"modern Christianity . . . has increasingly defined itself by way of the project of modernity and its characteristic hopes, in short, has come to see itself almost exclusively as the religious aspect of modernity and consequently has become oblivious and even resentful of the faith that comes from the apostles."
Reinhard Hütter, "'In hope he believed against hope' (Rom 4:18): faith and hope, two Pauline motifs as interpreted by Aquinas: a re-lecture of Pope Benedict XVI's encyclical letter Spe salvi," Nova et vetera: the English edition of the international theological journal 7, no. 4 (Fall 2009): 841 (839-867). The "characteristic hopes" of modernity are, at best, hopes in the lower case: "the hope against which Abraham believes in [H]ope is the kind of ordinary hope we can find in all human beings to a smaller or lesser degree" (855, italics mine; Hütter cites fruitfully Aquinas (n. 26) and Chrysostom (n. 27) on "Christian hope in contrast to what we might want to call 'ordinary hope'").
Friday, June 4, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Prouvost on Heidegger
“If there is an ontotheological aspect of metaphysics, this is in a secondary sense [(manière)], by virtue of a concession only [(p. 97, par. 5 ff.)]. Why? Because Thomas Aquinas rightly rejects the dimorphic interpretation of being that leads to a single ontotheological science. Theology occupies an even higher rank than ontology. It is not a part of ontotheological reflection, but its principle and end. . . .
“being qua being is the most common object of thought, which is why it is at the same time the proper subject of metaphysics and the proper object of the human intellect [(intellectus, not ratio)]. But the knowledge of God in himself goes way beyond the powers of our intellect. God is the cause of being qua being, not an instance [(partie)] of it. Because he is the principle of all things, without participating in any way in [(sans être rien de)] that which he causes (Thomas rejects the idea of a causa sui), he is the principle before all things, and we can conceive of him only relatively or negatively. The theological resolution [(resolutio secundum esse, not mere rationem; “an analysis according to the act of being,” not mere “concepts”)] leads us beyond the limits of our intellect. This is why analogy is so important for Thomas, and why our ontological reflection stops short of [(s’arrête à)] theology. The first reflection (that on being in general) stops short of the point at which [(s’arrête là où)] the second (that on God as the principle of being) begins. In this sense, Heidegger was right in his analysis of the Prologue to the commentary on the Metaphysics: metaphysics is not a single science. The rational analysis of terms is not the return to the intelligible principle. But it is also why Heidegger was wrong in his general definition of ontotheology, for this [(cela)] shows precisely that metaphysics is not an ontotheology.
“Thus, the birth of metaphysics is not the equivalent of the discovery of a first mover. The latter can be attained by another rational science, in a physical reflection. Metaphysics begins with the consideration of the abstract entity, [an entity] in matter, but capable of being separated from it; and it stops short of the point at which separated, divine esse begins, because this esse is the cause and the principle of everything that it is capable of reflecting upon. God remains outside of metaphysics.
“This is why metaphysics cannot allow for an ontological proof. An ontological proof implies that the esse (the existence) of God is arrived at via his ratio (his concept). But God is not included in our ratio of being [(l’étant)]; he is its principle. The contemplation of the principle as such does not belong to metaphysics.
"There cannot be a Platonic synthesis. There are [only] two different sciences, which must not be confounded, even if the second continues the first."
Géry Prouvost, “Quand commence l’ontothéologie? Aristote, Thomas d’Aquin et Duns Scot,” Revue thomiste 95 (1995): 99-101 (85-108). The (Neo-)Platonic or Avicennian synthesis ignores the Christian distinction, "the [radical] difference between mathematical abstraction and absolute divine separation", "l'étant séparé" and "la divinité séparée", creation (however purely intelligible) and Creator.
“being qua being is the most common object of thought, which is why it is at the same time the proper subject of metaphysics and the proper object of the human intellect [(intellectus, not ratio)]. But the knowledge of God in himself goes way beyond the powers of our intellect. God is the cause of being qua being, not an instance [(partie)] of it. Because he is the principle of all things, without participating in any way in [(sans être rien de)] that which he causes (Thomas rejects the idea of a causa sui), he is the principle before all things, and we can conceive of him only relatively or negatively. The theological resolution [(resolutio secundum esse, not mere rationem; “an analysis according to the act of being,” not mere “concepts”)] leads us beyond the limits of our intellect. This is why analogy is so important for Thomas, and why our ontological reflection stops short of [(s’arrête à)] theology. The first reflection (that on being in general) stops short of the point at which [(s’arrête là où)] the second (that on God as the principle of being) begins. In this sense, Heidegger was right in his analysis of the Prologue to the commentary on the Metaphysics: metaphysics is not a single science. The rational analysis of terms is not the return to the intelligible principle. But it is also why Heidegger was wrong in his general definition of ontotheology, for this [(cela)] shows precisely that metaphysics is not an ontotheology.
“Thus, the birth of metaphysics is not the equivalent of the discovery of a first mover. The latter can be attained by another rational science, in a physical reflection. Metaphysics begins with the consideration of the abstract entity, [an entity] in matter, but capable of being separated from it; and it stops short of the point at which separated, divine esse begins, because this esse is the cause and the principle of everything that it is capable of reflecting upon. God remains outside of metaphysics.
“This is why metaphysics cannot allow for an ontological proof. An ontological proof implies that the esse (the existence) of God is arrived at via his ratio (his concept). But God is not included in our ratio of being [(l’étant)]; he is its principle. The contemplation of the principle as such does not belong to metaphysics.
"There cannot be a Platonic synthesis. There are [only] two different sciences, which must not be confounded, even if the second continues the first."
Géry Prouvost, “Quand commence l’ontothéologie? Aristote, Thomas d’Aquin et Duns Scot,” Revue thomiste 95 (1995): 99-101 (85-108). The (Neo-)Platonic or Avicennian synthesis ignores the Christian distinction, "the [radical] difference between mathematical abstraction and absolute divine separation", "l'étant séparé" and "la divinité séparée", creation (however purely intelligible) and Creator.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Let the earth bring forth vegetation
"the voice which was then heard and that first command became, as it were, a law of nature and remained in the earth, giving it the power to produce and bear fruit for all succeeding time. . . ."
"Reflect, I beg you, that in consequence of this short word and a command so brief, the earth, chilled and barren, was incessantly in travail and stirred up to productiveness. . . ."
"That command, which even yet is inherent in the earth, impels it in the course of each year to exert all the power it has for the generation of herbs, seeds, and trees. For, as tops, from the first impulse given to them, produce successive whirls when they are spun, so also the order of nature, having received its beginning from that first command continues to all time thereafter. . . ."
"Consider the word of God moving through all creation, having begun at that time, active up to the present, and efficacious until the end, even to the consummation of the world. . . .
"This command remains in the earth and the earth does not cease serving the Creator. . . ."
"the soul of brute beasts did not emerge after having been hidden in the earth, but it was called into existence at the time of the command. . . ."
St. Basil the Great on Gen 1:11, On the Hexaemeron 5.1, 2, 10; 9.2-3, trans. Sister Agnes Clare Way, C.D.P. (FC 46, 67, 69, 82, 136-138).
"Reflect, I beg you, that in consequence of this short word and a command so brief, the earth, chilled and barren, was incessantly in travail and stirred up to productiveness. . . ."
"That command, which even yet is inherent in the earth, impels it in the course of each year to exert all the power it has for the generation of herbs, seeds, and trees. For, as tops, from the first impulse given to them, produce successive whirls when they are spun, so also the order of nature, having received its beginning from that first command continues to all time thereafter. . . ."
"Consider the word of God moving through all creation, having begun at that time, active up to the present, and efficacious until the end, even to the consummation of the world. . . .
"This command remains in the earth and the earth does not cease serving the Creator. . . ."
"the soul of brute beasts did not emerge after having been hidden in the earth, but it was called into existence at the time of the command. . . ."
St. Basil the Great on Gen 1:11, On the Hexaemeron 5.1, 2, 10; 9.2-3, trans. Sister Agnes Clare Way, C.D.P. (FC 46, 67, 69, 82, 136-138).
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Not the extent of our happiness, but the firmness of our determination
"love consists, not in the extent of our happiness, but in the firmness of our determination to try to please God in everything, and to endeavour, in all possible ways, not to offend Him, and to pray Him ever to advance the honour and glory of His Son and the growth of the Catholic Church. Those are the signs of love. . . ."
St. Teresa of Avila, Interior castle, Third mansions, chap. 2 (Complete works of St. Teresa of Jesus, translated and edited by E. Allison Peers, vol. 2 (London: Sheed & Ward, 1946), 233).
St. Teresa of Avila, Interior castle, Third mansions, chap. 2 (Complete works of St. Teresa of Jesus, translated and edited by E. Allison Peers, vol. 2 (London: Sheed & Ward, 1946), 233).
Serving God at a snail's pace
"The penances done by these persons are as carefully ordered as their lives. They have a great desire for penance, so that by means of it they may serve Our Lord--and there is nothing wrong in that--and for this reason they observe great discretion in their penances, lest they should injure their health. You need never fear that they will kill themselves: they are eminently reasonable folk! Their love is not yet ardent enough to overwhelm their reason. How I wish ours would make us dissatisfied with this habit of always serving God at a snail's pace! As long as we do that we shall never get to the end of the road. And as we seem to be walking along and getting fatigued all the time--for, believe me, it is an exhausting road--we shall be very lucky if we escape getting lost. Do you think, daughters, if we could get from one country to another in a week, it would be advisable, with all the winds and snow and floods and bad roads, to take a year over it? Would it not be better to get the journey over and done with? . . .
"When we proceed with all this caution, we find stumbling blocks everywhere; for we are afraid of everything, and so dare not go farther, as if we could arrive at these Mansions by letting others make the journey for us! That is not possible, my sisters; so, for the love of the Lord, let us make a real effort: let us leave our reason and our fears in His hands and let us forget the weakness of our nature which is apt to cause us so much worry. Let our superiors see to the care of our bodies; that must be their concern: our own task is only to journey with good speed so that we may see the Lord."
St. Teresa of Avila, Interior castle, Third mansions, chap. 2 (Complete works of St. Teresa of Jesus, translated and edited by E. Allison Peers, vol. 2 (London: Sheed & Ward, 1946), 226).
"When we proceed with all this caution, we find stumbling blocks everywhere; for we are afraid of everything, and so dare not go farther, as if we could arrive at these Mansions by letting others make the journey for us! That is not possible, my sisters; so, for the love of the Lord, let us make a real effort: let us leave our reason and our fears in His hands and let us forget the weakness of our nature which is apt to cause us so much worry. Let our superiors see to the care of our bodies; that must be their concern: our own task is only to journey with good speed so that we may see the Lord."
St. Teresa of Avila, Interior castle, Third mansions, chap. 2 (Complete works of St. Teresa of Jesus, translated and edited by E. Allison Peers, vol. 2 (London: Sheed & Ward, 1946), 226).
Monday, May 10, 2010
"How is it, Lord, that we are cowards in everything save in opposing Thee?"
¿Qués esto, señor, que para todo somos cobardes, si no es para contra uos?St. Teresa of Avila, Las exclamaçiones del alma a su dios/Exclamations of the soul to God 12, The complete works of Saint Teresa of Jesus, trans. E. Allison Peers, vol. 2 (London: Sheed & Ward, 1946), 412; Obras de Sta. Teresa de Jesus, ed. Silverio de Santa Teresa, C.D., tom. 4 (Burgos: Typographia de "El Monte Carmelo", 1917), 363.
What is this, Lord, that we are cowards about everything except being against You?Soliloquies 12, The collected works of St. Teresa of Avila, trans. Kieran Kavanaugh, O.C.D. & Otilio Rodriguez, O.C.D., vol. 2 (Washington, DC: ICS Publications, Institute of Carmelite Studies, 1976), 454.
Friday, May 7, 2010
John Wesley on the role in our lives of the faithful departed
"It has in all ages been allowed that the communion of saints extends to those in paradise as well as those upon earth as they are all one body united under one Head. And
"Whatever designs a man has, whatever he is proposing to do, either for himself or his friends, when his spirit goes hence all are at an end. And it is in this sense only that ‘all our thoughts perish.’ Otherwise all our thoughts and designs, though not carried into execution, are noted in His Book who accepts us according to our willing mind and rewards intentions as well as actions. By aiming at Him in all things, by studying to please Him in all your thoughts and words and actions, you are continually sowing to the Spirit; and of the Spirit you will reap life everlasting."
John Wesley, letter to Mary Bishop dated 9 May 1773. The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., ed. John Telford (London: The Epworth Press, 1960 [1931]), vol. 6, pp. 26-27. Cf. http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/letters/1773.htm.
"But we have no reason to think they [departed souls] are confined to this place [heaven]; or, indeed, to any other. May we not rather say that, as 'servants of his,' as well as the holy angels, they 'do his pleasure,' whether among the inhabitants of the earth or in any other part of his dominions?"
John Wesley, sermon "On faith, Hebrews 11:1," Works of John Wesley (Bicentennial edition of the works of John Wesley), ed. Albert Outler et al., vol. 4 (Sermons IV, 115-151), p. 195.
Both quotations were encountered originally in Maura Hearden, "Our lady of sacramental communion: Marian possibilities emerging from Catholic-Methodist dialogue," Pro ecclesia 19, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 90. Except that Hearden (a Catholic) doesn't quote the paragraph beginning, "Whatever de[s]igns a man has, whatever he is proposing to do, either for himself or his friends, when his spirit goes hence all are at an end." How did Wesley reconcile these statements? By restricting the designs-at-an-end to those of this life only?
Maddox: "At least once [Wesley] suggested a participation by the 'souls of departed Christians' (saints?)" in the providential care of God (Randy L. Maddox, Responsible grace: John Wesley's practical theology (Nashville, TN: Kingswood Books, Abingdon Press, 1994), 60 with 282n92, where the second of the two quotations above is cited), but "valued the saints as honored exemplars, not intercessors" (208 with 352n94, where references to his "criticism of intercessory prayer to saints" are given). For more on this according to Maddox, see Laurence Hull Stookey, "The Wesleys and the saints," Liturgy 5 (1985-1986): 77-81, and Geoffrey Wainwright, "Wesley and the communion of the saints," One in Christ 27 (1991): 332-345.
Can death's interposing tideBut it is difficult to say either what kind or what degree of union may be between them. It is not improbable their fellowship with us is far more sensible than ours with them. Suppose any of them are present, they are hid from our eyes, but we are not hid from their sight. They no doubt clearly discern all our words and actions, if not all our thoughts too; for it is hard to think these walls of flesh and blood can intercept the view of an angelic being. But we have in general only a faint and indistinct perception of their presence, unless in some peculiar instances, where it may answer some gracious ends of Divine Providence. Then it may please God to permit that they should be perceptible, either by some of our outward senses or by an internal sense for which human language has not any name. But I suppose this is not a common blessing. I have known but few instances of it. To keep up constant and close communion with God is the most likely means to obtain this also.
Spirits one in Christ divide?
"Whatever designs a man has, whatever he is proposing to do, either for himself or his friends, when his spirit goes hence all are at an end. And it is in this sense only that ‘all our thoughts perish.’ Otherwise all our thoughts and designs, though not carried into execution, are noted in His Book who accepts us according to our willing mind and rewards intentions as well as actions. By aiming at Him in all things, by studying to please Him in all your thoughts and words and actions, you are continually sowing to the Spirit; and of the Spirit you will reap life everlasting."
John Wesley, letter to Mary Bishop dated 9 May 1773. The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., ed. John Telford (London: The Epworth Press, 1960 [1931]), vol. 6, pp. 26-27. Cf. http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/letters/1773.htm.
"But we have no reason to think they [departed souls] are confined to this place [heaven]; or, indeed, to any other. May we not rather say that, as 'servants of his,' as well as the holy angels, they 'do his pleasure,' whether among the inhabitants of the earth or in any other part of his dominions?"
John Wesley, sermon "On faith, Hebrews 11:1," Works of John Wesley (Bicentennial edition of the works of John Wesley), ed. Albert Outler et al., vol. 4 (Sermons IV, 115-151), p. 195.
Both quotations were encountered originally in Maura Hearden, "Our lady of sacramental communion: Marian possibilities emerging from Catholic-Methodist dialogue," Pro ecclesia 19, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 90. Except that Hearden (a Catholic) doesn't quote the paragraph beginning, "Whatever de[s]igns a man has, whatever he is proposing to do, either for himself or his friends, when his spirit goes hence all are at an end." How did Wesley reconcile these statements? By restricting the designs-at-an-end to those of this life only?
Maddox: "At least once [Wesley] suggested a participation by the 'souls of departed Christians' (saints?)" in the providential care of God (Randy L. Maddox, Responsible grace: John Wesley's practical theology (Nashville, TN: Kingswood Books, Abingdon Press, 1994), 60 with 282n92, where the second of the two quotations above is cited), but "valued the saints as honored exemplars, not intercessors" (208 with 352n94, where references to his "criticism of intercessory prayer to saints" are given). For more on this according to Maddox, see Laurence Hull Stookey, "The Wesleys and the saints," Liturgy 5 (1985-1986): 77-81, and Geoffrey Wainwright, "Wesley and the communion of the saints," One in Christ 27 (1991): 332-345.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
