Faith and the Natural order
Pope Pius XII  Versus  Henri de Lubac:
What is Supernatural?

Henri de Lubac and the Supernatural

    Does man have a natural desire for the Beatific Vision?

    What can we know from Sacred Scripture on the natural knowledge of God?

    What does St. Thomas teach regarding a natural desire to see God?

    Does St. Thomas teach that there is "a natural desire for the Beatific Vision"?

    What can we know from Catholic Teaching?

    Does St. Augustine's affirmation: "Thou hast made us for Thyself, O God, and our hearts are anxious, until they rest in Thee" (Confessions, I,1), imply a "natural desire for the Beatific Vision"?
    What can we know from theology?

The True Supernatural

         "But, as it is written: That 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)

    The "things God hath prepared for them that love Him" are summed up by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church as heaven, Divine Life or the beatific vision.  About these things, as Saint Paul reveals, it hath not "entered into the heart of man".

    And how could it be otherwise, since it was a "mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God", as Saint Paul explains:

         "To me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace, to preach
         among the Gentiles, the unsearchable riches of Christ.  And to
         enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of
         the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God, who
         created all things." (Eph. 3, 8-9) . . . "The mystery which hath been
         hidden from ages and generations, but now is manifested to His
         saints.  To whom God would make known the riches of the glory
         of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ, in you the
         hope of glory." (Col. 1, 26-27)

    The "mystery hidden from eternity in God" is revealed to us by Our Divine Lord, because "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (Jn. 1, 17).

    And yet the truth of Saint Paul's words are challenged in these times, most notably, by Père Henri de Lubac and so many others, who believe that man, by his nature, desires the Beatific Vision which, he, independently of Divine Revelation, can, at least in some way, know.

    Saint Paul has himself identified things that man, by the use of his reason, can and should know: "For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Rm. 1, 20).  It is also true that man, like psalmist David, can desire God: "As the hart panteth after the fountains of water; so my soul panteth after Thee, O God" (Ps. 41, 2).  So while man, by nature can both know God and desire Him, he can not know or desire supernatural life, which no man can know or desire as Our Blessed Lord has taught us:

         "No one knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the
         Father is, but the Son, and to whom the Son will reveal Him"
          (Lk. 10, 22). "Now this is eternal life: That they may know Thee, the
         only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent" (Jn. 17, 3).
         . . . "For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I
         should give testimony to the truth" (Jn. 18, 37). . . "Jesus saith to him:
         I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the
         Father, but by Me (Jn. 14, 6).

    While de Lubac does not question that Christ is the "way" to "life", his position denies that Christ is the "way" to "truth".  The link between the natural and the supernatural that de Lubac claims to have found by means of a natural desire for the Beatific Vision does not and can not exist without denying the one true mediatorship of Christ, both true God and true man:

         "For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man
         Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2, 5).

    The mediatorship of Christ is one of both "Grace and truth" (Jn. 1, 17):

         "All these things Jesus spoke in parables to the multitudes: and without
         parables he did not speak to them.  That it might be fulfilled which was
         spoken by the prophet, saying: I will open my mouth in parables, I will
         utter things hidden from the foundation of the world" (Mt. 13, 34-35).

    Now that which was "hidden from the foundation of the world" is the true Supernatural.  Our Blessed Lord did not come into the world in order to reveal the truth that was accessible to human reason, but to reveal the truth that was inaccessible to human reason and "hidden from the foundation of the world".

    Men, may, indeed, have a natural desire for endless or eternal life, but in this they "savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men." (Mt. 16, 23).  The life without end that they desire is not the Supernatural Life that Our Blessed Lord came to reveal:

         "And Simon Peter answered Him: Lord, to whom shall we go?  Thou hast
         the words of eternal life" (Jn. 6, 69).

    If it is the true Supernatural that you seek, there is one and only one way that you may be able to find it, and that is through Jesus Christ:

         "For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid;
         which is Christ Jesus" (1 Cor. 3, 11).

         "He that cometh from above, is above all. He that is of the earth,
         of the earth he is, and of the earth he speaketh. He that cometh
         from heaven, is above all.  And what He hath seen and heard,
         that He testifieth: and no man receiveth His testimony.  He that
         hath received His testimony, hath set to His seal that God is true.
         For He whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God: for God
         doth not give the Spirit by measure.  The Father loveth the Son:
         and He hath given all things into His hand.  He that believeth in the
         Son, hath life everlasting; but he that believeth not the Son, shall
         not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (Jn. 3, 31-36)

Can the Supernatural be known by reason?

         "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which
         is hidden, which God ordained before the world, unto our glory:
         Which none of the princes of this world knew; for if they had known
         it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.  But, as it is
         written: That 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.  But to us God hath revealed them, by this Spirit. For the
         Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.  For what man
         knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So
         the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God.
         Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is
         of God; in order that we may know the things that are given us from God.
         Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom;
         but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
         But the natural man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of
         God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is
         spiritually examined.  But the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he
         himself is judged of no man.  For who hath known the mind of the Lord,
         that we may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ." (1 Cor. 2, 7-16)

    "The Spirit of God", "the deep things of God", "the things that are of God", "the mind of God", "the things that are given us from God" (which, according to Saint Paul, would be grace, that is Divine Life) are unknowable to the natural man.   In the Old Testament they knew, not only what reason could tell them about God but, many more things revealed to them by God, and yet, in order to know "the mind of the Lord" regarding "what things God hath prepared for them that love Him", of which "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man", they has to wait  in order to  know "the mind of Christ".

    We should compare Saint Paul's distinction between "the invisible things of (God)" (Rm. 1, 20) and "the deep things of God" (1 Cor. 2, 10).  The "invisible things of (God) (which include God's existence, power, and divinity), "from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. (Rm. 1, 20)  The "deep things of God" (1 Cor. 2, 10), however, are not accessible to reason, but are revealed by Christ.

Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Commentary on Saint Paul's Epistles explains in detail this passage.  

          "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which
              is hidden, which God ordained before the world, unto our glory:
              Which none of the princes of this world knew."   

         "The secular princes, indeed, did not know this wisdom of God,
         because it surpassed the order of human governance (rationem
         humani regiminis) . . . Philosophers also did not know it, because
         it surpassed human reason (excedit rationem humanam). . .
         Princes did not know the wisdom of God, because it was in itself
         hidden. . .

         The princes of this world did not know the wisdom of God, in that
         this was predestined unto the glory of the faithful. . .  That glory of
         vision is shown in two ways to be unknown by men.  Firstly, indeed,
         because that does not fall under human senses, from which all
         human cognition takes its beginning. . .  From there it excludes
         intellectual knowledge of it, when it says: 'neither hath it entered
         into the heart of man'. . .

         The meaning therefore is that that glory not only is not perceived
         by sense, but neither by the carnal heart of man, according to that
         in John 14, 17: "whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth
         Him not, nor knoweth Him". . .

         Because therefore the knowledge of that glory is not received by
         the senses, but from divine revelation, thus it says specifically
         'neither hath it ascended into the heart of man', but descended,
         that namely which God prepared, that is, predestined, 'for those
         who love Him', because the essential reward of eternal glory is
         due to love, according to John 14, 21: 'he that loveth Me, shall
         be loved of My Father: and I will love him, and will manifest
         Myself to him', in which the perfection of eternal glory consists. . .

         Even 'the deep things of God' he perfectly knows.  'Deep things"
         is said of that which in God is hidden, and not that which of Him
         through creatures, what is, as if, seen to be as far as the surface."
         (S. Thomae Aquinatis; SUPER EPISTOLAS S. PAULI LECTURA)


The Image of God

    It is clear that, in so far as a Scriptural basis can be found for the idea of a natural desire in man for the Beatific Vision, P. Henri de Lubac considers it to be the passage of Genesis: "Let Us make man to Our image and likeness." (Gen. 1, 26)  De Lubac, beginning with a quote from Chenu, writes:

          "'. . . Man as God's image, is fitted to enter into communion
         with him, in liberty of mind and initiative of love' (M.  D. Chenu, O.P.,
             L'Evangile dans le Temps (1965), p. 676).  This is what we must, if only as a duty
         to God, continue to clarify with all the means that this age
         places at our disposal.  This is the fundamental truth which
         we must never allow to be obscured or compromised." (De Lubac;
            THE MYSTERY OF THE SUPERNATURAL; N.Y. 1967; P. xiii-xiv)

    De Lubac also unites himself to the opinion of Father Dockx regarding the meaning of "the image of God":

         "Father S. Dockx, O.P., confirms this in regard to the subject we
         are considering here: Cajetan, he said, 'deciding that he cannot
         accept that man as God's image, should be ordered to the beatific
         vision as his end, alters the reasoning' and even 'the text of St.
         Thomas'.  Instead of basing his argument on 'the nature of man as
         made in God's image', he regards that nature simply as 'elevated
         by grace'" (De Lubac; The Mystery of the Supernatural; p. 11-12; Cf: Dockx; Du desir
             naturel de voir l'essence divine d'apres saint Thomas in Archives de philosophie,
             1964, pp.79-80).

    We have given a brief exegesis of this verse of Scripture in order to show that man being created in "the image and likeness" of God does not imply any relation to the substance of Divinity:

    To better understand the words of God the Creator: "Let Us make man to Our image and likeness." (Gen. 1, 26), we should compare them with the words of Adam upon seeing the woman fashioned from his rib: "And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh." (Gen. 2, 23)

    So while Adam and the woman were of the same substance, man is only in the "image and likeness" of God, much as an artisan fashions an art work according to a certain model or exemplar.  His "creation" is not of the same substance as Himself.   Similarly man, although created in the "image and likeness" of God, in no way because of that, possesses divine Life, and therefore, despite the enormously important implications of this "image and likeness", cannot form a metaphysical basis for a "natural desire for the Beatific Vision.

    Also relevant to our understanding of the meaning of being created in "the image and likeness" of God, are the Words of Our Blessed Lord in the Gospel account of "the coin of Caesar":

         "Then the Pharisees going, consulted among themselves
         how to insnare Him (Jesus) in His speech.  And they sent to
         Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying: Master, we
         know that Thou art a true speaker, and teachest the way of
         God in truth, neither carest Thou for any man: for Thou dost
         not regard the person of men.  Tell us therefore what dost
         Thou think, is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?  But
         Jesus knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt
         Me, ye hypocrites?  Shew Me the coin of the tribute. And
         they offered Him a penny.  And Jesus saith to them: Whose
         image and inscription is this?  They say to Him: Caesar's.
         Then He saith to them: Render therefore to Caesar the
         things that are Caesar's; and to God, the things that are
         God's.  And hearing this they wondered, and leaving Him,
         went their ways." (Mt. 22, 15-22; Cf: Mk. 12, 13-17; Lk. 20, 20-26)

    The placing of one's image on a creation does not imply any intention on the part of its creator; quite the  the contrary, it distinctly implies that that creation belongs to its creator or maker, and that, in justice, it  should be "rendered" to its maker as to its owner.

    I believe, moreover, that a definitive and insurmountable refutation of de Lubac's idea that man's creation in the "image of God" implies a desire for the supernatural can be found in the texts where Saint Paul identifies, not all men, but Christ Himself as the "image of God": "The glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor. 4,4).

And:

         ". . . the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through
         His blood, the remission of sins; Who is the image of the
         invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For in Him were
         all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. . .
         all things were created by Him and in Him.  And He is before all,
         and by Him all things consist.  And He is the head of the body,
         the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead;
         that in all things He may hold the primacy: Because in Him, it
         hath well pleased the Father, that all fullness should dwell."
         (Col. 1, 13-19)

    Saint Paul is calling our attention to the important distiction between being the "image of God" and being made in the image of God.

The Necessity of the Incarnation

    Our understanding of the Catholic teaching on the "Beatific Vision" is best summarized by two passages of Holy Scripture from Saint John and Saint Paul:

         "Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God; and it hath not
         yet appeared what we shall be. We know, that, when He shall
         appear, we shall be like to Him: because we shall see Him as
         He is." (1 Jn. 3, 2)

         "We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to
         face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am
         known". (1 Cor. 13, 12)

    If even after Revelation, the truth concerning the Beatific Vision can only be known "in a dark manner", it is evident that, without Revelation, it could not be known.

    Between the "knower" and the "known" as between the "desirer" (or the desiree) and the "desired", there must exist a relationship, or as it is called by philosophers: an "adaequatio".  Without some relationship between the desirer and the desired, a formulated desire is without effective meaning or real content.

    In the theory of a "natural desire for the beatific vision", the desirer is natural man, while the desired is a supernatural end.  It is the principal teaching of our faith, that such a relationship between the natural and the supernatural can only exist by means of the Incarnation of the Word of God.

         "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness,
         hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of
         the glory of God, in the face of Christ Jesus.  But we have this
         treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency may be of the
         power of God, and not of us." (2 Cor. 4, 7)

    Saint Paul here explains that "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God" is "in the face of Christ Jesus".   "The light of the knowledge of the glory of God" is "a treasure" held "in earthen vessels", but it is not part of the earthen vessels themselves, in order, as Saint Paul affirms, that "the excellency may be of the power of God, and not of us".  A "natural desire for the beatific vision" would place "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God" not in that "treasure", which is "the face of Christ Jesus" being carried now in the "earthen vessels" of our natural flesh, but in the very clay itself of our natural flesh.

Is there such a thing as "pure nature"?

The heart of de Lubac's study on the Supernatural is a sustained attack on the notion of "pure nature", which he considers of basically late origin (Cajetan), hypothetical (never to have in fact existed), and corruptive of an authentic Christian viewpoint.

The notion of "pure nature", however,  is taught or implied by Our Divine Lord:

"Jesus hearing this, saith to them: They that are well have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. For I came not to call the just, but sinners." (Mk. 2, 17; Cf. Mt. 9, 12)

The way that you know sickness is by comparison with health.  The way you know sin, is by comparison (through the law), with justice (in the case of Gentiles, through the law written in their heart).


"Children of the Promise"

    Saint Paul explains the true "seed of Abraham":

         "And if you be Christ's, then are you the seed of Abraham,
         heirs according to the promise." (Gal. 3, 29). . .
         "For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a
         bondwoman, and the other by a free woman.  But he who
         was of the bondwoman, was born according to the flesh:
         but he of the free woman, was by promise. Which things
         are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments.
         The one from mount Sina, engendering unto bondage;
         which is Agar:  For Sina is a mountain in Arabia, which
         hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is, and is in
         bondage with her children.  But that Jerusalem, which is
         above, is free: which is our mother.  For it is written:
         Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not: break forth and cry,
         thou that travailest not: for many are the children of the
         desolate, more than of her that hath a husband.  Now we,
         brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.  But
         as then he, that was born according to the flesh, persecuted
         him that was after the spirit; so also it is now.  But what saith
         the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the
         son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the
         free woman.  So then, brethren, we are not the children of the
         bondwoman, but of the free: by the freedom wherewith Christ
         has made us free." (Gal. 4, 22-31)

         "What shall we say then that Abraham hath found, who is our
         father according to the flesh.  For if Abraham were justified by
         works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God.  For what
         saith the Scripture?  Abraham believed God, and it was reputed
         to him unto justice.  Now to him that worketh, the reward is not
         reckoned according to grace, but according to debt.  But to him
         that worketh not, yet believeth in Him that justifieth the ungodly,
         his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the
         grace of God.  As David also termeth the blessedness of a man,
         to whom God reputeth justice without works:  Blessed are they
         whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
         Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin.  This
         blessedness then, doth it remain in the circumcision only, or in
         the uncircumcision also? For we say that unto Abraham faith was
         reputed to justice.  How then was it reputed?  When he was in
         circumcision, or in uncircumcision?  Not in circumcision, but in
         uncircumcision.  And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal
         of the justice of the faith, which he had, being uncircumcised; that
         he might be the father of all them that believe, being uncircumcised,
         that unto them also it may be reputed to justice:  And might be the
         father of circumcision; not to them only, that are of the circumcision,
         but to them also that follow the steps of the faithful, that is in the
         uncircumcision of our father Abraham.  For not through the law was
         the promise to Abraham, or to his seed, that he should be heir of the
         world; but through the justice of faith.  For if they who are of the law
         be heirs, faith is made void, the promise is made of no effect.  For
         the law worketh wrath. For where there is no law, neither is there
         transgression.  Therefore is it of faith, that according to grace the
         promise might be firm to all the seed; not to that only which is of the
         law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the
         father of us all,  (As it is written: I have made thee a father of many
         nations,) before God, whom he believed, who quickeneth the dead;
         and calleth those things that are not, as those that are.  Who against
         hope believed in hope; that he might be made the father of many
         nations, according to that which was said to him: So shall thy seed
         be.  And he was not weak in faith; neither did he consider his own
         body now dead, whereas he was almost an hundred years old, nor
         the dead womb of Sara.  In the promise also of God he staggered
         not by distrust; but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God:
         Most fully knowing, that whatsoever He has promised, He is able
         also to perform.  And therefore it was reputed to him unto justice.
         Now it is not written only for him, that it was reputed to him unto
         justice, but also for us, to whom it shall be reputed, if we believe
         in Him, that raised up Jesus Christ, our Lord, from the dead, Who
         was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification."
          (Rm. 4)

    The reward of the Beatific Vision, is not according to the flesh, but according to promise.  There is nothing in nature that would indicate the promise of the Beatific Vision "that the excellency may be of the power of God, and not of us" (2 Cor. 4, 7)  . . . "the flesh profiteth nothing" (Jn. 6, 64).

The story of the Wedding feast of Cana: A figure of the passage between the natural and the supernatural orders.

    After Saint John, "in the beginning" (Jn. 1, 1) of his Gospel, takes us back into eternity, as it were,  and to the creation of the universe,  he then narrates how John the Baptist points out the "Lamb of God" and a couple of his own followers leave him and begin following Jesus.

    So from the austere desert areas where Saint John was, his disciples leave the River Jordan and the fasting common to the disciples of the Baptist (Mk. 2, 18).   "Can the sons of the marriage fast, as long as the bridegroom is with them?  As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast" (Mk. 2, 19).  Indeed, within hardly three days, Our Blessed Lord leads them to a Marriage Banquet, a figure of the Messianic Banquet soon to begin, where the Lord has "kept the good wine until now"  (Jn. 2, 10).  

    The wedding couple are here an image of the first couple, Adam and Eve. But the Mother of Jesus, Mary, upon whom tradition has given the title of the "new Eve" and who, as usual preceeds her Son, was already there.  Then after Jesus arrived, whom, as Saint Paul tells us is the "last  Adam", Mary tells Him that the wine has run out: "They have no wine" (Jn. 2, 3).  This new Adam who has come to bring "Grace and truth" (Jn. 1, 14) replies that "His hour is not yet come" (Jn. 2, 4); so in that sense it is clear why He, seemingly in a harsh manner, responds: "What is that to Me and to thee?" (Jn. 2, 4).  

    Without doubting Her Son's compassion toward those in need, Mary tells the stewards: "Whatsoever He shall say to you, do ye" (Jn. 2, 5).  Then Jesus tells the stewards to "Fill the jars with water" (Jn. 2, 7).  There are six of these pots.  They are not pottery of clay jars, but hewn from stone (Jn. 2, 6).  

    Jesus tells us that: "No one puts new wine into old skins" (Mk. 2, 22), so it is unusual that He is going to use stone jars.  These six stone pots are an image of the six days of creation, the creation of the natural world and the fact that they are of stone is a figure of the solidness and soundness of the created world as it came forth from the hand of God.   These pots, however, are there "according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews" (Jn. 2, 6), so they have not pure water for drinking, but rather water spoiled from washing. Teaching us how creation, symbolized by the solid jars,  was originally "good".  It was only spoiled by original sin.  "Grace builds on nature", but that nature must be pure and that is why the Incarnation could not take place anywhere else except in the pure womb of the Virgin Mary, preserved from every stain of original sin for this purpose.

    Now one could presume that, if Jesus were going to perform a miracle, He could just as easily change dirty water into wine, as pure water into wine, but, in fact, He orders the stewards to fill the jars with new water.  "And they filled them up to the brim" (Jn. 2, 7).

    Yes, before we can taste the good wine of divine Grace that Christ came to bring, we must be washed clean by the waters of Baptism.  The Grace of the new supernatural order, which Christ would pour into the Sacraments of the new Covenant will include the Grace of the Sacrament of Matrimony which union between a man and a woman, will be restored to it's original purity and given the blessing and sacramental help of Sanctifying Grace.   So the old Adam and Eve, figured in the couple of Cana, would now be able, through the new Adam and Eve, to raise up citizens of Heaven.

  What can we know from Sacred Scripture on the natural knowledge of God?

         'That which is known of God,  is manifest in them.  For God',
             declares  the Spirit of Truth, 'hath manifested it unto them.  
             For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world,
             are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
             made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are
             inexcusable' (Rom. 1, 19-20).

   Thus it is, in the words of Saint Paul, that God the Creator reveals to all mankind the most important truth, His own  existence, by means of the most available and obvious of facts: the wondrous beauty and unfathonable order of the world.  'The heavens proclaim the glory of God' (Ps.18,1).  

  What does St. Thomas teach regarding a natural desire to see God?



    Refering to this passage of Paul the Apostle, Saint Thomas explains:

         'The Apostle says:  "The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being
          understood by the things that are made" (Rom. 1,20).  But this would
          not be unless the existence of God could be demonstrated through
          the things that are made; for the first thing we must know of anything
          is, whether it exists.'  

Aquinas then gives to us a philosophical explanation of this natural process:

         "Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause,
         and is called 'a priori', and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely.
         The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration 'a posteriori';
         this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us.  When an effect is
         better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the
         knowledge of the cause.  And from every effect the existence of its
         proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better
         known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause,  if  
         the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist.  Hence the existence of
         God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from
         those of His effects which are known to us."

    Saint Thomas teaches that man indeed does have a natural desire to see God:

         "Every intellect naturally desires a vision of the divine substance."
         (SUMMA CONTRA GENTILES; Lib. 3, Cp. 57).

For the proof of this Aquinas refers the reader back to chapter 50 of the same book:

         'From the knowledge of effects is incited a desire toward knowing
         (cognoscendum) the cause.  Whence men began to philosophize
         seeking the causes of things (Aristotle, METAPH.; I,2 (982b I2).  The desire
         therefore of knowing (sciendi), naturally implaned in all intellectual
         substances does not rest unless, having known the substances of
         effects, they know also the substance of the cause. . . .
         Furthermore nothing finite can set the intellect's desire at rest . . .
         This is proved from the fact that the intellect, given any finite thing,
         strives to go beyond it . . . *
         Moreover, just as there is a natural desire for knowledge in all
         intellectual natures, so there is in them a natural desire to rid
         themselves of ignorance or nescience. . . .
         And however much we know that God is, and other things mentioned
         above, we still go on desiring and seek to know Him in His essence. . . .
         It also clearly follows from this that ultimate happiness is to be sought
         nowhere else but in an operation of the intellect, since no desire
         leads us so high as the desire of knowing the truth.  For all our desires,
         whether of pleasure or of anything else that man wants, can be
         satisfied with other things; whereas the aforesaid desire does not
         rest until it has reached God, the supreme cause and maker of all.'

Moreover, in his SUMMA THEOLOGICA, St. Thomas writes:

         'There resides in every man a natural desire to know the cause of any
         effect which he sees; and thence arises wonder in men.  But if the
         intellect of the rational creature could not reach so far as to the first
         cause of things, the natural desire would remain void' (I-I, Q.12, art. 1).

From these two passages several things are clearly implied:
1)  This 'vision' or 'seeing' refered to, is in fact the intellectual act of knowing.
2)  We are dealing with the natural thought process or faculty of the human soul; we are not dealing with a desire for the beatific vision as it is envisioned in Christian eschatology.
3)  that in so far, at least, as the intellect of the rational creature does reach the first cause of things, this 'natural desire' would not 'remain void'.

      The natural desire to see God, of which Saint Thomas speaks, is therefore, understood in a purely natural way which is able to harmonizes well with the Church's teaching regarding the supernatural.

         "St. Thomas speaks of a 'natural desire' which arises in man at the sight
         created effects, namely the desire of seeing also their first Cause, God
         in Himself. . . .  The desire of which St. Thomas speaks, is really natural;
         not, however, innate (instinctive) but elicited, i.e., dependent on the
         knowledge of created things (effect), from which arises the desire to  
         know their Cause (God)." (DICTIONARY OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY; Parente, Piolanti, Garofalo/  
            trans. Doronzo; Milwaukee, 1951)

    This interpretation is also supported at least indirectly by the fact that Saint Thomas bases an argument for the necessity of Divine Revelation on the belief that "man is ordered (directed, ordained) by God to a certain end which exceeds the understanding of reason" (I-I; Q.1; art.1).

"And because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father. 7 Therefore now he is not a servant, but a son. And if a son, an heir also through God. 8 But then indeed, not knowing God, you served them, who, by nature, are not gods. 9 But now, after that you have known God, or rather are known by God: how turn you again to the weak and needy elements, which you desire to serve again? 10 You observe days, and months, and times, and years.

11 I am afraid of you, lest perhaps I have laboured in vain among you. 12 Be ye as I, because I also am as you: brethren, I beseech you: you have not injured me at all. 13 And you know, how through infirmity of the flesh, I preached the gospel to you heretofore: and your temptation in my flesh, 14 You despised not, nor rejected: but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. 15 Where is then your blessedness? For I bear you witness, that, if it could be done, you would have plucked out your own eyes, and would have given them to me.

16 Am I then become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? 17 They are zealous in your regard not well: but they would exclude you, that you might be zealous for them. 18 But be zealous for that which is good in a good thing always: and not only when I am present with you. 19 My little children, of whom I am in labour again, until Christ be formed in you. 20 And I would willingly be present with you now, and change my voice: because I am ashamed for you.

21 Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, have you not read the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a slave-girl, and the other by a free woman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman, was born according to the flesh: but he of the free woman, was by promise. 24 Which things are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from mount Sina, engendering unto slavery; which is Agar: 25 For Sina is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But that Jerusalem, which is above, is free: which is our mother. 27 For it is written: Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not: break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that hath a husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he, that was born according to the flesh, persecuted him that was after the spirit; so also it is now. 30 But what saith the scripture? Cast out the slave-girl and her son; for the son of the slave-girl shall not be heir with the son of the free woman" (Gal.4, 6-29).

What then is the "allegory"?  The supernatural is not given according to nature but according to "PROMISE".  It is true that the son of the slave-girl also received from God an inheritance, according to nature, BUT NOT THE PROMISE OF GRACE, SUPERNATURAL LIFE AND THE BEATIFIC VISION.  For that it is not sufficient "that  you have known God" but  "rather are known by God".   If there were "a natural desire for the Beatific Vision", then the promise would be unnecessary and render in vain to no purpose.

All of that can not be the "Mystery which has been hidden from eternity in God" (Ep. 3, 9) and revealed by Saint Paul (To me the very least of all the saints, there was given this grace, to announce among the Gentiles the good tidings of the unfathomable riches of Christ and to enlighten all men as to what is the dispensation of the mystery which has been hidden from eternity in God).
Why?
Because all of that was revealed in the Old Testament before Saint Paul.
The grace given Saint Paul (as opposed to the Old Testament prophets) was "to enlighten all men" (Jew and Gentile) concerning the mystery of intimate supernatural union with Divine Nature by human nature,  through Christ, both God and man, by means of the Incarnation.
Redemption and satisfaction for the offense of Adam against God, could only happen by means of a Divine and human mediator, but, likewise, intimate supernatural union with the Divine Nature by human nature could only happen by means of a Divine and human mediator: Christ, true God and true man.



  Does St. Thomas teach that there is "a natural desire for the Beatific Vision"?

    The truth of the matter is that in Saint Thomas there are various positive affirmations on both sides of this question.  Aquinas both affirms and denies the existence in man of a "natural desire for the Beatific Vision.  De Lubac unfortunely only quotes the texts of the Angelic Docotr that support his own view and, as a result, one would not get a full and accurate idea of St. Thomas' thinking from de Lubac's writings.

    Father Remigius Ritzler O.F.M. Conv., in his book on the natural desire of Supernatural Beatitude according to St. Thomas, gathered together a more complete collection of relevant Thomistic texts.  Let us take a look at the various and admittedly contradictory affirmations of St. Thomas on the subject:

"The end to which the divine liberality has ordered or predestined man, that is the enjoyment of Himself, is completely above the faculty of created nature, because 'neither eye has seen. . .'.  Whence, by natural means alone, man does not sufficiently have the inclination to that end.  And therefore it is necessary that there be superadded to man something through which he may have the inclination to that end, just as by natural makeup (per naturalia) he has an inclination to the end co-natural to himself" (In III Sent. dist. 23, q. 1, a. 4).

And again and this could not be clearer:

"Man, however, according to his nature is proportionate to a certain end, to which he has a natural appetite, and is able, according to natural powers, to work to the attainment of his end, which is a certain contemplation of divine things (divinorum), which is possible for man according to the faculty of nature, in which philosophers place the ultimate happiness (felicitatem) of man.
But there is a certain end to which man is prepared by God, exceeding a proportion to human nature, that is Eternal Life, which consists in the Vision of God by essence (per essentiam), which exceeds proportion of any created nature whatsoever, existing co-naturally to God alone.  Whence it is necessary that man be given something, not only through which he might work to that end or through which his appetite may be inclined into that end, but by which the nature of man may be elevated to a certain dignity according to which such an end may even be enabled."

I believe these texts of Saint Thomas categorically exclude any "natural desire for the Beatific Vision".

III Sententia, Distinction 23, Question 1, Article IV, Solution III

TO THE THIRD QUESTION must be said that all things which act on account of an end, it is necessary that there be an inclination to the end, and, almost (as is - quasi)  a certain beginning of the end: otherwise they might never act on account of the end.

The end to which the divine liberality has ordered or predestined man, that is the enjoyment of Himself, is completely above the faculty of created nature elevated, because "eye hath not seen, nor ear hath heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love HIm" (I Cor. 2, 9).  Whence, by natural means alone, man does not sufficiently have the inclination to that end.  And therefore it is necessary that there be super-added to man something through which he may have the inclination to that end, just as by natural makeup (per naturalia) he has an inclination to the end co-natural to himself.  And those things super-added (superaddita) are said theological virtues (ex tribus).

First to the object; because since the end to which we are ordered, be God Himself, the inclination which is pre-required (praeexigitur) consists in an operation which is concerning God Himself.

Secondly as to the cause; because just as that end is ordered for us by God not through our nature, thus only God works in us the inclination into that end; and thus they are called theological virtues.

Thirdly as to the knowledge of our nature; because since the end be above knowledge of nature, the inclination unto that end, cannot be known by natural reason, but by divine revelation; and therefore they are manifest to us by the divine word.  Whence the Philosophers knew nothing  concerning them.

III Sententia, Distinction 23, Question 1, Article IV, Solution III  (Cont.)

To the first therefore must be said that although man is naturally ordered to God both by knowledge and by affection, in so far as naturally it is his sharing, nevertheless because it is a certain participation of his above nature, therefore, a certain knowledge and affection above nature is required, therefore for this the theological virtues are required.

To the second must be said that happiness which Philosophers maintained man is able to arrive at by natural powers;  and therefore he has out of himself the natural inclination into that end.  Whence are not pre-required inclining powers but directing powers only in works, which are toward that end.  Not as such however is it in relationship.

To the third must be said that the speculative principles are known by another natural habit than conclusions, namely through the intellect; conclusions indeed through science.
But in the feelings, (in affectu: emotions, passions) no natural habit precedes, but the inclination to the ultimate end of nature, proportional, as has been said, is out of the nature itself of the powers.
But to an end elevated above nature, a gratuitous habit is needed to precede other habits both in the intellect, such as faith, and in the feelings, such as charity and hope, to which natural inclination does not extend.

To the fourth must be said that habits are not only distinguished by subjects, but even by objects.  Moral and intellectual virtues are distinguished from each other on the part of the subject, as has been said; but the theological virtues, from one another on the part of the object, which is above nature able to be, of both parts.  Whence some of the theological virtues, have respect to knowledge, such as faith, and has a certain communion with the intellectual virtues, and some have respect to feeling, such as charity and has a communion with the moral virtues.*  

    The traditional Catholic position  views the supernatural world, comprising the final goal of the vision of God and including all the graces necessary for its attainment, as something gratuitously added to man's created nature, which is neither owed the supernatural nor, as such, incomplete without it.  In the traditional position the supernatural order transcends the natural order and therefore a clear distinction is made between what belongs to the one and what belongs to the other.  Since, according to the traditional view,  nothing in the supernatural order is owed or due to created man, creation must have within itself a certain autonomy or completeness, which can be identified, therefore, as the natural order.

Saint Thomas Aquinas and a Natural Desire for the Supernatural

    As to the existence in man of "a natural desire for the Beatific Vision" in the theology of Saint Thomas, we have given quotes from Aquinas that show him to have held positions both for and against.  Although Père de Lubac only gives quotes from Saint Thomas in favor of this natural desire, we cannot help but conclude that he was aware of the contrary view in the Angelic Doctor himself, since he does, revealingly,  present the following opinion of Descops, although, he quotes him, albeit, in the context of making the case that more and more theologians were becoming conscious of the discrepancy between Cajetan's position and that of St. Thomas:

         "Père Pedro Descoqs. . . in 1938, declared St. Thomas' texts on the natural
         desire to be 'really antithetical', and his thought 'carried into two exclusive
         and irreconcilable streams'; he then looked upon Cajetan not as a faithful
         commentator, but as 'a metaphysician and theologian of the first rank'
         giving a 'reasonable' explanation to account for his master's apparent
         inconsistency." (Le Mystère de notre élévation surnaturelle,  pp 128-33: as quoted by de Lubac; THE MYSTERY OF THE
                   SUPERNATURAL; n.y. 1967; P. 13)

    The view, held today even more widely than in de Lubac's time, that Aquinas everywhere and always taught that there was in man this natural desire for the supernatural, and that later theologians misunderstood St. Thomas, mainly because Cajetan (and later others following him), corrupted the position of Aquinas, is extremely simplistic.   We should remember here that Pope Leo XIII, that great promoter of Thomistic study by his encyclical letter, "Aeterni Patris", when providing for an official Vatican Edition (the Leonine) of the works of Aquinas, ordered that the commentaries of Cajetan be included.



    The motor idea driving Père deLubac's thinking** on the supernatural is his understanding of man's "natural desire to see God".  De Lubac understands this desire to see God not in the natural sense of seeing the Cause of the visible world, but as an innate desire of seeing the beatific Vision or the supernatural being of God.  This understanding would fundamentally  alter the Church's traditional teaching regarding the relationship of the natural with the supernatural orders.  

    Some theologians, along with deLubac, believe themselves to have uncovered, in this "natural desire to see God", a desire, or a need, if you will, for the Beatific Vision of God, the essence of the supernatural world.  The natural desire for God is in effect a tormenting yearning for the supernatural.  A natural desire for God that remains in the natural order, in deLubac's view of things, is not sufficient.        

    If, however, this need has been planted by the Creator at the very core of man's being, then it would necessarily follow that its fulfillment would not so much be a gratuitous gift as a requirement of justice; as, for instance, because man has been created with an appetite for nourishment, one can, in justice,  presume the availability of food.  

    "P.  de Lubac", in the words of Cardinal Siri, "speaks of an 'absolute natural desire' of the vision of God.  This notion of the absolute natural desire discards (scarta), despite all the speculative efforts employed, the gratuitousness of the supernatural, that is, of the beatific vision."***

The Root of de Lubac's Problem.

   Père Henri de Lubac recognizes that man was created for God and a supernatural destiny.  Any attempt therefore to construct an autonomous and independent natural world is seen by the French theologian to be contrary to the finality of man as was intended by the Creator.  He conceives this attempt to have arrived at its ultimate formulation in the theory of "pure nature".  The theory of "pure nature" with its own  means and even destiny comprises a natural order which, according to him, must be essential at odds with a supernatural order since man can have only the one destiny set by the Creator, namely a supernatural one.

    Although the theory of pure nature received a conscious and elaborate formulation in the Renaissance, its underlying idea, if not always expressed in the same terminology, exists in the Fathers of the Church and the Middle ages.  This theory of "pure nature" actually was never developed, as de Lubac continually assumes, in opposition to the supernatural order; it was elaborated in opposition to the state of fallen man and the problem of original sin.  The heart of de Lubac's work on the supernatural is taken up with defining, tracing its history and undermining the theory of "pure nature" and yet strangely there is no discussion at all on original sin; in fact it is practically not even mentioned.  That is not surprising in itself because, as a matter of fact, many theologians today do not believe in the doctrine of original sin - some not scrupling to attack it outright, others, more cautious, contenting themselves to simply ignoring it

    The theory then of "pure nature" is not meant to detract from or keep man from the supernatural order, it is meant to clarify for our thinking the integrity of the natural order in relation to the order resulting from original sin.  It is meant to highlight and put in perspective the full depth of Redemption by the Sacred Heart.

    How does this misunderstanding effect deLubac's  ideas on man's desire to see God?

    This problem of reconciling a natural human desire of seeing God, which Aquinas and others  recognize, with  the absolute gratuitous character of Grace and Divine Life, which St. Thomas also clearly teaches, lies at the heart of the debate regarding the relationship of the natural and supernatural orders.

    The gratuitousness of the supernatural order is thought by traditional theology as best preserved by defining it in contrast to the "state of pure nature" since in such a state not only would there be nothing owed by God to man from the supernatural order, but this purely natural order would have within itself all the means, certainly no less from God, of satisfying its own natural exigencies.

    Under the premise that all humans created by God have been called to a supernatural destiny, deLubac does not concede that we can identify what the state of pure nature would be, or, if it  could be identified, is not convinced that it would serve any purpose.

    Theological discussion of the supernatural has focused on various "states" of human nature.   These "states" indicate various conditions of human nature,  identified, as existing or having existed in history, or else as, at least, hypothetically possible.  There is, for example, the state of human nature existing before the fall of Adam, the state of human nature existing after original sin, and the state of human nature after the Redemption.  There is also, according to some, the "state of pure nature" which, even if it were never to have actually existed historically, is not considered to be in any way contradictory to the states that historically have existed.

    Whether one holds with Saint Thomas, that man's elevation to the supernatural state occurred at the time of his creation or, as Scotus and Saint Bonaventure maintain, at a later point, what is clearly evident, is that the two, creation and elevation, are distinct.  The Council of Trent deliberately avoided choosing between the Thomist and the Scotist position.

     In 1950, Pope Pius XII in his encyclical, HUMANI GENERIS, wrote: "Others destroy (corrumpunt)  the gratuitous character of the supernatural order, by suggesting that it would be impossible for God to create rational beings without equipping (ordering) them for the beatific vision and calling them to it".****   

    One conclusion that we would have to draw from this, is that the creation of rational life does not in itself imply or incorporate a supernatural destiny and therefore even though the actually created men have been, in reality, called to a supernatural destiny, it is not necessarily implied by their creation.  We could further admit that the very purpose of the creation of humanity could, in fact, be the calling of mankind to a supernatural destiny without that purpose or extrinsic circumstance, being in any way reflected in the constituent makeup of the creatures themselves, other than as a purely passive capacity.  

TWO CREATIONS

                    "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision but
                      a new creation is of any account" (Gal. 6, 15).

   Let us consider this question not from the point of view of the "states" of human nature but from the point of view of creation.

    There are only  two creations: the first or original creation, described in the Book of Genesis, and then the second creation brought about by the redemption of Christ and spoken of by Saint Paul: a "new creation in Christ" (2Cor. 5,17).   It was in the beginning that God created everything, and, through creating, endowed everything with its respective nature.  It is within the original creation that Almighty God has determined natures, or collectively, we could say, nature.  Catholic theology has maintained the essential integrity of that nature despite its modification by sin or its adornment by gifts.  Sin wounds but does not destroy nature.   And likewise Grace "builds on nature".  Since nature was determined by God "in the beginning" at creation and since no one is maintaining that God re-created or uncreated after the fall of man, whatever "state" of human nature may exist, it must be understood within, not outside of, that original creation and must deal with that nature inherent in every creature as it came forth from the creating hand of God.  Fallen humanity is still humanity.  If it were any different, it would not be humanity at all, but rather something else.   In other words, human nature after the fall, at least in relation to its creation did not differ from before the fall.

    If there is a nature at all, then there is a pure nature .  "Pure nature" is neither more nor less than nature itself considered as a universal and as such implies all the philosophical import of any universal, that is to say, in one sense, it exists in all particular natures and, in another sense, exists in no particular one.  A full treatment of the philosophical problem of universals would be better addressed  in another section, but the fundamental point we make here is that if there is no "pure nature", then there can be no nature at all.

    In this model or under this hypothesis, if you will,  it is not that "pure nature" never existed; it is that pure nature always exists.

    What is clear from Holy Scripture is that  there is "In the beginning" a creation which is over and over again, sometimes more explicitly, sometimes less explicitly, identified with nature.

      There is a universal obligation of man to acknowledge the Creator of the visible universe (cf. Rom. 1,20).  God  showed men "the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them (cf. Rom. 2,15).

                                 "It is sown a natural body,  it shall rise a spiritual body.
                                   If there be a natural body, there is also a spiritual body,
                                   as it is written: The first man Adam was made into
                                   a living soul; the last Adam into a quickening spirit.
                                   Yet that was not first which is spiritual,
                                    but that which is natural; afterwards that which is spiritual.
                                    The first man was of the earth, earthly: the second man,
                                    from heaven, heavenly. Such as is the earthly,
                                    such also are the earthly: and such as is the heavenly,
                                    such also are they that are heavenly. Therefore
                                    as we have borne the image of the earthly,
                                    let us bear also the image of the heavenly" (I Cor. 15, 44-50).
    And again:

                                 "The Lord will not deprive of good things
                                   them that walk in innocence" (Ps.83,13).

    DeLubac does not make a scriptural case; in fact, in hundreds of pages of reasoning, there is hardly a biblical quote.  And yet it is the understanding of nature, presented in the Bible, that forms the basis of the distinction between the old man and the new man, between nature and grace, between the natural order and the supernatural order.

    The central part of deLubac's effort is a consideration of the notion of "pure nature" which he variously calls an hypothesis and a theory:

              "What has happened to so many other theories may well happen
         to the theory of 'pure nature' that has been developed, specified and
         systematized in the West over the course of recent centuries.  It has
         ruled uncontested among theologians, and has been accepted as
         fact.  We may note however that its reign appears short in the
         context of twenty centuries of Catholic tradition.  We may also note
         that it is a theory that has never penetrated the theology of the East . . .
              The fact that 'pure nature' in the modern sense of the word is
         something not considered at all in eastern theology is explaned by the
         fact that early Greek tradition contained no such idea.  (I do not say
         that it therefore denies it.)  Nor, I believe, was it contained in Latin
         tradition till a very late date"  ( Henri de Lubac; THE MYSTERY OF THE SUPERNATURAL;
            NY; 1967; p.6,7).
         
    In examining various historical controversies concerning grace,  deLubac concludes that the gradual development of the concept of "pure nature" resulted in the positing of two distinct independent and parallel orders: the natural order and the supernatural order; ultimately comporting two distinct ends: a natural beatitude and a supernatural beatitude.  And even if this natural order be posited merely as a theoretical possibility, he sees in this theological speculation a possible contributing cause - at minimum by providing a certain intellectual milieu - for some harmful trends in Renaissance and modern thinking, such as secularization; a duality, in effect, of orders too independent of one another, and producing a mutual autonomy ultimately "fatal" to the Christian view of life.  

         "The concept of the status naturae purae involves only such notes
          as belong to the essence of human nature and are due to it by virtue
          of creation, preservation, concurrence, and the general providence
          of God.  Among the things that are due to man, as man, (aside from
          his physical endowment which is included in the definition of animal
          rationale), is the ethical faculty of knowing God as his natural end
          and of discovering and observing the moral law of nature.  That is,
          man must be able, by leading a naturally good life, to attain to his
           natural destiny, which would consist not in the beatific vision, but
           in an abstractive knowledge of God apt to render the creature
           happy.  To these positive notes must be added a negative one, viz.:
           the exclusion of all such prerogatives as are either strictly
           supernatural (e. g., grace, actual and habitual), or at least
           preternatural."  (Pohle-Preuss, God - The Author of Nature and the Supernatural)

    "He (Bellarmine) grants that the soul is capable of God, that this is very true; however, God still remains free to actuate or not this natural capacity;  thus He could leave man to his own powers, (that is to his powerlessness). . . We have here, then, the idea of our 'pure nature' asserted in principle. . . For long past and in many ways it had been preparing to emerge.  Nevertheless, it can be asserted, with Fr. Smulders, that 'Bellarmine is its creator'". (deLubac, Augustinianism and Modern Theology; 169-170)

    In effect, deLubac rejects the notion of "pure nature" since he holds that a complete self-standing natural order not only does not in fact exist, but would be a contradiction to the order that does exist: namely an order where mankind has been offered only one destiny, a supernatural one.  He attacks the notion of pure nature both for its hypothetical character as well as its relatively late appearance in the discussion of the supernatural.


    While in theory deLubac acknowledges the integrity of the natural order, in practice, it is disregarded.  DeLubac's man skips over the visible world and is by nature focused on the beatific vision.  

    As we know, God created man for supernatural beatitude, that is, "to be happy with Him in heaven"; and therefore, reasons deLubac, the end of a purely natural order, that is, natural beatitude, would posit a second, and in his way of thinking, different and even opposed end from that intended by the Creator.

    DeLubac, however,  fails to distinguish between the external end of a created or made entity as intended by the agent or efficient cause and the internal end of the entity itself.  The end of Caesar Augustus' census, to give an example, may have been to count the number of taxpayers, but the end for God may have been to bring Joseph and Mary to the City of David, thus fulfilling the prophecy that the Savour be born Bethlehem.

   Any natural destiny  of creatures which would be proportionate to their nature, does not have to be seen  in  opposition to a possible supernatural destiny but rather as an end, conformable and compatible to that destiny.  A purely natural destiny, under a given set of circumstances, might be considered as preliminary: "Well done,  good and faithful servant", says the Lord, "because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord" (Mt.25,23).  

  Faith and the Natural Order

    Insisting on the integrety of the natural order does not mean that the natural order and the supernatural order are not related.  Indeed they are.  The teaching of the Gospel and the Acts of
the Apostles, would indicate that justice in the natural order is the condition of the supernatural order.   Over and over again, for example in the instance of the ten lepers and in the instance of on the first converts at Saint Peter's sermon on Pentecost, we find that the gift of Divine Faith is the reward of an honest response to human faith.  The teaching of Saint Paul and on that basis the teaching of Saint Augustine, that there is nothing that we can do to earn or merit the gift of faith holds true and yet it is equally recognized that somehow we can render ourselves worthy of it, or in another common expression, there is someway in which we are granted the ability to cooperate with actual or preventive grace.  So while there is nothing that we can do to merit Divine Faith, there is the obligation to believe, by a human faith, in the witness of Christ.

         "Now when they had heard these things (Saint Peter's sermon),  
         they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the
         rest of the apostles:  What shall we do, men and brethern?  But
         Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you
         in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins:  and
         you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.  For the promise is to
         you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever
         the Lord our God shall call.  And with very many other words did
         he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this
         perverse generation.  They therefore that received his word, were
         baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand
         souls" (Acts. 2, 37-41).

    We notice here that these converts first believed the word of Saint Peter and only then were they babtized, receiving the the gift of the Holy Spirit.

    It has for centuries been understood that 'the two destinies', one natural and the other supernatural are not contradictory but, in the language of scholastic theology, the lesser natural end is 'ordinare' (ordered or directed) to the greater supernatural end.  This can been seen from this quote of Saint Thomas:

         'Irrational creatures are not ordered to a higher end than the end which is
         proportionate to their own natural power' (I-I, Q. 91, art. 4, ad 3).

The implication here is that the natural end of animals is not ordered or directed to a higher supernatural end as is the natural end of humans.

      Pure nature existing in a vacuum without reference to God's plan for mankind, indeed is hypothetical, but pure nature as the natural foundation upon which God's plan for mankind unfolds, is not hypothetical.

      Does St. Augustine's affirmation: "Thou hast made us for Thyself, O God, and our hearts are anxious, until they rest in Thee" (Confessions, I,1), imply a "natural desire for the Beatific Vision?

    DeLubac attempts to bolster his case by highlighting a few prominent quotes from Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas.  Saint Augustine, for example, invokes God with the words: "Thou hast made us for Thyself, O God, and our hearts are anxious, until they rest in Thee" (Confessions, I,1).  DeLubac believes that this yearning of St. Augustine's heart is explicitly for supernatural rest in God: "When St. Augustine", writes deLubac, "uttered his famous declaration, 'Fecisti nos ad te, Deus. . .' he never anticipated that one day in the twentieth century this would be taken in a purely natural sense."  

    The context of Saint Augustine's famous quote, however, would indicate that the peace of which he spoke, was that which he enjoyed upon having found, after many years of philosophical wandering, the one true God.  

    Saint Augustine continually taught and preached the possibility of an earthly peace within  the heart and conscience of a faithful follower of Christ.  "Peace", wrote Saint Augustine, "is serenity of mind, tranquillity of soul."   Our Blessed Lord had invitingly proclaimed: "Come to me all ye who are tired and burdened, and I will give you  rest for your souls" (Mt. 11,29).  

    After Augustine left teaching Rhetoric at Milan and while Saint Augustine was awaiting to be baptized by Saint Ambrose, he retired with a few of his students, a close friend and Monica, his mom, to a country retreat that had been offered to him by a well-to-do friend.  There in the quite and peaceful country setting they took up, in the Socratic form of dialogue, some of the great philosophical questions, among them that of happiness.

    They were distinctly talking about happiness in this life.  They finally unanimously concluded that happiness is nothing other than the "perfect knowledge of God".

    Before dying Augustine had the opportunity to review all his works so as to correct anything that he felt further knowledge of the faith and later reflection would dictate.  In these "Retractationes" regarding the work "De Beata Vita", On the Blessed Life (or Happiness), he withdraws this opinion saying that it is in direct contradiction to what Saint Paul states: "We see now through a glass in a dark manner, but then face to face.  Now I know in part: but then I shall know even as I am known" (I Cor. 13, 12).

    This shows that Augustine's dictum: "Our hearts are troubled, O Lord, until they rest in Thee" (also from an early work of the same period: the Confessions), was referring to this life and the peace that the soul has upon finding God. Augustine was here not giving merely a theogical principle, but a personal testimony of his own spiritual and psychological state.

Our understanding of Saint Augustine's famous statement, as referring to the natural order, can be seen from this passage of Pope Paul VI:

         "But the theme of our exhortation is situated on still another level. For the
         problem seems to be, above all, of the spiritual order. It is man -- in his soul --
         who finds himself without the means to take on himself the sufferings and
         miseries of our time. These sufferings and miseries crush him all the more to
         the extent that the meaning of life escapes him, that he is no longer sure of
         himself or of his transcendent calling and destiny. He has desacralized the
         universe and now he is desacralizing humanity; he has at times cut the vital
         link that joined him to God. Hope, and the value of individuals, are no longer
         sufficiently ensured. God seems to him abstract and useless. Without his
         being able to express it, God's silence weighs heavily on him. Yes, cold and
         darkness are first in the heart of the man who knows sadness. One can speak
         here of the sadness of non-believers, when the human spirit, created in the
         image and likeness of God, and therefore instinctively oriented towards Him
         as its sole and supreme good, remains without knowing Him clearly, without
         loving Him, and therefore without experiencing the happiness, even though
         imperfect, that is brought by the knowledge of God and by the certainty of
         having a link with Him that even death cannot break. Who does not recall
         the words of Saint Augustine: "You have made us for Yourself. Lord, and our
         hearts are restless until they rest in You"? (Cf. Saint Augustine, Confessions, Book 1, 1)  It is
         therefore by becoming more present to God, by turning away from sin, that
         man can truly enter into spiritual joy. Without doubt "flesh and blood" (Cf. Mt. 16:17)
         are incapable of this. But Revelation can open up this possibility and grace can
         bring about this return. Our intention is precisely to invite you to the sources of
         Christian joy. And how could we do this, without ourselves becoming attentive to
         God's plan, listening to the Good News of His love?" (On Christian Joy; Gaudete in Domino; Pope
                Paul Vl; May 9, 1975 )

    That "the human spirit, created in the image and likeness of God, and therefore instinctively oriented towards Him as its sole and supreme good" is true of the natural order and this forms the natural basis of his gratuitous "transcendent calling and destiny".  The whole nature order is "oriented towards", or ordered to God, according to the ancient theological dictum: "Grace builds on nature".

    In his later works on the Supernatural deLubac did retrench somewhat from his earlier work and does admit the theoretical possibility of a state of pure nature, although it seems that this concession may have been made simply to fall within the bare formal requirements of Pope Pius XII's admonition in HUMANI GENERIS, since it doesn't mesh well with and even seems to be contradictory to, his over all solution to the problem.

OBEDIENTIAL POTENCY

    The essential compatibility of human nature with the supernatural is proven by the Incarnation, the mystery whereby Christ is truly God and truly man.  It is sin, initially the original sin of Adam,  which destroys this compatibility.   Baptism however restores this compatibility.  In the Holy Eucharist, man receives Our Blessed Lord:  body, soul, humanity and divinity.

    The attempt to bridge this gap by means of a principal such as "potentia obedientiale" is superfluous and redundant.  Obediential potency suffers from the defect of all emanation type theories.  To smoothly unite, for example, one and ten, it must posit five but then to unite one and five and five and ten, it must posit three and seven and on and on in an "infinite regress" extending into decimals.  In effect obediential potency must be either human or divine or a mixture of both.  
The difficulty can be expressed as such:

         "Obediential potency (is) the capacity of a creature to be elevated by God to
         a state and action above its nature and its natural potency.  According to the
         Thomists (who claim to express faithfully St. Thomas' mind), it is reducible to
         a sort of non-impossibility (nonrepugnantia).  According to the Scotists and
         the Suaresians, it includes also a disposition and a tendency, although such
         tendency cannot reach its object without an intervention of God.  The
         question is quite delicate, because on its solution depends the gratuitous
         nature of the supernatural order.  If the Scotists' opinion is pushed too far,
         the supernatural order becomes the term of a natural tendency and hence
         is no longer undue, as Catholic doctrine teaches it to be.  If the Thomists'
         position is stressed, the supernatural may appear too extraneous to nature,
         and one does not easily understand how it can be inserted in nature and
         bring nature to its perfection."  (DICTIONARY OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY; Parente, Piolanti, Garofalo/
           trans. Doronzo; Milwaukee, 1951)

    If the essential possible compatibility of the natural and the supernatural is proven by the reality of the Incarnation, the possibility of the Incarnation is proven by the actual existence of its absolute condition: pure nature as found in the Immaculate Conception.

                     "In theThomist theory of redemption, which considers not Christ, but the Trinity, as the
                     cause of grace in the angels and in our first parents in Paradise. . ." (The Catholic
                           Encyclopedia, 1913).

    We would have to judge this discordant with the explicit words of the Gospel which states that: "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (Jn. 1, 17).

                     "As to the Scotists, they derive each and every supernatural grace in heaven
                     and on earth solely from the merits of Christ, inasmuch as the
                     God-Man would have appeared on earth even had
                     Adam not sinned. But they, too, are compelled to introduce, in the present
                     dispensation, a distinction between the "grace of Christ" and the "grace of the
                     Redeemer" for the reason that, in their ideal theory, neither the angels nor the
                     inhabitants of Paradise owe their holiness to the Redeemer. The addition, ex
                     meritis Christi, must therefore be included in the notion of actual grace. But there
                     are also merely external graces, which owe their existence to the merits of
                     Christ's redemption -- as the Bible, preaching, the crucifix, the example of Christ
                     One of these, the hypostaic union, marks even the highest point of all possible
                     graces" (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913).


   *  'Seeing that something is (quia est), men naturally desire to know (scire)
         the reason for it (propter quid).  Therefore also, knowing (cognoscentes)
         whether something is (an est), they naturally desire to know what it is
         (quid est) in itself, that is, to understand its substance.  Thus the natural
         desire of knowing of God by concept is not satisfied with the knowledge
         by which it is known only that He Himself exists (quia est).'
        (SUMMA CONTRA GENTILES; Lib. 3, Cp. 50)

   **  Ritzler, Fr. Remigius, O.F.M. Conv.; DE NATURALI DESIDERIO BEATITUDINIS SUPERNATURALIS AD MENTEM S. THOMAE;  Rome; 1938

          S. Thomae Aquinatis; SCRIPTUM SUPER SENTENTIIS Magisrti Petri Lombardi; ; Parisiis; 1933; Tome III, pp. 715-716.

**    H. DeLubac; SURNATUREL;  Paris; 1946.
      Henri de Lubac; THE MYSTERY OF THE SUPERNATURAL; NY; 1967.  H. DeLubac; Le Mystère du Surnaturel; Paris; 1965.
      Henri de Lubac; AUGUSTINIANISM AND MODERN THEOLOGY; Montreal; 1969.
      
*** Cardinal Giuseppe Siri; GETSEMANI; Fraternita della Santissima Vergine Maria; Roma; 1980. Published earlier under the title:
     "Riflessioni sul Movimento Teologico Contemporaneo".
****  Denzinger 2318/3891; ed. XXXV;1973.
      "Elevation [to the supernatural state] is a stupendous advance upon nature; and the vision of God, but for its being a revealed fact,
      would be beyond any creature's dream. 'It hath not entered into the heart of man to conceive' (1 Cor. 2, 9).  But once raised to the
      supernatural order and endowed with grace, St. Thomas would argue invincibly that there is no proper happiness for created
       spirits except face to face with the beauty and glory of God.  (Rickaby, Joseph; OF GOD AND HIS CREATURES - An Annotated
       Translation; 1905)

                                                                                                                       Fr. Rosario Thomas


(To be continued)

*     *     *     *     *