Wikipedia's "Scholasticism" - A Piece of Rubbish

Wikipedia's "Scholasticism" - A Piece of Rubbish

Dear Scholastic Thomists,

I usually pay little to no attention to errors and misinformation in wikipedia articles, because its democratic approach to truth is as nonsensical as the relativism that it presupposes.  But the fact remains that people do go to Wikipedia for basic information (including myself, for topics with which I'm unfamiliar at least), so when  Wikipedia misrepresents an important Catholic topic, we must not ignore it.  

Wikipedia's "scholasticism" article (English) is just about the worst presentation of scholasticism I've ever encountered.  In my humble opinion, even the simple English version is more satisfactory.

1) The English article does have a fairly decent, albeit selective and incomplete, historical exposition of the early and high scholastic movements.  Yet, strangely, it leaves later Scholasticism (14th-20th centuries) for other articles, as if these did not belong to the subject of scholasticism.  I would say that these centuries represent the most interesting part of the history of Scholasticism!

2) The reference to a "Second Scholatsicism" perpetuates the myth of the discontinuity of Scholasticism, in particular the supposed 'decline of Scholasticism' after Ockham and its sudden reappearance after Trent; similarly, its reference to "Neo-Scholasticism" perpetuates the same myth, insofar as it gives the impression that Scholasticism somehow disappeared after the "Second Scholasticism" and was resurrected by Pope Leo XIII.  Sed contra, Scholasticism has always been practiced with varying degrees of enthusiasm since St. Anselm, at least until Vatican II; cf. the chronology of authors at the bottom of the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Thomism.

3) "Post-Thomistic Scholasticism."  Since when did Scholasticism outlive Thomism?  If anything, the opposite has been the case: Thomism has outlived Scholasticism, in the sense that, today, scholasticism is (practically) dead and Thomism lives on.  That's just about the whole point of my blog: to say that we need to be, not "Existential" Thomists, or "Analytical" Thomists, or "Historical" Thomists, but we need to abandon all that novelty go back to traditional, i.e., Scholastic Thomism (or what our enemies and detractors mockingly call "Thomism of the Strict Observance" or "Barroque Thomism").  Or, to use Fr. Z's glorious expression, we need to be "ossified unreconstructed manualists" (Fr. Z, can you tell I want one of those mugs?).  I propose that this section of the article be renamed Post-Scholastic Thomism.

4) That same section has questionable content.  It says, as of today (?!):

"Still, those who had learned Scholastic philosophy continued to have unresolved questions about how the insights of the medieval synthesis could be applied to contemporary problems. This conversation left the academic environment for internet discussion groups such as Aquinas,^[13] Christian Philosophy,^[14] and Thomism,^[15] and websites such as Open Philosophy,^[16] where it continues today."

That first sentence is poppycock.  It is an implicit universal affirmative, as in "all those...."  Some of us don't: we know that the 'medieval synthesis' (i.e., Thomism), at least in its principles, is universally true for all ages, regardless of what 'contemporary problems' might arise.  And the second sentence is guilty of being obvious propaganda for those discussion groups (I'm not jealous, I promise).  It goes against Wikipedia rules to do this.  But if you're going to do it, why not advertise something more serious, like the Societas Scholasticorum, which is not a mere 'internet discussion group' but a non-profit organization for the restoration of Scholasticism.  Plus, the scholastic-thomistic 'conversation' has not left the academic environment.  There has always been a handful of scholastic Thomists in academia, even throughout the post-conciliar crisis.  We might not be the hotshots of the academic world, and we certainly are not appreciated by our less-conservative colleagues, but we are there nonetheless, a thorn on their sides.

5) "Analytical Scholasticism".  That's just an oxymoron.  Maybe they  mean "Analytical Thomism."  But, apart from its merits, Analytical Thomism (if it can be called 'Thomism' at all) does not follow the scholastic method.  Period.  We must not confuse Thomism with Scholasticism.  And, assuming that Analytical Thomism is (a version of?) Thomism, we cannot  therefore conclude that it is "Analytical Scholasticism."

6) The Scholastic Method.  This section in particular has made me sad, given the energy I'm putting into teaching the scholastic method in the Quaestiones Disputatae Forum.  It describes what is actually the lectio element of scholasticism, or what has also be called 'positive theology' in the modern manuals.  But what makes scholasticism scholaticism is not positive theology, but the disputatio element, or in modern terms, scholastic theology, i.e., the element that seeks to derive theological conclusions from the articles of the faith (discovered by positive theology) by means of demonstrative syllogisms.  This information does not come until the last section, called "Scholastic Instruction" (different from "The Scholastic Method").  The information is not detailed.

7) What to do? I propose that we, traditional-minded Thomists, make a collaborative effort to re-write that article altogether. We should especially give examples of scholastic argumentation.  What say you!?

Quaeritur: What are the Techniques of Neo-Modernism and the Nouvelle Theologie?

Quaeritur: What are the Techniques of Neo-Modernism and the Nouvelle Theologie?

Quaeritur: [In your previous post on the nouvelle theologie], you have named 'resourcement' as an inherently dangerous neo-modernist strategy.  Would you elucidate more such strategies we might encounter equally capable of confounding our understanding and leading us away from the Church?

Respondeo: Yes, ressourcement is a technique that is used (most often) to "raze the bastions," i.e., to destroy the positive foundations of the traditional interpretation of the faith.  But we must distinguish between positive theology and ressourcement.  

Positive Theology vs. Ressourcement Theology.  Positive theology is a perfectly legitimate method mastered by the Fathers of the Church and perfected by the Scholastics throughout the centuries which consists in studying the sources of theology, first in their own native literary context, and then collating them topically, so they may be ultimately used in support for a given thesis. (Nouvelle theologie practitioners often criticize the Scholastics because, supposedly, the Scholastics used the sources merely to formulate "proofs from authority"; but these self-professed lovers of historical theology don't bother to realize that Scholastic proofs were merely the end-result of a much more elaborate study of sources that involved intensive literary courses, the resulting commentaries, along with its sophisticated divisiones textus, consequent florilegia, etc., etc. It was a whole culture of historical and literary awareness of classical sources that modern scholars can only envy and not imitate.) St Thomas was a master in this technique, as is evident, not only from his employment of the fruits of positive theology in the Summa or his disputed questions (for example, whenever he cites Scripture, St Augustine, Aristotle, etc. in support of a thesis), but especially as it is evident from his commentaries on Scripture, Aristotle, and other thinkers, and in particular from his impressive biblical patrology, the Catena aurea. It is important for theologians especially to use this technique, for their conclusions must ultimately be based on the sources of Revelation. And the Scholastics were very aware of this. St Thomas speaks of this theological task explicitly in Summa theologiae I.1.8 ad 2.

Ressourcement, however, goes beyond a mere proof from authority; if it were, it would be nothing new.  Rather, it is a collective attempt by neo-modernist theologians--who are experts in the history of dogma and theology--to replace the traditional understanding of the faith by selectively citing (or re-interpreting) obscure sources and texts to their advantage, in such a way that discredits the traditional understanding of the faith it is  expressed by the overwhelming consensus of Fathers of the Church, of the Doctors of the Church, the approved theologians, the Councils, the Popes, catechisms, and faithful throughout the ages.  Essentially this is the old informal fallacy of special pleading, except glorified by a triumphalistic title that means essentially 'returning to the sources'.  The word is supposed to give us warm-and-fuzzy feelings, the sense of finally understanding the faith the way it was originally meant to be understood, after over a millenium of not getting it, and half a millenium of that horrible old 'Tridentine' religion. 
  
Other Methods.  Now, ressourcement is their chief method, but they employ other techniques as well, most of which are logical corollaries of ressourcement. These methods are applied not only to dogma, but to every area of the Church: Philosophy, Apologetics, Ecclesiology, Fundamental Theology, Morals, Scripture, Liturgy, Canon Law, Homiletics, etc. It is a new theology that is supposed to 'renew' the entire life of the Church, which is now considered to be in its 'Springtime' and in a 'new Pentecost'.  Among these corollaries are (A) the new 'historical' theology, (B) the rejection of Scholasticism, (C) the introduction of false modern philosophies, and (D) the exclusion from their thought of all scientific order.

(A) The new 'historical' theology logically follows from resourcement and its neo-modernist epistemology: if truth is the correspondence of the intellect with our modern way of life (adaequatio intellectus et vitae), rather than with reality, then theology is not the science of God's reality as it is contained in revelation; rather, is no more than a narrative of the different ways in which theological minds have corresponded to the lifestyles of the different times in which they have lived. The value of the great Fathers, Doctors, and Theologias of the Church boils down to the fact they expressed the faith to their contemporaries 'using the categories of their own times'.

(B) The abandonment of Scholasticism also logically follows from this and is simply its negative counterpart. We are to 'return to the Fathers', which really does not mean imitating the Fathers (that would be too traditional) but rather attaining a historical consciousness of patristic thought. But this historical consciousness excludes the supposedly anti-historical (and 'boring'!) mode of reasoning employed in the Scholastic method. Therefore, a good practitioner of the nouvelle theologie must 'return to the Fathers' and bypass Scholasticism altogether. Accordingly, Thomistic philosophy and theology are no longer pursued as sciences that concern God and reality taking inspiration and guidance from the thought of St Thomas, but as a historical narrative of what St Thomas said and believed.

(C) As logical consequence, the role that Thomistic philosophy traditionally played in the Church is neutralized, and in its place, new, vague, existentialist philosophies such as phenomenology and personalism are introduced in order 'justify' neo-modernism (although in really it is impossible to give epistemic justification to a self-referentially inconsistent theory--I shall explain in a later post why both modernism and neo-modernism are self-referentially inconsistent).

(D) The exclusion of scientific order from their thought follows from their existentialist philosophy and is a common denominator they have with their predecessors, the modernists. Here we can quote Pope St Pius X's Pascendi (paragraph 4): 

But since the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) employ a very clever artifice, namely, to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement into one whole, scattered and disjointed one from another, so as to appear to be in doubt and uncertainty, while they are in reality firm and steadfast, it will be of advantage, Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out the connexion between them, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil.

There are lots of other techniques that are used by particular neo-modernists, but these are at least the most commonly used by the movement. Ultimately, however, all of these methods are only means that are subservient to the end of aggiornamento: destroying tradition and establishing a new interpretation of the Catholic faith. They will employ any other method that helps them achieve this end. Resourcement happens to be their favorite (because it is so clever, deceptive, and effective), but it not the only one.

Further Reading.  All of this is already outlined in Ven. Pope Pius XII's Humani generis, and discussed with technical precision in the two Garrigou-Lagrange previously cited:

Where is the New Theology Leading Us?

The Structure of the Encyclical Humani Generis.

An revealing book on the Nouvelle Theologie has been published recently, Nouvelle Thologie - New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican II.  It is written by Jurgen Mettepenningen, a liberal who celebrates the triumph of modernism through the Nouvelle Theology.  Here is the product description from amazon.com:

This title provides an introduction to the most influential movement in Catholic theology in the 20th century which prepared the ground for the Second Vatican Council. La nouvelle theologie - New Theology - was the name of one of the most dynamic and fascinating movements within Catholic theology in the 20th century. Although first condemned by Pope Pius XII. in 1946 and later in his encyclical Humani generis in 1950, it became influential in the preparation of the Second Vatican Council. The movement was instigated by French Dominican Yves Congar with his Dominican confreres Marie-Dominique Chenu and Louis Charlier and linked with the Dominican academy at Le Saulchouir (Tournai), but soon taken over by Jesuits of the same generation of theologians: Henri de Lubac, Jean Danielou, Henri Bouillard and Yves de Montcheuil. They laid strong emphasis on the supernatural, the further implementation of historical method within theology, the ressourcement (back to Scripture, liturgy and Fathers), and the connection between life, faith and theology. Many of them were participating as periti in the Second Vatican Council, which finally accepted the striving of the new theology. Hence, the original perception of the New Theology as novitas would become an auctoritas in the field of Catholic theology. On the basis of research of archives and literature Jurgen Mettepenningen shows in his book the different theological positions of both Dominican and Jesuit protagonists, the development of their ideas in close relationship with the theological view and the sanctions of the Roman Catholic Church, and the great importance of the generation of the discussed Dominican and Jesuit theologians and their New Theology. He proves that the protagonists of both the first and the second phase of the nouvelle theologie constituted together the generation of theologians necessary to implement the striving of the modernist era within the Church at the time of Vatican II.

S. Emerentiana: Patroness of Feeneyites?

S. Emerentiana: Patroness of Feeneyites?

It is time again to wish a happy feast day to the Feeneyites! Today is the feast of St. Emerentiana. I think she should be made the Patroness of Feeneyism. The reason is evident from her official acta which form part of the Roman Liturgy (Divine Office at matins, second nocturn):

Emerentiána virgo Romána, collactánea beátæ Agnétis, adhuc catechúmena, fide et caritáte flagrans, furéntes in Christiános idolórum cultóres cum veheméntius accusáret, a concitáta multitúdine lapídibus óbruta est. Quæ in cruciátibus orans ad sepúlcrum sanctæ Agnétis, próprio sánguine, quem pro Christo constánter effúdit, baptizáta, ánimam Deo réddidit.

Emerentiana, a Roman virgin and the foster-sister of the blessed Agnes, while she was still a Catechumen, burning with faith and charity, rebuked the idol-worshippers who were full of fury against the Christians, whereupon a mob assembled and stoned her. Praying in her torment at the grave of Saint Agnes, and having been baptized in her own blood, so generously shed for Christ, she gave up her soul unto God.

Thus, the Universal Liturgy, that most certain and infallible witness of Sacred Tradition, proposes to us for our veneration a Saint who never received sacramental baptism!

Nor is she the only such saint whom the Church venerates. There is also St. Genesius of Arles, whose feast day is on August 25. His official acta read thus:

Genesius, native of Arles, at first a soldier became known for his proficiency in writing, and was made secretary to the magistrate of Arles. While performing the duties of his office the decree of persecution against the Christians was read in his presence. Outraged in his ideas of justice, the young catechumen cast his tablets at the feet of the magistrate and fled. He was captured and executed, and thus received baptism in his own blood.

The corresponding text from the Roman Martyrology (Aug. 25) suggests the same:

Areláte, in Gállia, beáti item Genésii, qui, cum ímpia edícta, quibus Christiáni puníri jubebántur, exceptóris offício fungens, nollet excípere, et, projéctis in públicum tábulis, se Christiánum esse testarétur, comprehénsus et decollátus est, atque ita martyrii glóriam, próprio cruóre baptizátus, accépit.

At Arles in France, another blessed Genesius, who, filling the office of notary, and refusing to record the impious edicts by which Christians were commanded to be punished, threw away his books publicly, and declared himself a Christian, was seized and beheaded, and thus attained the glory of martyrdom, having been baptized through his own blood.

Another martyr that we venerate in the Sacred Liturgy even though he did not receive sacramental baptism is St. Victor of Braga . Here is his entry in the Roman Martyrology (April 12):

Brácari, in Lusitánia, sancti Victóris Mártyris, qui, adhuc catechúmenus, cum noluísset idólum adoráre, et Christum Jesum magna constántia conféssus fuísset, ídeo, post multa torménta, cápite abscísso, méruit próprio sánguine baptizári.

At Braga in Portugal, the martyr St. Victor, who, still a catechumen, when he refused to adore an idol, and confessed Jesus Christ with great constancy, after suffering many tortures, having been beheaded, merited to be baptized through his own blood.

Another is St. Rogatian, who was martyred together with his brother St. Donatian. Their commemoration is on May 24. Donatian had been baptized when they were martyred, but Rogatian was still a catechumen.

Some of these examples are a bit more subtle than others, but everyone in Christendom has always known (until the Feenyites denied it) that they are examples of saints who were saved, not through sacramental baptism, but through martyrdom.

On a more serious note... If we were Protestant we could simply deny, as do the Feeneyites, the value of the texts of the Sacred Liturgy as a witness of Divine Revelation. But we are not. We must not limit our fidelity (as do the Feeneyites) only to Scripture and to the infallible pronouncements of the Magisterium. We must extend this fidelity to all of the witnesses of Sacred Tradition, including the texts of the Sacred Liturgy, the consensus of the Fathers, the consensus of the Theologians, the consensus of the faithful, etc. If the Fathers agree that there is such a thing as baptism of blood--and they undoubtedly do--then we must believe so. If the liturgy tells us that these saints received baptism of blood and that we must venerate them--and it is now evident that it does--then we must do so. Futher, if the Theologians tell us that these saints are indeed proof of the reality of baptism of blood (cf. Tanquerey, Sola, and many others), then by all means we must accept this.

I will be the first one to defend the necessity of baptism (with a necessity of means) for salvation. (I have already done so here and here.) The Church proposes this truth for our belief as an article of faith. However, She also proposes, through the testimony of the Fathers, Theologians, and the Sacred Liturgy, the reality of baptism of blood as a truth that, though not necessarily an article of faith, is nonetheless so certain (sententia theologice certa) and so connected with the articles of the faith, that its obstinate denial would amount to a great theological error worthy of censure (Cf. Bl. Pius IX, Tuas libenter (1863), in Denzinger no. 1684).

The fact that this doctrine of baptism through blood seems to be at odds with the dogma of the necessity of baptism should not make us hesitate in accepting its truth. The fact that our intellects cannot grasp the coherence of these two teachings should not make us rashly conclude that they are incompatible in themselves. Our faith is filled with mysteries that transcend human reason. We must learn this lesson from the early Church: at that time, the great theological syntheses of the Fathers and Scholastics had not yet explained the profound harmony between the mysteries of faith, and most doctrines were believed despite the fact that they seemed paradoxical to the first Christians. The Unity of God seemed to be at odds with his being Triune; the humanity of Christ seemed to be at odds with his Divinity; the duality of wills in Christ seemed to be at odds with His conformity to the will of the Father. However, none of this prevented the early Fathers from assenting to all of these truths. Their minds did not grasp the harmony of the mysteries, but their faith forced them to trust that, since it all was part of the same Divine Revelation, and truth cannot contradict truth, it must all harmonize in the mind of God.

Let us prove ourselves faithful Catholics in doing the same: baptism is necessary for salvation, and yet there are some saints in heaven who never received sacramental baptism, but rather "were baptized in their own blood."

Sancta Emerentiana, ora pro nobis et pro feeneyitis.

Sancte Genesie, ora pro nobis et pro feeneyitis.

Sancte Victor, ora pro nobis et pro feeneyitis.

Sancte Rogatiane, ora pro nobis et pro feeneyitis.

Predestination in Sacred Scripture

Predestination in Sacred Scripture

From Garrigou-Lagrange, OP - Predestination, Ch. 1 (available through ITOPL):

THE SIGNIFICANCE AND REALITY OF PREDESTINATION ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE

The Gospel is the good tidings of the redemption of the human race which must be preached to all, for our Savior said: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world." St. Paul says in like manner: "God will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a redemption for all." (2)

God never commands what is impossible and He makes the fulfilment of His precepts really possible for all, both when they are of obligation and according as they are known. However, there are souls that through their own fault are lost; and souls, at times, that have enjoyed a close intimacy with the Savior, as was the case with the "son of perdition." There are others, the elect, who will infallibly be saved. Among these are children who die shortly after being baptized, and adults who, by divine grace, not only can observe the commandments, but actually do so and obtain the gift of final perseverance. Jesus in His sacerdotal prayer said to His Father: "Those whom Thou gavest Me have I kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the Scripture may be fulfilled."(3) Speaking in more general terms, Jesus says again: "My sheep hear My voice. And I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them life everlasting: and they shall not perish for ever. And no man shall pluck them out of My hand. That which My Father hath given Me is greater than all, and no one can snatch them out of the hand of My Father. I and the Father are one."(4) There are elect chosen by God from all eternity. Jesus spoke of them on several occasions. Once He said: "Many are called, but few are chosen." (5) He announced the destruction of Jerusalem, the distress of those times of trial, and He added: "Unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved; but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened." (6)

The precise meaning of these utterances of our Savior are made known to us by what St. Paul tells us about predestination, by which God directs and brings the elect infallibly to eternal life. In one of his epistles we read: "What hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?"(7) It is but the comment on the words of the Master, who said: "Without Me you can do nothing." (8) St. Paul also says: "For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to His good will." When writing to the Ephesians, he speaks explicitly about predestination. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," he says, "who hath blessed us with spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ. As He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in His sight in charity. Who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto Himself, according to the purpose of His will. Unto the praise and glory of His grace, in which He hath graced us in His beloved Son."(10) Again, with more clarity of precision, he writes: "We know that to them that love God all things work together unto good: to such as according to His purpose are called to be saints. For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. And whom He predestinated, them He also called. And whom He called, them He also justified. And whom He justified, them He also glorified." (11)

With St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and St. Bellarmine, we must remark that in this last text the words, "whom He foreknew, He also predestinated," do not refer to the divine foreknowledge of meritorious acts. Nowhere in St. Paul do we find any foundation for this interpretation, and it would contradict several of his texts, especially this one and the ones we are about to cite. The meaning is: "those whom God foreknew, looking favorably upon them," which is a frequent acceptation of the verb "to know" in the Bible, as in the text: "God has not cast away His people which He foreknew."(12) This exegesis of St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and St. Robert Bellarmine is upheld at the present day by Lagrange, Allo, Zahn, Julicher, and others.(13)

In the Epistle to the Romans (chaps. 9-12), St. Paul in plain terms also sets forth God's sovereign independence in the dispensation of His graces. The Jews, who were the chosen people, are rejected because of their unbelief, and salvation is announced to the Gentiles as a result of Israel's obduracy. The Apostle prophesies, however, the final conversion and salvation of the Jews, and he formulates the principle of predilection, which is applied to nations and individuals: "What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid! For He saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. And I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy. So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." (14)

Hence the Apostle's conclusion: "O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are His judgments, and how unsearchable His ways! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His counsellor? Or who hath first given to Him, and recompense shall be made him? For of Him and by Him and in Him are all things. To Him be glory for ever. Amen." (15)

We shall return later on to a discussion of the literal meaning and scope of these texts, when we present the scriptural background for the teaching of St. Thomas. It suffices for the present to point out with the Thomists and St. Robert Bellarmine (16), what Scripture has to say about the gratuitousness of predestination to eternal life. Such is the teaching of Scripture, which declares three indisputable things on this point, namely: (1) God has chosen certain persons to constitute the elect.(17) (2) He has caused this election to be efficacious so that they will infallibly get to heaven: "My sheep shall not perish for ever. And no man shall pluck them out of My hand."(18) "Whom He predestinated, them He also called. And whom He called, them He also justified. And whom He justified, them He also glorified."(19) (3) God's choice of the elect was entirely gratuitous and previous to any consideration of foreseen merits: "Fear not little flock, for it hath pleased your Father to give you a kingdom."(20) "You have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go and should bring forth fruit and your fruit should remain."(21) "Even so then, at this present time also, there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. And if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise grace is no more grace."(22) "As He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy,"(23) and not because we were so, or because He foresaw that we would be so by our own efforts. "For whom He foreknew (in His benevolence), He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son." (24)

From all these passages of Scripture, St. Augustine formulated this classical definition: "Predestination is the foreknowledge and preparedness on God's part to bestow the favors by which all those are saved who are to be saved."(25) St. Augustine is still more explicit on this point when he writes: "God already knew, when He predestined, what He must do to bring His elect infallibly to eternal life."(26)

-------------

Footnotes

1. Matt. 28: 19-20.

2. I Tim. 2: 3-5.

3. John 17: 12.

4. Ibid., 10: 27-30.

5. Matt. 22: 14.

6. Ibid., 24: 22.

7. I Cor. 4: 7.

8. John 15: 5.

9. Phil. 2: 13

10. Eph. 1: 3-7.

11. Rom. 8: 28--30.

12. Rom. 11: 2; d. Matt. 7: 23; Gal. 4: 9; I Cor. 8: 3; 13: 12; II Tim. 2: 19: Ps. 1: 6.

13. Father Lemonnyer, O.P., has explained the deep significance of this standard text of Rom. 8: 28-30, in his article entitled: "Predestination," which was written for the Dict. de th éol. cath. He remarks that God's intention is manifested in this text by two acts: first, there is the act of foreknowing: "those whom He foreknew" (29); then the act of predestinating: "whom He predestinated" (30). But the act of first intention seems to be passed over in silence. As a matter of fact, remarks Father Lemonnyer, it is indicated in the final clause of v. 29: "that He might be the firstborn amongst many brethren:" Here we have this divine intention. . . . This presupposed intention suffices to provide the means for its realization, that is, the discerning and decreeing of the putting of it into effect. This discernment is the foreknowledge, and this decree is the predestination. Both are evidently acts of the practical reason moved by a preconceived intention."

Father Lemonnyer insists upon the gratuitous character of the divine purpose, which is the reason of our salvation and our call. It seems that this gratuitousness must be extended to predestination. Cf. II Tim. 1: 9; Eph. 1: 11; Tit. 3: 5.

14. Rom. 9: 14-17; cf. Lagrange, Epitre aux Romains, 1916, chap. 9, p. 244.

15. Ibid., 11: 33-36.

16. De gratia et lib. arb., Bk. II. chaps. 9-15.

17. Matt. 20: 16; 24: 31; Luke 12: 32; Rom. 8: 33; Eph. 1: 4.

19. John 10: 27 f.; d. Matt. 24: 24; John 6: 39.

20. Rom. 8: 30

21. Luke 12: 32.

22. John 15: 16.

23. Rom. 11: 5.

24. Eph. 1: 4.

25. Rom. 8: 29.

25. De dona perseverantiae, chap. 14.

26. De praedestinatione sanctorum, chap. 10

The Epistles of St. Paul: The Big Picture

The Epistles of St. Paul: The Big Picture

 Click on the link and scroll down to the second page to view Aquinas' division of the entire Pauline Corpus.