Dominic Soto's 'St. Thomas Aquinas'

1329 Words3 Pages

God has created man for Himself in grace and our souls yearn to return to God, to see Him face to face. Our desire for Him comes from Him; “We love because he first loved us.” 1 John 4:19 While the human soul naturally desires God, theologians have faced problems in arriving at a solution of where this desire is placed in our powers. This difficulty is known as the problem of the natural desire to see God. For the past 400 years this known problem has effected the relationship between nature to grace and the doctrine of the necessity of revelation for human fulfillment in Catholic theology and European philosophy, but nevertheless we can glean its solution in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas.
The problem began in Cardinal Thomas de Vio …show more content…

In the late 19th century theologian Dominic Soto wrote, “Haec glossa est tortuosa; destruit textum” (This commentary is filled with strange conundrums. It destroys the text it comments on.) (Lesson 4, page 2). The French Jesuit Cardinal Lubac objected to Cajetan’s summary by recognizing the contradiction that nature cannot have an end it cannot reach, and nature that has two ends must be “complete and distinct,” from each other (book, page 5). His solution was that there must be an “abstract nature, [which] was changed by the gift of grace in man’s original creation” (book, page 6). Lubac speaks of nature and grace and adds “supernatural existential” in the middle of the two. German Jesuit Karl Rhaner believed that nature could not be known, “there is no way of telling exactly how his nature left to itself alone would react, what precisely it would be for itself alone” (book, page 9). Instead of explaining how grace fulfilled nature, Lubac separated them while Rhaner made them the same thing. Their solutions to the problem of the natural desire to see God destroys nature and grace through their “nominialistc Metaphysics” (book, page …show more content…

Their solutions to the problem of our natural desire to see God approached the problem in the order of happiness, possibility of attainment, and then natural desire (Book, page 12). The true solution lies in the reversal of that order, first beginning with our natural desire (Book, page 12). This ordering helps us to understand what St. Thomas truly meant, which is that the natural desire to see God is not an act, especially not an act of the will. Rather the natural desire, “is a potential to know, not knowledge itself” (Book, page 13) and is undistinguishable to the power of the intellect. Once the intellect knows one cause it then seeks to know the cause of all of the causes. Man searches for this final cause, which we know is God. Even though we have the natural desire to see God in our intellect, we cannot arrive at the Beatific Vision by reason. This vision of God is possible, “to know the means to will these things which is grace.” Lesson 4, page 4. St. Thomas’ six arguments from philosophy to support our natural desire to see God can be found in his Summa contra Gentiles, III and are summarized as

Open Document