Darrell Kostiha Theological Anthropology

Mgsr. James Anderson, November 29, 2013.

“This appearance of being that stirs in me, these light and fugitive acts of a

shadow, carry in themselves, as I am told, a responsibility heavy with eternity, and even

at the price of blood I cannot buy nothingness because nothingness is no longer

possible. It seems then that I am condemned to life, condemned to death, condemned

to eternity!”1 Maurice Blondel captures with certainty the

paradoxical connotations confluent in the totality of being qua

being as existing in the concrete. Blondel’s condemnations of

life such as it is may appear as a conglomeration of negativity,

yet even Heidegger would philosophize that being-in-the-world is

the reality of being thrust or cast into a world it did not

choose.2 In the consideration of theological anthropology and the

relationship of the natural to the supernatural it is imperative

that any metaphysical musings refrain from the abstract or

hypothetical. Human nature is complexity that mysteriously

meanders in two worlds—as the already here and the not yet… the

rational animal and the divine image, or exiles from Eden or sons1 Lacroix, Jean. Maurice Blondel. An Introduction to the Man and HisPhilosophy. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968. 30.2 Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Trans. John Macquarrie & Edward Robinson.New York: Harper perennial Modern Thought, 1962. 174.

2

and daughters of God. Querying into the abyss of the nothingness

in which he was created being qua being will reveal concretely

that man is not contained in a closed system—being qua being is

endowed with an ‘openness’ to the divine that refuses to shut

even when traumatized by life. Being wants to transcend because

it needs to transcend, or the spirit dies. Becoming is always a

call from God that proclaims, “come hither and see the “many dwelling

places I have prepared for you” (Jn. 14.2). Unfortunately, the call of

God as explained by theologians is not impervious to the

multiplicity inherent in human language as seen through the

interpretations of theologians in the historical drama of God’s

self-communication. Herein the contradiction is situated not in

there being a call, but where does the call originate from. Is

this desiderium naturale innately part of our being as understood by

Henri de Lubac, or is it in the words of the commentators of St.

Thomas Aquinas a natural desire that is elicited and conditioned.

Therefore, this thesis will state the argument of Thomas Aquinas’

desiderium naturale as understood by modern commentators, Henri De

Lubac’s natural desire for the Supernatural, and will assert the

3

openness of the spiritual creature to God’s self-communication

through the analogy of language.

“For, in the end, what is man in nature? A nothing compared to the infinite, an

everything compared to the nothing, a midpoint between nothing and everything,

infinitely removed from understanding the extremes: the end of things and their

principle are hopelessly hidden from him in an impenetrable secret.”3 In the

context of Blaise Pascal’s remark the theological task ahead is

daunting and demanding in which many diverging theological paths

have developed not in any way diminutive in wisdom. First of

all, the inquiry begins with St. Thomas Aquinas and supporters

who assert that the call of God is elicited and conditioned, and

can only be achieved by the help of grace. Thomas Aquinas writes:

If therefore the human intellect, knowing the essence of a created effect, knows no more of God than that he is; the perfection of that intellect does not reach simply the FirstCause. Wherefore, it is not perfectly happy. Consequently, for perfecthappiness the intellect needs to reach the very essence of the First Cause. And thus it will have its perfection through union with god as with that object, in which alone man’s happiness

consists, as stated above (AA. 1, 7; Q. 2, A. 8).4

3 Pascal, Blaise. Roger Ariew ed. Pensees. Indianapolis: Hackett PublishingCompany, 2004. 59. 4 Aquinas, Thomas. The Summa Theologia of St. Thomas Aquinas Vol. 1. QQ. 1-119& First Part of the Second Part QQ. 1-114. New York: Benziger Brothers, Inc.,1947. Pt. I-II Q. 3 Art. 8.

4

To summarize the argument of Aquinas it will be stated that

all men desire happiness and perfect happiness consists only when

the intellect can rest in knowing the essence of God. All things

created have an ordering from God to reach their perfection which

is their end as it is known in their nature as such; however, for

the rational animal the end is perfection of the intellect in

coming to know the essence of God. The desiderium naturale is posited

within the intellect and is a natural part of metaphysical

inquiry into the cause of effects. Reinhard Hutter writes:

A natural reaction of “admiratio,” wonder, gives rise to increasingly disciplined and methodologically reflective philosophical enquiry. This quest is a movement that receives its élan from a natural desire elicited by the encounter with something and that finds its rest or terminus in the contemplation of the cause of that thing.5

Thus, this ability of the intellect to know the cause from

the effect is what makes it possible for the intellect to grasp

the universality of being, and from there to desire to know the

cause of its being which is God. Yet, to know the essence of

finite causes in not the same as knowing the essence of heavenly

things such as God. It would seem that either the intellect would5 Hutter, Reinhard. Joseph Torchia, O.P. ed. “The Thomist 73” “Aquinas on theNatural Desire for the Vision of God: A Reflecture of Suma Contra GentilesIII, C. 25 Après Henri de Lubac.” Washington D.C.: The Dominican FathersProvince of St. Joseph. (2009): 523-91. 565.

5

be frustrated in not being able to reach its end which is God by

its natural powers, or it would have to be assisted by God’s

grace to achieve perfect felicity. Reinhard Hutter describes the

relation between created intellectus and divine intellectus as being

relative in their act of understanding. Conversely, God’s

intellect is pure act while ours in potentially in act. Reinhard

writes:

The divine substance is not beyond the capacity of the created intellect in such a way that it is altogether foreign to it, as sound is from the object of vision, or an immaterial substance

is from sense power; in fact, the divine substance is the first intelligible object and principle of all intellectual cognition. But it is beyond the capacity of the created intellect, in the sense that it exceeds its power. (ScG III, c. 54, 8).6

However, Aquinas does state that desiderium naturale is not

able through human intellect able to comprehend the essence of

God, but only that God is. The diligent Dominican will then state

that only by grace does our natural desire achieve fulfillment or

perfection. Aquinas states that every created form has by God the

power to act towards its proportional end according to its

nature. However, for rational animals our end exceeds our nature,

so Aquinas writes that God by a superadded form elevates human

6 Ibid. 555.

6

nature to the supernatural.7 According to Aquinas, by the light

of grace man can know divine things. Furthermore, Aquinas will

assert, “That man could in a state of perfect nature by his natural

power do the good natural to him without any gratuitous gift, but

God would have to help in moving him.”8 Needless to say, these

two articles raise the contradictory questions of obedential

potency and the mode of pura natura in human nature. It is these

two modalities that de Lubac has the most difficulty with. Now,

it is fair to say that Aquinas never mentions that man existed in

a state of pura natura, but the fact that he postulates the idea

is pertinent to his reasoning in maintaining two distinct orders

of nature and the supernatural. Two separate orders ensure that

grace remains indicative to God’s gratuitous gift to man in his

nature. However, the idea that another form is superadded on by

grace does sound distinctly dualistic as the line of demarcation

seems to inhibit the composite of man as body and soul. It would

appear that in one miraculous fashion Jesus the carpenter builds

upon our human nature a superstructure… first floor nature—second

floor supernatural! But, the most puzzling aspect of obedential

7 Aquinas. Summa Theologia. Q.109, Art. 2 pt I-II.8 Ibid. Q. 109, Art. 3.

7

potency is the claim that on one hand this passive potency does

not change our nature, but on the other hand it has the potency

to raise it to a supernatural likeness. Lawrence Feingold states:

This capacity to receive supernatural perfections without losing one’s nature and identity has come to be called specific obedential potency. Thus, we distinguish obedential potency in the generic sense (man), and specific obedential potency that is proper to a spiritual creature. It follows that the criterion of non-repugnance or non contradiction is not an entirely negative principle. Obedential potency that is specific to a rational nature can only be oriented toward the further perfection of that nature. Only a spiritual creature created in the image of God has the specific obedential potency to be perfected further in that image, by

being carried from a natural to a supernatural likeness.9

Contradictorily, how can nature as such as elevated by the

will of God through the passive potency of the spiritual creature

still be essentially that same identity or nature? Is not being

in the supernatural likeness of God beyond the potentiality of

human nature? Yet through grace and obedential potency we can

remain in that same nature but elevated to the supernatural.

Feingold is careful not to assert that this grace through

obedential potency is the perfection of that nature, but only

that it furthers that perfection. Aquinas will state that only in

cases such as St. Paul is grace seen to be miraculous because

9 Feingold, Lawrence. The Natural Desire to See God According to St. ThomasAquinas and His Interpreters. Florida: Sapientia Press, 2010. 113.

8

Paul is justified all at once, but grace commonly works in the

ungodly as an imperfect conversion vis-à-vis a perfect

conversion. Aquinas writes, “And thus the justification (or

knowing God’s essence) of the ungodly is not miraculous, because

the soul is naturally capable of grace; since from its having

been made to the likeness of God by grace, as Augustine says, in

the above quotation.”10 Yet, he clearly argues that this is the

movement from a natural to a supernatural likeness that does not

change human nature! Momentarily recalling what Aquinas said

about grace as a superadded form that elevates human nature to

the supernatural, yet this superadded form does not

metaphysically alter human nature. Does that mean that human

nature now has two forms? Quite possibly why some theologians

refer to Aquinas nature as being two tiered.11 Speaking

enigmatically does not change the assertion that either human

nature is elevated to that which is beyond its capabilities by

grace, or human nature does not receive deification and

beatitude. Feingold asserts, “That a spiritual creature can

10 Aquinas. (Q. 113 Art. 10)11 Lubac, Henri de. A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace. Trans. Brother Richard Arnandez, F.S.C. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1980. 34.

9

receive spiritual perfections above their nature without losing

their nature. Thus, spiritual creatures have transcendent obedential

potencies that are unique to them.”12 At this juncture it might be

pertinent to elaborate on the theological issue of pura natura as

staunchly held by the commentators of St. Aquinas. The reality of

God creating man in a state of pure nature is feasible, but this is

a hypothetical solution for maintaining the distinct orders of

nature and supernatural. Steven Long critiquing Balthasar fights

for the idea of pure nature in Aquinas’ theology, and it does

appear that Aquinas conceives of the idea as possible without

being a punishment. However, Aquinas only conceives of the idea

and does not state it as a theological truth. Clearly, God could

have created man in pure nature ‘in this given order’ without any

of the preternatural gifts of sanctifying grace or the maladies

of original sin, and this would not have been a punishment in the

context of humanity. Hereto, Bernard Mulcahy, O.P. explicates on

the definition of pura natura:

According to Garrigou-Lagrange, pure nature means “nature with its intrinsic constituent principles and such as follow from them or due them. The expression, then, does not refer to a real state in which anyone has existed. Rather, it indicates “all those notes which 12 Feingold. 112.

10

are included in the definition of man, a rational animal, and furtherthe properties of man and the natural aids due to human nature that it may attain its final natural end.13

Thereto, pura natura is only an abstraction of the mind that

serves as a functionality of theologians and their propositions,

and fails to maintain that which is real—what a thing is. There

exists an abyss or chasm between that which is conceived and that

which is in reality. This theory fails to maintain the truth of

revelation and biblical drama of humanity and God in

relationship. Pura natura is a construction formulated to elevate

the gratuitousness of grace apart from human nature, and fails to

maintain the truth of revelation. In the gospel of John it

clearly states that, “From his fullness we have all received

grace in place of grace, because while the law was given through

Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (Jn. 1:16-17).

Therefore, the sanctifying grace lost through original sin was

supplemented by the grace of Christ in the Incarnation. How could

pura natura ever exist in God’s plan of humanity when the Word

created humanity in grace, and in order not to lose the image of

Himself in Adam Christ became incarnated to restore us in grace? 13 Mulcahy, Bernard O.P. Aquinas’s Notion of Pure Nature and the Christian Integralism of Henri de Lubac Series VII Theology and Religion Vol. 314. New York: American University Studies, 2011. 2.

11

Nevertheless, the theory has unanswered questions and many

theologians quite literally reject it out of hand as being

repugnant. Philosophical inquiries into humanity must be

juxtaposed to the theological assertions in Revelation and how

God has revealed Himself and humanity.

“These foundations, solidly established on the inviolable authority of religion, let

us know that there are two equally constant truths of faith. One is that man in the state

of creation or in the state of grace is raised above all nature, made in some way similar

to God and sharing in divinity. The other is that in the state of corruption and sin, he is

fallen from the first state and made similar to the beasts.”14 Following in the

words of Pascal we turn our attention to the controversial and

era changing theology of Henri de Lubac whose critique raised

many questions concerning the theology of the scholastics and

their understanding of Aquinas’s desiderium naturale. The profound

and provocative book of de Lubac called The Mystery of the

Supernatural is forthright in looking at the dispute of the

relationship between nature and grace. The foremost issue raised

by de Lubac is the reality of the desiderium naturale as being innate

as compared to elicited in Thomas Aquinas. Modern commentators

14 Pascal. 37.

12

whether Feingold, Mulcahy, Long, Joseph Torchia, O.P. all agree

that de Lubac makes the relation of nature and grace too

communal; insofar, that de Lubac does not keep the boundaries of

nature and grace distinct and as a result grace is something that

God owes us because of our nature and its capacity for grace.

Naturally, they feel that de Lubac went too far in trying to

overcome the notion of pura natura and does not grasp the

metaphysical meaning of obedential potency. Therefore, it is

necessary to investigate de Lubac’s stance more closely in order

to grasp the relation between nature and grace, so as to be able

to better appreciate his contributions to this equivocal issue.

For de Lubac this desire is most understood in the concepts of a

call as when the Israelites were called to be God’s chosen

people. De Lubac writes:

It is in me as a result of my belonging to humanity as it is, that humanity which is, as we say, “called.” For God’s callis constitutive. My finality, which is expressed by this

desire, is inscribed upon my very being as it has been put into the universe by God. And, by God’s will, I now have no other genuine end, no end really assigned to my nature or presented for myfree acceptance under any guise, except that of seeing God.15

15 Lubac, Henri de. The Mystery of the Supernatural. trans. Rosemary Sheed. NewYork: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1967. 54.

13

De Lubac’s terminology seems to suggest that this desire is

not only innate as inscribed upon my very being from creation,

but also that it can really have only one end which is

supernatural. Guy Mansisni, O.S.B., writes, “De Lubac’s

theological claim is, negatively, that we do not need the idea of

“pure nature” in order to safeguard the gratuity of the supernatural

order, and, positively, that there is in man an innate desire for

God.”16 Necessarily, this desire does not in all reality have two

connatural ends in which man could be happy: one end consists of

philosophical contemplation of causes and effects, and the other

is the elevation of that desire to the beatific vision. If

understanding correctly de Lubac’s thesis this desire can be none

other than the desire implanted deep within our spiritual being

at the moment of creation. God gives himself to me at creation at

and the same time he calls me. De Lubac quotes the words of

Berulle:

Let us bless God who has given us being, and a being which has a relationship and a movement towards him. That movement is impressed by the Creator’s power in the depths of his creature, deep within it from the very moment of its creation. And it is a movement so deep and so powerful that the will cannot affect it 16 Mansini O.S.B., Guy. “The Abiding Theological Significance of Henri deLubac’s Surnaturel.” The Thomist 73, (2009): 593-619. 599.

14

except to fight against it, that no sin we commit can hold it back, that hell itself cannot obliterate it. That inclination, whichis natural to the soul, is hidden in this life, just as the soul is hidden from itself as it is buried in the body. It sees neither its own being, nor what lies at the depths of its being.

When it leaves the body, it will see itself and will then also feel the powerful weight of that inclination, but without the power or freedom to make any good use of it.17

This quote by Berulle expresses most clearly what most

Christians feel if they would have to define that inner calling

of God that can only be interior and spiritual. If Berulle does

not particularly explain how this natural desire comes about in

the human dynamics of being body and soul he does express it with

poetic truth beyond the capacity of Aquinas and De Lubac. How can

this inclination at the point of suffering still be so mysterious

and beyond the grasp of the intellect? De Lubac continues by

stating, “Whatever may be said of desire being elicited by, or

following upon, a knowledge of the object, however indeterminate

that object in fact remains, this “natural desire” is not only

necessary,” but just as “determinate” as its correlative end.”18

Herein there seems to be truth in the statement that if one

desires a supernatural end or a supernatural end is possible—his

desire would be directed to the supernatural. And anything short

17 De Lubac. 57-58.18 Lubac. 56.

15

of the supernatural would be deemed in the words of de Lubac as

“I have failed in everything.”19 It may not be politically

correct to say that both Aquinas and de Lubac are correct for it

seems that one could have an innate desire by grace that is

elicited by grace. For clarity de Lubac will designate this call

as: “two instances of gratuitousness,” “two divine gifts”, and

consequently, if legitimate to speak in this way, designating it

not in itself but in a “two fold goal,” its “two fold object”—a

“two fold divine freedom.”20 De Lubac understands that in

creating humanity God rightfully calls man to the beatific

vision; however, if one considers Adam in the garden does this

call still remain valid? Charles Journet writes that had Adam not

sinned he would have gone from the state of being on the way to

the state of glory with no experience of death. He continues to

state that this grace as infused would not have needed the

mediation of any other type of grace.21 This reality of Adam as

constituted with divine grace would correspond to de Lubac’s

theory of the “two fold gratuitousness” of being created and

19 Ibid. 57.20 Ibid. 81.21 Journet, Charles. The Meaning of Grace. Trans. A.V. Littledale. New York:Scepter Publishers, 1996. 85.

16

called, but with no coercion on the part of human nature and

God’s grace. Bringing all these ideas together de Lubac writes:

Gratuitous being is of a genus different from natural being.” Onecan imagine no kind of metaphysical necessity which the creation of sprit would impose on God. Just as creation itself is no kind of necessary consequence of something which “preceded” it withinGod, so the gift—and also therefore the offer of the gift—of the supernatural is no mere consequence of creation [sequela creationis]. If creation itself can in a real sense be called a “grace”, then the call to see God is another one: “Although it is rightly called a certain grace by which we were created…it is by another that we… are called…22

Necessarily, before hammering into stone the herculean

theological accomplishments of de Lubac it must needs be that one

listen to the contrary argument of the detractors of de Lubac.

And quite honestly the discussion surrounding de Lubac’s view

today might be just as relevant, controversial, and condemning as

when Surnaturel was first published in 1965. Feingold argues that

once de Lubac asserts an absolute and innate desire contrary to

the conditional and elicited desire of Aquinas than the

gratuitousness of grace is lost. Essentially, grace must be given

to the creature because God has so designed him, and to not give

grace would frustrate the desire of the creature’s essential

nature as constituted as supernatural. However, Feingold does

22 De Lubac. 82.

17

state that the elicited natural desire is based upon an innate

natural desire to know the cause and effects, but it is the

elicited desire that is able to go beyond the capabilities of the

innate desire because elicited desires of the spiritual creature

are able to transcend. Feingold argues that an innate appetite

concerns only that which constitutes our happiness in general,

the good in general and more or less is confined to what is

proportionate to our nature. But, and this does not seem very

convincing it is only the elicited appetite that desires to

transcend because it is situated in knowing. The argument in

retrospect seems to be situated in that Feingold holds that it is

ultimately the elicited desire above and beyond the innate desire

to rise up to the essence of God. While de Lubac holds that

essentially the elicited desire is noteworthy only if there is an

underlying innate desire formally directed to God. Surprisingly,

it does appear that on some level there can be a synthesis in

regards to these two different types of desires, and they can co-

exist within one nature.23 Bishop Andre-Mutien Leonard

correlatively echoes the thought of Feingold where human nature

23 Feingold. 399-401.

18

includes the spiritual aspect by way of obedential potency is open

to grace that would exceed what is proportionate to a spiritual

creature in the consideration of the supernatural—God.

Unfortunately, he confers that without this abstract non-concrete

hypothetical existence of pure nature the gratuitousness of grace

becomes a necessity. Honestly, one might be able to imagine God

creating human nature outside the boundaries of grace, but is

this not the definition of what one might call Hell! Bishop

Leonard might be able to imagine pura natura; inasmuch, as long as

he does not have to live in it. Nevertheless, Bishop Leonard

retreats to the theological stance of Karl Rahner and the

modality of a supernatural existential in order to maintain

spiritual openness to grace.24 Karl Rahner’s supernatural

existential maintains the abstract theory of pura natura and

obedential potency, so the major dissimilitude to de Lubac’s “two

fold freedom” subsists in the imprint of a supernatural finality

because it is the initial step in God’s self communication, and

existential because it permeates the totality of life. Whereas de

Lubac asserted that human nature is open to God’s grace through

24 Bishop Andre-Mutien Leonard. “The Theological Necessity of the Pure NatureConcept.” 328.

19

the grace of creation and the simultaneous call, Rahner

explicates that, “If God calls, God’s word does not return empty

but affects humanity’s inner core; humans are as they are because

of their supernatural finality. For Rahner there is but one

graced event that unites all of salvation history… and that is

God’s redeeming self-communication.25 The problematic that is not

addressed by Rahner is how God’s self-commnuication to Adam

transposes a supernatural finality so important to his theology?

Karl Rahner’s theology of the self-communication of God

understood through the supernatural existential has the potential

to synthesize the paradox of human nature where it does not cross

the boundaries of metaphysics, but also establishes an ‘openness’

within the spiritual creature where grace can operate as a

foreign entity in human nature without the fear of rejection.

Yet, Karl Rahner’s theology of the supernatural existential

incorporates the idea of pura natura and obedential potency that

remains inevitably similar to that of the Thomistic

commentators.26 There is possibly of a connection with the Word 25 Marmion, Declan, Mary E. Hines, eds. The Cambridge Companion to KarlRahner: “Experience of Grace,” Stephen F. Duffy. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2005. 46-52. 26 Rahner S.J., Karl. Nature and Grace Dilemmas in the Modern Church. NewYork: Sheed and Ward, 1964. 140-141.

20

of God as formative in the act of creation and the Word of God as

redeeming humanity through the cross as related to God’s self-

communication and our finality as such. However, these spiritual

speculations will be considered in our final act.

“Spirit is the root of personality. The notion of personality thus involves that of

totality and independence; no matter how poor and crushed a person may be, he is a

whole, and as a person, subsistent in an independent matter. It is to say that he is a

minute fragment of matter that is at the same time a universe, a beggar who

participates in the absolute being, mortal flesh whose value is eternal, and a bit of

straw into which heaven enters.”27 In our last section the reality of

human nature as created spirits is fundamental to the two fold

order of nature and the supernatural. The book of Wisdom relates

the reality of Wisdom as there in the creation of the first man.

“She preserved the first-formed father of the world when he alone

had been created; and raised him up from his fall, and gave him

power to rule all things” (Wis. 10:1-2). In addition, “For she is

the refulgence of eternal light, the spotless mirror of the power

of God, the image of His goodness. And she, who is one, can do

27 Fecher, Charles A. Fecher, Charles A. The Philosophy of JacquesMaritain. Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1953.159.

21

all things, and renews, while herself perduring; and passing into

holy souls from age to age.” (Wis. 7:27). The Lord by Wisdom

founded the earth, established the heavens by His understanding

(Pr. 3:18-19). Wisdom as proclaimed in the Old Testament seems to

solidify the argument of Aquinas’s desire for God as being

elicited in that man comes to know God by way of natural

contemplation of the First Cause through His effects. However, in

these same passages of the book of Wisdom we find, “She hastens

to make herself known in anticipation of men’s desire” (Wis.

6:12-13). The personification of God’s wisdom is also related to

the word of God as being the Son of God. The Wisdom and Word of

God are both present in the creation of man “in the beginning,’

and these two terms have come to be understood by theologians as

the personifications of the Word of God or Christ. Theologian

Richard Bauckham in defining a High Christology in early

antiquity unequivocally states that in Jewish monotheism the

personifications of Wisdom and Word are intrinsic to the divine

identity in the work of creation. Bauckham is not timid in

speculating that these personifications are congruent to a

‘distinct existence in reality,’ and must be comprehended as

22

there being a distinction within God. This formulation makes

possible the doctrine of the Trinity or three persons in one God

as understood by Jewish monotheism.28 Therefore, asserting that

the Word of God was present in creation is paramount to

pinpointing the source of the desire within humanity for God.

Therefore, in the theology of Karl Rahner and the self-

communication of God as related to man’s finality and de Lubac’s

‘two fold gratuitousness’ as creation and call it would be

crucial to this study to extrapolate the philosophical work of

Hans-Georg Gadamer in the book, Truth and Method, and the

relation of the Word of God within the Trinity and how it

correlates to human language. First of all, by way of analogy

Gadamer speaks of the inner word as thought that exists in our

mind before it becomes the spoken word in speech. Thus, Christ

exists in the mind of the Father as the inner word or thought

that is begotten by the Father through speech. Fundamentally, our

language is by way of analogy related to the divine mind as seen

through the Second person of the Trinity the Word of God, but the

divine word is to be understood as completely expressed for the

28 Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel. Michigan: William B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008. 17.

23

nature of the divine essence knows itself in totality. However,

the human mind or person does not know itself in totality because

the essence of humanity as such is mystery, and must through the

invention of new words find new ways of expressing reality as

such. Moreover, this plurality or incompleteness has a positive

connotation in that it reveals the infinity of the mind or spirit

in its desire to form new concepts or words.

Gadamer writes:

The perfect word, therefore, is formed only in thinking, like a tool, but once it exists as the full perfection of thought, nothing more is created with it. Rather, the thing is present

in it. Thus, it is not a real tool. Thomas found a brilliantmetaphor for this: the word is like a mirror in which the thing

is seen. The curious thing about the mirror, however, is that it nowhere extends beyond the image of the thing. In it nothing is mirrored except this one thing, so that the whole mirror reflects only the image (similtudo). What is remarkable about this metaphor is

that the word is understood here entirely as the perfect reflection of the thing—i.e, as the expression of the thing—and has left behind it the path of the thought to which alone, however, it

owes its existence. This does not happen with the divine mind.Unlike the divine word, the human word is essentially incomplete. No human word can express our mind completely. But the image of the mirror shows, this does not mean that the word as such isincomplete. Rather, the perfection of the human mind consists in its never being able to be completely present to itself but in being dispersed into thinking this or that. From this essential point it follows that the human word is not one, like the divine word, but must necessarily be many words.29

29 Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method Second Edition. Trans. JoelWeinsheimer Donald G. Marshall. New York: Continuum, 424.

24

In addition, Gadamer will state the inner word in us by way

of the analogy of the Trinity means that the inner word is formed

not by way of reflection but is formed by the existing species

within the mind. Hereto, it is as if the inner word and the

spoken word exist alongside each other in close proximity and

unity. Gadamer writes, “Their unity is so close that the word

does not occupy a second place in the mind beside the “species”

(Lat.); rather, the word is that in which knowledge is

consummated—i.e., that in which the species is fully thought”.30

Furthermore, the divine word as complete must be considered to be

one of unity as juxtaposed to the multiplicity of the human word

in its incompleteness. However, Gadamer acknowledges that even

though the divine word expresses unity it does not find itself so

expressed in the multiplicity of human language. Rather, the

proclamation of salvation as event is expressed in the gospel

through the multiplicity of the proclamation. Gadamer writes,

“Hence it is one word that is proclaimed ever anew in preaching.

Its character as gospel, then, already points to the multiplicity

of its proclamation.”31 Therefore, if Christ as the invisible

30 Ibid. 425.31 Ibid. 426.

25

word created man in the divine image—that is in the image of the

Word of God who is the image of the Father (Heb 1.3)—and as St.

Irenaeus stated that Christ came to restore His own image in

man32…then it would seem that this desire for God must be innate

but unconditional in the gift of creation. For the invisible word

as imprinted on the image of man must be understood through the

reality of the unity of the inner word and the spoken word. In

relation to the philosophy of Gadamer the invisible inner word

has an immediate unity to the spoken word; therefore, the

invisible Word of God in creation must be related to the

Incarnation of the Word of God who makes visible the invisible

inner Word of creation. If there is an ‘openness’ to the divine

in human nature it is because of God’s initial self-communication

through the invisible Word in creation that imprinted the

invisible Word of God in the spirit of man. The Word of God

through the Incarnation not only reclaims the image of the Word

in man, but makes visible what was initially invisible. How other

would the Word of God as proclamation ever penetrate the heart of

man if the image of God as Word was not already there!

32 Irenaeus, Saint. The Scandal of the Incarnation Irenaeus against theHeresies. Trans. John Saward. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1981. 56.

26

Nevertheless, though this desire for God is innate it remained

unconditional until the Word of God appeared as such through the

Incarnation. And this un-conditionality finds expression in the

multiplicity of concepts of God as expressed in antiquity through

false idols and images even in the age of the prophets. Thereto,

the Israelites expressed the reality of God through the

multiplicity of concepts as expressed through the signs of God’s

power to save them, and the Gentiles expressed the reality of God

only through the analogy of human wisdom in which God was the

epitome. Therefore, when the Word of God died on the cross it

must be seen as the death of the concepts of God as understood by

wisdom and power as formulated through the multiplicity of human

language. St. Paul writes,

For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know Godthrough wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith. For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1Cor. 1.21-23.).

If the desire for the vision of God was misaligned through

the multiplicity of human language and sin then the Incarnation

27

of Christ as the Word of God finds a definitive unity only as the

Word of God as crucified on the cross. St. Irenaeus writes:

For in times past it was said that man was made in the image of God, but not shown, because the Word, in whose image man was made, was still invisible. That is why man lost the likeness so easily. But when the Word of God was made flesh, He confirmed both things, He showed the true image, when He Himselfbecame what His image was, and he restored and made fast the likeness, making man like the invisible Father through the visible Word.33

The unity of the one Word as divine wisdom then gives

clarity to the words of Proverbs concerning wisdom, “She is a tree of

life to those who grasp her, and he is happy who holds her fast” (Prv. 3.18). The

invisible inner Word of God as innate and un-conditional in

creation becomes conditional through the Incarnation as the

visible Word of God as crucified. Desire for the vision of God

must be understood as a vision for the God of poverty in which

God calls all people even those who have no voice. The one Word

of God speaks to all through the Word of the Cross that speaks

one word of unity which is love. The finality of the supernatural

existential of Karl Rahner can only be expressed through the

self-communication of God as the invisible inner word and the

visible incarnate word. Gadamer writes:

33 Irenaeus. 56.

28

The subordination of the natural concept formation that occurs inlanguage to the structure of logic, as taught by Aristotle and, following him, Thomas, thus has only a relative truth. Rather, when the Greek idea of logic is penetrated by Christian theology, something new is born: the medium of language, inwhich the mediation of the incarnation event achieves its full truth. Christology prepares the way for a new philosophy of man,

which mediates in a new way between the mind of man in its finitude and the divine infinity. Here what we have called the hermeneutical experience finds its own, special ground.34

In the language of de Lubac it would appear that the Word of

God in creating being qua being through grace also instilled

within humanity an innate calling or desire for God. For through

Christ the inner word that was imprinted invisibly in humanity

takes a form in the Incarnation of the Word of God. Humanity has

a capacity for the self-communication of God and grace because

human language in its multiplicity is open to the infinite, yet

in its multiplicity of concepts it can never grasp the essence of

the one Word even after the Incarnation. Consequently, since

human language is always an unfolding or process of new

inventions of concepts that desperately tries to comprehend the

unity of the one Word it can never by power of its own intellect

or will see the essence of the one Word. Additionally, because of

the multiplicity of the finitude of human language being unable

34 Ibid. 427.

29

to express man/woman to themselves or the reality of God in

totality must by way of a dialectical process grow in the

knowledge of itself and God as revealed by the one Word of God

through the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, God remains in absolute

freedom and must be free in His self-communication through grace

in order to assist man in his multiplicity of concepts. God’s

grace can never be solicited from the side of human nature or is

it by any means demanded simply of the innateness of the desire

in human nature. Romano Guardini proclaims, “God is in himself

the speaker, the one spoken, and the living comprehension of the

eternal speech. He is this by nature, independent of whether a

creature exists which could hear him.”35 Conversely, because

human nature as such is one in potentiality through multiplicity

God must have the freedom to give grace through the psychosomatic

development of the human person. The multiplicity of the inner

word of human nature safeguards the freedom of the divine Word as

self-communicated to human nature for only the Divine Word can

bring unity to human nature through the grace of the proclamation

of the Word of God and the sacraments. Gadamer writes, “It is

35 Romano Guardini. The World and the Person. Trans. Stella Lange. Chicago:Henry Regnery Company, 1939. 135.

30

always one word that we say to one another and that is said to us

(theologically, the Word of God)—but the unity of this word, as

we saw, always unfolds step by step in articulated discourse.”36

Clearly, this understanding gives light to the unfolding of the

Word of God in the historical biblical drama of man’s

relationship to God, and why this unfolding of the salvific work

of God happens through stages as seen in the Old Testament and

then the New Testament. Aaron Riche relates the theological

writings of de Lubac within the very context of this becoming or

unfolding of the plurality of the inner word of human language

when he writes:

This Irenaean theology is sensitive to what de Lubac perceives asSt. Paul’s insistent recollection of how both natural law and Mosaic law work pedagogically to ground the gradual intensification (through history) of the self-communication God makes to man

of his own inner life, the climax of which is the predestined fullness of time that completes the process of God and man becoming mutually accustomed to one another (mutuae inter Deum et hominem assuetudinis). On this view, the human person is a being in the midst of divine predestination, where “to be” is “to be receptive” to the ontological transformation of divine pedagogy.37

36 Gadamer. 454.37 Riches, Aaron. “Church, Eucharist, and Predestination in Barth and deLubac: Convergence and Divergence in Communio”. Communio. Winter 2008, Vol.XXXV, Number 4. 579.

31

Forte asserts that the human nature must have a capacity

for the self-communication of the Word of God if man is to be

able to receive grace from God. Bruno Forte’s theological

arguments relate to de Lubac’s theory of the grace received in

creation and the grace of the call from God. He writes:

If there is a Word of God, there is a created capacity to listen in man. By this capacity, man can be receptive to God’s communication and make a free decision about it. If one day God is to speak to his creature in order to draw it to himself, thereis no doubt that God has already inserted in the depths of the very constitution of this creature a sort of two-fold call, however vague and indeterminate its scope may be, which could have remained forever hidden.38

St. Irenaeus correlates this same mentality when he states

that, “Adam at no time escaped the Hands of God [the Son and the

Spirit], to whom the Father said, ‘Let us make man in our image

and likeness” (Gen. 1:26).39 Moreover, to be made in the image of

the one Word corresponds to the creation of humanity in the

beginning as called or elected by the invisible inner Word of the

Father as understood as “en Christo.” According to Koshi Usami, the

prepositional phrase ‘en Christo’ has an existential head -

Christ/body-Church relation regarding the election of believers 38 Forte, Bruno. Walker, Adrian (Editor) “Nature and grace in Henri de Lubac:From Surnaturel to Le Mystère du Surnaturel”. Communio 23 Wint 1996, p 725-737.(733-736).39 Irenaeus, Saint. 57.

32

in Christ ‘in the beginning.’40 If this “two-fold gratuity” of de

Lubac as understood in the grace of the creation and call what is

the primary call or means of self-communication of God to man. If

there could be a synthesis of God’s self-communication it could

only be understood in the unity of the One Word… which is love.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the charity of God is

fundamental to man’s participation in union with God and with the

realization of man’s deification through grace which is none

other than charity. A.N. Williams writes:

An important part of the unity between God and humanity rooted inthe Incarnation thus consists in its fostering of virtue in individual subjects. Thomas alludes to this theme especially in relation to particular events in the life of Christ. The first effect Thomas names of Christ’s Passion, for example, is that it excites charity (III. 49, 1 resp.). The bond of love between the comprehensor and Goodness apprehended in vision forms but the most important link in a much longer chain of love. The vision of the Divine Essence is said to fill the soul with all good things,

by uniting it to the source of all goodness (I-II.5, 4 resp.) This union, while perfectly realized in the next life begins imperfectly in this. However imperfect the love of this life may bein comparison to that of the next, perfection in this life nevertheless consists in charity.41

Sacred Scripture proclaims, “We love because He first loved us” (1

Jn. 4.19). The unity of human nature is accomplished through the

40 Usami S.J., Koshi. Analecta Biblica-101. Somatic Comprehension of Unity:The Church in Ephesus. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1983. (137).41 Williams, A.N. The Ground of Union Deification in Aquinas and Palamas. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1999. 93, 99.

33

one Word of Christ which is love who “wills that all men be saved

and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tm. 2.4). Karl Rahner

writes, “The difference between nature and grace must be

understood on the basis of the radical unity of God’s free self-

communication in love.” The “hermeneutic of givenness” best

describes the reality of God to man…one desire—one Word—one love—

one end! Karl Rahner states that man’s ‘giving in’ and by no

means to be understood as a ‘giving up’ is the reality of the

call or desire to see God that engenders in man a letting go of

self. Rahner writes, “We are called to confront our nature, to

come to ourselves. Our nature is “substance in action,” and the

substantial acceptance of the Word of God “is substantial self-

dedication.” 42 However, the res that comes into contact with the

subjective experience of the believer can be assimilated into

love; inasmuch, in that “whatever is not identical with God can

be replaced or expelled by something else. It can be loved, yes,

but it can also be denied love, because precisely, it is

finite.”43 Gaudium et Spes defines man’s vocation or call as that of

42 Carpenter, James A. Nature and Grace Toward an Integral Perspective. NewYork: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1988. 59, 65.43 Rahner S.J., Karl. The Love of Jesus and the Love of Neighbor. Trans.Robert Barr. New York: Crossroad, 1983. 45.

34

resembling Christ’s “hermeneutic of givenness:” “This likeness

reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God

willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a

sincere gift of himself.”44

“Consequently, it was henceforward only with great difficulty that one could see

why the supernatural gift was the “Good News” par excellence… If the human nature

that belongs to me has its end in itself by nature, what would compel me or even simply

provoke me to investigate history in order to see whether another call happened to

make itself heard.”45 In conclusion, the profound mystery of man in his

multiplicity of language understood by the inner word and spoken

word will never exhaust the reality of the simplicity of the

Divine in its unity. However, it is through the image of the

invisible inner word as in unity with the visible Incarnate Word

of God in humanity that makes possible the unity of the one call

or desire for God within the multiplicity of its proclamation as

the living Word in historical consciousness. In the words of

Aquinas man is one and the same time a wayfarer and a

44 Gaudium et Spes. The Documents of Vatican II Vatican Translation. VaticanCity: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2009. SC 24.45 Lubac, Henri de. “The Total Meaning of Man and the world.” Communio. Winter2008 Vol XXXV, number 4. 619.

35

comprehensor in the imiatio of Christ.46 Therefore, this thesis

has shown the argument of Thomas Aquinas’ desiderium naturale as

understood by modern commentators, Henri De Lubac’s natural

desire for the Supernatural, and asserts the capacity of the

spiritual creature to God’s self-communication through the

analogy of language. Fr. Raoul Plus, S.J. writes, “God, indeed,

did not make first the natural in man, and then the supernatural.

No, both were created in the same act.”47 “Let us say not—‘Since we know

we love.’ But rather since we love, we know enough.”48

46 Williams. 92.47 Plus S.J., Raoul. God Within Us. New York: P.J. Kennedy and Sons, 1949. 48 Browning, Robert & Elizabeth. The Love Poems of Robert and ElizabethBrowning . New York: Barnes and Noble, 1994. xxvi.

36

Works Cited

Aquinas, St. Thomas. The Summa Theologia of St. Thomas Aquinas Vol. 1.QQ. 1-119 & First Part of the Second Part QQ. 1-114. York:Benziger Brothers, Inc., 1947. Pt. I-II Q. 3 Art. 8.

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel. Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008. 17.

Bishop Andre-Mutien Leonard. “The Theological Necessity of the Pure Nature Concept.” 328.

Browning, Robert & Elizabeth. The Love Poems of Robert and ElizabethBrowning. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1994. xxvi.

Carpenter, James A. Nature and Grace Toward an Integral Perspective.New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1988. 59, 65.

Fecher, Charles A. Fecher, Charles A. The Philosophy of JacquesMaritain. Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1953.159.

Feingold, Lawrence. The Natural Desire to See God According to St.Thomas Aquinas and His Interpreters. Florida: Sapientia Press,2010. 113.

Forte, Bruno. Walker, Adrian (Editor) “Nature and grace in Henri deLubac: From Surnaturel to Le Mystère du Surnaturel”. Communio 23 Wint1996, p 725-737. (733-736).

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method Second Edition. Trans. Joel Weinsheimer Donald G. Marshall. New York: Continuum, 424.

Gaudium et Spes. The Documents of Vatican II Vatican Translation. VaticanCity: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2009. SC 24.

37

Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Trans. John Macquarrie & EdwardRobinson. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Thought, 1962. 174.

Hutter, Reinhard. Joseph Torchia, O.P. ed. “The Thomist 73” “Aquinason the Natural Desire for the Vision of God: A Reflecture ofSumma Contra Gentiles III, C. 25 Après Henri de Lubac.”Washington D.C.: The Dominican Fathers Province of St. Joseph.(2009): 523-91. 565.

Irenaeus, Saint. The Scandal of the Incarnation Irenaeus against theHeresies. Trans. John Saward. San Francisco: Ignatius Press,1981. 56.

Journet, Charles. The Meaning of Grace. Trans. A.V. Littledale. NewYork: Scepter Publishers, 1996. 85.

Lacroix, Jean. Maurice Blondel. An Introduction to the Man and HisPhilosophy. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968. 30.

Lubac S.J., Henri de. A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace. Trans.Brother Richard Arnandez, F.S.C. San Francisco: Ignatius Press,1980. 34.

Lubac, Henri de. The Mystery of the Supernatural. trans. Rosemary Sheed. New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1967. 54.

Lubac, Henri de. “The Total Meaning of Man and the world.” Communio. Winter 2008 Vol XXXV, number 4. 619.

Mansini O.S.B., Guy. “The Abiding Theological Significance of Henri deLubac’s Surnaturel.” The Thomist 73, (2009): 593-619. 599.

Marmion, Declan, Mary E. Hines. The Cambridge companion to KarlRahner. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Stephen F.Duffy. “Experience of Grace.” 43-62.

38

Mary E. Hines, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Karl Rahner:“Experience of Grace,” Stephen F. Duffy. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2005. 46-52.

Mulcahy, Bernard O.P. Aquinas’s Notion of Pure Nature and theChristian Integralism of Henri de Lubac Series VII Theology andReligion Vol. 314. New York: American University Studies, 2011.2.

National Conference of Catholic Bishops. New American Bible St.Joseph’s Ed. New Jersey: Catholic Book Publishing Company, 1992.

Pascal, Blaise. Roger Ariew ed. Pensees. Indianapolis: HackettPublishing Company, 2004. 59.

Plus S.J., Raoul. God Within Us. New York: P.J. Kennedy and Sons,1949.

Riches, Aaron. “Church, Eucharist, and Predestination in Barth and deLubac: Convergence and Divergence in Communio.” Communio, Wint.2008, Vol. XXXV, Number 4. 579.

Romano Guardini. The World and the Person. Trans. Stella Lange.Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1939. 135.

Rahner S.J., Karl. The Love of Jesus and the Love of Neighbor. Trans.Robert Barr. New York: Crossroad, 1983. 45.

Rahner S.J., Karl. Nature and Grace Dilemmas in the Modern Church. NewYork: Sheed and Ward, 1964. 140-141.

Usami S.J., Koshi. Analecta Biblica-101. Somatic Comprehension ofUnity: The Church in Ephesus. Rome: Biblical Institute Press,1983. (137).

39

Williams, A.N. The Ground of Union Deification in Aquinas and Palamas.New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. 93, 99.