Skip to main content

De Lubac's critique of Thomistic neo-scholasticism and what he dubbed the "baroque theology of grace" was adopted wholesale to the extent that he is credited with having "created the intellectual climate that made possible the Second Vatican Council"

 http://purenatureinaquinas.blogspot.com/2014/06/welcome.html

 

A Brief Introduction to the Debate / Controversy

The debate originates with the publication of Henri De Lubac's Surnaturel in 1946 and the controversy that ensued, in which he charged Thomistic theologians (chiefly from Cajetan onwards) had misunderstood -- and consequently misrepresented, to detrimental effect -- man's relationship to God as a "two tiered" system of nature and the supernatural existing in isolation to each other. According to De Lubac, the theological exchange of the "natural / moral" paradigm for that of "natural / supernatural"; the theoretical consideration of man's "natural end" or state of pure nature [natura pura] as distinct from his calling to the beatific vision, negatively reinforced man's sense of secular autonomy and modernity's abandonment of the divine.

It is important to note here that De Lubac's concern was born of good intentions: horrified with first, French Catholic massive support of the fascist movement Action Francaise in the 1930's, and secondly its collaboration with the Petain’s Vichy regime during the Second World War, which had deported six thousand Jews to Germany from 1941-1945. This was the historical context under which De Lubac developed his theology. Hans Boersma explains (Nouvelle Théologie and Sacramental Ontology):

As de Lubac came to see it, the French cultural and political situation was intimately tied up with the theological question of the relationship between nature and the supernatural. The reason, he believed, why so many accommodated uncritically the fascist neo-paganism of the Vichy regime was the long-standing separation between nature and the supernatural, as if the two formed two hermetically sealed compartments. Such separation, de Lubac believed, granted the realm of nature a nearly autonomous status in relation to the supernatural. In no way related to the supernatural, the realm of nature could move in its own, self-chosen direction, unencumbered by a higher call that the gospel, Jesus Christ, or the Church might issue.
De Lubac's thesis was subjected to fierce criticism from neo-scholastic Thomists like Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, while he was in turn defended by Etienne Gilson, Hans urs von Balthasar and members of the nouvelle theologie. (For a detailed historical review of the surnatural controversy and De Lubac's relationship with Etienne Gilson, see chapter 11: "Ecclesial Cold War", pp. 227-243 in Art and Intellect in Philosophy of Étienne Gilson).;

Eventually, however, De Lubac's critique of Thomistic neo-scholasticism and what he dubbed the "baroque theology of grace" was adopted wholesale to the extent that he is credited with having "created the intellectual climate that made possible the Second Vatican Council" (Oxford Dictionary of the Catholic Church). De Lubac was also publicly vindicated in 1983 with his elevation to Cardinal by Pope John Paul II.

That being said, the fundamental questions of the surnaturel controversy have never been satisfactorily resolved. Within the past decade, a number of American Thomistic theologians have renewed criticism of De Lubac's position on nature and grace, beginning in large part with the publication of the magisterial work by Lawrence Feingold: The Natural Desire to See God According to St. Thomas and His Interpreters (Catholic University of America Press, 2nd ed., 2004).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"The West Does Not Understand the Extreme Danger from Its Arming of Ukraine The Idiot Biden Regime and Insane Neoconservatives Have the World on the Path to Armegeddon"

Paul Craig Roberts wrote: How Many More Red Lines Can Be Crossed Before Armageddon Arrives? Paul Craig Roberts The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe published on April 15, 2016, more than six years ago, a report on the torture of Donbass Russians by the Ukrainian military and police forces.   The report documents horrendous torture and it was done out of racial hatred of Russians. You can read the report here:   https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/e/7/233896.pdf     Few Westerners, being so poorly educated, are aware that Western Ukraine fought for Nazi Germany during World War II.   When Washington overthrew the Ukrainian government in 2014, Washington installed a Nazi government. The Nazi government in Ukraine shelled the Russian residents of the two break-away Donbass republics for 8 years while Washington and NATO trained and equipped a Ukrainian army to retake the breakaway republics. .. ... These statements from Russian leaders indicate that the I

Vox Cantoris vs. Aqua

The Catholic Monitor commenter Aqua had this to say to the Vox Cantoris website: Aqua said… Fred, your topic here reminds me of a dust-up, a few days ago, on Vox Cantoris. He asserted that it is our duty as Christians to wear masks to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass if the government tells us we must, or they will close our Churches. My response to him was that I find it inconceivable that an orthodox Catholic, such as himself, would ever submit to unjust dictates from secular government over how we approach Our Lord in Holy Mass. My response to him was that the Mass belongs to Catholics and we decide, within the bounds of Tradition, and in accord with the Word of Jesus, how we conduct ourselves in Holy Mass. Only one authority prevails over Mass and that is our God and the Sacred Tradition given by Him to guide us in all times and places. Understand, there is nothing inherently wrong with wearing a mask to Mass. But there is EVERYTHING wrong with wearing a symbol

Mainstream Media: "Is America the Real Victim of Anti-Russia Sanctions?" & "Biden's arrogant anti-Russian sanctions have amounted to a price hike on working class Americans that have so far failed to weaken the Russian economy"

  Mainstream Media Acknowledges Biden’s “Arrogant” Sanctions On Russia Are Damning Americans:     @MaxBlumenthal Biden's arrogant anti-Russian sanctions have amounted to a price hike on working class Americans that have so far failed to weaken the Russian economy. His neocon policy accelerates the process of de-dollarization, diplomatic isolation & imperial decline. The mainstream new outlet asked "Is America the Real Victim of Anti-Russia Sanctions?": Remember the claims that Russia’s economy was more or less irrelevant, merely the equivalent of a small, not very impressive European country? “Putin, who has an economy the size of Italy,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in 2014 after the invasion of Crimea, “[is] playing a poker game with a pair of twos and winning.” Of increasing Russian diplomatic and geopolitical influence in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia, The Economist asked in 2019, “How did a country with an economy the size of Spain … ach