is danger in holding with of these views?

Election and Predestination

In order to look at the Reformed view of predestination, the one of the followers of John Calvin must be perused. William Ames (1576-1655) is one of the foremost of Reformed thinkers and sets out the doctrine of predestination in a straightforward way. Without hesitating Ames states there are two kinds of predestination, election and rejection or reprobation.[2]  “Election is the predestination of certain men so that the glorious grace of God may be shown in them.”[3] For Ames, election is one simple act of the will of God but for our understanding it breaks up into many acts.Ames sites that predestination has existed from eternity.[4] The application of redemption to some men and not to all, existed in God before the creation of the world.[5] He goes on to state that predestination is a decree from God concerning the eternal condition of men which show his special glory.[6] “It is called destination because there is a sure determination of the order of means for the end. Because God determined this order by himself before any actual existence of things, it is called not simply destination but predestination.”[7]

It is called a decree because, according to Ames, it contains a definite sentence to be executed under firm counsel. In the same way it is called a purpose and a counsel, because it sets forth an end to be reached as a result of deliberation. Predestination is according to God’s “greatest wisdom, freedom, firmness, and immutability.”[8] 2 Timothy 2:19 confirms this: “Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, ‘The Lord knows those who are His,. . .’” Ames goes on to say that this verse also means that God not only knows the number of those who will be saved but the names of each of them.

Predestination does not depend on the means or the end. In fact, Ames states that predestination is the cause for the objects of predestination to exist. “Hence it depends on no cause, reason or outward condition, but proceeds purely from the will of him who predestines."[9] Ames goes on to say that there is no previous quality in man which might be considered the formal object in man. Neither is there a condition in any man which determines that another man should be excluded. Man are equal among themselves and simply the object of the decree. Ames clearly says that the condition of predestination does not depend upon man whatsoever, but the differences found in man are the result of the decree.
Because predestination proceeds purely from the from the will of him who predestines there is no prerequisite foreknowledge or presupposed foreknowledge other than the simple intelligence which relates to all things. “He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,”[10] and “He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him,”[11] are used to support this claim. Simply, predestination is an act of God’s will towards a certain object which determines to bring a specific end by a specific means.

Ames believes in God’s simplicity; He is simply one. Simplicity is the opposite of composed. God is not composed of parts so Ames says,

There is properly only one act of the will in God because in Him all things are simultaneous and there is nothing before or after. So there is only decree about the end and means, but for the manner of understanding we say that, so far as intention is concerned, God will the end before the means.[12]

It is here that Ames spells out election of certain people. Although he states all things are simultaneous in God and that God does not think discursively, there are several “acts” in predestination. The first act is to will the glory of his grace in salvation in some men. The second acts is to designate which  men will partake of this salvation. The true meaning of the second act is the “love” expressed to these certain men.[13] This love is specified in selecting some and rejecting or “setting apart” others. The third act of election is the purpose or intention of preparing and direct means by which these certain individuals will be led to salvation.

All the effects of election follow Jesus Christ being sent. He is the means given for the salvation of man. In the third act of election Christ is certainly the cause.

(more…)

Digg It!

no comments yet.

Thomist Spotlight | Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. (1877-1964)

Who is Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P? 

Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.

Nacido en 1877 en Auch, Francia. Su tío, el padre La Grange, era un famoso biblista.
Estudió medicina por dos años en la Universidad de Bordeaux. Siendo estudiante de medicina, ingresó a la Orden de los Predicadores (dominicos). Estudió filosofía en la Sorbonne. En esos años era bastante inusual para los dominicos seguir estudios de filosofía en una Universidad secular. Pero esta posibilidad, le permitió participar en las clases de notables filósofos franceses de ese tiempo, como es el caso de Henri Bergson. 

Posteriormente, se avocó a la teología en su orden en la escuela de Le Saulchoir, bajo la dirección de Ambroise Gardeil quien se encontraba explorando la psicología del misticismo.  También estudió con Emmanuel-Louis (Antonin) Lemmonyer (fallecido en 1932) fundador, con A.M. Jacquin, de la Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques (1907) y, con M. Barge, de la Revue de la Jeunesse para los jóvenes (1909). El padre Lemmonyer, que fue sucesor de Gardeil como regente de Le Saulchoir y que sirvió como asistente del maestro Gillet, trabajó especialmente contra la separación de la teología moral de la teología mística y ascética. Conoció personalmente a Bergson, a Levy-Bruhl y a Maritain.
Fue profesor en la escuela de los dominicos en La Saulchoir, Bélgica (1905-1909), y después en el Ateneo Angelicum (posteriormente, Pontificia Universidad Romana de Santo Tomás) de 1909 a 1960. Fue profesor de muchos notables intelectuales católicos de este siglo, entre otros de M.-D. Chenu, O.P., y de Karol Wojtyla, futuro Juan Pablo II, de quienes fue consultor y supervisor de tesis. Sólo abandonó el Angelicum un año y durante sus vacaciones, que aprovechaba para predicar en Italia, Francia, Inglaterra, Holanda, Canadá y América del Sur.

Miembro de la Academia Pontificia Romana de Santo Tomás de Aquino, cuarta generación.

Fue un escritor prolífico en temas filosóficos, teológicos y espirituales. Su bibliografía completa lista más de 770 libros, artículos y correcciones. 

Se hizo notorio con sus primeras obras en las que atacó una por una las tesis del Modernismo. Fue consultor del Santo Oficio y de otras congregaciones romanas. Estas tareas le ganaron fama de "inquisidor" e inflexible, muchos le adjudican la paternidad de la Encíclica Humani Generis en la que Pío XII condenó la Nouvelle Theologie y la extravagancias del padre jesuita Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. 

Filosóficamente, se afilió al tomismo más tradicional defendiendo las famosas 24 tesis y la distinción real entre esencia y existencia. Estudió especialmente a los representantes de la tradición tomista: el cardenal Cayetano, Domingo Bañez y Juan de Santo Tomás, cuyos trabajos comentó. Por esta visión doctrinal, no se encontraba a gusto entre los estudiosos que se limitaban a un análisis puramente histórico y exegético de Santo Tomás, sino que buscaba la aplicación del tomismo a los problemas del siglo XX.

Durante un tiempo, fue director espiritual de Jacques y Raissa Maritain. Se opuso a algunas tesis sostenidas por su antiguo dirigido y sus seguidores, especialmente en temas de filosofía práctica. Notable fue el intercambio de correspondencia entre ambos durante la Guerra Civil española: de acuerdo con el dominico, la causa de los nacionalistas era la de la Iglesia; algo más prudente, Maritain sostenía un cierto recelo ante quien era apoyado por los regímenes totalitarios de Alemania e Italia.

En teología, se distinguió por sus estudios de espiritualidad, entre ellos: Las Tres Edades de la Vida Interior. Intentó armonizar las enseñanzas espirituales de San Juan de la Cruz con los principios de Santo Tomás.

Doctrinariamente fue algo estricto, pero siempre fue un religioso profundo, protector de los pobres y director espiritual de muchos. Por su piedad y erudicción, durante toda su vida fue renombrado.

Después del Concilio Vaticano II, sufrió fuertes críticas e, incluso, el desprecio de muchos por sus argumentos en contra de las innovaciones teológicas de mediados del siglo XX y su firme apoyo de Franco durante la guerra interna española. Sin embargo, en muchos aspectos fue realmente un innovador. Por otro lado, hoy en día, aquietados los ánimos del período postconciliar, muchas de sus críticas han resultado acertadas. 

Autor de muchos libros y artículos, como ya se dijo, entre ellos se destacan: Le Sens Commun (1909), Dieu: Son Existence et sa Nature (París, 1923, 2 vols.), La Synthèse Thomiste (1946), Dieu (1950), Le Réalisme du principe de finalité, Vida Eterna, La Madre del Salvador y Nuestra Vida Interior, Nuestro Salvador y Su Amor por Nosotros, Predestination, Providence, Las Virtudes Teologales I: Sobre la Fe, Tres Vías de la Vida Espiritual, Perfección Cristiana y Contemplación. A esto hay que agregar su comentario a la Summa consistente de siete volúmenes excelentes. Fue colaborador en la Revue de Science Philosophie et Théologie y en la Revue Thomiste.

En 1964 debido a su decadente salud se retiró al convento de Santa Sabina en Roma donde falleció ese mismo año.

Digg It!

1 comment.