THE UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

The Incarnation’s Impact on Grace: The Economy of Divine Salvific Action in Human History According to the Thought of Cardinal

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the Faculty of the

School of and Religious Studies

Of The Catholic University of America

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy © Copyright All Rights Reserved By

Robert Wenderski

Washington, D.C.

2020

The Incarnation’s Impact on Grace: The Economy of Divine Salvific Action in Human History According to the Thought of Cardinal Charles Journet

Robert Wenderski, Ph. D.

Director, Reinhard Hütter, Dr. theol., Dr. theol. habil.

Cardinal Charles Journet’s theology of the history of Essai de Théologie de l’Historie du Salut, Volume IV of his L’Église du Verbe incarné (EVI), prioritized the of

Christ and illustrated a strong Christological focus, both of which serve as a basis for his theology of grace. The internal, theological logic of EVI IV is this: Christ’s Incarnation and redemption caused a development in sanctifying grace; the change in grace caused a development of the Church; these two developments defined the way in which salvation history unfolds in the world.

Journet’s overarching organizing theological principle is that all things are ordered to the glory of Christ. The Father glorifies Christ for His objective redemption of fallen man, wherein a new order of grace (Christic grace) is inaugurated. In addition, man actually reaching beatitude subjectively (via a graced love of preference) results in man rendering a twofold glory to God.

Journet’s theology of grace is based on two principles: i) the interchange of divine grace and human free will occurs in a relationship of First Transcendent Causality and secondary causality, and ii) the freedom of the creature is consistently respected by God. This dissertation maintains that it is Journet’s theological emphasis on the constant availability of Christic sanctifying grace that: i) provides an umbrella under which God’s redemptive action in the world can be seen as intelligible, and ii) elucidates how the rational creature attains (or fails to attain) salvation. This dissertation argues, furthermore, that Journet’s understanding of recapitulation emphasizes that the world of redemption is better, in total, than the universe of innocence, precisely because the change in sanctifying grace brought about by the Incarnation and redemptive act (the divine response to sin) permits man to be conformed to the suffering Christ.

This dissertation, finally, draws out the ecclesiological implications of Journet’s Christocentric theology of grace.

Since the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and the City of God, it is equivalent to the “world of redemption,” and is the visible vehicle through which grace is communicated to mankind, most efficaciously through the .

This dissertation by Robert Wenderski fulfills the dissertation requirement for the doctoral degree in Systematic Theology approved by Reinhard Hütter, Dr. theol., Dr. theol. habil., as Director, and Chad C. Pecknold, Ph. D. and Root, Ph. D., as Readers.

______Reinhard Hütter, Dr. theol., Dr. theol. habil, Director

______Chad C. Pecknold, Ph. D., Reader

______Michael Root, Ph. D., Reader

ii

Contents Chapter One – Setting the Stage...... 1

Part One – A Brief Overview of Swiss Political and Religious History since the Protestant ...... 3 A. The Reformation: Confessional Conflicts ...... 3 B. Oligarchical Families Holding Political Power ...... 5 C. French Revolution and Aftermath: End of the Ancien Regime; Confessional Hostilities . 6 Part Two – Journet’s Early Biography ...... 13 A. Special Situation of ...... 13 B. Early Life – Collège -Michel and the Grand Seminary of ...... 14 C. Priestly Life; Life of Humility; Role of a Theologian; Central Place of the Incarnation . 20 Part Three – Journet’s Battle against Liberal ...... 24 A. Polemics ...... 24 B. Liberal Protestantism’s Denial of the ...... 25 C. Religious Experience Replaces Defined Dogma ...... 28 D. Rationalism – Evolution of Protestant Thought ...... 30 E. Basis of Liberal Protestantism’s Tenets Flawed due to Incorrect Metaphysics...... 30 Part Four – L’Église du Verbe incarné: The Theological Position and Purpose of Volume IV of Journet’s opus magnum ...... 38 A. The Church and the Four Causes ...... 39 B. The Contribution of Volume IV to Ecclesiology ...... 40 Chapter Two – The Creation and Fall of Rational Creatures and the Divine Permission of

Sin ...... 51

Part One – Time: Christian v. Non-Christian Views of Time ...... 53 Part Two – Creation in General...... 56 A. Creation and Divine Glory ...... 56 B. Three Mysteries of the Divine Presence with Respect to Creation ...... 59 C. Creation of Rational Creatures ...... 60 D. The Rational Creature Attains when its Free Will Acts in Dependence on the Creator ...... 65 Part Three – Creation (and Fall) of the Angels ...... 73 A. Three Preliminary Items ...... 73 B. On Angelic Will and Choice ...... 78 Part Four – Creation (and Fall) of Man ...... 99 A. Man as a “Horizon Between Two Worlds” ...... 99 B. The Preternatural Gifts ...... 100 iii

C. The Three Cities ...... 103 D. On the Origin of Human Sin: Nonconsideration of the Divine Rule ...... 107 E. Bañezian Thomism on the Divine Permission of Sin ...... 125 F. Critique of the Antecedent Permissive Decree / Neo-Bañezian Position by Journet/Maritain and Their Alternative Interpretation of Aquinas ...... 132 Part Five – A Discussion of Sufficient Grace and Efficacious Grace ...... 152 A. Charles Journet on Sufficient Grace and Efficacious Grace ...... 152 B. The Importance of Sufficient Grace in the Theology of Journet ...... 159 Chapter Three – The Incarnation and Redemptive Act Modify Sanctifying Grace ...... 164

Part One – The Economies of Salvation to the Incarnation ...... 166 A. The Progressive Nature of ...... 166 B. The Two Economies of Salvation Before the Incarnation ...... 168 C. Three Ages of the World ...... 182 Part Two – Sanctifying Grace ...... 190 A. Similarity in Essence between Prelapsarian Sanctifying Grace (Transfigurative) v. Postlapsarian Sanctifying Grace (Christic / Redemptive); but Difference in Effect and Source ...... 191 B. Superiority of Christic Sanctifying Grace over Transfigurative Sanctifying Grace ...... 194 C. Why Christic Grace is So-Denominated: It is Derived from the Incarnation and Ordered to Man’s Redemption ...... 199 D. Christic Grace is Redeeming for Two Reasons: It is Merited on the Cross and it is Satisfactory ...... 206 Part Three – Sanctifying Grace by Anticipation v. Sanctifying Grace by Derivation.... 210 A. Grace by Anticipation v. Grace by Derivation i) as to Time, and ii) as to Distribution and Fullness ...... 211 B. Grace by Derivation as to Mode: “By Contact” v. “At a Distance” ...... 212 C. Superiority of Christic Grace by Derivation by Contact over Christic Grace by Anticipation ...... 214 D. Superiority of Christic Grace by Derivation at a Distance over Christic Grace by Anticipation ...... 219 E. Christic Sanctifying Grace: Its Definition and Characteristics ...... 220 F. Christic Grace Illumines, or Sanctifies, Suffering ...... 227 G. Christic Grace Can be Refused ...... 236 Part Four – Christic Grace and the Development of the Church ...... 239 A. Development of the Church After the Fall and Before the Incarnation ...... 240 B. Christic Grace: The Church Reaches Her Fullness through Sacramental Grace ...... 243 Chapter Four - A World of Redemption is Better than a Universe of Innocence ...... 252

Part One – The Question of Evil ...... 253 A. Why is Evil Permitted? ...... 254 iv

B. Inquiry as to the Reason for Creation, in View of the Problem of Evil ...... 267 Part Two - How a World of Redemption is Better than a Universe of Innocence ...... 274 A. Supporting Evidence from Journet’s Writings ...... 276 B. God’s and Forgiveness, Aspects of Divine Goodness, are Manifested ...... 279 Part Three – Recapitulation ...... 282 A. Describing and Defining the Term “Recapitulation” ...... 282 B. Who brings about this Exitus-Reditus? ...... 286 C. How does Recapitulation Occur?: Via the Hypostatic Union ...... 287 D. The Scope of Recapitulation: Due to the Hypostatic Union, All Things are Ordered to Receive a Higher Perfection, Precisely Because They are Under a Principle ...... 288 E. The Incarnation Inaugurates a New Superior Order: Metaphysically and in the Order of Grace ...... 290 F. Recapitulation Considered Specifically vis-à-vis Man ...... 295 G. The Mystical Body of Christ, Actually Formed with the Protoevangelium, Carries out Christ’s Recapitulation ...... 298 Chapter Five – Journet’s Theology of Salvation: A Defense of the Supernatural ...... 301

A. God Draws Good out of Evil, as Contrary to Secularism which Claims God Cannot Exist since Evil Exists: Christ’s Glory is Increased due to Forgiven Man’s Greater Exaltation of the Redeemer than of Prelapsarian ’s Exaltation of the Creator ...... 304 B. Journet’s Insistence on Man’s Supernatural End, as Contrary to Rationalism which Denies a Supernatural End for Man ...... 306 C. The Second Good that God Draws from the Evil of Sin, brought about by the Incarnation and Redemption – A New Order Christic Grace, as Contrary to Liberal Protestantism (which denies the divinity of Christ) and to Rationalism (which denies that there is a purpose to suffering) ...... 308 D. The Relationship of Causality between Divine Grace and Human Free Will in the Salutary Act, as a Counter to Protestant Theology wherein the Theology of Grace does not Comport to the Natural Capacities of Human Nature after the Fall ...... 312 E. The Visible Church as the Agent of Christ’s Saving Work, Conveying Christic Grace via the Sacraments, as Contrary to the Reformed Notion of an Invisible Church ...... 321 Overall Conclusion...... 332

Appendix One ...... 336

Works Cited ...... 337

v

Chapter One – Setting the Stage

Introduction Cardinal Charles Journet (1891-1975) was a highly productive and very important Swiss

Catholic theologian of the last century, and arguably one of the important theologians of the twentieth century. Co-founder of the theological journal Nova et Vetera, greatly esteemed by

Pope Paul VI, Journet attended part of the . Widely respected for his theological writing on a broad range of dogmatic topics, Cardinal Journet is best known as the author of a major ecclesiological work in the twentieth century, the five volume L’Église du

Verbe incarné (EVI), of which each volume comprises about 1,000 pages in print.

To understand better Journet’s the impetus behind his writings, it is necessary to grasp the religious and theological situation of early 20th century . Situating Journet in context will elucidate the positions he advanced and explain what today might be considered harsh language. We will first very briefly discuss the political and religious history in

Switzerland since the Reformation, emphasizing the importance of the religious dimension.

In Part Two, we will present an early biography of Charles Journet, noting the milieu in

Geneva during his early years, proceeding to note his ardent embrace of Thomism during his seminary studies and a firm desire to place his work at the service of the Church. As a theologian and seminary professor, we observe his theological emphasis on the centrality of the Incarnation.

Part Three treats of the newly ordained Charles Journet’s avid battle against liberal

Protestantism. Among diverse philosophical and theological currents, rationalism was Journet’s primary target. He was especially ardent to defend the divinity of Christ and the supernatural

1

2 nature of divinely revealed truths against rationalism’s effort to supplant defined dogma with individual religious experience. Journet relied on a realist metaphysics to underscore that the intellect attains truth rather than defines truth.

Part Four concerns Journet’s five volume L’Église du Verbe incarné, and the purpose therein served by Volume IV (the focus of our study). The work is one of ecclesiology, and

Journet employs the paradigm of Aristotle’s Four Causes to organize his discussion of the

Church. His contributions include his emphasis on the centrality both of the Incarnation and of the Church in salvation history. He insists that the only way to understand the Church is to trace

Her development in time, with particular attention that God acts through the Church, the

Mystical Body of Christ, in time. Since rational creatures possess free will, they may refuse or accept the “love of preference” which God desires of them. We conclude Part Four with a brief outline of Volume IV and a discussion of how it fits within the schema and goal of the entire five volume series.

Part One – A Brief Overview of Swiss Political and Religious History since the Protestant Reformation

Politically, in the sixteenth century, thirteen provinces, called “cantons,” which, when combined with Associates and condominiums (sometimes referred to as Mandated Territories) formed the Swiss Confederacy. “Associates” included a diverse set of towns and lordships,

“united only by their association with the Confederacy.” Least powerful were the condominiums, which were governed by multiple cantons. Such governance became problematic and influential when the governing cantons had different . After the Bernese canton seized Vaud on extreme the western area of the Confederacy in 1536, only minor territorial changes occurred until the French Revolution.1

Three discreet levels of Swiss political life are identifiable in this period. The confederacy participated in European issues, while the cantons and Associates provided limits on each other’s internal powers. Lastly, each canton possessed its individual political activity.2

When chroniclers of Swiss categorize history into various periods, the one constant in all epochs is the religious question. We will therefore begin our review with the Protestant

Reformation in Switzerland and its aftermath.

A. The Reformation: Confessional Conflicts After Ulrich Zwingli’s (1484-1531) visible separation from the in 1522, his preaching spread from Zurich to other cantons and cities, with various degrees of success.

For example, Berne, Basle, and Schaffhausen became bastions of Reformed thought, whereas

1 Church, Clive H. and Randolph C. Head, A Concise History of Switzerland (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 74. 2 Church and Head, A Concise History of Switzerland, 77. 3

4

Fribourg, Solothurn, and Lucerne retained the Catholic .3 Notably, tensions arose each time a canton encountered, and then accepted or rejected, Zwingli’s ideas.4 Soon, the introduction of a new split the Confederacy along religious lines. As will become clear in the following, this division continued up to the 20th century, thereby influencing the Switzerland of Journet’s day.

Less than a decade after Zwingli’s public preaching of Reform ideas, in 1529, after

Zurich’s magistrates declared war on the Catholic cantons, only last minute negotiations prevented armed hostilities. Two years later, after the Reformed areas of the Confederacy banned grain sales to the five Catholic cantons, the Catholic canton of Schwyz attacked Zurich. In the ensuing Battle of Kappel, Zwingli was killed. Peace negotiations followed, in which the agreement “recognized the existence of the two and set out guidelines for their coexistence.”5

In the following two centuries two brief internal wars occurred, both properly called confessional. In 1656, the First War of Villmergen involved two cantons, the “perennial rivals,”

Zurich (Reformed) and Schwyz (Catholic). France and Savoie aided negotiations ending the skirmish, which largely resulted in maintaining the status quo, where the Catholic majority in the

Diet (“a meeting of delegates from the individual cantons”) allowed a disproportionate influence in favor of the Catholics. So bitter were the parities that each canton began to conduct separate, internal political meetings, “leading to the emergence of de facto Catholic and Protestant Diets, as well as the Common Diets in Baden.”6 Indeed, the religious differences remained, and became

3 Church and Head, A Concise History of Switzerland, 83-4. 4 Church and Head, A Concise History of Switzerland, 84. 5 Church and Head, A Concise History of Switzerland, 81-86. 6 Church and Head, A Concise History of Switzerland, 95-96

5 entrenched and long lasting, as “separation and polarization driven by religious difference affected every aspect of life in seventeenth-century Switzerland, from politics to family life.”7

In 1712, troops under command from the Reformed cities of Berne and Zurich entered the canton of St. Gallen. Deemed outnumbered, the Catholic cantons proposed settling, but the suggested concessions were deemed humiliating, and engendered popular uprisings. After a brief military episode won by the Reformed side, the Second War of Villmergen ended in August,

1712 with the Peace of Arnau. Parity in religious matters in the condominiums were legally established, but Catholic cantons’ ruling authority was diminished or prohibited in two areas.

Unsurprisingly, much bitterness arose among the defeated Catholic cantons. As of 1715, “the

Confederacy was again pacified internally, and its external neutrality and sovereignty were widely recognized.”8

Similar to the aftermath of the First War of Villmergen, the negotiated peace did not reach the hearts of all. While the Peace of Arnau “revised the religious balance in Switzerland to the benefit of the Protestant cantons,” it did not address the powerful oligarchal families, both

Protestant and Catholic.9 The existing ruling cantonal oligarchies continued to augment their strength, as throughout Europe, which added a distinct layer of unease among the poorer classes.10

B. Oligarchical Families Holding Political Power Who held political power in the Swiss cantons? Considered as a whole, the urban and rural oligarchies may be called the Swiss Ancien Regime. These powerful families were on both

7 Church and Head, A Concise History of Switzerland, 91. 8 Church and Head, A Concise History of Switzerland, 96-97. 9 Ibid., 104. Cf. 105. 10 Ibid. Cf. 97.

6 sides of the religious spectrum, and their self-interest helped prevent any separation of cantons from the Confederacy.11 What is remarkable is how few families held political power; it is highly likely that such exclusivity encouraged the reigning families to retain their privileged position.

The extent to which power was concentrated among a few families in the late 1700s can be seen from a survey of the limits in place for cantonal political participation. In Lucerne in 1773, the number of ruling families was reduced to twenty-nine. In Uri, three families ruled. In Berne, it was sixty-eight, while in Basle “real power was limited to fifty-eight families.” Overall, the oligarchs numbered some 10,000, in a total population of about 1.7 million.12

C. French Revolution and Aftermath: End of the Ancien Regime; Confessional Hostilities For centuries, France was Switzerland’s strongest ally. The Revolution in France, however, led to undermining the existing Swiss oligarchical system. With no central army, the

Confederacy was in no position to resist Napoleon’s reach. When French forces occupied first

Vaud and then Berne in early 1798, the Swiss oligarchical Ancien Régime ended.13

France wished to continue its control in Switzerland by influencing a national constitution in April 1798, which “formally proclaimed…the new unitary Helvetic Republic inaugurated. This was the first time that the country had been treated as a single polity.”14 Unity on paper, however, is not synonymous with unity in practice. Both supporters of the Ancien

Regime and Catholics opposed to the secularizing effect of the French influence resisted the changes. New constitutions were effected in 1801, and again in 1803, the latter an attempt to recognize the importance of cantonal sovereignty. Each of the now nineteen cantons retained

11 Church and Head, A Concise History of Switzerland, 104-05; cf. 119. 12 Ibid., 120. 13 Ibid., 130. 14 Ibid., 133.

7 individual constitutions, in addition to the confederal charter. After Napoleon’s defeat at Leipzig in October 1813, direct French political influence waned. 15

Political currents in Europe continued to influence Switzerland in the early 1800s. One effort aimed at increasing federal power, but the cantons rejected it in October, 1833. Another initiative of the Freisinnige, or free thinkers, commonly known as Radicals, advocated for direct democracy and secular education. In the early- to mid-19th century, as it had been since the time of Zwingli, the political question could not be separated from the religions question.16 From the

Catholic perspective, the effort focused on preserving Catholic influence “in the face of the increasing strength of radicalism and nationalism.”17

To illustrate the seemingly constant presence of the confessional differences in the time shortly preceding Charles Journet’s writing, we will briefly discuss various 19th century examples. In 1834, six cantons “ironically including some Catholic cantons led by liberals,” agreed to the Swiss Articles of Baden, which sought to create a Swiss Catholic Church. This move was firmly resisted by Swiss Catholics wishing to remain loyal to Rome. In 1837, protests occurred in Zurich after the government appointed Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874), a

German liberal Protestant theologian who questioned Christ’s divinity, to a chair of theology.

After fourteen persons were killed in the protest, the cantonal government fell.18 In light of the uproar, the authorities decided to pension Strauss before he actually began teaching at the

University of Zurich.

15 Church and Head, A Concise History of Switzerland, 140, 142-43. 16 Ibid., 155. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid.

8

Of special note is the Sonderbund War of 1847. The Radical party made political in-roads in various cantons. After failing to take power in Catholic Lucerne, the Radicals similarly failed when its voluntary military unit attempted military action on Lucerne in March, 1845. Alarmed by the attack, as well as the murder of a leading Catholic activist, seven Catholic cantons formed a security agreement in December, 1845. Shortly after the Sonderbund was made public, ten other cantons called for its elimination, but this did not reach the majority in the Diet. In July,

1847 a majority of cantons was secured, and called for the abrogation of the Sonderbund, along with the expulsion of the Jesuits. The Catholic cantons refused, and later in 1847 were defeated militarily. A new Swiss constitution was passed the following year, wherein a “federal state” was established. However, the new governing structure did not resolve the confessional question.19

Other restrictions occurred in the 19th century, culminating in a Kulturkampf. In Berne, following the publication of the Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors in 1864, new restrictions were implemented on Catholic organizations in the Jura region.20 The Syllabus was seen, by the

Radical party, as an impediment to “progress,” as it “acknowledged only one supreme legislative power” in the state. After Vatican I’s declaration of , “the cantons of the diocese of Basel informed Bishop [Eugéne] Lachat that they would not recognize the validity of the resolution of the Vatican Council and forbade further proclamations.” The bishop refused, was removed from office, and the property of the diocese was “secularized.”21 Bishop Lachat, in

1872 excommunicated clerics in the Jura who opposed the definition.22 In 1873, the cantonal

19 Church and Head, A Concise History of Switzerland, 156-61. 20 Ibid., 167, 171. 21 E. Bonjour, H.S. Offler, and G.R. Potter, A Short History of Switzerland (1952; repr., Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985), 297. 22 Church and Head, A Concise History of Switzerland, 174.

9 government demanded that all clergy cease communication with Bishop Lachat. Ninety-two priests from Jura refused the order, and were imprisoned, fined, and/or threatened with expulsion. Furthermore, the government “subjected the clergy to state approval, popular election, and, on the Prussian model, to a state examination.”23 In addition, the government closed churches and supported a group of clerics who both opposed the definition and set up a new

“Christian Catholic Church.”24

1. The Historical Religious Context in Geneva Due to its large population and to its central role in Reformation, Geneva merits a specific discussion of certain key events. For our purposes, since Charles Journet was born and raised there, these events take on added significance. We will begin with the period of the early

19th century.

Shortly after Napoleon departed from Switzerland, the Republic of Geneva entered the

Swiss Confederation in 1815. The balance of political power between Catholics and Protestants was first altered by the reattachment to Geneva (now a canton) of French and Sardinian communes.25 But diplomacy even more radically altered the confessional “balance” in Geneva.

“After the French occupation which had transformed the free city and capital of the department of Leman,” Geneva, by the Treaty of Paris and Turin (1815-16) received “all or a part of various” Catholic towns “in order to form a homogenous territory” bordering Switzerland. Six towns were taken from the Pays de Gex and others from Savoie. “This fact was crucial for the civil and religious history of Geneva, because it had transformed the old reformed republic into

23 Bonjour, Offler, and Potter, A Short History of Switzerland, 297-98. 24 Church and Head, A Concise History of Switzerland, 174. 25 Guy Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975) (Paris: Éditions Salvator, 2008), 90. All translations are mine.

10 a mixed canton. Protestants still dominated for a long time the political and cultural scene, and considered Catholics as second class citizens.”26 a. Msgr. Mermillod Episode Precisely at the time of the Bishop Lachat incident, another important event took place, in

Geneva. In 1873, the bishop of Hebron, Msgr. Gaspard Mermillod (1824-1892), a Swiss native, attempted to restore the diocese of Geneva, as desired by Pius IX. “For the new strong man of the government, Antoine Carteret, an ‘austere protestant who was far from supporting the

Roman Church in his heart,’ acted to put an end to this initiative,”27 suspending Mermillod from his duties.28 Rome responded by granting the title of “apostolic vicar” to Mermillod. The government declared this act unconstitutional,29 and “[A] decree of the federal government expelled Msgr. Mermillod from the Helvetique territory on February 17, 1873.”30 The cantonal government:

[S]uppressed the congregations, proscribed the cassock and processions, [and] proceeded to inventory the churches. As all the priests of Geneva had refused the measures stipulating the election of priests and vicars by the faithful and their civil swearing, the canton summoned foreign priests into rupture with their bishops and thus to provoke a schism between the overwhelming majority of Catholics faithful to Msgr. Mermillod and to Rome and the “national” Catholics or “old Catholics.” It was, to use the expression of Jeantet, ‘a schism by the State’.31 As we have seen in previous centuries among the various cantons, we see again the confessional question dominate in Geneva, as “[T]he politics of ‘nationalization’ of worship led by Carteret

26 Jaques Rime, Charles Journet: Vocation et juenesse d’un theologien (Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg, Editions Saint-Paul, 2010), 37-38. Emphasis added. Footnote reference omitted. All translations are mine. 27 Rime, Charles Journet, 39. Footnote references omitted. 28 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 90. 29 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 91. 30 Rime, Charles Journet, 39. 31 Rime, Charles Journet, 40. Citing Louis Jeantet, Histoire de la persécution religieus à Genève: Essai d’un schisme par l’Etat (Paris-Lyon: Lecoffre,1878), np.

11 raged during at least eight years and violently divided the city.”32 Indeed, biographer Rime addresses the situation Catholics faced in Geneva from 19th century until the middle of the 20th century, wherein they had “a society inside of the overall society in which the Church, in response to the ostracism of which She was the object, had organized the life of the faithful.”33

The Geneva government was not “balanced,” and the levers of power did not recognize what in our day might be called “freedom of worship.” Even with the influence of “liberal

Protestantism,” which we will discuss shortly, “[t]he direction of the State remained exclusively in the hands of Protestants who, establishing an aristocratic regime, were unable to depart from their confessional reflexes and preserved the authority of civil power in religious matters.

Catholics remained ‘second class citizens, or even third’.”34 b. 1907 Separation of Church and State In Geneva in 1907, a popular vote was held to place the confessions on a more equal footing, and was approved. The vicar general of the diocese commented on its effects: “For us,

Catholics [the year 1907] will have marked the advent of common law, the restitution of a part of our goods, the inscription of our civil state into the Geneva constitution, the abolition of the laws of 1873 and the equality of all the religious confessions before the law.”35 It must also be noted that while the new Geneva law certainly helped reduce religious tensions, it in no way completely resolved the difficulties arising from the confessional differences. Rime observes:

32 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 91. 33 Rime, Charles Journet, 45. 34 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 90, citing Geroges Goyau, Une Ville-Église, Genève (1535-1907) (Paris: Librarie Académique Perrin et Cie, 1919), 2:30. See also Rime, Charles Journet, 23, where he notes that “from the time of Fr. Journet, Geneva parochialism (particularisme) was not extinguished.” 35 Rime, Charles Journet, 44, citing “Journal du Vicariat général de Genève, commencé sous la protection de Dieu le 1 janvier 1905,” 45-46.

12

The separation of the Church and the State of Geneva in 1907 had not led as certain persons hoped to the creation of a Church more confessional than formerly. The new constitution of the Church, fruit of a compromise between the orthodox and the liberals, had maintained a strong liberal passage: “Each pastor teaches and preaches freely under his own responsibility; this liberty is not to be restricted neither by the of faith, nor by liturgical forms.”36 Ever since the Reformation, the Swiss cantons, both before and after the formation of the

Swiss Confederation, were divided along confessional lines. While several factors (such as economics, trade both with Europe and the New World, neutrality, and Europe’s tendency to centralization of power) influenced both the cantons and the politically powerful cantonal families, the religious question continued to exert a significant influence.

36 Rime, Charles Journet, 146, n. 284, citing Article 35 of the constitution of the national Church, cited by: La Semaine religieuse de Genève, May 8, 1920, 76. Footnote reference omitted.

Part Two – Journet’s Early Biography A. Special Situation of Geneva From our earlier review of Geneva, we know that it was a “mixed canton,” a Reformed bastion with a Catholic history. This combination was very evident when Jean-Louis Journet and

Jenny Bondat, parents of Charles, were married on December 27, 1888 in Geneva; of the city’s

76,000 residents, 55% were Protestant and 42% were Catholic.37 Equally evident is the strong faith of the Journet . Near Geneva is the predominately Catholic town of Meyrin, where

Jean-Louis had roots. In 1897, Jean-Louis and two of his brothers petitioned the town council that the local church building and presbytery, confiscated during the Kulturkampf, be returned to the diocese.38

In addition to undergoing confessional clashes, late 19th century Geneva also saw liberal Protestantism promoting significant changes within Protestantism. Boissard describes the stark situation:

In the wake of the Kulturkampf, the protestant Church saw appear, between 1865 and 1870, a new theology known as liberal which began a power struggle, within the Geneva protestant community, against the tendency known as orthodox. In this new theology, Goyau tells us: “[there is] nothing mystical and almost nothing religious.”39 The trends emerging in liberal Protestantism in several cantons, into which we will inquire shortly, seem to have been embraced slightly sooner in Geneva:

According to Goyau, “historically speaking, the national Church in Geneva is the first which had deliberately adopted, in setting its base, the distant and extreme consequence of the reformed individualism: the absolute suppression of dogma.” And it associated with Rousseau “these new conceptions, more philosophical than theological, which diminished religious truth to being only the personal elaboration of individual consciences, and which substituted subjective experience for revelation, and the immanent for the transcendent.”40

37 Rime, Charles Journet, 33. The population data includes that of three main Geneva suburbs. 38 Rime, Charles Journet, 35. 39 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 91, citing Goyau, Une Ville-Église, Genève, 2:123. 40 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 92-93, citing Goyau, Une Ville-Église, Genève, 2:210. Some eighty years before Journet’s efforts, Newman already identified this trend: “Germany and Geneva began with persecution, and 13

14

In the last quarter of the 19th century, the situation of Geneva Catholics loyal to Peter remained perilous. Difficulties were presented both by the Reformed confessions as well as by the schismatic “Old Catholics” supported by the government. Religious congregations were expelled. Catholic churches were taken over and given to the “Old Catholics,” and even the principal church, Notre Dame, suffered the same fate in April, 1875. Consequently,

Catholics were forced to gather “in the makeshift venues, warehouses, barns.”41 With the help of outside funding, “chapels of persecution” were constructed.42

This was the Geneva into which Charles Journet was born and in which he lived. He was personally familiar with the plight of the Church, having “assisted at the ‘in a barn’.”43

Perhaps it is surprising, then, to learn that he was studious, contemplative, loved to learn, but also “full of life.”44 And his suffering was not only a result of the persecution of the Church: when barely sixteen years old, his father and his only (older) sister, Marie, died within seven weeks from each other, both from tuberculosis.45

B. Early Life – Collège Saint-Michel and the Grand Seminary of Fribourg In fact, while seemingly never far from suffering, he knew its power, he knew it was not meaningless. Once asked by a “spiritual daughter” of his about his vocation, Journet relayed the following: “Oh! When I was 18 years old, my mother asked me about what I wished to do with my life, then I responded to her: ‘I have suffered much, I wish to become a priest’.”46

have ended in scepticism.” An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1968), 91 (Part 1, Chap. 2, Sec. 2). 41 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 93; “lieux de fortune, hangars, granges.” 42 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 93. See also Rime, Charles Journet, 40-41. 43 Rime, Charles Journet, 40. Footnote reference omitted. 44 Rime, Charles Journet, 36. 45 Rime, Charles Journet, 49. Cardinal , O.P., testified that Journet said his father was his “best friend.” Ibid., 50, n. 111. 46 Rime, Charles Journet, 51, citing Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 40.

15

In contrast to cosmopolitan, populous Geneva, Fribourg, a town of some 20,000 inhabitants, “with its convents, its University, [and] the tomb of blessed , [is] counted among the capitals of the Roman Church in Switzerland.”47 Central to its Catholic identity was the Collège Saint-Michel, which, founded by St. Peter Canisius, was an “institution” rather than a mere school.48 While accepting non-Catholic students, Saint-Michel had a “strong

Catholic flavor,” and “jealously defended the classical spirit – the teaching of the humanities and philosophy.”49 While not strictly a diocesan minor seminary, it was considered as such and afforded a “customary way that candidates for the priesthood in the diocese followed.”50

It was here that Journet studied under, and was greatly influenced by, Fr. Albert Charpine. It was

Fr. Charpine who imbued in Journet a love of beauty and sincerity, and strengthened in Journet a love of truth, “this requirement of truth that he retained in his articles of controversy for 20 years.”51 At the Collège Saint-Michel, which Charles attended from 1907-1913, the final two years included a rigorous philosophical curriculum, one at great variance with the surrounding subjectivism.52 A student at the college recalled: “Thomistic philosophy was taught to us, in

Latin. This teaching engraved in my spirit an ineffable trace. Precision in terms, clarity in definitions, connections of ideas: here is what I kept for life.”53

47 Rime, Charles Journet, 53. 48 Rime, Charles Journet, 56. 49 Rime, Charles Journet, 57, 59. 50 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 41. 51 Rime, Charles Journet, 63. Cf. 61-62. 52 Since metaphysics and natural theology were in the course of study, we surmise that Journet was possibly introduced to Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange while at Saint-Michel, and, undoubtedly, studied him more in-depth at the seminary. He certainly encountered St. at Saint-Michel. Rime, Charles Journet, 68, 72. 53 Rime, Charles Journet, 72, citing Gonzague de Reynold, Mes mémoires, Ed. générales, (Genève: np, 1960-1963), 3:711.

16

From the flourishing environment of Saint-Michel, Charles entered the (diocesan) Fribourg seminary in 1913. In addition to continuing his academic excellence, it is at this time that Journet began to read St. Catherine of Sienna, especially her Dialogues. It was from this saint that he learned what became the basis of his ecclesiology: “It is she who makes me love the Church.”

Indeed, Journet attributed to St. Catherine the idea that the Church, though not without sinners,

“is without sin.”54 So influential is St. Catherine that Rime makes this remarkable statement:

All the written works of Journet are encircled by Catherine of Sienna. In his testament dated Easter 1975 Catherine is present. She figures also in the dedication of the first and second volumes of The Church of the Word Incarnate. But she appears (affleure) already in his very first writing, a text read June 12, 1916 during the sacerdotal jubilee of the [seminary] superior [Msgr. ] Fragnière.55 Undoubtedly, St. Catherine was also a strong impetus for his spiritual life. First, she deepened the lessons of Fr. Charpine, as her writings made vivid the link between the transcendentals, teaching Journet: “Especially where there is truth, there is beauty.”56 In addition, since Fribourg also hosts the , which had and continues to have a strong Dominican presence, Charles and several of his seminary confreres became Dominicans.57

Even more importantly, “Journet once told his friend Fr (later Cardinal) Cottier that he owed his vocation as an ecclesiologist to St , Dante, and Humbert Clérissac, OP.”58

The academic instruction at the seminary appears to have been solid. Theology was based on, but not limited to, the teachings of St. Thomas. The seminary leaders ensured that the

54 Rime, Charles Journet, 81. Footnote reference omitted. 55 Rime, Charles Journet, 82. Footnote references omitted. 56 Rime, Charles Journet, 81, citing Charles Journet, “Sainte Catherine de Sienne,” Bulletin des Amis du cardinal Journet, no. 8 (decembre 1985), 7-16, at 9 (Causierie aux Petits Frères de Jésus à Annemasse, le 30 avril 1966). 57 Rime, Charles Journet, 79. 58 John Saward, “L’Église a ravi son coeur: Charles Journet and the Theologians of Ressourcement on the Personality of the Church” in “Ressourcement:” A Movement for Renewal in Twentieth-Century , ed. Flynn and Paul D. Murray (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 125-137, at 130. Rime concurs on the influence of the three; regarding Clérissac, he adds that his Le mystère de l’Eglise aided Journet to a “going beyond” (dépassement de) the juridical vision of the Church.” Charles Journet, 348, and n. 5.

17 curriculum showed an openness to new forms of learning, evidenced by new course offerings.59

Of note is the adherence, despite, or perhaps because of, the ongoing debate occasioned by liberal Protestantism, to the exhortations of , who himself was seeking to continue to draw on the Church’s intellectual heritage as encouraged by : “[O]ne month after the Sacrorum antistitum of September 1, 1910, the professors of the Great

Seminary had taken the antimodernist oath, on October 9, 1910.”60

During his seminary years, Journet not only rigorously studied theology, especially Thomas, but also learned a Thomistic method of lasting value: “To descend toward the practical life by the light of general truths: this method employed by Thomas Aquinas, that Journet announced in this work of his youth, was that of his entire life.”61 In addition, this theological method and goal very much followed a Thomistic principle: he, Journet, was not at the center of attention, but at the service of the Church, trying to understand and expound what he received from Her:

My plan has not been, on each theme, to list the multitude of solutions presented by different theologians, to create a kind of thicket. Still less has it been to create new paths. No, my aim has been to enter, as far as I could, into the depth of thought of the one whom the Church, when I was a seminarian, distinguished with the title, the ‘Common Doctor,’62 and of his most attentive commentators. I was convinced that [the thought of St Thomas Aquinas] would contain the light that, in continuity with Tradition and in coherence with the whole message of Scripture, would enable me to respond to the gravest questions of our times without expecting facile solutions, without diminishing the mystery, but seeking to lose oneself within it in order to come back from it less blind.63

59 Rime, Charles Journet, 86-87. 60 Rime, Charles Journet, 88. 61 Rime, Charles Journet, 91, quoting Journet’s “Des Confessions de saint Augustin à la Somme de saint Thomas. A propos du chant liturgique,” Revue cécilienne, no. 3/4 (May 1917): 41-45, at 42-43. (In all quotations from all authors, emphasis will always deemed to be in the original, unless otherwise noted.) 62 Cf. Studiorem ducem, no. 11, issued by Pope Pius XI, June 29, 1923, in which he writes: “We consider that Thomas should be called not only the Angelic, but also the Common or Universal Doctor. In terms of dates, Journet must be speaking broadly, since he was ordained in 1917. 63 Saward, “L’Église a ravi son coeur,” 126, citing Journet, “Regard retrospective. À propos du dernier livre du R.P. Congar sur l’Église,” Nova et Vetera 38, no. 4 (1963): 294-312, at 294. Bracketed text added by Saward.

18

I do not wish to suggest that Journet limited his study and reflection to Aquinas. Certainly, he relied greatly on Thomistic realist metaphysics. And yes, Boissard does not hesitate to conclude that Journet considered the renowned Thomist Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange as “his master in philosophy and theology.”64 But, we notice, too, from the above citation Journet’s reliance on Tradition and Scripture, in accord with the Church’s entire patrimony. Journet is ever expounding on Scripture.65 In addition, a brief glance at the indices of each of the five volumes

L’Église du Verbe incarné reveals that they are steeped in the writings in the commentarial tradition on Thomas, such as those of Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, and the Salmanticenses of

Spain. But he also has an affinity for St. , and the , including St.

John Damascene, and St. , as well as for the counter-reformation bishop of

Geneva, St. . In the main subject of our investigation, Essai de Théologie de

L’Historie du Salut, the basic paradigm is that of the “two cities” in St. Augustine’s City of God.

Philosophically, Journet is highly indebted to Aristotle, and mainly to French thinkers, Bossuet,

Pascal, and, most certainly, to .66 We conclude, then, that, even as a seminarian and certainly afterward, Charles Journet had a broad range of interests served by a diverse number of writers across a wide series of time periods. Journet delighted in learning, and his interests ranged from philosophy and theology, from art to poetry to politics.67

Furthermore, while at the diocesan seminary he intensified his study habits, as noted by this remark of the curé of Vernier (the town where Charles and his mother moved after the tragic

64 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 316. 65 In a book presenting the conferences he preached at a retreat in August, 1970, Journet adds in the forward: “[I]n a text where [there] are words of Scripture, one always finds some thing in order to nourish his own thought, his own life.” Entretiens sur L’Incarnation (Paris: Parole et Silence, 2002), 10. 66 Rime, Charles Journet, 95. The correspondence between Journet and Maritain exceeds 1,900 letters, filling six volumes. Ibid., 9. 67 See, for example, Rime, Charles Journet, 90.

19 events of early 1907) about Journet during vacations: “His diligence for intellectual work holds almost all of his passion. Rising at 4:00AM he occupied all his time to the study of theology, except for the hours of recreation that he granted himself by his rule of life, in which rests were very short, too short in my opinion.”68

Unsurprisingly, Charles Journet both finished first in his class and received the highest grade on the fourth year exam used to determine the capacity of future clergy to hear confessions.69

Ordained to the deaconate in Lent, 1917, and then to the priesthood on July 15, 1917, Fr. Journet offered his First Mass a week later, in Vernier. Msgr. Fragnière preached, highlighting the essence of the priesthood:

In an eloquent sermon, [he] demonstrated that the culminating point of the economy of the religion of Christ was sacrifice, in which the priest assures the perpetuity by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; the humble form that the God of the Eucharist takes must incite the priest himself to practice humility in his life.70

68 Rime, Charles Journet, 90. Footnote reference omitted. 69 Rime, Charles Journet, 89. 70 Rime, Charles Journet, 94. Footnote reference omitted.

20

C. Priestly Life; Life of Humility; Role of a Theologian; Central Place of the Incarnation Journet will, indeed, practice this humility, evidenced by his emphasis on the role of a theologian. Fr. John Saward observes:

As a of St Thomas, he [Journet] never wavered in this conviction that sacra doctrina was principally a speculative rather than practical science, ordered to a more perfect understanding of revealed truth, and that his duty as a theologian was the humble one of leading others to such an understanding according to the mind of the church.71 Journet will also practice humility, striving simply to serve the Church, as attested to by a retreat he preached at age 79. There he spoke about another aspect of the divine humility, the Child

Jesus: “Insofar as we will have not understood that Christmas is a folly of the love of God, we will not have understood Christmas. Insofar as will not have understood that the faith is to believe this folly, we will not have understood what the faith is.”72 In an earlier meditation, he offered one of the reasons behind this divine folly, this divine humility: “What will God do [in response to man’s revolt]? He will send His only Son, born of the Mary, to take upon

Himself our misery. … Pure folly. It was necessary that God love us with a love of folly in order

[for us] to consent to such a remedy.”73

Here we come to a key theme, not only in his theology and writing, his preaching and teaching, but his very life: the Incarnation. Regarding the Incarnation, Journet will say: “It is the most solemn moment of the history of the world. God is going to touch creation as He had never touched it before and as He will never touch it again.”74 From a theological perspective, “Charles

71 Saward, “L’Église a ravi son coeur,” 127. Footnote reference omitted. 72Journet, Entretiens sur L’Incarnation, 67, under the Ninth Meditation – “The Consequences of this Revelation,” of the Third Instruction – The Heart of the Mystery (1): Jesus Christ, True God, True Man. 73 Journet, Entretiens sur L’Incarnation, 50-51, under the Tenth Meditation – “The Folly of the Incarnation,” of the Second Instruction – The Why of the Incarnation. 74 Journet, Entretiens sur L’Incarnation, 54, under the Second Meditation – “Unaltered in His Transcendent Purity, the Word Assumed a Human Nature,” of the Third Instruction – The Heart of the Mystery (1): Jesus Christ, True God and True Man.

21

Journet takes theology to its source, which is the Incarnation ‘ of divine life:’ ‘The entire rite of the Christian religion, it reads in the Summa, derives from the priesthood of Christ, to which the faithful are configured by the sacramental characters; these [the sacramental characters] are nothing other than participations in the priesthood of Christ derived from Christ

Himself’.”75

Saward captures elements of Christology and to which Journet would whole- heartedly agree:

The marvel of the Incarnation is this: through it God worships God. in his humanity adores God the Father, with whom, in his divinity, he is coequal. What is more, this filial worship of the Father begins at the first moment of the Incarnation and has its first sanctuary in the Virgin’s womb. [Cardinal] Bérulle, who had a thorough knowledge of the Greek Fathers, repeats what Cyril and Proclus and Andrew of Crete had recognized before him, namely, that the Virgin’s pure womb, unshadowed by any sin, containing the divine Word himself, is ‘the holy or temple where Jesus reposes, the true Ark of the Covenant… and the Virgin’s heart is the first altar on which Jesus offered his heart, his body, his spirit, as a victim of perpetual praise’.76 Such was the whole priestly life of Charles Journet: to follow the humility, the sacrifice, the suffering of the One who chose to become man precisely to reveal to man how to worship the

Father. Founded on revealed truth and apprehended by reason that his great intellectual vigor would allow, faith was the organizing principle of abbé Journet’s daily activity. And to that faith, the Incarnation was absolutely central.

Such was the understanding which engendered Journet to write five volumes of L’Église du

Verbe incarné.

Journet’s teaching and reaction of students; understanding of the nature and purpose of theology

75 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 187, citing Charles Journet, Introduction à la théologie: Questiones disputeés (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1947), 154. 76 John Saward, Redeemer in the Womb: Jesus Living in Mary (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993), 86, citing Pierre Cardinal de Bérulle, Vie de Jèsus 28, Oeuvres complètes, new ed. (Paris, 1856), 494.

22

To illustrate from another perspective the character of Charles Journet, which subsequently emerges in his writing of L’Église du Verbe incarné, we briefly consider his teaching style and a few reactions from his students. Recall that Charles was a diocesan priest, and his first assignment was as vicar to a in Geneva. After a short stint a St. Peter’s parish in Fribourg, he was named as vicar at Sacred Heart parish in Geneva (his home parish) for three years, after which he then taught approximately 56 years at the Grand Seminary in Fribourg, from 1924-1970.77

His understanding of theology, while traditional, clearly reflects that humility characteristic of the most renowned theologians before the divine mysteries:

The principal function of theology is to order the truths of Revelation among themselves and to illumine the one by the other. It illumines the one by the other: the mystery of the superabundance of divine relations ad intra and the mystery of the superabundance of relations ad extra; the mystery of eternal processions and the temporal missions, notably the visible mission of the Incarnation and Pentecost, which confer on the Church her essentially missionary character. It indefinitely illumines the depths of sin by those [depths] of the Incarnation, and the depths of the Incarnation by those [depths] of sin. It explains by an outpouring of the privileges of Christ, who is the Head, the privileges of the Church, which is the Body.78 Journet began teaching at the diocesan seminary as Professor of Dogmatics in the autumn, 1924.

Since he is assigned, beginning in his second year, to teach De Deo Uno, his principal teaching text became Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. Knowing its complexity and its depth, he endeavored to make the text intelligible. One student remembered: “He adapted it [the course material] in order to present it in a comprehensible fashion for them [the students]. It was not technical, except in the very difficult questions. On the whole, it was a language very adapted to

77 Rime, Charles Journet, 435-38. 78 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 311, citing Journet, Introduction à la théologie, 100. Colon added by disseration writer.

23 the students. … He tried to establish a dialogue with the students.”79 Another student described

Journet’s class as “much more alive, more welcoming also. … His theology, it was not a cold, scholastic theology, detached from the text, it was [a] spiritual [theology]. He was a spiritual

[man], he was a man profoundly linked to God. His theology was truly based in Holy Scripture, in Revelation.”80

We glimpse from these references a teacher whose teaching ardently reflected who he was. His was not the situation of doubt or confusion, of uncertainty of sources, of a lack of confidence in Tradition. While he used a primary text, Journet was not simply content to read it as a textbook. He understood the power of truth to change lives, no less than it always had such power, perhaps even more so in the reigning atmosphere of doubt and subjectivism. He demanded much, knowing the importance of the battle in which the Church was engaged.

At the same time, ultimately, Journet’s ability to convey the truth did not stem from an innate talent, or from a particularly impressive method, but rather from within.

He was [a] mystical contemplative. Before the altar of the Blessed Sacrament, he was some hours there, he prayed. And then he spoke. … It was impressive, truly impressive to sense this type of dialogue. The , for him, the Eucharist, was some thing astounding. … It was a life, it was already a life, the foot into the contemplation of glory.81

Journet had long known that “[T]he commitment to theology requires a spiritual effort to grow in virtue and holiness.”82 As a professor, he simply wished to hand that most basic truth to those in his care. Journet practiced the axiom: “Theology is best studied on one’s knees.”

79 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 196. Footnote reference omitted. 80 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 195. Footnote reference omitted. 81 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 204-05. Footnote reference omitted. Earlier, Boissard wrote: “Many of those who knew him [Journet] agreed to acknowledge that he was a contemplative theologian.” Ibid., 204. Footnote reference omitted. 82 Donum veritatis, no. 9, Instruction from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, May, 24, 1990.

Part Three – Journet’s Battle against Liberal Protestantism

In Part Three we will see Journet begins writing shortly after ordination in a wide-ranging effort to engage liberal Protestantism. Understanding that an idealist philosophy underpinned much of liberal Protestantism, Journet sought to employ, defend, and promote a realist metaphysics. Indebted to the writings of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., Journet endeavored to illustrate that a realist metaphysics was essential both to the understanding of God and of objective truth. Fundamentally, Journet wished to maintain the harmony between faith and reason in a day when faith was doubted and the existence of absolute truth was denied.

A. Polemics We are now in a position to see the environment in which the polemics of 1920s

Switzerland is established. What is immediately evident is that the long history of a willingness to expound upon the confessional differences in no way abated because of World War One. The confessional differences were ever present and openly debated: “[t]he polemical style was common to Catholics and Protestants and this setting overflowed in order to characterize all spheres of society.” Indeed, writing on doctrinal controversies between Protestants and Catholics was common in the interwar period in Switzerland.83

In Journet’s mind, entering the debate was no mere academic exercise. Rather, it was an ardent response to an urgent need to counter enormously influential Continental philosophical trends. Biographer Guy Boissard summarizes the situation in the autumn of 1921:

83 Rime, Charles Journet, 133-34. Footnote reference omitted. Cf. Church and Head, A Concise History of Switzerland, 155. 24

25

He [Journet] is thereby confirmed [in] his primordial concern to illumine minds in the midst of “great doctrinal confusion:” that of the philosophical thought, on one hand, confronted with the excess of positivism and of scientism, and that of the Christian faith menaced by relativism, on the other hand. The latter was assailed, even within Protestantism, by diverse contradictory tendencies in which the echoes went even to trouble Catholics, when convictions of these latter were not attacked directly by pamphlets or theological observations.84 We proceed to discuss the overall tenet of liberal Protestantism to which Journet directed his early theological efforts.

B. Liberal Protestantism’s Denial of the Supernatural

The very first essay Journet published was a refutation of a work wherein he identified an essential tenet of liberal Protestantism that he will frequently counter – the denial of the supernatural.85 In 1918, Georges Fulliquet, professor of systemic theology at the University of

Geneva, published a book examining the impact of science on the question of life after death.

Journet disputed the findings of Les problèms d’outre-tomb, noting that “the framework

‘presum[ed], without informing, the denial of the supernatural’.” Specifically, Journet noted three egregious theological errors: “It is just as God, living intellectual lightning and flame of love eternally subsisting, becomes for M. Fulliquet the anonymous reservoir of a spirit diffused everywhere. In denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, one diminishes the Mercy of God, as in denying the eternity of hell, one diminishes His infinite Justice.” His conclusion was terse and harsh: “The book was ‘wrong,’ ‘immoral,’ because it wished ‘to reduce the divine to the human, the rational to the irrational, the moral to the reckless’.”86

84 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 100. 85 Newman had noted that: “[T]heological liberalism led to the rejection of ‘the idea of mystery’.” Ian Ker, Newman on Vatican II (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 12, citing Newman, Essays Critical and Historical (2 vols) (London: Longmans, Green, 1871), 1:31-32, 41-42. 86 Rime, Charles Journet, 135, citing Journet, Les problèms d’outre-tomb d’après de livre de M. Georges Fulliquet (Fribourg: Saint-Paul, 1919), 7. Cf. Rime, Charles Journet, 134

26

In addition to noting that theological liberalism did not begin in Switzerland with Professor

Fulliquet, Rime highlights its key tenets:

[T]heological liberalism began at Geneva in the independent faculty of theology, through the resignation in 1849 of a professor in disagreement over the inspiration of the Bible and authority in matters of faith. It reached also the national Church. Up until then, pastors professed mostly the “combined supernaturalism,” called now “ancient rationalism.” One rejected the Trinity, the expiation by the , the radical corruption of nature, but one believed the historicity of the biblical miracles. Liberalism on the other hand placed the accent on the humanity of Jesus and made the individual conscience the actual basis of authority in the domain of faith.87 Rime documented liberal Protestantism’s overall strategy, already in published form in the mid-1800s, underscoring the natural basis of religion: “A Church, but without priests – a religion, but without [a] catechism – worship, but without mysteries – morality, but without theology – a God, but without [a] system.”88

Journet continued his efforts to respond to those denying supernatural truths. A group called “Friends of Protestant Thought” was founded in Paris in 1922 and organized in

Switzerland in 1923. Its goal was to “take back confidence in Protestantism and defend the cause of high culture therein. Its call of May, 1923 desired to prevent a double danger, ‘the victory of a Christian thought completely Catholicized or, on the contrary, of a modern thought more or less dechristianized’.”89 Journet responded in June, 1923:

87 Rime, Charles Journet, 142. Footnote reference omitted. 88 Rime, Charles Journet, 142, n. 260, citing the Manifeste du christianism libéral, publié à Neuchâtel en 1869, cité dans: “John Gaillard,” John Cougnard, professeur de théologie à l’Université de Genève, 1821-1896. Notice biographique, Georg, Genevé, 1898, 60. 89 Rime, Charles Journet, 163, citing Aux Amis de la pensés protestante – Appel (Lausanne: La Concorde,1923), 8.

27

“The Friends of Protestant Thought,” in battling against Catholicism, claim to battle against a human power. We do not enjoy their errors, and we explain their intentions: they battle against the mystery of the Holy Trinity, against the mystery of the Incarnation and the divinity of Jesus, the infallible truth of each of His words, the power of His humanity and of His sacraments in order to confer grace, His right to demand total obedience in the way chosen by Him.90 One final example illustrates Journet’s insistence on the importance of the supernatural to

Christian belief. A pamphlet was published in 1924, written by Jules Breitenstein, in which the author:

[O]pposed Protestantism and Catholicism, in which “the fundamental deviation” was the recovery of the division between priests and the laity. The Protestant “act[ed] as man, whereas the Catholic ac[ted] as a child,” submissive to the authority of others: “Man, child, such is, indeed, the principal opposition between Protestantism and Catholicism. Protestantism aspires to build up men, Catholicism does its utmost to maintain humanity in the peaceful and blessed age of infancy.”91 Rime notes that “Journet criticized the desire of the author in considering Protestantism as a trend corresponding to human aspirations. For him [Journet], was something else:

“There are, St. Paul declared, ‘things which no eye has seen nor ear has heard, and which have not reached the heart of man,’ that God prepared for those who love Him.”92

Denial of the Divinity of Christ A specific element Journet detected of the denial of the supernatural by liberal

Protestantism was particularly troubling. Geneva Protestant pastor Georges Berguer [1873-

1945] had written a book Quelques traits de la vie de Jésus au point de vue psychologique et psychanalytique93 in 1920. Asked by Fr. Ernest Allo, O.P., Professor at the Fribourg seminary of

New Testament exegesis and formerly Professor of Dogmatics at the École biblique in

90 Rime, Charles Journet, 164. Footnote reference omitted. 91 Rime, Charles Journet, 168, citing Jules Breitenstein, La valeur du protestantisme (La Concorde: Lausanne, 1924), 3, 4, 9, 16. 92 Rime, Charles Journet, 168, citing Charles Journet, L’esprit du protestantisme en Suisse (Paris: Nouvelle Librarie nationale, 1925), 211, n. 1. 93 Rime, Charles Journet, 149, n. 298.

28

Jerusalem, to respond to the book, Journet wrote a thirty-eight page study, published later that same year.94 A reaction to Journet’s study appeared in the Semaine religieuse,95 to which

Journet, in turn, responded. “The main point which separates liberal Protestantism and

Catholicism is, he wrote: ‘that, for the first, Jesus is true man but not true God, whereas for us

Jesus is true man and true God’.”96

If Christ is not true God and true man, then any dogma becomes open to question. A different source of religious truth must then be discovered.

C. Religious Experience Replaces Defined Dogma If liberal Protestantism claimed longstanding teachings (especially those explicitly biblically-based) were no longer valid, how is religious truth discovered or determined?

What criteria were to be used to assess a religious claim? In lieu of a church interpreting

Scripture to aid the faithful to follow Christ, individual experience became the new standard for guiding personal behavior. Rime discusses this trend:

Liberalism of the theology of experience sees itself also in its fashion to contemplate dogmatics: for it, dogma evolved with the times. According to his biography, Auguste Bouvier (1826-1893) considered that dogma was “the scientific expression of a state of the Christian conscience at that time and in a given milieu.” For the young theologians René Gusian and Arnold Reymond, who will count among the principal representatives of Swiss Romand97 thought in the inter-war period and with whom Journet will be in contact, the “point of view of subjectivism” appeared “the only admissible and possible {point of view} today in theology,” and “the confessions of dogmatic faith [were] in contradiction with the aim of Protestantism, {and} [were] a remnant of the past and ultimately ineffective and [went] against consciences.”98

94 Rime, Charles Journet, 105, 154. 95 “A periodical diffused in the Protestant churches,” Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 100, n. 1. 96 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 100 and n. 2, citing Journet’s “Les échos d’une controverse,” Le Courrier de Genève, April 1, 1921. 97 Swiss Romand, that is, French–speaking Switzerland, is comprised of the cantons Geneva, Vaud, and Neuchâtel, the majority of Fribourg and of Valais, and of the Jura regions. Rime, Charles Journet, 13. 98 Rime, Charles Journet, 145-46. Initial italics added for emphasis. Item in braces added by disseration writer. Items in brackets in the original. Footnote references omitted.

29

Such a stance, surmises Rime, “did not satisfy Journet, one suspects. He [Journet] will accuse them [Protestants] of choosing, in dogmas, what pleased them. The Protestant critique, on its side, reproved the pretention of the Catholic Church for its absolute certitude and will condemn the sheep-like character of its faithful.”99 In his very first book, Journet goes further, specifying a series of contrasts in which he sees a religious subjectivism replacing a traditional understanding of doctrine:

Up until Protestantism, he writes, we said: the faith must be docile to the point of conforming itself to revealed doctrine. Protestantism will say: It is the revealed doctrine which must adapt itself to the needs of faith. Up until Protestantism, we said: Knowledge must be attuned to reality. Protestantism will say: It is reality which must be attuned to knowledge. Up until Protestantism, finally, we said: The truth expresses what is. Protestantism will say: The truth expresses that which pleases.100 But if the only knowable truths derive from the human experience, the only relevant theology is that touching on or immediately affecting practical human behavior. This trend appeared in Geneva at the end of the 19th century, when “a number of Protestants in Geneva and elsewhere will insist on the fact…that Christianity was a life, that it was necessary to start from the experience of the believer, that conscience was the means of contact with the divine, and that it was illumined by the example of Jesus, the man faithful to his conscience.”101 We have the words of a “specialist of Romand Switzerland at the beginning of the 20th century”102 to confirm this understanding: “Theological thought, on the whole, granted a preponderant place to personal experience and to the sentiment of moral obligation. It refuses dialogue with philosophy. It based itself on psychology.”103

99 Rime, Charles Journet, 147. 100 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 133, citing L’esprit de protestantisme en Suisse, 83. 101 Rime, Charles Journet, 143. 102 Rime, Charles Journet, 143. 103 Rime, Charles Journet, 143, citing Alfred Berchtold, La Suisse romande au cap du XXth siècle. Portraits littéraire et moral (Lausanne: Payot, 1963), 202.

30

D. Rationalism – Evolution of Protestant Thought If two tenets of liberal Protestantism are i) the denial of the supernatural, and ii) that religious experience is the measure by which religious truths are assessed, then a third immediately emerges: only natural truths (religious or otherwise) are knowable:

Liberal Protestantism distinguishes, actually, “religion”, [the] concern of conscience and sentiment, from “theology,” [the] concern of science, which only recognized what it could prove. It defined itself as a reasonable, rational religion, which allowed debate. It was opposed to Protestantism known as “orthodox,” which, according to the liberals, established irrational and inadmissible doctrines and dogmas, without managing to prove what it puts forward, although it refers to the authority of the Bible. Thus everything is called into question: the Incarnation and the divinity of Christ, redemption, the supernatural. Of course, it does not reject them but “it does not impose dogmas on us.” The world grew, the sciences developed themselves, we wish to be treated no longer as minor children. … In the reading of the Bible, it comes back to us to separate truth from falsehood by appealing to strength of our reason and our liberty. The characteristics of liberal Protestantism are: nuance, criticism, liberty, tolerance, absence of fanaticism and openness to different ideas.104 “Established truth” is only that which can be demonstrated. Faith appears to have evaporated, not only as a topic of legitimate inquiry but also in the lives of the “faithful.”

E. Basis of Liberal Protestantism’s Tenets Flawed due to Incorrect Metaphysics To convince the faithful of the cogency and relevance of the magisterial teaching in the face of the “new” tendencies in liberal Protestantism, Journet sought to understand the implications of its assumptions and pre-suppositions. Biographer Guy Boissard identifies three reasons for Journet’s participation in the long-lasting and spirited polemics in post-

World War I Switzerland: the specific state of the confessional dispute (and the history leading thereto) in Swiss Romand and in Geneva, a “philosophical incompatibility” between the two confessions, and the effect of the theological debate on salvation.105 We wish to

104 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 92. Footnote reference omitted. 105 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 127-37.

31 focus here on each of the last two items: the theological consequences resulting from liberal

Protestantism’s lack of a metaphysical underpinning.

Journet knew that the faith enlisted the aid from many areas of human knowledge: epistemology, logic, and philosophy, for example. These allies, however, were often lacking or were insufficiently utilized in Protestant circles. “Indeed, according to Journet, it is from an anti- intellectualism which it [Protestantism] itself acts, opening the door to subjectivism and soon to relativism.”106 Journet repeatedly intervenes in the pages of the daily Catholic Geneva newspaper to promote the harmony of faith and reason, knowing that metaphysics is essential to grasping

“the objective intelligibility of the natural order”107 as well as serving as a basis on which supernatural truths build. To one author, who deemed scholastic metaphysics as “outdated,”

Journet replied that: “ ‘metaphysical principles underlie all human truth,’ whether mathematical or otherwise.”108 To another reader who questioned whether man could attain to absolute truth, either in metaphysics or in religion, Journet responded: “in what they have in particular, in their spirit, Protestantism and Catholicism, Thomism and Cartesianism, are as opposed as ‘yes’ and

‘no’!”109

106 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 132. 107 Andrew Swafford, Nature and Grace: A New Approach to Thomistic Ressourcement (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick, 2014), 104. 108 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 132, citing Journet, “Après la conference de Jacques Maritain,” Le Courrier de Genève, November 15, 1925. Copleston observes: “But he [Jacques Maritain] insists that metaphysics is an end, not a means, that it reveals to man ‘authentic values and their hierarchy,’ that it provides a centre for ethics, and that it introduces us to the eternal and the absolute.” Frederick Copleston, S.J., A History of Philosophy: Vol. 9: From the French Revolution to Sartre, Camus, and Lévi-Strauss (New York: Image Books, 1994), 258, citing Maritain’s Les degrés du Savoir (Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1932), 10. 109 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 132-33, citing Journet, “Pierre Lasserre et Jacques Maritain,” Le Courrier de Genève, July 12, 1925.

32

1. Summary of Philosophy – Path to Idealism When Journet concisely traces the trajectory of philosophical development of three main thinkers over the preceding 400 years, he also illustrates the path to idealism:

Where does this lead to? The abbé shows where it inexorably leads: Luther “substituted by a coup the affectivity of his needs from his ‘moral experience’ for the affirmations which he knew to be inspired, from the text of the Apostle.” Rousseau revealed “a gospel which, pleasing to the heart, has no choice but to please God.” Kant “no longer wanted ‘to admit that all our knowledge must be attuned to their objects,’ but tried to see if we would not be happier ‘in supposing that objects must be attuned to our knowledge’.” “The philosophy of classical Greece and Thomistic philosophy had defined the truth – under the benefit of the doctrine of abstraction and of the doctrine of analogy – as ‘the adequation of the mind to reality.’ But Kant, through his Critique, was able to put an end to this ancient aberration.”110 Practically, idealism eventually led to the adoption of relativism. Throughout the entire polemical effort, Journet explained, illustrated, and underscored that human reason could attain to truth, in part because truth is unchangeable; indeed, reason attains truth, rather than defining it. In doing so, he opposed the view, unthinkable to him, that truth was “ ‘a conformity of the mind to that which pleases’,” a relativism which “is obliged by right to give today the name of truth to what tomorrow will be called error.”111

Let us be clear. Promoted by the advance in various sciences, the idea that “truth changes” gained many adherents in the early 20th century. But that scientific hypotheses are altered to reflect new knowledge means not that truth has changed, but merely that man has lessened his ignorance of perennial truth.112 To suggest that relativism applies to metaphysics is to say everything changes, since being underlies every particular reality. To claim that human reason cannot reach truth is a self-contradiction: if it were true that human reason cannot reach

110 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 133-34, citing Journet, L’espirit du protestantisme en Suisse, 84-85. 111 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 134, citing Journet, L’espirit du protestantisme en Suisse, 79 112 See Frederick Copleston, S.J., A History of Philosophy: Vol. 7: Modern Philosophy: From the Post-Kantian Idealists to Marx, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche (New York: Image Books, 1994), 320.

33 truth, that would be a truth reached by human reason. Lastly, if human reason defines, rather than attains truth, who decides, when opinions on a given question vary, who provides the definition?

Journet was well aware that truth is learned because it is received.

2. Theological Consequences Such a change in the understanding of truth, or of man’s ability to reach it, did not impact only high-minded philosophers. Charles Journet entered into the debate for one purpose – to aid those entrusted to his care, as well as those whom he might influence, toward salvation. It was with a pastor’s heart and a pastor’s sense of responsibility that prompted him to engage this fight.113

The young priest was engaged in an old battle – Boissard rightly summed up the situation in one sentence: “Divine revelation is not able to be subject to simply human criteria of reason and science.”114 The idea of human reason as the measure of divine realities, of fitting infinite divine mysteries into the finite human mind, is a perennial temptation: “you shall be gods.” But underlying this desire is a more basic, epistemological issue: “[T]he supernatural is not reduced to sensible manifestations but reside invisibly and immaterially in an interior life which raises the

113 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 135. 114 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 135. While certainly not the first, Newman, too, noted this trend: “religious liberalism [is defined as] ‘false liberty of thought, or the exercise of thought upon matters, in which, from the constitution of the human mind, thought cannot be brought to any successful issue…since ‘the truths of Revelation’ cannot be subjected to ‘human judgment’ being ‘revealed doctrines which are in their nature beyond and independent of it’.” Ian Ker, Newman on Vatican II, 54, citing Newman, Apologia pro Vita Sua, ed. Martin J. Svaglic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), 256. The earliest Church Father I have discovered to discuss this topic at some length is St. Hilary, De Trinitatae, Book I, Chap. 13, 15, and 18, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 9, St. , , ed. by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. E.W. Watson and L. Pullan, et al, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999). In modern times, Barth seems to have made the same error, since he “seeks to understand the deity and being of Christ uniquely with recourse to intra-worldly categories, based upon human actions and historical events.” Thomas J. White, O.P., The Incarnate Lord: A Thomistic Study in Christology (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2015), 48. Cf. 49-51.

34 human being and renders him capable of yielding to divine realities.”115 St. Athanasius in the fourth century made appeal to avoid this error.116

We can say, then, that Journet’s effort is one of defending, promoting, and maintaining the harmony of faith and reason. He was adamant that metaphysics was true knowledge, essential not only to grasp the preambula fidei, but also to understand certain divinely revealed truths.117

Journet knew well that, just as in the fourth century so in the twentieth century, metaphysical errors had theological implications. In Journet’s mind, it was utterly unthinkable even to ponder for the briefest moment “to sacrifice metaphysics on the altar of theology.”118

3. Journet’s Apologetic Strategy – Counter Liberal Protestantism with Thomistic Realist Metaphysics To deter the theological implications stemming from Liberal Protestantism’s underlying philosophical idealism, Charles Journet employed the metaphysical realism of Thomas Aquinas.

As already stated above, Journet was greatly indebted to Thomas. It was easy for a young intellectual to find many alternative philosophical views, many of which opposed one another.119

In very early 20th century Swiss Romand – in the milieu, or at least the influence, of Renan,

Baudelaire, Huysmans (before his reversion), and Zola – how much easier would be a misstep.

Foremost among Journet’s teachers of Aquinas was the Dominican Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange

(1877-1964), who published Le sens comun, la philosophie de l’être et les forumules

115 Boissard, Charles Journet (1891-1975), 136. 116 In explaining the term homoousios, St. Athanasius notes: “let us not fall back on our human senses and think of parts and divisions of divinity.” Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius (London and New York: Routledge, 2004), 201, citing “On the Council of Nicaea” (De Decretis), no. 24. 117 Abandoning ontology leads to rejecting “the concept of God.” Joseph Ratzinger, The Nature and Mission of Theology: Essays to Orient Theology in Today’s Debates, trans. Adrian Walker (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995), 21. 118 Serge-Thomas Bonino, O.P., preface to Fabio Schmitz, Causalité divine et péché dans le théologie de saint Thomas d’Aquin: Examen critique du concept de motion ‘brisable’ (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2016), 8. All translations are mine. 119 See Rime, Charles Journet, 67.

35 dogmatiques in 1909 – the same year that he began to teach philosophy and theology at the newly founded Angelicum – which aided Journet to resolve the problem of the “one and the many.”120 “God or radical absurdity” became the theme most beneficial to Journet, as it explained immanent divine transcendence as the source of contingent being. We quote Rime, as he summarizes Garrigou-Lagrange’s impact:

Such a reading probably constitutes the hour of metaphysical conversion of Journet. The young student had discovered thanks to Garrigou-Lagrange the possibility to affirm philosophically a permanent principle of avoiding an opposition between being and becoming, unity and multiplicity. It is brought about by Pure Act that beings passed from potency to act. Journet had seen also, perhaps, the unity between the message of faith proclaiming the dependence of believing before God and the metaphysical discourse showing that human contingency lead to the affirmation of God, that God alone was able to explain man. Some echoes of this reflection will return many times to him. In a short study according to which the Aristotelian thesis of potency resolved the contradictions of Parmenides and of Heraclitus, Journet will explain that the Five Ways of St. Thomas constituted a unique proof of the existence of God, that which established contingent being in Absolute Being. The study was dedicated precisely to Fr. Garrigou- Lagrange. … The reading of the Dominican [Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange] is a crucial event in the life of Journet. We can suppose that it is thanks to such an experience that he discovered (s’ouvrit) the realist thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, who had integrated Aristotle into the reflection of the Church.121 We wish to stress that Thomistic metaphysics is not a secondary element, a helpful nicety, and auxiliary add-on to Thomistic theology, in Journet’s time or our own day. Journet knew that “If there is no truth, everything is a matter of indifference,”122 which equates to universal subjectivism. Aeterni Patris, the encyclical that provided an extraordinary impetus to re-discover

Thomas Aquinas, was issued at the beginning of the pontificate of Leo XIII.123 But well before that, Leo had “increasingly understood that everything is maintained in the Thomistic synthesis

120 Rime, Charles Journet, 67, 122. Footnote reference omitted. 121 Rime, Charles Journet, 68. 122 Joseph Ratzinger, Behold the Pierced One: An Approach to a Spiritual Christology, trans. Graham Harrison (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), 127. 123 The encyclical was issued August 4, 1879, less than eighteen months from the installation of Leo on February 20, 1878.

36 and that at the root of his social philosophy, there is a metaphysics, a psychology, an epistemology, from which one cannot dissociate it.”124 Journet, indeed, did not subscribe to the opinion that “his [Aquinas’] theology [was] not sufficiently humanist or [that] his humanism not fully radicalized.”125

Journet knew that both natural and supernatural truths can be absolute, and not just those in the area of morals. Leo XIII had recently written that “truth cannot contradict truth,”126 applicable then just as to Thomas’s own battle against the Aveorrist tendencies of Siger of

Brabant to separate philosophical truth from theological truth. A fundamental tenet of

Scholasticism was that what the senses observe are trustworthy depictions of reality, meaning natural reality is experienced naturally. That Aquinas focused more on the object, being, than on the subject, man, resulted in part from the attempt to understand the newly found teachings of

Aristotle. Even so, the “turn to the subject” that would occur centuries later – and takes another turn in Journet’s day with the advent of phenomenology – does not invalidate all the contributions of Thomism. Saward recounts Journet’s perennial value of Thomistic metaphysics:

Journet was a Thomist, and never sought to be anything else, whether in philosophy or theology. In 1927 he defended the metaphysics of St Thomas and proclaimed himself a Thomist pure and simple: “We change nothing in the metaphysical and theological principles of St. Thomas. Thomism is a metaphysics to which we raise ourselves by the intellect; we do not seek to adapt it.”127

124 Rime, Charles Journet, 70, citing Roger Aubert, “Le contexte historique et les motivations doctrinales de l’encyclique Aeterni Patris,” 15-48 at 35, in Benedetto D’Amore (ed), Tommaso d’Aquino nel I centario dell’enciclica Aeterni Patris, atti del converge organizzato a Roma (15-16-17 Nov. 1979), Società internazionale Tommaso d’Aquino, Roma, 1981. 125 Romanus Cessario, O.P., “Thomas Aquinas: A Doctor for the Ages,” First Things, March, 1999: 27-32 at 29. 126 Providentissimus Deus, no. 23, issued November 18, 1893. 127 Saward, “L’Église a ravi son coeur,” 127, quoting Charles Journet, “Chronique de philosophie,” Nova et Vetera, 2, no. 4 (1927): 406-421, at 408n.

37

Journet engaged in the confessional polemics with vigor. The realist philosophy of Thomas, especially in answering the questions of the “one and the many” (and later, the “problem of evil”), arms Journet with metaphysical acumen to identify Protestant errors and to propose the

Catholic understanding to respond to such errors. He is convinced that an inadequate metaphysics – particularly regarding causality – combined with an artificial limitation placed on human reason, results in serious theological misunderstandings, not least among them in

Christology. In his important Christological work, The Incarnate Lord, Dominican theologian

Thomas Joseph White puts into a nutshell the importance Journet accords to ontology in service of theology, especially of Christology:

Christology has an irreducible ontological dimension that is essential to its integrity as a science. Christology is in some sense intrinsically ontological because it is concerned with the being and person of Christ, and with his divine and human natures and actions. … it can be said unequivocally that without the ontological study of the person, being and natures of Christ, Christology ceases to be an integral science. It loses sight of its proper object, which is God the Word made man.128

Maintaining the Chalcedonian definition in the face of liberal Protestantism which doubted it or ignored it unquestionably acknowledges that metaphysics underlies “all human truth,”129 including human nature. But since Christology includes metaphysics, and since all things were created “for Him and through Him (Col 1:16),” “metaphysical reflection” is demanded to understand the , redemption, human existence, and even the “destiny of human beings.”130

128 White, The Incarnate Lord, 5. 129 “You cannot articulate a genuine Chalcedonian metaphysics without a simultaneous commitment to classical metaphysics in general.” Ibid., 46. 130 White, The Incarnate Lord, 11, 17-18, 29.

Part Four – L’Église du Verbe incarné: The Theological Position and Purpose of Volume IV of Journet’s opus magnum In Part Four we shall explore the impetus behind Journet’s desire to write on the topic of the Church, the theological logic underlying his five-volume ecclesiology, and remark on his overall contribution to ecclesiology. In addition, we will present how Volume IV relates to the present five volume edition.

These first three parts of Chapter One now culminate in a question: why did Charles

Journet write what became a five volume work on ecclesiology, each volume over 1,000 pages?

What prompted him? We propose that it is a combination of the following factors: the history of persecution of the Church in Switzerland, the rise of skepticism under the framework of liberal

Protestantism, the ardent parry of Aeterni Patris exhorting both a Thomistic renaissance and a challenge to liberalism, and the desire to expound the critical importance of metaphysics to uphold religious truth, to name a few. On the whole, Rime opines that a proximate cause is the confessional polemics in early 20th century Switzerland.131 I agree and would add that the main tenet Journet was addressing with respect to liberal Protestantism was its basic supposition of the absence of the supernatural. In addition, I would agree with Rime pointing out Journet’s insistence that the Church has a supernatural origin,132 and I would add Journet also emphasizes both Her supernatural destiny, and that while She offers supernatural grace, human free will can accept or refuse the supernatural gift of grace. As a whole, salvation history consists of the offer of divine grace (through the Church) to free, rational creatures and their acceptance or rejection of the same.

131 Rime, Charles Journet, 350. 132 Rime, Charles Journet, 351. 38

39

Journet planned a four volume work on ecclesiology. He was motivated by criticism he received from a small book he had published, The Union of Churches.133 He began work on the first volume in early 1930,134 and the first three volumes were finished by the beginning of

1932.135 However, due to its perceived weakness (by the author), the editing of the manuscript of the first volume of L’Église du Verbe incarné was finished in 1939. Its publication would only then occur in 1941/1942. Two other volumes were published in 1951 and in 1969.136

A. The Church and the Four Causes To organize his treatise on the Church, Journet employed the classical philosophical framework of the four Aristotelian causes, since these causes answered: “Where did she [the Church] come from; who is she in herself; for which goal does she exist.”137 The original scheme is as follows:

Apostolicity – Efficient Cause Vol 1 Catholic Unity – Formal and Material Cause Vol 2 } Source of which is Charity Sanctity – Final Cause Vol 3 } Source of which is Charity “Church in Her preparation and consummation” Vol 4

Such an approach directly challenged the Reformation. Journet identified the deficiency in

Protestant communities, since in their nature they do not comport to the four Aristotelian causes.

In fact, the Reformation attacked the four causes of the Church:

[T]he Lutheran thesis of extrinsic justification is opposed to the final causality of the Church, the true, supernatural life; it [the Reformation] attacked Her efficient causality in dissolving the divine character of hierarchical power; it carried out a divorce between Her formal and material causalities by the separation of the soul (Church invisible) from its body (Church visible).138

133 Rime, Charles Journet, 349. 134 Rime, Charles Journet, 351. Footnote reference omitted. 135 Rime, Charles Journet, 366. 136 Rime, Charles Journet, 347, 366, 368. 137 Rime, Charles Journet, 347. 138 Rime, Charles Journet, 351, with reference to Journet, “Les protestantismes à la recherché d’une formule d’universalité,’ La Documentation catholique, vol. 18 (July-December 1927), col. 1221-22.

40

Journet would specify the broader category underlying why certain did not develop with the Aristotelian schema; namely, they misunderstood the divine-human nature of the Church itself:

Her unity, , sanctity, and apostolicity are at the same time spiritual and corporeal. It is because it ignores this inseparable twofold character of the Church that Protestantism, Lutheran and Reformed, has never succeeded in resisting the temptation to distinguish, by opposing them, an invisible and sole evangelical Church, on the one the hand, and, on the other, visible, human, and sinful Churches.139 Indeed, Journet’s is a multi-pronged effort to address a multi-faceted attack. One author categorizes that battle into three periods. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the fight concerned the Church and the sacraments, which, I add, is equivalent to attacking Her power. In the

18th century, the fray moved to questioning the divinity of Christ. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the combat rejected the Church, Christ, along with general doubt of belief in God and the immortality of the soul.140 Restricting ourselves to Journet’s effort in Volume IV, we state that Journet re-iterates and re-invigorates the irreplaceable, and mysterious, place of the

Church and the sacraments in salvation history, central to which is God become man.

B. The Contribution of Volume IV to Ecclesiology How did Journet intend to contribute to the discussion of ecclesiology? Surely, in the

Catholic Tradition, using the Four Causes was not unique. Two salient reasons emerge. First, his expansive view of the Church was not common at the time. We defer to Rime, noting two points raised by author Emmanuel Lemière:

139 Charles Journet, The Theology of the Church, trans. Victor Szczurek, O. Praem. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), 13. 140 Feingold, Faith comes from what is Heard: An Introduction to Fundamental Theology (Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Academic, 2016), 176.

41

First of all, the project was one of great originality. The theologian certainly was not the first to apply the four causes to the Church. He had encountered his schema from De revelatione per Ecclesiam catholicam proposita of Garrigou-Lagrange, who had himself in all likelihood received it from his teacher Ambroise Gardeil. But such a structure was rare for the treatise De Ecclesia because it was the custom to organize it around the marks of the Church (her Apostolicity, her unity, etc.). In addition, far from wishing to write a simple ‘hierarchiologie’ which according to Fr. [Yves] Congar too often recapped the characteristics of ecclesiology, Journet had had from the beginning a very large vision of the theology of the Church since it had interested him, already in the beginning of the 1930s: the soul of the Church, Her holiness, and the history of salvation.141

Secondly, with his strong emphasis on Christ as the Head of the Church, and on the Church as the Mystical Body (which seems to anticipate by a decade Pius XII’s 1943 encyclical letter

Mystici corporis Christi), it must be recalled: Christ can only be a physical Head of the His

Mystical Body if there is first a physical body of Christ, an Incarnation.142 We wish to reiterate the central place in all of history Journet attaches to the Incarnation. It is not surprising, then, to see the importance of the Incarnation in salvation history, the overarching topic of Volume IV,

Essai de Théologie de l’Historie du Salut. And he had long thought this: “[T]he idea linking the

Church to the Incarnation of the Son was ancient to Journet. In a sermon in 1920, he had described ‘the one true’ Church, the one ‘which dispenses to souls the true bread,’ as ‘the Church of the Word made flesh’.”143

1. Why Five Volumes Instead of Four Volumes Let us briefly sketch the topics of the five volumes of L’Église du Verbe incarné. We should note first, however, the distinction between the four volumes originally planned and the

141 Rime, Charles Journet, 366-67. Footnote references omitted. Colon added by dissertation writer. Rime references Lemière’s book, Charles Journet: l‘aurore d’une theologie de l’Eglise (Saint-Maur: Parole et Silence, 2000). 142 Journet, Entretiens sur L’Incarnation, 21-22, under the Sixth Meditation – “Sonship by Nature Calls Forth Sonship by Adoption,” of the First Instruction – The Singularity of the Incarnation. We will see, in Chapter Three, that the Church begins to form immediately after the Fall, and Christ is Her head (even before the Incarnation). Of course, in this epoch, the Church is awaiting and longing for the Incarnation. 143 Rime, Charles Journet, 367. Footnote reference omitted.

42 five volumes which actually resulted. The original Volume 2, due to its length (I surmise), was split into two volumes, Volume 2 and Volume 3. The originally planned Volume 3, intended to treat both of the Church’s end and holiness, was never published. In 1969, Journet published an

“essay on the Theology of the History of Salvation, Volume 4 of the present edition.” However, this work was unfinished, and, in fact, already outlined future supplements.144

Concerning Volume 5 of the present edition, on the preparation and consummation of the

Church, Journet noted in the Introduction to the present edition of Volume IV that: “There would remain, this would be another volume, to follow the Church up until the term of her course, up until the supreme end of her hope, to consider her no longer on pilgrimage on earth in time, but in her consummation into the hereafter from our historical time.”145 Cardinal Journet published various studies “which in his mind constituted some elements of the parts of his treatise left uncompleted at his death.”146 The editors of the present five volume edition, based on detailed work plans conserved by the Journet Foundation, gathered some of these studies to form Volume

V, which consists of: i) “Studies for ‘Volume III,’ Essay on Speculative Theology, on the holiness of the Church,” and ii) “Complements for ‘Volume IV,’ Essay on the Theology of the

History of Salvation.”147

144 See Charles Journet, Compléments et Inédits, Volume V of L’Église du Verbe Incarné, Five Volumes. Oeuvres Complètes de Charles Journet. Saint-Maurice, Switzerland: Éditions Saint-Augustin, 2005, “Avertissement de L’Editeur,” v-vi. Hereafter, “EVI V.” Other volumes of EVI will be similarly referenced, after their initial footnote. 145 Charles Journet, Essai de Théologie de L’Historie du Salut, Volume IV of L’Église du Verbe Incarné, Five Volumes. Oeuvres Complètes de Charles Journet. (Saint-Maurice, Switzerland: Éditions Saint-Augustin, 2004), Introduction, 8. 146 EVI V, “Avertissement de L’Editeur,” vi. 147 Ibid.

43

2. Answering the Four Classical Questions Regarding the Church: An Overview of EVI In Volume One, Journet discusses the Apostolic Hierarchy, the efficient cause of the

Church; in Volume Two, he examines Catholic unity (derived from sacramental charity), the formal and material cause of the Church; in Volume Three, he reviews sanctity (also derived from sacramental charity), as the final cause of the Church, which then leads to a discussion of

Her doctrinal bases. In doing so, Journet explained the four Aristotelian causes of the Church.

Having explained the four causes, he then examines the actual formation of the Church in time.

Here, in Volume IV, he traces the development of the Church, as this method, he insists, is the only sure way to understand fully the Church.148 This might be surprising, since Journet earlier specified that the Four Causes answer three questions: i) Where did she [the Church] come from; ii) who is she in herself; iii) for which goal does she exist. I suggest that Journet’s overall strategy also answered the four classical questions asked about any reality, here, the Church: i) whether or that it exists, ii) what are the properties or marks of the Church, along with iii) what is the nature of the Church, and iv) why is it so (si est, quia, quid est, propter quid, respectively).149 With Volume IV, as Journet elaborates on how Classical Questions one, three, and four are answered in time, perhaps with a special emphasis on propter quid. Volume IV demonstrates that the Church is a concrete, existing reality. And while the Final Cause has been discussed in Volume Three, in Volume IV he discusses the Final End of the Church, and, even more importantly, how She arrives at that end. He wishes to illustrate how the Church actually operates in time. Since the Church is a mystery, indeed, may be “understood as an expansion of

148 EVI IV, Introduction, 6. 149 Cf. Lawrence Feingold, Faith comes from what is Heard, 94 and n. 2. Footnote references omitted.

44 the Incarnation,”150 She must be not only visible and tangible, but is charged to make a difference in the world: “Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations” (Matt 28:19).

The Church’s development takes into account creation (of angels, of matter, and of man) – the

“universe of creation” – but formally begins with the Fall, moves to the unfolding of the economies of the , the Mosaic Law, and the New Law – all in the “universe of redemption” – and culminates in discussing eternal life. “In other words, the treatise De Ecclesia will only be closed by including the treatise of origins of this universe where the Church has come to take root, and the treatise of last ends of that same universe, which She leads after her in its transfiguration.”151 When one considers “the data of revelation and the ordering” of the mysteries among them, an “ecclesial theology of the history of salvation”152 emerges.

3. Other Purposes Fulfilled in Volume IV The main emphasis in Volume IV, as distinct from the emphases in Volumes One to

Three, is to illustrate that God acts through the Church, Christ’s Mystical Body, in time. Divinely founded, the Church, as Pope Benedict XVI said, belongs to Christ153 and, as Journet wrote, She

“comes from God, through Christ and through the hierarchy;”154 the Church does not exist “for her own sake but should be the instrument of God for gathering men to him.”155 Founded by the

Incarnate Christ, the Church endeavors that all be joined to Christ, and thus, to the Father and the

Holy Spirit. With emphasis, the Church does not exist for Herself, but to bring others to Her

150 Charles Journet, Essai de Théologie Spéculative, Volume I of L’Église du Verbe Incarné, Five Volumes. La Hiérarchie Apostolique. Oeuvres Complètes de Charles Journet. (Saint-Maurice, Switzerland: Éditions Saint- Augustin, 1998), Introduction, 14. 151 EVI IV, Introduction, 7. 152 EVI IV, Introduction, 8. 153 General Audience, February 13, 2005. http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict- xvi/en/audiences/2013/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20130213.html, accessed August 1, 2018. 154 EVI I, Introduction, 13. 155 Joseph Ratzinger, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion, trans. Henry Taylor (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005), 129. See also 284-98.

45

Founder and Head, Christ.156 Journet is illustrating that God is active in human events, not just at creation and in the Garden of Eden, but constantly up until the Last Day, intervening to “beg of

His creatures a love of preference” that they may be eternally happy with Him.157 To that end,

Volume IV notes that revelation becomes more explicit over time,158 such that salvation history both displays and is filled with “gifts of divine goodness.”159 Moreover, by his constant reference to Scripture, Journet interprets salvation history so as to place a priority on the theological element, which is directly contrary to the “positivistic and secularized hermeneutic”160 flourishing in the early 20th century under the auspices of Rudolf Bultmann and others.

In Volumes One to Three, Journet wishes to refute the idea of a split between the hierarchy of the Church and the Church as a source of charity, or between the hierarchy and all the members of the Church; the sovereign pontiff, of course, is the visible head of and a source of unity for all members of the Church.161 Detailing Her four causes – from which the Church’s four marks readily follow162 – avoids any such division. In those volumes, as well as in Volume

IV, he endeavors to emphasize Her holiness, which he succinctly summarized: “She is without sin, but is not without sinners.”163 Sin does not “constitute Her,” which is not unlike the teaching of Aquinas and Augustine that sin is contrary to human nature.164 In Journet’s thought, the

156 “The Church makes herself more credible if she speaks less of herself and ever more preaches Christ Crucified (1 Cor 1:23) and witnesses with her own life.” “The Church, in the Word of God, Celebrates the Mysteries of Christ for the Salvation of the World,” The Final Report of the 1985 Extraordinary Synod, II.A.2., https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/SYNFINAL.HTM, accessed 8.13.2018. 157 EVI IV, 155. 158 EVI IV, 81ff. Cf. Hebrews 11:1-2. 159 EVI IV, 168. 160 Feingold, Faith comes from what is Heard, 346, citing Pope Benedict XVI, Verbum Domini, September 30, 2010, no. 35. 161 EVI I, Introduction, 7. 162 EVI I, Introduction, 8. 163 See EVI IV, 111, 141, 144. 164 EVI I, Introduction, 11. Cf. Aquinas, ST I-II, q. 109, a. 8, resp.; Augustine, City of God, Book XI, chap. 17; Book XIV, chap. 13.

46 holiness of the Church arises from Her supernatural origin and destiny as the Mystical Body of

Christ.165

An Outline of Volume IV In Volume IV, Journet’s overall schema (after having presented preliminary notions) involves three ages of the Church: i) the universe anterior to the Church, where the focus is on the universe of creation [Age of the Father]; ii) immediately subsequent to the Fall, there commences the universe of redemption, which includes the “long awaited” period for the Son as well as the time of His temporal presence [Age of the Son], and; iii) concurrent with Pentecost, the period of redemption continues [Age of the Holy Spirit].

Journet heavily relies on Augustine’s paradigm in the City of God; however, whereas

Augustine has two cities [City of God, and City of Man], Journet has three cities [City of God,

City of Devil/Evil, and City of Man]. Journet seems to introduce this further distinction to clarify that the City of Man – consisting of man’s temporal activities seeking temporal and intermediate ends, and resulting in culture – does have value in itself. He also uses this triadic device to state that the City of Man is solicited by the two other, Transcendent Cities. He is adamant that the two Transcendent Cities are determined by their final ends, one or the other of which is chosen by rational creatures in virtue of their free will.

Volume IV unfolds a detailed account of salvation history, in which the Church and the

Incarnation take center stage. He will repeat that the Church was formed on the “evening of the

Fall.” Prior to the Fall, grace was given to Adam and Eve directly by the Holy Trinity – there was no “mediator between God and man,” because there was no need for a redemption of man

165 Her mission – to reflect the holiness of God – also derives from Her origin and holiness. EVI I, Introduction, 8.

47 through mercy and an atonement for sin through justice and, consequently, no need for a High

Priestly sacrifice. After the Fall, agreeing with the Tradition, all grace comes via the humanity of

Christ, hence it is “christic.” After the Incarnation, sanctifying grace changes, not essentially, but in its modes. In addition, Journet calls sanctifying grace, before the Incarnation “Christic by anticipation,” and after the Incarnation “Christic by derivation.” In Volume IV, we see the working out of salvation, in detail, by the interaction of free, rational creatures with the Church, guardian and dispenser of Christ’s grace.

4. Relating Volume IV to the other Volumes Let us consider the location of Volume IV in the overall scheme of the five volumes.

Whereas Volumes One to Three detail the Four Causes of the Church, Volume IV details the

Church actually operating, visible, tangible, in time, as a “continuation of the Incarnation.” The

Church is authoritative, evident from Her apostolicity and from Her juridical powers (Vol I).

With that authority, the Church, from the revelation received, formulates dogmatic statements

“to facilitate a common profession of faith in God, common worship of Him,”166 not as an arbitrary exercise of power. Founded on charity (Vol III), She carries on (as an instrumental cause167) Christ’s redemptive work by applying Christ’s “Capital Grace” (Vol II & III)

(principally through the sacraments, derived from the Apostolic Hierarchy168) to enable the divine indwelling in the faithful. Since the Church includes fallible men, some may freely elect to separate themselves from Her, or never consent to enter Her (Vol III); yet, She exhibits a

166 Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, trans. J.R. Foster (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), 97. 167 In speaking of “instrumental causality” in the context of theandric actions, Journet specifies that Christ, as man, is an “instrumental cause…in the order of descending physical causality.” Since Christ founds His Church to continue His work in the world, the Church, too, is an “instrumental cause,” subordinate, of course, to the Word Incarnate. Journet, The Theology of the Church, 40 and n. 17. 168 Fr. Georges Cottier, O.P., Introduction to EVI I, xi.

48 sanctity and is clearly unified (Vol III). The Church is a tangible reality, operating (in a rudimentary manner) from the “evening of the Fall,” (via Christic grace by anticipation). She is inchoate and in formation (Vol IV), yet somewhat visible, both under the Law of Nature and more so under the Mosaic Law (Vol II and Vol IV). She acts as a more fully visible entity after the Incarnation, and is in full flower after Pentecost, intending to transmit to those who desire to cooperate supernatural grace and life (via Christic grace by derivation) (Vol IV). As a mystical society, the Church is a Body (to use St. Paul’s frequent image) with Head and members (Vol II), comprised of angels and men (Vol IV), of heavenly citizens and those members still journeying

(Vol IV).

The theological plan, then, behind Volume IV’s exposition of salvation history is: first, to know the data of revelation; second, to order the mysteries revealed; third, “to discover the successive order of the steps of revelation and of its growth in time.”169 This chronological path is characterized as a “pilgrimage of the City of God towards the peace of the patrie.”170 In

Volume One, it is through the Apostolic Hierarchy that the Church comes into existence. That existence attains a unity through spiritual/invisible (soul) and corporal/visible (body) elements, as noted in Volume Two. Charity or holiness is the goal or final end of the Church (Volume

Three). Journet, in Volume IV, characterizes salvation history in noting key moments in the

Church’s life, by elaborating on the Church’s activity, which consists of man’s response to God’s invitation to eternal life, an invitation made precisely through the Church. In Volumes One to

Three, Journet analyzed the Church from a philosophical framework, the Four Causes; in

169 EVI IV, Introduction, 6-7. 170 EVI IV, 26.

49

Volume IV, he details the Church’s role, how She journeys to Her final end171 as the Mystical

Body of Christ, in the attainment of salvation.

5. Goal of the Entire Corpus and Volume IV’s Contribution Therein The goal of the entire corpus is summarized by the editor of EVI: “In a powerful goal of systematization, it [EVI] permitted the author to articulate among them [the five volumes of EVI] his progress and his particular work, without ever losing sight of the ultimate goal which was to build a great theological synthesis of the divine-human mystery of the Church.”172 The unfolding of this mystery is termed salvation history. At the center of that mystery is the Incarnation. God acts; God takes the initiative after Adam and Eve squander their original, preternatural gifts and sanctifying grace. But, since God respects the natures of His creatures, salvation cannot be forced and yet it must be received. The rational creature enters the divinely-founded Church, the

City of God, by employing free will to accept the grace offered by the Incarnate Christ. We may summarize this enterprise of salvation history as consisting of a Divine initiative and a human response. Differently put, the theological “drama” of Volume IV is the interplay of the mystery of divine grace and human freedom in the unfolding of salvation history.

******** Reflecting on EVI, one might consider Journet as an ecclesiologist. As we noted, Journet was a Thomist, “not a ressourcement theologian.” Describing ressourcement theologians, Fr.

Saward says: “All of them show respect for Journet’s work: for example, [Hans Urs von]

171 Cf. EVI I, Introduction, 8. 172 EVI V, Editor’s forward, v. Emphasis added. Journet is countering the Protestant understandings of the Church which separates the spiritual aspect from the corporeal, or even denies the supernatural element of the Church entirely.

50

Balthasar describes L’Église du Verbe incarné as ‘the fullest treatise of ecclesiology in our time’.”173

It is to Volume IV of this work to which we now turn.

173 Saward, L’Église a ravi son coeur,” 135, citing Hans Urs von Balthasar, ‘Who is the Church?’ in Explorations in Theology, ii, Spouse of the Word, trans. A. V. Littledale, Alexander Dru et al. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1991), 143-91 at 155.

Chapter Two – The Creation and Fall of Rational Creatures and the Divine Permission of Sin

Introduction Before proceeding to discuss the initial portions of EVI IV, we wish to outline the plan of this chapter two. Salvation history consists of a divine invitation and a creature response. Since the invitation to eternal life exceeds the natural powers of any creature, the divine aid of grace is necessary to permit the creature to seek and to receive the gift.

We first briefly examine Journet’s view of time and his ideas of a hierarchy in creation, all of which serves to underscore the dependence of the creature on the Creator (Parts One and

Two). A discussion of the creation and fall of the angels introduces the concepts of consent and deliberation, along with operative and cooperative grace (Part Three). Journet turns to the creation and fall of man, along with the preternatural gifts, all under the umbrella of Augustine’s paradigm of two opposed cities. We will interpret his account of human freedom and divine premotion, before moving to his understanding of Aquinas’ view on the “causes” of sin

(including non-consideration of the divine rule) and the divine permission of sin (Part Four). To conclude Part Four, we will compare two interpretations of Thomas: the “antecedent permissive decree” and the “consequent permissive decree.” Journet’s interpretation of Thomas on the divine permission of sin leads directly to his teaching on sufficient and efficacious grace (Part

Five).

Jacques Maritain’s interpretation of Aquinas’ regarding God’s knowledge and permission of sin serves as a philosophical underpinning by which Journet interprets Aquinas on sufficient and efficacious grace. To preserve God’s innocence from even an indirect contact with sin,

Maritain introduces a “breakable” divine motion as the way by which man introduces sin into the 51

52 world. Journet employs the same concept not merely to divine motions in general but to divine motions regarding the salutary act. Sufficient grace is considered an equivalent of a “breakable” divine motion, which, if not resisted, “fructifies of itself” into an “unbreakable” divine motion, corresponding to efficacious grace, resulting in the recipient performing the salutary act. The importance of sufficient grace is that it underlines the reciprocal but ordered nature of the economy of salvation. Since God deals with creatures while respecting their free will, He offers

– He neither obligates or coerces – angels and men the opportunity of eternal life, creatures must be able freely to make or refuse to make a “love of preference” for God.

Part One – Time: Christian v. Non-Christian Views of Time

Very early in Volume IV there appears a subsection of some sixty pages entitled “La

Révélation Judéo-Chrétienne du sens de L’Histoire.” Here, Journet discusses various notions of time, contrasting the ancient “cyclical and reversible” idea of time to the Christian “linear and irreversible” understanding of time. He cites the historian Eliade that it was the “Hebrews [who] were the first to discover the meaning of history as [an] epiphany of God,”1 meaning that the

Hebrews were first to grasp that: i) God had a plan overseeing creation, and ii) God intervened at specific moments to advance that plan.2 In addition to ruling out an “endless repetition of things” under Plato’s Demiurge and an eternal creation under Aristotle’s conception, Journet demonstrates many positive aspects of the Christian notion of time.

For example, man is superior, not inferior, to time, in that man acts in time as opposed to time acting in man.3 Time has a beginning, corresponding to creation ex nihilo,4 thereby indicating that God willed creation: creation is not a vagarious afterthought or an erratic whim.

Moreover, since there is a thoughtfulness to creation, creation is ordered, not haphazard or random. And since it is planned, it is in time that a preparation can be made for the kingdom of

God, for the Messiah’s coming.5 Combined, these several statements indicate that, according to

1 EVI IV, 41, citing Mircea Eliade, Le mythe de l’éternel retour: Archétypes et repetition: Introduction à une philosophie de l’histoire (Paris: Gallimard, 1949), 155-57. 2 For a comparison of specific areas of focus between Greek and Hebrew understandings of time, see Fulton J. Sheen, Philosophy of Religion (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1948), 321-22. As we saw in the first chapter, so we find here: erroneous notions of time arise from created man trying to fit uncreated realties into his finite mind. (See St. Augustine, Concerning the City of God against the Pagans, trans. Henry Bettenson (London: Penguin Books, 1972), Book XII, chap. 18. All citations from the City of God will be from the Bettenson translation.) 3 EVI IV, 40-41. 4 EVI IV, 59, 71. 5 EVI IV, 66. 53

54

Journet, God reveals His will in and through events.6 In addition, while reason can conclude time has a beginning, revelation does ensure man that time has a cessation: and that cessation brings an end, a “goal,’ specifically a . This is important to Journet, because the rational creature attains or misses eternal beatitude, to which he is invited, by the proper or improper use of free will.7

In a moment, we will discuss the importance of free will as a key element in the theological rationale as to why creatures are created in a state of journeying, and not in a state of finality. But here, we see the interplay between free will and events in time, which result in a supernatural goal attained or missed. Without a conception of time as linear and irreversible, there is no coherence to human history,8 since, I add, there is no meaning to human life. Journet appeals to the French historian Marrou who states:

Up until Nietzsche, all of Western thought lived, in what concerns history, on Christian schemes: as it is it developed, especially starting from Condorcet and from Hegel, the philosophy of history came into being as a transposition over the natural plan of basic concepts inherited from Christian theology, as the Middle Ages had inherited them from Augustine: it seems useless to describe again the curious process of profanation and of dispossession. Perhaps however it is no longer useless to underline in passing that by such a shift in meaning from theology to philosophy and by forfeiting, as it did, the solid support of a transcendent origin, life, and end, the notion of a meaning of the history of humanity considered in general lost much of its coherence and all in all its intelligibility.9

6 EVI IV, 41, 71. 7 EVI IV, 77-78; 87. 8 EVI IV, 93. 9 EVI IV, 93, citing H.I. Marrou, L’ambivalence du temps de l’histoire chez saint Augustin (Montreal-Paris: Vrin, 1950), 15. Footnote reference omitted. Augustine tells us that time measures change (City of God, Book XI, chap. 6); since history is a logical grouping of like events to reveal a coherent story, history is a record of change. Having said all that, Fr. White reminds us of the Principle of Identity: “each thing we experience has a given unity and essence.” Furthermore, any narrative which describes change “must evaluate change in terms of stable forms of identity (essences) that undergo or are the subjects of history, and in terms of teleological grammar.” White, The Incarnate Lord, 156-57. We see, then, that metaphysical realism is fundamental to history.

55

The history of mankind can only possess a coherence if the history of each person possesses a coherence. Coherence is derived from a goal or purpose which precludes the possibility that human life is inherently meaningless. The definitive goal or purpose of each person is signaled since time has an end, where neither “return or recovery” is possible.10 Scripture reveals that ultimate goal: “I am come that they may have life.”11

Time and the Incarnation Journet’s exposition of the concept of time, contrasting the Christian notion to that of both ancient and modern, non-Christian notions has for its purpose to establish that the

Incarnation is at the center of time, at the center of sacred history: “The sense of this history is unique, because the Incarnation is a unique fact.”12 And the fact of the Incarnation has an on- going presence; it was not a one-time event devoid of any influence. Christ remains present and remains relevant, and He establishes that Presence and that relevancy through His Mystical

Body. Due to the Incarnation, the Mystical Body of Christ and the Word are inseparable. “God draws them [creatures] from nothing, calls them to Himself, and, when they are spiritual, raises them to Him by knowledge and love.”13 But He only creates from nothing by the Word and only draws by the Word Incarnate.14

******** Since time begins with creation,15 and “for in Him were all things created in heaven and on earth” (Col 1:16), we next treat of Journet’s theology of creation.

10 EVI IV, 94. 11 John 10:10. Scripture passages provided by the dissertation writer utilize the Douay-Rheims translation. 12 EVI IV, 74, citing Henri-Charles Puech, “La gnose et le temps,” in Eranos-Jahrbuch, Vol. 20, 1951 (Zurich: Rhein-Verlag, 1952), 67-70. 13 EVI IV, 89, with reference to De veritate, q. 20, a. 4. 14 John 1:2 and John 6:44. 15 “There is no time before the world began.” City of God, Book XI, chap. 5.

Part Two – Creation in General Whereas God is outside of time, He is at the center of salvation. Just as salvation history can only occur “in time,” so it can only occur with regard to free, rational creatures. In fact, a remarkable insight Journet gives is the reason for creation. Before proceeding to Journet’s profound contribution as to the reason for creation, let us review the magisterial and dogmatic consensus on the teaching of creation.

A. Creation and Divine Glory The patristic understanding of the final end of creation is that, ultimately, creation is for

God’s glory. Let us first note that God did not “need” creation. Furthermore, creation occurs out of divine free will, not out of necessity,16 but rather out of divine goodness.17 St. Thomas

Aquinas observes, as to the great diversity of creatures, that each creature manifests some perfection of God,18 and he specifies: “[A]nd he [man] was created for the perfection of the universe.”19 “Perfection,” in the medieval mind, included an element of “completeness.” To the extent that there is a diversity of creatures, each showing in its own finite way some perfection of

God, the universe is “completed” or “perfected.” A peacock, a rainbow, a field of lilies all are

16 Journet observes that if God were bound to create in order to perfect Himself, He would not be all-perfect. And if He were bound to create at all, He would not be infinite, but rather dependent. Charles Journet, The Meaning of Evil, trans. Michael Barry (New York: P.J. Kennedy & Sons, 1963), 105-06. Indeed, vis-à-vis creation, God is neither “increased or diminished or in any way affected.” Ibid., 109. 17 ST III, q. 1, a. 1, resp.: “But the very nature of God is goodness.” Note also ST I, q. 19, a. 10, ad 2: “Since the evil of sin consists in turning away from the divine goodness, by which God wills all things.” Emphasis added. All citations from the will be taken from Benziger Brothers 1947 edition, per the dhspriory.org. website (except footnote 83 on page 275). Augustine writes: “And the assertion of the goodness of the created work [“and it was good”] follows the act of creation in order to emphasize that the work corresponded with the goodness which was the reason for its creation.” City of God, Book XI, chap. 24. 18 St. Thomas Aquinas, Compendium of Theology, ed. Brian Davies and trans. Richard Regan (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), Book I, chap. 102. 19 EVI IV, 411, quoting De malo, q. 16, a. 4, ad 16. 56

57 able to remind one of God because of their unique splendor. Man, of course, as imago Dei, possesses a unique capability to illustrate God’s .20

Let us clarify what is “God’s glory,” and how creation is related to it. The First Vatican

Council reminded us: God created in order to “manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows on creatures.”21 Now, since God is simple, non-composite (unlike all creatures), His attributes are identical to His being. If we consider the triad of beauty, goodness, wisdom, we note Thomas’ words:

But the divine intellect planned and established in things the multiplicity and diversity in order for created things to represent the divine goodness in different ways, and for different things to share in it in different ranks. And this was so that a beauty shone in things from the very gradation of their diversity, and the beauty commended the divine wisdom.22 Thomas will elsewhere say: “Furthermore, the entire universe, with all its parts, is ordained towards God as its end, inasmuch as it imitates, as it were, and shows forth the Divine goodness, to the glory of God.”23 We conclude that creation, just in virtue of its existence (which is not necessary) but also due to its harmony and order, affords the opportunity for the praise of God.24

25 In addition, the praise of God by rational creatures is a second aspect of “God’s glory.”

Having this two-fold nature of God’s glory in mind (created things receive divine goodness so as to reflect it; rational creatures willingly praise God), let us proceed to a few of

Journet’s observations discussing how creation is ordered to divine glory. Scripture informs us

20 In the Compendium of Theology, Book I, chap. 103, Thomas lists various ways that creatures possess a “resemblance” to God, including: i) by virtue of existing (contingently, of course), and ii) by their activity tending toward their perfection. 21 EVI IV, 396, quoting Dei Filius, Chapter One. Emphasis added. 22 Compendium of Theology, Book I, chap. 102. 23 ST I, q. 65, a. 2, resp. 24 “It would seem most fitting that by visible things the invisible things of God should be made known; for to this end was the whole world made, as is clear from the word of the Apostle (Rom 1:20).” ST III, q. 1, a. 1, sed contra. 25 Cf. Psalm 18:2, 102:22, and 144:10.

58 that God “created all things for Himself.”26 In a work published shortly before Volume IV,

Journet explains that this “means in order to turn them towards him, to turn them immediately towards their own perfection, which is a likeness of, and a participation in, his infinite

Goodness.”27 That is, God’s generosity is the source of creaturely perfection since, as James

Collins writes, “By attaining their full measure of being, heaven and earth give voice to the glory of God. What the First Cause intends primarily is the manifestation of His own glory, a purpose that involves the participation of creatures in the divine fulness.”28 This explanation also serves to refute the rationalist idea that God created out of “selfishness.”29 In addition, after God creates, it is not to be thought that there is something “new” which is outside of or foreign to the

Divine Mind, or that there will be “more being” or “more existence;” rather, there will simply be

“more existing beings” (“plura entia”).30

Divine glory is manifested in an increasing degree related to the manner in which God is present with regard to creation: Journet notices a hierarchy of mysteries, one mystery pertaining to pertaining to creation itself and two mysteries pertaining to how God is united to rational creatures.

26 Proverbs 16:4 27 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 106. Footnote reference omitted. 28 James Collins, The Thomistic Philosophy of the Angels (Washington, D.C.: CUA Press, 1947), 246. For more on Collins, see infra footnote 92 on page 74. 29 “The object, then, that creatures are to achieve is the external glory of God; and it is in achieving this object that they achieve their own perfection. All creatures are destined to ‘serve God;’ not that they can give anything to God, from whom they have their very being and all that they possess; but they are to serve God by showing forth in their own finite perfections something of the infinite goodness and beauty of their Maker. In this see how the sublime self-love of God is supremely disinterested. Receiving nothing he gives all; creating all things for his own glory he thereby perfects all creatures.” George D. Smith, “An Outline of Catholic Teaching,” in The Teaching of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Catholic Doctrine, Vol. I, arr. and ed. George D. Smith (New York: MacMillan, 1960), 44. 30 EVI IV, 147. Cf. Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 106. Garrigou-Lagrange notes that after creation, there is not more being or perfection or goodness, because there pre-existed from all eternity infinite goodness, by Whom all goodness is bestowed. The One God: A Commentary on the First Part of St. Thomas’ Theological Summa, trans. Dom Rose, OSB (St. Louis and London: Herder, 1952), 511.

59

B. Three Mysteries of the Divine Presence with Respect to Creation Charles Journet proposes a Christological focus to all of creation: “[I]n the actual plan of

Providence chosen by God, all things will be ordered ultimately to the glory of Christ the

Redeemer.”31 He outlines three different “modes” by which God is present with respect to creation. First, by immensity; second, by indwelling through grace; third, by the hypostatic union.32 Since God neither gains nor loses anything by the act of creating,33 why did He create at all? We noted above that the ultimate reason is for God’s glory. Employing a statement of contrast, Journet now adds a divine motive, wherein – once creation comes into being – God continues to act, namely, to love: “Creatures act always in view of obtaining some good, right or wrong. God alone acts out of pure gratuity, we say out of love: in order to have some thing to love. There is no other answer.”34 The motive for creation redounds to God’s glory, but not to

His “benefit;” a secondary reason why He creates is so that He can love creatures. As we will see on the next page, this divine love permits rational creatures to love Him in return; and this is to their benefit, not His.

Journet, in describing a threefold hierarchy of distinct manners in which God is present with respect to creation, observes that the presence of immensity is exceeded in intimacy by the presence of indwelling.35 In one sentence: “Besides the causal presence of God as Supreme

Agent, required by the very nature of things (the presence of immensity), there is the objective presence of God as Friend, which falls under grace (presence of indwelling).”36 He explains that

31 EVI IV, 426. Cf. 427-431. 32 EVI IV, 147-153. Cf. EVI II, Essai de Théologie Spéculative, Volume II of L’Église du Verbe Incarné, Five Volumes. Sa Structure Interne et Son Unité Catholique – Première Partie. Oeuvres Complètes de Charles Journet. (Saint-Maurice, Switzerland: Éditions Saint-Augustin, 1999), 844-45. 33 EVI IV, 147. 34 EVI IV, 147. 35 EVI IV, 149. 36 EVI IV, 150, with reference to ST I, q. 8, a. 3.

60 the presence of indwelling is both physical (since it is in fact accomplished versus merely anticipated) and substantial (as the “grace establishes a contact of presence, between us and the very substance of the Deity”).37 St. Thomas noted that God loves all creatures (evidenced by

Him giving them existence); in addition, for the rational creature, He shows a special love whereby He elevates said creature “above the condition of its nature to a participation of the

Divine good.”38 The Incarnation (the third mode of the presence of God to creation) is, then, an even more special manifestation of Divine charity, as God condescends to limit Himself and It is the means by which divine indwelling – forfeited by Adam – is again made possible.

Note, we utilize the adjective “possible.” The rational creature may accept or reject the offer of divine indwelling, which Journet highlights next.

C. Creation of Rational Creatures Scripture affirms that the universe, good in itself and the goal of which is God’s glory, was not an end in itself: “For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens, God himself that formed the earth, and made it, the very maker thereof: he did not create it in vain: he formed it to be inhabited.”39 Inhabited, of course, most importantly by rational creatures, who, placed in a state of pilgrimage, are to recognize their dependence as creatures in order “to surpass themselves” with the aid of grace.

1. State of Journeying v. State of Finality Journet proceeds to ask a hypothetical question: If God wishes to create rational creatures so that He may be “eternally known and loved”40 in the beatific vision, why not just create such

37 EVI II, 850. 38 ST I-II, q. 110, a. 1, resp. Cf. Journet, The Meaning of Grace, trans. A.V. Littledale (New York: Scepter, 1996), 18-19. 39 Isiah 45:18. 40 EVI IV, 153.

61 creatures in that state from the beginning of their existence? Why not simply create them and immediately place them in state of finality or beatitude? Why, instead, create them in a state of journeying, which necessarily means that the creature’s attainment of beatitude is a process?

Here we introduce a key contribution of Journet: the importance God places on the free will of the rational creature:

The answer, we see no other, is that the state of journeying renders possible a choice, and therefore a love of free preference by the creature for God. And so important to God [is] this love of free preference of his creatures, angels and men, that He decides to create them in the state of journeying, in spite of the risks, indeed the catastrophes which will follow. Is not all the Old and more still the New Testament the story of a God who gives Himself to the love of His creatures and Who seems to have only one desire: to be preferred by them?41

Journet is even more emphatic a little later on: In surrounding them with His lights and His prevenient graces, God knows from all eternity that He will be loved by some, refused by others. If He accepts the risk of the alternative, it is that the free love of preference which comes to Him from His faithful creatures is to His eyes a prize so unheard of that it alone justifies to Him the appearance of the universe.42 Given the importance of the “love of preference,” it behooves us to examine it in greater detail. 2. A “Love of Preference” by Rational Creatures Journet will affirm the extraordinary importance that God attaches to this “love of preference” of rational creatures.43 First, let us explain that it is a “supreme act of free option and preference, in which God is loved by the creature above all things and more than itself.”44 So desirous is God to share His goodness with creatures, that Journet posits: “Here is, we believe,

41 EVI IV, 153. 42 EVI IV, 939. Cf. Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 151: “To be able to sin and actually not to sin presupposes an act of free preference and voluntary love. And such acts are so dear to God that in his eyes they justify the whole world of creation, especially that of free beings.” 43 See EVI IV, 157, 201, 281, 410, 445, 499, and 939. 44 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 154.

62 the entire mystery of the state of journeying. This is the mystery of a state where our God is going to beg of His creatures a love of preference.”45

Why would God place such a high significance on human and angelic free will? Journet often says that the rational creature is completely unique in the initiation of evil,46 as evil arises when the creature wrongly uses its free will. In the opposite direction, the only thing which rational creatures can truly offer to God is their own will; this alone they possess, even though it is a gift of their nature.

While everything a creature has is received, the spiritual powers of intellect and will constitute man as imago Dei, since, as the Fathers taught, these powers differentiate man from non-rational creatures. Although it is created, free will is at the center of the moral life, and demerit, virtue and vice, heroism or cowardice, charity or aversion. Love, too, is in the will. If love were coerced, it would not be love. The “love of preference” of which Charles Journet speaks involves putting God first, and creatures second, by a series of lifelong choices.47 In The

Meaning of Evil, Journet states that free choice allows the possibility of achieving a greater perfection: “[T]he natures of men and angels, who are made to surpass themselves by according

[sic] with a higher law.”48 Such surpassing excellence is uniquely available to rational creatures who know they are creatures: “Our assent freely given to God is the purest and richest spiritual

45 EVI IV, 155. Emphasis added. The idea of God “begging” is also at page 282. With respect only to angels, the same verb is used on page 234. An identical idea is found, pertaining to angels and men, in The Meaning of Evil, page 154. Lastly, in an essay, Journet wrote that God sends to men: “His only Son in order to hope for and to beg from them a little love.” “Dieu, proche ou distant? ou les trois plans de présence de Dieu au monde,” Nova et Vetera 37, no. 1 (January - March 1962): 33-61 at 59. 46 EVI IV, 240, 438, 601. See also Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 148, 156, 178. 47 EVI IV, 154; cf. Matt 6:33: “Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.” For angels, of course, the “love of preference” is made once, immediately after their creation. See EVI IV, 206-44. 48 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 151.

63 activity which can come from this world, the holiest answer a creature can make to his

Creator.”49

What Journet emphasizes is that in desiring “so great a prize” from the rational creature, in allowing man and angel to decide for or against Him, God shows a great respect for creatures.

Indeed, he speaks of a “surprising respect” and a “wonderful confidence” shown to creatures.50

Rather than create merely living but non-rational beings, He creates rational creatures. Rather than create rational creatures and immediately place them in beatitude, He creates them and allows them to love or not love freely. Rather than superseding the powers of created, rational creatures to know and to love, He rewards their correct use.

3. God Intended Rational Creatures to Possess Supernatural Grace How does the rational creature make a “love of preference” for God, choosing to love

Him first, and all else, including, nay especially, oneself second?51 Grace enables man to make a perfect “love of preference,” and the charity brought by grace leads man to perfection. God intended to give a supernatural gift to man in order that man might receive and attain a perfection beyond what he, man, could achieve on his own.52 While we will discuss at length in Chapter

Four Journet’s understanding of recapitulation, here we wish simply to note that it is supernatural grace which permits angels and men to make the “love of preference” sought by God.

49 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 177. 50 EVI IV, 183; cf. 156. 51 “He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.” Matt 10:37. 52 Michael Torre aptly summarizes this particular aspect of the nature-grace debate: “[I]n every instance, Thomas clearly teaches that this is the free creature’s nature, made for salvation: ‘by His antecedent will, God wants a certain person to be saved by reason of his human nature, which He made for salvation’ (De veritate, 23, 2 ad 2). Because God made man for salvation, he created him in a state of grace, so that he could act properly and thus attain it.” Do Not Resist the Spirit’s Call: Francisco Marín-Sola on Sufficient Grace, ed. and trans. Michael D. Torre, (Washington, D.C.: CUA Press, 2013), 269. Footnote references omitted. For more on Torre, see infra footnote 292 on page 116.

64

But there is more. Of course, man can choose among a near-infinite variety of goods, thus forming a character, throughout his whole natural life. But, in the universe as it is created, these decisions, cumulatively, also have a supernatural effect. Through grace, man may elect to cooperate with the divine gift so as to merit truly eternal beatitude.53 Furthermore, one’s individual actions are not merely isolated incidents unconnected to the surrounding world, as if man were an utterly autonomous creature, an obvious oxymoron. Rather, one’s choices and actions do impact others. Here, again, we see how God respects the natures given to creatures.54

Still more, God, in “begging” a “love of preference” from rational creatures at the same time incorporates them into His Providence whereby they may choose to be true participants, not passive spectators, in attaining the Divine Plan for the universe. “Free creatures are thus solicited to give their consent to the divine invitation and to cooperate in the immense work of the construction of the universe of final ends. What one calls beatitude is essentially an end and the recompense of merit.”55

53 EVI IV, 445. 54 EVI IV, 254. 55 EVI IV, 184, with reference to ST I, q. 62, a. 4.

65

D. The Rational Creature Attains Perfection when its Free Will Acts in Dependence on the Creator

We noted that Journet teaches that a secondary reason for creation is so that God may love creatures. He specifies further, that God’s reason for creation is: “the only answer which can be given, and it is quite sufficient, is: in order to communicate a finite participation in his infinite splendour.”56 Such communication arises from a twofold result: God is the source of all goodness and perfection, whereas creatures, precisely as created, are not. Thomas teaches that, in creation, God seeks to communicate His perfection whereas creatures seek to acquire their perfection.57 Now, in the natural order a creature’s perfection is simply a participation in God’s perfection. Each creature, by virtue of its divinely-created nature, tends towards its perfection; rational creatures, angels and men, through the faculty of will possess a natural inclination to their perfection, which is the good of that particular rational creature.

Journet stresses the relationship between the Creator and the creature, with particular attention on what constitutes the creature’s perfection. To illustrate Journet’s point, may I suggest a few analogies: only the composer of a symphony can decide if his music was played the way he intended it to be played, so as to evoke the desired response from the listener. Only the craftsman who constructed a boat or the architect who designed a building can conclude if the end product meets the original goal and intent. Rational creatures, created ex nihilo, are distinct when compared to non-rational creatures vis-à-vis the standard by which they are respectively addressed in two ways. First, whereas the standard by which rational creatures are

56 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 116. And such participation redounds to God’s glory. 57 ST I, q. 44, a. 4, resp.: “But it does not belong to the First Agent, Who is agent only, to act for the acquisition of some end; He intends only to communicate His perfection, which is His goodness; while every creature intends to acquire its own perfection, which is the likeness of the divine perfection and goodness.”

66 measured to assess if they meet the Creator’s intent pertains to the final cause, the standard to measure artifacts can include, in addition to the final cause, also the material and efficient cause.

Second, and more importantly, rational creatures by their willed, decided-upon actions influence the attaining, or the failing to attain, their final end.

Unlike a symphony or a boat, the final end of a rational creature is participation in the

Creator.58 Journet observes, in The Meaning of Evil, that a capital element to reach such final end is the creature acknowledging its creaturely status: “Now it is by entering into dependence on self-sufficient Being that creatures emerge from nothing and take possession of their own existence; the more they enter into this dependence, the firmer and richer their being becomes.”59

The “firmness and richness” of which the Cardinal speaks must derive from the creature’s recognition of the reality of having a final end, and the means to attain it, given to him, rather than deciding it for himself. This can be evidenced by way of contrast: the leader of the fallen angels wished to be “like God,”60 not that he could forget that he is a creature,61 but as to the manner of reaching his final end independent of self-sufficient Being.62

Journet expands on this topic of dependence in his The Meaning of Evil, noting the way in which the rational creature “takes possession of their own existence:”

58 “For God, who is in reality the last end of all creatures, has a strict right to be loved above all, to be chosen as the Absolute, to whom, concretely, the life of every creature must be freely given.” Journet, The Theology of the Church, 42. 59 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 155, n. 20. 60 Thomas observes that “aversion from God has the nature of an end, inasmuch as it is sought for under the appearance of liberty,” ST III, q. 8, a. 7, resp. 61 EVI IV, 236. 62 EVI IV, 238-40.

67

Likewise it is by entering into dependence on divine Action and Freedom that beings act at all and act freely; and the more they enter into this dependence, the firmer and richer is their action and their liberty. Thus created freedom is not independence but rather deep and intimate dependence in respect of the Freedom which is their source.63 To be clear, such dependence does not remove all independence. We might say that built into the nature of the rational creature is “dependent independence” or a “dependency along with actual agency,” since free will is both received as an element of nature and then dependently and obligatorily oriented to the good, but independently able to choose among goods. Journet continues:

But being directed towards goodness as a whole as its proper object, it [created freedom] remains in a deeply rooted independence, a fundamental indifference, in regard to all partial goods; it can accept them as a good or refuse them as partial and inadequate in relation to goodness as a whole.64 In The Meaning of Grace, he elaborates that the purpose of free will is to recognize that created goods are ultimately unsatisfying:

My freedom is a dependence in relation to God, a dependence that gives me a power over and freedom of choice in regard to lower things. Because my heart is made for the fullness of the good, the beautiful, and the true…and the world offers me only partial goods (real or apparent), I can, confronted with these goods, assent because they are good or refuse them because they are partially good.65 We now examine how man’s free will is both dependent on God and still free. On the Freedom of the Will The rational creature may object: “If my ‘free will’ is always ordered to the good, I am not free!” Three responses are germane. First, let us consider the source of free will.

Schmitz, in addition to providing technical precision as to why the free will of the rational

63 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 155, n. 20. 64 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 155, n. 20; cf. Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 32-34. 65 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 34.

68 creature must be moved in order to act, notes a classic Thomistic position on the source of created freedom:

By recourse to the instrument of Aristotelian philosophy, St. Thomas endeavors to show the metaphysical basis of divine causality on the free act. Because God is the First Unmoved Mover, [the] first source of all movement, the creature could never exercise the least activity without it having been carried out by God. When the will operates and places a free act, it is therefore brought to its operation by the motion of God. Thus, in the perspective of Thomas Aquinas, far from competing with the free causality of the creature, the divine causality confers on it [free causality of the creature] on the contrary all its reality, all its perfection and all its efficacy.66

Indeed, “[T]he will is moved to will that which it wills. … [i]t is through the active power of

God that man moves himself to act volitionally,” which is why “God is the source of human freedom.”67 Said concisely, Emery notes: “the divine will causes in us, and with us, the free mode of the act.”68

Second, Journet is clear that the final end of man of eternal happiness can be reached by grace or missed.69 That history is the consequence of the use of the individual’s free will.70 The individual’s movement toward eternity is a history, the sum total of which comprise the sacred history of the Two Cities: “And we call sacred the history the one which crowns itself by the entrance into the kingdom of final ends.”71

66 Schmitz, Causalité divine, 26. Footnote reference omitted. Taylor O’Neill observes: “[It is the view of St. Thomas that] far from diminishing human freedom, divine actuation and motion make man to be truly free, exercising the full liberty of his will.” Grace, Predestination, and the Permission of Sin: A Thomistic Analysis, Ph. D. dissertation, Ave Maria University, 2017, 241. Footnote reference omitted. [As discussed more fully on pages 108ff, Journet’s presupposes a knowledge of premotion; hence, we supplement his brief discussion with the work of other Thomists (here, Schmitz).] 67 O’Neill, Grace, Predestination, and the Permission of Sin, 23-24. Footnote reference omitted. 68 Fr. Gilles Emery, O.P., “La Question du Mal et le Mystère de Dieu chez Charles Journet,” in Charles Journet: Un Témoin du XXe Siècle, eds. Marta Rossignotti Jaeggi and Guy Boissard, Acts de la Semaine théologique de l’Université de Fribourg Faculté de théologie, 8-12 avril 2002 (Paris: Parole et Silence, 2003), 301-325, at 310. 69 EVI IV, 32, 77-78, 94. 70 EVI IV, 94. Describing the state of journeying, Journet remarks: “it is a time of risk and of adventure, of free choice and of free alternative.” Ibid. 71 EVI IV, 75. Cf. 78, 94.

69

For man, reaching the ultimate goal occurs by first attaining a series of intermediate goals. Throughout the process, man is ever-directed towards the Ultimate End. How? The

Ultimate End, as First Efficient Cause, not only initiates the will of rational creatures in their actions, but simultaneously directs them toward Himself. Journet concludes:

Only the absolute Good which will fulfil its desires to overflowing could be a determining object for it. When, in carrying out a good act, it passes from the power of willing to an act of willing, this can only come about under a divine influence which does not destroy but rather actualizes its indifference. God, who made this delicate mechanism of our free will, is in effect alone capable of influencing it without destroying it.72 We have a third and final consideration: if God both moves the rational creature and moves the rational creature to Himself, is free will thereby entirely eliminated or at least compromised?

Thomas answers, both with respect to angels and men, a definitive “no.” First, in context, the question is asked: “If all the angels were created in grace, why did they all not follow the impulsion of grace which brought them toward God?,” Journet summarizes Thomas’ response

“that grace, like nature, inclines without violating free will.”73 Second, as to a more general principle applying to all creatures, we note from the Treatise on Grace: “God moves everything in its own manner.”74 Though some things are moved in a necessary manner, to allow for free choice human free will is moved in a contingent manner:

72 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 155, n. 20. 73 EVI IV, 211, n. 50, with reference to II Sentences, dist. 4, a. 3, ad 5. 74 ST I-II, q. 113, a. 3, resp.

70

I answer that, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) “it belongs to Divine providence, not to destroy but to preserve the nature of things.” Wherefore it moves all things in accordance with their conditions; so that from necessary causes through the Divine motion, effects follow of necessity; but from contingent causes, effects follow contingently. Since, therefore, the will is an active principle, not determinate to one thing, but having an indifferent relation to many things, God so moves it, that He does not determine it of necessity to one thing, but its movement remains contingent and not necessary, except in those things to which it is moved naturally.75 The preservation of free will – indeed, the engendering of its exercise – within the process of divine causality has three outcomes: i) it maintains God as the Source of all efficient causality76 as well as man’s true secondary causality, ruling out the opposite extremes of Pelagianism and occasionalism,77 ii) it reinforces man’s creaturely status, especially that the creature can only reach its perfection when its free will is exercised in dependence on the Creator, and iii) it allows the love of preference.78

The importance of the rational creature recognizing its status as a creature cannot be overstated. In the early 20th century when liberal Protestantism was insisting on the lack of the supernatural in Christianity and that Christ is not divine, that the creature lives as if it were divine, Journet (as we shall see shortly) is reminding his readers that the angels were the first to

“forget their creatureliness.”79 Moreover, the Cardinal emphasizes that if angels, whose rational

75 ST I-II, q. 10, a. 4, resp. Other well-known references for the same idea include ST I, q. 19, a. 8, resp. and De malo, q. 16, a. 5, c. 76 See Schmitz, Causalité divine, 116. 77 Essai de Théologie Spéculative, Volume III of L’Église du Verbe Incarné, Five Volumes. Sa Structure Interne et Son Unité Catholique – Deuxième Partie. Oeuvres Complètes de Charles Journet. (Saint-Maurice, Switzerland: Éditions Saint-Augustin, 2000), 1830. 78 EVI IV, 155: “If, in the state of journeying, the Absolute Good hides under the appearances of a relative good, in order that creatures may be able to give to Him or to refuse Him their preference, certain persons among them will refuse it to Him.” 79 While we cannot possible inquire into the various stages of development of this phenomenon of human persons “forgetting their creatureliness,” it is a safe statement that it has accelerated in recent centuries. I posit, with Sheen’s help, that philosophical errors in metaphysics are at the basis of this acceleration: “But as soon as nature is made autonomous – as it was by Descartes, who separated man from God as a basis of rationality; and by Rousseau who separated man from the community; and by Kant, who separated man from God as the basis of morality – then it becomes meaningless.” Sheen, Philosophy of Religion, 342-43.

71 powers exceed that of human beings, only reached bliss by acting on their dependence, human beings need to recognize their dependence to an even greater degree.

Furthermore, a lack of recognizing dependence on the creature’s part, which invariably involves free will, leads to evil. For instance, for the angels:

The standard [by which the angels are measured] will be that of a love where God will be first of all freely loved above all, and where the angel will discover to love himself freely in dependence on this supreme love. The immoderation will be that of a love which, turning away from the divine invitation, will refuse first of all to go towards God freely loved above all, and where the angel will decide to love himself in full independence.80 Indeed, such false independence is the source of evil,81 of which the creature alone takes the initiative.82 The evil of sin is so deleterious since it not only ignores or denies a dependence, but also attacks divinity: “In man’s sinful act there is the desire that God be not God.”83 In what does this false independence consist? Not surprisingly, the answer relates to the creature’s final end, specifically, Journet says, to the deciding of moral truth:

To ask him [God] to make a created will which cannot fall away is to ask him to make one which is the law of its own action, and which therefore has nothing above it by which it can regulate itself, one…which is at the same time created and uncreated.84 The perennial temptation, to Adam and to all of his descendants, is such that the devil: [W]ill propose to him the way which he himself chose and which he continues to will from all his powers of his being, namely the choice of revolt from nature irrespective of the obedience of grace, the exhilaration of being to himself his king when God alone is Himself his king, and, in this sense, the desire to be the same as God.85

80 EVI IV, 236. 81 EVI IV, 240. 82 EVI IV, 240, 270, n. 162, 438, 601; The Meaning of Evil, 176-80. 83 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 42. 84 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 149. 85 EVI IV, 454. “We may no longer rest content with rebelling against the evil or powerlessness of creatures, we may rebel against even the being and the good of which this evil or powerlessness are the reverse side, and we may pass from hating created being to hating the uncreated Being from which it has sprung. …we may be jealous of God for remaining superior to his creatures and for not having made a world equal to himself.” Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 69-70.

72

Journet continually stresses the vital importance of the correct use of free will.

********

Our next step is to inquire into Journet’s thought on the creation of particular rational creatures: we will treat of the angels first, and then of man. Since the free will of such creatures directly impacts salvation history, we will also examine the fall of rational creatures: of angels first, and then of man.

Part Three – Creation (and Fall) of the Angels Since angels were the first creatures to whom salvation was offered, Journet examines their creation and fall before turning to the events of (human) salvation history. In his discussion, the Cardinal introduces operating grace and cooperating grace, in the context of consent and deliberation. Later, when discussing the fall of the angels, Journet will introduce sufficient and efficacious grace. As we shall see, these topics form a paradigm: that angels are offered and accept or reject the gift of salvation is similar to that for human persons.

In discussing the creation (and fall) of the angels, Journet relies significantly on a portion of the

Treatise on the Angels (ST I, q. 54-64), De malo, q. 16, and The Sin of the Angel,86 a small book by Jacques Maritain. Journet builds on the scriptural axioms of Aquinas’ angelology. What

Journet emphasizes is that God seeks from them a “love of preference,”87 where the angel learns to perfect his love of self by loving God above all; that is, the angel loves himself in dependence, recognizing God as his final end.

A. Three Preliminary Items Before discussing the specific issues Journet addresses with respect to the angels, a brief introduction to three topics will prepare for our main discussion on angelic choice.

1. Ontological Structure of the Angel

Angels may be described as created intellectual substances.88 That they are rational creatures, they possess free will.89 Angels are created good and are naturally ordered to the good,90 though the ultimate end of the angel, the face-to-face vision of God, is not naturally

86 Le péché de l’ange. 87 EVI IV, 235, 254. 88 ST I, q. 50, a. 2, resp., and q. 61, a. 1. Hence, they are in God’s image – ST I, q. 93, a. 3. 89 ST I, q. 59, a. 3, resp. 90 EVI IV, 228, citing ST I, q. 63, a. 4. Cf. EVI IV, 212. 73

74 attainable. Like any rational creature, they are fallible,91 since their rule of life is not identical with themselves.

Additional Basic Data on the Angelic Will Let us provide various data of revelation, as well as certain Thomistic speculations on the revealed data, which undergird the discussion of the adventure of the angels. We begin by noting that, as rational creatures, angels are created with a natural inclination to the good or to their perfection. Indeed, the “angelic will is directed by God through a natural inclination to that which is its proper perfection. It must seek goodness in general, although particular goods are willed through its own determination rather than from necessity.”92 That their will “is not free with respect to its ultimate object” – that it cannot be ordered to evil – does not result in coercion, because this ordination “springs from…the intellectual nature itself” of the angel.93

Since the rational creature acts out of its knowledge, and the first angelic knowledge was divinely imparted, the first angelic act of all the angels must be good.94 All of these aspects of the angelic will undergird the later discussion of the angelic love in the angels’ first moment.

2. Consent v. Deliberation/Choice To distinguish more clearly between operative grace and cooperative grace (both of which are pertinent to the angelic drama), we outline a number of contrasts between “consent”

91 “There St. Thomas establishes that it is metaphysically impossible to create an intelligent being who would be natural incapable of sin, that is to say, a creature whose operative power would be its own rule of action.” Jacques Maritain, The Sin of the Angel: An Essay on a Re-Interpretation of Some Thomistic Positions, trans. William L. Rossner, S.J. (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1959), 41; see 39-66, and especially 39-43. We give the full citation which Maritain partially quotes: quod tam Angelus quam quaecumque creatura rationalis, si in sua sola natura consideretur, potest peccare. ST I, q. 63, a. 1, resp. Thomas immediately adds that any creature that cannot sin “hoc habet ex dono gratiae, non ex conditione naturae.” Ibid. 92 Collins, The Thomistic Philosophy of the Angels, 238. We utilize the work of Collins to provide additional insight on elements of Aquinas’ teaching on the angels, so as to supplement the points highlighted by Maritain and Journet. 93 Collins, The Thomistic Philosophy of the Angels, 238-39. 94 EVI IV, 223, n. 79. Cf. 228. See also infra footnote 126 on page 81.

75 and “deliberation/choice” (which, in this immediate discussion and for the sake of clarity, shall be designated as “deliberation”95). According to Aquinas’ analysis, a free act is comprised of two elements: i) to act or not, and then, if one acts, ii) to choose among particular goods. Consent pertains to the line of exercise (i.e., to act or not), whereas deliberation pertains to the line of specification (i.e., which particular good is chosen, even if it is only a bonum apparens). Journet understands consent to occur when the will chooses the good in general, whereas deliberation indicates choosing a particular good.96 As a corollary, whereas consent does not permit a choice between the Uncreated and a particular created good or between good and evil, deliberation pertains to choosing between the Uncreated and a particular created good, between good and evil.97 Consequently, consent will not permit making a “love of preference,” whereas deliberation most certainly will.98

Consent v. Deliberation vis-à-vis Operative Grace v. Cooperative Grace By definition, operative grace involves consent but not deliberation, whereas cooperative grace requires deliberation: “[W]hereas St. Thomas declares that operative grace, specifically so called, pertains only to the act of the will by which it is moved toward something freely, but does not move itself by discursive deliberation.”99 Operative grace enables the will to will the final

95 Given angelic epistemology, angels do not technically “deliberate” (cf. De malo, a. 16, a. 4, resp.), a discursive process human persons utilize in order to learn. See EVI IV, 223, n. 79. However, since “Deliberation is contained eminently, not formally, in their choice” (ibid.), we will retain the terminology. 96 EVI IV, 228: “The first instant, when they are moved simply to consent to the good in general, without yet having to move themselves to choose a particular good, either true or apparent, is [a] good in all the angels.” Cf. 158: “The normal law of grace is to be given to creatures…leaving them not only the liberty of consent to the good, but even that of choosing between good and evil, of preferring good to evil.” Note that to choose/deliberate, one must have previously consented. 97 EVI IV, 262, 268, 281, 282, 284. Cf. Maritain, The Sin of the Angel, 29: For angels in via “to love God above all as the end and rule of their moral life means to choose between that good which is God and those other goods which are not He.” 98 EVI IV, 262. Notice ST I-II, q. 15, a. 3, ad 3: “Choice includes something that consent has not, namely, a certain relation to something to which something else is preferred: and therefore after consent there still remains a choice.” 99 Garrigou-Lagrange, Grace, 177. Cf. EVI IV, 258.

76 end; once the final end is willed, cooperative grace enables the will to move itself to choose the means to attain that final end.100 And selecting the means to an end is equivalent to deliberating.

We may further contrast the two types of grace by examining the relation of each to the potency of the rational creature. Under operative grace, one does not move himself (meaning one does reduce himself from potency to act101), whereas under cooperative grace one does move himself.102 In virtue of being created, a creature cannot perform an act which of itself (which is, by definition, in the natural order) is in potentiality to the supernatural order.103 Said another way, an angel in his first moment or a man not in the state of grace cannot “move himself” to a supernatural act “by virtue of a previous efficacious act of the same order…[because] a prior act of this kind [namely, in the supernatural order] did not exist.”104 On the other hand, cooperative grace “is conferred for in which our will is not only moved, but moves itself, that is, when, already actually willing the final supernatural end, it converts itself to willing the means conducive to that end. This act is said to be external, although it may be only internal, since it is commanded by the will in virtue of a previous efficacious act of the same order.”105 In one sentence, Thomas observes:

100 EVI IV, 228, with reference to ST I-II, q. 111, a. 2, ad 3. Cf. EVI IV, 214. 101 ST I-II, q. 9, a. 1, resp.: “A thing requires to be moved by something in so far as it is in potentiality to several things; for that which is in potentiality needs to be reduced to act by something actual; and to do this is to move.” 102 Garrigou-Lagrange, Grace, 169. Cf. EVI IV, 223, n. 79, where Journet quotes Garrigou-Lagrange that the angels in their first moment performed a good act but it was “not yet fully meritorious, because they were moved by God without moving themselves.” De Deo Trino et Creatore (Turin: Marietti, 1943), 375. 103 ST I, q. 62, a. 2, resp. 104 Garrigou-Lagrange, Grace, 169-70. He adds: “According to him [Thomas], under operative grace, the will elicits its act vitally, in fact, it freely consents to the divine motion or inspiration, but it does not strictly move itself by its own proper activity in virtue of a previous efficacious act of the same order, for this previous efficacious act is wanting at that time; for example, in justification, in the acts of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, such as the gift of piety.” Ibid., 173. 105 Garrigou-Lagrange, Grace 172. Cf. 176.

77

Grace is called operating in regard to an effect which the will of God brings about in us, whereas grace is called cooperating in regard to an effect which God’s will does not produce alone, but with the cooperation of our free choice.106

We now address the third of our introductory topics, all of which are preparing for a discussion of the angelic action in their first and second instants.

3. Ordinate Divine Power v. Absolute Divine Power

We have one last preliminary area to address. “Ordinate Divine Power,” which considers the world God actually made,107 takes two forms: “ordinary means” wherein God deals with creatures in accord with the system required by their nature, particularly wherein He respects the free will of rational creatures,108 demonstrated by the divine invitation to angels by grace to supernatural beatitude, which they can accept or reject; “extraordinary means” indicates where

God acts “without taking into account the treatment required by the nature of free creatures;”

“God, by a miracle, can transfer some souls into beatitude by a single special and efficacious motion of His operating grace.”109

“Absolute Divine Power,” on the other hand, contemplates a world God could have made.110 The operative verb is “could:” God could theoretically act “beyond” the system required by the angelic nature. Journet identifies two ways this can occur: i) God could place angels in beatitude concomitant with their creation,111 or ii) God can introduce a “special motion” of operating grace which is efficacious “the first time” wherein the angels need only

106 De veritate, q. 27, a. 5, ad 1, via https://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/QDdeVer27.htm#5, accessed 9.11.2018. Cf. EVI IV, 214 where Journet cites a similar definition from ST I-II, q. 111, a. 2. 107 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 112-13. 108 EVI IV, 269, 281, 284; cf. Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 157. 109 EVI IV, 268; cf. 281, 284. cf. Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 157. 110 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 112-13. 111 EVI IV, 262. Cf. Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 152-53.

78 consent, not deliberate,112 in order to reach beatitude. We will expand on this contrast shortly when we discuss sufficient v. efficacious grace.

Why is this latter distinction noted? It serves to underscore that the order of the actual, finite, contingent universe, created under ordinate divine power, is firmly under divine wisdom and divine goodness. Any universe, simply because it is created and, therefore, limited, can never completely express the infinite divine wisdom, since “divine goodness exceeds in an incommensurate manner all the ends of created worlds.”113 The order of the universe God chose to create is a moral one, and includes – I add fundamentally includes – free, rational creatures who can make, or refuse to make, a “love of preference” for God.114 “What is principally intended by God in creatures is good, and this consists in assimilation to God Himself.”115 To reach their good, the angels are to know it and to desire it. Rather than receiving their end entirely passively, they angels are active agents in attaining their good.

B. On Angelic Will and Choice 1. Introduction Why does Cardinal Journet devote some eighty pages to address the creation, test, and

Fall of the angels? These events illustrate that a specific plan for attaining beatitude is already present for the rational creatures who were first offered the gift of eternal life. First, there is a divine initiative and a response from a rational creature. Second, the supernatural virtue of charity must be exercised. Lastly, a “love of preference for God” must be expressed. Of note is

112 EVI IV, 262. 113 EVI IV, 260. 114 EVI IV, 259-62, 269-70. 115 ST I, q. 50, a. 1, resp.

79 that the creature is not entirely passive in this process since even a rejection of the gift offered signals freedom. Note well that a similar scheme will be seen regarding man. Each invitation to beatitude involves this pattern. And this pattern is founded on the rational creature – angel or man – being ordered to the good, “which it can know and which is the object of the will.”116 A schema, relating certain items in the plan to reach beatitude to the two elements of a free act, may be displayed as follows:

Line of Exercise: Consent / no choice between goods; the divine rule117 is not a factor; no love of preference is possible; operative grace

Line of Specification: Deliberation / choice between goods; the divine rule is a factor; a love of preference is possible; cooperative grace

Allowing for a proportionate difference, Journet writes that the general way man is offered salvation is adaptable to the way angels are offered salvation.118 Discussing the journey of the angels allow us to introduce the topics of operative and cooperative grace, and sufficient and efficacious grace. These latter, in turn, will permit us to understand Journet’s phrase: “Thus our perdition comes from us, and our salvation from God.”119 From a broader perspective, we are endeavoring to illustrate Journet’s thesis that salvation history centers on a divine initiative and a rational creature’s response, whereby both angels and men merit “their eternal beatitude” by making a love of preference for the Creator.120

116 EVI IV, 228, citing ST I, q. 63, a. 4. 117 A discussion of the divine rule follows in Subsection Number 6, “The Angelic Fall.” That the rule only becomes applicable in the second instant, Maritain writes: “His choice cannot be made except in reference to the rule.” The Sin of the Angel, 56. 118 EVI IV, 228. 119 EVI IV, 281. See also The Meaning of Evil, 155, where the Cardinal writes: “God wishes to save all men: if they are saved, the glory is his, and if they are not, the fault is theirs.” Journet was likely relying on earlier thinkers such as Bossuet: “We must admit two graces of which the one leaves our will without any excuse before God, while the other does not permit it to glory in itself,” Garrigou-Lagrange, Grace, 185 and 201, with reference to Bossuet’s Oeuvres completes, Vol. 1 (Paris:, np, 1845), 644. 120 EVI IV, 445.

80

2. Statement of the Issues Four primary questions arise when studying Journet’s treatment of the angels: i) How and

“when” did they fall?; ii) How are the good angels differentiated from the fallen angels?; iii)

Why were they created in grace; and iv) What type of grace is involved with the angels?

3. The First Two Instants of the Angels Having established themes and parameters, along with an overall purpose of this section, we now turn to a more detailed discussion of the first and second instants of the existence of the angels, which constitutes their creation, test, and destiny.

Journet contends that God could have treated the angels in accord with his absolute divine power, or in accord with the extraordinary means of His ordinate divine power. However,

Journet writes that the better interpretation of Thomas is that, under ordinate divine power, God dealt with the angels under ordinary means, thus treating with creatures in accord with the system required by their nature.121 Therefore, while the angels were created good, indeed, “in grace”122 – that is, in the extant supernatural order equipped with all the natural and supernatural aids to reach their supernatural end – they were not confirmed in that goodness; as Journet underlines, they were also created in a state of journeying.123 In short, the angels at their creation

“were neither in a blessed state by completely turning toward God nor sinners by turning away from Him.”124

These facts lead to the conclusion that there must be two “instants” for the angels.

Although all the angels were created good and in grace, some angels fell (as Scripture reveals) –

121 EVI IV, 228, 262. 122 ST I, q. 62, a. 3, “[Y]et it seems more probable, and more in keeping with the sayings of holy men, that they were created in sanctifying grace.” 123 EVI IV, 206; cf. ST I, q. 62, a. 1. 124 EVI IV, 230, citing De malo, q. 16, a. 4.

81 how and “when” did they fall? As noted, they could not have fallen because they were created evil.125 Furthermore, because “that operation which begins with … existence comes of the agent from which it drew its nature [i.e., God],”126 they must have fallen i) not in their first instant, that of creation, but in their second instant,127 and ii) by an act of free will.128

By divine justice the angels can only merit heaven or demerit hell by an act of free will; indeed, it is by a single act of merit that they enter beatitude.129 Since the first angelic act could only be good there must be a second instant, distinct from the first, by which the angels are differentiated. A positive act of free will either meritorious of heaven of demeritorious of hell is not available in the first instant. Maritain explains:

[O]ne must distinguish within the duration of the Angel the instant of his creation from the instant in which he had to decide about his last end and was able to sin. This also becomes evident from the fact that the act of option or election proper to free will, the positive act of liberty, necessarily presupposes the act by which, in virtue of a necessity of its nature, the will wills the good in general and happiness. That act of love for the good in general and happiness, consequently, must take place in the first instant (the very instant of creation) which is distinct from that of election and in which God moves the will to a first activity that is inevitably good (since He is its author).130

Let us expand on Maritain’s explanation. In the first instant, it is not possible for the angel to sin for two reasons. First, from an ontological perspective, the angel is ordered to the good and, following his natural inclination, knows himself and knows and loves God through that self- knowledge. Second, no choice between goods was available in the first moment. Only in the

125 ST I, q. 63, a. 4. 126 ST I, q. 63, a. 5, resp. Later, in De malo q. 16, a. 4, c., Thomas retains his answer but avoids this approach, instead arguing that “[a]ngels at the first moment of their creation must have turned to natural knowledge of themselves, by which they could not sin.” De Malo (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). 127 ST I, q. 63, a. 6, resp., where, under the assumption that the devil was originally created in grace and also merited in the first moment, he must have “placed an impediment by sinning,” which occurred “at once after the first instant of his creation.” Emphasis added. 128 ST I, q. 63, a. 7, resp.: “Because the angels’ sin [came from] free choice alone.” 129 ST I, q. 62, a. 5. 130 Maritain, The Sin of the Angel, 67. Footnote reference omitted.

82 second instant, when the angel chooses between alternative goods, is God preferred or rejected, and only then is the divine rule a factor. Hence, it must be a second instant, wherein they make a positive act of liberty which differentiates the angels between bliss and damnation.

But why would such an action in the second moment have such momentous consequences? Since the angel is created and rational, it is capable of sin in the natural order.

Maritain points out131 that the angel, if it should sin, must sin against the supernatural (as well as natural) order.132 The angels lacked nothing with respect to their natural order – they were created in a state of natural contemplation of God as the Author of Nature and as the Common

Good of all, knowing God as their own proper perfection.133 A consequence of the angels being created in grace is that such a state demands that their first free positive act of liberty – in their second instant – has a supernatural implication and effect. Whether the angels accept or reject

God is simultaneously an acceptance or rejection of the supernatural grace in which they were created. Their first positive act of liberty is either: i) to accept their condition as creatures in the natural order and be further elevated, through additional grace, to a supernatural bliss, or ii) to reject their creaturely status, disdain the natural gifts granted to them, forfeit grace, and forego eternal happiness.

We ask: “Why were the angels created in grace? What is God’s intention? How does such a fact configure to God’s plan?” The following two remarks of Thomas correspond to

Journet’s emphasis that salvation is a divinely offered gift which is accepted or rejected. First,

131 Maritain, The Sin of the Angel, 66. Cf. EVI IV, 254. 132 De malo, q. 16, a. 3, c.: “For only things in which potentiality can be distinguished from actuality, not things that are always actual, can have evil, as the Metaphysics says [Metaphysics IX, 9 (1051a4-21)]. But all the angels were instituted such that they immediately at the moment of their creation had everything proper to their nature, although they had potentiality for supernatural goods that they could obtain through God’s grace. And so we conclude that the devil’s sin regarded something supernatural, not something belong to the order of nature.” Emphasis added. 133 Maritain, The Sin of the Angel, 76, 98-100.

83

Thomas teaches that angels merited beatitude, through grace;134 merely being created in sanctifying grace was not adequate, in the divine plan, for a creature to gain eternal happiness.

Merit requires that a good work be chosen and performed. For Journet, the angelic “love of preference” is clearly meritorious; since the angel is in sanctifying grace, it is supernaturally meritorious. Second, “but he who has grace can fail to make use of it, and can sin.”135 The sin of the angel – loving himself inordinately (as we shall see shortly) – manifests a failure to exercise grace given to him at his creation. Hence, it cannot be said that God did not give adequate supernatural grace to allow the angels to attain beatitude.

Having addressed the first three questions we set out to answer, we will address the fourth – the type of grace involved – in our analysis of the First Instant of the Angels. We shall endeavor to expand on this analysis, as well as address additional topics, in the following pages.

4. First Instant a. Angelic Love

As to what is loved and how the angel loves in the first instant, Journet notes that in the first instant, the angel loves God because the angel is naturally oriented to happiness and because

God is the “source of his natural being;” in addition, the angel “loves God more than himself,” and as “author of nature.”136 Moreover, the angel loves “God as the Supreme source of all created goods.”137 Because this initial love is mediated,138 it is an indirect love. We should

134 ST I, q. 62, a. 4, resp. 135 ST I, q. 62, a. 3, ad 2. 136 EVI IV, 246; cf. 234, n. 104, citing De malo, q. 16, a. 4, ad 14. 137 EVI IV, 233. 138 “Mediated,” because the angel’s knows God first through knowledge of himself, and through the angel’s natural desire for his own happiness. See EVI IV, 229, 232. The angel’s love “is through the mediation of an act which is focused on a necessarily loved object belonging to this world – to the world of creation, of what has been made – that the creature thus loves God above all as the Common Good of all. Because it is bound to something of this

84 immediately add that it is a supernatural love, because the angel was created in grace (i.e., similar to Adam).139 From his knowledge, the angel loves, but it is an undeliberated love, arising as it does from natural impulse bestowed by God.140

In a more detailed perspective, Maritain identifies four loves in the first instant of the angel:

1. Ontological love-of-nature: “every creature naturally loves the supreme Whole more than itself with a radical élan consubstantial with its essence.”141

2. Ontological intra-elicited love-of-nature: wherein creatures, even inanimate ones, “love the supreme Whole more than themselves with spontaneous élan, by the mere fact that they tend in act toward their proper end.”142

3. Elicited love-of-nature: “which, before any option or election, arises at once in every intellectual creature as a spontaneous, immediate movement of the rational appetite at the instant and by the mere fact that the intellect knows the existence of the Principle of all good, the Self- subsisting Good which is the common good of all.”143

4. Elicited Love of Free Option: “In every intelligent creature there exists a natural inclination

(emanating necessarily from nature, but not imposing any necessity upon the will) to love the supreme Whole more than himself with an elicited love of free option.”144

Note that only the last love, that elicited love of free option, permits the rational creature to make an act of charity, since only it permits the creature to choose the Perfect Good in

world, such a mediated act does not enable the person to pass beyond this world in order to adhere directly to the Uncreated and to give himself to Him.” Maritain, The Sin of the Angel, 32-33. 139 EVI IV, 228. 140 EVI IV, 211, 229, 233. 141 Maritain, The Sin of the Angel, 20. 142 Ibid., 20, 22-23. 143 Ibid., 23. 144 Ibid., 26.

85 preference to imperfect goods. Similarly, whereas the first three loves allow the creature a natural love of God and also allow the creature to love God as the First Cause, Creator and

Source of all natural good, only by this fourth love can the creature love God as the source of supernatural beatitude.

Journet categorizes the loves in Maritain’s scheme as follows: “We call ontological the spontaneous impulse of all nature, even lacking knowledge, towards its good; and elicited the spontaneous impulse which proceeds from a knowledge of God, as soon as He appears as Source of all good.”145

We have chosen to discuss the loves of the angel in the first moment, since, in the second moment it is decided whether these loves are confirmed or become disordered, which, in turn, depends on the free action of the angel.146 The angelic free will is the decisive factor in ordering their loves. In addition, discussing the initial angelic loves will aid us to grasp why such loves, although free and supernatural, were not meritorious of eternal bliss. b. Analysis of the Angelic Act in the First Instant i) Consent/Deliberation vis-à-vis Operating/Cooperating Grace Although the first angelic act is spontaneous,147 this does not mean the angel is passive.

Indeed, the angel, rather than being passive in the first instant, is instead “intensely active,” although limited to consent.148 The will is limited to consent, as no deliberation takes place, and only operating grace is present.149 We must immediately note a distinction regarding “consent”

145 EVI IV, 231, n. 96. 146 Since love is defined as est velle alicui bonum (“to will the good of another”) (ST I, q. 26, a. 4, resp.) the act can be disordered by: i) loving a good inordinately, or ii) “loving” things ahead of persons. 147 EVI IV, 207, 208, 227, 257. 148 EVI IV, 214. 149 EVI IV, 214. Cf. 228ff.

86 in the first moment of the angels, versus “consent” typically understood (“the application of the appetitive movement to something that is already in the power of him who causes the application”150). Maritain says:

For everything that happens in the Angel in full light; and that act, which is spontaneous but not free in its mode of emanation, is an act to which he freely consents. I mean free consent, not by a positive act of consent but in a purely negative fashion, in the simple fact that the will refrains from restraining the movement of nature in question simply by remaining in non-exercise regarding it.151

Journet adopts this definition in EVI IV: first, he says, in their first instant, the angels had only to consent, not to choose;152 second:

In their first instant, [there does] not yet come into existence the positive act of free will which consists in choosing, to will or not to will. … The liberty of the angel is real, but it remains inchoate; it consists in the simple power not to exercise itself, not to retain the spontaneous act of love of God of which we have just spoken. The will of the angel was able, at least in sensu diviso, to remain in inaction; it is by not remaining in inaction, in the non-exercise, that it [the will of the angel] permits this spontaneous act of the love of God to occur.153 Regarding the angels in their first moment, Journet adopts the terminology of Maritain, wherein the angels’ “consent” consists in “not restraining the movement of nature”154 to love themselves and to love God above all things, which was given to them by God at their creation. The act in the first moment is not “free in its mode of emanation,” because the angelic will is not making an election wherein is exhibited “the dominating indetermination of the will, which defines the intrinsically free act.”155 Since no choice between alternative goods is present, free will is

150 ST I-II, q. 15, a. 3, resp. Later in the respondeo Thomas adds: “And therefore the application of the appetitive movement to counsel's decision is consent, properly speaking.” 151 Maritain, The Sin of the Angel, 78. Footnote reference omitted. 152 EVI IV, 214. 153 EVI IV, 233, n. 103. Parenthetical remark is Journet’s. We will discuss the topic of in sensu diviso in the upcoming subsection concerning how the act in the first angelic instant is free. 154 Maritain, The Sin of the Angel, 78. 155 Maritain, The Sin of the Angel, 76, n. 4.

87 exercised only in the line of exercise; the line of specification is not open to the angel. Since this initial, natural inclination to love God above all things “goes back to God Himself,”156 and since the angels consent to it simply by not checking it (in the line of exercise), only operating grace is present.

In one sense, consent typically understood involves free will but at a lesser, more limited level or depth of action than deliberation; consent pertains to acting or not, whereas deliberation

– which presumes consent157 – chooses between alternatives, for better or for worse. Journet observes that the angel “at the first instant of his creation, was moved at the same time towards his nature and towards God as author of nature.” In this he “cannot fail.” However, regarding a

“good exterior to themselves,” namely, the attaining of God no longer “mediated through creatures, but by relationship to God reached through free choice,” here the angel can turn to the

Perfect good in preference to a lesser good.158 Whereas consent (for the first act of the angels) permits inchoately meriting, only deliberation permits either a fully meritorious act or a rejection of the divine, by turning to or turning away from the Perfect Good. Journet puts it this way:

The normal law of grace is to be given to creatures considering the plan required by their nature as free beings, and leaving them not only the liberty of consent to good, but even that of choosing between good and evil, of preferring good to evil. God will wait to be freely preferred by His creature, angel or man. But then, it is necessary that He accepts to be freely rejected by His creature, angel or man.159 We proceed to Journet’s teaching that an act of charity can only occur when there exists a choice between goods.

156 EVI IV, 227. 157 Maritain, The Sin of the Angel, 83, n. 14. See supra footnote 96 on page 75. 158 EVI IV, 246. 159 EVI IV, 158.

88 ii) The Angelic Act in The First Instant is Meritorious, but not an Act of Charity But if all the angels consented in the limited way noted by Maritain and Journet in the first instant, did they also merit? Yes, they merited in the first instant, from the fact that they did not impede the natural love in which they were created160 (as we just noted). However, the angelic love in the first instant is spontaneous or “from its nature”161 and mediated.162 As a result, that love in the first act is not elected by the angel by a positive act of the will; hence, the merit attached to it is “inchoative” or “inefficacious.”163 This very restricted consent (line of exercise only) results in a very restricted merit. Maritain says:

One ought not to speak of an act of charity produced by the demon before his fall, but rather of a mediated act of love for God (implied in the love of self in the first instant), which proceeds from nature (perfected by grace) under the impulsion of God and which, being in no way free in its mode of emanation, depends only indirectly and extrinsically upon free will.164 An act of charity involves election, choosing God above all things by a comparison of goods so as to make an act of love of preference for Him, and also pertains to the final end of the angel, all of which involves the line of specification. Consequently, the act in the first instant of the angels was not one of charity. Maritain continues:

This spontaneous, non-intrinsically-free, elicited act of love for God above all things springs forth from nature and springs forth from it according as it is perfected and elevated by grace; … Nevertheless, it is not by any means an act of charity, for it is a mediate loved for God and there is present in it neither the lover proper to friendship, not the free gift of self.165

160 Maritain, The Sin of the Angel, 79. 161 Maritain, The Sin of the Angel, 76. 162 Maritain, The Sin of the Angel, 77. 163 Maritain, The Sin of the Angel, 79 164 Maritain, The Sin of the Angel, 73. 165 Maritain, The Sin of the Angel, 76-77.

89

Journet concurs with Maritain that the initial angelic love is an “inefficacious” or

“inchoative” meritorious act;166 it is not an act of charity, because, while it is a supernatural act

(through the grace in which the angels were created) it is also imparted by God and therefore spontaneous to the angel; but charity only results when God is the object of free choice.167 In the first instant, the angel had a spontaneous, natural love of himself, and, through knowing himself, a natural love of God above all things. But this is still a mediated, God-given impulse; no choice is involved. iii) The Angelic Act in The First Instant is Free We noted above that the angel, in the first instant, could have restrained, per Journet and

Maritain, the spontaneous, natural love which was imprinted on it at its creation only in sensu diviso. The angel could not have restrained the natural impulse by actively placing an obstacle in the way – acting to say “positively yes” or “positively no” is not available to the angel in the

First Instant, but only in the Second Instant. But, in that first moment, the angels retained the power to prevent that initial, spontaneous love – hence, in sensu diviso, they could have stopped the initial, natural love. This fact constitutes angelic freedom. “The will’s ability to choose against some good is not revoked by the fact that it does not actually do so … (as a condition of being moved by God).”168 However, that the restraining did not actually occur in the first instant results from a “divine motion” placed into the angel at the each angel’s creation by God,169

166 “There was among all the angels at the first instant a spontaneous act, free as not prevented by a positive act of the free will of the angel, and meritorious of an inchoate and inefficacious merit, where God by a general motion of operating grace, moved them without them having yet moved themselves.” EVI IV, 257. Cf. 233. 167 EVI IV, 229. 168 O’Neill, Grace, Predestination, and the Permission of Sin, 32. O’Neill is here speaking of man, but the concept applies to immaterial rational creatures as well. 169 Maritain, The Sin of the Angel, 78, n. 7.

90 which, again, evidences operating grace and the angels’ (limited) consent. Even though this love is bestowed, the angel truly loves freely in that he does not halt the natural impulse.170

Discussing the first angelic act highlights three things. First, (since God moves creatures according to their nature), at the initial moment, free will is retained even if it is held only in sensu diviso. Second, I infer Journet elects to accent this issue from Maritain’s work in order to reiterate the importance of free decision of the creature. How so? By drawing attention to the fact that the angels were created in such a way that they could attain or could fail to attain beatitude based on their own actions in response to a divine offer: we will discuss this momentarily under the “Second Instant” of the angels. (We will see shortly in discussing sufficient grace and efficacious grace that Journet speculates on various other possibilities in which God might have created the angels which do not permit the angels to deliberate, and with the aid of cooperative grace, so as to make a love of preference for God.) Third, that the angels were created in grace manifests Divine generosity that they were created in a state above their nature.

5. Second Instant It is an ancient law in the spiritual life that one cannot stand still: one either advances or declines. The angels were the first to demonstrate this law, evidenced by the drastic consequences in their second instant. They were able either to confirm the spontaneous, natural impulse to love God naturally above all things,171 whereby their love was elevated; or they were able to turn away172 from the Source of all good, instead loving themselves inordinately. They

170 EVI IV, 233. 171 EVI IV, 236. 172 32:33: “And they have turned their backs to me, and not their faces.”

91 could willingly choose to make a love of preference for God (and thus merit), or they could willingly refuse to make such a preference (and thus demerit). An affirmation is the only way in which the creature can be a “collaborator with God in the work of completion of the universe.”173

The loves present at the angelic creation we outlined earlier (and, specifically, the first three in

Maritain’s scheme) will be either strengthened through an act of humility and sacrifice by the angel accepting his creaturely status through a positive act of the will (Maritain’s fourth love, that of “Elicited Love of Free Option”), or they will be disordered, by loving themselves inordinately, meaning in preference to God. The angel, like prelapsarian Adam and Eve in the

Garden and like fallen man in the economy of redemption, can actively choose for or against

God.174 Such is the power of the free will of the rational creature.

The second instant results in either: i) a fully meritorious act, or ii) a rejection of the initial act. The good angel continues in the initial, spontaneous love, meaning he confirms his preliminary meritorious act and ratifies the state in which he was created. But that love is now elevated, as the angel loves God both as Author of Nature and as Author of Grace.175 Such love is now immediate,176 and since it is elective, it is the angels’ “first positive act of liberty.”177

Crucially for Journet, the good angel loves his own excellence “in dependence…on God.”178 On the other hand, the evil angel loves himself in preference to God and not in dependence on God; what he loves is certainly a good,179 but to love oneself (a creature) greater than the Creator is

173 EVI IV, 256. 174 Lacking the beatific vision, “It is necessary to choose for or against him.” EVI IV, 154. 175 EVI IV, 236. Cf. De malo, q. 16, a. 4, ad 14, where Thomas notes in the first angelic moment the angels were moved to know God as the author of nature but were not moved to know God as the author of grace. 176 EVI IV, 231. 177 EVI IV, 234ff. 178 EVI IV, 244. 179 Maritain observes that the angel did not sin out of ignorance or error but from loving a true good inordinately. The Sin of the Angel, 9.

92 contrary to natural reason and to the supernatural faith in which they were created. The evil angels “did not follow the direction of a higher rule, that is, God’s wisdom.”180

In the second instant, to make an act of charity the angel chooses to love himself ordinately, meaning in dependence on God, that is, “as a creature.” To do this, the angel chooses between two “goods:” i) loving his own angelic nature in subordination and in right proportion, meaning loving God above all things and loving God as the Source of beatitude, or ii) loving his own angelic nature more than God.181 Such a choice demands “deliberation,” which alone permits a fully meritorious act. And for the fallen angel, it is not the object which is the source of evil, but “the nature of the choice,” because it lacks consideration of the divine rule.182

Sufficient Grace and Efficacious Grace in the Second Instant The second angelic instant allows going beyond a mediated love, to loving God directly. To know God in His essence requires supernatural merit and supernatural charity, which exceed the power of the angels, since “the power of no creature extends beyond a form within its on genus.”183 Therefore, free will and grace are required. Yet, how do we explain Divine Revelation indicating that some angels were welcomed into beatitude while others were damned? Journet answers by appealing to God’s absolute v. ordinate power.

According to His absolute power, God could have created the angels immediately in beatitude.184 Also according to His absolute power, God could raise “them up to beatitude by one special motion of operating grace infallibly efficacious the first time,”185 and this

180 De malo, q. 16, a. 2, ad 1. Cf. q. 16, a. 3, ad 1. 181 EVI IV, 235-36. 182 Serge-Thomas Bonino, O.P., Angels and Demons: A Catholic Introduction, trans. Michael J. Miller, (Washington, D.C.: CUA Press, 2016), 200. 183 Collins, The Thomistic Philosophy of the Angels, 213. 184 EVI IV, 262. 185 EVI IV, 262.

93 would not go against their free will.186 And in this case, “they would not have had liberty of specification among the angels, they would not have been invited to choose between good and evil, nor to produce, under the motion of cooperating grace, this act of free preference to which we know that God attaches so high a prize.”187 But both of these alternatives go against the system required by their nature, which includes free will.

Rational creatures – whether intellectual substances or body-soul composites – possess free will. Of prime importance to Journet is that free will permits a rational creature to make or refuse to make a “love of preference” wherein God is preferred to created things.

Creatures act out of their natures. Since God does not endow creatures with superfluous powers, He intends that rational creatures employ their free will.

As noted earlier, the exercise of free will is comprised of two elements: the line of exercise and the line of specification. In a world of absolute divine power, in which rational creatures are either created in beatitude or elevated to beatitude by a single gift of operating grace, the rational creature would not fully employ free will. In the first example, there is no exercise whatever of free will; in the second example, there is only consent. In both cases, the operation of free will is truncated. Only in a world of ordinate divine power, in which the rational creature may choose a higher good over a lower good – when a choice between goods is present – can the power of free will fully blossom.

Recall that two scenarios are also presented under the ordinate divine power, wherein the divine actions correspond to the world God actually made. Under the “extraordinary means,” God “can move free beings by an extraordinary motion in the first attempt

186 EVI IV, 258. 187 EVI IV, 262.

94 efficacious of salvation, meaning by a special motion of operating grace.”188 where only consent (but not deliberation) is possible. In addition, there is the “ordinary means,” wherein a “love of preference is possible,” for which we cite Cardinal Journet at some length:

We see only one possible solution. It is to suppose, at this very instant of the choice of the angels, the eventual succession of two motions of cooperating grace. Initially a first motion given to all the angels according to the condition of their fallible nature, and which is able to be broken by their fault: those who acted after having broken it are the proper and sole cause of their damnation. This first motion (let us make it correspond to grace called sufficient), if it is not broken, gives way to a second motion, the latter unbreakable (let us make it correspond to grace called efficacious), under which the salutary choice will happen infallibly. If the bad choice occurs, it is always by resistance to the divine kindnesses: ‘Those who He once justified by His grace, God only abandons them after having been previously abandoned by them.’189 If the salutary choice occurs, it is always by the power of divine kindnesses: ‘It is God who works in 190 you to will and to work according to his good pleasure’ (Phil 2:13). Free will is not an end in itself; rather, it is a means to an end. Free will enables the rational creature to perfect itself, to act virtuously,191 to go “beyond oneself.”192 The divine offer of eternal life, as a supernatural gift, requires a supernatural means to its attainment. At the same time, God respects the free will of the angels: God acts in accord with a thing’s nature.

In response to the divine invitation to supernatural beatitude, all the angels, “under the motion of cooperating grace…must choose between good and evil.”193 We said earlier that

188 EVI IV, 281. 189 , Session VI, chap XI, DS, no. 1537. First Vatican Council, Session III, chap. III, DS, no. 3014. 190 EVI IV, 264. 191 Recall that beatitude is “the reward of virtue.” ST I, q. 62, a. 4, resp., citing Aristotle’s Ethics, i, 9. 192 EVI IV, 184, 256; Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 154, 253. 193 EVI IV, 264. Journet is not saying that it is only because they angels were offered eternal life that they could sin. As noted in the quote above on page 94 from EVI IV, 264, he acknowledges that the angels have a fallible nature. He agrees with Maritain that the angels could have sinned in a theoretical state of “pure nature:” “God can no more make a creature by nature impeccable than He can make a square circle.” EVI IV, 259. Cf. 246-47. Bonino arrives at the heart of the matter which Journet is expressing: “[A] spiritual being is perfected only by a free choice that inevitably presupposes the possibility of failure. When a person settles on his end in the moral order, he always does so by a freely chosen love. … But the basis of the debate – which we dare not enter into – concerns the manner in which one thinks about the perfection of created freedom: is it an act of free choice, implying the possibility of sinning, or is it an infallible and spontaneous consent to the good?” Bonino, Angels and Demons, 201.

95 since the angels were created in grace, their first positive act of the will confirms and elevates or revokes their supernatural state. The angelic response to the offer of eternal life made through a divine motion of supernatural grace to move the angel to a good (to a good not just suitable to but perfective of their nature) necessarily has a supernatural effect.

Summary of the First and Second Instants of the Angels The issue Journet wishes to elucidate is how, although all the angels were created good and in a graced state, some fell while others gained beatitude. Journet repeatedly asserts that, since beatitude is not natural to creatures and, therefore, is offered to them, both a divine initiative and a creaturely response are essential elements in the “process” by which angels either gain beatitude or reject it. In the first instant of the angels, God takes the initiative in creating a rational creature in supernatural grace, and since grace causes consent (rather than being an effect of consent),194 operating grace is present. Consequently, regarding “the first spontaneous act of the angels…the responsibility goes back to God Himself.”195 He concludes that the first angelic act, is good but only inchoately meritorious, as it involves a limited consent. Yet some angels subsequently turned away from God, while others reached beatitude. In the second instant, the good angels chose both to affirm the state in which they were created and to seek the perfection in the Ultimate Good, which involves a “free decision” and cooperating grace.196

Accordingly, in the second instant, Journet posits two divine motions of cooperating grace, the

194 ST I-II, q. 111, a. 2, ad 2, with respect to the justification of men: “God does not justify us without ourselves, because whilst we are being justified we consent to God's justification [justitiae] by a movement of our free-will. Nevertheless this movement is not the cause of grace, but the effect; hence the whole operation pertains to grace.” 195 EVI IV, 227; cf. 214. 196 EVI IV, 218, 228.

96 first “breakable” or involving sufficient grace, and, if it is accepted, a second “unbreakable,” involving efficacious grace.

We will further discuss the notion of a “breakable” divine motion under Part Four, Section F. 6. The Angelic Fall a. The Angels Fell by a Decision which “Did Not Refer to the Divine Will” If the angel willingly refuses to recognize the imperfections of particular goods vis-à-vis the Perfect Good, his free will aims not toward his final end but to a finite end. If instead of loving rightly, the angel elects to love himself inordinately, the inchoate merit of the first act is removed. In such a sinful act, sin could not arise from concupiscence or ignorance;197 rather, the sin involved loving a good thing in the wrong way (namely, loving the angelic nature in a disordered way).198 How does that occur? By the angel turning his angelic free will toward himself, toward his angelic nature, “without referring to the rule of the divine will.”199 And

“without referring to the rule of the divine will” means, not loving God which simultaneously recognizes a dependence on God. Whence comes that? The traditional answer is “pride.”200

Let us examine more closely this lack of “referral to the divine will,” which is the

“precondition”201 of sin, angelic or human. For the angels, the “divine rule” is: “The standard will be that of a love where God will be first of all freely loved above all, and where the angel will discover to love himself freely in dependence on this supreme love.”202 Later, Journet will

197 EVI IV, 235, with reference to ST I, q. 63, a. 1, ad 4; q. 59, a. 4. 198 EVI IV, 235, with reference to ST I, q. 63, a. 1, ad 4; cf. EVI IV, 237. 199 EVI IV, 235, citing ST I, q. 63, a. 1, ad 4. 200 EVI IV, 243-44. Cf. ST I, q. 63, a. 1 and City of God, Book XI, chap. 19. 201 Maritain, The Sin of the Angel, 65. Cf. 60-66 for a discussion of the angels and the divine rule. 202 EVI IV, 236.

97 refer to the rule as “divine wisdom.”203 In both descriptions we see the importance of the creature recognizing his creatureliness.

Journet remarks that the angels fell not when considering God as the source of all creatures and of all natural goods (which was known by the angel in the first instant), but rather when considering God as source of supernatural beatitude (which became available to the angel in the second instant).204 In his first instant, the angel, due to a divinely-infused power, naturally and spontaneously loves God as Source of all created goods,205 and, as Collins further noted, as the “total cause of its existence and goodness.”206 God as source of supernatural beatitude, however, is a good not connatural to the angels, but “exterior to themselves.”207 Hence, a positive choice is required to accept the gift of supernatural beatitude, which is to dwell in God as Source of supernatural happiness. The fallen angels wished to remain “fixed in their own good without straining beyond to a supreme good which is the final end.”208 b. Two Ways the Devil Sought to be “like God” Thomas, following Scripture,209 asserts that the devil wished to be “like God.”210 With

Thomas, Journet notes that the devil’s disordered love takes one of two forms: first, the devil wanted to define his own final end (which is not the prerogative of a creature), rather than accept

203 EVI IV, 246-47, n. 131, with reference to De malo, q. 16, a. 2. Another way to describe the divine rule is “[T]he eternal law, the wise and loving will of God.” Bonino, Angels and Demons, 199. Emphasis added. 204 EVI IV, 246. 205 Collins, The Thomistic Philosophy of the Angels, 246. 206 Collins, The Thomistic Philosophy of the Angels, 249. 207 EVI IV, 246. Thomas explains: “And angels’ movements are evidently first to things connatural to them, since they through such movements attain what transcends their nature.” De malo, q. 16, a. 4, c. 208 EVI IV, 246-47, n. 131, with reference to the Compendium of Theology, Book I, chap. 113. 209 14:13-14: “13And thou saidst in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north. 14 I will ascend above the height of the clouds, I will be like the most High.” Thomas also refers to Ps 69:5, “I did not repay what I did not steal,” De malo, q. 16, a. 3, sed contra 2. 210 EVI IV, 238. Journet refers to De malo, q. 16, a. 2, ad 13, q. 16, a. 3, as well aws to ST I, q. 63, a. 3.

98 the one God had intended for him.211 Said another way, the devil wished to “act without being ruled by a superior rule,”212 a rule or divine wisdom which defines how he should love. In other words, the devil wished to love himself in independence, rather than love God above all things.213 Alternatively, the devil sought his correct final end by desiring union with God via the beatific vision, but did so by dint of his own resources and not in dependence on God.214 In both instances, we observe that such a rejection categorically denies that “the whole perfection of angels consists in a total subordination to God.”215

Having presented Journet’s teaching of the creation and fall of the angels, and of the grace related to their first and second instants, we proceed to his discussion of the creation and fall of man. With man, salvation history is inaugurated, and a pattern of attaining beatitude similar to that of angels will be noted for man.

211 EVI IV, 239, 246. 212 EVI IV, 239. 213 EVI IV, 236. 214 EVI IV, 239. 215 Collins, The Thomistic Philosophy of the Angels, 255. Thomas adds, speaking of the demons: “For they desired a suitable good, not an evil. But they desired it inordinately and immoderately, namely, in that they desired to acquire it by their own power and not by God’s grace, and this exceeded the due measure of their status.” De malo, q. 16, a. 2, ad 4.

Part Four – Creation (and Fall) of Man

Having discussed the creation, fall, and destiny of the angels, Journet turns to salvation history proper. His treatment covers the creation and fall of man, along with the preternatural gifts, all under the umbrella of Augustine’s paradigm of two opposed cities. We will interpret his account of human freedom and divine premotion, before moving to his understanding of

Aquinas’ view on the “causes” of sin and the divine permission of sin. All of these topics are preparatory to examine Journet’s understanding of sufficient grace.

A. Man as a “Horizon Between Two Worlds” Having discussed the creation, fall, and destiny of the angels, Cardinal Journet turns to the creation and fall of man. He begins his treatment by noting immediately that in man, uniquely comprised of spiritual soul and corporeal body, “Spiritual creatures and corporeal creatures are joined. ... He is the bond uniting between them two orders of creatures.”216 Journet sees in man’s uniqueness an “advantage” which the Incarnation appropriated:

And in becoming man, there is, in a sense, all of creation which He comes to assume; ‘because man, constituted of one spiritual nature and one corporeal nature, is as the frontier, confinium, where meet these two sorts of natures: to such an extent that to save man, it is to save all creation…So it was fitting that the universal Cause of all things assumed, in the unity of a Person, the type of creature by which It [the Cause] communicates more immediately with all the others.’217

216 EVI IV, 394. Fr. White elaborates on this theme: “The human being is the ‘bridge’ between the spiritual and the physical world in a twofold way. In the ascendant direction, the physical world mounts up toward God, or ‘returns’ to God though human actions of knowledge and love. … In the descending direction, man is the ‘place’ that the spiritual world is made visible or manifest in the cosmos.” The Light of Christ: An Introduction to Catholicism (Washington, D.C.: CUA Press, 2017), 105-06. 217 EVI IV, 395-96, citing SCG Book IV, chap. 55. We note that the Incarnation in a sense “assumes all creation,” since man encompasses “the only three possible classes of beings – the purely spiritual, the purely material, and man who is both material and spiritual.” B.V. Miller, “God the Creator,” in The Teaching of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Catholic Doctrine, Vol. I, arr. and ed. George D. Smith (New York: MacMillan, 1960), 191. Journet makes this same distinction on EVI IV, 9. In Chapter Four, we will return to this topic, viewing it from the perspective of recapitulation. 99

100

Journet asserts that all creatures, spiritual and material, have a “distinctive worth” and are meant to endure; since man is comprised of both elements and is a confinium, he, Journet asserts, clearly possesses a distinctive worth and will not go out of existence.218

B. The Preternatural Gifts As we have said, God created creatures out of divine goodness, which also means out of divine love. To an even greater extent than the “natural love” which brings creatures into existence, a “special love” of God towards rational creatures is shown by the bestowal of sanctifying grace.219 Aquinas names the special condition in which Adam and Eve were constituted as “original justice,” which consists of sanctifying grace plus the preternatural gifts.

The preternatural gifts, in turn, are four in number. All four are enumerated both in the Summa and in the Compendium of Theology: i) the soul is subject to God (indicating that man, naturally,

“can love God above all things”220); ii) the body is subject to the soul (indicating no suffering or death); iii) the lower powers of the soul are subject to the higher powers of the soul (indicating no concupiscence), and; iv) man possesses dominion over non-rational creatures.221 Thomas is very clear that, of the first three, most important is the human soul being subject to God:222 from this fact, the body is subject to the soul and the lower powers are subject to the higher powers.

Journet classifies the first gift noted above (the soul subject to God) as supernatural

(rather than preternatural), and the remaining three as preternatural.223 I presume that he makes this slight difference from the tradition because, as Thomas says regarding the first: “Hence it is

218 EVI IV, 399. 219 ST I-II, q. 110, a. 1, resp., as referenced in EVI IV, 420, n. 457. 220 ST I-II, q. 109, a. 3, resp. 221 ST I, q. 95, a. 1; q. 96, aa. 1-2; Compendium of Theology, Book I, chap. 186-87. 222 Specifically noted in both writings referenced in the preceding footnote. I wish also to point out this priority is also evidenced from the perspective of sin: “Every sin, inasmuch as it implies a disorder of the mind not subject to God…” ST I-II, q. 113, a. 1, ad 1. 223 EVI IV, 422, n. 462.

101 clear that also the primitive subjection by virtue of which reason was subject to God, was not a merely natural gift, but a supernatural endowment of grace; for it is not possible that the effect should be of greater efficiency than the cause.”224

What I wish rather to analyze is Journet’s statement that sanctifying grace “came to strengthen (conforter) the triple but fragile natural domination of the soul over the body, the reason over the passions, and man himself over the exterior world.”225 More specifically, I wish to inquire in what way the first two preternatural gifts enumerated in the previous sentence are

“natural.” Let us look at each in order.

Let us first present the “contrary” side, the side arguing these gifts are not “natural.”

Medieval philosophical anthropology was very clear that any composite, material being – simply because it was comprised of contraries – was subject to dissolution. Thomas repeats this argument in the Compendium.226 In the same place, Thomas notes that the fact that man’s lower powers are subject to reason “did not come from the nature of the soul.” Journet himself writes, citing St. Thomas, that the state of original justice “was not due us.”227 To buttress my argument,

Fr. Jean-Pierre Torrell cites a Thomistic principle: “[T]he things that are natural to man are neither taken away from him nor granted to him by sin.”228 Thomas expands on his explanation:

224 ST I, q. 95, a. 1, resp. Cf. Compendium of Theology, Book I, chap. 186. 225 EVI IV, 421. Emphasis added. The remark is repeated on page 424. Cf. EVI IV, 422, n. 462. 226 Chapter 186: “For it was not by the nature of the body, if we should consider its components, that dissolution or any life-threatening suffering would not take place in it, since it was composed of contrary elements.” 227 EVI IV, 443, citing ST I, q. 95, a. 1, resp.: “The submission of the body to the soul and of the inferior powers to reason was not natural.” 228 Jean-Pierre Torrell, O.P., “Nature and Grace in Thomas Aquinas,” in Surnaturel: A Controversy at the Heart of Twentieth-Century Thomistic Thought, trans. Robert Williams, ed. Serge-Thomas Bonino, O.P. (Ave Maria, FL: Sapientia Press, 2009), 155-188, at 165, citing ST I, q. 98, a. 2.

102

Now it is clear that such subjection of the body to the soul and of the lower powers to reason was not from nature; otherwise it would have remained after sin; since even in the demons the natural gifts remained after sin.229 Thomas Joseph White, also arguing from Thomistic principles, specifies that while human nature is a constant, it undergoes various “states” in history: “pure” nature (a strictly hypothetical state), integral nature, fallen nature, and redeemed nature. With great clarity,

White notes that “integral nature” is “ontologically distinct and intellectually distinguishable” from “original justice/original innocence.” Whereas the latter refers to the

“supernatural gifts of divine life,” the former “denotes human nature in its fullness considered as nature, yet due to development made possible by the presence of grace and under grace.” Consequently, men in status naturae integrae would be able to “love God above all things naturally by virtue of their intrinsic rational and voluntary powers.”230

Therefore, I can agree that i) the soul reigning over the body, and ii) reason ruling over the passions, were part of the debitum naturae of prelapsarian human nature, if we consider that prelapsarian human nature as “human nature in its fullness considered as nature, yet due to development made possible by the presence of grace and under grace.” All of the opposed arguments presented a moment ago consider human nature not considering “the development made possible by grace.” I interpret, then, Journet’s use of the word “natural” in the sense that through grace and the preternatural gifts human nature experienced a development.

We ask why did Journet deem it helpful to discuss the preternatural gifts? I infer a twofold reason. One, it reiterates that sin is not natural to man (as we noted in Chapter One), as

229 Torrell, “Nature and Grace in Thomas Aquinas, 165, citing ST I, q. 95, a. 1. 230 White, The Incarnate Lord, 138-40. Footnote reference omitted. Fr. White is concurring with ST I-II, q. 109, a. 3, resp., noted above, whereby prelapsarian Adam and Eve could, naturally, love God above all things.

103 well as that human nature is both created in such a way that it can receive grace and that it is meant to have grace (Chapter Two). Second, he wishes to prepare the reader for his later discussion of the recapitulation of all things in Christ. Speaking of the gifts comprising original justice, Journet writes:

These great theological gifts are enveloped in the stories of the primitive faith and the mystery of creation. But their sense will not reveal themselves fully, it is true, except as soon as they will be read in the light which the New Testament, then the patristic commentaries, will bring us to the necessity and profundity of the redemptive work of Christ; so that we know everything together in Christ, our first greatness, our redemption, our fall.231 Here we begin to see that Christ’s recapitulation, via the redemption of man, which is via the

Incarnation, is going to lead to Christ’s glory:

[T]hat the transgression of Adam and even the state of innocence was in a way preordained to the glory of Christ the Redeemer; in brief, if humanity first had been a humanity of innocence, it was in order to be one day a humanity of redemption.232 Redemption applies to fallen man. Before examining Journet’s teaching on sin at a detailed level, we will first discuss his overall paradigm of salvation history.

C. The Three Cities In explaining salvation history, Journet frequently resorts to Augustine’s famous paradigm in The City of God of the two cities. As to the two transcendent cities, Journet specifies that the City of God, the Church, begins “the evening of the Fall,” concurrent with the commencing of salvation history.233 The City of the Devil begins with the Fall of the Angels.234

The City of God and the City of the Devil are two supernatural cities, defining themselves by their “supreme ends; the love or the contempt of God.”235 The opposition between the two,

231 EVI IV, 422-23. 232 EVI IV, 441-42. 233 EVI IV, 10 and 947. 234 EVI IV, 344. 235 EVI IV, 101, 102, n. 141 (with reference to City of God, Book XIV, chap. 28), 113, 357.

104 which commences after the Fall, is starkly characterized: the city of God is the Church, while the city of the devil is the anti-Church.236

Journet augments Augustine, though with what he sees as a natural development,237 with a third city, a City of Man, which logically begins with prelapsarian Adam and Eve. This third city consists of “an ensemble of riches,” including “all the domains of culture,” which can be summarized as “a world of authentic values, specified not by an immediate order to ultimate ends, but by an immediate order to human ends composing the fabric of our life in society.”238

We can consider the City of Man as focusing on temporal activities and intermediate, earthly ends.239

Journet affirms, then, a proper autonomy of the City of Man, while noting that its intrinsic activities are the elements in which an eternal destiny is decided. He is equally clear that the Church, which is the City of God,240 is not confined to a specific epoch or a given geography or a set people. Since Christ died for all,241 “his kingdom is not of this world” and

Journet further notes in his work The Theology of the Church, a summary of the first two volumes of EVI:242 “[B]y her very nature the Church does not belong to one country more than another, to one race more than another, to one language or culture more than another.”243 On this topic of catholicity, Journet also observed:

236 EVI IV, 357. 237 EVI IV, 112. 238 EVI IV, 109. 239 EVI IV, 109, 113. 240 To list just five instances early in Volume IV: EVI IV, 7, 10, 24, 33, and 78. 241 EVI IV, 600, citing 1 Tim 2:4-6. Cf. 960. 242 Journet, The Theology of the Church, preface by G. Cottier, xxvii. 243 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 245.

105

Whoever has understood this…has also understood that the spirit of the Church drives away from her heart the spirit of the nation, and that the spirit of catholicity extinguishes the spirit of the clan. Each rite, each liturgy – Latin, Byzantine, Slavic, or perhaps someday even Chinese – still more, each approved religious order, each authentic form of Christian life, at any given point of space and time, is like a door by which one enters directly and assuredly into the very heart of the Christian mystery and its infinite transcendence.244

To reiterate the importance of the Church’s catholicity, we provide one more reference denoting how foreign to Journet is the idea of a Church separated by parochial interests:

On the pretext that the West is the vehicle of Christianity, is it necessary to defend it altogether, without discrimination? A thousand times no! The most holy, the most supernatural, the most clairvoyant of our missionaries say: It is not a question of Latinizing, or Germanizing, or even ‘civilizing’ Africa and Asia; it is about Christianizing them.245

Objective redemption is either subjectively accepted or rejected – in this is salvation history constituted. The two supernatural cities, defined by their supernatural ends, definitively distinguish those who cooperate with or oppose the Church, since “the theology of the history of redemption … [is] nothing other … than the theology of the history of the Church.”246 The City of Man is solicited by the two transcendent cities.247 This last point is, without exaggeration, a capsule of salvation history. After the Fall, man continues to build the City of Man, while being both invited to eternal beatitude and pursued by fallen angels. The perpetual solicitation reveals the distinct laws which govern the relationship between the City of Man and its two solicitors: the City of God endeavors to establish a law of harmony with the City of Man, whereas the City

244 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 249. 245 Rime, Charles Journet, 353, quoting Journet in “Henri Massis à Genève,” Le Courrier de Genève, October 11, 1925. Journet later adds: “Yet M. Massis is not mistaken. Catholicism is not Latinism: he knows it as we do. Protestantism is not even Germanism,” in “Plusieurs chroniques. I. Surnaturel et civilization,” Nova et Vetera 2, no. 3 (July-September, 1927): 295-303, at 299. Ibid., 353, n. 27. 246 EVI V, 516. 247 EVI IV, 113.

106 of the Devil tries to introduce a law of conflict.248 Human free will remains; while weakened, it is not destroyed, and the “wounded nature of Adam…will be the material of the world of redemption.”249

Consonant with the Augustinian paradigm, history unfolds under divine Providence.

Augustine, famously upholds the importance of free will, versus those who attribute the power over events in history to fate or to an evil god or to astronomical occurrences. Journet, at the beginning of his treatment of salvation history, wishes to ensure that both the free will of the rational creature and the Incarnation receive prominence. In a retreat given shortly before he died, he noted that creation is to be redeemed via the Incarnate Son: “God, in establishing by a single act His eternal plan, seeing what His work of creation would become in the hands of men, arranges it immediately to the work still more mysterious of the redemptive Incarnation.”250

Even more profound, is that both creation and the Incarnation are the fruit of divine love.251

*******

An in-depth review of Journet’s account of sin follows. He presupposes a knowledge of a

Thomistic understanding of divine, physical premotion, the “causes” of sin, and the divine rule. Since Journet relies significantly on Jacques Maritain for a philosophical underpinning for certain topics (similar to his reliance on Maritain we previously saw regarding Aquinas’ doctrine on angels), we will provide selected teachings of the French philosopher.

248 EVI IV, 118. 249 EVI IV, 456-57. 250 Journet, Entretiens sur L’Incarnation, 12, under the First Meditation – “Création et Incarnation,” of the First Instruction – La Singularité de L’Incarnation. 251Journet, Entretiens sur L’Incarnation, 11, under the First Meditation – “Création et Incarnation,” of the First Instruction – La Singularité de L’Incarnation.

107

D. On the Origin of Human Sin: Nonconsideration of the Divine Rule We noted that the angels fell because, in their second instant, they failed to consider the

“rule of the divine will,” which illustrates the creature refusing to acknowledge its dependence on the First Cause and Last End. We wish to review this topic further, with particular focus on examining how Journet understands the inter-relation between Divine Providence, the free will of the human person, and the source of evil in the world. Everyone agrees that God is not the direct cause of sin and that God permits sin. We can put the question in one sentence: “How does

God permit sin?,” which we address here. A separate question, “Why does God permit sin?,” will be addressed in Chapter Four.

We begin by noting the teaching of St. Thomas that all creatures are subject to God’s rule:252 a created being, simply by virtue of the “fact that it is created…is subject to another as its rule or measure.”253 And this is easily knowable: “Natural reason tells man that he is subject to a higher being, on account of the defects which he perceives in himself, and in which he needs help and direction from someone above him: and whatever this superior being may be, it is known to all under the name of God.”254

So all-encompassing is this dependence that it covers not only the moral sphere but, also any other human act. From a causal perspective, St. Thomas is clear that divine causality applies to the free acts of rational creatures:

252 Psalm 36:7: “Be subject to the Lord and pray to Him.” 253 De malo, q. 1, a. 3, ad 9. Journet, quoting George Mac Donald, jarringly highlights the contrasting view: “The unique principle of hell is: I belong to myself.” EVI IV, 345. Footnote reference omitted. 254 ST II-II, q. 85, a. 1.

108

Because no creature has in itself the efficient principle of its action, all have need to receive the movement by which they act from a First Unmoved Mover who is God. The free creature, although master of its acts, does not make an exception to this necessity of a divine motion bringing it to act: “The movement of the will proceeds directly from the will of God […] who alone acts in the will and can incline it to whatever He wills.”255

Having seen how Journet ascribes an extraordinary importance to free will, we wish to describe the interaction of the Divine Will and human freedom, from a causal perspective. As this is an immense subject, we will focus primarily on the concept of divine premotion. Since divine premotion applies not only to natural human acts but also to graced human acts, this topic also serves as a basis: i) to state that God is not the cause of man’s sin, and ii) to explore how grace is offered in divine premotions.

1. Divine Premotion Before examining the divine-human interaction in the context of operating and cooperating grace, let us first review the divine-human interchange in the natural order. Since

Journet does not provide a technical discussion of premotion in Volume IV, we will supplement his very brief remarks by relying on other Thomists to present Aquinas’ understanding.256

The title of First Mover applies to God not only regarding creation ex nihilo and to the ongoing sustaining of creation, but to all change.257 Limiting ourselves to rational creatures, we observe

255 Schmitz, Causalité divine, 90, citing De malo, q. 3, a. 3, c. 256 It appears that our presentation of divine premotion largely concurs with Journet’s understanding. Compare, for example, The Meaning of Grace, 29-35, where he describes in high-level terms a good, graced act. An introductory discussion can be found in The Meaning of Evil, 176-77. See our earlier discussion in this chapter of the rational creature reaching perfection when it freely acts in dependence on the Creator, pages 65-72. Lastly, see EVI III, 1884-88, where he defends the doctrine subordination of causes. From a broader perspective, in EVI III, 1828-96, Journet argues for the Thomist view of analogy to the univocity of Barth, contrasting, in the good act, a subordinated human causality to divine causality v. a rivalry of human causality to divine causality. Certain differences will arise, however, when divine premotion is discussed in the context of sufficient grace, since (as we shall see) Journet adopts Maritain’s interpretation of premotion in the natural order to grace in the supernatural order. (See page 152ff.) 257 As to creatures not acting as rational agents – for example, cows, clouds, and cats – God moves them via their respective nature, which directs their activities.

109 that each time such a creature reduces itself from potency to act, God initiates the change. The reason is clear and will be seen in increasing importance: creatures are contingent, and as creatures do not exist of themselves, they cannot act of themselves.258 God both gives to the rational creature the power itself (the intellect and the will), and acts as the source of the will’s acting:

So, man cannot use the power of the will that has been given to him except in so far as he acts through the power of God. Now, the being through whose power the agent acts is the cause not only of the power, but also of the act. … Therefore, God is for us the cause not only of our will, but also of our act of willing.259 As to the act of willing, in the line of efficient causality a divine motion is that which reduces the human will from potency to act. “It is a motion that is passively received in the secondary cause so as to induce it to act,”260 whereby the will is activated “to determine itself.”261 How does God

“move” the will of a rational agent? Through what is called an efficient influx or impulse, the

258 ST I-II, q. 109, a. 1, resp.: “And thus the act of the intellect or of any created being whatsoever depends upon God in two ways: first, inasmuch as it is from Him that it has the form whereby it acts; secondly, inasmuch as it is moved by Him to act.” Cf. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Grace: Commentary on the Summa theologica of St. Thomas, Ia IIae, qu. 109-14, trans. the Dominican , Corpus Christi Monastery, Menlo Park, California (St. Louis and London: B. Herder, 1952), 53, where he remarks: “[E]very creature, since it neither exists nor acts of itself, is in potency regarding action, and needs to be moved from without that it may act.” Cf. 41. 259 O’Neill, Grace, Predestination, and the Permission of Sin, 21 citing SCG III, chap. 89, 5. I would add SCG III, chap. 67, 3: “But just as God has not only given being to things when they first began to exist, and also causes being in them as long as they exist, conserving things in being, as we have shown, so also has He not merely granted operative powers to them when they were originally created, but He always causes these powers in things. Hence, if this divine influence were to cease, every operation would cease. Therefore, every operation of a thing is traced back to Him as to its cause.” All citations of SCG will be taken from 1975 University of Notre Dame edition, translated by Bourke, per the dhspriory.org. website. Learning this metaphysical fact had no small influence on Journet: he “discovered thanks to Garrigou-Lagrange the possibility to affirm philosophically a permanent principle of avoiding an opposition between being and becoming, unity and multiplicity. [And that] It is … by Pure Being that beings passed from potency to act,” Jacques Rime described “such a reading probably constitutes the hour of a metaphysical conversion of Journet.” Charles Journet, 68. 260 Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Predestination, trans. Dom Bede Rose, O.S.B. (St. Louis and London: Herder, 1946), 256. 261 Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, God, His Existence and His Nature: A Thomistic Solution of Certain Agnostic Antinomies, Vol. II, trans. Dom Bede Rose, O.S.B. (St. Louis and London: Herder, 1936), 382. Emphasis added.

110 adjective “efficient” indicating the causal aspect. Fabio Schmitz explains the concept from a

Thomistic perspective:

Up to the beginning of the 20th century, Thomists conceived the efficient influx of the First Mover – what St. Thomas called the divine motion and what his disciples have called physical premotion starting from the 16th century – as always leading the will to the operation through which it is immediately produced, without it bringing an attack on created liberty, the will remaining fully owner of its act as second cause infallibly moved by God. Said otherwise, Thomists taught that God moved the will infallibly to choose this rather than that without suppressing the liberty of its choice.262 The Thomistic commentarial tradition observed that the key issue is that the human will is in potency to act: “[S]ince D. Bañez, Thomists commonly call ‘physical premotion’ the application of the created operative potency to its operation by the First Mover.”263 We can analyze each of the three elements of this technical term: “[T]he term ‘physical’ … means

‘real;’ the ‘pre’ in ‘premotion’ refers to an ontological as distinct from temporal priority;…and ‘motion’ refers to the actualization of potency.”264 When we further realize that Bañez is employing “physical” to prevent the idea that, in Thomas’ mind, a divine motion is merely a moral cause via an enticement or attraction,265 we understand that “God is more especially the cause of every action than are the secondary agent causes.”266 To extend the analysis, physical premotion preserves Divine Omnipotence: as Subsistent Being,

262 Schmitz, Causalité divine, 29-30. Footnote references omitted. 263 Schmitz, Causalité divine, 112, n. 197. Reference is made to Domingo Bañez (1528-1604), a Spanish Dominican, who opposed the doctrines on grace of Spaniard Luis de Molina, S.J. (1535-1600). 264 O’Neill, Grace, Predestination, and the Permission of Sin, 78, n. 200, citing Steven A. Long, “St. Thomas Aquinas, Divine Causality, and the Mystery of Predestination,” in Thomism and Predestination: Principles and Disputations, ed. Steven A. Long, Roger W. Nutt, and Thomas Joseph White, O.P (Ave Maria, FL: Sapientia Press, 2016), 51-76 at 53-54. 265 O’Neill, Grace, Predestination, and the Permission of Sin, 76. 266 Ibid., 76-77, citing SCG III, chap. 67, 5.

111

“God of Himself gives to man His own act whereby man might himself will and act by participation.”267

To supplement this definition, a few other aspects regarding physical premotion are in order. First, the divine motion is an interior motion, moving the will to a specific act

(hence, “predetermined”), as opposed to moving the will in an undetermined manner where the will then determines itself to a particular action.268 God, as the First Cause (in the line of efficient causality) of a creature’s act, moves the creature, as a true secondary cause, who is a true agent, since the agent, after being moved, moves himself and truly chooses and acts.269 (A common Thomistic term, “subordination of causes,” indicates that God is the

First Efficient Cause, and the rational creature is a true, secondary cause.) In addition, God moves the will in accord with its nature, thereby respecting its freedom, such that a premotion “operates according to the natural inclination”270 of the will. Since the will is naturally inclined to the good as its object, a divine motion moves the will toward a good act, thus in no way acts contrary to the will.271

267 O’Neill, Grace, Predestination, and the Permission of Sin, 79. Indeed, O’Neill says later: “The human will is not made to be indifferent to divine motion but to be animated by it,” 109. Footnote reference omitted. 268 Commenting on De veritate, q. 22, a. 8, Garrigou-Lagrange writes: “The human will as secondary cause determines itself to perform a certain free act; therefore much more so can God as the first Cause, who operates more vigorously, incline the will infallibly to determine itself to perform this particular act rather than a certain other.” Predestination, 271. 269 “Thus, just as the rose is entirely from God and entirely from the rosebush, the good act is entirely from God as first Cause and entirely from man as second cause. Here is the principle of causal subordination.” EVI III, 1830. See also SCG III, 70, 8, which was brought to our attention by ‘O’Neill, Grace, Predestination, and the Permission of Sin, 199: “It is also apparent that the same effect is not attributed to a natural cause and to divine power in such a way that it is partly done by God, and partly by the natural agent; rather, it is wholly done by both, according to a different way, just as the same effect is wholly attributed to the instrument and also wholly to the principal agent.” Cf. Garrigou-Lagrange, Predestination, 320. 270 Garrigou-Lagrange, Predestination, 319. 271 “[O]nly the creator can move the will because he creates the power to choose between alternative possibilities and then efficiently causes the whole act, including its contingent mode.” Thomas M. Osborne, Jr., “Thomist Premotion and Contemporary Philosophy of Religion,” Nova et Vetera (English Edition) 4, no. 3 (2006): 607-631, at 625.

112

Intellect – Will “Wherever there is intellect, there is free will,”272 says Thomas, explaining that only rational creatures may act freely to discern the relative goodness attributable to multiple things.273 We wish to make two points concerning the intellect and will. First, in the decision- making process in practical matters of the rational creature, both faculties are exercised.274 While the will is always dependent on the intellect, 275 nevertheless there obtains a non-symmetric reciprocity between intellect and will:

The will moves the intellect as to the exercise of its act; since even the true itself which is the perfection of the intellect, is included in the universal good, as a particular good. But as to the determination of the act, which the act derives from the object, the intellect moves the will.276

272 ST I, q. 59, a. 3, resp. (Cf. ST I, q. 83, a. 1, resp., where it states that every rational creature has a free will.) 273 ST I –II, q. 10, a. 2, resp.: “Wherefore if the will be offered an object which is good universally and from every point of view, the will tends to it of necessity, if it wills anything at all; since it cannot will the opposite. If, on the other hand, the will is offered an object that is not good from every point of view, it will not tend to it of necessity. And since lack of any good whatever, is a non-good, consequently, that good alone which is perfect and lacking in nothing, is such a good that the will cannot not-will it: and this is Happiness. Whereas any other particular goods, in so far as they are lacking in some good, can be regarded as non-goods: and from this point of view, they can be set aside or approved by the will, which can tend to one and the same thing from various points of view.” Collins is concisely illuminating: “The root of created liberty is to be found in the free judgment which can discern the imperfect aspect of every finite good. No limited perfection can necessarily determine volition, since such a term cannot satisfy the desire for complete goodness.” The Thomistic Philosophy of the Angels, 240. 274 Brian Davies aptly summarizes Thomas’ thought: “For the thesis that people have free will is commonly taken to mean that freedom is something which belongs only to the will, that it is, if you like, the prerogative of the will or a peculiar property of it. And Aquinas does not share this assumption. For, as we have seen, he believes that will and understanding are intimately comingled when it comes to human action. On his account, intellect and will are at no point separated in the exercise of practical reason. There is no act of practical intelligence that is not also one of the will, and vice versa.” Brian Davies, introduction to De malo (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 35-36. 275 ST I-II, q. 10, a. 1, sed contra: “The movement of the will follows the movement of the intellect.” ST I, q. 82, a. 3, obj. 2: “Now the act of the will, in the natural order, follows the act of the intellect.” A moment later, in ad 2, Thomas explains: “And in this way the intellect precedes the will, as the motive power precedes the thing movable, and as the active precedes the passive; for good which is understood moves the will.” 276 ST I-II, q. 9, a. 1, ad 3.

113

While there is an intimate relation between intellect and will when making a decision, there is also a distinct priority of the will, for it is the will that finally ends the deliberative process.277

Note also that free will is not an end in itself, but rather a means to an end, namely, perfection. Since the angelic will (prior to his choice) and the human will are not determined in every respect, both angels and men can choose well or poorly, they can choose that which leads towards their perfection or away from it.278

2. Divine Motion Preserves Human Free Will

We have noted that Cardinal Journet observes that divine actions respect the natures of rational creatures. He states by way of a classic text from Aquinas:

By the fact that nothing resists the divine will, says St. Thomas, it follows not only that the things that God wishes to do He does, but also that they are done as He wills it, either in a contingent manner or in a necessary manner.279 Since the rational creature remains “master of its acts,”280 we elaborate on how the liberty of voluntary movement is preserved by the divine motion. Schmitz, in commenting on the citation from the Prima Secundae noted earlier281 emphasizes the will’s openness to the universal good as the fundamental basis of its freedom.282 Moreover, Schmitz observes that a divine motion can only move the rational creature according to its nature (a nature created by divine wisdom):

277 Recalling that created liberty encompasses the act of choosing (the line of exercise), as well as the object chosen (line of specification): “Now a power of the soul is seen to be in potentiality to different things in two ways: first, with regard to acting and not acting; secondly, with regard to this or that action.” ST I-II, q. 9, a. 1, resp. 278 Collins, The Thomistic Philosophy of the Angels, 241-42. 279 EVI IV, 258, citing ST I, q. 19, a. 8, ad 2. 280 This well-known phrase is noted by O’Neill, Grace, Predestination, and the Permission of Sin, 25, citing SCG III, 112, 1. 281 See supra footnote 75 on page 70. 282 A common Thomistic phrase to describe the will’s capacity is that it possesses “a dominating indifference with regard to the particular good it chooses.” Garrigou-Lagrange, Predestination, 318.

114

First, for the disciple of Aquinas, every divine motion causing the reasonable creature to tend towards the virtuous good {bien honnête: bonum honestum} respects the nature of the will, and therefore never violates its liberty in any way, leaving to it the real capacity to will something else than the particular good to which it [the divine motion] inclines it [the free will of the agent]. Indeed, because the role of the divine motion is to bring each second cause to act in conformity with its nature, it is essential for it [the divine motion] to safeguard the mode of operation proper to the agent to whom it [the divine motion] applies the act. This is why, as soon as God arouses through His motive action the operation of the will, [an] appetite by nature open to the universality of the good, He causes its self-determination to the particular good while leaving intact its capacity to desire something else: “Following Denis: ‘It does not belong to Divine providence to destroy the nature of things, but to conserve them.’ It therefore moves all beings according to their condition, in such a way that, under the divine motion, necessary causes produce their effects in a necessary fashion, and contingent causes […] in a contingent fashion. Therefore, since the will is an active principle not determined to one thing (ad unum), but opened indifferently to many effects, God moves it without necessarily determining it to one thing; its movement remains thus contingent and not necessary, except in regard to those things towards which it is moved by nature.”283 Now, created rational beings are fallible, as we have already seen regarding the angels. We are now prepared to treat specifically of the evil of sin. We are providing the background for

Journet’s understanding of grace, where he interprets Thomas on sufficient grace and efficacious grace. Journet relies significantly on Jacques Maritain’s understanding of the divine motion in the natural order, which he will adopt to explain his view of sufficient and efficacious grace in the supernatural order.

3. Evil as a Privation The Church’s traditional understanding of evil since at least Augustine284 is that evil is a privation, a lack of a good which ought to be present based on the nature of the thing in

283 Schmitz, Causalité divine, 95-96, citing ST I-II, q. 10, a. 4. 284 Confessions, III, 7.

115 question.285 Notice that it is more than an absence or a mere negation;286 that a pen cannot walk is an absence, but, given the nature of a pen, its immobility is in no way an evil.

We will discuss briefly the metaphysics behind the origin of physical evil, then of moral evil.287 The Church’s teaching on evil begins with the theology of creation. All created natures are good because the Creator is Goodness itself.288 Since created goods are not eternal, and physical evil is a corruption of an already-existing good (privatio boni debiti), physical evil cannot be eternal. Since physical evil has no substance, physical evil cannot be natural to any created thing.289 Focusing on moral evil, the evil of sin: it, too is not eternal, and its origin can only arise from a creature, who by definition is fallible, imperfect, finite, contingent.290 Notice that “fallible” pre-supposes a means to fallibility, namely, free will.291 Moreover, acting contrary

285 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 28. Footnote references omitted. 286 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 28. 287 For a helpful essay on this topic from a Thomistic perspective, see John F. Wippel’s “Metaphysical themes in De Malo, I,” in Aquinas’s Disputed Questions on Evil: A Critical Guide, ed. M. V. Dougherty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 12-33. 288 Fran O’Rourke commenting on Augustine’s Enchiridion, in “Evil as a Privation: the Neoplatonic Background to Aquinas’s De Malo, I,” in Aquinas’s Disputed Questions on Evil: A Critical Guide, ed. M. V. Dougherty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 192-221 at 206. 289 “Evil is contrary to nature; in fact, it can only do harm to nature.” City of God, Book XI, chap. 17. Journet remarks that Augustine learned from Christians – not the Platonists – that, based on the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, “evil is not the same as matter, and … [that] evil [is] a privation of good.” The Meaning of Evil, 35. This is not knowable strictly from reason, but requires supernatural faith which aids reason. Journet will add: “Only in the light of Judeo-Christian revelation enables the definition of evil to be formulated and to display its content.” … “The definition of evil as privation was worked out under Christian influence. It had been deepened so as to harmonize with the supreme revelation (in the Scriptures) of God and the act of creation. Historically and philosophically this appears as a Christian contribution.” Ibid., 29, 35. For a study of the sources which influenced Aquinas’ understanding of evil, see O’Rourke’s “Evil as a Privation.” (The essay includes a section on Augustine, 199-209.) 290 Rational creatures are fallible for the simple reason that “[created] nature is not supremely and immutably good, [hence] goodness in creatures can be diminished and increased.” O’Rourke, “Evil as a Privation,” 206. Emphasis added. 291 Evil arises “either when a good (agent) is deficient and so causes evil, or when a good agent produces an evil effect per accidens.” Wippel, “Metaphysical themes in De Malo, I,” 26. With greater specificity as to moral evil: “Thomas concludes that the will may cause moral evil according to both of the orders…that is to say, as a cause per accidens, or as a deficient good. The will may be a cause per accidens of some moral evil because the will is attracted to something that is good in a qualified sense (secundum aliquid), but this good is conjoined to something that is evil in the absolute sense (simpliciter). And the will may also be the cause of moral evil ‘as a deficient good insofar as one must preunderstand in the will some deficiency before the deficient choice itself, by which it chooses

116 to a divine law or to divine love can only arise from a rational creature. Trees do not commit robbery; pineapples do not commit idolatry.

4. Aquinas’ Understanding of the “Causes” of Sin In describing Thomas’s thought, Michael Torre292 introduces a rich vocabulary. We will quote him at length, and proceed to elucidate various points in the following pages. After first noting that Thomas was consistent throughout his writings on the two causes of sin, Torre describes each cause:

Accidental efficient cause – “act of conversion to the mutable good: in choosing it, the sinner turns away from (averts itself) from God, which is the formal element or the malice in the act.” Deficient cause – “is the creature’s failure to consider the honest good or rule that should govern any choice. Just as non-being, or failure in being, this cause is not traceable to God’s will, but to the creature’s alone. And since – as Thomas always teaches – the defective cause is at least by nature prior to the accidental efficient cause, God only moves the creature as it is defectively disposed. Now, supposing a sinful choice, then it is true that this occurs only supposing God’s permissive (i.e., non- preventive) will; but that permission in its turn supposes the prior defective cause or disposition of the creature: God chooses not to prevent the creature’s own defect from continuing and having its effect. God permits the creature’s non-cooperation to cause the sin to which it is ordered, and just because he intends to make use of this sin to bring about some greater good. And God knows the creature’s defect and the malice it causes, because he sees the created term of his own power or will, and, in seeing it perfectly and eternally, sees the defect in the created good (which is caused not by him, but by the free creature).”293

a good secundum quid which is evil in the absolute sense (simpliciter)’.” Ibid., 27, with reference to and then quoting De malo, q. 1, a. 3, c. Cf. infra footnote 293. 292 Michael D. Torre, an interpreter and defender of Franciso Marín-Sola, O.P. (1873-1932). In 1925-26, Marín-Sola published three essays interpreting Thomas concerning “the nature of the divine permission of sin and the nature of sufficient grace.” Reinhard Hütter, review, The Thomist, Vol. 76 (April, 2012): 305-311 at 305. Marín-Sola’s treatment disagreed in certain areas with the antecedent permissive degree theory of the Bañezian school, positing sufficient grace as “conditionally efficacious.” In various books [Existence and the Existent, and God and the Permission of Evil], Jacques Maritain popularized Marín-Sola’s theory. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange strenuously opposed Marín-Sola. For an in-depth discussion of the issues involved in this controversy, see Torre’s God’s Permission of Sin: Negative or Conditional Decree?: A Defense of the Doctrine of Francisco Marín-Sola, O.P. based on the Principles of Thomas Aquinas (Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg, Editions Saint-Paul, 2009). 293 Torre, Do Not Resist the Spirit’s Call, 261-62. Footnote references omitted.

117

Let us initially note that there is no “substantial” efficient cause of evil; since evil is a privation, a lack of goodness and being, it is not “caused” in a way that real being either is

“caused” or changed.” Sin, or moral evil, does not fit into the reality described by Aristotle’s

Four Causes. In addition, God permits sin, respecting the free creature’s sinful act to unfold, which the creature originated and willed.

Maritain offers a very similar interpretation of Thomas, noting in the deliberative process that at one moment of time there are “two instants of nature:”

First instant of nature – the non-consideration of the rule, the mera negatio; Second instant of nature – “the sinful act of election, deflected by this non-consideration; and in the effectuation itself of this act, the non-consideration of the rule becomes privation, privation of a due good, sin of omission, implied in the deflected or sinful election, as well as the turning from God and turning towards goods which are not the moral good. All this…constitutes the privation, the nihilation which is the moral evil proper to the sinful act of election.”294 In the first instant (corresponding to Torre’s “deficient cause”), the non-consideration of the rule is not evil, yet it is a “cause of the evil election.”295 In the second instant (corresponding to

Torre’s “accidental efficient cause”), the non-consideration is a moral evil, as the wrong choice takes place. Maritain, then, teaches that during the course of deliberation and final choice the non-consideration changes its character: initially, it is a mera negatio; secondly, when a faulty choice occurs because of the non-consideration, then it is a moral evil.

294 Jacques Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, trans. Joseph W. Evans (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing, 1966), 48. 295 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 50. Indeed, Maritain calls it a “deficient first cause,” 76.

118

5. Nonconsideration of the Divine Rule – An Overview296

Regarding moral evil St. Thomas understands that sin originates when the rational creature deliberates, it “proceeds to make a moral choice without considering the rule.”297 By itself, the will’s nonconsideration of the rule is a mere negation, mera negatio (which we will discuss shortly). Such a nonconsideration of the divine rule accompanied by the subsequent choice is a privation, an evil, since a moral choice lacking a previous consideration of the divine rule will lack rectitude.298

We have two important texts from St. Thomas discussing the origin of sin. The first

(while in the context of the angels also applies to men) highlights the lack of proper governance in the free will’s line of exercise as leading to an irregular choice:

In another way sin comes of free-will by choosing something good in itself, but not according to proper measure or rule; so that the defect which induces sin is only on the part of the choice which is not properly regulated, but not on the part of the thing chosen; as if one were to pray, without heeding the order established by the Church. Such a sin does not presuppose ignorance, but merely absence of consideration of the things which ought to be considered. In this way the angel sinned, by seeking his own good, from his own free-will, insubordinately to the rule of the Divine will.299 We parenthetically note that Thomas is relying on St. Augustine for the idea of evil as a privation of “proper measure or rule” or “due measure:”

Evil consists both of the privation of form and the privation of due measure and order, as Augustine says in his work On the Nature of the Good. And so acts of the will have evil both from the object, which gives the acts their form because one wills evil, and from taking away the due measure or order of the acts themselves, as, for example, if one in the very course of willing good does not observe due measure and order.300

296 Since Journet does not give a lengthy analysis of the nonconsideration of the divine rule (one reference in EVI IV is 438, n. 492; a second is a terse discussion in The Meaning of Evil, 72, 158-59: in both instances, he refers to Maritain), instead relying on Jacques Maritain, we will cite Maritain frequently. To provide another Thomistic (and theological) perspective, we will also rely on Fabio Schmitz. 297 Schmitz, Causalité divine, 190, citing De malo, q. 1, a. 3, c. 298 Schmitz, Causalité divine, 31, 87, 91-92, 168-69. 299 ST I, q. 63, a. 1, ad 4. Emphasis added. 300 De malo, q. 16, a. 2, ad 4. Footnote reference omitted.

119

In a text from De malo, Thomas expands on the particulars surrounding the non- consideration of the divine rule as well as qualifying that such non-consideration, before a choice is made, is itself neutral:

For in all things of which one ought to be the rule and measure of another, good results in what is regulated and measured from the fact that it its regulated and formed to the rule and measure, while evil results from the fact that it is not being ruled or measured. Therefore, suppose there is a carpenter who ought to cut a piece of wood straight by using a ruler; if he does not cut straight, which is to make a bad cut, the bad cutting will be due to his failure to use the ruler or measuring bar. Likewise, pleasure and everything else in human affairs should be measured and regulated by the rule of reason and God’s law. And so the nonuse of the rule of reason and God’s law is presupposed in the will before the will made its disordered choice. And there is no need to seek a cause of this nonuse of the aforementioned rule, since the very freedom of the will, by which it can act or not act, is enough to explain the non- use. And absolutely considered, not actually attending to such a rule is itself not evil, neither moral wrong nor punishment, since the soul is not held, nor is it able, always actually to attend to such a rule. But not attending to the rule first takes on the aspect of evil because the soul proceeds to make a moral choice without considering the rule. Just so, the carpenter errs because he proceeds to cut the piece of wood without using the measuring bar, not because he does not always use the bar. And likewise, the moral fault of the will consists in the fact that the will proceeds to choose without using the rule of reason or God’s law, not simply from the fact that the will does not actually attend to the rule. And it is for this reason the Augustine says in the City of God that the will causes sin insofar as the will is deficient, but he compares that deficiency to silence or darkness, since the deficiency is just a negation.301 The above citation is rich in insight. First, it presupposes that creatures are not the source of the measure of their actions. In addition, it re-iterates the teaching from the Prima Pars that evil arises when a choice is not “ruled or measured.” Third, it provides an example of what the

“divine rule” is, specifically, “the rule of reason and God’s law.” Moreover, we see that moral evil arises due to a lack of consideration of the divine rule in the deliberative process, which when followed by a choice made lacking the knowledge of the divine rule leads to an immoral choice. Also, and following Augustine, Thomas understands that the source of this lack of

301 De malo, q. 1, a. 3, c.

120 consideration arises in the will’s freedom of exercise (not the freedom of specification) and as a deficiency; there is no “efficient cause” of evil.302 Lastly, Thomas notes that, absolutely speaking, in not attending to the rule the agent is morally neutral, since the agent is not always in the process of deliberating, but rather in potency to deliberating.303 304

Only God, Who is Infallible, is His Own Rule Journet explains why fallible creatures are subject to the rule of Another, whereas only the Infallible One is not: “Only, St. Thomas says again, the divine will, which is not capable of being ordered to a superior end, is its own rule, will be of itself impeccable: the hand of the engraver, if he was his own rule, would never fail. But, the will of every creature being ordered to a superior end, is not itself its rule, it can therefore deviate, it is of itself peccable.”305

It is clarifying to cite the actual text from Thomas on which the Cardinal relies:

302 It is worth quoting Augustine’s famous description in City of God, Book XII, chap. 7: “The truth is that one should not try to find an efficient cause for wrong choice. It is not a matter of efficiency, but of deficiency; the evil will is itself not effective but defective. … To try to discover the causes of such defection – deficient, not efficient causes – is like trying to see darkness or to hear silence.” Indeed, this is why Torre, supra page 116, rightly used the terms “accidental efficient cause” and “deficient cause” when discussing the two “causes” of sin. 303 Maritain gives additional clarity on why the inconsideration of the rule only becomes a moral evil when the will proceeds to choose based on that inconsideration: “Even insofar as it is a non-consideration which preconditions a moral fault, it is not at all a privatio boni debiti…; it is not at all an evil, either physical or moral, but purely a negation, an absence. This is an essential point in the doctrine of St. Thomas about evil. It only becomes a privation in relation to something existing, in the free operation itself which emanates from the will with the deformity due to that non-consideration.” The Sin of the Angel, 63-64. Footnote references omitted. Emphasis added. 304 The carpenter is not blamed for not always using the ruler; because he does not need the ruler when he is, for example, painting a wall. Similarly, a human person is not always appealing to the divine rule; he only appeals to it when he is deliberating. Thomas notes, in ST I-II, q. 9, a. 1, that a subject “is sometimes acting, sometimes not.” A second reason why non-consideration of the divine rule is not always blameworthy is that divine rule is outside of man; since it is not part of the debitum naturae of man, the human intellect is not always focused on the divine rule (cf. EVI IV, 438, n. 492). 305 EVI IV, 155, with reference to ST I, q. 63, a. 1. Cf. 246-47. Bonino adds another reason why creatures are not their own end: “In contrast, no creature is identical to the moral law. Indeed, since no creature is his own origin, no creature is his own end either: it must regulate its action according to an extrinsic principle, which implies the possibility of departing from it.” Bonino, Angels and Demons, 199.

121

The reason of this is, because sinning is nothing else than a deviation from that rectitude which an act ought to have; whether we speak of sin in nature, art, or morals. That act alone, the rule of which is the very virtue of the agent, can never fall short of rectitude. Were the craftsman's hand the rule itself engraving, he could not engrave the wood otherwise than rightly; but if the rightness of engraving be judged by another rule, then the engraving may be right or faulty. Now the Divine will is the sole rule of God's act, because it is not referred to any higher end. But every created will has rectitude of act so far only as it is regulated according to the Divine will, to which the last end is to be 306 referred. Thomas also emphasizes that it is because God is identical with His rule that He cannot err:

“And if its [a created good’s] very self were its rule or measure, it could not proceed to act apart from the rule. Therefore, God, who is his own rule, cannot err, just as the carpenter could not err in cutting wood were he to use his hand as a ruler for the cutting.”307

Let us conclude this sub-point that God alone always follows His rule, by appealing to a contrast Maritain makes: “The law according to which every being is peccable whose operative power is not itself the rule of his action holds universally for every creature, si in sua natura consideratur…without any exception.”308 Said differently, this holds when “the action and rule are not one sole and unique reality in identity of essence.”309

We now investigate the mera negatio at a more detailed level.

6. Analysis of the Nonconsideration of the Divine Rule We wish to examine more closely the mera negatio, with particular emphasis on the interaction between the intellect and will. Let us first outline how the intellect and will interact in making any quotidian decision.

306 ST I, q. 63, a. 1, resp. 307 De malo, q. 1, a. 3, ad 9. 308 Maritain, The Sin of the Angel, 65. 309 Maritain, The Sin of the Angel, 64.

122

In the process by which the will self-determines the intellect moves the will in proposing to it its object, but at the same time, the will efficiently moves the intellect to consider the object and the different aspects according to which the latter are desirable or not. The will, in stopping the deliberation of the intellect by the act of choice, determines then the final practical judgment determining that this particular good, among so many others susceptible of being willed, is what [is] concretely suitable to the subject hic et nunc. It is therefore the will, determined by the intellect in the order of specification as soon as it [the will] stops its choice, which nevertheless moves the intellect in the order of exercise and puts an end to [the] movement of the intellect, so that ultimately the will is truly the master of its choice, determining the motives of its action.310 Now, we turn to the same process, but now involving an evil choice. In the case of an evil choice, what happens? St. Thomas explains that sin occurs when the will omits applying the intellect to consider the rule of human acts, and performs its choice under actual ignorance resulting from this omission, consequently allowing itself to be seduced by what the morally evil object has of the good.311 O’Neill adds commendable precision: the mera negatio is “the absence of a proper vision which results in the forsaking of a higher good for a lower one.”312

Commenting on the nature of this event, Maritain writes: “Well, says Saint Thomas, we must posit at the origin of moral evil, as cause of it, a voluntary and free defectus which is not yet an evil or a privation, but which is a mera negatio, a mere withdrawal from being, a mere lack of being or of a good which is not due: a mere absence which I introduce voluntarily into being.”313

In the deliberative process, we distinguish two “moments:” i) before the final decision is made by the will wherein a non-consideration of the rule can occur, and ii) when the final decision is actually made, but defective due to the non-consideration. When deliberating (prior to the actual

310 Schmitz, Causalité divine, 85. 311 Schmitz, Causalité divine, 85. 312 O’Neill, Grace, Predestination, and the Permission of Sin, 46-47. 313 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 34-35. We note Augustine’s words: “But the first evil act of the will, since it preceded all evil deeds in man, was rather a falling away from the work of God to its own works, rather than any substantive act. And the consequent deeds were evil because they followed the will’s own line, and not God’s.” City of God, Book XIV, chap. 11.

123 making of a final decision), the will need not consider the divine rule; and no sin results therefrom. Prior to the final decision, not considering the rule is a non-moral act.

Maritain contrasts the two moments: It is at this second moment that there is moral evil or sin. At the first moment there had not yet been moral fault or sin, but only the fissure through which evil introduces itself into the free decision about to come forth from the person. … This vacuum or lacuna, which St. Thomas calls non-consideration of the rule, is not an evil or a privation, but a mere lack, a mere nothingness of consideration. For of itself, it is not a duty for the will to consider the rule; that duty arises only at the moment of action, of production of being, at which time the will begets the free decision in which it makes its choice.314 We noted earlier that moral evil does not have an efficient cause. The reason now becomes ever more clear: since evil is a privation, it is not being but the “lack of being.” A “lack of being” cannot have a “substantial” (that is, “efficient”) cause, since the effect cannot be greater than the cause: a “lack of being” cannot be greater than being.315

Having outlined the certain detailed characteristics of the intellect-will interaction in a mera negatio, we now examine in which of the two elements of an act of the free will it arises.

Nonconsideration of the Divine Rule Occurs in the Line of Exercise; Sin Occurs in the Line of Specification An objection might be raised: “If God is the Source of all Efficient Causality, then He must cause rational creatures to sin!” Here we enter into a difficult area of Thomas’ consideration of the interaction between Divine Providence, the free will of the rational creature, and the source of evil in the world.

314 Jacques Maritain, Existence and the Existent, trans. Lewis Galantiere and Gerald B. Phelan (New York: Pantheon Books, 1948), 90-91. For a detailed discussion of Thomas’ understanding of the intricate interaction of the intellect and will to “produce” the mera negatio, see Michael D. Torre, God’s Permission of Sin: Negative or Conditional Decree?: A Defense of the Doctrine of Francisco Marín-Sola, O.P. based on the Principles of Thomas Aquinas, 335-59. 315 De malo, q. 1, a. 3, c.: “For we should note that evil cannot have an intrinsic cause.” Schmitz succinctly notes: “[O]nly being has an efficient cause,” Causalité divine, 189. Cf. Maritain, Existence and the Existent, 89.

124

Let us begin our analysis by reiterating that the created free will, when moved by

God, does not act out of necessity:

Because no creature has in itself the efficient principle of its action, all have need to receive the movement by which they act from a First Unmoved Mover who is God. … On the other hand, for the morally bad act, the will is moved by God only in the order of exercise, because the evil choice draws its specification from a deficient objective motion which does not come from God, but from an intellect having beforehand ceased to be applied by the will to consider the moral rule. All sin has therefore its ultimate root in a voluntary omission in which God is not the cause, being as it were the proper ‘work’ of the defectible creature.316

We immediately underline the distinction between line of exercise and line of specification.

As First Cause, God moves the creature to act to the good (line of efficient causality), the creature maintaining its ability to choose among particular goods (including the one to which God directed it) (line of final causality). The will of the rational creature, not being

“determined to one thing” is open to a universality of goods, including a bonum apparens.

As we shall see momentarily, regarding evil acts, God does indeed move the creature to act, but not to sin. Sin results from a faulty choice of the creature, who, after having been moved to the good did not consider the Divine Rule, and consequently judges wrongly and chooses wrongly. The creature alone is the source of the defect in the act.

**********

Thus far, we have attempted to outline a general understanding of divine premotion and what is held in common by Thomists regarding the mera negatio. We proceed to discuss the divine permission of sin.

316 Schmitz, Causalité divine, 90-91.

125

E. Bañezian Thomism on the Divine Permission of Sin We first present the relation of God to the human act of sin, under the theory known as the “antecedent permissive decree,” often categorized as “Bañezian” Thomism.317 We then turn to the teaching of Journet (heavily influenced by Maritain) on this same relation. A fundamental concern of both sides is to ensure God is not even a remote cause of sin. An essential difference between the two is that, in the former, divine permission is antecedent to human sin, whereas in the latter, divine permission is “consequent” to human sin.

1. Prescinding the First Mover from the Cause of Sin via the “Indisposition” of the One Moved

We wish to highlight a central point. To any act, natural or supernatural, good or evil, the rational creature is in potency, and must be reduced to act. When God moves (via a divine motion) each creature according to its mode, this necessarily means He also moves it according to its impending disposition, which distinguishes God moving the agent from the agent’s readiness to receive a divine motion to a good act. By not considering the divine rule, the creature has indisposed itself to a good action, and also caused any resulting action to be defective from its due order. By prescinding the divine motion to the good act from the rational creature’s indisposition to receive such a motion, we can separate God (as First Mover) moving the creature to act from the creature’s sin:

God moves each agent according to what it is, meaning, not only according to its nature, but also according to its impending dispositions. Because, by indisposing itself to the good act by the non-consideration of the rule and by disposing itself to the contrary by the choice of an apparent good by the voluntary consideration of what it has of attraction, the free agent is no longer able to be moved by the first mover in accordance with its final end. God will thus grant to the free agent a motion which will bring it to an evil choice to which it is itself firstly disposed by its failure. Consequently, in sin, “what there is there of an act is reduced to God as its cause, but what there is of disorder and

317 We will rely primarily on Fabio Schmitz and Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange for this perspective.

126

of deformation has not God for its cause, but solely the free will. This is why we say that the act of sin comes from God, but that the sin does not come from God.”318 Thomas succinctly notes: “God is the cause of every action, in so far as it is an action. But sin denotes a being and an action with a defect: and this defect is from a created cause, namely, the free will, as falling away from the order of the First Agent, namely, God.”319

While God causes both a good act and the good of a good act, He only causes the act of sin, not the defect in the act.320

What is the source of this “indisposition?” Schmitz specifies that it is the man’s nonconsideration of the Divine Rule is what produces an “indisposition:” i.e., resistance of human will to a divine motion to the good.

It is besides perfectly coherent with what we saw previously on the subject of the voluntary non-consideration of the rule as [the] source of the evil choice. Indeed, when it [the human will] is no longer illumined by the consideration of the rule, the will finds itself indisposed to be moved by God according to the rule, because the movement that God communicates to the will stops from being measured by the divine law. The will therefore presents a resistance to the motion which would provoke the good choice by indisposing itself by its inconsideration to receive the act that God would have communicated to it if He had not found in it [the human will] this subtraction of the required potency to its reception. Consequently one understands why the resistance of the will is always presupposed to the refusal of the divine motion which would have assured the good choice and preserved the free agent from sin: when God does not move the will toward the good, it is because it [the will] is itself indisposed by its resistance to receive this movement. Indeed, it is not God, but the will alone which is the cause of its indisposition, because it is in its power not to resist the divine motion which would actualize the good choice.321

318 Schmitz, Causalité divine, 89-90, citing De malo, q. 3, a. 2, c. 319 ST I-II, q. 79, a. 2, resp. 320 Ibid. 321 Schmitz, Causalité divine, 105.

127

While God moves the creature in the line of exercise, it is the sinner, in the line of specification, who choses wrongly. It is the sinner who, by the non-consideration, begins to divert himself from the good path to which God directed him.

2. Antecedent Permissive Decree We now arrive at a crucial topic. Everyone agrees that a divine motion does not directly cause man to sin. Sin can only happen when the created will, when finalizing the deliberative process, does not move the intellect to consider the divine rule (recall that Maritain designates this as the “precondition” of sin and Garrigou-Lagrange deems it “the commencement of sin”322); the consequent choice is always a moral fault, as is the resulting action. We add that the

Bañezian understanding of the divine permission of sin presupposes several fundamental points.

Any good act, including the consideration of the divine rule, has God as its origin: “To be preserved in goodness is a good and proceeds from the source of all good.”323 The will does not ultimately consider the divine rule since God, in response to the creature’s willful and defective but not sinful mera negatio, does not give His aid by which the will would have considered the rule: “Without God’s permission of sin and the absence of efficacious grace, there would be no sin.”324 Some contend that this view results in making God the indirect cause of sin, since He could have infallibly moved the will to consider the divine rule but He did not.

322 Garrigou-Lagrange, Predestination, 329. 323 Garrigou-Lagrange, Grace, 226; see also Predestination, 351, where Garrigou-Lagrange links this idea to the Principle of Predilection from ST I, q. 20, a. 3: “For since God’s love is the cause of goodness in things, no one thing would be better than another, if God did not will greater good for one than for another.” He expounds further on page 346 of the same work, citing Fr. Guillermin, that preserving man in the good is a good act because the human defectible will “can always and in all things fail.” Footnote reference omitted. 324 Garrigou-Lagrange, God, His Existence and His Nature, 374. See also ST I-II, q. 79, a. 1, resp.: “For it happens that God does not give some the assistance, whereby they may avoid sin, which assistance were He to give, they would not sin. But He does all this according to the order of His wisdom and justice, since He Himself is Wisdom and Justice.” See also ST I, q. 19, a. 9, ad 3, infra at footnote 343 on page 132.

128

Let us first delineate the Bañezian Thomistic position on what is called the “antecedent permissive decree.” (The second portion of the quotation below describes the events surrounding the failure of the will, and the first portion provides the larger context):

Said otherwise, the deficiency of the will is only possible under the divine motion to the good in a divided sense (in sensu diviso) but not in a composed sense (in sensu composito), which signifies that at the moment when it is brought to operate under the divine motion, the will keeps the power not to act in conformance with the motion aroused in it, although it is in fact absolutely certain that it [the will] will act according to the movement received. Consequently, as long as it sustains the will, the divine motion which applies it to command the consideration of the rule has for infallible effect to preserve it from all actual failure, assuring in a very certain manner its perseverance in the good. Under the divine motion, the free creature is able not to will to consider the rule, but it is at the same time certain that it will will it. Conversely, it is easy to understand that the failure of the will never fails to happen as soon as God suspends the causal influx by which the will is brought to command the consideration of the rule. Thus, according to D. Bañez, the divine permission of sin is nothing other than the subtraction of the efficacious help by which God preserves the creature from an effective failure.325 To note the “sequence” in the Bañezian Thomistic position, incorporating both the natural and supernatural orders: The will, moved by a divine motion to a good act ordered to the final end of the creature (and which includes a motion to consider the Divine Rule), can move the intellect to consider the Divine Rule when deliberating among particular goods.

(God cannot move the will to an evil act; nor can God move the will to a non-consideration of the rule, which is an act having no ontological content, and, thus, no efficient cause.) If the will (in the line of exercise) offers resistance to the divine motion to a good suitable to the creature’s final end, by not moving the intellect to consider the Divine Rule (which: is known and permitted326 by God from all eternity, hence “antecedent”; at this point is a

325 Schmitz, Causalité divine, 116-17. Footnote reference omitted. 326 “God’s permission is a negative decree; it is a will not to effect something. That something…the continuance in the moral good. This is the object of God’s permissive act. God sees that a person could continue to be preserved in

129 defect, a mera negatio, and not a sin; is a condition, not a cause, of sin327), the will indisposes itself to receive a Divine causal influx to the good. Efficacious grace, which would have infallibly caused the will to move the intellect to consider the divine rule, and the will to choose with the consequent light, is not given. The initial divine causal influx moves the will to the physical act of sin only after the will’s indisposition.328 Similarly said,

“God moves the will to determine itself, and it is in this determination that the defect is realized.”329 The will, now bereft of the benefit of the intellect’s weighing the Divine Rule due to the will’s non-consideration, makes, in the line of specification, a morally bad choice, a sin, choosing a good not suitable to the final end of the creature, because that choice is lacking in rectitude. The act which follows from the morally bad choice is also sinful.

A few concluding observations. First, throughout this entire sequence, God both causes the creature to act freely (in the line of exercise) and respects the choice of the creature (in the line of specification). In addition, the source of the mera negatio lies in the will since it is a “deficient cause…insofar as it is the efficient cause of the intellect making its final practical judgment.”330 Lastly, though the mera negatio is not a sin, efficacious grace is not given in its wake since “the lack of consideration is at least virtually voluntary,

moral good; He wills not to effect this good.” Torre, God’s Permission of Sin: Negative or Conditional Decree?, 69. Underlining in the original, as in all references to this text. 327 “Permission of [a] defect…in no way exerts a causal influence…for the simple reason that it is a non-act. Non- acts do not exert positive influence.” O’Neill, Grace, Predestination, and the Permission of Sin, 247. Cf. Schmitz, Causalité divine, 189-93. 328 Garrigou-Lagrange, Predestination, 327-28. That there is only one divine causal influx (and not two) in the sinful act follows from God moving the will according to its impending dispositions. Cf. Garrigou-Lagrange, God, His Existence and His Nature, 384. 329 Garrigou-Lagrange, God, His Existence and His Nature, 382. 330 Torre, God’s Permission of Sin: Negative or Conditional Decree?, 50. Recall the citation from ST I, q. 63, a. 1, ad 4 (see page 118), where the operative verb is “ought.”

130 for it is the deed of one who could and ought to consider the divine law.”331 Said otherwise,

“[b]efore sinning, the sinner himself refuses the light and grace coming to him from

God.”332

On the Importance of Divine Decrees and the Divine Will

Both a mera negatio and sin are under divine providence. This is important because a divine predetermining, physical, premotion, as understood by the Bañezian Thomists, derives from and infallibly executes an eternal, infallibly efficacious divine decree,333 which derive from the divine will, which cannot be hindered.334 The decrees are of two kinds.335

Decrees may refer to good acts or real things, which God causes by His knowledge joined to

His will;336 a divine premotion offering actual grace is simply executing an eternal divine decree. Alternatively, decrees may refer to defective acts or sinful deeds, which God permits but does not cause.337

331 Garrigou-Lagrange, Predestination, 327. He elaborates further on this voluntary character, noting that the will turns to what it finds attractive in an apparent good only after turning away from a true good. God, His Existence and His Nature, 382. 332 Garrigou-Lagrange, God, His Existence and His Nature, 384. 333 “Physical premotion presupposes these [divine] decrees and the infallible execution of them.” Garrigou- Lagrange, Predestination, 300. Cf. 248-50, 282. As to the divine attributes, Garrigou-Lagrange writes that premotion pertains to divine omnipotence, whereas predetermination pertains “to the predetermining decree of the divine will.” Ibid., 268. 334 “From the very fact that nothing resists the divine will, it follows that not only those things happen which God wills to happen, but that they happen necessarily or contingently according to His will.” ST I, q. 19, a. 8, as quoted in Garrigou-Lagrange, Predestination, 79. 335 “God’s decrees are either positive or negative. They are positive insofar as they will to effect some entity. They are negative insofar as they will not to effect some entity.” Torre, discussing Garrigou-Lagrange’s view, God’s Permission of Sin: Negative or Conditional Decree?, 69. 336 Garrigou-Lagrange, God: His Nature and His Existence, 67. 337 “The Thomists never claimed for God the necessity of a created motion, so that He may have infallible and eternal knowledge of our acts. … They always said God knows our free acts in His eternal decree, and that His motion assures its execution in time. As a matter of fact, without this eternal decree, such a future free act would not be present in eternity as the object of divine intuition rather than its contrary act. … Without this decree, Paul’s conversion would pertain only to the order of possible things and not to that of contingent futures.” Garrigou- Lagrange, Predestination, 279. (Cf. infra footnote 385 on page 141.) “If He had not positively willed it, there would be no reason for this contingent future rather than its contrary to be eternally present to the divine vision. Nor would He know future sins without a permissive decree.” Ibid., 376.

131

As source of all goodness, God does not cause a defective or sinful act. If such an act exists, He must permit it.338 To permit it (via a decree), He must know of it eternally:339 if

He did not know of it eternally, then He would be in potency to the act in question since His will would be passive, which is contrary to God as Pure Actuality.340 It is concluded that

God antecedently permits sin. God Causes all goods things, permits evil things.341 His will, absolutely speaking, is thus always fulfilled.342

*******

Concerned that the antecedent permissive decree theory did not fully remove God as an indirect cause of sin, Maritain and Journet offered both a critique of it and an alternative interpretation of

Aquinas. Note well that we are describing two positions of an intra-Thomistic debate on God’s permission of sin and on the nature of sufficient grace, and in no way are attempting to resolve the dispute. Contrasting the two positions will illustrate more clearly the importance to Journet of sufficient grace in the interplay between the divine and human in salvation history.

338 “Therefore evil is known by God in His decree permitting though condemning it.”God, His Existence and His Nature, 70. Garrigou-Lagrange holds that God only allows evil so as to bring a greater good out of it. 339 ‘[T]his divine motion presupposes in God an eternal decree, which is positive and effective regarding the physical entity of sin, and permissive as regards the deficiency. … Independently of this twofold eternal decree on God’s part, sin was merely possible, but it was not either a conditional or absolute future. For instance, if from all eternity God had not permitted it, the sin of Judas would not have happened; it would have been merely possible. But God having permitted it from all eternity…it had to happen freely and infallibly.” Garrigou-Lagrange, Predestination, 326-27. “God foresees the sin and its beginning in His permissive decree.” Garrigou-Lagrange, Grace, 228. “Hence, knowing His permissive decree, God infallibly recognized the deficiency, although He does not cause it.” Ibid. 340 “We cannot admit, say the Thomists, any dependence of passivity in pure Act. Hence they maintain that the only way in which God can know conditionally free acts of the future is in an objectively conditionate decree, and free acts of the future only in a conditionate decree that is positive in the case of good acts, and permissive in the case of sin.” Garrigou-Lagrange, Predestination, 171. 341 “To this eternal decree there corresponds a divine motion by which God is the first Cause of the physical act of sin as a being and an action. This divine motion can be predetermining but in a different manner from that which concerns the good and salutary act; for it depends upon an eternal decree that is not only possible and effective, but also permissive.” Garrigou-Lagrange, Predestination, 327. 342 Garrigou-Lagrange, The One God, 530.

132

F. Critique of the Antecedent Permissive Decree / Neo-Bañezian Position by Journet/Maritain and Their Alternative Interpretation of Aquinas We detect a strong parallel in thought between Jacques Maritain and Charles Journet on the question of evil, more specifically, on the evil of sin, to which we will limit ourselves. We wish to present the primary distinction they raise from the Bañezian position regarding the divine permission of sin. This alternative understanding of how God permits sin as noted by Maritain

(and adopted by Journet) will result in other differences between the two sides: i) whether a divine motion is “breakable,” and ii) whether efficacious grace is needed to reduce sufficient grace to act.

Let us first note that all Thomists agree that God does not cause sin, but rather permits sin: That evil things happen, and that they not happen, these are two contradictory propositions; but to will that evil things happen and to will that they not happen are not opposed, because it is about two affirmative propositions. God, indeed, neither wills that evil things are done nor that they are not done, but He wills to permit that they are done. And this is good.343 The question centers on the nature of this permission. Journet and Maritain, writes Emery, share a common concern:

The proper characteristic of the position of Maritain and Journet resides … in the exclusion of all divine activity which would precede the evil human action, in order to exclude all divine intervention in the order of evil: God has all the initiative in the order of the good, the creature has all the initiative in the order of evil.344

We will consider how Maritain sees the eternal knowledge of God as the linchpin to the God’s permission of sin. After discussing how Maritain conceives the metaphysics of a non- consideration of the divine rule, we will present his alternative interpretation (which Journet

343 Schmitz, Causalité divine, 120, citing ST I, q. 19, a. 9, ad 3. 344 Emery, “La Question du Mal et le Mystère de Dieu chez Charles Journet,” 309, n. 46.

133 follows) of the mera negatio and of the divine permission of sin. Initially, let us present

Maritain’s disquietude on the antecedent permissive decree theory.

1. Dissymmetry in the Line of Good v. the Line of Evil

Jacques Maritain criticizes a common Thomist position on the relationship between

Divine Providence, human free will, and the permission of sin.345 From a methodological perspective, Maritain thinks that this school, which he includes under the umbrella of the teaching of Domingo Bañez, fundamentally went awry by attempting to use the same framework to explain divine causality on the act of the rational creature both in the line of the good and in the line of evil.346 Maritain observes that, in the line of the good, God is the first cause of good, whereas in the line of evil, man solely and uniquely takes the initiative.347 Under the antecedent permissive decree theory, Maritain is concerned that this distinction of a fundamental dissymmetry between the line of good and the line of evil is obscured or even removed. He understands the antecedent permissive decree to hold that God “has first willed, with a will not causative but permissive, that this failure [of the creature] occur in the world. For it is on Him alone and on His sole first initiative, the neo-Bañezians clearly point out, that depended the first moment, the moment of the permissive decree itself, which has a priority of nature over the failure of the creature.”348 Indeed, it is God who in “His eternal purposes, has first had the idea…the idea infallibly followed by the effect, of the culpable failure” of the creature.349

Furthermore, since the creature sins only because God did not provide grace whereby the

345 As to Maritain’s disagreements with the commentarial tradition regarding predestination and reprobation: we cannot enter that debate, but see O’Neill, Grace, Predestination, and the Permission of Sin, 219-49. 346 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 9-10, 13-15. See EVI IV, 432. 347 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 33. As to the latter: “[T]hat the first cause or the inventor of moral evil in the existential reality of the world is the liberty of the creature.” Ibid. 348 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 29. 349 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 30. Cf. EVI IV, 266, n. 158.

134 creature would infallibly consider the divine rule and avoid sin, God is an indirect cause of sin.350

God, then, is an indirect cause of the creature’s sin, because His eternal decree permitted the creature’s sin and that decree was put into effect when He withheld the grace by which the creature infallibly would not have sinned.

2. Non-Consideration of the Divine Rule Maritain takes a different view than that of the neo-Bañezian school of the nature of the non-consideration of the divine rule. Bañezian Thomism considers it a “simple absence of act.”351 In contrast, Maritain writes: “This defectus, this free failure which is the cause of moral evil without being itself evil, is the non-consideration of the rule – which is not, note well, an act of non-consideration, but a non-act of consideration.”352 O’Neill summarizes:

It is not a thing at all, and as such there is no reason to speak of this nothingness requiring antecedent permission (beyond that God permits that we be finite beings at all, and thus capable of defect). Therefore, the key to safeguarding the innocence of God for Maritain is to reject this crucial error that he sees embodied in the traditional Banezian treatment wherein the non-act of the defect is treated as an act, a thing which must be antecedently permitted, the permission of which puts the blame on God for not having prevented it. … It is man, a finite and fallible creature, who in every way takes the first initiative when it comes to sin, and thus it is not right to speak of providential permission in relation to a defect at all.353

350 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 28-30. 351 Schmitz, Causalité divine, 143. 352 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 35. See also EVI IV, 268, n. 159, where Journet cites Maritain in De Bergson à Thomas d’Aquin (New York: Éditions de la Maison Française, 1944): “God can, if he wills, activate created liberty to the good act by a motion at the first time which includes no possibility that it [can be] shirked (efficacious grace). He can also, according to the ordinary course of things, activate created liberty by a motion which includes the possibility that it {created liberty} can shirk it {the motion}. And when the creature did not nihilate under grace (which is not a merit on its part, nor an act, nor a choice, nor a contribution whatever, because not to take the initiative of nothingness (néant) is not to do something, it is only not to move under the divine action), the divine motion or the simply sufficient or breakable grace fructifies of itself into an unbreakable or efficacious grace by itself.” 353 Taylor O’Neill, 2016. “Jacques Maritain and Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange on the Permission of Evil.” The Heythrop Journal: 1-12, at 3, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/heyj.12379. Also: “…for nothingness, a non-act, is not something which must be accounted for by divine Providence.” O’Neill, Grace, Predestination, and the Permission of Sin, 228.

135

Unsatisfied with the Bañezian conception of the mera negatio, as well as with what he saw as its implication for impinging on God’s innocence, Maritain interpreted Thomas differently, and his interpretation also concerns how God knows evil.

3. Alterative Interpretation Regarding the Divine Permission of Sin, by Maritain and Journet a. God’s Knowledge of the Evil of Sin It is how the Divine Knowledge “sees” the evil of sin (that is, the “medium”) that drives the proposed solution of Maritain and Journet. The distinction between Journet / Maritain and

Bañezian Thomism regarding the divine knowledge of sin is summarized in this maxim of

Maritain, and adopted by Journet: “The divine plan is not a scenario prepared in advance.”354

Journet appeals to this idea, first to preserve Divine Immutability:

Thus it must be understood that God knows our free acts in the eternal order by which he moves us to produce them. It should not be said that he knows them in advance: a being who knows in advance is by definition a being immersed in time, who himself moves from past to present to future.355 The science of vision356 encompasses all acts, contingent or necessary, good or bad, and does so in God’s eternal present: 357 “The ‘science of vision’ likewise reaches the freedom of the created existent in the very exercise of its free choice. … But the ‘science of vision’ does not ‘foresee’

354 Emery, “La Question du Mal et le Mystère de Dieu chez Charles Journet,” 308. Maritain’s maxim cited by Emery can also be seen in Existence and the Existent, 116, which Journet cites in EVI IV, 440, n. 494. Maritain repeats this idea in God and the Permission of Evil, 79. 355 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 177. Cf. 231-32: “The eternal plan was not made in advance: God, who knows all things not by foresight or memory but by pure vision, only gave his plan effect once he had already made allowance from all eternity for all the free refusals of his creatures.” Footnote reference omitted. 356 Whereas God’s simple will deals with the possibility of things, the “science of vision” concerns the actuality of things, including future contingents. Torre, “Francisco Marín-Sola, OP, and the Origin of Jacques Maritain’s Doctrine on God’s Permission of Evil,” Nova et Vetera (English Edition) 4, no. 1 (2006): 55-94, at 74. 357 “God has the entire course of time physically present to His eternal Instant, and that He has it before His eyes in its entirety when He establishes all things from all eternity.” Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 79. “[A]bsolutely all the events of this world are, with respect to the eternal purposes or according as they are part of the divine plan, necessary by supposition, as immutably established as this plan of which they are part…” God and the Permission of Evil, 94. Lastly, ST I, q. 14, q. 13, resp.: “Hence all things that are in time are present to God from eternity,” as referenced in Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 177-78.

136 the free act but grasps it eternally in its very presentness, in the very instant in which it is produced.”358

In addition to the position that things are eternally present to God, Maritain argues from the principle of causality that God knows evil and a mera negatio differently than He knows the good:

But what is not causable nor caused by Him…like the evil of the free act and like the free nihilating which is its precondition, these God does not know in the divine essence considered alone, but in the divine essence in as much as created existents are seen therein, and in as much as in them is seen that nihilating and privation of which their freedom is the first cause. … He knows that nihilating and that privation in the created existents whom He knows in His essence. It is in this sense that I said that the “non- consideration of the rule” which precedes the evil option … is known to God in the actual deficient or nihilating will.359 We must re-iterate how God knows good v. evil with respect to the divine essence. Since He is the cause of all good things, He knows them in His essence.360 Since He is not the cause of evil or of a non-consideration, He does not know them in His essence strictly. Rather, God only knows a mera negatio and sin “in the culpable will” of the sinner.361 God can only know sin “in the culpable will” of the sinner because, since man takes the first initiative of evil, only then is evil “caused” and only then does evil “exist;” only then does evil have an ontological effect. At the same time, God knows a mera negatio and sin from all eternity, not strictly in His divine

358 Maritain, Existence and the Existent, 108. Maritain describes the “science of vision” thus: “The science of God is the cause of things, God knows things because He makes them, He knows them in His ‘science of vision’ through the creative or factive idea itself which causes them to come into existence, in other words, through the decree of His intelligence linked with His will.” God and the Permission of Evil, 13. Later, Maritain describes the science of vision as “par excellence a science of presentness” Ibid., 71. 359 Maritain, Existence and the Existent, 111. Footnote reference omitted. 360 “[T]here is no idea of evil in the divine intellect, because the divine idea signifies a way in which the divine essence can be participated and it is therefore of itself the source of intelligibility or the cause of being.” Maritain, Existence and the Existent, 109. Footnote reference omitted. Thomas elsewhere says: “But only God knows everything by knowing one thing, namely, his essence.” De malo, q. 16, a. 4. 361 “[I]t must be said that evil can only be known in the very instant when it thus wounds existence, when the creature voluntarily avoids the influx of being and of goodness which descends from the love of the creator.” EVI IV, 435, n. 482, quoting Maritain, “La clefs des chants,” in Frontières de la poésie (Paris: Rouart et fils, 1935), 187-91.

137 essence, but because He knows creatures in His divine essence. The medium, therefore, by which

God knows sin is the defect in the creature, rather than merely via a divine decree.362

Relying on the axiom that “God does not abandon the sinner unless He is first abandoned by the sinner,”363 Emery observes that Journet posits the divine knowledge of sin via His

“science of vision in the nihilating liberty,” meaning “in the will of man who refuses grace, and

He sees it in the instant when the will refuses the divine influx of love.”364 Journet adds that God cannot know the sinful refusal of the creature “in advance, before the initiative of the creature is taken, because there is in him, strictly speaking, neither foreknowledge nor memory.”365 By way of contrast to the Bañezian school, “God only knows therefore sin in the culpable will which refused the divine motion to the good, and not in the intervention of a divine decree.”366 Hence, according to Maritain and Journet, God knows sin not “in advance” but in the precise moment when “in the will of man who reduces to nothing (“néante”) the divine motion to the good.”367

362 “The evil of the free act has as its first cause…not God but the free will of the created existent. How, then, could it be known by a divine volition (even permissive) which would precede its engendering by the creature?” Maritain, Existence and the Existent, 110. 363 See EVI IV, 437; see also 264, which refers both to i) Council of Trent, Session VI, chap XI, DS, no. 1537, and to ii) First Vatican Council, Session III, chap. III, DS, no. 3014. See also EVI IV, 452, n. 513, which refers to City of God, Book XII, chap. 9. 364 Emery, “La Question du Mal et le Mystère de Dieu chez Charles Journet,” 308. Journet, speaking of God’s knowledge of sin (specifically, Adam’s fall) in His science of vision, writes: “And He knows it from all eternity; which means not in advance, as if eternity was itself in time, and an eternal act (a) thing of the past; but it means in the eternal today to which all the moments of successive existence are indivisibly present. Strictly speaking, God did not know in advance the transgression of Adam. He saw it in the will of Adam at the very instant when it [Adam’s will] freely negates the impulse of creative love which descends, and this instant, present always to His eternity, enters into the composition of the divine plan and in its eternal fixation.” EVI IV, 434-36. Footnote references omitted. 365 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 179. 366 Emery, “La Question du Mal et le Mystère de Dieu chez Charles Journet,” 309. Emphasis added. 367 Emery, “La Question du Mal et le Mystère de Dieu chez Charles Journet,” 309. The moment of non- consideration of the rule is known to God “only in the actually deficient or nihilating free will.” Maritain, Existence and the Existent, 110. See EVI IV, 266, n. 158.

138

This approach intends to remove God even indirectly from any “initiative” in the line of evil, thereby preserving the “divine absolute innocence.”368 b. “Unshatterable” and “Shatterable” Divine Motions Since “[t]he creature acts only under the motion of the First Cause,”369 an issue arises with respect to sin: does a divine motion “move” the rational creature towards sin? Earlier, we noted the general Thomist understanding of divine premotion. Let us note how Maritain conceives of a divine motion to a good act. He posits an “unshatterable” motion and a

“shatterable” divine motion. Examining the latter first, he says: “I call shatterable motion a divine motion or activation which causes the free agent to tend to a morally good act, but which includes of itself, by nature, the possibility of being shattered.”370 The shatterable motion “produces in the soul infallibly … a movement or a tendency” toward the “good act of choice.”371 Whereas the shatterable motion is only a “movement or tendency,” 372 it is the unshatterable motion alone which produces a good act.373 In the ordinary course of events,

368 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 9. Since divine motions move rational creatures in accord with their freedom, Emery observes another reason for the importance of the “presentness” of divine knowledge (whereby God knows things “at the very instant when they come into existence” – Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 177): “The concern of Journet, as that of Maritain, is clear: it is to avoid all determinism and thus to preserve the divine innocence.” In “La Question du Mal et le Mystère de Dieu chez Charles Journet,” 308. 369 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 38. Cf. 84: “[T]he transcendent First Cause is more really and more perfectly cause because it itself confers on created things…the power themselves also to cause.” 370 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 38. 371 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 56. “As to the effect [of a shatterable motion], which, being divine motion, it produces in the soul infallibly…a movement or a tendency.” Ibid. Note that Maritain is here replying to the objection that every divine motion infallibly “has in the soul a certain effect or a certain term.” He specifically distinguishes between “the effect which the divine motion produces in the soul and the final object to which it tends.” Since a shatterable motion will not reach its final end – an unshatterable motion is necessary for the final end to be attained – such a motion can only move man to begin a good act. It seems that there is a “process” to reach the morally good act, which is akin to the thought of Francisco Marín-Sola. Schmitz noted: “J. Maritain admits therefore that God produces infallibly something in the soul by His breakable motion, namely the beginning of the voluntary consideration of the moral rule.” Causalité divine, 168. Emphasis added. 372 “It is clear that a shatterable motion is by definition a motion which can not-attain the final object to which it tends.” Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 56. 373 Unshatterable motions are those “under which the creature, freely and infallibly, will consider the rule in its very operation and will produce the good act to which it is moved by God.” Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 39.

139 since God moves “created liberties according to the fallible mode proper to them,” unshatterable motions must be preceded by shatterable motions.374 i) What is a “Shatterable” Motion?

A “shatterable” or “breakable” divine motion is one to which “the free creature can resist, at the very moment when it [the divine motion] is actually exerted on the will in order to bring it to the choice of a virtuous good {bien honnête: bonum honestum}.”375 How is a divine motion “breakable?” Maritain elaborates: “By a first initiative of the creature which in nihilating under this motion withdraws from it, posits the cause of moral evil, in other words ceases freely to consider the rule.”376 Maritain explains that man, not God, takes the initial step toward sin by his “breaking” the divine motion which had “tended” his will to a good act (“the rule efficaciously regarded in the very act of option”377):

[I]f we find moral evil and free evil acts [in the world], the reason is that there are shatterable divine activations. … the reason is that the First Cause sends down into free existents activations or motions which contain within themselves, in advance, the permission or possibility of being rendered sterile if the free existent which receives them takes the first initiative of evading them, of not-acting and not-considering, or nihilating under their touch.378 In the evil act, there is a divine motion, insofar as God moved the creature to act toward a good, toward an act advancing the creature to its final end; insofar as the creature defected and

“produced” its non-consideration of the divine rule while deliberating (“nihilated” in Maritain’s vocabulary), it thereby broke the divine motion, resulting in a sinful choice. Therefore, the divine

It is via the “unshatterable divine activation, by which the will to good of creative Liberty infallibly produces its effect in the creative will. … By virtue of that unshatterable divine activation, our will, this time, unfailingly exercises its liberty in the line of the good, produces the good act.” Maritain, Existence and the Existent, 94. 374 Maritain, Existence and the Existent, 94. 375 Schmitz, Causalité divine, 129. 376 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 38. Emphasis added. 377 Maritain, Existence and the Existent, 100, n. 10. 378 Maritain, Existence and the Existent, 93.

140 motion to the good, while begun under the influence of the divine motion, is thwarted or

“broken” by man such that the good act is not attained.379

Maritain claims that the divine motion is thwarted, halted, interrupted, so that the good act to which it moved man (which includes considering the divine rule) does not reach its term.

What is the ontological status of a divine motion that is actually “broken” by man’s non- consideration? Maritain argues that the divine motion, when shattered, “it no longer exists,” and

“gives way” to another motion, “by which God moves all things…toward the operation to which their powers are disposed,” namely, the act of a sinful choice.380 A shatterable motion, then, moves man toward the good act but does not always result in the act being performed, since it is breakable by man. ii) Relation between Unshatterable Motion and Shatterable Motion

In the following citation, note how “gives way” applies both in the case where the shatterable motion is broken and in the case where the shatterable motion is not broken:

[I]f the shatterable motion is not shattered, it gives way of itself, as the flower to the fruit, to an unshatterable motion under which the good act will be infallibly and freely produced. … [If a shatterable motion is shattered it] ceases to exist in order to give way to that motion…by which God moves all things [ultimately to a sinful choice].381 In the good act, no additional, distinct, divine motion is necessary for the good act to be performed, as Maritain posits a seamlessness between the shatterable motion and the unshatterable motion. In the evil act, God respects the rational creature’s choice and permits the now-defective act to unfold.

379 Normally, I would translate “néantement” as “destruction;” however, Journet and Maritain stress that the term does not mean a “reduction to nothingness” as this conveys a meaning regarding being, or the line of the good. Instead, “néantement” is a “privation or negation,” indeed, an “initiative of nothingness.” Emery, “La Question du Mal et le Mystère de Dieu chez Charles Journet,” 311. I will translate it as “negate” or “nihilate” or “break.” 380 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 57-58. 381 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 57-58.

141

A “breakable” divine motion calls attention to a metaphysical truth Maritain particularly accentuates: whereas good moral acts have ontological content and being, evil moral acts are privations and do not have being, but result from a non-consideration of the divine rule, which, equivalently, are a “nihilation” of the divine motion to the good.382 c. The Divine Permission of Sin – Consequent Permissive Decree Attentive to the Prima Pars,383 both Bañezian Thomism and Journet / Maritain agree that all sin must be permitted by God.384 Whereas the Bañezians assert that God permits sin from all eternity,385 Maritain and Journet understand that while God allows the possibility of evil from eternity and sees the mera negatio and sin from all eternity,386 He only permits sin in time.387

We saw above that the medium by which God knows sin is “in the culpable will” of the creature,

382 Maritain, Existence and the Existent, 93: “In such case the existent frustrates, nihilates, renders sterile – not actively, but by way of non-acting – the divine activations which it has received.” See also Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 39, 45. 383 The pertinent Thomistic text is one we have seen previously: “God neither wills that evil things are done nor that they are not done, but He wills to permit that they are done; and this is good.” ST I, q. 19, a. 9, ad 3, using my translation as noted supra at footnote 343 on page 132. 384 As to Journet, see EVI IV, 432; as to Maritain, see Existence and the Existent, 110 and God and the Permission of Evil, 1, n. 2; as to Thomists in general, see Emery, “La Question du Mal et le Mystère de Dieu chez Charles Journet,” 310. 385 Thomists “always said God knows our free acts in His eternal decree, and that His motion assures its execution in time. As a matter of fact, without this eternal decree, such a future free act would not be present in eternity as the object of divine intuition rather than its contrary act.” Garrigou-Lagrange, Predestination, 279. Also: “If He had not positively willed it, there would be no reason for this contingent future rather than its contrary to be eternally present to the divine vision. Nor would He know future sins without a permissive decree.” Ibid., 376 386 See EVI IV, 939, where, in general, “God knows from all eternity that He will be loved by some, refused by others,” and Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 179: “From all eternity he sees the moment when the refusal is produced.” For his part, Maritain says “for that nihilating [by the creature] is itself eternally and immutably seen by God,” Existence and the Existent, 115. Regarding possible evil, God knows in His simple will “all possible goods [and] He knows – through them – all the possible evils, which are nothing other than the privation of these goods.” Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 67. 387 Maritain distinguishes “two divine permissions” vis-à-vis evil in a given divine motion. The first, regarding the possibility of evil, is “enveloped in advance in…the shatterable divine impetus which created liberty, if it so wills, is able to render sterile.” Second, a “permission for the effectuation of evil,” namely the “moment” after the non- consideration of the divine rule and before the creature makes a final decision. Existence and the Existent, 110. Footnote reference omitted. In God and the Permission of Evil, 61-62, he writes of both: 1) “an undifferentiated permission of evil included in the shatterable motion,” and 2) a consequent permission “consequent upon” the creature not considering the rule. As we will see in a moment (infra footnote 393 on page 142 referencing EVI IV, 438), Journet holds the same position.

142 and furthermore, that He knows sin from all eternity insofar as He knows creatures (and their defects) in His essence; since God does not take the first step in evil, God cannot permit a sinful choice and/or a sinful act before it actually happens in time. Rather than an “antecedent permissive decree,” Maritain uses the term “consequent permissive decree,”388 wherein God is said to “permit sin” meaning “the divine decision not to intervene extraordinarily in order to prevent the evil act from taking place.”389 (Of course, Maritain is clear that any such permission is not causal.390) This position is opposite of Thomists advocating the “antecedent permissive decree” wherein “the permissive divine will precedes the destroying initiative of the free creature”391 and by which the creature infallibly will sin.392

Journet states that there is a “generic” allowance of the possibility of sin accompanying a divine motion, and then a “consequent” permission of sin for a specific, sinful act:

It is necessary to say consequently that the initiative in the Line of Evil comes from man. But God, who sees in [His] science of vision this nihilating initiative in the free will of man, would be able to bring a remedy and to block the evil which is going to occur. In that case, the sin will not occur, there will not be concrete permission of sin, no ‘permissive decree’ of sin; there is only the permission of the possibility of evil, which restrains the defectibility of the free creature and his powers of initiative to the Line of Evil. Alternatively, to the contrary, God is able to refrain from bringing a remedy to the first deficiency of man and to leave the initially diverted act to deploy according its own laws. In this case, there is permission of sin.393

388 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 42. “Consequent” meaning “consequent to the shattering of the shatterable motion.” Ibid. For the same concept, Journet uses the term “permissive decree,” EVI IV, 438-40. 389 EVI IV, 440-41. Cf. Emery, “La Question du Mal et le Mystère de Dieu chez Charles Journet,” 312. 390 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 64: “Let us first recall that the permissive decree does not as such do anything but decide not to prevent; it does not cause as such.” 391 Emery, “La Question du Mal et le Mystère de Dieu chez Charles Journet,” 312. Emphasis added. 392 Michael Torre highlights this particular difference in “Francisco Marín-Sola, OP, and the Origin of Jacques Maritain’s Doctrine on God’s Permission of Evil,” 62. 393 EVI IV, 438. Cf. 265-66, n. 158.

143

God may grant permission for sin “consequent” to the free creature’s mera negatio, and not before.394 Even if a mera negatio occurs, a sin may not occur. God can act to prevent a sin, a topic we address next. i) The Possibility of God Preventing the Evil of Sin after a Mera Negatio Has Occurred Permission is “consequent” not only because it is not “antecedent;” it is also consequent because, even after the mera negatio has occurred, the sinful choice and related sinful action of the creature could be prevented by God, and this (for Maritain) in two ways.

First, after the mera negatio has taken place (thereby positing “the cause of evil”) and before the evil choice is made, Maritain responds: “My answer is that God, instead of letting, according to the order of things, the shattered shatterable motion give way to a simple pre- motion to the…sinful act, could, at least by His ‘absolute’ power, give to the creature an unshatterable motion to the good election.”395 To maintain God’s freedom, such an intervention is possible, but not necessary.396 Still more, after both the mera negatio and the sinful choice, God could intervene (for example, via a third party) to prevent the creature from carrying out the sinful act.397 Journet adopts a similar stance, but he is not as specific as

Maritain, simply saying that God can “block” sin from taking place.398

Emery, in addition to noting Journet’s two types of permissions of sin, highlights

Journet’s view that if God prevents a physical act of sin it is an extraordinary intervention:

394 To be very clear: the moment of the non-act of a nonconsideration of the rule “precedes the permission given to it, consequently it is not known in that permission. … It can only be known in the actually deficient or nihilating free will.” Existence and the Existent, 110. We note that this view differs from Marín-Sola and Garrigou-Lagrange: “Like Garrigou, Marin admits that God’s permission pertains both to the defect and to the act of sin itself.” Torre, God God’s Permission of Sin: Negative or Conditional Decree?, 109. 395 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 56, n. 6; cf. 59-60. 396 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 59-60. 397 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 61. 398 EVI IV, 438.

144

Charles Journet distinguishes, more precisely, two moments in the resistance to the divine motion: a first moment in which God can intervene in order to block the sin, and a second moment where the sin happens if God does not come to impede the destroying (néantante) will.399 No sin will happen therefore unless a permissive decree of God, but this decree, far from preceding the nihilating of the divine will, is posterior to it by nature. “The permissive decree is for us the divine decision not to intervene extraordinarily in order to prevent the evil act from unfolding.” The permissive decree appeared then as the divine non-intervention opposite the human initiative (the non-consideration of the rule which the breakable divine motion brought to consider) which is not yet a moral evil but which begins the process in the creature.400 By divine omnipotence, God could prevent a sinful choice and/or a specific sinful act in various ways, all of them are extraordinary interventions “consequent” to the mera negatio.

We are now in a position to answer the question raised when we introduced the section on the shatterable divine motion: Maritain and Journet, with particular attention to God’s knowledge of sin, assert that God is not a cause of sin, not even indirectly, or remotely by way of an antecedent permissive decree. ii) Under a Breakable Divine Motion, God is the Cause of the Act of Sin, but not of Sin Itself: The Infallibility and Indeterminacy/Independence of Divine Knowledge Regarding Sin Ensure that God is not an Indirect Cause of Sin Introduction Bañezians and Journet/Maritain agree that: 1) that God’s knowledge causes good but

His knowledge of evil is in no way causal, and 2) via the subordination of causes under

399 Emery, “La Question du Mal et le Mystère de Dieu chez Charles Journet, 312, n. 59: “In the first moment, Journet explains following Maritain, the human will can ‘by breaking [néantant] it, interrupt the breakable motion through which God brought it to consider the rule before acting;’ in the second moment, ‘the will moves on to the election which will be disordered;’ when the breakable motion has not been broken, then there takes place an unbreakable motion under which the good act is produced (“De la condition intiale privilégiée de l’homme,” Nova et Vetera 29, no. 3 (1954): 208-229, at 222, n. 1). Thus there are ‘two divine permissions:’ in the first moment, a conditional permission involves the frustratability of the breakable motion which brings to consider the rule of acting; in the second moment, the pure and simple permission to allow the free act to continue in its dynamism (L’Eglise du Verbe Incarné, vol. 3 (Paris 1969), 166-67). Journet expressly refers to J. Maritain, Court traité de l’existence et de l’existant (Paris 1947), 176-90.” 400 Emery, “La Question du Mal et le Mystère de Dieu chez Charles Journet,” 312-13, citing Journet, “De la condition intiale privilégiée de l’homme,” 222.

145 divine premotion, God moves the creature to the act of sin but not to the sin. Where they differ concerns, mainly, how the divine permission is accorded to sin. At a deeper level, the difference lies in how each side defends the infallibility and indeterminacy of the divine knowledge. This, in turn, decides whether God has any “initiative” regarding sin or is an

“indirect cause” of sin. We will briefly endeavor to note the two areas of agreement, before addressing the infallibility and indeterminacy of divine knowledge on each side. a) Two Areas of Agreement Maritain is clear that, whereas God’s knowledge (joined to His will) is the cause of good things, God’s knowledge of evil is not causal.401 Garrigou-Lagrange holds a similar view.402 For any Thomist to suggest otherwise is not thinkable.

Maritain and Journet concur that God moves the creature to the act of sin but not to the sin. First, Maritain: If God does not bring a remedy to the mera negatio, “He permits the evil to work itself out in the free act of which that fissure is the precondition” in its natural course. To the extent the act has being, “it depends to that extent upon divine causality.”403

Journet, in The Meaning of Evil, argues from the Thomistic understanding of the subordination of causes that God is: i) the First Cause of good acts (which can be received by a dependent creature in two ways), and ii) the First Mover only of what the evil act has of positive being:

401 “God is absolutely not the cause of moral evil; it is therefore absolutely necessary that – contrary to the thesis universally valid in the line of good, where the ‘science of vision’ knows only because it causes – it is necessary that the ‘science of vison’ know evil without having caused it.” Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 67. Cf. Existence and the Existent, 109. 402 “Nevertheless we see that God, who is the sovereign Good and omnipotent, is by no means the cause of moral evil.” Predestination, 179. 403 Maritain, Existence and the Existent, 113. Cf. Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 65.

146

Likewise the universal influence which moves all free creatures to act can be received in two ways. Either into a well-disposed and righteously ordered will, in which case the action will be good and entirely attributable to God as its first Cause; or into a will which withdraws itself from the rule of righteousness, in which case the disordered action can be split up into two parts: what positive being there is in it is attributable to God as to its first Cause, while the deviation comes only from the free will.404 Sin is an action, concrete but disordered, in other words, deprived of its due subordination to its rule. Everything which can be called positive being in this action can be attributed to God as the only, first and universal cause of being. Anything which is privation can be traced back to the free creature as the only, first cause of the nullification of being.405 This position is identical to that of Bañezian Thomism noted on pages 127-130. b) Areas of Difference in Defending the Infallibility and Independence of Divine Knowledge The Bañezians state that divine permission of sin is by an eternal, permissive decree

(and, hence, infallible), not causal but only a condition for sin, arguing that this position both preserves divine pure actuality (God’s knowledge is NOT determined by the creature’s sinful act) and recognizes divine providence as governing all things (i.e., that sin is under divine providence).

Regarding the infallibility of divine knowledge, Maritain states that God knows of the “defect”406 and grants a general possibility of sin from all eternity, and knows of the creature’s sin in the moment of its occurrence by knowing it “in the will” of the creature, and (assuming He does not intervene to halt the defective action) grants permission at that point.407 He writes that “the ‘science of vision’ does not ‘foresee’ the free act but grasps it

404 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 166, with reference to De malo, q. 3, a. 2. 405 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 166, with reference to ST I-II, q. 79, a. 2. 406 Supra, footnotes 386 and 387 on page 141. 407 Torre, “Francisco Marín-Sola, OP, and the Origin of Jacques Maritain’s Doctrine on God’s Permission of Evil,” 87: “Maritain also again argues that God knows this defect because it is present to his eternity; but now further insists that ‘evil cannot be known save in the same instant when it thus wounds existence’,” citing Maritain, Art and Poetry (New York: Philosophical Library, 1943), 83-84. Journet cites this same quotation in The Meaning of Evil, 179-80, n. 70.

147 eternally in its very presentness, in the very instant in which it is produced.”408 Unlike the

Bañezians, God knows evil “post decretum non per decretum, in his eternity, not in his causality.”409

To defend God’s knowledge from being determined by creatures’ sinful acts,

Maritain notes that the divine knowledge “knows this pure absence [a mera negatio] without having caused it, and yet without having received anything from the creature.”410 He adds that “all the events which happen here on earth” … are necessary by supposition,” in that they are “incorporated” into the divine plan.411 Maritain adds that all contingent events enter into the “act through which God knows Himself.”412 Since all human actions are

“contemplated by” or “incorporated within” divine providence, their occurrence in time does not alter the immutable divine plan. c) Journet States that God has No Initiative Vis-à-Vis Sin from the Perspective of Divine Knowledge Journet, relying on Maritain’s understanding of the divine “science of vison,” expresses his concern that God not have any part in the initiative of sin: i) by ensuring God is not primary in beginning the process of evil, and, ii) by precluding the divine knowledge from knowing sin

“in advance:” “[I]f God only abandons the creature after having been abandoned by it, the withdrawal of the creature: 1) precedes the withdrawal of God, 2) it is not known in or through

408 Maritain, Existence and the Existent, 108. 409 Torre, “Francisco Marín-Sola, OP, and the Origin of Jacques Maritain’s Doctrine on God’s Permission of Evil,” 63. Torre is referring to a letter from Journet to Maritain (No. 106, dated June 12, 1925) where the former is relaying Marín-Sola’s reply to a question Maritain had raised as to how God’s infallibility is maintained when God permits that a defect be possible. Torre elaborates on Marín-Sola’s explanation: “God’s knowledge is eternal and all creation is present to it.” Ibid., 65. 410 Maritain, Existence and the Existent, 112. 411 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 94. 412 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 71-72. On page 71 he classifies “created being” as a “term materially attained” vis-à-vis divine knowledge.

148 the withdrawal of God; 3) but seen from the science of vision in the nihilating liberty.”413

Regarding Divine knowledge, he concludes emphatically: “We think to remove thus as much as the ‘antecedent permissive decrees’ [of] numerous Thomists as the ‘supercomprehensions of causes’ of the middle knowledge of the Molinists.”414 Journet, in a rather rare direct comparison, explicitly distinguishes his position from both Bañezian Thomism and Molinism. iii) Consequent Permissive Decree and the Dissymmetry between the Line of Good and the Line of Evil Let us consider the dissymmetry between the line of good and the line of evil which

Journet and Maritain emphasize. God as the source of all efficient causality must know all good things that He wills and that He causes to exist in time.415 A mera negatio, as it is not being, is not caused by God; but its possibility is allowed and seen in the simple divine will from all eternity. Furthermore, God’s knowledge of the defect and sin is known in the moment of the creature’s non-consideration of the divine rule and subsequent faulty choice and action,416 not strictly in His divine essence, but because He knows creatures in His divine essence (as all creatures are present to Him). Since God only permits a sinful choice or sinful act “consequent” to the mera negatio, He in no way can be a cause of, or has any indirect involvement with, the initiative of sin. Since man is the initiator of evil,417 God knows evil “in the will” of the sinner, just as He knows the mera negatio “in the will” of the about-to-be sinner. This conception allows Maritain and Journet to separate strictly God’s

413 EVI IV, 440, n. 493. 414 EVI IV, 440, n. 493. 415 ST I, q. 14, aa. 5 and 8. 416 Since man’s non-consideration (which, again, is a “non-act”) “derives from the will’s own failure to act … [which] establishes a connection between its non-activity and its sin, making it responsible for it.” Torre, God’s Permission of Sin: Negative or Conditional Decree?, 250. 417 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 178: [Regarding sin] “This is produced by man alone, without God and against God.” See also Maritain, Existence and the Existent, 110-11.

149 action in the line of good (where He takes the initiative) from the line of evil (where He grants only permissiveness, a permissiveness “consequent” to the creature’s initiative). iv) Summary of the Consequent Permissive Decree A “consequent permissive decree” follows logically from: i) man as taking the sole initiative of evil, ii) from how Maritain and Journet understand the “divine knowledge of sin,” as

God knowing sin “in the existent” and “in the instant” of the sin, and iii) the notion of a

“breakable” divine motion. God only knows sin “in the created existent” and “in the instant” when it occurs – all of which is present to Him eternally. If He does not permit its occurrence prior to the instant in which it occurs (since He is not the cause of “non-being” or a “privation”),

He can only permit it “in the instant” or “consequent to when” the sin occurs. If sin is permitted only “in the instant” when it occurs, then a divine motion to the good which moved man to a good act must be breakable. The internal logic of a “consequent permissive decree” and a

“breakable” divine motion seems solid. d. Unshatterable Divine Motion In addition to a breakable divine motion, Maritain suggests that God can also offer to man, at the outset, not a breakable but an unbreakable divine motion:

I do not deny…that God can, if He so wills, transport a created existent at one stroke to the performing of a good free act by an unshatterable or infallibly efficacious activation or motion. This is a question of His free predilections and of the price paid for souls in the communion of . How far His own wisdom binds His power, and how far the rule decided by His love binds its impulse to effusion, is the mystery of mysteries.418 We briefly note that if God chooses to act in this manner such action does not eliminate human free will. Thomas asserts that God is a preserver, not a destroyer, of nature. As Creator, He can move the free will of the rational creature without violating it. Journet notices: “In II Sentences,

418 Maritain, Existence and the Existent, 97-99. Cf. Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 60.

150 dist. 4, a. 3, ad 5, to the question: ‘If all the angels were created in grace, why did they all not follow the impulsion of grace which brought them toward God?’, St. Thomas responded that grace, like nature, inclines without violating free will.”419 Elsewhere Thomas reiterates that the

Creator is sovereign over His subjects as to moving them naturally: “The movement of the will is from within, as also is the movement of nature. Now although it is possible for something to move a natural thing, without being the cause of the thing moved, yet that alone, which is in some way the cause of a thing's nature, can cause a natural movement in that thing.”420

Journet concurs with Maritain’s assertion of an “unbreakable” divine motion, citing the above quotation (on page 149) from Existence and the Existent and further noting that he,

Journet, is also relying on St. Thomas:421 just as God in the natural, physical order can heal a blind or sick person, so in the supernatural, moral order He can convert a man from sin. But, just as He does not cure all blind or sick persons, neither does He convert all sinners.

Why is the unbreakable divine motion not always given, especially with respect to grace? Journet addresses this very question:

To ask this of him would be to expect from him a different world from the one he chose to make, in which the extraordinary would become the ordinary, and the exception would be changed into the rule. It belongs to divine providence, as St. Thomas reminds us, to govern things according to their natures, to preserve natures, not to do away with them.422 We return to a pervasive theme running through Journet’s theology: only a breakable divine motion allows the possibility of a love of preference, the choice between goods pertinent to rational creatures in via.

419 EVI IV, 211, n. 50, with reference to II Sentences, dist. 4, a. 3, ad 5. (Cf. footnote 73 on page 69.) 420 ST I-II, q. 9, a. 6, resp. 421 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 157-61, with reference to SCG III, ch. 161; cf. 167-168. In EVI IV, 268, this same quotation of Maritain is again given, Journet adding that, in this case of an unbreakable motion, there is only consent (line of exercise) but no love of preference through deliberation (line of specification). 422 The Meaning of Evil, 168-69, with reference to II Sent., qu. 1, a. 2. Other references in this footnote omitted.

151 e. Summary of the Divine Motions under the Alternative Interpretation of Maritain and Journet

God is the author of every good act, whereas man solely has the initiative in the line of evil. God typically deals with His creatures in accord with the system required by their nature, meaning He respects their free will, which in turn allows a love of preference.

Consequently, a “breakable” divine motion moves the creature to a good act; if not resisted by man’s mera negatio, the good act will occur. Under Maritain’s view, there are three possible divine responses to the creature’s mera negatio or “breaking” the divine motion:423

1. God can do nothing, and then sin occurs; 2. He can “block” the sin from happening by giving an unshatterable motion, and; 3. He can also prevent the actual act of sin from occurring, by intervening, for example, by sending a third party to divert the would-be sinful act from taking place. Lastly, He could give an unshatterable motion in the first place, where the mera negatio cannot occur at all.

********

Having seen the interpretations of God’s knowledge and the divine permission of sin of

Bañezian Thomism and Journet/Maritain, our next concern is to inquire how the respective understandings of these topics effects the teaching on grace.

423 Here we focus on the supernatural order.

Part Five – A Discussion of Sufficient Grace and Efficacious Grace

“God wills all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4).

Since eternal life is a supernatural gift, the rational creature can only reach it via divine grace. Scripture affirms that grace exists which produces its effect (Phil 2:13). Scripture also testifies that grace can be and is refused (Acts 7:51; 2 Cor 6:1; Matt 23:37). Efficacious grace corresponds to the first truth, and sufficient grace corresponds to the second. We shall analyze in the following Journet’s interpretation of Thomas on the topic of grace.

A. Charles Journet on Sufficient Grace and Efficacious Grace Journet adopts Maritain’s philosophical paradigm of a “breakable” and “unbreakable” divine motion in the natural order, applying it theologically both to the angels and to man concerning the divine motion to a salutary act in the supernatural order, importantly adding the context of operating and cooperating grace.424 Having briefly discussed operating grace in the first moment of the angels, Journet turns to the second angelic moment. The context is that God created a universe which respects the nature of creatures: subordinate divine power, ordinary means. Of note, in the very first usage of the terms “sufficient grace” and “efficacious grace” in

Volume IV, Journet (speaking of the angels) places an equivalence of a “breakable” divine motion with sufficient grace, and of an “unbreakable” divine motion with efficacious grace:

424 As to the angels, see EVI IV, 264-66; as to men, see EVI IV, 266-68 and 281-84. Jacques Maritain, while acknowledging he was moving out of a metaphysical sphere into the domain of theology, himself suggested such an application: “I should write…‘sufficient grace and efficacious grace’ where I have written shatterable impetus and unshatterable impetus.” Existence and the Existent, 104. Other instances where Maritain refers to efficacious grace may be found at God and the Permission of Evil, 39, and 58, n. 8. With even greater clarity: “There is no real or conceptual difference between a motion that is ‘impedible’ and one that is ‘breakable.’ Maritain himself later acknowledged this, saying that he had “proposed this expression ‘breakable motion or actuation’ as a kind of philosophical equivalent of the theological expression ‘sufficient grace’.” Torre, “Francisco Marín-Sola, OP, and the Origin of Jacques Maritain’s Doctrine on God’s Permission of Evil,” 88, citing Maritain, On the Philosophy of History (New York: Scribners, 1957), 120, n. 3. 152

153

We see only one possible solution. It is to suppose, at this very instant of the choice of the angels, the eventual succession of two motions of cooperating grace. Initially a first motion given to all the angels according to the condition of their fallible nature, and which is able to be broken by their fault: those who acted after having broken it are the proper and sole cause of their damnation. This first motion (let us make it correspond to grace called sufficient), if it is not broken, gives way to a second motion, the latter unbreakable (let us make it correspond to grace called efficacious), under which the salutary choice will be infallibly produced. If the bad choice occurs, it is always by resistance to the divine kindnesses: ‘Those who He once justified by His grace, God only abandons them after having been previously abandoned by them.’425 If the salutary choice occurs, it is always by the power of divine kindnesses: ‘It is God who works in you to will and to work according to his good pleasure’ (Phil 2:13)426 He is equally explicit linking a “breakable” divine motion with sufficient grace and an

“unbreakable” divine motion with efficacious grace (employing the proxy “resistible” and

“irresistible”) a few years before, in The Meaning of Evil:

A parallel to the distinction between resistible and irresistible influence can be found in the distinction drawn by theologians…between so-called ‘sufficient’ grace and ‘efficacious’ grace. The effect of efficacious grace is to provide the impulse for the saving act. What is the effect of the grace that we are able to resist? … [Using as an example the supernatural act of attrition] Should we not rather say of the resistible influence that it always intends to, and when it is not resisted it effectively does, make a man actually consider the rule of action, i.e., at the moment when the will is carried forward by the impetus which urges all creatures to act, it gives him the power to take the right direction and afterwards – but then it will be under the influence of – to produce the supernatural act of attrition?427 To reiterate the distinction between sufficient and efficacious grace, Journet succinctly notes:

Let us call the resistible graces that I may frustrate sufficient graces, and the irresistible ones offered in these when they are not impeded – as fruit is offered in the flower – efficacious graces. That will explain the distinction between sufficient and efficacious grace.428

425 EVI 264, n.157: Council of Trent, Session VI, chap XI, DS, no. 1537. First Vatican Council, Session III, chap. III, DS, no. 3014. Supra footnote 189 on page 94. 426 EVI IV, 264. 427 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 157, n. 23. 428 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 39.

154

Journet the theologian augments what Maritain the philosopher could not address, namely, cooperating grace, which Journet further distinguishes by sufficient grace and efficacious grace.429 Since the free will of the rational creature is respected when grace is offered, the creature may make, or refuse to make, a love of preference by choosing the

Uncreated over created goods; therefore, cooperating grace (v. simply operating grace) is required. The term of sufficient grace is to become efficacious grace.430 In light of man’s not resisting sufficient grace, sufficient grace is said to “fructify of itself” into efficacious grace, which, in turn, produces the consideration of the divine rule and the salutary act.431

1. How Sufficient Grace Becomes Efficacious Grace

I infer three possible ways to describe how sufficient grace becomes or “gives way to” efficacious grace: i) sufficient grace produces man’s consent / non-resistance to sufficient grace; ii) upon receiving an offer of sufficient grace, man, by his own non- resistance - stemming from his natural powers - to said grace converts sufficient grace to efficacious grace, and; iii) sufficient grace begins moving man to the salutary act, and, if man does not resist it, it becomes, by a power intrinsic to itself, efficacious grace which then completes the movement.

429 In addition to the quotation just cited on page 153 of EVI IV, 264, the same categorization is noted in EVI IV, 281-82. 430 EVI IV, 265-66, n. 158, where Journet, referring to Existence and the Existent writes: “the breakable motion has for [its] direct term to incline the angels freely to consider the right rule of their action.” Similarly, from the citation from The Meaning of Evil a moment ago (page 153), Journet defines the effect of sufficient grace as intending to make one “consider the rule of action.” 431 EVI IV, 267: “They [man, in general] are … visited by a first motion of cooperating grace, which they can break and deprive of its fruit. Thus do those who die in final impenitence. But among the others, in whom this breakable motion is not broken, it fructifies into a second motion, the unbreakable motion and of itself efficacious of cooperating grace, which gives them to prefer good over evil and to merit beatitude by this choice.”

155

The first two are ruled out because Maritain is clear that man adds no positive act or being in the conversion of a shatterable motion into an unshatterable motion (as we shall detail momentarily). The third retains the elements of Marín-Sola’s theory which concerned sufficient grace moving man as to the beginning of an impedible motion, yet the term of the act is not reached if man impedes the motion. The link from Marín-Sola to Maritain, and from Maritain to Journet, is not spoken of by the latter as a “beginning” or “completing” a divine motion of grace. Rather, it takes the form: i) in the natural order of a breakable divine motion which, if not resisted, will “give way to” an unbreakable divine motion, and ii) in the supernatural order, of sufficient grace which, if not resisted, will “fructify of itself” into efficacious grace.432 Thus, the third seems to capture the intent of Journet and Maritain.

Under the third option, sufficient grace is truly “sufficient,” in that, through a power intrinsic to itself,433 it becomes efficacious grace as long as man does not resist it. Since God is the initiator in the line of good and man the initiator in the line of evil, the sufficient grace sent by God (assuming man does not negatively intervene) will fructify into efficacious grace, and the salutary act will infallibly occur. There is a strong continuity between sufficient grace and efficacious grace. Only man, by introducing non-being by a non-consideration of the divine rule to the divine motion through which sufficient grace is offered – along with choosing wrongly – can halt sufficient grace from becoming efficacious grace. In offering

432 We note a difference between Maritain (and Journet) and Marín-Sola as to how a sufficient grace becomes efficacious grace, which Schmitz noted. Marín-Sola posits that – regarding “easy” acts – it is the identical fallible motion which, if not resisted, moves the will to the right choice; whereas Maritain teaches that the breakable motion “fructifies” into an unbreakable motion, which then produces the right choice. Schmitz, Causalité divine, 140-41. 433 Using Marín-Sola’s term: through “its own proper virtue.” Torre, God’s Permission of Sin: Negative or Conditional Decree?, 133.

156 sufficient grace, God has done both all He can and all He needs to do for the person to perform a salutary act and to advance in holiness.

Man does not Contribute to Sufficient Grace Becoming Efficacious Grace That man does not break a breakable divine motion in the natural order, Maritain energetically denies is due to man. Rather, Maritain wishes to attribute it to the divine motion: “if we allow free passage to these influxes of being, then (and by virtue of the first design of God) the shatterable divine activations fructify by themselves into unshatterable divine activation.”434 He adds that shatterable motions, if not shattered by man’s non- consideration of the rule:

fructify of themselves, I say of themselves or by the very love of God from which they proceed…without having need of being completed by the slightest actuation or determination coming from the creature, into unshatterable motions (let us say, if you will, into efficacious graces) which replace them and under which the creature…will consider the rule…and will produce the good act to which it is moved by God.435

To support further the claim that it is God’s grace (and not man’s action) which converts sufficient grace to efficacious grace (with the consequence that the divine rule is considered and a good act performed), Maritain is emphatic that God is the source of any good act. He first re-phrases the dissymmetry between the line of good and the line of evil to apply to individual actions, and then specifically addresses divine premotion:

In reality, all that I do which is good comes from God and all that I do which is evil comes from me, because God has the first initiative in the line of being and because I have the first initiative in the line of non-being. If I do the good, it is because God has moved by will from end to end, without my having taken any initiative of nothingness which would have shattered His motion at the stage where it was shatterable. All the good that I do comes from God.436

434 Maritain, Existence and the Existent, 94. 435 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 39. 436 Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 41.

157

An alternative is that man, upon being offered sufficient grace, by his own action and consent converts sufficient grace into efficacious grace. But this latter is neither Journet’s nor Maritain’s intent, for we read in Maritain (concerning man’s response to a breakable divine motion): But what is important to set forth here with unmistakable clarity is that the created existent contributes nothing of its own, does nothing, adds nothing, gives nothing…which would make of the shatterable impetus an unshatterable impetus or an impetus that comes to grips with existence. Not to nihilate under the divine activation…does not mean acting on one’s own to complete, in any way whatever, the divine activation.437

With even more emphasis:

We are far from being able to say that the least contribution made by the created existent renders the shatterable impetus unshatterable. On the contrary, it is the shatterable impetus which of itself makes the way for the unshatterable impetus and fructifies in it by the sole fact that the created existent did nothing of itself alone.438

Journet adopts Maritain’s idea, utilizing the (following) same quote twice, first in

The Meaning of Evil and then in EVI IV. We will provide the English translation given in the former work. Of particular note: Maritain himself refers to sufficient and efficacious grace:

And when the creature does not produce nothingness under grace (this is no merit on its part, for not to take the initiative of nothingness is not to do something, it is only not to move under divine action), – when the creature does not take the initiative of nothingness, then divine motion or grace merely sufficient or breakable fructifies of itself into unbreakable divine motion or into grace efficacious by itself.439

Sufficient grace (when not resisted) of itself converts into efficacious grace.

We now look more closely at how grace is related to divine motions, which also sheds additional light on the nature of sufficient grace.

437 Maritain, Existence and the Existent, 99-100. 438 Maritain, Existence and the Existent, 108, n. 10. 439 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 159, quoting Maritain, St. Thomas and the Problem of Evil (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1942), 39. Cf. EVI IV, 268, n. 159.

158

2. Sufficient Grace and Efficacious Grace and Divine Motions Regarding sufficient and efficacious grace, the question centers on how sufficient grace “fructifies of itself” into efficacious grace. As we have seen, Journet, following

Maritain,440 states that once man does not reject sufficient grace, then sufficient grace fructifies into efficacious grace, and the salutary act occurs. We now delve a bit deeper into this question.

We begin by noting that sufficient grace is for Journet a physical premotion in the supernatural order.441 Yet, a breakable divine motion is also a tendency: “Should we not rather say of the resistible influence that it always intends to, and when it is not resisted it effectively does, make a man actually consider the rule of action.”442 Therefore, for Journet, sufficient grace is a physical premotion – in that God moves the will to act and the will does act – but such physical premotion – unlike Bañezian Thomism, as we shall see – can be broken. In sum, sufficient grace causes man to begin to act but that act may or may not reach its term.443

The only reason sufficient grace does not reach its term – which is “to incline freely” the consideration of the divine rule444 – is the creature’s defect, namely, the mera negatio. If

440 Not to nihilate means “not stirring under its touch, but allowing its free passage, allowing it to bear its fruit (the unshatterable activation)…” Maritain, Existence and the Existent, 100. Emphasis added. 441 “First, such a grace, according to Journet, is ‘sufficient’ for salvation insofar as it constitutes a genuine ‘movement’ of the will, a positive influx of natural being and grace.” Thomas Joseph White, O.P., “Von Balthasar and Journet on the Universal Possibility of Salvation and the Twofold Will of God,” Nova et Vetera (English Edition) 4, no. 3 (2006): 633-666, at 662. 442 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 157, n. 23. In EVI IV, 266, n. 158, Journet quotes Maritain’s God and the Permission of Evil, 56, that the divine activation is “a movement or a tendency.” 443 The idea is akin to a shatterable motion, when not resisted, “giving way” to an unshatterable motion. For both Maritain (in the natural order) and Journet (in the supernatural order), the entire event of a divine premotion is a process. Here we see an influence of Marín-Sola, who understood a divine premotion as a process. 444 On EVI IV, 265-66, n. 158, Journet refers to Maritain, Existence and the Existent, that the term of the shatterable motion in the natural order is to “incline freely” to consider the divine rule. In the supernatural order, Journet affirms

159 the defect occurs, it is not because the rational creature lacks grace; it is only because the creature initiates the defective act. We note a crucial item that Journet utilizes and which

Marín-Sola had anticipated: “[O]ne fails not while awaiting an aid that is not given, but rather that one fails even while possessing the aid…by which one need not have failed.”445

For Journet, sufficient grace is sufficient by itself: while it cannot prevent man’s resistance, in the absence of that resistance it becomes efficacious grace.

B. The Importance of Sufficient Grace in the Theology of Journet To underscore the significance of sufficient grace in Journet’s treatment of the divine economy, we first discuss the divine will with respect to the salvation of the rational creature. As originally conceived by St. John Damascene, God desires the salvation of all by the divine antecedent will. At the same time, God wills this supernatural gift conditionally, as He desires that salvation be embraced freely through cooperation with grace.446 Aquinas built on Damascene’s teaching, noting that the distinction between antecedent and consequent pertains not to the divine will itself (which is not divisible), but rather to the things willed.447

Why does God offer sufficient grace to all rational creatures? Certainly not due to justice, as if salvation were part of the debitum naturae of a creature, but, as Thomas Joseph

White understands Journet, “as something God himself necessarily wishes in conformity with his own wisdom and goodness.”448 Indeed, “God as he is revealed to us in Christ’s

that the term of sufficient grace is the same – “to consider the rule of action:” see The Meaning of Evil, 157, n. 23, i) as noted earlier on this page, and ii) in footnote 427 on page 153. 445 Torre, God’s Permission of Sin: Negative or Conditional Decree?, 113. 446 White, “Von Balthasar and Journet,” 643. 447 ST I, q. 19, a. 6, ad 1. 448 White, “Von Balthasar and Journet,” 640.

160 redemption” confirms with even more splendor “this original decision of love and justice initiated by creation,” in that the New Testament manifests that God created the rational creature “for a mystery of divine inhabitation.”449 Journet specifies that it is the grace wrought by the Incarnation which accomplishes an even greater unity than prelapsarian

Adam possessed, since God has now assumed the same human nature as Adam:

Under Adamic grace, the end would have been the glory of a humanity elevated to a union of divine inhabitation; under Christic grace, this glory of inhabitation will be colored by the lights of the glory of Christ, it will be that of a humanity touching through Christ its Head to the dignity of the Hypostatic order.450 It as if God shows that He is “more invested” in humanity after the Fall, evidenced by His unheard of generosity of both sending the Son to rescue mankind and the Holy Spirit to fortify the Apostles, as well as by establishing a Church to dispense grace.451

Angels and men are both “invited to exceed the plan of nature and to enter by grace into the society of the divine Persons.”452 White remarks on Journet’s understanding of this “analogy of love” between the Uncreated and the creature: “The mystery of God’s life is freely offered in love so that it can be freely consented to in love.”453 In the ordinate divine power,

449 White, “Von Balthasar and Journet,” 640-41. 450 EVI IV, 510. 451 “What surprises the reader of the third chapter of Genesis, is less the nature of the sanctions which come to strike the first human couple than the conduct of God in regard to these two. He appears as Righter of Wrongs, He [God] could have left man in the miserable condition where he has voluntarily thrown himself, and now at the very moment of punishing him, He is as if seized by an inexplicable love.” EVI IV, 655. 452 EVI IV, 274. 453 White, “Von Balthasar and Journet,” 652, n. 42. See EVI III, 1887-88: “Is it an inert statue of clay that God created and loved at the beginning of the world, or is it a living soul which may return him love for love? Is it a sinful mass that Christ colored by the blood of the Cross, or is it a soul that He washed, purified in its center, rendered a participant of the divine nature? And in which case does the divine transcendence break forth more? In the first or in the second? Everything expounded of Christianity which is ignorant of the depth of this reciprocity and of these mutual exchanges rests on an error.”

161 sufficient grace is the ordinary way to salvation,454 as it manifests that “God’s economy places great emphasis on the mystery of mutual, consenting love.”455

In the divine economy, a creature giving generously in response to the divine invitation is rewarded with beatitude – a beatitude that is merited. Since the creature could refuse or accept divine love, a demerit or reward accrues to the creature’s choice. And since grace enables that genuine, free (positive) choice in the supernatural order, the demerit or reward is supernatural. It is in this economy, more than a theoretical one wherein the creature is immediately placed in beatitude at its creation, which “considers more the law, inscribed in its [the creature’s] heart, by which it [the creature] wishes to be collaborator with God in the work of completion of the universe, and in the work of its own completion.”456 Beatitude is attained, as the creature attains its “own completion,” because the creature’s graced love of preference causes it freely “to adhere to the transcendent

Source of its being.”457

Both angels before their fall and man after his fall cannot love God (as the object of eternal life) above all the things in a fully meritorious way without supernatural grace. To love God above all things with full merit requires not merely consent which operating grace brings, but a choice which cooperating grace enables. The freedom of the rational creature manifests its highest act and its most robust strength when it exercises the virtue of charity.

Only a universe where God might be refused as well as accepted provides the opportunity

454 White, “Von Balthasar and Journet,” 663. Concerning Maritain: For most of humanity, Maritain writes, God sends shatterable divine motions: see God and the Permission of Evil, 39, 105-06; Existence and the Existent, 93, 99. For a special group, chosen by Him for His reasons, God initially sends unshatterable motions: see God and the Permission of Evil, 38-39; Existence and the Existent, 97-99. 455 White, “Von Balthasar and Journet,” 664. Footnote reference omitted. 456 EVI IV, 256. 457 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 154.

162 for charity to bloom. In a word, salvation history is comprised of “the relations between the two sources of history, the defectible freedom of man and the eternal freedom of God.”458

Conclusion God created a world of nature and grace because He wished to be loved by creatures. But to be loved by creatures, He had to make them free (so they might either freely accept or freely reject Him459). As salvation history takes place in creation and among creatures (said otherwise,

“in time”), Journet accentuates the central character of the free will of both angels and men by highlighting the creature’s creation in a state of journeying and not in a state of finality. The creature’s actual agency along with its dependence on the God is evidenced by Journet’s emphasizing divine premotion, the subordination of causes, and the realization of the creature’s supernatural goal through free, cooperative action with divine grace. The love of preference may be freely made or freely refused: all of salvation history may be viewed in this lens, as the City of God and the City of the Devil (defined by their respective, ultimate loves, which are freely willed) pursue the temporally-ordered City of Man.

Can we amplify (from Chapter One), with reference to free will and a “love of preference,” what constitutes a “theology of the history of salvation” for Journet, the topic of

Volume IV? After creation, in the time of redemption, such a theology serves “to manifest the progress, in the world of time, of the gifts of the divine Goodness.”460 Further, the theology of salvation history draws attention to what is “essentially mystery:” salvation only occurs because

458 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 270. 459 “God tolerates to be rejected by some, in order to be able to be preferred by others.” EVI IV, 270, n. 162. 460 EVI IV, 168.

163

God willed to save.461 Not only is salvation offered as a gift, but the reason creation came to be is that God desires a “love of preference” from His creatures.462 And those same rational beings assist in the attaining of the final ends of the created universe when, through grace, they accept the invitation “to exceed the plan of their nature.” The typical invitation is via sufficient grace, in which God’s love graciously offered may be humbly returned. Alternatively, but also in the world of ordinate, divine power, both angels and man, acting “independently,” are able to spurn the divine invitation by refusing sufficient grace, and are thus the initiators of evil.

But we must not get ahead of ourselves. The Fall of Adam and Eve would not go unheeded by God. God became man so as to redeem man objectively and to offer redemption to fallen man subjectively. We turn now to discuss the various “ages” of salvation history devised by Cardinal Journet, seeing a progressive nature of revelation over time and observing how grace changed in each epoch. We shall notice how rational creatures have crucial roles in the work of redemption.

461 EVI IV, 178, with reference to Michel L. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P., “Le mystère du salut,” Divinitas, no. 2 (1968): 375-474 at 472. 462 Cf. supra, footnote 45 on pages 61-62.

Chapter Three – The Incarnation and Redemptive Act Modify Sanctifying Grace

Introduction Chapter Three will explore Journet’s understanding of how sanctifying grace is altered by the Incarnation and Pentecost – that is, not by the Fall but rather by God’s response to the Fall.

To provide a basis for a “before and after” comparison, we will first describe the two economies of salvation prior to the Incarnation (Part One). In addition to comparing sanctifying grace before the Fall (“Transfigurative”) and after the Fall (“Christic” or “redemptive”), we will note

Journet’s emphasis that Christic grace is derived from the Incarnation and ordered to man’s redemption, as well as examine the reasons why Christic grace is redeeming (Part Two).

Furthermore, we will consider the two modes of Christic grace: by Anticipation and by

Derivation; and then one final division of Christic Grace by Derivation: By Contact (i.e., through the sacraments of the Church) and At a Distance (Part Three). We shall then be in a position to attempt a definition of Christic grace, and to inquire into its various characteristics. Part Four concerns Christic grace and the development of the Church, with a particular focus on the

Church’s sacraments.

Throughout this chapter, we will see the prominence not only of the Incarnation, but also of Christ meriting by His sacrifice on the Cross, as well as of Pentecost. The two Divine Missions change grace. A key facet discovered in the chapter is that Christic grace does not transfigure the human condition, but rather sanctifies it. Specifically, Christic grace “illumines” human suffering, meaning it enables one to imitate Christ by accepting sorrow instead of fighting against it; the disciple of Christ thus “suffers well,” making a sacrifice both virtuous and meritorious. Salvation history includes a history of a gradual change in sanctifying grace: God

164

165 responds to the Fall, not by abandoning man, but by offering him even greater gifts, by which the penalties of sin become (via grace) a way to eternal beatitude.

Part One – The Economies of Salvation Prior to the Incarnation A. The Progressive Nature of Revelation If creation, and, therefore time, were understood in the ancient world as having neither beginning nor end since it had no Creator, and thus the life of the human person having no meaning, a fortiori the notion of a progressive nature of divine revelation would strike an ancient pagan as both utterly unthinkable and obviously unnecessary. Inconceivable is the idea that God might actually intervene in the affairs of men such that, “without degrading Himself, by drawing

… all things to Himself, of falling in love with His very creation.”1 Whether seemingly minor events (such as the calling of a prophet) or major events (the Incarnation), time is “where” God manifest himself. In fact, precisely because the Incarnation is the “central point of reference,” a theology of history is possible, where old events foreshadow a fulfillment, and the fulfillments illuminate the past.2

Nothing is unplanned, nothing is unexpected, whether in sacred or secular history. With faith, one can see in the past preparations for the future:

If God is the Master of sacred history and of its growth during the ages, He will dispose the past in view of the future; the same wisdom which presides over the blooming of the Church was at work during its germinations; consequently, it will be possible for us retrospectively to rediscover in the past the prefiguration of the evangelical ages.3

But it is not as if human persons were pawns or puppets. Rational creatures elect to act in ways in accord with and contrary to their nature. Yet all actions are within, are contemplated by,

Divine Providence. As noted in Chapter Two, there can be no random or unknown events, since all is within the divine gaze.

1 EVI IV, 68. Cf. 64-67. 2 EVI IV, 71-73, with reference to Henri-Charles Puech, “La gnose et le temps,” 67-70. 3 EVI IV, 696. 166

167

Foremost within that gaze is not economics, politics, commerce, or any other pursuit so common in the 20th century. Rather, it is purpose. Every created thing has a purpose, as illustrated by its nature. As to the purpose of rational creatures:

It is towards the Cross which must raise over the world, that grace which, from the first ages, secretly oriented and inclined hearts, and, by proposing to humanity a salvation placed in the future and in front of it [humanity], it [grace] deposited in it [humanity] a hope and a light destined to increase until the day of the encounter. From the beginning, humanity is led into an irreversible history: creation, terrestrial paradise, the Fall, redemption, Last Judgment, transfiguration; and from its first state, the City of God is on the road towards Christ.4 Creatures can only have a purpose if they are divinely directed; they cannot manufacture (though they may attempt) an alternative purpose. Too, it would aid the creature to know of his purpose, which is within a divine plan:

Such a theology of the history of salvation would strive, in making use of the revealed scriptural and dogmatic contributions, and from the elaborations of the progressively doctrinal theology acquired in the course of the ages, and up until our day, to give some understanding “of the eternal purpose that God knew in Christ Jesus, our Lord” (Eph 3:11); to manifest the progress, in the world of time, of the gifts of the divine Goodness, “of the philanthropy of our Savior God” (Titus 3:4), “who wills all men to be saved to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4).5 Journet emphasizes the gratuitous dimension of salvation history. Per EVI V, sacred history centers around the “Descents of God coming to encounter men,” to elevate them to the unfathomable title of “children of God.” Such acts and “salvific Events” were inconceivable to man, and they “are at the origin of the great merciful Dispensations which represent the revealed economies of the Law of nature, the mosaic Law, and the new or evangelical Law.”6

The supernatural purpose of the creature is linked directly to the Creator. From Scripture Journet highlights a progress of divine beneficence to aid the creature’s progress, which I infer to

4 EVI IV, 638-39. 5 EVI IV, 168-69. 6 EVI V, 560.

168 encompass both an abundance in its breadth and as suitable to man’s capacity: “God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world.”7

Knowing that rational creatures are rather slow and cumbersome8 (or worse9) to learn in general, and more so regarding spiritual realities, a lengthy preparation was deemed needed after the Fall in order for fallen man to learn that he needed a Savior:

On the other hand, God will not send His Son into the world without having caused to foreshadow, without doubt obscurely, His coming under the economy of the Law of nature, without having announced and prepared it [His coming] by the prophetic lights more and more precise under the economy of the Mosaic Law, until the day when St. , “seeing Jesus coming to him, will say: ‘Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world’ (John 1:29). So that, under this aspect, the spiritual history of humanity is that of a progressive climb toward the point, where, in touching it, the Word will illumine the world.10 The period after the Fall to the Incarnation was the time of preparation, a lengthy “advent.” It took the form of two economies, one with and one without supernatural divine revelation.

B. The Two Economies of Salvation Before the Incarnation As a brief reminder from Chapter One: Journet categorizes time into three ages: the Age of the Father (anterior to the Church), the Age of the Son (beginning immediately after the Fall and ending at the Ascension), and the Age of the Holy Spirit (commencing with Pentecost). We wish here to add Journet’s classification of the “three divine regimes of the Church.” The first occupies the period of the Two Economies (to be discussed below) prior to the Incarnation; the second regime is the very brief time when Christ walks this earth; and the third regime occurs

7 Hebrews 1:1-2 (dissertation writer utilizing Douay Rheims translation), as quoted at EVI IV, 823. 8 1 Cor 3:2: “I gave you milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet.” Cf. EVI IV, 825. 9 Hebrews 3:10: “They always err in heart. And they have not known my ways.” 10 EVI IV, 822.

169 after Pentecost, in the Age of the Holy Spirit. Grace is given in the first regime, when the Two

Economies hold sway, to the Church in anticipation of the Cross of Christ; in the second and third regimes, since Christ has come, grace is given by derivation.11 [See Appendix One]

Journet identifies two economies of salvation12 prior to the Incarnation: the Economy of the Law of Nature and the Economy of the Mosaic Law. The former commences with the

Protoevangelium;13 it is the time after the Fall14 and of the Long Awaited Age of the Son, under the First Divine Regime of the Church. The latter has an extremely long preparation, beginning with the Promise to Adam, then proceeding through and , with its actual institution occurring with the giving of the Decalogue on Mt. Sinai.15 Both economies are given by God. Both are preparatory to, and fulfilled by, Christ, who, with the Holy Spirit, establishes the New Law.16 As both are “economies of salvation,” grace is present in both; since grace (by

Anticipation) is present in both economies, the Church is also present (though inchoately); since the Church is present, the Two Cities are also present. Said differently, since men accept and refuse the grace offered in both economies, the Two Cities are present in both economies.17

Our plan is to describe each economy briefly. After noting the superiority of the Economy of the

Mosaic Law over the Economy of the Law of Nature, we will observe four commonalities between the two Economies: i) that grace is offered under both, ii) despite the availability of

11 EVI IV, 817-19. 12 EVI IV, 560-61: “This will be now the role of the theology to explain how under these two divine economies of the Law of Nature and of the Mosaic Law, salvation could be offered and the Church could develop.” 13 EVI IV, 655. 14 Interpreting St. Paul (Rom 2:14-16), Journet says the Economy of the Law of Nature goes back to Adam and concerns man “fallen and redeemed.” EVI IV, 564-65. 15 EVI IV, 654, 942. 16 See Section 5(a) of this Letter B, infra, for a more detailed discussion of this topic. 17 EVI IV, 557-58; cf. 289.

170 grace, neither Economy prevented sin, iii) both Economies were provisional, and iv) both were fulfilled in the Economy of the New Law and in the Church.

1. Natural Law and the Economy of the Law of Nature Cardinal Journet distinguishes the Natural Law from the Economy of the Law of Nature.

Following Thomas, he describes the former as the imprinting in man of divine light whereby man might discern good from evil.18 Prelapsarian Adam and Eve possessed the Natural Law.19

The Natural Law is unwritten, and no grace is attached to it. In contrast, the “Economy of the

Law of Nature” involves grace.20 It denominates the period from the time of the Fall up until the giving of the Mosaic Law21 (which is written). During this period, man has no fundamental moral standard other than the Natural Law.22

We wish to emphasize two points vis-à-vis the advent of the Economy of the Mosaic

Law. First, Natural Law did not cease upon the giving of the Mosaic Law. Since it is an element of human nature,23 both Gentiles and Jews continue to benefit from it, even after the Sinai covenant.24 Second, the Economy of the Law of Nature remains in place for the Gentiles.25

18 EVI IV, 561, with reference to ST I-II, q. 91, a. 2. 19 Thomas says that the Natural Law is given to man “at creation.” , no. 12, citing In Duo Praecepta Caritatis et in Cecem Legis Praecepta. Prologus: Opuscula Theologica, II, No. 1129, Ed. Taurinen (1954), 245. 20 Regarding the Protoevangelium, Journet says: “It will have for immediate effect the inauguration of the economy of the Law of Nature, meaning the secret and anticipated effusion, on all of humanity, of the graces of salvation that the redemption of Christ, one day, will summon upon the world.” EVI IV, 655. 21 EVI IV, 564. 22 EVI IV, 564. 23 “The things that are natural to man are neither taken away from him nor granted to him by sin,” ST I, q. 98, a. 2. 24 EVI II, 491: “It is necessary to distinguish, in this long series of centuries, two principal regimes. The one general, which applies to all the Gentiles: it is the regime of the law of nature, where grace seeks to insinuate itself secretly into hearts, acting in the manner of an interior instinct. The other particular, valid principally for the Jews: it is the regime of the ancient law where, besides the secret impulsion, which, far from being removed, is on the contrary reinforced, an exterior law is proposed to a small population, which is elected not in order to be saved alone, but in order to prepare the salvation of all the others.” In EVI II, 491, n. 440, Journet cites ST I-II, q. 98, a. 2, ad 4: “At the same time as the law, another help was given to men, grace in which they could be saved: namely faith in the Mediator, which had justified the as it [the faith] justifies us.” 25 EVI IV, 564. “This double regime of grace was normal for those days.” Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 102.

171

2. The Mosaic Law and the Economy of the Mosaic Law The Economy of the Mosaic Law encompasses several covenants. It commences with

Noah, continues with Abraham, and culminates with the giving of the Mosaic Law on Mt. Sinai.

We will focus on this last event.

God establishing the Mosaic Law is a crucial development and critical step of progress in salvation history.26 His purpose was ambitious: by designating a small, chosen group “in order to prepare it more immediately to receive in it, when ‘the fullness of time’ will have come (Gal

4:4), the revelation of the New Law, and in order to, if it did not show itself unworthy, eventually to entrust to it the mission of spreading this New Law among all the peoples of the earth.”27 Such preparation is evidenced in that, for Israel, the Economy of the Mosaic Law succeeds to the

Economy of the Law of Nature: Israel no longer operates under the Economy of the Law of

Nature, since grace now comes via the Economy of the Mosaic Law.28

Consonant with what we noted in Chapter Two regarding the need for the creature to recognize its creatureliness, the Cardinal writes that the Mosaic Law did not offer to Israel political power or cultural dominance, but rather taught Israel “ways of dependence.”29 Such dependence is manifest in that the Law offers a pedagogy. In greater detail, the Mosaic Law entailed a three- fold pedagogy for Israel, aimed at a three-fold purpose. The three pedagogical elements are: i)

“the conservation of the initial divine revelations [made to Abraham] touching on faith and morals;” ii) to serve as prefigurement of “the kingdom to come;” and iii) “to protect the temporal

26 The Mosaic Law was manifested to the Israelites “by way of revelation.” EVI IV, 564. Furthermore, it was with that the economy of the “Ancient Law” began. EVI IV, 557. 27 EVI IV, 654. 28 EVI IV, 564. 29 EVI IV, 669.

172 existence of Israel.”30 The three-fold purpose includes: i) to protect the “child” from internal or external dangers; ii) to develop inchoate cultural riches so that they blossom, and iii) to recognize its provisional character by “stepping aside” when the Promised One appears.31

Journet distinguishes between two items within the Mosaic Law: i) the Ten

Commandments, and ii) the “Code of Alliance,” this later phrase borrowed from the Jerusalem

Bible.32 Later, Journet, again quoting from the Jerusalem Bible, says the “Code of the Alliance” consists of three main categories: “civil and penal law, rules for worship, and social morals,”33 and that its biblical narration begins in Exodus 20:22; 34 it is commonly held to end at Exodus

23:9.

Dialectic between Two Peoples With the advent of the Mosaic Law, there commences a “dialectic opposition between

Jews and Gentiles,” but not between the Economy of the Natural Law and the Economy of the

Mosaic Law.35 However, this opposition is not without divine purpose, evidenced by Journet noting that much earlier a more nefarious dialectic met with a beneficent response: “God did not suffer the destruction of earthly paradise except in order to take the occasion to establish the universe, on the whole, better by redemption.”36 [This “first” dialectic, beginning at the Fall, is between the Two Cities and a “second” dialectic, commencing with the giving of the

Decalogue,37 is between the Jews and Gentiles.] What is the “benefit” arising from this dialectic

30 EVI IV, 696; that the “initial divine revelations” pertain to Abraham, see EVI IV, 675. 31 EVI IV, 674. 32 EVI IV, 672; Journet cites Thomas for this original distinction, referring to ST I-II, q. 100, a. 3. 33 EVI IV, 674. 34 EVI IV, 673. 35 EVI IV, 555-56. 36 EVI IV, 556. Cf. 941. 37 EVI IV, 555-56.

173 between Jews and Gentiles? That God’s mercy might be more manifest and to illustrate that He does not abandon the Chosen People, even though they are sometimes unfaithful. When the

Gentiles turn away after the Fall, the mercy of God is focused on the Jewish people; centuries later, when the New Law is largely refused by Israel, God turns “the ray of His love” onto the

Gentiles.38

3. Superiority of Economy of the Mosaic Law over the Economy of the Law of Nature While there is an opposition between the two peoples, there is a very clear hierarchy between their respective Economies. For example, Journet notes that the economy of Israel is

“incomparably greater than that of the Gentiles.”39 In The Meaning of Grace, Journet argues that the Economy of the Mosaic Law is superior to the Economy of the Law of Nature in three distinct ways. We highlight first that its formal cause has its source in divine revelation:

With Abraham and the patriarchs a new world comes into being. It takes definite form at the moment when the Law is given to Moses. God wishes to prepare a people that will be, as it were, a cradle to receive his Son at the Incarnation. The people are the Jews. With them, the regime of the Mosaic Law succeeds to that of the natural law. Grace goes on knocking at the door of each man’s heart ever more urgently than in the past.40 The above citation also notes the Economy of the Mosaic’s Law’s superiority by its effect – as grace is offered “ever more urgently.” Thirdly, the Economy of the Mosaic Law’s superiority to the Economy of the Law of Nature is also evidenced by its material cause, namely, the “sacraments” and prophecy. Journet observes two ways that the

Economy of the Mosaic Law is “new” vis-à-vis the Economy of the Natural Law: 1) the

38 EVI IV, 560. Cf. 943, 1056. 39 EVI IV, 695. 40 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 99.

174

“continuity of prophecy,” and 2) the “institution of the sacraments of the Old Law.”41

Furthermore, the relative excellence of the Economy of the Mosaic Law can been seen from how it is a more precise and more elaborate remote preparation (than the Economy of the

Law of Nature) for the New Law:

“The role of the Mosaic Law, having a role of pedagogue, is destined one day to step aside, according to characteristically different modes: 1. As the implicit in face of its explication (revealed doctrine and moral precepts); 2. As the promise in face of the gift (ceremonial precepts); 3. As the sheath in face of the fruit (judicial precepts).”42

Since God did not abandon man despite the Fall, a particular type of Christic grace was available under both Economies.

4. Grace is Offered Under Both Provisional Economies We will treat at length of the sanctifying grace, including why “Christic grace” is redeeming, in Part Two, and amplify how the Incarnation (along with Pentecost) affect grace in

Part Three. For the moment, we only desire to discuss grace before the Incarnation, under the

Economy of the Law of Nature. The Economy of the Law of Nature begins with the

Protoevangelium.43 Since human nature is damaged but not eradicated by the Fall, man is able to practice the acquired virtues. In addition, human nature retains its capacity to receive grace.

Journet specifies grace’s two effects: i) a lower effect, whereby grace “begins to heal wounded nature;” and ii) a higher effect, “to proportion man to meet God in the Beatific Vision;” hence, it

41 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 99. Two points are of note: First, the ongoing prophecy reinforced to Israel: a) the reality of “the one God,” which later flowered into the revelation of the Trinity, and b) divine providence, which unfolded in the Incarnation and Redemption. Ibid., 99. Second, the Old Testament “sacraments” did not cause grace, as do the New Testament sacraments: rather, “they were simple signs designating those to whom they were applied as potential beneficiaries of the divine goodness.” Ibid., 100. 42 EVI IV, 707. 43 EVI IV, 655. [This was noted above, at footnote 13 on page 169]

175 is justifying grace.44 Journet appeals to Romans 2:14-16,45 noting that, before the Mosaic Law,

“the Gentiles already fall under, in an initial but true manner, Christic grace, the grace of the

New Testament. It is a fact that salvific grace has been offered to men before the coming of the

New Law.”46

To be clear, The Meaning of Grace indicates that grace under both Economies was by

Anticipation:

Grace, then, is Christian by anticipation, whether in the world of natural law, the Gentile world, or in that of the Mosaic Law, the Jewish world. It is more clearly seen in the people to whom God gave more; and from whom he demanded more. I have compared the regime of natural law to the dew that comes from an unknown source; that of the Mosaic Law is like a stream whose origin and course are clearly seen. If the Israelites were faithful, they would be more fully rewarded; if they sinned, their punishment would be more severe.47

It is called grace “by anticipation” because, after the Fall, all grace is in anticipation of Christ the

Redeemer.48 Only with the Incarnation (and, in a certain sense, with Pentecost – see Part Three,

Section A, on page 211) will grace change to that of “grace by derivation.” We shall treat of this distinction at length in Part Three.

Both Antecedent Economies did not Prevent Sin Although grace was present in the two provisional economies, both antecedent economies

“failed,” in that sin became rampant under both. Journet will offer an overall assessment,

44 EVI IV, 566. 45 Romans 2:14-16: 14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: 15 Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another, 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. 46 EVI IV, 567. Journet reiterates that salvation is offered to all men who lived before the Incarnation on p. 601. 47 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 100-01. 48 EVI IV, 7, 413, 418, 599, 992.

176 attributing “idolatry” (alternatively, “infidelity”) to the Gentiles and those who “glorified themselves” (alternatively, “Pharisiasm”) to the Jews.49

The Economy of the Natural Law was unable to prevent sin from abounding. So severe was the increase and so great did it become that “sin began to dominate man more and more, to such an extent that, due to his reason endarkened by sin, the precepts of the law of nature ceased to be for him a sufficient rule of life.”50 Rather than abandoning humanity, God increases His gift by revealing the Decalogue with the Mosaic Law, and, still more, the New Law of Grace.51 With these greater gifts comes greater responsibility:

[T]he light of divine revelation becomes more and more explicit in passing from the Law of Nature to the Mosaic Law and then to the Law of Grace: it is here a progress of the city of God. On the other hand, he [St. Thomas] observes that the malice of infidelity grows when she [city of evil] refuses the proposed divine truth, no longer only vaguely as in the beginning in the Law of Nature, but then more expressly in the Mosaic Law, and finally fully in the law of grace: it is here a progress of the city of evil.52 Since both antecedent economies did not prevent sin, they were transitional, preparing for and awaiting “the fullness of time.”

5. Both Antecedent Economies were Provisional: They Point to, and are Fulfilled by, the Economy of the New Law

Both of the “imperfect” or “incomplete” regimes, meaning when the Jews and Gentiles were operating under the Economy of the Mosaic Law and the Economy of the Law of Nature, respectively, point toward the regime of the New Law. In fact, the former are “imperfect;”

49 EVI IV, 559, 606, 818. 50 EVI IV, 81. Cf. Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 266. 51 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 266: “[T]herefore the further man descends, the more God’s mercy lowers itself to lift him up again.” 52 EVI IV, 81, with reference to ST II-II, q. 174, a. 6 and to ST II-II, q. 10, aa. 5 and 6.

177 because they are preparatory they do not contain the comprehensiveness or depth of revelation specific to the New Law. In The Theology of the Church, Journet writes:

These two regimes where the Church is in her initial stage, like an unborn infant, are not yet perfectly Christian. Revelation is still incomplete, and grace is given only in consideration of the future merits of Christ. But both regimes tend toward a third regime: the regime of the New Law, which will confer upon them their full signification and to which they break forth like the dawn like a plant to its fruit and an infant to adulthood, so that the unity of the three regimes in time is vital and dynamic.53

Also indicative of the provisional nature of the two antecedent economies is their inherent dialectic, which will be overcome by the New Law: “They will be both at the same time fulfilled and abolished by the New Law which will make of two multitudes, that of the Jews and that of the Gentiles, one Body (Eph. 2:15-16).”54 Indeed, the Economy of the New Law not only fulfills, but integrates the two previous economies and “triumphs” over their shortcomings: [T]he economy of the New Law [is] capable first of unifying in it, but in unimaginably exceeding them, the two divine antecedent economies; capable in addition of triumphing, under the incessant influence of the new grace, either over idolatry or over Pharisiasm which held these two economies in failure. The victory indeed, in the conflict of Jews and Gentiles, which St. Paul gives us as surmounted by the New Law (Eph 2:13), is much more than the pacification of an ethnic antagonism. It is a unique event in the world and which will never be reproduced.55 a. The Economy of the New Law

Journet uses the phrase “The Economy of the New Law,”56 in addition to “The New

Law.” It seems we can say – indeed, we must say – that it is the grace of the New Law which removes the partition between Gentiles and Jews. After describing this event, and again citing from Ephesians (this time, Eph 2:13-18), Journet concludes: “It is already the age of the New Law, where all grace given to the world comes from Christ by derivation, no

53 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 19. 54 EVI IV, 647. 55 EVI IV, 559. 56 Journet employs this phrase often: see EVI IV, 6, 168, 603, 695, 942, 956, and 1044.

178 longer by anticipation.”57 Drawing on St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, Journet writes of the transformation from the Old Law, written on stone tablets, to the New Law, written on human hearts.58 Journet teaches the presence of the Uncreated Holy Spirit bringing created grace, which interiorly changes the one professing faith:59

What, in the law of the New Testament, is precious above all, and summarizes all its vigor, is the grace of the Holy Spirit, brought by faith in Christ. And therefore, above all, principally, the New Law is the very grace of the Holy Spirit, communicated to the faithful in Christ.60

Journet describes different “inaugurations” of the New Law. He writes of its inauguration upon the “redemptive death of Christ” along with the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.61 Later, he indicates the New Law is inaugurated with the visible missions of the Second and Third Persons at the Incarnation and Pentecost.62 To reconcile the two statements, we notice a continuity by distinction. The New Law was inaugurated with the

Incarnation (which looks to the Passion), but its promulgation comes at Pentecost, and wherein the Church is charged to proclaim and live out Her mission:

The mission of the Son inaugurates the New Law in and by Christ who is [its] Source. … [However] The mission of the Spirit inaugurates the New Law in the Church, which is not [its] Source, but [a] derivation from the Source.63

57 EVI IV, 819. 58 Journet relies here on Augustine’s De Spiritu et littera, chap. XXIV, no. 41. 59 “St. Thomas would say that the Holy Spirit not only fills the souls with the effects of his power, but also dwells in them by his substance.” Journet, The Theology of the Church, 78, referring to IV Contra Gentes, chap. 18. Cf. Col 1:12: “Giving thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light.” Cf. infra Part Three, Letter C, Item One. 60 EVI IV, 1025, quoting ST I-II, q. 106, a. 1. For this footnote and footnote 58, Journet refers to Rom 3:27 and 8:2. 61 EVI IV, 647: “The redemptive death of Christ where ‘all is consummated’ (John 19:30) and the descent of the Holy Spirit from Christ on the Apostles at Pentecost, marks the decisive moment when the New Law is inaugurated.” Cf. EVI IV, 1044: “At Pentecost the Church is animated and solemnly manifested, the New Law is solemnly promulgated and disclosed.” 62 EVI IV, 956. 63 EVI IV, 956-57.

179

Whereas Christ established the Church, it is the role of the Holy Spirit to work in and through the Church:

Theologians admit without difficulty that, if the inauguration of the New Law is done in one step for the entire world at the time of the passion of Christ, its promulgations could only have been progressive.64 It is one and the same mystery [speaking of the Church] which aims for its root by speaking of the Passion of Christ, of the foundation of the Church and of the inauguration of the New Law; and which aims for its progress by speaking of Pentecost, of the manifestations of the Church and of the promulgation or disclosures of the New Law.65

Journet sees a harmony between the mission of Christ and of the Holy Spirit.66 Both the Church and the New Law are founded through the Passion of the Word made flesh; and the New Law is put into effect, beginning at Pentecost and continuing throughout the centuries, by the Church through the action of the Holy Spirit. There is what might be called a three-step process in the manifestation of the Church: i) in anticipation of Christ, when the Church was inchoate; ii) at

Pentecost, when the Church is “solemnly manifested,” and; iii) in the post-Apostolic period where the New Law is promulgated unto the end of time.67 b. The Three Roles of the Economy of the Mosaic Law were Fulfilled in the New Law

In addition to its pedagogical role (which we noted earlier), the economy of the

Mosaic Law has two additional “roles” of promise and preparation.68 All three roles are fulfilled with the advent of the New Law. On the whole, Journet specifies that the economy of the Mosaic Law was provisional due to its final cause: “its sanctity and its spiritual values

64 EVI IV, 1042. 65 EVI IV, 1044. 66 At the Incarnation, God sends the Son to be “Head of the Church.” On Pentecost, the Holy Spirit is sent “in order to form, under Jesus and round about him, the Church that will be his body.” Journet, The Theology of the Church, 383. 67 EVI IV, 1044. 68 EVI IV, 681-82.

180 came to it entirely from the long-awaited Christ, which were the anticipated shadow of His redemption”69 In its character as “promise and preparation,” the Economy of the Mosaic

Law will “disappear in face of the salvation it announces, as the figure in face of reality.”70

For this latter conclusion Journet exegetes St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians:

Before the coming of Faith, we were shut up under the guard of the Law, reserved until Faith was to be revealed. Thus the Law served us as a pedagogy until Christ, so that we might obtain our justification by Faith. But Faith having come, we are no longer under a pedagogue (Gal 3:23-25).71

Grace under the New Law, grace by derivation, accomplishes what the Economy of the Mosaic

Law, accompanied by both the Decalogue and the Code of Alliance, could not: the Father has spoken his one Word, and that Word has both brought a new grace and established a new covenant, such that the Economy of the Mosaic Law has been superseded and perfected.

But that divine activity and that new covenant took a definite form. With Israel as its pedigree and the patriarchs and prophets as its remote prefigurement, the Church, as the continuation of the Incarnation, is at the center of salvation history.

6. Fulfillment of the Two Provisional Economies in the Church A signal achievement of the Economy of the New Law is its fulfillment of the two provisional economies. Because of the Incarnation and the Passion, both grace and the Church change. Grace changes, not in nature, but in its “existential state;”72 the Church changes, not in nature, but in Her state of journeying. Something new is happening:

It is from Christ that they just came to fruition, it is in Him that they just formed themselves, in order to abolish themselves before a superior economy, the two

69 EVI IV, 681. 70 EVI IV, 681-82. 71 EVI IV, 707. 72 The change from “grace by anticipation” to “grace by derivation” is called a change in the “existential age” of grace in EVI IV, 418, and a change in the “existential state” of grace in The Meaning of Grace, 106. “Existential state or age” may be thought of as “the different actual realizations of grace.” The Meaning of Grace, 83.

181

economies of salvation given up until then to humanity: that more secret of the Law of nature, and that more visible of the Mosaic Law. … The Church, up to then in expectation, suddenly takes root in the heavens with Christ; She changes condition; She passes from a provisional journeying state, where grace proposed to Her by an anticipation of the prayer of Christ, to Her definitive journeying state, where grace is communicated to Her by a derivation from the plentitude of Christ. The economies of the Law of Nature and of the Mosaic Law were, although unequal, economies of light, themselves salutary, themselves converging, themselves destined to bring together men toward salvation which Christ would bring.73

It is the change in grace which causes the change in the Church, and not the reverse. Journet delineates various ages of the world and “regimes” of the Church demarcated by the changes in grace (which are anticipations or results of the two Divine Missions). The Incarnation marks the passage from the Age of the Long-Awaited Christ and Christic Grace by

Anticipation (the second age) to the Age of Christ Present and Christic Grace by Derivation

(the third age). So significant is Pentecost that it ushers in the “last age of the world,” the

Age of the Holy Spirit and the Third Divine Regime of the Church, wherein the Holy Spirit diffuses the grace of Christ. As grace advances in perfection, the Church progresses from an initial inchoate state to a fully flowering state.

*********** As a preparation for the divine response to the Fall to alter sanctifying grace, we first establish that God was not obligated to help fallen man in any way whatsoever. Grace is gratuitous, and the restoration of grace is even more gratuitous. The Incarnation was not “necessary,” and it only occurred as a divine response to human sin.

73 EVI IV, 886.

182

C. Three Ages of the World In the following we will discuss briefly the Age of the Father, with particular emphasis on the transition to the Age of the Son (which occurs at the Fall). In the context of the Age of the

Son, we explore Journet’s perspective on the necessity and fittingness of the Incarnation. We will discuss the Age of the Spirit in Part Four, when examining the Church vis-à-vis Christic grace.

1. Age of Father In the passing from the Age of the Father to the Age of the Son, occasioned by the Fall, the sanctifying grace and preternatural gifts with which the first parents were constituted were lost;74 human nature remains, though wounded. However, Journet writes that God did not give up on man:

What surprises the reader of the third chapter of Genesis, is less the nature of the sanctions which come to strike the first human couple than the strange conduct of God in regard to these two. He appears as Righter of Wrongs, He [God] could have left man in the miserable condition where he has voluntarily thrown himself, and now at the very moment of punishing him, He is as seized by an inexplicable love, He does not resign Himself to this defeat of man, to the rupture of friendship and of the first intimacy. A battle was won by the spirit of evil, but the last word is not said, because here is immediately the Announcement that the struggle will continue between the line of the woman and the spawn of the devil. … Here is the dawn which appears above the disaster, here is the Protoevangelium, here is the very first Promise, tacit but irrevocable, of God to fallen humanity. This promise of help is a Covenant by which He binds Himself under the sole pressure of His incomprehensible love.75 In fact, instead of abandoning man, God pursues him with “new and deeply moving initiatives of

His love.”76 Whereas the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, does not exist in the Age of

Innocence,77 it now begins “on the evening of the Fall.”78 As we will see later, grace changes

74 EVI IV, 456-57. 75 EVI IV, 655. 76 EVI IV, 457. 77 EVI IV, 289, 418. 78 EVI IV, 10, 940.

183 from Transfigurative grace to Christic grace. What is significant is the divine response to the

Fall: the Incarnation is God’s most magnificent response to man’s rejection.79

2. Age of the Son Before we discuss the impact of the Incarnation on grace more fully in Part Two, let us first outline Journet’s understanding of the Incarnation itself. After a brief introduction, we will discuss three topics: i) the necessity of the Incarnation, ii) the fittingness of the Incarnation, and iii) the Incarnation as related to history. Since the forming of the Mystical Body of Christ is related to the topic of “Christic grace,” it will be discussed in Part Four of this Chapter Three.

First, we provide basic data of the Incarnation according to the thought of Journet.

Since the Incarnation is a unique event, Journet writes that one way to increase an understanding of it is to compare two presences of God: that in the just and that in Christ. In the former, the union is “according to action” and “in the line of action,” where the latter is

“according to being” and “in the line of being.” Consequently, the presence of God in the just is accidental, but the hypostatic union is substantial.80

Since the Person of the Word assumes a human nature which subsists in the Second Person,

Christ is a unique Mediator.81 This is important because it is only by the mediation of Christ that man is reconciled to God.82 And it is from the Passion that all salvific grace is either anticipated or derived. Grace is affected not only by the Incarnation, but also by Christ’s redemptive act. We

79 EVI II, 490, speaking of the consequences of the Fall: “Nothing will remain of this age of the Father, except two things: on one hand, human nature in the midst of the universe which supports it, having wrecked in it the gift of grace and being itself wounded (s’etant meurtrie) by its own hands; and, on the other hand, the incomprehensible goal of a God who will persist, despite everything, to will to satisfy His love.” 80 EVI II, 851-52, with reference to I Sent., dist. 37, q. 1, a. 2. 81 EVI IV, 956, with reference to 1 Tim 2:5-6. 82 EVI IV, 600, where Journet exegetes 1 Tim 2:4-6. (Referred to infra at footnote 152 on page 199: “it is by the sole mediation of Christ that we are able to be reconciled to God and to find access to his kingdom.”)

184 shall explore these dimensions in Part Three when comparing Grace by Anticipation to Grace by

Derivation. a. On the Necessity of the Incarnation

A long-debated question in speculative theology is: “Would God have become Incarnate had man not sinned?” Relying on the first question of the Tertia Pars, Journet without hesitation answers “no.”83 Journet does not note here that Thomas slightly hedges his position at the end of the respondeo, where Thomas notes that “even if sin had not existed, God could have become

Incarnate.” However, we see that Journet, in EVI II, does quote from Thomas’ much earlier

Commentary on the Sentences and remarks that, if redemption occurs, it must take place via God assuming a human nature:

“If man had been delivered in another way, he would not have been redeemed; because redemption consists in sufficient satisfaction. Nevertheless, he was able to be delivered in another way.” It was necessary that God become man in order that we were redeemed. But it was not necessary that we were redeemed. We were able to be saved by some other means. All that remains still confused in Cur Deus Homo is here cleared up.84

Relying on Garrigou-Lagrange, Journet says, a priori, one could not know for what greater good85 was permitted. Given the fact of the Incarnation, however, sin was permitted in view of the Incarnation: with greater specificity, the redemptive Incarnation is “first in the

83 EVI IV, 290, 357, 503; EVI II, 279; Cf. Entretiens sur L’Incarnation, 40, under the Fifth Meditation – “The Word Descends to us to Make Our Tragedy His,” of the Second Instruction – The Why of the Incarnation. On EVI IV, 290, Journet quotes ST III, q. 1, a. 3, sed contra, where Augustine is quoted: “If man had not sinned, the Son of Man would not have come.” 84 EVI II, 357, n. 224, quoting in III Sent., dist. 20, a. 4, q. 1, ad 1. 85 Journet, following Augustine and Aquinas, says that God only permits evil so as to draw a greater good from it. Among many references, see EVI IV, 410-11, where, speaking of the angels: “Such is the fitting reason for the permission of the fall of the angels. St. Augustine knew it: ‘Predicting that, among the angels, many, yielding to the pride which brought them to search for their beatitude in themselves, they would divert from the one beatitude which is in Him, God, however, did not will to withdraw their power (of choosing), judging that it was more fitting to His power and to His goodness to draw a good even from evil, than not to permit evil to exist’,” quoting City of God, Book XXII, chap. 1, no. 1.

185 order of final causality” and the fall of man is “first in the order of material causality.”86 Journet then carefully notes that various other things are ordered to Christ,87 most particularly stating that sin is a condition, not a cause,88 of the Incarnation.

It is evident, then, that God became man in order to redeem man. Journet could not be more clear: “It is in order to save the world that the Word descends into the midst of us, for us and for our salvation, He descended from heaven.”89 To gain intelligibility of the revealed data of the Incarnation, Journet appeals to prioritizing the divine decrees. Journet’s position is that the most fundamental of the divine decrees is that: “In the actual plan of Providence chosen by God, all things will be ordered ultimately to the glory of Christ, [who] came in order to save man by

His passion, His death, His resurrection.”90 Within the divine decrees, Christ’s redeeming act has a higher priority than creation: “it is first the glory of Christ as redeemer which is decreed, and all the rest, here understood creation itself, all the rest is then willed or permitted in dependence on this redeeming glory.”91 Human sin is neither unknown nor omitted from the calculation to create – but neither is God’s response:

The universe of creation will only become definitively clear in leading into the universe of redemption. It is in considering the free initiatives of his creatures, in considering the fall of the first Adam in order to take from it (en prendre occasion) the redemption of the Second Adam, that God created the universe. Creation in its entirety, from the beginning, in the immutable plan of God, is ordered to be recapitulated in Christ.92

86 EVI IV, 429-30, n. 475, citing Garrigou-Lagrange De Christo Salvatore (Turin: np, 1945), 67-68. 87 EVI IV, 428-29. 88 EVI IV, 938: “The sin of man is the origin of the redemption of the world.” Notice that “cause” is not used. 89 EVI IV, 843. Footnote reference omitted. Cf. EVI IV, 289-90, 426, and 599-600. 90 EVI IV, 426. 91 EVI IV, 293. To emphasize the primacy of redemption wrought by Christ, note also: “God, in establishing by a single act His eternal plan, seeing what His work of creation would become in the hands of men, arranges it immediately to the work still more mysterious of the redemptive Incarnation.” Journet, Entretiens sur L’Incarnation, 12, under the First Meditation – “Creation and the Incarnation,” of the First Instruction – The Singularity of the Incarnation. 92 EVI IV, 161.

186

Given this overarching design of the umbrella of the divine decree that “everything is ordered to the glory of Christ,”93 “the universe of creation is ordered to a more splendid and mysterious universe of redemption:”94 indeed, this is why Adam’s sin was not prevented.95 We note two final consequences (both pertaining to grace) of this providential design pertaining to redemption: the humanity of innocence was ordered one day to be a humanity of redemption,96 and that Christic grace was “prepared” “in contemplation of the ruin” of Transfigurative grace.97 b. On the Fittingness of the Incarnation The first principle of soteriology is that fallen man cannot save himself.98 The principle is suffused throughout EVI IV, since the Incarnation would not have occurred if man had not sinned. The question then arises: “How does God save man?” Of course, by the inconceivable happening – God becomes man. Why that particular approach? Journet draws on St. Thomas: “Because man, having abandoned God, was bogged down in material things, it was fitting that God took flesh in order to open for him a way toward salvation by the very means of corporal things. Thus Augustine, commenting on the Word was made flesh, can say: ‘Flesh had blinded you, flesh heals you … Because [Christ] came in order to extinguish, by means of the flesh, the vices of the flesh’.”99 What God created good and man

93 EVI IV, 292, 426-27, 429. 94 EVI IV, 938. 95 EVI IV, 938. 96 EVI IV, 431. 97 EVI IV, 458: “As to the grace of innocence, it is, we have said, lost forever in Adam. It is not salvaged in any way for the universe of Christ. It is even in contemplation of its ruin that the grace of Christ is prepared.” (See Part Two, Letter D, Item Two, on page 208 for a discussion of this topic.) 98 EVI IV, 179, citing des Lauriers, O.P., “Le mystère du salut,” 473: “Salvation and everything that concerns it, in particular its spreading and its duration (durée), essentially are of God; they are not explained in man except as proceeding from God.” Of course, Journet is certain to note that man is not saved without his involvement: “He [God] asks man to collaborate in the work of his own deliverance, He leaves the experience…of his free will to him.” EVI IV, 625. 99 EVI IV, 290, citing ST III q. 1, a. 3, ad 1, citing St. Augustine, In Joan. Evang., traité 2, no. 16. Journet will extend this idea, linking the sacraments to the Incarnation – see infra footnote 213 on page 214.

187 corrupted, God will not permit to remain enervated, a fact especially observed spectacularly in the Incarnation and in the Resurrection but experienced daily in the sacraments.

But the purpose of the Incarnation was not “merely” that the Word was made flesh;100 The Son is sent for a specific mission. Journet connects the of Christ, a very public event wherein the “material things” of His Sacred Humanity and plain water foreshadow the Passion. That the Passion is the means by which Christ accomplishes his mission as Savior is “fitting.” Journet observes that Jesus:

[T]akes on Himself the ransom of sinners, and to reveal from this moment how it will be fitting ‘that He fulfill all righteousness’ (Matt 3:15); because the humiliation of the His baptism of water announces the humiliation of the baptism of blood of redemption (Luke 12:50), in which one of the consequences will be to change the baptism that John gave of water into a baptism into the death of Christ (Rom 6:3), or as the Gospel speaks, into a baptism in the Holy Spirit and of fire (Luke 3:16).101

Just as the Incarnation was not necessary, but within divine providence, so was its timing. We turn to Journet to discover his sense of “the fullness of time,” when the Word enters time to redeem man, endeavoring earnestly to call him back to a supernatural destiny beyond time. c. The Incarnation and History Scripture102 provides Journet the overriding basis to assert that the Incarnation occurred at the worst moment of human history. From The Meaning of Evil: “[W]e shall conclude that Christ appeared at the darkest moment of history, after the collapse of dispensations of salvation founded successively on the aid of the natural law and then of the Mosaic law.”103 When

100 “I have come not to be served but to serve, to give My life as a ransom for many.” Matt 20:28 101 EVI IV, 889. 102 Galatians 4:4: “In the fullness of time, God sent His son.” 103 Journet, the Meaning of Evil, 265. Cardinal Journet concurs with Thomas, in ST III, q. 1, a. 5, sed contra: “God became incarnate at the most fitting time.” In another place, Thomas, citing a gloss, notes that the timing of the Incarnation occurred “after man was convinced of his own stupidity before the written [Mosaic] Law, when he worshipped creatures instead of the Creator…and of his own absolute inability to live up to the prescriptions of the

188

“Scripture confined all under sin (Gal 3:22),” it is the moment the Son is sent.104 In a great reversal, “The lowest moment of the history of the world will become the most sublime moment in the history of the world.”105 It is only at such a moment that would be most magnificent because it descended to the lowest degree,106 as “Christ, while we were yet sinners, died for us” (Rom 5:6-8). Journet highlights the personal effect of the Incarnation when he writes in his little book on the Incarnation: “It is the most solemn moment of the history of the world.

God is going to touch creation as He had never touched it before and as He will never touch it again.”107

While it is the worst moment of human history, it was also the most opportune time to rescue fallen man.108 Such an understanding corresponds to the Cardinal’s earlier assertion that

Christ is the center of time, which itself incorporates the notion that it is only in Christ that man finds his ultimate purpose. For man to understand that purpose, Journet gives two general reasons as to the timing of the Incarnation: man had to experience hardships and that man needed prophets to prepare for such an event.109 In another place, he adds that man needed to experience his powerlessness in order to call for a Liberator.110 Furthermore, but from a positive perspective, while waiting over the centuries, man had to learn about God:

written Law.” Bracketed term in the original. Comm. ad Eph., 1:10, https://dhspriory.org/thomas/Eph1.htm#3, accessed 4.2.2018. 104 EVI IV, 708. 105 EVI IV, 558. 106 EVI IV, 821-22. 107 Journet, Entretiens sur L’Incarnation, 54, under the First Meditation – “That Our Hands Touched of the Word of Life,” of the Third Instruction – The Heart of the Mystery (1): Jesus Christ, True God and True Man. 108 EVI IV, 821, n. 326, with reference to III Sent., dist. 1, q. 1, a. 4. 109 EVI IV, 81, with reference to ST III, q. 1, a. 5. 110 EVI IV, 824, with reference to ST III, q. 1, a. 5. No doubt Journet also relies on ST III, q. 1, a. 2, where Thomas enumerates five ways the Incarnation “furthered man’s good” and five ways which it “aided man in withdrawing from evil,” all of which serve to underscore that the Incarnation occurred at the “worst moment in history.”

189

In order to be understood, the message of Christ about Himself and His Kingdom required to be preceded by a long succession of communications demonstrating, on one hand, the absolute transcendence of [the] one God, and, on the other hand, the surprising care of His providence with respect to men.111

The Age of the Son, while commencing at the “worst moment” of human history, ushers in changes both to grace and to the Church, such that the universe of redemption is, on the whole, better than the universe of innocence, a claim we will develop in Chapter Four. In Chapter Three, we will develop how grace in universe of redemption is better than grace in universe of innocence. In a moment, we shall turn to examining the changes wrought on grace by the

Incarnation and by Christ’s redeeming act.

***********

Having discussed the Two Provisional Economies of Salvation prior to the Incarnation, and the

Age of the Father and the Age of the Son, we now inquire how the Incarnation and redemptive act of the Second Person effected grace, thereby introducing a new economy of salvation.

111 EVI IV, 841.

Part Two – Sanctifying Grace Introduction We will treat of sanctifying grace in general, briefly comparing sanctifying grace as it was in pre-lapsarian Adam (which Journet specifies as “Transfigurative”) to that after the Fall

(which Journet denotes as “Christic” or “redemptive”). We will then discuss the source (from a perspective of efficient causality) of Christic grace, the Word Incarnate as Mediator. Since the

Mediator is also Redeemer, we will note why Christic grace is so-denominated: it is from the

Incarnation and ordered to man’s redemption. We proceed to consider Christic grace as redemptive (as it is both merited on the cross and satisfactory), and that it sanctifies, rather than eliminates, suffering (as Transfigurative sanctifying grace did). We will turn, in Part Three, to its divisions: Grace by Anticipation and Grace by Derivation. Christic Grace by Derivation, in turn, is distinguished as to time (after the Incarnation) and fullness (after Pentecost). In addition,

Grace by Derivation after Pentecost may be considered as to its mode: “By Contact” and “At a

Distance.” After discussing the superiority of Grace by Derivation by Contact over Grace by

Anticipation, we will then discuss a definition of Christic grace and its characteristics - in short,

“what it is and what it does” - as well as consider its term. We will note, after the Fall (just as before the Fall), God respects the natures of rational creatures: Christic grace can be refused or accepted. Later, in Part Four, we will discuss Christic grace and the Church.

Let us first define our terms. To define our topic, Journet, commenting on 2 Peter 1:4112 in The Theology of the Church, provides a helpful description of sanctifying grace: “Grace, therefore, renders us participants in the divine nature by depositing in us the root of operations that permit us to reach God in his infinity and as he is in himself, to know him as he knows

112 Whereby, through grace, one is made “partaker of the divine nature.” 190

191 himself with a ray of his light, and to love him as he loves himself with a ray of his love; it makes us do, in our own way, the same acts as God’s.”113 With this as a working definition,

Journet identifies a distinction in sanctifying grace before and after the Fall.

A. Similarity in Essence between Prelapsarian Sanctifying Grace (Transfigurative) v. Postlapsarian Sanctifying Grace (Christic / Redemptive); but Difference in Effect and Source

1. Similarity in the Essence of Sanctifying Grace

We wish to note first the similarity of sanctifying grace in prelapsarian Adam and Eve114 to sanctifying grace in the postlapsarian period. Of prime importance is that sanctifying grace in both instances makes the recipient “pleasing to God,” a partaker of the divine nature, a child by adoption, an heir of the kingdom, ordering him to the beatific vison.115 In essence, sanctifying grace does not change before and after the Fall.116

Journet holds that the sanctifying grace given to prelapsarian Adam and Eve was adequate to enable them to gain eternal life, when, speculating that had man not sinned, writes that man endowed with original justice “would have entered, without passing through death (except by the

113 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 59. 114 EVI IV, 421: Journet notes that the “very first gift” given to Adam was sanctifying grace. 115 EVI IV, 421. Cf. EVI II, 493, EVI III, 1051, n. 54, and The Theology of the Church, 15. 116 EVI III, 1051, n. 54: “For John of St. Thomas, we have said … the grace of Christ is the same species as ours. We say, even more so, that sanctifying grace can change in intensity and in richness, as per the law of nature, as per the Mosaic Law, as per the New Law, but not in species. Billuart, De gratia, dissert. 2, a. 1, Sec. 3, édit. Brunet, t. III, p. 29, asks if sanctifying grace of the state of innocence was the same kind (de même sorte) and of the same species (de meme espèce) as that of the state of fallen nature, and responds: ‘It was of the same species as to the substance of grace, because the formal effects of both (des deux) graces is the same, namely to render man dear to God, adoptive sons and friend of God, heir of the heavenly reign: because, the character (raison) of a form is manifested to us by its formal effect which is this same form as communicated. But it differed by the mode in which it communicated itself to the subject, because the grace of original justice communicated to man many secondary effects, which it ceased to confer to us’.” Cf. EVI II, 493; EVI IV, 421.

192 death of one-self), into the vision of God.”117 Journet also holds (citing Thomas) that after the

Fall, grace is needed both to heal and to perfect human nature:

Certainly, before sin man had need of grace ordering him to eternal life, which is the principle reason of the necessity of grace. But since sin, he has besides need of grace in order that his sin may be repaired and his infirmity may be helped.118 Journet identifies several differences between sanctifying grace before and after the Fall. 2. Difference in Effect and the Beginning of a Mediated Grace Journet sharply distinguishes the effect and source (with the introduction of a Mediator) of sanctifying grace before and after the Fall. For prelapsarian Adam and Eve, sanctifying grace is called Transfigurative, because in addition to conferring a supernatural union with God it also confers the preternatural gifts.119 It transfigured nature, meaning it “flowed over the inferior realities and strengthened the triple natural domination, otherwise fragile and relative, of the soul over the body, reason over the passions, and man over the universe.”120 To be clear, sanctifying grace is distinct from the preternatural gifts, as the latter follow from the former. Such grace was not redemptive, as there was no need of redemption. As man was in harmony with God, suffering did not exist, and there was need for neither a Mediator nor a Redeemer. As to source: before the Fall, all grace given to Adam and Eve was given directly [without sacraments] by the

Trinity.121

After the Fall, the entire order of grace changes, as noted in The Meaning of Grace: “To the universe of grace centered on the first Adam there succeeded a universe of grace centered on

117 EVI IV, 451. Cf. Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 87. 118 EVI IV, 425, n. 468, citing ST I q. 95, a. 4, ad 1. 119 EVI IV, 421, 457, 505, 509, 510; EVI II, 489; The Meaning of Evil, 218; The Theology of the Church, 15; The Meaning of Grace, 86. 120 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 15. Cf. EVI IV, 421 and 424, as noted in Chapter Two, page 101. 121 EVI IV, 421; EVI II, 488; The Theology of the Church, 15.

193 the Word made flesh.”122 After the Fall, sanctifying grace is described by Journet as redemptive or “Christic:” it is the nature of Christic grace to be redemptive. Several points follow from this designation. All sanctifying grace after the Fall – whether given before or after the Incarnation – is given in view of the redemptive merits of the crucified Incarnate Word.123 From the Fall up until the Incarnation, Christic or redemptive sanctifying grace is “by Anticipation;” subsequent to the Incarnation (and, in a sense, Pentecost), Christic or redemptive sanctifying grace is “by

Derivation.” Second, before the Incarnation, all Christic grace is given by the Trinity and mediated by Christ; after the Incarnation, all grace is given by the Trinity, mediated by Christ, and passes by way of His sacred humanity.124 Third, it is not the nature of Christic sanctifying grace to return immediately the preternatural gifts125 (they will be returned at the Last Day, because only then will human nature be fully repaired).126 More specifically, since sanctifying grace remains salutary,127 such Christic grace contains within it “the power…to end the state of journeying, to establish the state of finality and the transfiguration of glory.”128 A critical difference between Transfigurative sanctifying grace and Christic sanctifying grace (one we will

122 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 93. 123 EVI IV, 289: “The grace which works from the beginning to raise fallen humanity is therefore a grace [that] depends on the merits of Christ, and by that fact a grace positively oriented by Christ, magnetized by Christ. In this sense, it is Christic;” EVI IV, 505: “The grace which, in the wake of the Fall, is offered to Adam and to his descendants is already Christic;” EVI IV, 600: “All graces of salvation…depend henceforth on the Cross of Christ.” 124 EVI IV, 600: “Since the Incarnation, all graces which come down to us from heaven are participations of grace given in fullness to Christ, they pass through His intellect, His will, His humanity in its entirety in order to reach us: we say in a word that they are Christic by derivation. Before the Incarnation, on the contrary, before Christ was formed in the womb of the Virgin, graces of salvation reaching men came to them directly from heaven, but they were only offered them by God in consideration of His Son who had to merit them by His future Passion, and they were, by that very fact, secretly ordered to the Cross: we say in a word that they were Christic by anticipation.” 125 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 87: “Original [i.e., “Transfigurative”] grace exhibited a power grace no longer has in the present state of things. It exercised virtualities that now lie dormant within it. By its use of preternatural gifts it transformed, in some degree, that state of via, or pilgrimage.” 126 EVI IV, 474, n. 549, citing ST III, q. 69, a. 3, ad 3. (See infra page 197.) 127 EVI IV, 472. 128 EVI IV, 473.

194 examine in depth shortly) concerns how each deals with suffering: “In us, sanctifying grace is redemptive: it does not eliminate, it is content to illuminate the drama of the human condition.”129

B. Superiority of Christic Sanctifying Grace over Transfigurative Sanctifying Grace Journet remarks that Christic grace is superior to Transfigurative grace in three ways: the grace of adoption, the degree of “rootedness” in the recipient, and in revealing a greater depth of divine love. Later, in Section C of Part Three, we will examine the superiority of the two types of

Christic grace (Grace by Anticipation versus Grace by Derivation).

1. Grace of Adoption The first difference between Transfigurative and Christic grace is that the grace of adoption under Christic grace attains a perfection which was lacking to Transfigurative grace.

Before the Incarnation and the Fall, the grace of adoption, while genuine, was incomplete;130 with the Incarnation, it attains “the fullness of adoption, which had only been promised to the former ages.”131 The source of this difference is the Incarnation, as per EVI II:

The grace of the age of the Son is filial in a sense more perfect and more profound than the grace of innocence was able to be. First because it resulted from the mediation of a divine person incarnated in the midst of men; and then because this divine person is the only Son of the Father.132 Journet adds further specificity when he employs the word “adoption,” explaining that, while prelapsarian Adam was a child of God, the grace by which he was an adopted son has

129 EVI IV, 421. Emphasis added. 130 EVI II, 493: “This grace anterior to Christ conferred already without any doubt, adoptive filiation, and even an adoptive filiation more delicate than that of the state of innocence.” (Underline emphasis added.) 131 EVI II, 498, commenting on Gal 4:4-5. Dominic Spiekermann comments: “The New Testament revelation of our adoptive sonship is closely bound up with the revelation of Christ’s natural Sonship.” The Christic Character of Grace, according to Charles Journet, Licentiate thesis for the University of Fribourg, 2017, 63, with reference to EVI II-I, 483-84. 132 EVI II, 490.

195 now been elevated by the Incarnation: “The filial adoption which He brings, more precious than that which had been lost, is the mark in us of His eternal filiation.”133

2. Increased “Rootedeness” in the Recipient A second difference Journet identifies is a superiority of Christic grace (specifically,

Christic Grace by Derivation by Contact) over Transfigurative grace with respect to its

“rootedness” in the recipient. In The Theology of the Church, we read: “[M]ost certainly, the grace of the New Law is much more deeply rooted in humanity…than we can ever imagine.”134

The deepened rootedness is caused by the difference to whom each respective grace,

Transfigurative v. Christic, conforms the recipient. In EVI III, Journet explains that the increased rootedness of Christic grace is evidence of this respective conformity, as illustrated by the characteristic of Christic grace (to illumine suffering) as much more noble than the characteristic of Transfigurative grace (to eliminate suffering):

One would be able, it is true, to raise a difficulty for what concerns the state of innocence, where grace, although it was not sacramental,135 nevertheless modified very profoundly, by the preternatural gifts, the conditions of the life of men. To which it is necessary to respond that the grace of innocence must have seemed, indeed, under one aspect, the most rooted, the most inherent of graces, because it deployed immediately the plentitude of its possible effects in time. The grace of the New Law, on the contrary, does not eliminate death nor temptations nor conflicts. It is the lily in the thorns. Nevertheless, it is necessary to hold that it is more rooted, more inherent, because it comes to search for man even in sin in order to justify him and that it prepared [for] him a glorious configuration similar not to that of Adam, who was only a pure man, but to that of Christ who is the Word made flesh. It is fitting indeed to judge the depth of the inherence of grace, much more from the point of view of the intensity of its formal effect, which is entirely spiritual, than from the point of view of [the] immediate exterior influence of this effect: thus grace was infinitely more connatural to Christ, in Whom it only caused to illuminate sufferings, than to Adam, in whom it eliminated them.136

133 EVI IV, 938. 134 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 63. 135 ST III, q. 61, a. 2. 136 EVI III, 1054.

196

He judges the rootedness of Christic grace by considering to whom Christic grace conforms man. Notice that Christic grace (by Derivation by Contact) “prepares for man a glorious configuration similar not to that of Adam, who was only a pure man, but to that of

Christ who is the Word made flesh.” As we shall see, the formal cause of Christic grace is the

Passion; the formal effect is that Christic grace conforms man to Christ (not Adam), and, by that fact, is “more rooted” than is prelapsarian Transfigurative grace which did not conform Adam and Eve to Christ. The key evidence indicating that Transfigurative grace did not conform Adam and Eve to Christ is that it eliminated, rather than illumined, human suffering.

Why is there an Increased Rootedness of Christic Grace v. Transfigurative Grace? To understand the source of this increased rootedness of grace within the recipient,

Journet offers an ontological explanation of Christic grace v. Transfigurative grace. Concerning the latter:

Original Justice consisted in a harmony, of structure or moral destination, radically subjecting on one hand of the spiritual powers to God, and on the other hand the sensible powers to spiritual powers thus rectified. It [Original Justice] was given gratuitously to Adam, not personally, but as he [Adam] possessed human nature, and it [Original Justice] had to pass to all those to whom he [Adam] would transmit this nature; it [Original Justice] represented not a personal gift, but a gift of nature.137

Journet recognizes that Transfigurative grace (both in its bestowal and in its forfeiting) impacted human nature and then the person, but that Christic grace (in its bestowal) impacted the person directly: “But Adam directly affected human nature, and, by his intervention, the (individual) person; whereas Christ touches the (individual) person directly. We call to mind this difference, which is fundamental and important.”138 Christic grace will remove the effects of Original Sin, but only when it “transfigures” and perfects human nature on the Last Day:

137 EVI IV, 464. 138 EVI IV, 469.

197

The time of Christ’s grace was to follow that of Adam’s. St. Thomas writes that at baptism Christ immediately delivers man “from everything which affects his person, i.e., the guilt of original sin and the pain which follows it, the privation of the divine vision. But the penalties of the present life, such as death, hunger, thirst, etc. affect human nature, from which they flow as from their source since it was stripped of original justice; and that is why these miseries, defectus, will only disappear at the time of the ultimate repairing of our nature by the glorious resurrection.”139

The ontological explanation has a sacramental implication. Since i) “The Incarnation is done principally in order to liberate men from sin,”140 and, ii) “The influence of Christ reaches men principally through their soul,”141 it follows that Christic grace “erases immediately in each person at baptism original guilt (faute) and the punishment of the privation of the divine vision, but leaves death and its penalties to subsist in the present life.”142 Christic grace “is not transmissible or attached to nature in order to be communicated with it, but intransmissible and attached to the person of those who are born, not of the flesh and blood (John 1:13), but in the new birth of the baptism of water (John 3:15) or of .”143 By this explanation,

Journet removes any possibility that Christic grace is in any way “natural” to human nature, and emphasizes the effect of the Incarnation on grace. In addition, it asserts that the person is healed by the grace of the New Law, but human nature is healed and perfected only on the Last Day.

3. A Greater Divine Love Revealed in Time

In addition, Christic grace is greater than Transfigurative grace in that it reveals a divine redemptive love that was “unknown” (and, I would add, “not possible”) in Eden, a love that will ultimately “free the same material creation from the servitude of corruption in order to introduce

139 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 220, citing ST III, q. 69, a. 3, ad 3. 140 EVI IV, 303, quoting De veritate, qu. 29, a. 4, ad 5. 141 EVI IV, 303, quoting ST III, q. 8, a. 4, ad. 1. 142 EVI IV, 472. 143 EVI IV, 470.

198 it into the liberty of the glory of the children of God” (Rom 8:21).144 We noted in Chapter Two that God manifests a love in creating contingent beings, and an even greater love by the divine inhabitation of rational creatures through grace. Journet further notes that divine redemptive love surpasses in intensity that of divine creative love:

The second love of God – the second effect of the love of God – thus passes in intensity the first. The redemptive love retrospectively illumines from His lights the creative love.145 What evidence exists for such a claim? While the topic of God’s love for man has been long emphasized in recent history, perhaps at times to the negligence or detriment of the demands on man of that same divine love, we ought not forget that very few persons ever had their physical lives saved by another. Journet reminds us of the obvious: “In the last days where the love of

God manifests itself for us, in the times of Sic Deus dilexit mundum, what do we see? The only

Son of God descends from heaven into our tragedy and dies on the cross.”146 God could have redeemed man in some other way;147 that He chose to send His Son “so desirous [was He] of giving Himself to His free creatures.”148 God could think of no better way to illustrate His desire that man be united to Him than the Incarnation and the Son’s redemptive Passion.

A fourth superiority, whereby Christic grace illumines suffering whereas Transfigurative grace eliminated it, will be treated separately, in Section F of Part Three.

Why is it that Christic sanctifying grace is superior to Transfigurative sanctifying grace?

The fact that God-become-Man is a Mediator on behalf of man is central to the answer. Grace changed in accord with the Christ’s Incarnation and with His mission, which we discuss next.

144 EVI IV, 875-76. 145 EVI IV, 938. 146 EVI IV, 937. 147 ST III, q. 1, a. 2. 148 EVI IV, 278.

199

C. Why Christic Grace is So-Denominated: It is Derived from the Incarnation and Ordered to Man’s Redemption

1. Christ Mediates all Grace after the Fall, Before and After the Incarnation

Since the Incarnation is the most significant event in history,149 it altered how God communicated with men: “[I]n the first state of mankind, religion without intermediary or mediation was a fact.”150 Following Scripture,151 Journet points out that it is only by the mediation of the God-man that fallen man can be reconciled with the God from whom he estranged himself.152 Again following the Scriptural evidence153 Journet is unyielding that, after the Fall, all grace is mediated by Christ. One of the reasons He is the center of time is that He is the center of grace: “He will be both, in the order of grace, the supreme end of a long preparation

[of anticipation] and the supreme beginning of one [the order] of derivation.”154 After the Fall and before the Incarnation, Christ was mediating; in addition, all grace after the Fall and before the Incarnation was given by the Trinity and in anticipation of Christ’s coming and His

Passion.155 All grace after the Fall and after the Incarnation was given by the Trinity, in

149 See supra, footnote 107 on page 188. 150 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 87. Cf. The Meaning of Grace, 93. 151 1 Tim 2:4-6: 4 “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth, 5 For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus 6 Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times;” John 14:6: “No one comes to the Father except through Me.” 152 EVI IV, 600: “Since the catastrophe of innocence…it is by the sole mediation of Christ that we are able to be reconciled to God and to find access to his kingdom.” 153 Eph 4:7: “But to every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the giving of Christ;” John 1:16: “And of his fulness we all have received, and grace for grace.” 154 EVI IV, 831. 155 EVI II, 490, commenting on grace in the Age of the Son: “It is the age of grace coming from the entire Trinity, by the mediation of the Incarnation of the Word;” EVI IV, 600: “Before the Incarnation, on the contrary, before Christ was formed in the womb of the Virgin, graces of salvation reaching men came to them directly from heaven, but they were only offered them by God in consideration of His Son who had to merit them by His future Passion.” By the phrase “only offered by God,” I interpret as “from the Trinity;” In Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 93, concerning those who lived after the Fall and before the Incarnation: “They could be saved…by an assent of theological faith, that God is and that he is ready to help. In the faith that God is there was contained, although men were not yet able to realize it, faith in the Trinity; and in the faith in a God ready to help there was precontained faith in the Incarnation and Redemption.”

200 anticipation of Christ’s coming and His Passion, was mediated by Christ, and passed via His sacred humanity.156 After the Fall and after Pentecost, all grace is given by the Trinity, affected by the Passion, mediated by Christ, and diffused by the power of the Holy Spirit.157 With the

Incarnation, a new order of grace arises applies both to angels158 and to men, and begins immediately after Our Lady’s fiat: “Starting from the very moment of the Incarnation, all the graces of salvation which come from heaven to earth pass by the sacred humanity of Christ; they are Christic by derivation.”159

Due to the hypostatic union, He is the one Mediator:

Christ is situated thus on the plane of the hypostatic union or [the] union of Incarnation. He is the one mediator: ‘God is one, one also is the mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ, Himself man, who gave His life in ransom for us’ (1 Tim 2:5-6). On one hand, in the order of ascending mediation, the supplication of Christ for the world, His prayers, His suffering, His sacrificial immolation, His death, takes on, owing to His divinity, a value of infinite intercession. On the other hand, in the order of descending mediation, all the grace from heaven pass henceforth by His Heart in order to spread… all over the world.160

We pose the question: “Since Jesus mediates all grace after the Fall, how does His mediation change via the Incarnation?”161 Journet pinpoints two differences,162 which we will take up shortly, in Item Three of this Letter C. First, with the Incarnation, the Word becomes the

156 See supra footnote 124 and infra footnote 180. 157 EVI IV, 955: “The visible mission of the Spirit ends in the effusion on the apostles and the disciples of the superabundance of the same grace of Christ, in order to establish in its fullness the Church which is His Body. This effusion, which is the effect of the entire Trinity…” 158 EVI IV, 331: “At the moment when the Virgin at the pronounces her Fiat, at this same instant, the entire universe of the angels is illuminated.” 159 EVI IV, 905. Cf. The Meaning of Grace, 105-106: “From the moment of the Annunciation, from the moment that Mary gave her assent and the Incarnation took place, Christ was constituted Mediator of all graces.” 160 EVI IV, 956. 161 Of course, one differences is not to change the essence of sanctifying grace: all Christic grace after the Fall is sanctifying grace. 162 EVI III, 1048: “When Christ appears, grace becomes Christic in a new way: not only ‘meritorious,’ because it is merited for us by Christ, but now ‘efficiently’ (efficienter) because it is distributed to us by Christ, and that it reaches us by crossing through the heart of Christ, so that its power to configure us to Christ is enriched.”

201 efficient cause of grace. Journet calls this Jesus’ descending mediation, whereby these divine actions “descend from God to man through Christ.” In addition, Christ merits on behalf of man, in an ascending mediation, whereby Christ’s actions “begin with his humanity” and rise to God, such as “his prayer, adoration, offering, merit, supplication, sacrifice.” By the descending mediation, Christ is an instrumental, efficient cause; by the ascending mediation,

He is the “principal source of our salvation.”163

We ask another question: According to Journet’s theology of grace, what was the nature of Jesus’ mediation before the Incarnation? Clearly, Christ cannot intercede as the

God-man before the Incarnation. All grace after the Fall and before the Incarnation (Christic

Grace by Anticipation) is “only offered them [man] by God in consideration of His Son who had to merit them by His future Passion.”164 The effect of the Passion is anticipated such that grace bestowed prior to the Passion is salutary. God can bestow grace after the Fall and before the Incarnation because Christ is going to redeem mankind through His meritorious

Passion.165 Christ’s mediation must be “in anticipation of” His Passion. In addition, under the umbrella of Christic grace, Journet includes: i) under the Economy of the Mosaic Law – the bestowal of grace under various signs, and the “proclamation of divine truth” by the prophets, and ii) under the Economy of the Law of Nature – God “interiorly” enlightening individual souls and raising up prophets among the Gentiles, such as .166

163 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 39-40. 164 EVI IV, 600. See also the reference to Heb 5:7-10, noted infra footnote 172 on page 203. 165 Relying on Church Fathers, Journet notes that pure sacrifices offered either by Jews or Gentiles before the Incarnation were accepted by God “because he saw in them an adumbration of the future sacrifice of his Son.” Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 103. 166 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 17-18. In The Meaning of Grace, 97-98, he speaks of Christ mediating before the Incarnation to those under the Economy of the Natural Law via: i) a select group of persons were “endowed with prophetic gifts” and, and ii) “sensible signs chosen by men through the interior inspiration of grace.”

202

There is one other aspect of “anticipation” to mention. Since God bestows grace in anticipation of the Incarnation and Passion,167 we might say, loosely, God is “anticipating.”

On the other hand, since man is only saved through faith168 we can say man (or even, “the

Church”) is anticipating. The anticipation, then, is on both the side of the Giver and on the side of the receiver.

But the Word-become-man is not only a mediator – “Christ” means “anointed” and

“Messiah,” Who came not to deliver Israel from political bondage but mankind from the slavery of sin.

2. Christ as Savior

Christ is a mediator as God-man immediately from the Incarnation, and His mediation for those thirty-three years anticipates His future redemptive act. Journet’s understanding of all

Christic grace, whether given before or after the Incarnation, is fundamentally linked to the purpose of the Incarnation and the means to attain that purpose: to redeem man through the

Cross. All Christic grace bestowed on man, which subjectively applies Christ’s objective redemption, comes via Christ’s Passion: either in anticipation of it169 or as a fruit of its actual

167 Grace by Anticipation is “oriented towards His coming.” EVI IV, 555-56. 168 Cf. supra in this chapter footnotes 24 and 155. 169 EVI IV, 554 (here, speaking only of Grace by Anticipation): “The prophetic graces (gratis datae) and the sanctifying graces (gratiae sanctificantes) which come then to visit men are given by God in consideration of the future Passion of the Savior;” EVI IV, 829: “that the invitation to believe is addressed in particular to each man from his awakening to the moral life, so that no one perishes except by his own fault; that under the economies of the Law of Nature, then under the Mosaic Law, grace is offered to the world in consideration of the future Passion of the Savior, and that it is already Christic by anticipation;” EVI IV, 959-60: “Before the days of the Incarnation and of Pentecost, under the economies of the Law of Nature and of the Mosaic Law, the Church is still in formation. The divine graces are thus offered to all, in consideration of the future passion of Christ, who, raised from the earth, will plead for all men and will draw them to Himself (John 12:32-33). They are, from this Head, Christic by anticipation” [Notice the future tense – “will plead” and “will draw”], and; EVI IV, 992: “On the very evening of the catastrophe where the universe of creation is partially ravaged, already now the cross of Christ is raised on the horizon of history. In consideration of the future redemption, God caused to descend on man the loving-kindnesses of a grace Christic by anticipation.”

203 accomplishment.170 Journet is as profuse as he is eloquent: “the salvation of wounded humanity is dependent on the cross of Christ.”171

As mediator and redeemer, Christ is also Savior: “If God gives without delay His grace to

Adam it is because He knows that Christ, in the days of His flesh, will present to Him prayers and supplications with a loud cry and tears, in view of being, for all His beloved, a cause of eternal salvation” (Heb 5:7-10).172 Journet’s emphasis on the Incarnation cannot be separated from the Passion to which the very wood of the manger pointed. The very name given by the

Angel to the shepherds, “savior,” speaks of the great humiliation of the Second Person who limited himself by taking flesh: “And consequently [there] began for Her [the Church] Her last age, Her final age, when the lights of divine grace only henceforth pour forth on men by derivation, in passing through the bloody Cross of their only Savior.”173 The frequent reference to the Passion recalls a contrast Journet noticed between the two types of sanctifying grace:

“[U]nder Adamic, transfiguring grace, the journey was a harmony; under Christic grace, redeeming of catastrophe, the journey is a combat,”174 the latter applicable both to the Master and to the disciples.

Professor Alexandra Diriart, member of the Community of Saint John and Professor of Sacramental Theology at the Pontifical Lateran University (Saint John Paul II Institute) in

Rome, on interpreting Journet, notes that Grace by Derivation means, among other things,

170 Speaking in both instances of Grace by Derivation, but “at a distance” (see infra Part Three, Letter B): EVI IV, 1034: “it is now a grace which comes to them from the Passion of Christ by mode of derivation;” EVI IV, 648: God “sends He sends graces derived from the Cross of Christ to encounter them, but which arrives to them impoverished, deprived of their sacramental modality and of their jurisdictional orientation.” Speaking of Grace by Derivation in general, EVI IV, 1069: grace is poured forth to men “by passing through the bloody cross of their only Savior.” 171 EVI IV, 817. 172 EVI IV, 289. Notice again the future tense – “will present.” 173 EVI IV, 1069. See supra footnote 170 on this page. 174 EVI IV, 509. A further discussion of the Church in combat is at EVI IV, 1069.

204 that: “starting from the Incarnation” graces “are no longer only acquired by the merits of

Christ on the cross but they also flow from Him efficiently (facon efficiente), by derivation from the crucified humanity of Christ, by derivation from his paschal mystery.”175 Journet is even more insistent, noting in The Theology of the Church that grace is given in its fullness in time only as a result of Christ’s meritorious Passion: “[D]uring the temporal life of our

Savior, grace already began to be poured out on the Church. … Nevertheless, the period of full outpouring of grace, the period where all the spiritual riches contained in Christ flow out onto the Church and the world, only begins after the Passion.”176

An inseparability exists between the Incarnation and the Passion, in that both effect

Christic grace. Due to the Incarnation, grace changes from by Anticipation to by Derivation.

But these two modes are both in view of the merits that Christ will attain by, or in the accomplishment of, His Passion, and it is only after the Passion and Pentecost that the full measure of grace is bestowed.

3. As Mediator, the Incarnate Christ is the Meritorious Cause and Efficient, Instrumental Cause of Christic Grace by Derivation As Journet structured the entire five-volume EVI around the causes of the

Church,177 it is unsurprising that he would similarly undertake to assign various causes

of grace. In one paragraph in EVI II he assigns to Christ multiple causes of Christic

grace, all resulting from the Incarnation:

From the first instant of the Incarnation, the grace of the entire world is contained in Christ as in its source, and it is starting from Him that it immediately begins to pour forth. He did not need to wait for that hour of His passion to have arrived, in order to

175 Alexandra Diriart, Ses Frontères sont la Charité: L’Eglise Corps du Christ et “Lumen gentium” (Paris: Lethielleux, 2011), 485. 176 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 22-23. In the next sentence we read that, with Pentecost, the Holy Spirit brings the grace of Christ to the world. 177 EVI IV, 5.

205

say to the paralytic: “Have comfort, child, your sins are forgiven” (Matt 9:2), nor in order to send his disciples to baptize (John 4:2). Therefore grace becomes Christic in a new way, more perfect that it was able to be under the reign of the Law of Nature and of the Written Law; it is henceforth Christic in a strong sense. Christ is not only the principal cause, in the order of moral and meritorious causality; He is furthermore the instrumental cause, in the order of physical and efficient causality. And the grace that divinity pours on men through an instrument so delicate is richer and more complete that it had ever been.178 Consonant with the earlier finding that all grace after the Fall is either in anticipation of or derived from Christ’s Passion, the Passion is also linked to the various causes of grace:

For the grace which preceded Christ, it did not, needless to say, pass through the heart of Christ before touching men: the passion of Christ was going to be (devait être) one day the moral and meritorious cause, [and] it was not able to be in this moment the physical and efficient cause.179 Journet can consider the Incarnation and Passion as “one Mission,” in that the grace which

Jesus received at the Incarnation was moving Him toward the Passion; thus, the Incarnation begins His status both as moral and meritorious cause and as Instrumental, Efficient Cause of Christic Grace, and the Passion perfects that status.

The underlying basis of Christ as the efficient, instrumental cause of grace is the hypostatic union and the capital grace derived therefrom:

It is not only as God and as First Efficient Cause, it is now as man and as efficient instrumental cause that Christ gives grace. From the instant of the Incarnation, His sacred humanity, filled with created grace, becomes as a conjoined instrument to His divine person – in this way my hand is conjoined to my person – as an organ of His divinity, in order to spread and to communicate grace.180

178 EVI II, 498. Footnote reference omitted. When Journet writes that Christ is the “source” of grace, he means with respect to efficient cause. See EVI IV, 334, concerning the grace of the angels: “[S]tarting from His coming, He is, without hesitation, constituted [the] universal source of efficiency with respect to the entire order of grace,” and EVI II, 500: “We have said, a few moments ago, [that] from the first moment of the Incarnation, all graces go out from God [and] pass through Christ before reaching men.” All grace comes from the Trinity. Cf. Journet, The Theology of the Church, 59, 71. 179 EVI II, 492. 180 EVI IV, 331-32. Journet most certainly has in mind ST III, q. 7, a. 1, ad 3: “The humanity of Christ is the instrument of the Godhead–not, indeed, an inanimate instrument, which nowise acts, but is merely acted upon; but an instrument animated by a rational soul, which is so acted upon as to act.” Cf. EVI II, 499: “It is as [a] common instrument of divine omnipotence that Christ, with His humanity and the grace which fills His soul, becomes

206

The principal cause of grace is the Holy Trinity; as the God-man, Christ receives the task of meriting grace and distributing grace, in the latter case acting as an instrumental cause.

As Mediator, Christ’s capital grace (the created, habitual grace He received as man) was given to Him so that He, Head of the Mystical Body, might grant grace to others: “The created grace of Christ was plenary, says St. Thomas, because ‘it was conferred on Him in order that He might be a universal principle with respect to all those who come under grace’.”181 It is only with the Incarnation that “mediation attained its fullness.”182

Having seen the importance for Journet of the Incarnate Christ, Mediator and Savior, and of His

Passion, to the forming of Christic grace, we now describe why it is redemptive.

D. Christic Grace is Redeeming for Two Reasons: It is Merited on the Cross and it is Satisfactory

1. Christic Grace is Merited on the Cross Within the divine economy, sacrifice is of paramount importance. Such prominence is immediately evidenced in the Garden when, after the Fall, God made “garments of skins” for

Adam and Eve183 – which necessarily involved the shedding of animal blood. The divine law of

capable of causing grace in all His Members…of spreading in His mystical body the grace which superabounds in Him.” 181 EVI IV, 332, citing ST III, q. 7, a. 9, and with reference to q. 7, a. 11 and q. 8, a. 5. See also ST III, q. 8, a. 5, resp.: “Now it was said above (Article 1 and III:7:9) grace was received by the soul of Christ in the highest way; and therefore from this pre-eminence of grace which He received, it is from Him that this grace is bestowed on others – and this belongs to the nature of head. Hence the personal grace, whereby the soul of Christ is justified, is essentially the same as His grace, as He is the Head of the Church, and justifies others; but there is a distinction of reason between them.” Cf. EVI II, 529 and Journet, The Theology of the Church, 51: “This grace of Christ the Head that is poured out upon the Church to form the whole Christ – Head and Body – is what is called the capital grace of Christ.” The capital grace of Christ was also given to Christ for a second reason: “to proportion his soul to the divinity through the beatific vison and love,” The Theology of the Church, 176, with reference to ST III q. 7, a. 1. 182 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 108. The “fullness” is reached because Christ’s instrumental, efficient causality is attributable to His human nature while maintaining the efficient causality attributable to God alone. Sister Lucia M. Siemering, O.P., “Capital Grace of the Word Incarnate According to Saint Thomas Aquinas,” Studia Gilsoniana 5, no. 2 (April-June 2016): 327-343 at 334. 183 Gen 3:21. Fulton Sheen brought various ideas in this paragraph to my attention.

207 forgiveness is clear: “without the shedding of blood, there is no remission” of sin.184 Under the two provisional economies, “God was working secretly to prepare them [Jews and Gentiles] for the cross of the Redeemer.”185 Since the old covenant was ratified with the sprinkling of blood,186 so is the new covenant. Since the new covenant is better than the old,187 the blood of

Christ obtains true redemption:188 “It is in dying on the cross that He obtains by His blood the entire grace for the redemption of the human race.”189 And the grace which is derived from His sacrifice has a different character than the previous grace: “The grace which, in the wake of the

Fall, is offered to Adam and to his descendants is already Christic. It will be merited by Christ on the Cross drawing all men to Him (John 12:32).”190

Christic grace has a different character owing to the charity that undergirded the sacrifice by which it was merited. Grace is merited on the cross only because Christ experienced His agony freely, out of charity and in obedience to the Father, and not out of necessity:

Without doubt, the sorrow, the agony, death, the miseries and the terrible agonies of the present life are not, in Jesus, penal; they are not like among us the mark, stigmata, the price of sin. It is freely that He assumed them; it is nobly that He bears them and allows Himself to be ravaged by them. They have no rights over Him, their domain is usurped.191

184 Heb 9:22. 185 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 102. Cf. EVI IV, 647, where, regarding the Economy of the Law of Nature, Journet specifies: “It is by the Cross of Christ that the graces and the lights of the economy of the Law of nature will be merited, and it is toward the Cross of Christ that this economy secretly orients humanity.” 186 Exodus 24:8. 187 Heb 8:1-7. 188 Heb 9:11-15. 189 EVI IV, 336. Cf. Col 1:14, Eph 1:7, Heb 9:11-15, Heb 13:12, and Rev 7:14-17. 190 EVI IV, 505. Cf. EVI IV, 600: “Before the Incarnation, on the contrary…graces of salvation reaching men came to them directly from heaven, but they were only offered them by God in consideration of His Son who had to merit them by His future Passion.” Emphasis added. 191 EVI IV, 976. Cf. Spiekermann, who, speaking of Christ, says: “Yet the grace that animated his soul transformed this suffering, allowing him to endure in charity and out of obedience, making it holy and eminently pleasing to God, such that it merited his glory.” The Christic Character of Grace, according to Charles Journet, 37.

208

Christic grace is formed not only by Christ’s merits, but also from the satisfaction for sin He provided.

2. Christic Grace is Satisfactory

Christic grace is redeeming due to a second cause, namely that it is satisfactory before God:192 It is in the depths of this suffering, as the beatified angels know, from Good Friday, even though nothing could yet manifest it here below, [that] the victory over evil is won, the infinity of the sin of all humanity is fully compensated by the infinitely more infinite love of a God crucified, the spiritual equilibrium of the world borne under a plan up until then unknown, the earth reconciled with heaven.193 Not surprisingly, Journet follows Thomas in this teaching, as noted in Entretiens sur

L’Incarnation:

How to rebalance this debt, how to satisfy for sin? It is not by removing suffering and death, it is by taking them upon Himself; it is not by eliminating them, it is more mysteriously by illuminating them, by transfiguring them through His love, in order to change that very thing which was for us the punishment of sin, “wages of sin” (Rom 6:23), into redemptive compensation and overcompensation. Taking upon Himself suffering and death, He makes the place of our tragedy the place of our redemption. “Christ, suffering in charity and obedience, presented to God compensation more than what was required for all the offenses of the human race…The passion of Christ was a satisfaction not only sufficient but superabundant for the sins of the human race, according to 1 John 2:2.”194 In another “reversal,” where formerly suffering and death were only a punishment for sin, now they become, because of Christ's charity, an atonement on behalf of all humanity before the

Father. What before was indicative of separation from God now becomes the way to restore divine friendship. What previously was an occasion of misery now becomes salvific.

192 Recall EVI II, 357, n. 224 [supra footnote 84 on page 184], where Journet quotes in III Sent., dist. 20, a. 4, q. 1, ad 1: “redemption consists in sufficient satisfaction.” In The Theology of the Church, 43, Journet distinguishes “deliverance” from “redemption,” wherein the latter involves “debt being acquitted,” quoting in III Sent., dist. 20, q. 1, a. 4, quaest 2. 193 EVI IV, 849. 194 Journet, Entretiens sur L’Incarnation, 42-43, under the Sixth Meditation – “The Word, in Making it [our Tragedy] His, Inverts the Sense of Our Tragedy, He Changes the Place of our Punishment into the Place of Our Redemption,” of the Second Instruction – The Why of the Incarnation, quoting ST III, q. 48, a. 2.

209

There is yet a deeper layer. Christic grace has the character to overcome the effects of the

Fall in man since Christic grace was constituted precisely in view of those effects: “As to the grace of innocence, it is, we have said, lost forever in Adam. It is not salvaged in any way for the universe of Christ. It is even in contemplation of its ruin that the grace of Christ is prepared.”195

That Christic grace is redeeming, as it was merited through obedient suffering and provided satisfaction for sin, was incorporated into divine Providence to amend for man’s fall.196 Whereas suffering was a consequence of the Fall, Christ’s Passion (along with His charity) makes suffering a positive and meritorious act – not only by Christ Himself, but potentially by His followers.

***********

The divine response to the Fall is to alter the cause and effect of sanctifying grace; formerly

Transfigurative, it now becomes Christic or redemptive, where the latter is bestowed in anticipation of the Incarnation and Passion of Christ. Christic grace is superior to Transfigurative grace, since it is derived from the Incarnation and ordered to man’s redemption. In addition, all

Christic grace is mediated, and this mediation attains its perfection at the Incarnation.197

Throughout this chapter, Journet maintains an essential link between grace and the Mission of the Son, noting the effect on grace of the Incarnation and the Passion.

We now turn to additional distinctions Journet makes regarding Christic grace.

195 EVI IV, 458. Cf. supra footnote 97 on page 186. 196 Entretiens sur L’Incarnation, 41, under the Fifth Meditation – “The Word Descends to us to Make Our Tragedy His,” of the Second Instruction – The Why of the Incarnation: “The Word taking a human nature in the womb of the Virgin, will be able, consequently, in the very name of all humanity, to cause to ascend from the Earth towards Heaven an act of love and of an unknown intensity and which, owing to the infinite dignity of the Person from Whom it emanates, surpasses and overcompensates the infinity of sin of men of all time. ‘Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world’ (John 1:29).” 197 “With the Incarnation, mediation attained its fullness.” Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 108.

Part Three – Sanctifying Grace by Anticipation v. Sanctifying Grace by Derivation Introduction To outline how grace develops over time and with respect to the Church, Journet delineates Three Ages of the World but two Existential Ages of Grace which occur after the Fall: before the Incarnation (Christic Sanctifying Grace by Anticipation) and after the Incarnation

(Christic Sanctifying Grace by Derivation). Under the Age of the Father, prelapsarian man was granted the Grace of Innocence in time anterior to the Church. Under the Age of the Son, Journet classifies three distinct epochs for the Church. Under the First Divine Regime of the Church, which occurs from the Fall to the Incarnation, grace is no longer Transfigurative but Christic, and by Anticipation. Here, the Church exists only imperfectly and inchoately. Under the Second

Divine Regime of the Church, reigning between the Annunciation and the Ascension where

Christ is visible, Christic Grace is by Derivation. Under the Third Divine Regime of the Church, beginning at Pentecost and which ushers in the Age of the Holy Spirit, Christic Grace by

Derivation fully flowers.198 [See Appendix One]

For prelapsarian Adam and Eve, sanctifying grace was not Christic; since both Adam and

Eve were in harmony with God, no mediation by Christ the Savior was necessary. After the Fall, all grace became Christic Grace by Anticipation: “So the grace given before the coming of Christ was already, by anticipation, a Christian grace.”199

Christic grace has two modes, revolving around the Incarnation: by Anticipation before the Incarnation and by Derivation after the Incarnation. What did the former grace

198 EVI IV, 418, 817-19. 199 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 94. 210

211 anticipate? Three distinct events: the Incarnation and Christ’s redemptive act, a meritorious act of Christ: “It [grace after the Fall and before the Incarnation] was already, however, a

Christic grace, a grace given in anticipation of the future passion of Christ. But it was not yet Christic grace in its state of plenitude and of blooming.”200 The ultimate “fullness” of grace will only be realized after Christ assumes a human nature and completes the Passion

(and, as we shall see, when the Son [with the Father] sends forth the Holy Spirit – the third anticipated event). In contrast to Grace by Anticipation, Christic Grace by Derivation, has two elements to its definition, which we discuss next. We will then proceed: i) to discuss and compare the two modes of Grace by Derivation, ii) to offer a definition of “Christic grace,” and iii) to explore the assertion that Christic grace “illumines” suffering.

A. Grace by Anticipation v. Grace by Derivation i) as to Time, and ii) as to Distribution and Fullness

Grace by Anticipation of the Incarnation and Passion begins with the Proto- evangelium.201 In contrast, Journet specifies two events which define Grace by Derivation.

First, as to time, it begins at the Incarnation.202 Second, as to distribution and plenitude, it begins to be fully conveyed at Pentecost.203 We cite Journet twice to illustrate these points:

Since the Incarnation, all graces which come down to us from heaven are participations of grace given in fullness to Christ, they pass through His intellect, His will, His humanity in its entirety in order to reach us: we say in a word that they are Christic by derivation. Before the Incarnation, on the contrary, before Christ was formed in the womb of the Virgin, graces of salvation reaching men came to them directly from heaven, but they were only offered them by God in consideration of His Son who had to merit them by His future Passion, and they were, by that very fact, secretly ordered to the Cross: we say in a word that they were Christic by anticipation.204

200 EVI II, 492. 201 EVI IV, 418. 202 EVI IV, 600, 905, 948. Cf. The Meaning of Grace, 106. 203 EVI IV, 418, 647. 204 EVI IV, 600. {Cf. fn 124 on p. 193; fn 164 on p. 201; fn 155 on p. 199, fn 190 on p. 207.]

212

The redemptive death of Christ where ‘all is consummated’ (John 19:30) and the descent of the Holy Spirit from Christ on the Apostles at Pentecost, marks the decisive moment when the New Law is inaugurated. The entire climate of the history of salvation is henceforth effectively and radically transformed. It is no longer by anticipation, as under the economies of the Law of Nature and of the Mosaic Law, it is by derivation205 from Christ Himself, that grace, begged for on the Cross, is now spread over the world.206 Journet recognizes the fundamental importance of the sacraments, whereby grace only reaches its fullness when administered sacramentally and within the Church’s jurisdiction. Journet specifies two elements of “fully” Christic grace: “[It is] in this New Law, in which the central element is grace as received by the sacraments and oriented by doctrine, and which, thus becomes fully Christic.”207 Later, he specifies, in the Age of the Holy Spirit, that the “normal

[sacramental] graces of contact” are “derived from the hierarchy and only fully Christ- conforming.”208 As grace reaches its peak, the Church fully blossoms.

After the Incarnation, and even after Pentecost, Grace by Derivation exists in two different modes.

B. Grace by Derivation as to Mode: “By Contact” v. “At a Distance” Grace by Derivation is further distinguished between “by contact” and “at a distance,” describing how grace is distributed. Journet relies on the Gospels to make this distinction.

Describing how Christ distributed grace when He walked the earth, Journet notes:

205 EVI IV, 647, n. 131: “It is from the Passion of Christ, cause of the justification of men, that the sacraments of the New Law derive [their] power (vertu) of justification, as is fitting, convenienter derivatur virtus justificativa, which was not the case for the sacraments of the ancient law,” quoting ST III, q. 62, a. 6. During Lent, 1273, Thomas adds, “The communication [of Christ’s good] is brought about through the Sacraments of the Church, in which the power of Christ’s Passion operates, and whose effect is the bestowal of grace for the remission of sins.” The Three Greatest Prayers (1990; repr., Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 1997), 81. 206 EVI IV, 647. 207 EVI IV, 1026. 208 EVI IV, 1033. See infra footnote 235 on page 222: “It follows that the grace of Pentecost is supremely Christic and Christ-conforming.” Journet, The Theology of the Church, 68.

213

The derivation of Christic grace on the world will be – at first that which is normal, it is not able to be otherwise – in two ways. By contact in Palestine, where Christ is Himself present and acting in order to found by His own hands the new and definitive economy in His journeying Church. At a distance, everywhere else, where Christ cannot be visibly present, when it is still not the time to send His disciples (Matt 10:5) nor go Himself (Matt 15:24), but where the rays departed from His soul reach secretly each of those who live under the economies either of the Mosaic Law, or of the Law of Nature, ‘who sit in the region of the shadow of death’ (Matt 9:16).209 A very similar distinction applies in the Age of the Holy Spirit. Once the Church is fully established on Pentecost, Christic Grace by Derivation “by visible contact” via the sacraments becomes not only the normal method of how grace is bestowed in the new economy but also singularly offers the “fullness” of grace:

If He decides to institute the sacraments, it is so that after the Ascension, when He will have ascended to His Father, the visible contact from Him to us will not be broken, which alone is able to bring the fullness of Christic graces.210 So vital are the sacraments that the “mediation of the Incarnation” is prolonged through them.211 In contrast, where the Church cannot be physically present and the sacraments cannot be administered, Christic Grace by Derivation “At a Distance” remains operative, although the Church acts here in an “inchoate and imperfect” (and even “abnormal”) way; it is not “normal” because it is not sacramental.212

But why the use of material things for spiritual edification? Why not just bestow grace through words, that is, the form of the sacrament? Just as we saw it was “fitting” that

God assumed flesh since man was “bogged down” in material things, so too can ordinary material things, instead of being an occasion of sin, be conduits of grace. What God created

209 EVI IV, 948. 210 EVI IV, 906. See infra Part Four, Section B for a fuller discussion of this topic. 211 EVI IV, 909. 212 EVI IV, 905, 1034.

214 good and man wrongly utilized, God re-captures in order to re-purpose, He re-capitulates in order to re-direct, as noted in The Meaning of Grace:

The reason for the mystery of the Incarnation is that we might have contact with Jesus. … [God] wished to come into touch with us by a human contact, that could be seen and felt. Since the Fall, man’s balance was upset; he is in a way, under the dominion of the things of sense. They are a temptation to him, and yet he needs them to be able to rise beyond them. So God willed to make of these dangerous things means of salvation for us, to free us from our prison walls; therein lies the whole mystery of the sacramental system.213

Having contrasted the two types of Christic grace, we proceed to compare them, noting that grace bestowed by the sacraments excels that granted otherwise.

C. Superiority of Christic Grace by Derivation by Contact over Christic Grace by Anticipation

Journet makes four comparisons between the two types of Christic grace: concerning the intensity of the divine indwelling, the relative perfection of the grace of adoption, the superiority of grace qua grace, and the quantitative level of grace. All four comparisons concern Grace by

Derivation by Contact (sacramental grace).

1. Intensity of the Divine Indwelling Grace by Derivation causes a greater change in the person214 than Grace by Anticipation.

That “greater change” results from a greater unity with the Three Divine Persons, and conforms

213 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 107. Note also ST III, q. 61, a. 2, ad 2: “Man's nature is the same before and after sin, but the state of his nature is not the same. Because after sin, the soul, even in its higher part, needs to receive something from corporeal things in order that it may be perfected: whereas man had no need of this in that state [of Original Justice].” Journet will go so far as to say that, concerning the relative excellence of grace by contact, that “our nature, in this life and insofar as it is fallen, is in need of a sensible shock, as it were, in order to be connaturally awakened to the life of grace.” The Theology of the Church, 104. 214 That grace does, indeed, cause a physical change in the recipient, see EVI IV, 557, where Journet speaks of Christic Grace by Anticipation: “In the measure where it {the Economy of the Law of Nature} is received and interiorized, it gives birth to a first status of the city of God; in the measure where it is rejected, it is going to constitute a first status of the contrary city of evil.” Emphasis added. In addition, see EVI IV, 602, where Journet speaks of baptism as an object of desire (not the actual sacrament): “Nevertheless baptism can be in that case an object of desire, votum, either explicitly or even implicitly, inspired by theological faith, operating through charity, and by which God, whose power is not limited to the visible sacraments, interiorly sanctifies men.” Emphasis

215 the person closer to Christ. Here Journet emphasizes Grace by Derivation by Contact, whereby the sacraments play a vital, indeed an irreplaceable, role. Only the Church’s sacramental grace is complete in every way. We draw on The Meaning of Grace:

Grace is fully ‘Christian’ by derivation, made fully like to Christ, making us fully like Christ.215 And, since grace is correlative with the indwelling of the three divine Persons, its strict identification with the Redeemer makes this indwelling more profound, more interior, and more intense. Grace, St. Paul explains to the Ephesians (2:18), by making us like to Christ gives us a new mode of access to the divine Persons: ‘by him we have access both [Jews and Gentiles] in one Spirit to the Father.’ … This does not mean that the Holy Spirit did not dwell in the just men of the Old Testament, or in Adam, or in the angels, but that he did not dwell in them so intimately.216 The basis for the greater intensity of indwelling under the new dispensation of grace is divine charity: “Christ would be the dispenser of a new grace, a new love which would be the precondition of a new mode of indwelling of the three divine Persons: ‘If anyone love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we shall come to him, and take up our abode with him’ (John 14:23).”217

Journet will reiterate the importance of the sacraments: “[W]e can now speak of the fullness of grace as making us like Christ when received through the sacraments,” and

“sacramental grace as alone being fully Christian and making us like Christ.”218 But note that

added. Lastly, see EVI IV, 831, where he speaks of Christ as “the dispenser of the interior grace of salvation” and as dispensing, “either by anticipation or by derivation, an internal grace of salvation.” Emphasis added. 215 Journet specifies that since “the powers of jurisdiction and the sacramental power of order” belong to the Church’s hierarchy, that it is from the Church whence comes “grace that is fully Christian and makes us like Christ.” The Meaning of Grace, 110. In addition, in comparing those outside the Church who possesses sanctifying grace to those who have received grace via the sacraments, he describes the latter grace as “a grace that is fully Christian.” Ibid., 115. 216 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 107-8. In EVI IV, 960, Journet will re-affirm that, with Pentecost, the Holy Spirit does not begin a new work but rather expands an existing one: “We hear Leo XIII citing his predecessor St. Leo the Great and St. Augustine: ‘It is beyond doubt, he wrote in the encyclical Divinum illud munus, May 9, 1897, that the Holy Spirit dwelt by the same grace in those just who had preceded Christ, as Scripture attests to us of the prophets, of Zachary, of St. John the Baptist, of and Anne. In fact, says St. Leo, [on] the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit has for a goal, not to begin then to dwell in the saints but to inundate them by His profusion, not to establish but to perfect His gifts, not to do a new work but to magnify His generosity’.” Footnote reference omitted. 217 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 108. 218 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 118, 121. Emphasis added.

216 grace “serves” the divine indwelling: “[a]bsolutely speaking, it is clear that grace is ordered to the indwelling, and not conversely.”219

Christ came not only to redeem man, but also to permit a closer unity between God and man than was the case with prelapsarian, or even fallen-but-restored, Adam. Christic Grace by

Derivation draws the recipient closer to the Mediator and to the Instrumental, Efficient Cause, intensifying the divine indwelling. And the sacraments complete or “perfect” the process, in which the Holy Spirit pours forth the grace of Christ by which the divine indwelling is even more fully intensified. All of these effects spring from Christ’s charity, the source of fallen man’s redemption.

It logically follows that if the intensity of the divine indwelling was of a higher perfection under

Grace by Derivation by Contact, so too the grace of adoption would attain a higher excellence.

2. Grace by Adoption Similar to Christic grace v. Transfigurative grace (see supra page 194), Journet argues in

EVI II that the grace of adoption of Christic Sanctifying Grace by Derivation by Contact is superior to Christic Sanctifying Grace by Anticipation:

This grace anterior to Christ conferred already without any doubt, adoptive filiation, and even an adoptive filiation more delicate than that of the state of innocence. The saints who lived under the law of nature, they, like Job, who were apart from the elect people, or at the beginning of the elect people like the patriarchs, and the saints who lived under the written law like Moses, were truly children of God. But it is necessary to say of this filiation what we just said of grace: it did not yet have the perfection that it was bound to have (devait avoir) under the new law. The adoption before Christ was to the adoption after Christ as the stem is to the flower, as the life of the promise is to the life of the fulfillment.220

219 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 80. Cf. ST I, q. 43, a. 3, ad 2: “Sanctifying grace disposes the soul to possess the divine person; and this is signified when it is said that the Holy Ghost is given according to the gift of grace. Nevertheless the gift itself of grace is from the Holy Ghost; which is meant by the words, ‘the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost’.” 220 EVI II, 493.

217

That the internal change wrought by Grace by Derivation is better than that given by

Grace by Anticipation indicates that the system of Grace by Derivation is superior to that of

Grace by Anticipation.

3. Overall System of Grace Journet asserts that the order or system of grace under the New Law, under Grace by

Derivation by Contact, brings a “better” grace than under Grace by Anticipation. He immediately adds that this does not preclude an Old Testament saint, who lived under Christic Grace by

Anticipation or before the day of Pentecost, from having a greater sanctity than a member of the faithful who lives or lived under Christic Grace by Derivation. His focus is on the overall regime of grace,221 which he states is far better under Grace by Derivation than under Grace by

Anticipation. The context here is a comparison of the saints of the Old Testament versus those of the New Testament. Journet introduces the discussion by noting that “grace by contact” and “the grace fully Christic” cannot deploy “all its effects” among the Old Testament saints. He chooses

St. John the Baptist as an example who, while superior to all the prophets, lived under the old dispensation of grace:

The word of the Savior regarding John the Baptist: “Truly, I say to you, among the children of men, there is none greater than John the Baptist; but the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matt 11:11), directly signifies that John the Baptist is more favored than all the prophets of the Ancient Law, since he can point out what they awaited; but that, from the fact that he still belongs to the Ancient Law, his state is less privileged than the state of the least among the Christians. “It is not a question here of the personal sanctity of the Baptist remarks Fr. Lagrange, but of his historical situation; he belongs to the Law, like the others, but he is inferior to workers of the Kingdom;” inferior, let us be clear (précisons-le), if one compares the two regimes or states of 222 grace, the old and the new; but not if one regards the intensity of grace.

221 For Journet’s interpretation of Thomas on the comparision of the status of human nature – original innocence v. redeemed – see EVI II, 283-86. 222 EVI IV, 911, quoting Albert M. J. Lagrange, Évangile selon saint Luc (Paris: Garabalda, 1921), 221.

218

The same conclusion is reached in EVI II regarding the patriarchs, Abraham most prominently:

It [grace which preceded Christ] was able to be, and it certainly was, among the Fathers of the first ages, more intense than it was going to be (devait être) much later among many Christians: the faith of Abraham was greater than ours and the patriarchs in whom the example is proposed to us in Chapter 11 of the Letter to the Hebrews, they are also our fathers in the faith. But it could not reach the richness of the modalities that the grace of the new law was bound to enjoy (devait connaitre). … One would be able to repeat here the word of St. Augustine opposed to the sophisms of Jovinian: Abraham is better than me, but my state is better than that of Abraham. All things being equal with regard to intensity, the grace of the New Testament far outweighs that of the Old [Testament].223 While Abraham or St. John the Baptist did possess a more intense grace than many persons living today, the regime of grace under which they lived (Grace by Anticipation), in general, was inferior to the regime of grace now (Grace by Derivation by Contact).

Since Grace by Derivation begins at the Incarnation and then reaches full flower at

Pentecost, in both cases it is superior to the previous dispensation of Grace by Anticipation when grace did not pass through the sacred humanity of Christ. (Recall our discussion of the inaugurations of the New Law on page 178.) Writing of sanctifying grace, both in Jesus and in the Church, Journet says: “In both it seeks to make present the modalities [connaturality, plentitude, filiality] proper to the New Law, modalities that were unknown in the state of innocence and the other preceding ages.”224

Grace by Derivation is better than Grace by Anticipation, but Grace by Derivation by Contact is best!

223 EVI II, 492. The grace Abraham received was Grace by Anticipation; since “the least of Christians has grace that comes to him by derivation,” his “dispensation [of grace] is better than Abraham’s.” The Meaning of Grace, 109. Regarding the just persons in the two provisional economies, Journet observes: they “were carried, supported, finalized, by something that came into existence only after them, namely, Christ and his Church in perfect act.” The Theology of the Church, 321. 224 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 60-61. (Cf. infra footnote 238 on page 223.)

219

4. Quantitative Level of Grace

While the discussion in Item 3 immediately above refers to the system of grace, in EVI

III, Journet reiterates that Christic Grace by Derivation by Contact can be “greater” in a quantitative sense than in both of the two provisional economies. As we shall see shortly (in Part

Four, Section B), a greater abundance of grace results from the sending of the Holy Spirit at

Pentecost, and from the concomitant flowering of the Church and distribution of grace through the sacraments:

[S]anctifying grace merited on the cross, after having been given as it were by anticipation and in moderation to men of the law of nature and of the ancient law when the Church was still in formation, begins to be given without restraint, when Christ just finishes establishing His Church.225

We here add that, before the sacraments were available, Grace by Derivation is superior to

Grace by Anticipation in terms of the amount of grace bestowed. During the time when

Christ walked the earth and healed persons by His physical touch (“by contact”) or sent grace to those outside of Israel (“at a distance”), “grace was given by derivation from Christ, in a superabundant outpouring.”226

D. Superiority of Christic Grace by Derivation at a Distance over Christic Grace by Anticipation To complete the comparison of Grace by Derivation to Grace by Anticipation: Journet holds that Grace by Derivation at a Distance (that is, without the benefit of the sacraments) is also superior to Grace by Anticipation. Concerning those who live under the New Law but are not reached by Grace by Contact, he writes:

225 EVI III, 1051. 226 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 106.

220

These men, these multitudes, will be able to think they were still living under religious climates anterior to Christ, it will seem to them that nothing is changed in their condition. Yet the grace which is offered to them is no longer the Christic grace by mode of anticipation, which ruled over the formerly normal and preparatory economies of the Law of Nature and of the ancient Law; it is now a grace which comes to them from the Passion of Christ by mode of derivation. And under this precise relationship, it is more perfect than the Christic grace anticipated.227

***********

To conclude this Section, Grace by Derivation is superior to Grace by Anticipation because the Second Person has become Incarnate, and because the Holy Spirit has been sent.

Christ mediates Christic grace (even before the Incarnation); that all Christic grace now proceeds to mankind through the Sacred Heart (after the Incarnation) means that Christ is an efficient, instrumental cause of sanctifying grace. It is thus enriched by Him, as we shall see in a moment.

And Christic grace, either by Derivation or by Anticipation, is redeeming because it was merited and because it made satisfaction for sin, as saw in Part Two, Section D. Christ effects grace first after the Fall when His mediation commences; then by the hypostatic union, when His mediation changes; and finally by His charitable, redemptive act on behalf of fallen mankind, after which

He (with the Father) shall send the Holy Spirit.

E. Christic Sanctifying Grace: Its Definition and Characteristics

In this section, i) after attempting a definition of Christic or redemptive grace, we plan to address three characteristics of Christic grace: ii) it conforms one to Christ, iii) it offers a higher destiny than Transfigurative grace, and iv) by it Christ summons each person, by name, to Him.

227 EVI IV, 1034.

221

It is only now that we are in a position to attempt a definition and to examine these three characteristics. In describing the modes of Christic grace, a differentiation must be made between Grace by Derivation and Grace by Anticipation. In addition, a qualification is needed regarding the level of conformity to Christ between both: i) Grace by Derivation and Grace by

Anticipation (which is largely implied), and ii) Grace by Derivation by Contact and Grace by

Derivation at a Distance (which is explicit). Even when discussing the “higher destiny” offered to man by Christic grace, Journet focuses on sacramental grace.

1. Definition of Christic Grace, How the Incarnation Forms it, and To Whom is the Term Applicable Since we have noted the “origin” of Christic grace in Part Two, Section C, an attempt at a formal definition of “Christic grace” is in order. Dominic Spiekermann writes, “The grace of

Christ…Journet refers to as christic because it bears his imprint.”228 Moreover, such grace takes two modes: in Christ Himself and “as derived from Him (whether derived only by merit or also by efficiency).”229 Grace received into Christ’s soul takes on proper modes, “ ‘proportioning, as much as possible, the human nature assumed to the divine person assuming,’ of accidentally sanctifying what was already personally holy.”230 Journet teaches that sanctifying grace is changed, both given heretofore “perfections unknown” and in adhering “more firmly in his

[Christ’s] soul than anywhere else.”231 Journet identifies three unique “modes” specific to

Christic grace: connaturality, plenitude, and filiality, which “describe the interior, essential, and permanent richness” accruing to grace due to its dwelling in Christ.232

228 Spiekermann, The Christic Character of Grace, 26, with reference to EVI II-1, 492ff, 521-3; 528-9; EVI II-2, 1047ff ; EVI I, 32-3. 229 Spiekermann, The Christic Character of Grace, 26, n. 160. Footnote reference omitted. 230 Spiekermann, The Christic Character of Grace, 26, quoting EVI II-1, 471. All translations are Spiekermann’s. 231 Spiekermann, The Christic Character of Grace, 26. Footnote reference omitted. 232 Spiekermann, The Christic Character of Grace, 26-7, with reference to EVI II-1, 451-4 and 529. Journet is relying on ST III, q. 7, aa. 9-13 and q. 23, a. 4, ad 2, as noted in EVI II-1, 451-4.

222

Since these three perfections arise from sanctifying grace being received into the soul of

Christ, they only apply (with respect to man) to Christic Grace by Derivation by Contact, and not to Christic Grace by Anticipation. That is, Christic Sanctifying Grace by Anticipation is in

“anticipation” of the Incarnation and Passion, and it lacks the effects which derive from grace being “in physical contact with” the hypostatic union; hence, it lacks the connaturality, plenitude, and filiality which derive from grace as effected by dwelling in the soul of Christ, and which are given only through the sacraments: “In those outside the Church, grace is as if in a foreign land, a place of exile; whereas the sacraments communicate to us not only the grace of Christ but also the modalities it has in his heart.”233 The same idea is noted when explaining that grace is “fully

Christic, fully Christ-conformed, and therefore, fully Christ-conforming” only when it is communicated to man by the “sacraments of the New Law.”234 (As we shall see in Part Four,

Section B, grace fully flowers only after Pentecost.) That in the thirty-three years Jesus walked the earth He did not communicate grace enriched with these three modalities is a testament to the power of the Holy Spirit: “Hence, the whole effusion at Pentecost is to pour out upon the world the superabundant riches of grace and truth enclosed in the holy soul of Christ. It follows that the grace of Pentecost is supremely Christic and Christ-conforming.”235

Here, then, is our definition of Christic grace; note that it is a “general” definition, taking into account the nuances noted immediately above and that Christic grace develops over time:

Christic sanctifying grace reconciles fallen man to God, conforms one to Christ, and forms the Mystical Body of Christ. It is redemptive not transfigurative, in that it does not prevent or eliminate suffering, but allows the possibility to sanctify suffering.

233 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 115. On pages 115-16, in discussing each of the three modalities, Journet is careful to specify each time that the sacraments are involved. 234 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 175; cf. 59-62. 235 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 67-68.

223

Within this definition, note that Christic Grace by Anticipation conforms one to Christ and forms the Mystical body inchoately and imperfectly.

2. Christic Grace Conforms One to Christ

The above definition of Christic grace is important since, per Journet, the characteristics noted above will proportionally flow from the Head into the members of Christ’s Mystical

Body.236 The very term “christic grace” applies not just to Christ, but to His members: among the faithful, “christic grace is also called ‘Christ-conforming’ from its peculiar end, namely to conform us to Christ.”237 The grace of the Church derives from Christ; because Christic, sanctifying grace is altered in its modes by Christ,238 who impresses “on it the perfections of his own grace, in such a way that ‘Christ’s life becomes the very life of Christians…[a]nd the grace of Christ becomes the very grace of Christians’.”239 Spiekermann observes that Journet is teaching that the faithful participate in Christ’s grace, and, consequently the “modes of [Christ’s grace] … are found in an attenuated manner in the members of his mystical body, with whom he shares his own fullness of grace.”240

If grace, as modified by its adherence to the Word made flesh, is bestowed on the members of the Mystical Body, those members experience, in a limited way, the effects of grace in the Head of that Mystical Body. An essential effect of Christic grace in rational creatures is to

236 See Spiekermann, The Christic Character of Grace, 40-64. 237 Spiekermann, The Christic Character of Grace, 26, n. 160. Footnote reference omitted. 238 While Christ enriches grace and alters grace in its modes, the essence of sanctifying grace is in no way changed when communicated to rational creatures: “The nature of sanctifying grace does not undergo a change as it goes forth from Christ to his Church; in both it is a participation in the divine nature; in both it is ordered ultimately to glory and to the vision of God and presently to the salvation of the world; in both it seeks to make present the modalities proper to the New Law, modalities that were unknown in the state of innocence and the other preceding ages.” Journet, The Theology of the Church, 60-61. 239 Spiekermann, The Christic Character of Grace, 56-57, citing EVI II-2, 1042. 240 Spiekermann, The Christic Character of Grace, 57.

224 conform one to Christ: “All the graces of salvation come to men depend henceforth on the Cross of Christ, they contribute to forming His Mystical Body; being Christic they are Christ- conforming; but not in an equal manner.”241 Such grace “comes from Christ and leads to

Christ.”242 We will later comment at length on one distinctive aspect of this conformity in human persons: to suffer well.

3. Christic Grace Offers Man a Higher Destiny than Transfigurative Grace243

In virtue of its redemptive character, Christic grace proposes to fallen man a superior destiny to that of Transfigurative grace:

Human nature finds itself henceforth deprived of sanctifying grace (original guilt) and subject to death and to the miseries of our condition (original punishment). Christ does not come to reconstitute the earthly paradise, definitively lost, but in order to offer us a destiny and a beatitude higher and more mysterious than that of Adam; the grace of Christ, modally different than that of Adam, can appear lower under certain more visible aspects, but is better under other more profound aspects. It [the grace of Christ] is not transfiguring, but only sanctifying or redeeming, of the human condition.244 The description of grace as “modally different than that of Adam” indicates the connaturality, plentitude, and filiality accruing to Christic grace from the hypostatic union and conveyed by Grace by Derivation by Contact (sacramental grace).

241 EVI IV, 600. Cf. EVI III, 1058 (noted, in part, earlier), where Journet, discussing Christic grace after the Incarnation, notes its “power to configure us to Christ is enriched.” Journet is also clear that Grace by Derivation by Contact (sacramental grace) has a greater power to conform one to Christ than does Grace by Derivation at a Distance. See Spiekermann, The Christic Character of Grace, 45-49. Cf. Ibid., 57: The grace of Christ “can be participated in to a limited degree by the faithful, above all when it comes to them by the sacramental contact of his flesh.” 242 Bonino, Angels and Demons, 228, discussing Journet’s interpretation of the impact of the Incarnation on angelic grace. 243 Although we compare Transfigurative sanctifying grace to Christic sanctifying grace in Part Two, Section B, we include this element here because of the redemptive character of Christic grace elaborated on in Part Two, Section C and due to the reference that it is “modally different” indicating sacramental grace. In addition, the term of Christic grace (to be discussed shortly) also follows from its redemptive character and has a reference to “christic and Christ- conforming grace,” which only fully takes place via the sacraments. 244 EVI IV, 470.

225

Transfigurative grace did not come with a promise, whereas Christic grace did, as we note next. Term of Christic Grace The final end of Christic sanctifying grace is not the recovery of the earthly paradise lost by Adam (where suffering is prevented), but rather the attaining of a celestial paradise (where suffering is not possible).245 Augustine noted early in Part Two of the City of God that prelapsarian Adam did not receive a promise of eternal beatitude; that promise (by way of the

Protoevangelium) only came after the Fall.246 Journet, familiar as he was with the City of God simply had to be aware of Augustine’s remarks, elaborates how God draws good out of that first evil by commencing the divine work of the redemption of man:

Here is the dawn which appears above the disaster, here is the Protoevangelium, here is the very first Promise, tacit but irrevocable, of God to fallen humanity. This promise of help is a Covenant by which He binds Himself under the sole pressure of His incomprehensible love. It will have for immediate effect the inauguration of the economy of the Law of Nature, meaning the secret and anticipated effusion, on all of humanity, of the graces of salvation that the redemption of Christ, one day, will summon upon on the world.247

And the fulfilling of that promise demands a new grace, one which did not exist before, namely, a Christic grace: As to the grace which is lost, in the heavens with the demons and in the earthly paradise with the first man, [there] succeeded a new grace, opened to the mystery of the Word made flesh, so powerful that it [this New Grace] fulfills in the heavens the glory of the good angels, and that it introduces man on earth into the universe of redemption of the Second Adam, better in total than the universe of creation of the first Adam. All the

245 EVI IV, 509. In Chapter Two, we noted “Under Adamic grace, the end would have been the glory of a humanity elevated to a union of divine inhabitation; under Christic grace, this glory of inhabitation will be colored by the lights of the glory of Christ, it will be that of a humanity touching through Christ its Head to the dignity of the hypostatic order.” EVI IV, 510. That the divine indwelling is “now touched by the glory of Christ” can be characterized as an intermediate end, in that the divine indwelling is to enable man to attain beatitude, the final end of Christic grace. 246 City of God, Book XI, chap. 12: “But as for hope of the future…any man in the extreme bodily suffering is happier than the first-created. For it has been revealed to man with the certainty of truth…that, free from all distresses, he will share with the angels the endless enjoyment of God Most High, whereas that first man, in all that bliss of paradise, had no certainty about his future.” 247 EVI IV, 655. {Cf. supra footnote 20 on page 170 and footnote 75 on page 182.} On the importance of the divine promise made to Abraham in the history of Israel, see EVI IV, 662-64 and 668-74.

226

divine work is established, not that it [the universe of creation] returned to its first state and that the irreparable may be repaired, but in the sense that it passed to a better state, that it is recovered, re-begun, recapitulated under a superior principle.248 Christ as the Second Adam and redeemer, serves to renew creation, by a new grace:

Henceforth, the supernatural hope of man will no longer be found in his dependence on the first Adam, but in the redemption of the second Adam; humanity will no longer be saved supernaturally by the initial Adamic grace, forever lost, but only through christic and Christ-conforming grace.249 We can say a different grace is needed for a different purpose; whereas Transfigurative grace aided man to enjoy an earthly paradise, Christic grace assists man in the spiritual combat of a fallen world, to reach heavenly beatitude.

4. Christic Grace has a Personal Aspect, in that the Redeemer Wishes to Call Each Person to Himself In Chapter Four, under the overall topic of recapitulation, the significance of divine mercy and human forgiveness will shine as exquisite examples of why a universe of redemption is better than a universe of innocence. For now, it is by Christic Grace by

Anticipation whereby Christ draws all man to Himself, and only by virtue of the Passion.250

Similarly, it is through Grace by Derivation and by Contact, “which is the most beautiful of gifts emanating from Christ, is too precious in order not to be destined for all men.”251

Invitations are just that – coercion does not enter into any divine economy.252 Just as each

248 EVI IV, 415. 249 Journet, Entretiens sur L’Incarnation, 33, under the Third Meditation – “Humanity Spiritually Struggles with a Tragedy,” of the Second Instruction – The Why of the Incarnation. 250 EVI IV, 555. Cf. John 12:32: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself.” [Cf. footnote 190 on page 207] 251 EVI IV, 949. 252 Journet employs the word invitation quite frequently – for a partial list, see EVI IV 77, 184, 236, 254, 264, and 455. The phrase “invitation(s) of grace” can be found at EVI IV, 243, 244, 344, 570, 590, and 652.

227 person is called by name, so each person must answer in his own name.253 No one else can form a friendship on behalf of another person.

F. Christic Grace Illumines, or Sanctifies, Suffering 1. Christic Grace Introduces “The Law of Sorrowful Sanctification” Journet had earlier emphasized that a fundamental difference between

Transfigurative sanctifying grace and Christic sanctifying grace in that the former

“transfigured” the human condition (meaning, it eliminated [one might say “prevented”] suffering) whereas the latter sanctifies suffering.254 The origin of this change in the effect of sanctifying grace in man is how sanctifying grace effects suffering in the life of Christ.

Since Christic grace is derived from, and has as its formal cause, the Passion of the Savior, it has as its formal effect (see pages 237ff) to conform one to Christ, as evidenced by illumining suffering. Because the Passion was both meritorious and satisfactory, Christic grace illumines suffering, first in Christ255 and then in His members. “To illumine” means to enable the bearer of suffering to suffer well, which is equivalent “to sanctify” a person. Since “to sanctify” means “to make holy,” the final effect of Christic grace is to enable the recipient to attain beatitude through suffering well. Since Christic grace conforms one to Christ particularly in the area of suffering, the effect of Christic grace exhibits a pattern between the Master and the disciple, as per EVI II:

One will observe for example that the grace which resided in Christ at the time of His mortal life had for its first effect to sanctify His sufferings but not to glorify His Body; to lead Him, under the pressure of an interior weight, towards the cross and beyond towards the resurrection and towards the ascension; finally to be redeemer of the entire world.

253 EVI IV, 941-42: “In the measure where it [Christic grace] is received and interiorized, it gives birth to the first status of the city of God; in the measure where it is rejected, it is going to constitute the first status of the contrary city of evil.” 254 See, for example, EVI IV, 505. 255 Heb 5:7: “He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.”

228

In other words, Christic grace is not given principally to eliminate from our present life sorrow and death, interior conflicts and concupiscence, the bruises of the exterior world; it is given principally to permit to triumph over these trials in the night of faith and love, in order to illumine and to sanctify them.256 Journet interprets this change as a law of the New Economy of Grace: “The law of His influence must be a law of glorious transfiguration, and it is here that it only wishes to be first and for very long centuries a law of sorrowful sanctification.”257 After noting that forfeiture of

Transfigurative grace doomed man to die, Journet notices that Christ, rather than being a passive subject of death, instead “utilized” death: “Then Christ appeared and the Christic grace of redemption. He let death alone, taking it on Himself, illumined it from the interior, utilized it before eliminating it, ‘the last enemy to be destroyed’.”258 The Passion adds a new quality to grace: to illumine, not eliminate, suffering.259 By suffering well, Jesus redeemed man.

What indicates that Christic grace has, in fact, “triumphed?” When Christic grace received by man causes man to suffer well.

256 EVI II, 529, 531-32. The theme of “triumph” is also noted in Journet, The Theology of the Church, 62-63: “The grace of the Church is, therefore, a much more wonderful gift than that which our first parents possessed. However, while the grace of innocence was immediately transfiguring, in the sense that it put to flight all suffering, the grace of Jesus will transfigure all things only in the next life. In other words, the grace of him who willed to take on the sorrowful condition of man was not given principally to eliminate from our present life suffering and death or the conflicts of concupiscence and the attacks of the world. It was given that the trials in the night of faith and love might be illuminated and sanctified and might ultimately triumph.” 257 EVI IV, 979. Emphasis added. 258 EVI IV, 938. 259 Since all men are saved through Christ, and recalling that Journet treats of the sanctity of various Old and New Testament figures (see EVI IV, 911-15), I conclude that this Law of Sorrowful Transformation applies both to Christic Grace by Anticipation as well as to Christic Grace by Derivation. This is supported: i) in that anyone who is saved is saved through the grace of Christ, and ii) that all grace after the Fall is either in anticipation of or in the accomplishment of the Passion. However, as we saw in Section C, since only Grace by Derivation by Contact (i.e. sacramental grace) is “fully Christic” and “fully Christ-conforming,” I conclude that man’s applying and living this Law was perfected only after Pentecost.

229

2. Christic Grace Conforms Man to Christ Principally by Enabling Man to Suffer Well We now confirm our earlier assertion that under the Economy of the New Law, suffering becomes the “means” of redemption. Simultaneously, we grasp an essential purpose Journet posits of Christic grace as “new” under the “New Law:”

Certainly sanctifying grace was to be once more offered to men on the very morrow of the fall, but without the transfiguring prerogatives of the state of innocence, which were lost for ever and which give way to more mysterious virtues, capable of conforming men to their crucified Savior.260 I infer that such conformity occurs most completely when grace is given by the sacraments.

Recalling our earlier discussion that the perfections of Christic grace (connaturality, plenitude, and filiality) apply only to Christic Grace by Derivation by Contact, the sacraments (offering grace by contact) are fundamental to effecting the conforming of student to Teacher.

Immediately after saying “we can now speak of the fullness of grace making us like Christ when received through the sacraments,” Journet adds: “Note, first, that the effect of this grace is not, like that given to Adam, to eliminate but, since derived from Christ, to illuminate suffering and death. Jesus did not eliminate suffering and death for himself, but illuminated them; and the grace of Redemption causes us to follow in his footsteps.”261 While Grace by Anticipation can

“conform one to Christ,” it is Grace by Derivation by Contact which can conform one fully to

Christ.

Journet quotes the Treatise on Divine Love of St. Francis de Sales: “the redemption of our

Lord touching our miseries makes them more useful and loveable (aimables) than original innocence ever would have been.”262 How are human miseries “made more useful and

260 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 220. 261 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 118-19. 262 EVI IV, 158, citing Traité de l’Amour de Dieu, Book II, chap. 5. Oeuvrés. Vol. 5 (Annency: np., 1894), 104. The same quotation may be found at EVI II, 282.

230 loveable?” Journet, in EVI II, sees how grace acts on them so as to conform the suffering person to the Master: “Again characteristics of grace can be thus unblocked, which will pass, in a certain measure, from Christ into His mystical body, and which will shape the interior pilgrim Church to the resemblance of the pilgrim Christ.”263 Clearly, “The servant is not greater than the Master”

(John 15:20).

The citation just noted also exemplifies Journet’s idea of Christ as Exemplar. How, specifically, is man conformed to Christ? Relying on Augustine and Thomas, Journet, commenting on Romans 8:10 [“If Christ is in you, the body, is dead on account of sin, but the spirit is life in view of justice”], observes that the:

[S]ubstitution of the transfiguring and transmissible grace of the first Adam, with that of the grace of the second Adam, which is redeeming – because it [the grace of Second Adam] begins to utilize, not to abolish, the miseries of our condition.264 We saw earlier that redemptive grace is so designated because it is both merited in the

Passion and is satisfactory. Here, we see its effect in man: Christic or redemptive grace

“begins to utilize our miseries.” How does it “utilize” our miseries? Just as the Fall introduced suffering and death into the world, so Christ will take those effects on Himself, as man, and utilize those same effects to undo them. Not that He will eradicate from earthly existence suffering and death – that will occur only on the Last Day. When He made satisfaction by His suffering, He also merited the redemptive grace which He will bestow on man. When that same Christic grace is bestowed on individual men, it “illumines and sanctifies” that man’s trials, that it [Christic grace] may ultimately triumph over them. Only because of Christ, the Savior-Mediator, can suffering now be redemptive in the lives of

263 EVI II, 529. 264 EVI IV, 470-71.

231 ordinary human persons, in that by suffering well the faithful can apply the merits of Christ which He earned on Calvary.265

What is the Basis for Christic Grace to “Triumph?” Suffering Well is founded on Charity and it Sanctifies Man

How is it that Christic grace “triumphs” over trials and sufferings? Let us first note what Journet describes as the underlying source of such triumphs, namely, divine charity:

“The first universe was centered on Adam. … The second universe is centered on Christ, who is God, who knew death…so as to enter on his Resurrection. In the first universe, evil had no share; in the second, the effect of evil, immense as it is, is overcome by a love that is greater still.”266 Charity defeats an already-existing evil versus merely preventing it from coming into “existence.” It is a greater victory to defeat than to prevent, in the sense that man can experience the depths from which he is raised by the victory of God.267

If redemptive grace does not eliminate but sanctifies man’s “trials, suffering, and death,”268 and allows them so that man, by grace, can be conformed to the Master by suffering well (hence, “illumines” them), then redemptive grace can sanctify man.269 “As it moved Christ to make satisfaction, so it moves Christians to follow him in the great act of reparation to God for the offenses of the world. That which Christ did his members try to do as well, according to

265 In the context of the grace of baptism, Journet remarks: “When Christ’s grace comes to me it impels me, if I am faithful to it, to follow…the path he trod to save the world.” Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 119. 266 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 90-91. Emphasis added. We see perhaps Journet’s influence on John Paul II, who writes in Salvifici doloris, February 11, 1984, no. 16: “Christ goes towards his own suffering…he goes forward in obedience to the Father, but primarily he is united to the Father in this love with which he has loved the world and man in the world.” 267 Luke 7:47: “Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less.” 268 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 119. 269 Salvifici doloris, no. 21: “In the eyes of the just God, before his judgment, those who share in the suffering of Christ become worthy of this Kingdom.”

232 his example: ‘Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps’ (1 Peter 2:21).”270 With emphasis – Christic grace can sanctify man – it does not necessarily do so. The condition is obvious – man must accept the grace offered to allow him to suffer well via his free will. Christ gives the example in the Garden of Gethsemane.271

Christic grace is an essential element in the providential design for a fallen world. In revisiting two earlier themes – that God respects the free will with which He endowed man, which, in turn, permits meriting or demeriting – Journet now adds that the rational creature reaches its beatitude when it collaborates “with God in the work of completion of the universe.”272 When a person endeavors to apply Christ’s redemption to souls other than oneself,

Journet observes that man is thus an “imitator” of God, in that man displays “more being” (not metaphysically, but by developing, through grace, latent powers), and in this way is more like to

God, who is Pure Being. It is St. Paul, not an Old Testament author, who writes that man is a

“co-worker of God” (1 Cor 3:9) to aid in bringing men to God.273 While not denying that there existed in the Old Testament human mediation and merit on behalf of another person, under the

New Law after Pentecost a more complete grace is given, and given more abundantly to allow a greater conformity to the Master, so that St. Paul may issue the exhortation: “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatsoever else you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31). Journet highlights the uniqueness of this mission when discussing the intercessory help of Mary:

270 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 48. EVI IV, 944: “She [the Church] awaited Him in the below of our time, in this world, where, in order to be configured to the resemblance of His crucified and passible life, She had to receive (devait recevoir) from Him the fullness of Her status as a journeying Spouse.” 271 Luke 22:42: “Father, if thou wilt, remove this chalice from me: but yet not my will, but thine be done.” 272 EVI IV, 256. Cf. footnote 456 on page 161, in Chapter Two. 273 EVI IV, 256-57, with reference to P. Éylsée des Martyrs, as per St. John of the Cross. Footnote reference omitted.

233

To invoke her under this title [Mother of all mankind] is to ask through her intercession for the most precious of grace that can be had here below, that of being conformed to Christ so as to suffer with him and to die with him for the salvation of the whole world.274 Christic grace brings with it the goal that man imitate Christ in His suffering so that he might participate in Christ’s redemptive meritorious suffering: i) by receiving Christ’s grace, and ii) by applying Christ’s grace to others. In doing so, man may arrive at eternal life. Man is sanctified precisely in that he suffers well. 275

3. In Addition to Applying the Merits of Christ, for Man to “Suffer Well” is Virtuous and Meritorious It is paramount to explain the virtues exercised when one “suffers well” (which we deem as equivalent to the “Law of Sorrowful Sanctification”). When one suffers well, he practices all three . Concerning charity, Journet writes that Christic grace confers to the saints “if not immortality, at least a superiority of the soul over the body which irradiates their face and all their comportment, and transforms suffering and death in them into free gifts of love.”276 With greater specificity, and with supernatural faith: “The pains of this life are innumerable and tormenting…that the only way out is to believe that in the next life they may call for infinite compensations. This is the answer given by faith. St. Paul says: ‘I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy comparing with the glory that is to be revealed

274 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 418. 275 EVI IV, 505-06: “Throughout the duration of our eon, of our historical era, redemptive grace will have for an end not to transfigure our condition but to sanctify it. It [redemptive grace] does not abolish suffering and death, it does not destroy the human intermediate ends of nature and of culture, art, and science; it seeks to illumine them from on high. At the same time, it creates, even within the kingdoms of this world, a kingdom which is not of the world, crucified like its King.” See also Salvifici doloris, no. 20, quoting 2 Cor 4:11, 14: “For while we live we are always being given up to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh....knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus.” Pope St. John Paul II interprets St. Paul that those first Christians who suffered “for the sake of Christ” also enabled them “to share in the work of Redemption.” 276 EVI IV, 506. Emphasis added. Cf. 505.

234 in us’ (Rom 8:18).”277 Given that Journet’s focus includes eternal joy after death, I add that the virtue of hope is also central to suffering well.

In the New Economy (especially after Pentecost), suffering well is a source of merit:

“[T]he sufferings of this world, whether they come from original sin by way of our inheritance or whether they are a consequence of the personal sins committed by ourselves or by others, can be transfigured: then they will cease to be merely afflictive and become satisfactory or compensatory, and even merit greater love and eternal life.”278 Further supporting that Christic grace sanctifies man, Journet writes that concupiscence becomes “matter for the exercise of virtue”279 in that through grace man can overcome the temptation, which is itself meritorious:

“[I]t is even the characteristic of redemptive grace to make the penalties [of original sin; here, particularly concupiscence] in the present life to serve the increase of love and thus to prepare for the time of glory.”280

Journet elaborates on the degree to which followers of Christ are, through Christic grace, to be conformed to the Crucified Savior. Referring to Colossians 1:24,281 Journet insists that His disciples must follow the Master:

The Son of God came into this world, not as a King of this world, but as [a] wandering and crucified King before being, forever, [the] resurrected and glorified King. The kingdom which He founded with His own hands, and that His own Spirit comes to rule, vivify, lead, must be in His likeness, not a kingdom of this world, but a kingdom first journeying and crucified in this world, before being, forever, resurrected and glorified.282

277 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 222. 278 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 223. 279 EVI IV, 482. Footnote reference omitted. 280 EVI IV, 482. Footnote reference omitted. 281 Col 1:24: “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church.” 282 EVI IV, 1021.

235

The whole point of the state of journeying is a test, whereby man must prove his faithfulness, through a love of preference, most prominently by suffering well. The servant cannot be greater than the Master: “If they have persecuted Me, they will persecute you also”

(John 15:20). Journet draws the parallel between servant and Master, this time applying it to both

Divine missions: “But since the time of the Son, incarnated in Christ who is Head, had been here below a time of crucifixion, – ‘Was it not necessary that the Christ suffer this things so as to enter into His glory’ (Luke 24:26) – how would the time of the Spirit, descended on the Church which is the Body be any thing here below except a time of martyrdom?”283 Such is the design of

Providence for the universe.

Journet detects a continuation, not a disparate break, between grace amid the trials of earth and grace bringing the joys of heaven; and between the divine indwelling amid the darkness of faith on earth and the divine indwelling of the blessed in heaven.284 We might say there is a “completion” or perhaps “perfection,” since the grace received on earth is what brings one to the goal of earthly grace, namely, a heavenly reward. It is not as if there is a “distinct reality” between the earthly goal of grace and its achievement. Grace on earth is ordered to celestial beatitude. Specifically, to reach that goal, earthy grace bestows the power to illumine sufferings, meaning to accept sorrow versus rebelling against sorrow – all because the Master did so. Trials and pain – while remaining painful – instead of being merely a consequence of sin become a way to reach a life beyond what Adam and Eve had prior to sin. There is a great reversal. God takes the consequences of sin and turns them into the way to attain beatitude, where there is no sin. He takes the worst that the Enemy contrived to bring about in the world

283 EVI IV, 980. 284 EVI IV, 981.

236 and turns it (via the help of divine grace) into the way for man to reach that which God originally intended. Only now Christic sanctifying grace illumines suffering by overcoming or “triumphing over” it, instead of eliminating it (as Transfigurative sanctifying grace did).

We might ask “Why did God choose this way to govern the universe?” We will see in

Chapter Four the centrality of all things ordered to the glory of Christ. But Christ only attained

His glory through divine charity in which He, as man, suffered well. Performing a difficult action, a “sacrifice,” for someone else demonstrates in a unique way the agent’s charity for the other person. I do not say that this is the only way to demonstrate charity. I do assert that it gives the greatest proof of charity, because sacrifice is the action most contrary to our fallen nature’s inclination to self-love. Christ, of course, did not possess a fallen nature: His act of charity was all the more perfect since it reflected a unreserved forgetfulness of self so as to be most pleasing to the Father.

Ultimately, if one denies that the disciples are to follow the Master on the way of suffering, one calls into question the entire economy of salvation.285 If the missions of the Son and Holy Spirit are questioned, the mystery of redemption is also questioned. If it is denied that human suffering can be sanctified by Christic grace in the New Economy, the supernatural order is denied.

G. Christic Grace Can be Refused

Sanctifying grace, in addition to retaining its power after the Fall to make a person

“worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light,”286 also retains its contingent character:

285 EVI IV, 1022-23: “And in sending His disciples His Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Son (Gal 4:6), did He really will to make His kingdom descend into suffering before manifesting her in glory? What is in question, what is here confessed or contested, is the sense of the visible mission of the Word in the Incarnation and of the visible mission of the Spirit at Pentecost; the sense of the mystery of Redemption through Christ, and of the mystery of coredemption in Christ, of the redemption of time in Christ (Eph 6:16), of the fulfillment, in the members of Christ, of what lacks to the sufferings of Christ (Col 1:24); in short the sense of the mystery of the Church.” 286 Colossians 1:12.

237 after the Fall and after Pentecost, God continues to respect the free will of the rational creature.

All the advantages offered by Christic grace cannot force the creature to prefer the love of God to the love of man.287 With particular emphasis on free will establishing the Two Cities, Journet observes:

And it is necessary, here again, to note immediately that this process of of humanity is itself also a twofold outcome, [it is] also ambivalent. Because it includes each human person and humanity itself in [the] presence of a supreme decision to make, and whether one accepts or refuses the invitations of , one finds a place in the ranks of the city of God or of the city of evil.288 We have emphasized the Christic grace merited by the Redeemer illumines the trials, both of the

Word Himself and of His disciples. We must add that the disciples, only by willing to receive

(rather than by refusing) Christic grace can also merit, because they can then cooperate in the

“coredemption in Christ, of the redemption of time in Christ (Eph 6:16).”289

H. Summary of the Four Causes and Four Effects of Christic Grace

My interpretation of Journet as to the four causes and effects (the latter, as it pertains to

Christic grace and quoad nos) of Christic grace are as follows: The Material Cause of Christic

Grace is the meritorious action of the Incarnate Word. The Efficient Cause of Christic grace is

Jesus’s charity by which He merited. The Formal Cause of Christic grace is Christ’s Passion.

The Final Cause of Christic grace is to offer satisfaction to the Father.290

287 EVI IV, 1044. 288 EVI IV, 570. Cf. EVI IV, 992: “Because God only has one means of dissipating the darkness of our hearts affected by original or personal sin, it is to pour the ray of His grace into our hearts; and in the ray of this grace, the very Sun gives Himself to us, the three divine persons come to dwell in us, here below first in the exile of faith, and later in the evidence of the vision. Whether this grace is accepted or refused, whether it divides among them the hearts of men, and even the heart of any one man, the two rival and transcendent cities begin to form themselves, which will travel in parallel in time, the city of God and the city of the refusal of God; both hiding under their visible exterior the unfathomable abyss of a ‘yes’ or of a ‘no,’ consent or opposition, in the secret of human liberties, to the divine advances.” Emphasis added. Cf. EVI IV, 505, 941, 1033. 289 EVI IV, 1023. 290 Cf. footnotes 192 and 194, on pages 208.

238

The material effect of Christic grace is to effect the person by restoring grace and the possibility of the beatific vision, none of which is transmissible by generation with human nature.291 The efficient effect of Christic grace is to enrich Christic grace with the three modalities of connaturality, plenitude, and filiality, which are bestowed on man sacramentally and by contact, via the power of the Holy Spirit acting through the sacraments of the Church.

The formal effect of Christic grace is to give Christic grace the quality to illumine suffering, thereby conforming man to Christ.292 The final effect of Christic grace is slightly more complicated. Since Christic grace illumines suffering, it simultaneously sanctifies fallen man to enable fallen man to suffer well, who can use sufferings as a means to attain heavenly beatitude.

*********** With the Incarnation, Christic sanctifying grace changes: it is no longer by Anticipation, but by

Derivation. With Pentecost, the fullness of grace is attained, complete with its sacramental power and given by the Church. Grace by Derivation (especially by Contact) is superior to Grace by

Anticipation as the flower to the stem; the time of waiting is over and the “fullness of time” has come. Evidencing this is that one penalty of the entrance of sin into the world – suffering – can now be source of merit and virtue for man, all in imitation of the God-man who became man to redeem fallen man by choosing to suffer.

***********

Journet’s treatment of salvation history, especially its treatment of grace, would not be complete if a discussion of the Church were absent. In seeing how the Church develops because grace changes, we also learn that the Mystical Body of Christ, while existing before the Incarnation, only reaches its fullness with the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles.

291 EVI IV, 470. See Col 1:12 and Col 3:10. 292 EVI IV, 421, 979; EVI III, 1054; Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 119. Cf. supra pages 195-96.

Part Four – Christic Grace and the Development of the Church

Introduction The Age of the Holy Spirit commences at Pentecost, when the grace merited by Christ begins to be distributed fully through the Church and wherein the Church enters into Her

“Complete Act,” where the Church acts with all the power granted to Her. The importance of a visible, active Church is evidenced that it is only through the Church’s sacraments that Christic grace is available fully. Since Her mission is supernatural – to conform fallible, contingent, rational creatures to the infallible, eternal, divine Word made flesh – a supernatural means is required. Sacramental grace is that means.

One goal of EVI IV was to offer an ecclesial theology of the history of salvation; here we see the Church in full flower. When Journet delineates Three Ages of the World but two

Existential Ages of Grace which occur after the Fall – before the Incarnation (Christic

Sanctifying Grace by Anticipation) and after the Incarnation (Christic Sanctifying Grace by

Derivation) – he is essentially saying that Christ is at the center of time.293 The Church only knows two times: before and after Christ.294 Under the two provisional economies, the Church, in an incipient fashion, acted to prepare man for the Incarnation; under the Economy of the New

Law, the Church blossoms by the Christic grace with which She is bestowed, so as to “Go and teach all nations” to conform them to the crucified King.

293 EVI IV, 817, 831. 294 EVI IV, 817. 239

240

A. Development of the Church After the Fall and Before the Incarnation The Church existed only virtually at the creation of the angels, and existed actually among the angels at and after the Incarnation.295 With respect to man, the Church did not exist in the Age of Innocence;296 the Church centers around redemption,297 and no redemption was needed before the Fall (Christ did not come for or to redeem the angels298). As the Church began the evening of the Fall, the Church was journeying in the Old Testament period; though inchoate,299 the Church was active, and certainly effective.300 Since the Church comes into existence at the Protoevangelium, the Two Cities begin to form at the Protoevangelium.301

Even considering the Church’s rudimentary state, Journet, in noting the uniqueness of the

Mystical Body, outlines the extraordinary bond between Christ and the Church:

Only the Church is the kingdom which, although in the world, is not of the world, the transethnic and transcultural community, the city of the graces of salvation, the mystical body of the Messiah Savior; only She is of Him and directly messianic. But before Christ, while She was only in formation, although already distinct by her essence and her finalities from the kingdoms of this world, She did not manage to emerge exteriorly from their [the kingdoms of this world] influence. Without [a] proper and organized hierarchy, She seemed to be joined to them, manifesting Herself through them, borrowing from them as it were the clothing of their visibility. This partial and provisional immersion of the spiritual in the temporal was the existential condition of the Church before Christ.302

295 EVI IV, 458-60. 296 EVI IV, 458. (Cf. infra page 182.) 297 EVI IV, 413: “Because man sinned, now the Son of Man will come. At the moment when in man the grace of the universe of creation collapses, God decides to offer him, by anticipation, a higher grace which Christ will bring in plenitude at the time of His coming, and alone adapted to the mystery of the hypostatic union. Here is the strength which begins again to gather the Church, to make her the Mystical Body of Christ. For man, this grace is redemptive, it is the grace of the universe of redemption.” 298 EVI IV, 414. 299 At this time, the Church is in “initial act only and imperfect,” EVI IV, 418. As to the Church in “imperfect act,” see also EVI IV, 567, 940; EVI V, 532; Journet, The Theology of the Church, 61. Before the Incarnation and Pentecost, the Church is “still in formation.” EVI IV, 959. 300 “[T]hose who were saved before Christ were saved through him; they constituted, by anticipation, his Mystical Body, his Church. For, even then, grace was Christian.” Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 102. 301 EVI IV, 567, 941, 992. 302 EVI IV, 698.

241

We now inquire how it is that the Church is active before the Incarnation, before the Word became flesh.

1. The Mystical Body of Christ Exists Prior to the Incarnation Journet asserts that the Mystical Body of Christ existed before the Incarnation: “[The]

Mystical Body of Christ, spiritual Place of all the graces of salvation, this is, from the light of the

Protoevangelium, the very Church which came into being.”303 The forming of the Mystical

Body, a society comprised of angels and men, begins with the Protoevangelium, not with the

Incarnation, because grace then begins to be Christic: Christic grace can form a society of angels and men, even though such grace is Christic Grace by Anticipation.304 (Grace given to the angels at their creation – grace that was not Christic – cannot form the Church.305) Speaking of the time immediately after the Fall, and of Grace by Anticipation which is “adapted to the mystery of the hypostatic union,” Journet remarks: “Here is the power which begins again to gather the church, to make her the Mystical Body of Christ.”306 It is Christic grace and no other which can form the

Mystical Body.

If it seems peculiar that the Mystical Body of Christ comes into being before the physical

Body of Christ actually exists, we must recall that the Mystical Body is a spiritual society.

Journet describes the Mystical Body as angels and men307 “gathered around Christ and His redemptive work.”308 If the nature of the Mystical Body is spiritual, it is consonant that the

303 EVI IV, 817. 304 EVI IV, 289: “It [Christic grace] begins to form the Church of Christ. Because even before Christ, from after the Fall, the Church of Christ exists, in this world, in formation.” Christic grace bestowed on the Church prior to the Incarnation is by Anticipation; since it is given prior to the Incarnation, it cannot be the capital grace of Christ. 305 EVI IV, 289: “The grace that the angels received before the coming of Christ, unlike the grace men will receive in the wake of the original Fall, is not yet actually Christic. It is capable of organizing them into a divine society; it is not yet capable of forming in them the Body of Christ, which is the Church.” 306 EVI IV, 413. 307 EVI IV, 299, 304, 334, and 342. 308 EVI IV, 418.

242 work309 and goal310 of the Mystical Body is spiritual. Since all those who are saved are saved through Christic grace,311 the Mystical Body, the Church, acts toward the goal of the salvation of man even before the Incarnation. In addition, we cannot forget that divine knowledge and divine love are eternal – not simply among the Three Persons but also for created beings.312

2. As a Spiritual Society, the Mystical Body of Christ Incorporates Angels313 and Men In addition, it is the “the Mystical Body of Christ that…gathers, animates, vivifies from within” (de l’intérieur).314 The angels, pure created spirits, can receive grace. The souls of the just prior to the Last Day lack their bodies but are filled with grace. Hence, one does not need to possess a body to receive grace. Because the Mystical Body of Christ is a spiritual society, where the members are gathered by grace, corporality is not a requirement

309 EVI IV, 941: “The Church in Her desire leads the universe of visible things which, through Her, yearn for the revelation of the glory of the children of God, toward the after-life.” 310 EVI IV, 299: Journet defines “The end to which the Mystical Body of Christ or the Church is ordered” as “grace and glory.” 311 “[T]hose who were saved before Christ were saved through him; they constituted, by anticipation, his Mystical Body, his Church. For even then, grace was Christian.” Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 102. 312 Rev 13:8: Recall the Lamb, “which was slain from the beginning of the world.” In addition, Pius XII remarked: “Now the only-begotten Son of God embraced us in His infinite knowledge and undying love even before the world began,” , June 29, 1943, no. 75: http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius- xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html. Accessed 4.4.2018. 313 With respect to the angels, Journet establishes: 1) Prior to the Fall of Adam, the angels were created in grace (EVI IV, 209), and grace given to the angels was not actually Christic, but virtually Christic, as it was by anticipation of the Incarnation (EVI IV, 289, 329, 846); 2) Grace given to the angels was not in anticipation of the Passion, since Christ did not redeem the angels nor die for the angels (EVI IV, 293, 332, 846); 3) Christ’s relationship with men is more intimate than with the angels (EVI IV, 302); and 4) With the Incarnation, Christ is head of the angels in heaven (EVI IV, 295; cf. EVI II, 289-92). 314 EVI IV, 940. Emphasis added.

243 for membership.315 Rather, it is the final end of the rational creature which is determinative.316

B. Christic Grace: The Church Reaches Her Fullness through Sacramental Grace

1. The Church Enters into Her Completed Act at Pentecost At and after Pentecost, a grace “heretofore unknown enters the world” and, because the

Holy Spirit “gives Himself in Person,”317 the Church simultaneously enters into Her completed act.318 The two provisionary economies, the Economy of the Law of Nature and the Economy of the Mosaic Law, are “expired,”319 replaced by the New Economy: “At Pentecost the Church is animated and solemnly manifested, the New Law is solemnly promulgated and disclosed.”320

The Church undergoes a change, not in nature, but in state:

The Church, up to then in expectation, suddenly takes root in the heavens with Christ; She changes condition; She passes from a provisional journeying state, where grace proposed to Her by an anticipation of the prayer of Christ, to Her definitive journeying state, where grace is communicated to Her by a derivation from the plentitude of Christ.321

315 In EVI II, 500, Journet notes a parallel drawn by Fr. , O.P.: “Thus, to consider the grace from the point of view of its ontological and entiative intensity, it is necessary to say that all the grace of Christians is gathered in Christ as in its source, and that Christ marvelously unifies in Him the Christians to whom it [grace] is shared. Fr. Congar causes to remark, on this point, that the supernatural life of Christians is assembled in Christ, in Whom it is entirely produced, much more perfectly than the natural life of men was able to be in their first father [Adam], who was only an individual and fragmentary realization of the life of the whole species. In short, all Christians are truly the ‘body of Christ,’ whereas all men cannot be the ‘body of Adam’,” quoting “ de Jésus du P. Chardon,” in the Vie Spirituelle, April 1, 1937, 47. 316 EVI IV, 299: “There is…one single, supernatural multitude of angels and men, ordered to grace and to the enjoyment of divine glory,” with reference to ST III, q. 8, a. 4. 317 EVI IV, 940. 318 EVI IV, 419; cf. 940-41. 319 EVI IV, 648. Since the two provisional economies have been “fulfilled and abolished by the new Law,” they have “lost the salvific efficacy which was their own. They are reduced to great devastated temples.” EVI IV, 647-48. 320 EVI IV, 1044. 321 EVI IV, 886. [Cf. supra footnote 73 on pages 180-81.]

244

The Church is now in her plenitude,322 having received from the fullness of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. “[A]s the goal of the age of the Son was to bring forth in Christ the fullness of grace, so the age of the Spirit has for its end the dispersing of that fullness to men.”323 It is uniquely by the Incarnation and Pentecost, that the Church “takes root in the Trinity;”324 with

Pentecost, “the fullness of life is infused into the Church.”325

2. Christic Grace by Derivation by Contact: The Importance of the Sacraments Since the Church is fully “rooted” at Pentecost, the Church is equipped and ready to engage fully in Her mission. As we saw earlier, Christic Grace by Derivation has two modes: grace by Contact and grace At a Distance. The clear superiority rests with grace by Contact, where the Church’s sacraments bestow grace: “It is the privilege of the derivation by contact to carry the Church to Her state of fullness, whereas the derivation at a distance does not succeed in bringing Her from Her provisional state of imperfection and unfulfillment.”326 Only where the

Church’s sacramental powers are exercised can the Church be said to be fully present: “[T]he

Church only will exist fully in the place where her sacramental and illuminative powers are exercised, and where subsequently charity and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit can entirely bloom.”327

The earlier discussion of Christ’s capital grace as communicated to the members of the

Mystical Body is now extended to include the new form of distribution; Grace by Derivation by

Contact as bestowed by the Church through the sacraments (as noted in EVI III):

322 EVI IV, 6. 323 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 23. 324 EVI IV, 168. 325 EVI IV, 959. 326 EVI IV, 948. 327 EVI IV, 1045.

245

What Christ pours into the Church by the contact of His person and of His sacraments, is sanctifying grace, the grace of virtues and of gifts, not only become more abundant than it ever had been in the past, but now enriched from the sevenfold sacramental perfection, meaning of the permanent modalities still unknown in the anterior ages, which will permit it [the Church] to produce these new acts required in order to form the mystical body, these necessary special effects to the Christian life, speciales effectus necessarios in vita christiana, without which from now on the spiritual life will be truncated and the body of Christ mutilated.328 Considering the Church from the perspective of the New Law, one may even come near a definition of the Church that includes the sacraments under the Church’s jurisdiction:

We can approach the definition of the Church, body of Christ, by placing Her in the perspective of Her completed voyager state, where the charity of the New Law is colored by the Christian sacraments and oriented by the directives of Peter.329

What was previously lacking is now available. God has chosen a visible Church to administer visible sacraments to apply Christic grace to those who will to accept it. It is from Christic Grace by Derivation by Contact, as enhanced by the Incarnation and Passion, that the Church completely fulfills Her missionary identity.330

3. The Church’s Mission

What is the purpose of the Church reaching Her “plentitude” by receiving, through the

Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the riches of the grace of Christ? Journet wishes to emphasize, after his five decade-long battle against the liberal Protestant denial of the supernatural, that the effects of the Incarnation are very much ongoing and are especially seen in the Church since:

“Her mission is essentially supernatural.”331

328 EVI III, 1058. 329 EVI IV, 309. 330 EVI IV, 1044: “Since the descent on her of the visible missions of the Incarnation and of Pentecost, the Church is by essence missionary.” 331 EVI IV, 651.

246

Christ did not simply become Incarnate, accomplish His assigned task, receive a reward, and return to heaven: “It is in order to found the Church and by Her to save the world that Jesus leaves His Father, comes into the world, returns to the Father.”332 His work continues, through the Church He founded, and by His grace which He grants through the sacraments. So crucial is the Church in the economy of the New Law that “the supreme moment of the history of salvation” occurs when the Church enters the Age of the Holy Spirit, as “She sets out for this final step” of Her journey.333 Christic grace is to conform one to Christ; Journet is extraordinary clear that the Church’s sacraments are the optimal way to attain that conformity:

By sending His disciples to teach and to baptize, Christ…wills to keep with us, by the mediation of the hierarchy, the mysterious contact [which] sacramental and jurisdictionally oriented graces bring to us, the only graces entirely Christic and Christ- conforming, these alone permitting the Church to exist in Her complete action.334

The Church’s mission is supernatural because She exists in a fallen world, a world not of harmony but of combat. Just as Christ’s mission led to the Cross, so the mission of the Mystical

Body of Christ leads to the Cross.

C. The Church and the Passion

It is unthinkable for Journet to separate Christic grace from the meritorious action of the

Savior, Jesus Christ. Christic grace conforms one to Christ, fundamentally by illuminating suffering. We would expect that the recipients of Christic grace to be closely related to the

Passion. Just as the Passion is indispensable to comprehend Christic grace, so the Church cannot be understood without the Passion: Indeed, the Church is “founded on the blood of the Cross of

332 EVI IV, 945. 333 EVI IV, 843. 334 EVI IV, 647.

247

Christ”335 and “born of the blood of redemption.”336 It is no coincidence that Her very beginning is linked to the change in grace which anticipates the Passion: just as Christic Grace by

Anticipation comes into existence on the evening of the Fall, so “[The] City of God, [the]

Kingdom of God, the Church begins337 on the evening of the Fall.”338

Journet detects a parallel, centered around the cross. As Head of the Church on earth,

Jesus gathers men around Him only by way of the cross;339 so “[t]he Church gathers herself around the redemptive cross. But the cross saves the world before even having been planted. Its shadow preceded it [the world] and prepared it.”340 Of course, the Church must follow the example given by the Head: “To say that the glory of Christ touches the Church by the wounds of His passion, is to say that…grace which He infuses in Her is destined first to sanctify Her, not to glorify Her.”341

We can link three elements of Journet’s teaching: if Christic Grace by Derivation by

Contact (i.e., sacramental grace) is what enables the Church to reach Her fullness (Letter B, above), and if the Church is related to the Passion (this Letter C), we can also link the sacraments to the Passion: “The sacraments of the Church derive their power especially from Christ’s

Passion.”342

335 EVI IV, 947. Cf. Eph 2:13-22 and 3:1-10; Acts 20:28; Rev. 1:5-6 and 5:9-10. 336 EVI IV, 32. 337 As we noted a moment ago, the Church develops over time. Speaking of the Passion, Journet writes: “The Church is founded, but She is not yet manifested. The New Law is established, but it is not yet promulgated or revealed.” EVI IV, 1027. Footnote reference omitted. 338 EVI IV, Introduction, 10. As Aquinas gives a slightly different view: “[S]ince the Church began from the time of Abel.” The Three Greatest Prayers, 79. Augustine, too, teaches that the City of God begins with Abel, which Journet acknowledges (cf. EVI IV 78, 607). Journet explains his position by linking it with grace: “[C]ertainly sanctifying grace was to be once more offered to men on the very morrow of the fall.” The Meaning of Evil, 220. 339 EVI IV, 295. 340 EVI IV, 10. “Already under the natural law and under the Law of Moses, the cross threw its shadow over the world and brought it salvation.” Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 104. 341 EVI II, 532. Cf. Journet, The Theology of the Church, 61-63. 342 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 178, quoting ST III, q. 62, a. 5.

248

This section endeavored to treat of the “development” of the Church via Christic grace, particularly sacramental grace. For Journet, the Church “develops” by being conformed to the

Master, which essentially means, through the power of Christic grace, to suffer well.

Conclusion

An economy of salvation always existed in the world – whether for prelapsarian Adam and Eve (wherein they had to persevere in the Transfigurative sanctifying grace in which they were constituted), for fallen man before the Incarnation (where God, immediately after the Fall, promised a redeemer and began to send Christic Grace by Anticipation to the world), or for fallen man after the Incarnation and Pentecost (where Christic Grace by Derivation by Contact is mediated by the God-Man and distributed by the Holy Spirit via the Church).

Christ changes grace. We noted that Christ affects Christic Grace by Derivation by enriching it with the modes of connaturality, plenitude, and filiality as it passes by way of His Sacred Heart.

Christic sanctifying grace is given either in anticipation of or in the actual accomplishment of the

Passion. In addition, we have seen that Christic grace is redemptive because it is merited and because Christ’s redemptive act was satisfactory. Christic grace conforms one to the Master, primarily evidenced by enabling man – assuming there is consent – to suffer well, which simultaneously sanctifies him.

Not only grace, but also mediation changes with the Incarnation. After the Fall, Jesus was mediating. How do we know? – because all who are saved are saved through Jesus. After the Fall and after the Incarnation, His mediation is now that of the God-Man, where Christ acts as an efficient, instrumental cause, and the grace which He bestows is the Capital Grace He received as man.

249

Journet teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ, a spiritual society with spiritual aims, existed before the Incarnation. Moreover, it is the change in grace which has changed the Church, and not the reverse. With Pentecost, both grace and the Church reach their full “powers,” and sacramental grace, Grace by Derivation by Contact, is “fully” Christ-conforming. All is ordered to the glory of Christ – most especially the economies of salvation – since all salvific grace depends on Christ’s merits. Journet insists that salvation history is centered around the redemptive act of Christ and His founding a Church to convey the benefits of that act.

In summary, the gradual change in sanctifying grace in salvation history is linked to the promise of the Incarnation as well as the fact of the Incarnation, to the Passion, and to Pentecost. We examine each in turn:

Prelapsarian Adam and Eve – The first parents are constituted in Transfigurative sanctifying grace, where the accompanying preternatural gifts bring a threefold harmony: i) between Adam and Eve, ii) between Adam and Eve and creation, and iii) between Adam and Eve and God.

God’s Response to the Fall – The Protoevanglium is given; sanctifying grace is no longer

Transfigurative but Christic or redemptive. It is Christic because it is Grace by Anticipation of the Incarnation and Passion, as well as of Pentecost; Christ’s mediation begins after the Fall.

The Church begins to exist, but in an incomplete and rudimentary state.

Incarnation – Christ Sanctifying Grace is no longer Grace by Anticipation, but Grace by

Derivation. All Christic grace passes via Christ’s Sacred Humanity, and is thus enriched. Christ’s meditation changes in that now He mediates as God-Man.

Passion – Jesus’ sacrifice is both meritorious and satisfactory, hence, it is redemptive. All

Christic grace is given in anticipation, or in light of the accomplishment, of the Passion.

250

Pentecost – Grace is given in its fullness, meaning fully Christ-conforming and in its full power, when given by Derivation by Contact, that is, through the sacraments of the Church.

The existence of a salvation history indicates that God did not abandon man after being spurned by him. Throughout all of salvation history, human freedom remains intact. Grace is always an invitation, indeed an invitation to supernatural life.

From a perspective of dogmatic theology, Journet’s asserts that sanctifying grace given after the

Fall is “better” than that given to prelapsarian Adam and Eve, due to its link to the redemptive act of the Incarnate Word. Furthermore, since the purpose of Pentecost is to distribute the grace of Christ upon the world, sanctifying grace reaches its full power when conveyed through the sacraments of the Church. We see a grand harmony between, or perhaps a single symphony comprised of, the two Divine Missions: what the Second Person commenced, the Third Person brings to fruition. Because Christ altered the character of sanctifying grace by His Incarnation and Passion, all undergirded by His charity, sanctifying grace can “illumine” the penalties of sin

– pain, suffering, death, which were all indicative of the forfeiture of the possibility of eternal beatitude – whereby they become the means (via supernatural grace) to attain eternal beatitude.

We can say Christic sanctifying grace, either by Anticipation or by Derivation (but certainly most evidently Grace by Derivation by Contact), is more powerful than Transfigurative sanctifying grace, because it turns suffering from a penalty of sin and a preview of eternal loss into a means to reach eternal glory. By the “Law of Sorrowful Sanctification,” which leads to the

“Law of Glorious Transfiguration,” suffering becomes creative343 – not in a metaphysical sense, but in a spiritual sense: “If then any be in Christ a new creature, the old things are passed away,

343 Journet, Entretiens sur L’Incarnation, 142, under the Second Meditation – “The Witness of the Apostles,” of the Eighth Instruction – The Resurrection.

251 behold all things are made new” (2 Cor 5:17). The Economy of Salvation under the New Law under Christic grace intrinsically has as its way of operation to utilize the penalties of sin as a means to re-acquire what sin removed: man’s friendship with God.

Chapter Four - A World of Redemption is Better than a Universe of Innocence

In Journet’s understanding of the economy of salvation, a divine initiative is repeatedly present. Prelapsarian Adam and Eve are constituted in grace. After their Fall, God pursues man, issuing an inconceivable invitation, actually providing man the supernatural means (namely,

Christic grace) to re-attain divine friendship. This “new” economy arises from God’s response to man’s evil act. In the second chapter, concerning the problem of evil, we explored Journet’s interpretation of Thomas as to how evil occurs among rational creatures. Additionally, in Chapter

Two we discussed the fundamental principle that God does not cause evil, but rather only permits evil. We proceeded to inquire of Journet’s teaching (relying on Maritain) on how evil is permitted – the rational creature does not consider the divine rule when deliberating, resulting in a sinful choice and act via a “consequent” breaking of a divine motion to the good. In this fourth chapter, we study Journet’s understanding of evil from a different perspective, namely, why evil is permitted in the world at all (Part One). In reaction to the Fall, God elects to redeem man via the Incarnation. Subsequently, we focus on reasons Journet offers for the position that a World of

Redemption is better than a Universe of Innocence (Part Two). In Part Three we turn to Journet’s underlying premise as to why a world of redemption is better than a world of innocence is the recapitulation of all things in Christ. With respect to man, this means man can (with the aid of

Christic grace) once again make a love of preference for the Creator, thereby illustrating the practical positive impact of the Incarnation’s beneficial effect on grace. In this third part, we shall explore in-depth the definition of “recapitulation,” along with pursuing its various dimensions. Ultimately, we will re-visit a theme from Chapter Two, namely, that all creation – and its recapitulation – is ordered to the glory of Christ.

252

Part One – The Question of Evil Introduction

We recall from Chapter Two that God deals with creatures according to his subordinate divine power, meaning He deals with creatures according to their natures. In addition, it is the rational creature who takes the initiative and is the “first cause” of evil by a faulty use of free will.1 So important is created free will that: “God tolerates to be rejected by some, in order to be able to be preferred by others.2 Ontologically, the possibility of an evil choice exists because the creature is created ex nihilo.3

It is divinely revealed that God wishes all men to be saved; yet, there is also evidence in the Church’s Tradition, including Scripture, that not all men are saved. Certainly, the possibility of being lost is real.4 If one is saved, it comes from God; if one is lost, man alone is responsible.

God acts towards creatures in accord with their natures: conserving them, rather than destroying them by overriding their free will. If He were always to give grace so that every person automatically accepts it, He would be not dealing with creatures according to their natures. The typical question is: “Why does God allow man to fall into sin?” But God is in no way obliged to keep man from sin, effectively making man impeccable.5 In The Meaning of Evil, Journet makes a fascinating point and turns the question around: “Why does not God always leave the sinner in sin?” He is perfectly justified in doing so! Why, even once, does He pursue a sinner who first

1 EVI IV, 240. 2 EVI VI, fn 162 on p. 270. 3 EVI IV, 155, with reference to De veritate, q. 22, a. 6, ad 3. Recall from Chapter Two, Part Four, Letter D, that any creature, simply because it is created, is “subject to another as its rule or measure.” De malo, q. 1, a. 3, ad 9. The rational creature is not, at its creation, perfect; of course, it may advance to its perfection along the state of journeying via grace. 4 Matt 7: “13-14: How narrow is the gate, and straight is the way that leadeth to life: few are they that find it;” Matt 25:46: “And these shall go into everlasting punishment; but the just, into everlasting life;” Luke 13:24: “Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able.” 5 Schmitz, Causalité divine, 260-62. 253

254 rejected Him?6 Certainly not out of justice.7 Just as God does not cure all sickness and disease

(effects of sin), so He does not always remedy those who reject grace by turning them to the good: in both cases “the natural order is preserved,”8 since in the actual world of subordinate, divine power God respects the natures He gave to creatures.

Based on Journet’s understanding, we endeavor to explore Journet’s theology of salvation vis-à-vis the problem of evil. First, we will discuss the problem of evil in general. Then, we will apply the principle – God permits evil for a greater good – to the specific area of the economy of salvation, in order to see what good is drawn specifically from Adam’s sin.

A. Why is Evil Permitted?

1. God Permits Evil so as to Draw a Greater Good out of it

Thomists very commonly, if not universally, answer the problem of evil by stating that

God permits evil so as to draw a greater good out of it.9 Relying on two theological doctors,

Journet quotes: “that the all-powerful God…since He is sovereignly good, would not permit in any way that there was some thing of evil in His works, if He was not so sovereignly powerful and good, that He were able to take occasion even of evil in order to bring a good” [St.

Augustine], and “so that it belongs to the infinite goodness of God to permit that there were evils, and to draw good out of them” [St. Thomas].10 Journet deduces this conclusion from three

6 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 168-69. 7 Ibid., 169-70. 8 Ibid., 160, quoting III Contra Gent., chap. 161. 9 Journet (speaking in both cases of the sin of Adam), EVI IV, 432, 502; Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 31, 82-85, 116, 146-47, 181, 255; Garrigou-Lagrange, Grace, 183-84, citing ST I, q. 19, a. 6, ad 1; Maritain, Existence and the Existent, 120; Maritain, God and the Permission of Evil, 62-64; Torre, Do Not Resist the Spirit’s Call, 265. 10 EVI IV, 281: Quoting Augustine’s Enchiridion de fide, spe et charitate, chap. XI, no. 3 and St. Thomas, ST I, q. 2, a. 3, ad. 1. In the related footnote Journet also quotes q. 19, a. 9, ad. 3: “God does not will that there is evil; neither [non plus] does He will that there is not evil; but He wills to permit that there is evil. And that is a good.” While we are focused on moral evil, Journet specifies, in The Meaning of Evil, that the Augustinian and Thomistic principle applies to the three categories of evil: nature, punishment, and sin. The Meaning of Evil, 85.

255 data points: “an infinitely good and powerful God, a world where evil rages, and an inevitable triumph of good over evil.”11

Consonant with his insistence on the goodness of divine Providence and that the rational creature is naturally ordered to the good,12 Journet emphatically proscribes that evil is necessary.

Emery observes: “Following Maritain, Charles Journet reproaches Hegelian rationalism for having formulated the necessity, dialectical or metaphysical, of evil.”13 Equally assuredly, when

Journet i) insists that evil is a privation and has no positive being,14 ii) affirms that moral evil results from the agent seeking a bonum apparens,15 and iii) states that moral evil arises from a wrong choice,16 he denies that evil must exist so that good can exist.

If moral evil is permitted such that God can draw a greater good from it, free will is implied. We now study Journet to note that evil is a possibility because of the way God created rational creatures.

2. In a Moral Universe, the Evil of Sin is the “Reverse Side” of the Possibility of Making a Love of Preference

Since evil is within divine providence, and is only permitted in view of a greater good ultimately to result, Journet concludes: “By reason of the power and the infinite goodness of

God, the evil of the universe can only be the other side of a good.”17 He elaborates with respect

11 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 85. 12 See, for example, Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 71. 13 Emery, “La Question du Mal et le Mystère de Dieu chez Charles Journet,” 304. 14 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 38: “There will only be evil when there is privation and only in so far as there is privation.” 15 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 71. 16 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 166-67; cf. infra Chapter Two, Part Four, Letter D, Numbers 4 & 5. 17 EVI IV, 281. In addition, Journet notes in The Meaning of Evil, 147-48: “[Regarding the evil of sin] There will always be some mysterious good of which sin is the reverse side, and may splendid things may come of it. ... But to believe sin to have been willed for the sake of redemption would be to fall into the blasphemy of the Hegelian view of a God immanent in both evil and good and in some undefined way willing the one for the sake of the other.”

256 to the eternal state of rational creatures, relying on the idea of God desiring a freely given love of preference from a free, rational creature:

To the direct question: Can there be a good on the other side [from] the evil of the damnation of some, angels or men? We answered: the evil of the eternal damnation of some is the other side of the good that represents a universe where God, considering the system required by His free creatures, desired to be loved by them and to be chosen by them in an act of free preference.18 Adding to this notion of evil, Journet writes that evil – physical or moral – is “the price paid for a directly intended good, and as something which is part of the being or the effect produced by the agent.”19 In the moral universe established by God, wherein rational creatures are given the capacity to turn toward God, they are necessarily simultaneously given the possibility to turn away from Him.20 To make an act of love of preference demands that a preference be made, namely, a choice between alternative goods;21 such an act can only happen if the creature is free.22 When the element of grace is added to the equation of why evil is permitted, Journet (via

Maritain) cites a lengthy cadence marking how the rational creature reaches beatitude.23

18 EVI IV, 281. Cf. EVI IV, 269. 19 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 71. 20 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 150. 21 EVI IV, 201-02. 22 EVI IV, 282. “The failures of created liberty in the state of journeying are the inevitable price of a world of free choice and of the love of preference, where God wills not to force but to beg our love.” Cf. EVI IV, 274. 23 EVI IV, 277, quoting Maritain’s De Bergson à Thomas d’Aquin, p. 229: “ ‘[T]he peccability of the creature is the price of the very effusion of the creative Goodness, Who in order to give Himself personally to the point of transforming in it [the creature] some one other than it [the creature], must be freely loved by friendship, and Who in order to be freely loved by friendship (through grace) must make creatures free, and Who in order to make them free must make them fallibly free (by nature). Without fallible liberty (by nature), [there is] no created liberty; without created liberty, [there is] no love of friendship (through grace) between God and the creature; without love of friendship between God and the creature, [there is] no supernatural transformation of the creature in God, [there is] no entrance of the creature into the joy of his Lord. And it was good that this supreme liberty was freely won over, not only through the passage in the state of journey, but even by a choice of preference as to the angels, and even, according to ordinary divine power, as to men. ‘Sin – evil – is the price of glory’.” Parenthetical phrases are the author’s. Underline emphasis added by the dissertation writer.

257

The Possibility of Moral Evil does not Contradict Divine Goodness; If All Evil were Eliminated, Much Good Would Not Occur When answering the more detailed question “Why was the sin of Adam permitted?,”

Journet reiterates that it was within the divine ordinate power to deal with creatures according to their natures: endowing rational creatures with the power (namely, free will) to make a love of preference means that they can also refuse to make such a preference. He adds that such a moral universe – where moral evil is possible – in no way contradicts divine goodness. Moreover, he notes that if no evil were permitted whatsoever, many acts of charity in response to evil would be foregone:

In permitting evil, God, he [Thomas Aquinas] says, does not contravene His goodness: “The role of Providence is not to lose the nature of the beings that it [Providence] governs, but to save it. Because, the perfection of the universe requires that there are some beings in which evil cannot occur, and some beings which may be able to suffer the defect of evil according to their nature. If therefore evil was totally excluded from things, they would not be governed according to their nature by divine providence, and this would be a greater defect than the particular defects that would have been thus eliminated.” A second response to the problem of evil, is that in removing all evil in the world, one removes at the same time many goods.24 We conclude the first two points of this section by offering a summary: while God permits evil so as to draw good out of it, and while evil is not necessary for good to exist, if there were no evil, some good would not come about.25

God established a moral universe to serve His purpose. Central to that purpose is allowing rational creatures to love Him or refuse to love Him. “Seeing” that man would sin,26 He “responded”27 by sending His Son to provide the remedy for man’s redemption and

24 EVI IV, 263, quoting the Compendium of Theology, chap. 142. Thomas here adds a third reason why evil does not contradict divine goodness: “[P]articular evil things render the good things more commendable when the latter are compared to the former.” 25 EVI IV, 271, with reference to ST I, q. 22, a. 2, ad 2 and q. 23, a. 5, ad 3.Cf. Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 125-26. 26 Cf. EVI IV, 938: “The sin of man is the origin of the redemption of the world.” 27 As noted in Chapter Three, Journet follows the Thomistic thesis that the Incarnation would not have happened if man had not sinned – see EVI IV, 357, 502.

258 to introduce a new order of supernatural grace. It is simply a fact that the Incarnation improved the condition of the fallen world.28 Since God is the source of all goodness and since He creates out of goodness, any divine action in time can only be out of divine goodness. That the Word would become flesh not only changed the order of grace for the better, but (as we shall see shortly) is for the glory of Christ, all of which is not for the

“benefit” of God but of man.

3. Two Reasons why Adam’s Fall is Permitted – In addition, What is the “Greater Good” for which Sin is Permitted?

Having given the principle that God permits evil so as to bring a greater good out of it, we now endeavor to apply the principle to a particular circumstance, namely the economy of salvation. Journet expounds on two reasons why the particular evil of sin is permitted.

First, God respects the natures of the rational creatures He created, wherein they can freely choose Him or not.29 Second, God only permitted the Fall to bring about “the better world of the redemption.”30 As to the second reason, which is a specification of the earlier principle that God allows evil so as to draw out a greater good, Journet observes:

Although, to those who ask God, Who knew from all eternity the Fall of Adam, why He did not prevent it, one must respond, by a second reason which did not exist in the case of the angels, that God would never have permitted the catastrophe of the world of innocence, if He had not thought to introduce us through it [the Fall] into the world, better in total, of redemption.31

28 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 94: “God allowed the Fall only because he held in reserve the remedy of the redemption; the new world remade around Christ would be better than the previous one.” Cf. Part Two, Letter A. 29 “The sole reason that we are able to give for the permission of the fall of the angels, is that God willed to leave his creatures free to choose for or against Him, and thus to run the risk of being rejected by them, rather than to give up expecting from them this love of preference, which He holds most dear of all. The same reason applies to man.” EVI IV, 499. See also Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 256-59. 30 EVI IV, 157-58, 413, 415, 500, 941; EVI II, 279, 284-85, 490; Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 257. 31 EVI IV, 500. Cf. EVI IV, 275: “It [theology] explains that God could only permit the sin of Adam for the incomparable good of the redemptive Incarnation,” and The Meaning of Evil, 257: God “would never have allowed the fall of the world of innocence…if he had not meant by it to bring us into what was, taken as a whole, the better world of Redemption.” O’Neill sees the first reason has having a priority over the second reason. See John F. O’Neill, The Trinitarian Ecclesiology of Charles Cardinal Journet: The Great Mystery of Christ and the Church as

259

Man is in a better situation in an economy of redemption than in an economy of innocence. a. Discussion of the First Reason We remark that the first “reason” is the “umbrella under which” the Fall occurred, and can be considered a “reason,” not insofar as there is cause-effect, but in that God cannot make an infallible creature;32 in short, as a condition. Both non-rational and rational creatures fall under the domain of this principle. As we noted in Chapter Two,33 a rational creature, though endowed with free will, is not the source of its standard of conduct. If there is no free will, there is no love and no sin; if there is neither love nor sin, there is no “love of preference” which man can make and which God can desire, no Mediator, no Savior, no need for redemption, no economy of salvation in which the creature actively participates.

God could create and immediately beatify rational creatures, but then the rational creature is not an active agent in reaching beatitude.

b. A Closer Look at the Second Reason: A Better Order of Grace is Introduced by the Incarnation and Pentecost

The second reason Journet argues why sin was permitted is that it is a condition for the introduction of a new and better order of grace by God’s response to the Fall.

the Visible Missions of the Son and the Holy Spirit, Ph.d dissertation, Ave Maria University, 2019, 150-52. Cf. infra, p. 265-67. 32 EVI IV, 259: “God can no more make a creature by nature impeccable than He can make a square circle.” Cf. Chapter Two, fn 91 on p. 74 (which refers to ST I, q. 63, a. 1) and fn 193 on p. 94. In ST I, q. 48, a. 2, Aquinas argues that the perfection of the universe requires that “every grade of goodness may be realized,” specifically “one grade of goodness is that of the good which cannot fail [i.e., God]. Another grade of goodness is that of the good which can fail in goodness, and this grade is to be found in existence itself.” Said another way, “It is impossible for anything to be by nature better than that from which it is derived.” Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, rev. ed. trans. Victor Watts (London and New York: Penguin, 1999), Book III, chap. x. 33 Cf. Chapter Two, footnote 254 on page 107.

260

Sin (as divinely permitted) is a condition (not a cause) of the Incarnation, and the aim of the

Incarnation is to merit grace to redeem man from sin objectively.34 Considered strictly in itself, the Incarnation allows the possibility of restoring fallen man’s friendship with God but does not effect it in a specific person. This latter requires grace. And this grace is enriched by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

What Christ did objectively for mankind on the Cross is subjectively applied to individual men by supernatural grace. Summarizing a theological theme of Journet’s, Emery remarks: “The ‘greatest good’ in anticipation of which the sin of Adam was permitted is not therefore only Christ Himself (the hypostatic union of God and man in Christ), nor His Mother, but the order of the grace of Christ in all its extension.”35 In Chapter Three we attempted to identify various ways Journet asserts that: i) Christic sanctifying grace (i.e., after the Fall) was superior to Transfigurative sanctifying grace (i.e., grace before the Fall), and ii) Christic sanctifying grace by Derivation by Contact (namely, grace given by the sacraments of the

Church) is superior to Christic sanctifying grace by Anticipation.

Summary Journet argues that the sin of Adam was permitted: i) because God deals with rational creatures according to their nature, wherein they can choose to love Him above creatures or not, and, simultaneously, ii) as a condition for the introduction of a surpassing order of grace. God’s response to sin, namely, both i) the repairing of Adam’s sin via Christ’s Incarnation and Passion

(i.e., “objective redemption”), and ii) the inauguration of a new order of Christic grace by which

34 Among many possibilities, see EVI IV, 302: “[I]f Christ appeared as voyager and comprehensor, it is in order to redeem man by His cross.” 35 Emery, “La Question du Mal et le Mystère de Dieu chez Charles Journet,” 316. Emphasis added.

261 man subjectively appropriates Christic grace (“subjective redemption”),36 are elements of God introducing a “better world of redemption.” This “better world” is the good God drew from the evil of the Fall.

4. Corollary to the First Reason as to why the Sin of Adam was Permitted, and the way God Chose to Remedy it37 – Christ’s Redemptive Suffering is a Manifestation of Divine Charity

We begin by recalling that God chose to redeem fallen man, and to do so by the

Incarnation and Passion – no necessity was involved. Building upon Thomas,38 Journet appeals to divine charity (which, in Chapter Three, we noted was the efficient cause of Christic grace) as both an invitation to man and a source from God for redemption: “[T]hat the definitive voluntary refusal of the advances of this Love is in itself a dreadful catastrophe of which hell is the eternalization; that in order to prevent here below this refusal and to prompt our love, the divine

Love willed to become incarnate among us and to die on a cross.”39 Moreover, the Fall “was permitted so that God might show forth his love for us, his boundless love, by giving his Son for the salvation of the world. From then on everything was to be centered on the cross.”40 In another place, Journet says: “the passion of Christ [is] the greatest proof of God’s love for us.”41

In discussing John 3:16, Journet perceptively remarks that without the redemptive Incarnation “it

36 For a terse explanation of Journet on the doctrine of appropriation, see Journet, The Theology of the Church, 49- 50. While not going into great detail, Journet does contrast Catholic teaching with the Lutheran understanding: “There is, indeed, an appropriation of Christ’s justice that incorporates men into Christ; but the direct effect of this justification is the bringing down of the justice of Christ, the grace and truth of Christ, into the hearts of men. The sin of men passes juridically to Christ, in the sense that he has agreed to suffer in order to expiate sin, but the justice of Christ passes really to his Church, so that, where sin abounded, grace abounds all the more.” Ibid., 50. 37 EVI IV, 357: “[T]he seduction of the demon is going to give occasion to totally unforeseen mercies of Love, and to inaugurate the redemptive intention.” [This topic is briefly noted in Chap. Three, p. 194, noting the superiority of Christic Grace over Transfigurative Grace. Here, we emphasize how the redemptive act illustrates divine charity.] 38 “Now the mystery of the Incarnation has God’s will as its cause since he willed to become incarnate on account of his intense love for men.” Comm. ad Eph., 1:10, https://dhspriory.org/thomas/Eph1.htm#3, accessed 10.2.19. The pertinent Scripture passage might be 1 John 4:9: “By this hath the charity of God appeared towards us, because God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we may live by him.” 39 EVI IV, 278. 40 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 94. 41 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 169, n. 52.

262 would not have been true” that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.”42

We close this paragraph with a citation already noted in Chapter One, but bears repeating here:

What will God do [in response to man’s revolt]? He will send His only Son, born of the Virgin Mary, to take upon Himself our misery. … Pure folly. It is necessary that God love us with a love of folly in order to grant such a remedy.43

We now return to an earlier theme, which leads to re-examining one aspect of Journet’s theology of creation in view of the problem of evil.

5. The Sin of Adam is Permitted since Christ will “Repair” Adam’s Sin: Both Christ’s Redemptive Act and the Institution of a New Order of Grace are Ordered to the Glory of Christ We previously noted that Journet argues for two reasons why the particular evil of sin is permitted: first, is that God respects the natures of the rational creatures. Second, God only permitted the Fall to bring about “a better world of the redemption.” There is an even higher, over-arching plan to divine Providence, to which Emery draws our attention:

What is the “greater good” in view of which God permits sin? The response of Journet is clearly posed in his first writings, and appeared in particular in the study of the original fall: the transgression of Adam was “preordained to Christ,” not of course by way of means, but insofar as sin [is] permitted,44 would be repaired by Christ. In the unique design of God, “all things are ordered to the glory of the redeemer Christ.” The glory of Christ is thus, for Charles Journet, the first intention aimed at by God, the very reason of the universe and its crowning, the supreme cause on account of which everything is arranged. … This priority of Christ must be understood in the order of values and of the end “in view of which” (finis cujus gratia). This does not prevent that, in the order of conditioning, Christ has been willed in dependence on certain events (the Incarnation of Christ, following the Thomist thesis, could only have been decreed in order to remedy sin).45

42 EVI IV, 270. 43 Journet, Entrietiens sur L’Incarnation, 50-51, under the Tenth Meditation – “The Folly of the Incarnation,” of the Second Instruction, The Why of the Incarnation. Let us be clear – divine love did not begin at the Incarnation: “But God was enamored with love for this strange human race which begins to appear on the earth some tens of thousands of years ago.” EVI IV, 992. 44 EVI IV, 430: “[T]hus the permission of sin is ordered to the redemption as a precondition of its possibility.” This footnote is added by the dissertation writer. 45 Emery, “La Question du Mal et le Mystère de Dieu chez Charles Journet,” 314, quoting Journet, “De la condition initiale privilégiée de l’homme,” at 213-16. Parenthetical remarks are the author’s. On page 316, Emery re-affirms

263

Here we see the influence of the Discalced of the University of Salamanca,

Spain, a group of theologians active in the 17th and 18th centuries, of whom the Cursus theologicus is their most renowned work.46 The fundamental principle of the Salmanticenses is:

“God’s own glory is the chief end of all his works.”47 We shall seek to apply this principle to the

Incarnation. To arrive at this conclusion, they first distinguish the terms finis cuius gratia (the

“end for-the-sake-of-which,” or “the good which is desired on its own account and others on its account”) from finis cui (the “end-to-which,” or “the subject or person for whom such a good is desired”). The terms are further distinguished when discussing intention versus execution:

“[f]rom the perspective of the order of execution, what the agent’s work achieves is called the finis effectus (“the end effected”) because it results from the agent’s action. In contrast, the finis cuius gratia is called the finis causa (“the end as cause”).” Applied to the Incarnation, the

Salmanticenses “generally refer to redeemed humanity as both the finis cui and the finis effectus of the Incarnation.” That is, mankind is the beneficiary (in God’s design) and actually receives the benefit of the Incarnation and of the Agent’s redemptive act (i.e., objective redemption).

However, for “the Salmanticenses the finis effectus of the Incarnation and finis causa are not materially identical … Instead, Christ himself is the finis cuius gratia and thus the finis causa” whereas “redeemed humanity is the subject to whom the benefit of the Incarnation is directed

his statement: “And so Charles Journet holds, to its last consequences, the primacy of Christ: the glory of the redeeming Christ is the end to which all things willed or permitted by God are themselves ordered.” That all things are ordered to the glory of Christ, see EVI IV, 292, 426-28, 429, n. 474, and 441-42, as well as Chapter Two, Part Two, Letters A and B. 46 For this topic we rely on Dylan Schrader’s The Motive of the Incarnation and Christocentrism Today: Recovering the Salmanticenses, Ph. D dissertation, The Catholic University of America, 2018. Cf. 211. 47 Ibid., 213.

264

(finis cui), and human redemption is what results from the Incarnation in the order of execution

(finis effectus).”48

The Salmanticenses are consistent with the Thomistic tradition that Christ would not have come unless man had sinned; however, they offer an uncommon view among Thomists of their day in that they “are convinced of Christ’s primacy in God’s intention.”49 They teach:

We should suppose that God intended the Incarnation on account of its intrinsic excellence such that he decreed Christ as the first-willed, to which everything else, even the permission of sin and its remediation, would be ordered as to the finis cuius gratia, to the extent that our predestination and all its effects depend on Christ and suppose him in the genus of final cause as previously intended and decreed.50

They further argue that a single, divine decree encompasses all of history, though there exist

“different causal components” giving “rise to different relative priorities.”51 Ultimately, “if we take the event of the Incarnation as a whole, sin is the matter addressed (materia circa quam), redeemed humanity is the beneficiary (finis cui), and Christ himself is the good on whose account the others are permitted or willed (finis cuius gratia).”52 Christ, then, is “primary in

God’s intention because he is the finis cuius gratia, the proximate end to which all the other divine permissions (including the permission of sin) and works are directed.”53 Christ, then, is

48 Schrader, The Motive of the Incarnation and Christocentrism Today, 216-25. Footnote references omitted. 49 Ibid., 232. Emphasis added. 50 Ibid., quoting De motivo Incarnationis, dub. 1, § 1, n. 4 (ed. Palmé, 13:266). De motivo Incarnationis is one disputation (tract 21, disp. 2) within the Cursus, comprising less than one percent of the total Cursus. It was written by Juan de la Anunciación, OCD (1633-1701). On the Motive of the Incarnation, trans. Dylan Schrader (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2019), xiii and xiv, and Schrader, The Motive of the Incarnation and Christocentrism Today, 212. 51 Schrader, The Motive of the Incarnation and Christocentrism Today, 233. 52 Ibid., 234. 53 Schrader, The Motive of the Incarnation and Christocentrism Today, 235. In contrast to the position noted in Chapter Two, Journet disagrees with the Salmanticenses, as they hold that the divine permission of sin is within an “antecedent” permissive decree. For a brief discussion of how the Salmanticenses understand the “antecedent permissive decree,” see Ibid., 257-59. See also infra pages 266-67.

265 the final cause. From the view of “material cause and finis cui, sin itself and humanity to be redeemed are first.”54

Why, from a theological perspective, does Journet adopt the Salmanticenses’ position that Christ is primary in the divine intention? John O’Neill points out that the Salmanticenses were concerned that the doctrine of the Franciscan Bl. John (ca. 1266-1308) did not correspond to Scripture “by [its] placing too strong of a distinction between the Incarnation and the redemption.”55 Their response was to maintain the primacy of Christ, but with a different emphasis. O’Neill summarizes the Salmanticenses’ stance in contrast to that of Scotus:

They follow Thomas on whether Christ would have been sent had Adam not sinned but take from Scotus the doctrine of the primacy of Christ. They achieve this by saying of Christ as Redeemer what Scotus said of Christ glorified. The glory God willed from the beginning as the end of the divine plan is not just the glory of the Incarnation, that is, the glory of Christ as a substantial individual, but the glory of the redemptive Incarnation, the glory of Christ the Redeemer.56

By adopting the view of the Salmanticenses, Journet understands the Incarnation and Christ’s redemptive act as addressing two questions at once: why is there a creation at all, and why is there evil in the world. O’Neill is again very helpful: “[T]his means that the greater good on account of which God permitted evil is also the primary good God intended in creating the world: the redemptive Incarnation and along with it the universe of redemption. Journet has one answer to the question about the creation of the world and the question about the permission of sin.”57 Journet points to the Christ as the finis cujuis gratia of the divine intention, since His

54 Schrader, The Motive of the Incarnation and Christocentrism Today, 235. Cf. Ibid., 254. For our purposes, Journet treats of the Salmanticenses at EVI IV, 426-30, and 501; cf. EVI II, 285, and Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 258. 55 O’Neill, The Trinitarian Ecclesiology of Charles Cardinal Journet, 145. 56 Ibid., 145-46. 57 O’Neill, The Trinitarian Ecclesiology of Charles Cardinal Journet, 146. O’Neill, pages 145-46, quotes from De incarnatione, disp. 2, dub. 1, n 29, edit. Palmé, Paris, 1878, t. XIII, p. 291, as presented in EVI II, 212, n. 3. The translation from the French and the emphasis are O’Neill’s. “The first intention of God was to decree the coming of Christ, not only as a substantial being, but also as covered with a passible flesh, and as redeemer of the sin of Adam,

266

Incarnation and redeeming act, while they take place in the order of execution for the benefit of man (finis cui) [namely, the overcoming of sin], are also and first in the divine decrees ordered to the glory of the Second Person, as we shall elaborate on momentarily.

Journet parted company with the Salmanticenses with respect to the antecedent permissive decree. Very briefly, the objection to the antecedent permissive decree was that, under it, God could be conceived as being an indirect cause of sin, or, alternatively said by

O’Neill, “Does God primarily will the greater good and then permit sin in order to achieve it?”58 Evil is permitted, per Journet, since God both respects the free will with which he endowed rational beings, and so that God might bring a greater good out of it, which is a display of His omnipotence and charity. O’Neill concludes: “Thus, rather than identify the greater good as the reason why God permits sin it is better to say that God would not permit sin if he were not going to make of it the occasion for a greater good. The immediate reason why God permits sin is to respect the freedom and defectability of human nature and action.”59 But the greater good He brings out of evil also illustrates His generosity, since it cost Him something. And the Passion is also a source of glory for Christ. Charity, obedience, and humility all lead to glory.

We also identify a seeming conflict in Journet’s theology of creation, to which we turn next.

and to will simultaneously in the same act, the permission of sin and the redemption of mankind. And also, God has decided to establish, between these different things that were not obviously related to each other, a mutual interdependence under diverse aspects, such that: 1, Christ would be the end (finis cujus gratia) of the passive permission of the first sin, of the redemption of mankind, and of all the divine works of nature and of grace; 2, sin would also be the matter upon which would be exercised the redemption (materia circa quam); 3, mankind would be the beneficiary (finis cui) of the redemption. In consequence, in every respect (the one end in view of which he was acting) God has willed and aimed first at Christ before all things. But under another respect (that of the matter and the beneficiaries of the redemption), God has willed and aimed, before Christ, the permission and the remedy of sin and matters pertaining thereto. The word before refers here not to successive divine acts, for there are not many, but to things willed and to their mutual priority under different aspects.” 58 O’Neill, The Trinitarian Ecclesiology of Charles Cardinal Journet, 150. 59 Ibid., 151. Cf. 148-152 for a more robust discussion of this issue, especially in relation to the divine decrees.

267

B. Inquiry as to the Reason for Creation, in View of the Problem of Evil

Did we not note in Chapter Two that the reason for the creation of the universe was to enable rational creatures to express a “love of preference” for God?60 Yet (and concurring with

Emery’s finding) here Journet writes: “The glory of Christ the Redeemer is therefore the first intention targeted by God, the same reason for the universe and its crowning moment.”61 How to reconcile these two statements, especially in light of the Incarnation, Passion, and Pentecost and the introduction of a new order of grace, all of which significantly altered the economy of salvation?

We have two points to make. First, and from the perspective of the Father, it is precisely by redeeming mankind (objective redemption) that Christ honors the Father. Furthermore, we will argue that by “recognizing” the objective redemption the Father gives glory to Christ.

Second, from the perspective of man, when man actually appropriates to himself the benefits of

Christ’s redemption (subjective redemption), man gives glory to Christ – this latter we will introduce here and further develop in Part Three, under the topic of “recapitulation.”

1. Objective Redemption a. Christ Honors the Father by His Redemptive Act Shall we say that the benefits of the Incarnation and redemption are restricted to grace and to the human domain of sin? Not at all. We return (citing EVI II) to a theme (from Chapter Two) noted when commenting on the reason for creation, namely, the glory God receives from man:

60 EVI IV, 939: “It is that the free love of preference which comes to Him from His faithful creatures is to His eyes a prize so unheard of that it alone justifies to Him the appearance of the universe.” Cf. The Meaning of Evil, 151. 61 EVI IV, 427.

268

But we have not been delivered by a pure man. The response surpassed the promise. The new Adam effaced the first. In Him, true man and true God, the world became capable of causing to rise towards God an offering strictly infinite, having power of absolutely counterbalancing the infinite catastrophe of sin. So that it will not be said that the world may have given to God more insult than honor. God will receive from his creation more glory than offense. This is the foundation of the mystery of redemption.62

Christ’s act of redemption is the act par excellence which gives the greatest honor to the

Father.63 In The Theology of the Church, Journet, focusing on the restoration of divine honor,64 first quotes then interprets 19th century German theologian Matthias Scheeben:

Scheeben justly remarks that Christ “would have been able to merit grace and glory without having to suffer for us, but satisfaction absolutely required that he suffer; for, without abandonment of self, renunciation, and dejection, the honor stripped from God would not have been returned to him; while merit demands simply that one do, for the love of God, something in his honor and for his glory.” Nevertheless Christ’s Passion and death have added an incredible depth to his meritorious work and, even more, to his adoration; for these allow Christ to merit our redemption by a supreme gift of his life and to adore God by a real destruction of his being before the Divine Majesty.65

Christ’s act of redeeming man restores the honor to God (which man owes in virtue of being created, and then again after sin66), precisely by making satisfaction for sin, which fallen man could not do.67

62 EVI II, 357. Cf. The Theology of the Church, 44. 63 The pertinent Scripture passage is 1 Peter 4:11: “That in all things God may be glorified in Jesus Christ.” 64 Christ honoring the Father via the Passion is a long-held idea: in Supplementum, q. 12, a. 3, Thomas quotes and then defends St. Anselm’s statement in Cur Deus Homo [ostensibly Book One, Chapter Twelve] that “Satisfaction consists in giving God due honor.” 65 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 47, citing Scheeben’s Die Mysterien des Christentums (Freiburg im Breisgau: np., 1865), no. 67, 439. Cf. St. Thomas IV Sent., dist. 20, q. 1, a. 2, quaest. 2 ad 4: “Satisfactio debet esse poenalis.” The same quotation of Scheeben is found at EVI II, 386. 66 Speaking of : “Under this aspect sin appears as an offense against God, as an evil affecting him by depriving him of what is due him.” Journet, The Theology of the Church, 42. As to what honor the creature owes to God: Sin “affects God by defrauding him of something which was owing to him in justice: it infringes the strict right of the final End to be loved above all things.” Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 182. 67 Journet has affirmed more than once that Word became flesh to save fallen mankind – see EVI IV, 289-90, 298, 332, 342, 822, 843, 945. I wish to express what I believe is Journet’s view by appealing to a 20th century Benedictine theologian, Dom Aelred Graham. While not denying that “The dominating motive of the Incarnation was that man should be redeemed from sin,” Graham observes, “the ultimate purpose for which the Word became flesh was to give honour to God.” Dom Aelred Graham, OSB, The Christ of Catholicism: A Meditative Study

269

Journet explains in greater detail how the redemptive Passion honors God more than the state of innocence, identifying three aspects of satisfaction wrought by Christ’s redemptive act: i) what Christ gave to God exceeded what was required to offset all the sins of mankind; ii) Christ’s satisfaction is such that “God now receives from man himself more glory and honor than opprobrium,” and; iii) “Christ’s satisfaction bestows on us better gifts than those we lost. Seen in this perspective, one can say that the state of redemption honors

God more than the state of innocence did.”68

It is intrinsic to an act of satisfaction to honor God. We can summarize: Christ’s objective redemptive act honors the Father in two ways: i) by the humility He exercised in becoming man, and ii) by willingly and charitably offering satisfaction on behalf of mankind. b. God Glorifies Christ for His Redemptive Act We appeal to Scripture to support the view that the objective order of redemption is ordered to Christ’s glory as evidenced by the Philippian parabola, which Journet cites twice in EVI IV.69 In another reference to the Philippian text Journet highlights that the Passion was a preparation for later glory:

But let us recall that if the passion recapitulated the entire economy of the universe, this was not, we have said, that it was the supreme goal of the Incarnation. It was because it [the passion] summarized all the abasements of the Savior and at the same time 70 prepared for His triumphs, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth (Phil 2: 8-11).

(Garden City, New York: Image Books, 1957), 221. As we shall see on the next page, such honor redounds to Christ’s glory. 68 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 47-48. Emphasis added. 69 EVI IV, 844: “His humiliation will call upon Him an exaltation above all creatures (Phil 2:9-11);” EVI IV, 873: “Having first permitted that He was humiliated, ‘God exalted Him’ by the resurrection and ascension, in order that ‘all tongues proclaim, that Jesus Christ, that He is Lord’ (Phil 2:9-11).” 70 EVI II, 326.

270

How do we understand Journet concerning the relation between the Word honoring the Father and the Father glorifying Christ? Relying heavily on Philippians 2:9-11, I suggest that the Father glorifies Christ simply because of His redemptive act – founded on charity and illustrative of great humiliation – and not because of the honor which intrinsically accrues to the Father because of this objective redemption.71 That is, the Father honors and exalts Christ because of what He freely did,72 and not due to the restoration of honor which the Father received as a result of the Word objectively redeeming mankind.73 For Journet,

Christ honoring the Father in the mystery of redemption redounds to Christ’s glory.

2. Subjective Redemption: Man Attaining Eternal Beatitude Gives Glory to Christ in a Twofold Way

Instituting a better order of grace (Christic grace) by which man concretely applies the objective redemption individually to himself is also ordered to Christ’s glory, since the salvation of man is the purpose of the Incarnation and Passion: and man’s salvation manifests God’s glory since it evidences “His perfection by the blessings which He bestows on creatures.”74 When man attains the beatific vision, the Kingdom of God is fulfilled for that person. We will explore the topic of

71 EVI IV, 977: “His glorification in only the corollary of … His hypostatic union with the Word.” 72 “[H]is humiliation will call upon Him an exaltation above all creatures.” Journet, Entrietiens sur L’Incarnation, 117, under the First Meditation – “The Humiliation and Exultation of Christ,” of the Seventh Instruction, Agony and Death. 73 I wish to enlist the support of Sheen that God allows the Son to suffer so as to be glorified: “To die is a humiliation; but to die for others is glorification. His Father, therefore, manifested a singular love to His Divine Son by allowing Him as the Son of Man to taste death for others.” Fultn J. Sheen, Life of Christ (New York: McGraw Hill, 1958), 206. 74 EVI IV, 396, quoting Dei Filius, Chapter One. Emphasis added. [As quoted in Chapter Two, fn 21 on p. 57.] While Chapter One of Dei Filius pertains to creation (the natural order), Chapter Two adds: “God directed human beings to a supernatural end, that is a sharing in the good things of God” which exceed natural human understanding. Thus, man receiving divine gifts in both the natural and supernatural order is an occasion for the glory of God. Garrigou-Lagrange will remark that God’s external glory is “the free manifestation of His goodness” and the “radiation…of the beneficent riches which God wishes us to share.” God, His Existence and His Nature, 139.

271

“recapitulation” in Part Three. For the moment, we can give Journet’s broad description of the term, which is undergirded by the principle of exitus-reditus:

When the disciples of Christ, consummated in the unity, will be with Him as He is one with the Father (John 18:21), when He will restore the kingdom to His Father so that God may be all in all (1 Cor 15:28), then the divine work will be perfectly brought back 75 to its source (principe) and fully recapitulated.

To reconcile the two statements with which we began this inquiry: the reason for creation is to allow man to make a love of preference – which gives glory to Christ. The universe is created with rational creatures who, after having fallen, are enabled again – through Christic grace – to love God above all things. The actual attaining of eternal life glorifies Christ. (Here, “glory” is the showing of God’s perfection and goodness by the benefits He bestows on creatures.) Upon reaching beatitude, the joyful creature renders praise to the Redeemer who restored its possibility. (Here, “glory” is the exaltation man attributes to Christ.)

How can we discuss Christ’s glory, recapitulation, why the universe was created, and the rational creature’s love of preference? Here I interpret Journet’s theme of “all things ordered to Christ’s glory” from the perspective of recapitulation. The creation of the world

(under subordinate, divine power) which is done decreeing that it was leading to a universe of redemption via recapitulation is ordered to the glory of Jesus in two ways. The first, wherein the Father glorifies Christ regarding objective redemption. The second centers around man giving glory to Christ regarding subjective redemption. In summation:

75 EVI II, 277. Footnote reference omitted. From EVI IV, 506, where Journet refers to 1 Cor 15:24-28, it appears that in the above context he is referring to the Last Day.

272

As to the Father: The humiliation of Incarnation and Passion, by which the recapitulation of creation occurs, “prompts” the Father to give glory to the Son (as evidenced by the

Philippian parabola).

As to man: Recapitulation permits man, via the new order of Christic grace as merited by the redeemer Christ, once again to make a supernatural love of preference for God (the capability Adam forfeited in the Fall) and thereby reach the beatific vision: man reaching his final, supernatural end glorifies Christ, since this is an essential reason why God became man. When the rational creature appropriates to himself the benefit of Christ’s objective redemption (which he merits by making a love of preference), the creature attains the benefits and goodness God desires for it and thus illustrates God’s perfection – by definition, this is a manifestation of God’s glory. In addition, attaining such a supernatural gift prompts the praise of the creature: “Let all that seek thee rejoice and be glad in thee: and let such as love thy salvation say always: ‘The Lord be magnified’.” (Psalm 39:17) In summary, man actually reaching the beatific vision results in a two-fold glory for Christ: i) man actually partakes of divine benefits, thereby manifesting God’s goodness, and ii) man exalts Christ the Redeemer.

Conclusion Journet’s thesis that God permits evil to draw a greater good out of it is not an act of faith; metaphysics can reach this conclusion. However, the idea that a world with sin is better than a world without sin cannot be proven or otherwise demonstrated absent supernatural faith.76

76 Journet insists that philosophy alone, finite human reason alone, cannot answer the problem of evil; a theological perspective must be brought to bear regarding the question of evil. See EVI IV, 273-278 and Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 53-54. See also Emery, “La Question du Mal et le Mystère de Dieu chez Charles Journet,” 303. (See also Part Two infra.)

273

With faith, one also perceives that a divine virtue undergirds the divine permission of evil: “Thus the mystery of evil of creatures only takes its dimensions by relationship to the follies of divine

Love; and it is necessary to say that the mystery of divine Love only discovers its dimensions by relationship to evil and to the sin of men whom He comes to deliver by His blood.”77 If we add the consideration from Chapter Two that God is in no way a cause of evil, we observe that

Journet ultimately intends to safeguard the “universal scope of divine providence as well as the efficacy of the divine will.”78

We noted in Chapter Three that after the Fall, two things remained: human nature (now fallen) and God’s desire to satisfy His love.79 We can now add that it is due to divine love that the new order of grace is given to the world: from that same page in EVI II just noted Journet concludes:

The grace of the Age of the Father, the grace of the first Adam, the grace of innocence, in a certain way will be better than ours, and the first state of the preferable to the Church. But, in a vaster perspective and absolutely speaking, it is our grace which will be better, and the Church will pass by far in splendor the first state of the people of God.80 We proceed to inquire the ways in which – according to Journet – the Incarnation brought about a better world. We know that one fundamental way is by introducing a new order of grace, which once again allows man to reach eternal happiness. This topic will be briefly re-visited in Part

Two, along with exploring one other reason why a world after the Fall – a world with sin – is better than a world of innocence.

77 EVI IV, 278. Footnote reference omitted. Emery will assert that, in Journet’s thought: “[I]t is in the divine gift of the redemptive love that the evil of sin reveals itself as the absolute ‘unacceptable’ for God.” “La Question du Mal et le Mystère de Dieu chez Charles Journet,” 325. 78 Emery, “La Question du Mal et le Mystère de Dieu chez Charles Journet,” 305. 79 EVI II, 490, as cited on footnote 79 on page 182, in Chapter Three. 80 EVI II, 490.

Part Two - How a World of Redemption is Better than a Universe of Innocence

Journet makes what at first is a startling claim: the world of post-lapsarian Adam is better than that of pre-laspsarian Adam. Startling because sin exists in the former but not in the latter.

The answer lies in that God permits evil so as to bring a greater good out of it. That the world has been recapitulated in Christ and by Christ is an important reason or cause as to why a world of redemption is better than a universe of innocence. Central to that recapitulation is the new order of Christic grace:

As to the grace which is lost, in the heavens with the demons and in the earthly paradise with the first man, [there] succeeded a new grace, opened to the mystery of the Word made flesh, so powerful that it [this New Grace] fulfills in the heavens the glory of the good angels, and that it introduces man on earth into the universe of redemption of the Second Adam, better in total than the world of creation of the first Adam. All the divine work is established, not that it [the world of creation] returned to its first state and what was irreparable is able to be repaired, but in the sense that it passed to a better state, that it is recovered, re-begun, recapitulated under a superior principle.81

The world of redemption is better than a universe of innocence because there is a new grace, a

Christic grace, which conforms one to Christ. Transfigurative grace did not have this characteristic, because it was not needed before the Fall. Prelapsarian Adam had no need to be conformed to Christ crucified, since he had no need to be forgiven. Constituted in sanctifying grace, he did not need to be forgiven for any sin. Transfigurative sanctifying grace brought about prelapsarian Adam’s union with God. Only Christic grace can bring about the union of fallen man with God. Due to the Incarnation and Passion, which altered the qualities of sanctifying grace, sanctifying grace now conforms one to Christ. God took a bad thing (the Fall) and

81 EVI IV, 415 (cf. Chapter Three, fn 248 on p. 225-26). As we saw earlier, the ultimate reason the world of redemption is better than a universe of innocence is that Christ is glorified. In this Part Two, we focus on the way in which the world of redemption is better than the universe of innocence arising from: i) the introduction of a new order of Christic grace, and ii) the manifestation of divine mercy. The emphasis here, then, is how the world of redemption is better than a universe of innocence with respect to man. 274

275 brought a greater good out of it: Christic grace, whereby man can be conformed to the Word

Incarnate who, out of obedience and charity, suffered and died. That conformity means especially that suffering is now a means to holiness, because Christic grace was merited and satisfactory when it was “procured” or “earned” on the Cross by the Crucified One.

We do not discount the other “benefits” that arise from Christic grace.82 But the primary reason a world of redemption is better than a universe of innocence is that – resulting from the

Incarnation, Passion, and Pentecost – man can act in a way similar (namely, to suffer well) to that of the Master. The members of the Mystical Body are to imitate the Head, who has gone before them and shown the way to make a “love of preference” for the Father. With His human will, Christ willed to honor the Father by the redemptive act of the Passion. The Second Adam took hold of two of the six effects of Adam’s Fall – suffering and death – and re-purposed them in His life so that suffering in our lives could be meritorious and death need no longer be feared.83 At the same time, His suffering and death became the way to overcome the essence and absolute worst effect of the Fall – loss of sanctifying grace – by restoring it to now-fallen man. It is granted by anticipation before His coming and by derivation after His coming.

82 To enumerate some of the benefits of a post-lapsarian world (many of which were addressed in Chapter Three): man receives a promise of the Beatific Vision (a promise not given to pre-lapsarian Adam); Christic sanctifying grace is mediated by Christ; through the Passion, Christic grace will be merited and satisfactory; Christic grace is given in greater abundance than Transfigurative grace; by passing through the Sacred Humanity of Christ, Christic grace is enriched by the modalities of connaturality, filiality, and plenitude; Christic grace is more deeply rooted in man than Tranfigurative Grace was in Adam; the Church begins to form immediately after the Fall, and fully blooms at Pentecost. 83 “But the goal of Christ is first that we suffer with Him, in order to be later glorified with Him (Rom 8:17),” EVI II, 321. Perhaps Journet has in mind ST I-II, q. 85, a. 5, a. 2: “Because it was right that we should first of all be conformed to Christ’s sufferings, before attaining to the immortality and impassibility of glory, which was begun in Him and by Him acquired for us. Hence it behooves us that our bodies should remain, for a time, subject to suffering, in order that we may merit the impassibility of glory, in conformity with Christ.” https://aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/st-iaiiae-q-85#FSQ85A5THEP1

276

We wish first to evidence this theme in Journet’s work. We shall also add one more significant reason why the world of redemption is better than the universe of innocence: the manifestation of divine mercy.

A. Supporting Evidence from Journet’s Writings

We establish broadly, from Journet’s work, the prominent idea in his thought that the effects brought by the Incarnation and Passion are beneficial to mankind, such that the world of redemption is superior to the universe of innocence. The word “redemption” has immediate reference to grace raising fallen humanity and not so much to creation.84 We present four quotations:

“All in continuing to think that the Word would not have been incarnate had man not sinned, we hold therefore that Christ did not come only in order to repair the human order destroyed by sin, but that He came at the same time in order to be the coronation, the center, the basis of a better order of the entire universe. After sin, creation, on the whole, was no longer able to be what it had been; it had to be worse or better.”85

“The ruin in him [man] of the world of creation is permitted in view of restoring in him the world better in total, the world of redemption.”86 The Incarnation brings a “joy until then unknown into the world.”87

“With the visible mission of the Son at the Incarnation and the visible mission of the Spirit at Pentecost, all the treasures of heaven, held hidden ‘for ages in God the Creator of all things’ (Eph 3:9), were all at once were poured on the world. We have entered into the ‘last days’ of history (Acts 2:17), in the epoch of the ‘end of time,’ (1 Peter 1:10), in the third and last age of the world, the eschatological age.”88 We conclude the presentation of evidence with one final item. In the following citation, Journet joins together several themes: “A world where the refusal of some is compensated by the free

84 We will see shortly, however, that “recapitulation” (the focus of Part Three) does include the entire universe. 85 EVI II, 279, with reference to Scheeben, Handbuch der katholischen Dogmatik (hereafter “Dogmatik”), vol. 3 (Freiburg im Breisgau: np., reissued 1933), 372. 86 EVI IV, 413. 87 EVI IV, 912. 88 EVI IV, 966.

277 preference of others is mysterious, but it is good. A world with evil is able to be better in total than a world without evil, because it can kindle faithfulness, repentance, [and] love that a world would never know unless it were swept by the greatest turmoils.”89 First, he returns to an earlier theme – if all evil were eliminated, some good would not occur; notice too, that the presence of evil implies human free will. Of course, this citation also designates the earlier principle that God only permits evil so as to draw a greater good from it. In fact, in this specific example he is hinting at the exercise of supernatural grace as the greater good drawn from an earthly trial. In addition, he alludes that one of the “greater goods” drawn from evil is that man – with the aid of

Christic grace – can practice virtue, including to suffer well.

******* The fundamental, essential thesis of Journet as to why the world of redemption is better than a universe of innocence with respect to mankind concerns Christic grace. Christ comes to offer fallen man a higher destiny than that of Adam, not to restore the earthly paradise in the Garden.90

That destiny of Adam – meaning the Final End in the original state [eventually Adam had he not sinned would have been presumably transferred into the beatific vision] – cannot differ from the destiny of a person born today. What is different is how it is attained. Now (and since the Fall) the means to salvation is via the Word made flesh, as Emery clearly states: “The world of redemption, meaning the participation in the grace and the glory of Christ, appoints us to a destiny far higher than what Adam knew before his fall.”91

89 EVI IV, 158. 90 EVI IV, 470. In Chapter Three, pp. 224ff, we discussed the topic of man’s destiny in context of comparing Transfigurative grace to Christic grace. Here, our emphasis is on recapitulation as enabling man to participate in Christic grace. 91 Emery, “La Question du Mal et le Mystère de Dieu chez Charles Journet,” 316.

278

Immediately after speaking of man in a world of redemption as having a higher destiny than Adam, Journet writes of Christic grace.92 He goes on to say what we saw in

Chapter Three – Christic grace is redeeming, not transfigurative. A supernatural destiny can only result from a supernatural source, namely, grace; specifically, from a principle Who is the source of all such grace:

St. Thomas teaches in the Summa, that Christ, “possessed grace in fullness, in view of producing all the operations and all the effects of grace; because grace was in Him as in the universal principle (principe) of all those who received in Him some participation, tanquam cuidam universali principio in genere habentium gratiam.”93 It is evident, then, that since the bestowal of Christic grace – with its ultimate aim of directing man to eternal beatitude – offers a higher destiny than that of prelapsarian Adam in the original state, in that it grants a higher unity with Christ than Adam had or could have. How? Christic grace is richer (via the three modalitities), is given in more abundance, is more firmly rooted in the recipient – all points we noted in Chapter Three. Most especially, Christic grace conforms one to its Source. On the whole, the effects of Christic grace are superior to those of

Transfigurative grace: therefore, the world of redemption is better than a universe of innocence.

In a word: “To the universe of grace centered on the first Adam there succeeded a universe of grace centered on the Word made flesh.”94

In addition to the benefits of the world of redemption already covered, our contribution here is to add that a world of redemption illustrates divine mercy and forgiveness.

92 EVI IV, 470: “Christ does not come to reconstitute the earthly paradise, definitely lost, but in order to offer us a destiny and beatitude a higher and more mysterious than that of Adam. … It [the grace of Christ] is not transfiguring, but only sanctifying or redeeming, of the human condition.” 93 EVI II, 287-88, quoting ST III, q. 7, a. 9. 94 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 93. We will see in Part Three, Letter F, that this higher destiny necessarily involves being conformed to Christ.

279

B. God’s Mercy and Forgiveness, Aspects of Divine Goodness, are Manifested

In Chapter Two, we began to explore the theme of how the Divine Missions changed sanctifying grace. Here, the focus is on how the Divine Missions are central to implementing divine forgiveness. Let us first see how Journet defines a “paraclete:”

The mysterious notion of Paracletes, of Divine Persons intervening before the Father in order to solicit the pardon of sinful humanity, is the supreme key of the theology of the history of salvation. It would have been absent from the world of creation, which preceded the Church: it is in the heart of the Church and of the universe of redemption.95 In creating the universe, all Three Persons acted to create and conserve the universe – as there was no sin, there was no need for a paraclete “to intervene before the Father.”

Creation is done out of divine love and is an act of divine goodness. After the Fall, forgiving mankind via mercy is a new aspect of goodness which God manifests:

In the universe of redemption, meaning in the universe after the Fall, the Three Divine Persons will be active no longer only in order to conserve things – the conservation of the world in ongoing existence (l’être étant) like a continued creation – but also in order to forgive. To forgive, it is to suspend the effect of justice by the intervention of mercy.96 Divine mercy is given in time by the two divine missions, that of the Incarnation and of

Pentecost. Both the Son and the Holy Spirit are properly called “paracletes,” who

“condescend, aid, intercede”97 on behalf of fallen man.

Journet detects an “advancement” in the divine activity from creation to redemption precisely because redemption demands forgiveness.98 The “advancement,” of course, is from

95 EVI IV, 951. 96 EVI IV, 951-52. 97 EVI IV, 954. 98 In The Meaning of Evil, 170, Journet, in the context of “Why the Fall was Permitted?” manifests why the universe of redemption is better than a world of innocence, since God “can even turn sin into an opportunity to show him [man] some great mercy.”

280

(now fallen) man’s perspective. Creating from nothing and then preserving the universe is one thing; but forgiving rational creatures who have revolted is even more remarkable and more generous. Instead of a God rendering immediate justice He instead seeks the restoration of man’s friendship. In doing so, there is no ignoring justice, but the exercise of a different virtue:

“God is going to forgive, meaning to act not properly speaking against but beyond His Justice.99”

Journet identifies a general principle: “the further man descends, the more God’s mercy lowers itself to lift him up again.”100 Journet expounds on this theme over the course of salvation history. Strictly in the context of the Old Testament, God’s mercy is an example of divine omnipotence in that “mercy is not left defeated by the malice of man.”101 As man progressively sinned more and more after the Fall, the divine response (in the form of the Promise to Abraham) is to extend greater forgiveness: “in Whom mercy increases with our miseries.”102 Regarding specifically the Incarnation, Journet will detect, in the early Church, the theme of divine mercy as a response to human sin: “This is the supreme distress of the world which, for the author of the “Letter to Diognetus,” summoned the supreme mercy of the Incarnation.”103 He will state that the Two Divine Missions result that God will “plead for us, and with us, our cause.”104

We conclude this treatment of divine mercy with a speculative observation of Journet. We know, from Chapter Two, that God respects the free will of rational creatures in the world He actually created in His subordinate, divine power. Had God created angels and men and immediately

99 EVI IV, 952. 100 The Meaning of Evil, 266. [Cf. Chapter Three, fn 51 on p. 176] Cf. EVI II, 281-82, n. 124, where, in context, Journet is commenting on II Sent., dist. 29, a. 3, qu. 2: “It can present itself as an application of a principle often proclaimed by St. Thomas, by which mercy shines more fundamentally now than justice in the divine works.” 101 EVI IV, 609. In the context of the failure of man under the Economy of the Law of Nature, Journet speaks of the Promise made to Abraham. All the more merciful is the redemptive Passion and Cross. 102 EVI IV, 658. 103 EVI IV, 826. 104 EVI IV, 953.

281 placed them in beatitude, via his absolute power, the world “would have been better from one point of view but there would not have been any room, in a world glorified from the outset, either for the forgiveness of the redemption or for the mystery of a resurrected Christ and a resurrected Church.”105 Hence, it was for forgiveness and for the Church that Journet highlights that the Father chose to send His Son: “When everything is desperate [consonant with a theme of

Chapter Three that the Incarnation occurred at the “worst moment in human history”106], God sends His Son in order to save all in founding the New Law, in which there will be no longer

Jews or Gentiles, and which will become the only normal way of salvation for all.”107

Having illustrated Journet’s thought why a world with sin is better than a world without sin – because Christ has recapitulated the world which includes introducing a new order of grace and thus permitting man to be conformed to the God-man, and simultaneously is a manifestation of divine mercy – we proceed to examine the meaning of this term “recapitulation” more precisely, as well as to inquire how Journet’s applies it theologically.

105 Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 153. 106 See, for example, EVI IV, 821. 107 EVI IV, 558.

Part Three – Recapitulation Introduction We begin by introducing a theme noted beginning on page 262 of this chapter: all of creation – including its redemption – centers around the glory of Christ. How does that occur?

By what is called “recapitulation:”

The world of creation will only become definitively clear in leading into the universe of redemption. It is in considering the free initiatives of his creatures, in considering the fall of the first Adam in order to take from it the redemption of the Second Adam, that God created the universe. Creation in its entirety, from the beginning, in the immutable plan of God, is ordered to be recapitulated in Christ.108

After providing a definition of “recapitulation,” and discovering that its underlying principle is exitus-reditus, we will discuss various dimensions of the term: i) the “who:” Christ; ii) the

“how:” the Incarnation; and; iii) the scope: all things, as they receive a new perfection because they are under a superior principle and ordered to a higher destiny. Specific to man, we see that man is recapitulated via grace, a topic which will receive particular attention: a) recapitulation is from Christ, under St. Paul’s paradigm of the First and Second Adam, and b) by Christic grace, man is conformed to Christ. The Church, too, is on a journey, developing as grace changes, and is, in fact, the “instrument” of recapitulation in the world.

A. Describing and Defining the Term “Recapitulation” The term “recapitulation” applies broadly, to all created things. Underlying the idea of

Christ restoring all things after the Fall is that all things were first made “for Him and through

Him.” We will rely on other Thomists to illustrate this point, to supplement Journet’s thinking.

Regarding specifically the redemption of man, we noted in Part Two that the new order of

Christic grace is a fundamental reason why the word is better after the Fall then before. Here we

108 EVI IV, 161. 282

283 argue that Christ “recapitulating the world” means introducing a new order of Christic grace so that man can again have friendship with God.109 Man’s subjective application of Christ’s objective redemption is how “recapitulation” actually occurs.110 In essence, “recapitulation” means, for Journet, that man can once again attain to eternal life: “No sooner had man fallen than

God, from the height of heaven, poured down grace and forgiveness.”111 The term

“recapitulation,” then, has, with respect to man, a dual meaning: i) it refers to the new order of

Christic grace by which man is redeemed (objectively); and ii) it refers to man appropriating to himself this Christic grace such that he reaches beatitude (subjectively). It is this latter by which man actually reaches his perfection.

1. Recapitulation Means “Reunite”

The term “recapitulate” appears in the New Testament in St. Paul’s Letter to the

Ephesians (1:10). Journet comments: “St. Paul speaks of the mysterious intention of love that

God ‘had preformed in Him for the realization at the moment of the fullness of time, namely to reunite (literally to recapitulate) all things in Christ, those things which are in heaven and those things which are on earth’ (Eph 1:9-10).”112 For things to be reunited, there must be a commonality between them. Fundamentally, Christ is both source of creation and (with respect

109 Note that “specifically, the Passion, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension are…in a very strict sense, the moments of a unique act whereby the Savior descends into the bottom of captive humanity in order to lead it into nobility.” EVI IV, 931-32. Emphasis added. 110 Commenting on Ephesians 1, St. Thomas notes that: a) “the mystery” (chap. 1, v. 9) which has been secret is the Incarnation; b) “the mystery of His will” has two aspects: one, that the Incarnation’s cause is God’s will; and; two, it is precisely “to re-establish all things in Christ,” meaning “through Christ,” and; c) “[T]he mystery’s purpose is to re-establish all things (v. 10). Inasmuch as everything is made for mankind, everything would be re-established [when man was redeemed].” [Bracketed words added by the editor / translator.] Comm. ad Ephes., accessed on 4.2.2018 from https://dhspriory.org/thomas/Eph1.htm#3. It is clear, then, that the very purpose of the Incarnation is to re-establish all things; for man, this means to be redeemed by grace. 111 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 94. 112 EVI IV, 554. The parenthetical remark is Journet’s.

284 to man) Mediator.113 For Journet, He is Word made Flesh sent to restore the harmony among all things which were forfeited by Adam: “He sent His Son … in order to reconcile heaven and earth, to ‘recapitulate’… all things, that is to reassemble, recompose, remold the universe.”114 He adds: “ ‘[R]ecapitulate’ is a compound containing caput, head: to gather around a new center, to recenter, if you like, all things in Christ.”115

We examine further why it is that Christ recapitulates all things. Before that, we note that uniting created things in Christ serves a larger purpose.

2. The Overall Principle of Recapitulation – Exitus-Reditus

Journet reviews a three-fold description of recapitulation of Ferdinand Prat, S.J., expressing his preference for his third idea, which is “to unify, crown.”116 He then turns to Scheeben who gives

“the expression a complete sense,” which is “the idea of the Son, going forth from the Father, who just gathered in Him all creation in order to return it to its principle creator, meaning to the

Father.”117 This latter is a clear statement of exitus-reditus, in which all created things come forth from the Father through the Word and receive their perfection by returning to the Father.

Journet describes the Thomistic principle that, absent exitus-reditus, created things would remain imperfect:

113 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 27. On this first point, we will discuss further infra on page 286. 114 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 93. 115 Journet, The Meaning of Grace, 94. 116 EVI II, 277, n. 119, referring to Ferdinand Prat, S.J., La théologie de saint Paul (Paris: np., 1913), 2:135 and 154. Summarizing the meaning of the term under various Church Fathers, Prat gleans three meanings: 1. repair, restore, 2. summarize, and 3. unify, crown. Journet picks up on the notion of “crowning” two pages later: “All in continuing to think that the Word would not have been incarnate had man not sinned, we hold therefore that Christ did not come only in order to repair the human order destroyed by sin, but that He came at the same time in order to be the coronation, the center, the basis of a better order of the entire universe.” EVI II, 279. (Cf. supra page 276) 117 EVI II, 277, n. 19, referring to Scheeben, Dogmatik, vol. 3, 372.

285

We often say that creatures come from God and return to God: “Creatures would be imperfect if, departing from God, they were not re-ordered to God; their departure from God, exitus a Deo, was imperfect, if it was not compensated by their re-entrance to God, reditio in Deum.” … God draws them from nothing, calls them to Himself, and, when they are spiritual, raises them to Him by knowledge and love.118 We see how Journet applies the term to a three-fold reality: creation, the Church, and man and his redemption. First, creation:

Just as creation [is] entirely the work of the Father, through the Word, in the Spirit, so creation entirely, thanks to knowledge and love, returns (fait retour) in the Spirit, through the Word, to the Father. It left from the Father; following the sin of the angel and that of man, it has been visited by the Word and elevated entirely to the hypostatic order; and it has been sanctified by the Spirit, Whom the Son sent from the Father. In this way, it has been linked more marvelously to its divine source; it has been summarized, recapitulated, ordered, ranked more closely under its original principle. It leaves from God, and it returns (rentre) to God: exit et redit.119 He is the alpha and the omega, its beginning and its end. But it returns (rentre) to Him richer and more holy than [when] it originally went out [from Him]. In the meantime, it became the spouse of Christ, the body of Christ, the Church.120 The Church, too, is on a journey of exitus-reditus. Speaking of the elect, Journet writes: “The

Church comes from the Trinity and returns to the Trinity.”121 With even greater detail, and recalling that it is the change in grace which causes a change in the Church, the Church develops over time, on Her way to a perfection: “The Church is the body of Christ. As glorious, She is the body of Christ as glorious. As voyager, She is the body of Christ as voyager.”122 Unsurprisingly, the journey of the Church is akin to that of the Master: “She awaited Him in the below of our

118 EVI IV, 89, quoting De veritate, q. 20, a. 4. 119 Journet notes in EVI II, 295, n. 144: “These are the words of St. Thomas, I Sent., dist. 2., divisio textus; cf. M.-D. Chenu, O.P., “Le plan de la ‘Somme’,” Revue Thomist, no. 1 (1939), 98.” 120 EVI II, 295. That creation is the spouse of the Word, see EVI IV, 311-12: “As it is thought in and through the Word before being produced in itself externally, creation resembles the Word as the work resembles the creative intuition, as the reflection in the water resembles the face, and can be attributed to the Word, through Whom, according to John 1:3, all things were made: on account of its native likeness with the Word, creation in its entirety will be called the spouse of the Word.” Footnote reference omitted. That the Church is also the Mystical Body of Christ, see the next paragraph. Cf. EVI IV, 315. 121 EVI IV, 959. 122 EVI IV, 308.

286 time, in this world, where, in order to be configured to the likeness of His crucified and passible life, She had to receive from Him the fullness of Her status as a journeying Spouse.”123

With respect to the economy of salvation, “recapitulate” does not equate to an immediate salvation which is universally granted; rather, it indicates that salvation is again possible. Journet quotes Benoît: “It does not signify the individual salvation of all, but the collective salvation of the world by its return to order and to peace in the perfect submission to God.”124 It is clear that, after the Fall, man can neither attain salvation on his own nor is salvation automatic.

The idea of recapitulation, then, impacts the theology of creation, the theology of the Church, and the theology of redemption. Before we delve further into the precise schema as to how man is recapitulated, in the next topic we discuss Who brings about “recapitulation.”

B. Who brings about this Exitus-Reditus? Journet emphasizes that, since all things were created for and through Christ, He is the only One who can restore them after they had fallen: only in Him can the reditus of created things be fully realized:

This is the theme whose secret power the Easter chant of the Church raises [that the age of redemption is better than the age of innocence]. It shows in the prayers which accompany the prophets of Holy Saturday: “O God who have created man marvelously, and Who have redeemed him yet more marvelously, mirabilius redemisti…”; “…That the entire world may smell and may see that the ruins are raised, that the old things are renewed, and that, by the admirable mystery of your entire Church, totius Ecclesiae tuae mirabile sacramentum, all things return to the integrity through the One in Whom they had received their origin.”125

123 EVI IV, 944. [Cf. Chap. 3, fn 270 on page 232] 124 EVI IV, 414, n. 448, quoting Fr. Pierre Benoît, O.P., commenting on Col 1:20, in Épîtres de la captivité, Bible de Jerusalem, 83 and 56. 125 EVI II, 279-80. Cf. Wisdom 7:27 (describing wisdom): “and remaining in herself the same, she reneweth all things.”

287

A symmetry is seen, then, based on creatures attaining their respective perfection through the

One through Whom they were first created. A restoration is best carried out by one who is most familiar with that which requires restoration. Dominic Legge explains that the Word is best suited for restoring creation from a point of Trinitarian theology, namely, of the way the Word proceeds from the Father:

The whole of the created order is made through him, so that each species of creature is what it is through its participation in a likeness of the Word. Further, creation is sustained by the Word and is brought to its final perfection through the Word’s incarnation. It is precisely the Word’s procession as the conception of the divine understanding that grounds the fittingness of the Word’s incarnation: “if the work of an artisan were to collapse, he would restore it through the conceived form of his art by which he first built it.”126

Legge elaborates on what “recapitulation” means: each created thing has, in the divine mind, a purpose, and that purpose is attained when it reaches its perfection. The Incarnation is to permit “the restoration of creatures to the ultimate end for which they were made, the perfect and immutable perfection which is God himself.”127

C. How does Recapitulation Occur?: Via the Hypostatic Union It is not the First Person or the Third Person of the Holy Trinity who is the efficient and instrumental cause of recapitulation, but rather the Word made flesh: “In taking on a particular flesh and individual nature, the Word draws to himself the whole of creation, somewhat like the plucking of a harp string that makes all the others vibrate. At that moment creation received an amazing dignity and, as it were, a new destiny.”128 Notice that this bestowal of a greater dignity

126 Legge, The Trinitarian Christology of St Thomas Aquinas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 71-72, quoting ST III, q. 3, a. 8. Footnote reference omitted. 127 Legge, The Trinitarian Christology of St Thomas Aquinas, 72. We will see momentarily, on the next page, that Journet holds the same idea. 128 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 28.

288 on all things is even before any additional excellence accruing to man via to the divine indwelling after the Incarnation.129

Of course, it is not as if the Word is acting alone in this recapitulation effort. Indeed,

“[T]he supreme presence of God in Christ by manner of union is going to raise all the rest of the world.”130 Legge observes: “creation is restored and thus returns to God according to the same way in which it came forth from him, with the Father always acting through his Word.”131

We proceed to delve into the scope of recapitulation, underscoring a metaphysical reason as to why the Incarnate Word elevates created things.

D. The Scope of Recapitulation: Due to the Hypostatic Union, All Things are Ordered to Receive a Higher Perfection, Precisely Because They are Under a Superior Principle

We endeavor to build on an earlier point. In the beginning, all things were created through the Word. Because the Word assumes a human nature in time, wherein Christ unites all things to the Second Person, creation receives a higher perfection. Before the Incarnation, the Creator transcended all contingent, composite, changeable beings. After the Incarnation, the Head of creation, by assuming a human nature with its body-soul composition, which is the representative and microcosm,132 “horizon and confinium” 133 of all creation, now unites to His divine Person created things:

This recapitulation [means]…that they [all created things] have been destined to receive a perfection previously unheard of, by the fact that they will be henceforth ordered under a better principle, namely, Christ. Christ, first of all, sums up in himself all beings, re-inserts them into himself, as primitive humanity was inserted into Adam. And by reason of his hypostatic union with the Word, he joins all creation to his divinity. And so, when human, earthly, and heavenly things are reunited in the hereafter to form

129 Cf. EVI IV, 510 as quoted in Chapter Two, fn 450 on p. 160. 130 EVI IV, 152. 131 Legge, The Trinitarian Christology of St Thomas Aquinas, 74. 132 Legge, The Trinitarian Christology of St Thomas Aquinas, 73. 133 EVI IV, 394-96.

289

the glorified Kingdom, they will appear, not simply as transfigured creatures, but as joined so immediately to Christ that together they will be as the continuation of his Body. … if the Fall was permitted, it was so that, by the mystery of the redemptive Incarnation, the world of redemption might be incomparably more beautiful than the world of innocence.134

The same idea is expressed in EVI II, but with a stress on: i) the exitus-reditus of creation, and ii) the greater unity between God and man in the Age of Redemption than in the Age of Innocence:

It [the term “recapitulate”] signifies, in addition, that created things will be destined to receive a perfection, a fulfillment, a completion until then unheard of, from the fact that they will be henceforth ordered under a better principle, namely Christ: who first, by reason of His human nature, summarizes in Him all beings and inserts them again in Him as primitive humanity was inserted in Adam; who especially, by reason of His hypostatic union with the Word, links the entire creation to the divinity, its first cause and its final end, in a way closer than it [creation] would ever have been in a universe without the Incarnation.135

An analogy may be of assistance. An artist painting a canvas evidences a unity with his work: the completed painting owes its very existence to the effort of the artist. However the artist existed and continues to exist independently of the painting. Similarly, the artist remains in existence even if the painting is damaged or destroyed. Because Christ, the second Person of the

Trinity, is an irreducibly transcendent cause, He remains metaphysically transcendent to creation.

At the Incarnation, He assumes a created nature, beginning to exist in a new way. Unlike the artist, Christ (as man) now enters the same level of metaphysical reality as creation – namely, created existence. Assuming a human nature, He enters at the center or middle of the spectrum of creation, between the strictly material and the purely spiritual (the confinium, as we noted in

Chapter Two). In His human nature, He no longer transcends created reality. Whereas the pantheists merge the divine and the human, and the ancient world conceived of gods as reigning

134 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 35-36. 135 EVI II, 277.

290 over man for their (the gods’) benefit, Journet holds together with the Patristic tradition and with

Aquinas that God becomes man so that man may again be one with God – not, certainly, hypostatically but by a spiritual union. Christ descends from necessary existence to commence existing in a contingent manner. Due to this divine condescension, creation is elevated by its now-greater metaphysical affinity with God-become-man. God’s infinite dignity is, as it were,

“shared” in a finite way with created things, even without grace. By His Incarnation, Christ re- gathers creation – He Who is “its first cause” now restores its ability to reach “its final end.”

With respect to man, reaching that final end requires grace, which is our next topic.

E. The Incarnation Inaugurates a New Superior Order: Metaphysically and in the Order of Grace

The hypostatic union of God and man initiates a new metaphysical order in creation. The descent of the Second Person to assume a human nature is “metaphysically discontinuous” with what existed previously and has no counterpart.136 Journet posits the Incarnation as affecting man in two, distinct orders: first, human nature itself, and second, in the order of grace.137 Having said that, this new metaphysical order of the hypostatic union is a requirement for the new order of grace. Journet here speaks of a new order, but in the supernatural order of grace: “It

[recapitulation accomplished by Christ] signifies not a return to the past, but the advent of an unforeseen and unheard of order.”138 It is only by Christic grace that man returns not to the

Transfigurative grace of Adam in the Garden; rather the prodigies of Christic grace anticipate a

136 EVI IV, 543. Cf. 545-46. 137 As to the former, Journet, following Thomas, notes that all (even the damned) will be resurrected on the Last Day because of Christ’s resurrection. (See also infra Part Three, Letter E, Section 2.) In sum, though, Journet concentrates more effort to illustrate the effect of the Incarnation on grace. 138 EVI IV, 509.

291

“future transfiguration of glory; within the crucified Church, they are the signs of a resurrected

Church.”139

Only Christic grace provides the path from fallen human nature to a “future transfiguration of glory,” a journey which passes by way of the cross. Christic grace only emerges in anticipation of or derivation from the Incarnation. Without the Incarnation, there is no Christic grace. The superior principle of creation of which we just spoke – the Incarnate

Word – inaugurates the new order of grace by which creatures can attain their perfection.140

1. The Redemptive Act of the Incarnate Word Affects Sanctifying Grace a. Fallen Man Cannot Access Grace by His Own Power Had God left Adam in his fallen state, there would be no economy of salvation. Man, by his own fault, was irreparably and irremediably harmed. Left to his own power, man is hopeless: the supernatural way to eternal beatitude was no longer available to him. In commenting on the

First Adam-Second Adam contrast of St. Paul, Journet is adamant that the Scriptural paradigm is not a mere metaphor but based on historical events. In summarizing fallen man’s state he remarks: “If Christ obtains a verdict of acquittal…it is because there was effectively a universal condemnation on all of humanity.”141 While fallen man cannot restore himself, the Redeemer can recapitulate what was fallen through a new order of grace. b. The New Order of Christic Grace: Recapitulation as Restoring the Economy of Salvation

The new order of grace is that of Christic grace and the world recapitulated by that

Christic grace. The “new order” of grace is a Christic Grace which restores the economy of

139 EVI IV, 509. 140 “By the fact of the Incarnation Christ begins to reconcile God to man and man to God.” Journet, The Theology of the Church, 27. 141 EVI IV, 487-88, quoting M.-M Labourdette, Le péché originel et les origines de l’homme (Paris: Alsatia, 1953), 25-26.

292 salvation, first with Grace by Anticipation and later with Grace by Derivation. Journet joins recapitulation and grace and the Fall: “On the evening of the Fall, the Cross rises on the horizon of history. What is lost in Adam requires to be ‘recapitulated’ more mysteriously, higher in

Christ.”142 To be even more clear, Journet specifies that he is referring to grace: “On the spiritual plane, Adamic grace is lost irremediably; it is another grace, which will be merited on the Cross of Christ, under which all the universe after the Fall is re-begun, recapitulated, reconciled.”143

It is due to the Incarnation, and the associated redemptive act, that grace changes. To underscore this point, we quote for a second time:

Because man sinned, now the Son of Man will come. At the moment when in man the grace of the world of creation collapses, God decides to offer him, by anticipation, a higher grace which Christ will bring in plenitude at the time of His coming, and alone adapted to the mystery of the hypostatic union. Here the strength which begins again to gather the church, to make her the Mystical Body of Christ. For man, this grace is redemptive, it is the grace of the world of redemption.144

We noted earlier that creation has been “elevated entirely to the hypostatic order.”145 With respect to man, Spiekermann explains Journet’s idea: “Having been modified by passing through

Christ, [sanctifying] grace now sanctifies by conforming men to his humanity.”146 Sanctifying grace acquires, from Christ, the three modes of connaturality, filiality and plentitude (discussed

142 EVI IV, 940. 143 EVI IV, 646. 144 EVI IV, 413. (As quoted in Chapter Three, fn 297 on p. 240) Highlighting Journet’s earlier theme of recapitulation as bringing a new perfection, de la Soujeole underscores that grace is a personal perfection: “Grace, in this sense, is a personal perfection, a strictly personal perfection; it is this personal relation between this human being and God resulting from an infused habitus, by a process of drawing out and raising up (in Latin eductio) [something latent] within the person.” Benoît-Dominique de la Soujeole, O.P., Introduction to the Mystery of the Church, trans. Michael J. Miller (Washington, D.C.: CUA Press, 2014), 177. Parenthetical and bracketed words are the author’s. 145 Cf. supra fn 120 on p. 285. Spiekermann elaborates on this idea: “Journet sees in this new dispensation of grace a kind of indirect ‘participation’ in the hypostatic union: ‘the created grace of Christ [is] adapted to the hypostatic union, and the created grace of Christians [is] adapted to that of Christ, and, in this sense, to the hypostatic union’.” Spiekermann, The Christic Character of Grace, according to Charles Journet, 62, quoting EVI II-1, 476. In context, Spiekermann is treating of the modality of plentitude in Christ’s members. Bracketed words are the author’s. 146 Spiekermann, The Christic Character of Grace, according to Charles Journet, 57-58.

293 in Chapter Three); thus enriched, it then elevates man such that “[N]ever before was grace able to thrive in human nature as it does in those who receive it fruitfully through the sacraments.”147

De la Soujeole, who in his Introduction to the Mystery of the Church relies heavily on Journet’s ecclesiology, sees that recapitulation does, indeed, cover both objective and subjective redemption:

The re-creation, reconciliation, and recapitulation of all creation, above all of man, are the work of Christ in the mystery of the Incarnation and in his Paschal mystery. Salvation is the work of Christ that man appropriates to himself by uniting himself with the author.148

In summary, the Incarnation and Passion commences a different economy under a different Head with a different order of grace allowing the rational creature once again to make a love of preference, which includes accepting suffering in charity so as to be conformed to the Master.

2. The Incarnation Gives a New Dignity to Human Nature

In The Theology of the Church, Journet discusses Christ as Head of the Church. When introducing the topic of Christ’s redemption, he opens by remarking on the Incarnation. The first part of the quote below re-iterates the superiority of the Second Adam over the First Adam. The second part stresses the dignity of the person, even apart from grace. The third part of the quote emphasizes the importance of free will cooperating with grace:

From the moment the Word became flesh, he established at the heart of the universe a meeting point incomparably better than that which the first Adam had been. By reason of his humanity, all creatures naturally entered into a brotherly relation with him and found themselves elevated by a new vocation to participate in him, with the dignity of the sons of God. And moreover, in the measure that free creatures effectively obeyed this calling, they became by grace participants in the divine nature and began to form, around Christ, his Mystical Body.149

147 Spiekermann, The Christic Character of Grace, according to Charles Journet, 59. In context, Spiekermann is discussing the modality of connaturality in Christ’s members. 148 De la Soujeole, Introduction into the Mystery of the Church, 65. A few pages later he is even more emphatic: “Salvation therefore means that all mankind is recapitulated in Christ.” Ibid., 82. 149 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 39.

294

Notice two effects of the Incarnation are specified: i) all creatures “naturally” enter into a new,

“brotherly relation” with Christ (which I interpret as a metaphysical cause: Christ now exists in a contingent way, just as creatures always did), and ii) creatures receive “a new vocation to participate in him” (this latter applies to rational creatures, and I interpret only to occur with the help of grace). The first effect is in the order of nature; the second effect is in the order of grace.

Man receives dignity in three ways: first, in his nature from creation (due to being made imago

Dei); second, as an effect of the Incarnation, whereby all creatures are united to the divinity150 and “naturally” have a “brotherly relation with him,”151 and; third, from Christic grace (with its three modalities), wherein man can once again be a “participant in the divine nature.”152 As to the latter: via grace, man is invited to “perfect” his dignity.153 After the Incarnation, man attains a closer unity with Christ, both in the natural order and (if grace is freely accepted) in the supernatural order.

Summary of Section “E”

The following citation sums up Journet’s thought on the effects of recapitulation vis-à-vis man, first noting the effect on human nature and then the effect of supernatural grace. He notes without qualification that redemption of a particular person (“full efficacy in the members”) only occurs via grace, which is subjective to the person:

150 See supra fn 128 on p. 287; Journet echoes St. Anselm: Rather than the Incarnation considered as an abasement of God, it is the case that “human nature was exalted,” Cur Deus Homo, Book One, chap. 8, from : The Major Works, ed. Brian Davies and G.R. Evans (1998; reissued, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). 151 See supra fn 149 on p. 293. I interpret this to be a new relation, one that the Incarnation alone brought about. 152 See supra fn 149 on p. 293. 153 EVI IV, 443. Note, too, how Journet, by employing the word “invite” underscores human free will: “in order to invite him…to perfect his own dignity.”

295

In being incarnated in an individual human nature, formed by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin, the Word called all of human nature to be united to him, not, of course, hypostatically, but in a real, intimate, mysterious union nonetheless. His descent into humanity obtains its full efficacy only in the members who are united to him by charity.154 I argue that the “call of human nature to be united to him” pertains to the natural level, made possible by God metaphysically taking on a created nature. I further argue that the “full efficacy” only occurs through grace, since charity, by definition, is supernatural.

F. Recapitulation Considered Specifically vis-à-vis Man We have outlined that “recapitulation” with respect to man is equivalent to

“redemption.” Here we endeavor to explain both the “who” as it pertains specifically to man, as well as to elaborate on one its key effects – not only to allow the possibility of reaching eternal life but also to conform one to Christ.

1. Man’s Redemption: St. Paul’s Paradigm of the First and Second Adam

When addressing how Christ recapitulates fallen humanity, Journet structures his discussion following St. Paul’s theme of the Second Adam: “The central and first object in the thought of St. Paul, is the Second Adam and the economy of salvation through recapitulation in

Christ.”155 To illustrate the economy of salvation, Journet (again relying on Labourdette), like

St. Paul, draws a comparison of opposites:

[H]e [Christ] does not have another [reason for being] except to repair the work of the first [man] by the restoration of an economy of salvation. … It is recapitulation in Christ, fruit of his sole salutary obedience, which comes to substitute for the unhappy recapitulation in Adam, what the sole disobedience of Adam had caused.156

154 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 27-28. 155 EVI IV, 487, quoting M.-M Labourdette, Le péché originel et les origiens de l’homme, 25-26. EVI IV, 486: “Adam is the figure of the one who must come. What he is in the line of our condemnation, Christ is, with superabundance, in the line of our justification.” 156 EVI IV, 488, quoting M.-M Labourdette, Le péché originel et les origines de l’homme, 25-26. See also EVI IV, 303, quoting De veritate, q. 29, a. 4, ad 5: “The Incarnation is done principally...to liberate men from sin.” See also EVI IV, 342, 413-14, 462, and 872.

296

We see the effect of Christ’s future obedience not only immediately after the Fall but also as the source of forgiveness: “It is in consideration of the future obedience of the Second Adam that the disobedience of the first Adam can, indeed, be immediately pardoned (cf. Rom 5:18-19).”157

Journet also employs the theme of disobedience and obedience as to the respective “head” under whom mankind is gathered:

Thus all men are recapitulated in the sin of one man, not because of the sins which each commits, but the same owing to this first sin, as the first man becomes the head of one immense community of sinners. And all men are recapitulated in the obedience of the one who becomes the head of an immense community of the saved.158

Only because God became man are the effects of sin of the first man overcome. In the divine economy of salvation, only the Second Adam could redeem the First Adam.159

2. Recapitulation Occurs Through Christic Grace Merited in the Passion – Christic Grace Conforms One to Christ

As a corollary to Christic grace having a redemptive characteristic because it is satisfactory and meritorious (Chapter Three), recapitulation vis-à-vis man – since it takes place via grace – also occurs only via the Passion: “[T]hat Christ came to raise man from a decline, to re-establish a lost splendor, and thus to recapitulate all things in the blood of His cross.”160 After

157 EVI IV, 289. 158 EVI IV, 487. Since the perfection of man results from union with God, Christ is the only one who can recapitulate man: “Again, by his divine-human existence, he constitutes the prototype of all communion between God and man, the foundation and pledge of mankind’s access to the Godhead. This is what led such Fathers of the Church as St. , St. and St. Cyril of Alexandra to think that in the hypostatic union the Word took to himself in some ‘virtual’ or ‘mystical’ way the whole human race. It is the great theme of the recapitulation in Christ.” Graham, The Christ of Catholicism, 211. 159 Journet has noted that, following the Incarnation, the universe is under a “superior principle.” Can we say that the Church is under a “superior principle?” I assert that the answer is “no,” since the Mystical Body of Christ began with the Protoevangelium (i.e., before the Incarnation); therefore, the Church has always had the Second Person as its Head. In EVI IV, 556 and 941, Journet, regarding the Age of the Long-Awaited Christ, speaks of the “deployment” of the Church. Similarly, we noted in Chapter Three that the Church fully blossoms at Pentecost, where the Visible Mission of the Holy Spirit is manifested. In neither case does Journet speak of the Church being under a new principle. 160 EVI IV, 499.

297 quoting the Spaniard Domingo de Soto’s commentary on the IV Sentences, wherein he argues that while each of Christ’s actions has infinite value, it is uniquely by the Passion that man’s redemption is accomplished, Journet concludes: “The more these interior acts and merits [of

Christ] were precious, the richer and more abundant was the redemptive grace ultimately poured on the world through that one Passion.”161

What is the significance of the Passion as a cause of recapitulation? As a reminder from

Chapter Three, but, again, adding the perspective of “recapitulation” – since grace is recapitulated through the Passion, grace will produce in its recipients a conformity to the

Passion: “Undoubtedly, the loftiest reason for such a change is that God permitted the catastrophe of the era of innocence only in view of establishing an era more ardent and more divine, where the efficacy of a grace thoroughly mixed with blood and tears would bring men so close to God that they would become conformed to the image of his only beloved Son.”162 We encounter again a theme in Journet: the servant cannot be greater than the Master, or (also from

Scripture): “If they have persecuted Me, they will persecute you also” (John 15:20).163

161 EVI IV, 930. One element contributing to the loftiness of Christ’s acts stem precisely from suffering well: in a speculative moment, Journet notes that if Christ had been created immediately with a transfigured body, His eternal glory would have lacked the “resonances” (résonances) which only suffering can add. EVI IV, 159. 162 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 268. “Christic grace leads Christ’s members in his footsteps…as regards the principal stages of his life, his suffering and resurrection.” Spiekermann, The Christic Character of Grace, according to Charles Journet, 67. 163 The theme of man being conformed to Christ is prominent in Augustine, who I infer greatly influenced Journet. For example, in elaborating on the concept of “purification” in De doctrina christiana, Book One, x, 10 – xi, 11, Augustine writes: “Let us consider this process of cleansing as a trek, or a voyage, to our homeland; though progress towards the one who is ever present is not made through space, but through integrity of purpose and character. This we would be unable to do, if wisdom itself had not deigned to adapt itself to our great weakness and offered us a pattern for living; and it has actually done so in human form because we too are human.” De doctrina christiana, trans. R. P. H. Green (1999; reissued, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). That Christ became man for man means that His disciples are not following an abstraction, idea, program, outline, code, or system. Human persons will follow a leader but not an abstract concept. Augustine notes that Christ is both the goal of man and the way man reaches the goal: “Christ, who chose to offer himself not only as a possession for those who come to their journey’s end but also as a road for those who come to the beginning of the ways, chose to become flesh,” Ibid., xxxiv, 38. The same idea appears in The City of God, written some two decades after De doctrina christiana: “As God, he is the goal; as man, he is the way” (Book XI, chap. two). Journet’s frequent characterization of

298

In sum, Journet argues that recapitulation – the redemption of man – requires a “new” grace. After the Fall, man is an enemy of God. Fallen man cannot restore himself from the position from which he fell, and Transfigurative Grace (they grace wherein he was constituted) cannot redeem man. Christic grace alone is able to raise fallen man once again to God’s friendship.

G. The Mystical Body of Christ, Actually Formed with the Protoevangelium, Carries out Christ’s Recapitulation From Chapter Three we recall that the Church begins to exist the “evening of the Fall” in a very primitive state, develops under the two Provisional Economies, and fully blossoms at

Pentecost.164 What we emphasize here is that one element of recapitulating the world is the establishment of the Church. In context, Journet is commenting on Eph 1:10165 and Col 1:17-

20,166 two Scriptures fundamental to the topic of recapitulation:

Christ repaired all things in heaven, not only by saving men…but [also] by gathering around Him a society yet unknown, entirely Christic made of angels and men, of which He is the Head and who become his Body.167 Notice how within the act of recapitulation two dimensions of redemption are identified: first, redeeming man (objective); second, the forming of the Mystical Body of Christ. It is through this Church that recapitulation and redemption are applied to His members down through the centuries (subjective): “The Church…claims for herself all men. All men are not

salvation history as a process from the state of journeying to the state of term echoes Augustine. Similarly, Journet’s emphasis on the importance of the Incarnation for man attaining salvation (evidenced by the change in sanctifying grace caused by the Incarnation) resounds of Augustine. 164 EVI IV, 460: “Thus the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, did not exist in the age of innocence. She existed virtually, but not even actually, at the moment of creation and justification of the angels. She existed already actually, but in a manner yet inchoate among the patriarchs, and in Adam in the wake of his fall.” 165 Eph 1:10: “to re-establish all things in Christ, that are in heaven and on earth, in him.” 166 Col 1:17-20: “17 And he is before all, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy; 19 Because in him, it hath well pleased the Father, that all fullness should dwell; 20 And through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to things that are on earth, and the things that are in heaven.” 167 EVI IV, 414-15.

299 de facto members of the Church, but all are called to become one.”168 With greater emphasis: “The Church begins here below the mystery of the recapitulation of the world in

Christ.”169

We have spoken of man being conformed to Christ, particularly when he suffers well, for which he needs Christic grace. Such a process is the Church: “And this continual conformation of the world to the image of the pilgrim Christ, this progressive reconciliation of creation in the blood of his Cross, is the Church of the present time, our Church.”170 Just as the Fall was the occasion for “the humility of Jesus,”171 so He “founded His Church in humiliations.”172

Conclusion After the Fall, God choses to send His Son to become man in order to reconcile mankind, which is equivalent to “recapitulating” man (indeed, all things) through the Passion. The

Mediator Christ thereby instituted a new form of grace, Christic grace, with which he (with the

Father) sent the Holy Spirit to imbue the Church, so that the Church may distribute this grace sacramentally (Christic grace by Derivation by Contact) such that persons may be able to make a supernatural love of preference for God. This new form of grace unites man nearer to God than did Transfigurative grace before the Fall. It does something Transfigurative Grace could not do: it conforms one nearer to Christ the suffering Savior. Because of the new order of Christic grace which permits man to follow in the footsteps of the Crucified One, the world of redemption is

168 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 38. 169 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 26. Cf. 36. 170 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 38. With greater graphics, Journet says Christ “wishes to betroth, by the blood of the cross, a Church made of men whom He will have rescued from sin.” EVI IV, 342. 171 EVI IV, 502. 172 EVI IV, 882.

300 better than a world of innocence. But that new order of Christic grace results in something even greater, namely Christ’s glory.

Christ’s Incarnation and redemptive act and the concomitant establishment of a new order of grace results in Christ receiving a twofold glory: i) from the Father, since Christ objectively redeeming man honors the Father, and ii) from man upon reaching beatitude, and this in itself in a twofold way: a) in receiving the beatific vision, man receives divinely-bestowed benefits and thus manifests divine goodness, which is one definition of divine glory, and b) upon entering eternal bliss, man exalts Christ, the Second Adam.

Chapter Five – Journet’s Theology of Salvation: A Defense of the Supernatural

Introduction This dissertation began by noting a long, historical confessional divide in Switzerland

(including persecutions encountered by the Church in early 20th century Switzerland), along with the efforts of newly-ordained Charles Journet to participate in confessional polemics by countering a tendency in liberal Protestantism of the denial of the supernatural. Journet identified one basis for liberal Protestantism’s claims, namely, an idealist metaphysics. He sought to employ a realist metaphysical understanding of reality, learned from Aquinas, to understand both natural and supernatural truth, all in the service to the salvation of souls. Such an approach pre- supposed that truth is received (supernatural truth) or discovered (natural truth), not invented, by the human subject; even more specifically, supernatural truth is revealed so as to be received.

Central to his defense of the supernatural is the Incarnation, undergirded by its metaphysical dimensions as understood by the Church.

Journet’s theology begins with the notion that salvation history exists because of divine generosity and divine forgiveness. The rational creature only has a supernatural end because it is divinely offered. Salvation history consists of a divine offer and a human free-will response.1

After the Fall, the divine offer to restore the possibility of salvation consists of three elements: i) the Incarnation, through which the God-man performed the redemptive act through His Passion, ii) a change in sanctifying grace, from Transfigurative to Christic, and iii) the establishment of a

Church to convey Christic grace. Not only does God not abandon fallen man, but He

1 “In creating a being with a naturally ambivalent capacity, what God intends and wills directly is to give this being the wonderful capacity to turn freely towards the supreme law; but the price of this capacity is, in the same being, the dread capacity to turn aside from the supreme law.” Journet, The Meaning of Evil, 150. 301

302 conspicuously illustrates His actions in time through His activity of originating and executing salvation history. Human free will remains (as it did for prelapsarian Adam) an integral component of the salvific equation, able to accept or reject the divine offer of “gifts of divine goodness,”2 which (as bestowed by Christ) comes via the Church.

While one fundamental point of emphasis in EVI IV is grace, and the effect of the

Incarnation and redemption on grace, Journet’s treatise on the theology of the history of salvation necessarily encompasses the question of evil. The question of evil cannot be avoided simply because salvation history takes a significant turn with the introduction of human sin by the Fall and the divine response thereto. While salvation history remains in the paradigm of a divine offer and a human response, the supernatural grace by which the creature attains unity with the Creator is changed. In addition, the way by which grace is conveyed to man is significantly altered. Both of these changes, in turn, arise directly from the Incarnation.

Everything changes, we might say, with the Incarnation. Rather than the evil of sin being a

“proof” against the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God, it becomes a condition for the display of the most extraordinary divine charity, the Word-made-flesh.

Our plan in this concluding Chapter Five is to recapitulate Journet’s consistent effort throughout EVI IV of unfolding the supernatural beginning and end of man via an overarching and primordial Christological emphasis. In doing so, Journet defended the supernatural against specific trends then current in early 20th century Switzerland, not only liberal Protestantism but against a variety of secular, rationalist, and classical Protestant opposition. We will concentrate on five Journetian emphases and their implicit or explicit proximate “antagonists:” i) all things

2 EVI IV, 168 [As noted in Chapter One, fn 159 on page 45].

303 are ordered to Christ (including the evil of sin) only that a greater good may be brought out of it, specifically that Christ’s glory is greater because fallen man gives greater glory to Christ than prelapsarian Adam could have done (contrary to the atheism of modern secularism that claims

God cannot exist since there is evil in the world); ii) salvation history does exist and has a divine origin (contrary to rationalism which denies that man has a supernatural end, since it denies anything it cannot “prove” by way of syllogistic arguments or by way of adducing empirical evidences); iii) the Incarnation and redemption of Christ, which initiates a new order of Christic grace by which recapitulation is concretely applied and man is conformed to the suffering Christ, relies on a specific metaphysics (contrary both to liberal Protestantism, which denies the divinity of Christ, and to rationalism, which denies that suffering has a purpose); iv) the existence of an ordered, causal relationship between divine grace and human freedom (contrary to the general understanding in a classical Protestant theology of grace, which does not comport to human nature after the Fall, which though wounded remains rational), and; v) the Church as receiver and dispenser of Christic grace (this latter especially via the sacraments), acting as the visible agent of Christ’s recapitulation, illustrates the Church’s supernatural origin and visible nature

(contrary to the general Reformed notion of an invisible Church).3 Of these five items, we concede that the first is somewhat latent in Journet’s writings, whereas the remaining four we deem more explicit.

3 This chapter structure attempts to begin with the widest horizon and proceed to increasingly specific effects: i) all of God’s works are ordered to the glory of Christ; ii) Salvation History is possible because God so wills it and it occurs through the Incarnation and redemption of the Word; iii) Salvation History actually occurs in the life of an individual rational creature through Christic grace; iv) the rational creature cooperates (or refuses to do so) with Christic grace, and; v) Christic grace of Derivation by Contact via the sacraments is conveyed by the Church.

304

It is through the Incarnation and the redemptive act that Christ recapitulates the world after the Fall, through a new order of Christic grace which is bestowed through the agency of the

Church. Christic grace is supernatural; the Church is supernatural (in her origin, purpose, and destiny); that the rational creature may once again partake of the divine nature is supernatural.

Notice, however, that Christic grace, the Church, and fallen man reaching his supernatural end by grace given through the Church only come about because of the Incarnation of the Word in a hypostatic union, a union which is supernatural. The Incarnation undergirds the entire spectrum of the theology of the history of salvation.

A. God Draws Good out of Evil, as Contrary to Secularism which Claims God Cannot Exist since Evil Exists: Christ’s Glory is Increased due to Forgiven Man’s Greater Exaltation of the Redeemer than of Prelapsarian Adam’s Exaltation of the Creator

Journet was greatly aware throughout all of his life as a theologian in Switzerland that there was a fundamental objection to the Christian faith and to the Church in the culturally most advanced circles in Swiss secular society. It was a popularized version of the classically modern

Enlightenment problem of theodicy, and atheism was its response to the reality of evil in the world. Secularism claims: “Since there is evil in the world, God cannot be, since (on the supposition that God must be all good, omnipotent, and omniscient) He would prevent all evil.”

Journet responded with the classical answer of Christian theology since Augustine that God only permits evil so as to bring a greater good out of it. Yet with respect to the divine motive and respective end of the permission of evil, Journet advanced a distinctly Christological response:

God’s response to the moral evil of sin is Christ’s Incarnation and redemptive act, which results in the universe of redemption being better than a world of innocence. The “great reversal,” whereby the death and resurrection of God-become-Man is the source of Christic grace, is one

305 aspect of Journet’s assertion. A second and even more important way a universe of redemption is better than a world of innocence is Journet’s argument that “all things are ordered to the glory of

Christ.” We now offer our interpretation of Journet, relying on his principles, as to how it is that

God receives greater glory after the Fall then He would have received prior to the Fall.4

Man attaining eternal life (which is proper only to God) is one dimension of the realization of God’s glory, namely the creature receiving divinely-bestowed riches. Of added importance is that such attainment occurs after man freely became God’s enemy. While the generosity of God can be seen from constituting prelapsarian Adam and Eve in sanctifying grace, a greater magnanimity of the Creator forgiving the now-fallen creature is shown by granting a surpassingly greater gift after it had been spurned. Such magnanimity leads to the second dimension of divine glory, namely, man exalting God. Whereas Adam and Eve before the Fall could rightly exalt God for creating them and even further for the gift of sanctifying grace, fallen man even more rightly exalts a God Who restores divine friendship after it had been forfeited.

By being forgiven by God, fallen man can more easily understand God as Father, rather than just as Creator. This is still more strongly shown since the Father sends His only-begotten Son to demonstrate divine forgiveness. The Christological response to man’s transgression results in: i) man as an enemy of God re-gaining the possibility of (and actually attaining) beatitude, and ii) man acknowledging an even greater act of divine charity than creation, that of mercy. Fallen man being forgiven and then reaching beatitude leads to the twofold glory of God, and, with

4 In Chapter Four, we studied this question, both from the perspective that: i) the Father glorifies the Son for the Son’s redemptive act, and ii) fallen man glorifies the Son because fallen man actually reaches eternal life only because of the Son’s Incarnation and redemption (Chapter 4, Part One, (B)(2)). Here, our emphasis is to show, interpreting Journet, that the glory given to Christ by fallen man who reaches beatitude is greater than the glory prelapsarian Adam could have given to Christ. This emphasis is to illustrate to secularism that fallen man, in the economy of salvation, was given a privileged place, a place in one sense greater than that of prelapsarian Adam. Fallen man, precisely because he is forgiven, can praise God in a way that prelapsarian Adam could not.

306 respect to man exalting God, a greater glory than prelapsarian Adam and Eve could have given.

Journet’s tenet that the world after the Fall is better than the world before the Fall contemplated that Christ’s glory (from man) is greater precisely because His Incarnation and redemptive act has permitted an enemy to become a friend. The one redeemed shows greater gratitude than the one who never sinned and had no need of redemption.5

Journet (following the Salmanticenses) presents a Christo-centrism wherein what is primary in the divine intention for Christ’s Incarnation and redemption is the glory of Christ

(finis cuius gratia). The evil of sin is overcome by the Paschal Mystery: consequently, Christ’s glory is augmented. In addition, mankind benefits from the divine condescension and divine generosity evident in the act of redemption (finis cui). Such a benefit only arises if man has the possibility of a supernatural end, a topic we consider next.

B. Journet’s Insistence on Man’s Supernatural End, as Contrary to Rationalism which Denies a Supernatural End for Man

Indispensable to Journet’s theology of the history of salvation is a teleology wherein the rational creature is offered, and can reach, a supernatural end. Without such a teleology, the rational creature, guessing that death brings annihilation, would be unable to find a reason for carrying on an earthly existence: if earthly life is merely transitional and leads to nothing permanent, man attaining a point of complete satisfaction is not possible. If man seeks only created goods, he will continually desire something more. In a world of rationalism which denies the existence of the supernatural, man will always desire something more.6 In addition, by denying the existence of supernatural truths, rationalism considers religious truth as changeable

5 Luke 7:47: “Wherefore I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less.” 6 See ST I-II, q. 2, where Aquinas analyzed eight, distinct, created things which will not bring beatitude.

307 so as to satisfy individual experience (as we saw in Chapter One). But whatever is changeable is created; therefore, changeable religious truth is also unable to satisfy man.

Journet taught that since creation has a beginning, and since creation will be brought to a conclusion, the history of the human person is linear. Man (from his created beginning) proceeds linearly toward or away from his final end. It is a linear progression because there is only one final end for man – to be a citizen of one of the two Transcendent Cities. That citizenship is decided (in part) by man as he moves from the state of journeying to a state of term. The intellect and will, two faculties of a finite being possessing a desire for the infinite, can seek (or refuse to seek) a goal wherein they will ultimately be satisfied.7 Since all men attain their final end by either an acceptance or refusal of Christic, supernatural sanctifying grace (either Grace by

Anticipation or Grace by Derivation), Christ is properly at the center of time and the center of the history of each human person. He is the Door through which each man enters, or refuses to enter.

Under Journet’s Incarnational-based answer to the question of both man’s final end and to the effect of man’s introduction of sin into the world, sin (and one of its effects, death) does not have the last answer to the purpose of man’s existence, which would be that man’s existence has no ultimate purpose. Moreover, since there is a divine response to sin, one can seek the intelligibility of the purpose of that response, namely that God initiates fallen man’s possibility of reaching a supernatural end: since sanctifying grace is ordered to union with God, it would be superfluous for God to restore sanctifying grace (forfeited by Adam) via the Incarnation and redemption to man for a merely natural end. If there is a supernatural, final end for man, then rationalism dooms man never to reach a point where the intellect and will can rest content; it

7 Whereas the intellect and will of the rational creature possesses a desire for the infinite potentially, God who is infinite actuality can alone satisfy that desire. Cf. EVI IV, 154.

308 dooms man to an earthly existence of constant futility. Similarly, rationalism can only respond that death is, in fact, the final end of man; rationalism can offer nothing to man other than a this- worldly answer. Under the rule of rationalism, it is sin, not grace, which determines man’s final end. Furthermore, under the rule rationalism, there is certainly no supernatural hope available, and any earthly hope can only be fleeting. According to Journet’s theology of salvation, man has a journey, which means man has a destination, indeed, a supernatural destination. Under the rule of rationalism, man is not on a journey because there is no final, non-transient destination.

C. The Second Good that God Draws from the Evil of Sin, brought about by the Incarnation and Redemption – A New Order Christic Grace, as Contrary to Liberal Protestantism (which denies the divinity of Christ) and to Rationalism (which denies that there is a purpose to suffering)

Earlier we noted that Journet argued against secularism, in that he answers the problem of sin by stating that God permits sin so as to bring about a greater good – namely, an increase in the glory of Christ. We noted, too, that another good brought about by the Incarnation and redemption of Christ (all in response to the Fall) was the new order of Christic, sanctifying grace.

It is this latter item which we address now – specifically, why it is that this new, Christic grace possesses the intrinsic power to aid man to reach eternal happiness. Journet’s theology of grace was such that the character of Christic, sanctifying grace was firmly based on a Christological foundation (against liberal Protestantism) and the effects of Christic sanctifying grace on man offered a way to follow the suffering Christ (against rationalism).

Journet provides a Christological response to the problem of sin: God draws good out of the evil of sin, namely, the whole order of Christic grace, which is derived from the Passion, wherein

Christ’s suffering is both meritorious and satisfactory (as noted in Chapter Three). But the effects of the Incarnation and redemption on grace rely on a specific Christology. In EVI IV, Journet

309 does not so much argue for but relies on and takes for granted the divinity of Christ (the denial of which he had fought ardently against as a young pastor). From beginning to end, Journet’s EVI

IV is a defense of the supernatural – of grace, of the Church, of the power of the sacraments to convey grace, of the rational creature to be elevated to participate in divine life, of the beatific vision to enable a finite creature to “see God face to face;” and that defense has as its foundation the hypostatic union.

1. The New Order of Christic Grace Relies on a Specific Metaphysics, as a Counter to Liberal Protestantism’s Denial of the Divinity of Christ

Journet’s theology of grace depends on the Word becoming flesh, properly understood from a metaphysical perspective.8 Journet’s particular reliance on Thomistic metaphysics is essential to his Christo-centrism, since there is a priority in the two changes brought about by the

Incarnation: the change in the metaphysical order (Christ is truly human and truly divine)9 is necessary to explain the change in the order of grace (Christic sanctifying grace is superior to

Transfigurative sanctifying grace because the former is enriched by the three modalities arising from grace “touching” the God-become-man). Journet can offer a Christological response to sin because he first defends the hypostatic union. By showing that the change in sanctifying grace arose from the hypostatic union, Journet provided an indirect argument as to why Christ is truly human and truly divine.

His understanding of Christic grace pre-supposes the Church’s tradition: the Word assumed a human nature such that in “the Word made flesh there is one concrete, individual

8 To be clear – this is also a biblical perspective: “Seeking to understand the New Testament claims about Christ non-ontologically is in the end a non-biblical exercise.” White, The Incarnate Lord, 117. 9 “Against the Lutheran deviation, the theologian [Journet] recalls that what Christ is for Himself matters more to God and to the Kingdom of God than what Christ is for me.” Georges Cottier, O.P., preface to Entretiens sur L’Incarnation, by Charles Journet, 6.

310 person and hypostasis subsisting in two natures,”10 fully divine and fully human.11 Three particular teachings from the Chalcedonian Tradition which pertain to the hypostatic union are of note. First, Journet concurs with the communicatio idiomatum, wherein the properties of both natures are maintained. Second, all attributes of both natures are attributable to the Second

Person of the Word. Third, since the union of the two natures takes place in the divine hypostasis of Second Person, the hypostatic union does not result in a curtailment or loss of divine prerogatives.12 These three teachings are integral to maintaining the one subject of Christ as truly human and truly divine, and offer an intelligibility to the Incarnation. The Chalcedonian understanding is crucial, since Journet’s account of Christic sanctifying grace as superior to

Transfigurative sanctifying grace depends on the enrichment of sanctifying grace accruing to: i) its contact with the hypostatic union, and ii) its link with the Passion of the Word made flesh. If there were no Incarnation as understood by the Church, there would be no enriching of sanctifying grace, by which man becomes conformed to Christ. For Journet, a proper understanding of Christ is essential to a correct grasp of Christic grace, which, in turn, is crucial to understanding how fallen man can follow the Master and thus reach his supernatural end.

10 White, The Incarnate Lord, 82. 11 White, The Incarnate Lord, 83: “This hypostatic union then pertains to a personal subsistence but it is the personal subsistence not of a human person, but of God made man and of the person of the Son existing in human nature.” 12 White, “Intra-Trinitarian Obedience and Nicene-Chalcedonian Christology,” Nova et Vetera (English Edition) 6, no. 2, (2008): 377-402 at 381.

311

2. Journet’s Theology of Grace Allowed One to be Conformed to Christ and Provided a Purpose to Suffering, as a Counter to Rationalism, which Cannot Offer a Purpose to Suffering

All religious groups which profess Christianity demand, in some form or another, their adherents to follow Christ: “As I have done, so you must do” (John 13:15). Journet offered a theology integrating the Incarnation and grace, whereby the new, Christic grace enables the recipient to follow the suffering Christ. One key reason that Journet insisted that Christic grace illumined – rather than prevented or eliminated – suffering was the law of “co-redemption in

Christ.”13 Insofar as Christ suffered (out of charity) so as to attain man’s objective redemption, suffering accomplished a good on behalf of man. By suffering well, fallen man can also obtain a good on behalf of man, when he subjectively applies the merits of Christ’s suffering to others when he freely embraces his own trials in imitation of the Master. Such an act of charity is a

“love of preference” man can offer to God.14

Rationalists hardily state that suffering is to be avoided. Yet, suffering is everywhere in the world. Christ permits man to turn man’s suffering to a good, an answer all the more urgent in light of the horrors of the early- and mid-twentieth century. Journet challenged rationalists to provide a meaning to human suffering. That is, not to explain why suffering exists (that is simple

– a wrong use of human free will), but to explain what is its purpose. In the natural order of philosophy, no complete answer can be given. In the supernatural order of theology, Journet appealed to divine providence and argued that suffering, permitted by God, has as its purpose to

13 EVI IV, 1023. Cf. The Theology of the Church, 191-96. 14 Speaking of “cultic charity” which is “inseparable from ,” Journet noted: “Cultic charity creates in the whole Church a profound inclination to remain at the foot of the Cross in order to offer [Christ] to the Father…and to offer one’s very self with Christ and through Christ.” The Theology of the Church, 173. A bit later he added: “That charity inclines Christians to follow the route traced out by the Savior is one of the great notions of St. Paul. The states of Christ’s life, his suffering, death, and Resurrection must be reproduced to a certain extent in his members.” Ibid., 187.

312 redeem man from sin, first, by Christ objectively, and then by human persons, who subjectively apply Christ’s merits from His Passion to others now. In his account of the theology of Christic grace, Journet offered an explanation for the purpose of suffering. He is clear that suffering is not meaningless, as the rationalists so often suggest. And since it is only Christic grace which enables man to suffer well in conformity with the Master, and since Christic grace confers this power only because Christ is the God-man, Journet’s theology of grace challenged liberal

Protestantism on a fundamental point which has two dimensions: if Christ Crucified is not truly divine, why should He and how can He be followed?

********

As we just saw a moment ago, only due to supernatural, Christic grace may man reach his supernatural end. As we will see in a moment, Journet’s teaching on salvation history incorporated an understanding of grace and of sin which: i) ontologically permitted the possibility of man’s redemption, and ii) ensured man can exercise a subjective role in his redemption. As to the latter, Journet’s understanding of sin and of redemption recognized man as a true moral agent, thus respecting human nature. Only because man is morally responsible can he (in light of the Incarnation and redemption) make a supernatural, freely-willed, meritorious love of preference, an issue we explore next.

D. The Relationship of Causality between Divine Grace and Human Free Will in the Salutary Act, as a Counter to Protestant Theology wherein the Theology of Grace does not Comport to the Natural Capacities of Human Nature after the Fall

Introduction Journet provided a Christological response to the problem of sin such that the theology of the history of salvation and the theology of grace incorporated the free will of the rational

313 creature. The basic paradigm of salvation history does not change before and after the Fall: it continues to consist of a divine offer and a human response. What changed is the sanctifying grace by which man is saved (Letter C supra) and the way in which said grace was offered to man (Letter E infra). In this section, we stress Journet’s emphasis on the free will of the rational creature aided by grace. Since Christic grace is redemptive and arises from God’s response to the

Fall, we begin by noting how Journet’s teaching on both the origin of sin and the effect of sin on human nature cohered with his theology of grace. After noting that beatitude is open to all rational creatures conditionally, we shall further see that beatitude is reached by a meritorious

“love of preference.” Throughout, we note that (from Journet’s understanding) the interchange between divine grace and human free will as one of First Transcendent Causality and secondary causality, what might be termed a true “partnership,” wherein the metaphysical nature of the rational creature is always respected, which stands in clear contrast to classical Protestant theology. We shall conclude this section by noting that the rational creature’s “love of preference” attains a divine union.

1. On the Origin of Evil, Particularly of Sin, Journet Illustrated that, within his Theology of Grace, the Interaction of Divine Grace and Human Free Will Cohered with the Natural Capacities of Human Nature after the Fall

We have seen that Journet explored both: i) why God permits sin, and ii) how does the evil of sin come about in the world. Underlying Journet’s entire analysis of the theology of the history of salvation is the Church’s perennial teaching of the origin of evil, and specifically of the origin of sin. As we have discussed the metaphysics behind the origin of physical evil and of moral evil elsewhere, we will now draw out from his thought his defense of the supernatural.

314

In his account of sin within his theology of the history of salvation, Journet: i) preserved the idea that God is not the cause of sin (by stating that evil is a privation of the good); ii) recognized that

(created) human nature is not of itself sinful: after the Fall man’s nature is in a fallen state, a state that is not natural to man;15 iii) upheld the notion of human free will; and iv) observed that man is the origin of moral evil by freely committing morally faulty actions. Perhaps only the first two of these ideas might be classified as directly “defending the supernatural;” however, all of them do respect the realism of human nature which, in turn, are consonant with Journet’s understanding of Christic grace in salvation history. And by avoiding errors with respect to the origin of sin, Journet was consonant with the Church’s Tradition on both a supernatural level and on a natural level, which we discuss next.

On a supernatural level, Journet’s theology of the history of salvation accorded with the divine revelation that: i) fallen man has fallen from preternatural and supernatural gifts with which he was constituted, and ii) fallen man stood in need of redemption, in that man cannot restore to himself the gifts he has lost, since those gifts are not part of the debitum naturae.

Preserving the Church’s Tradition with respect to the origin of sin serves as a starting point to understand redemption, meaning without this Tradition fallen man might consider himself unable to be redeemed, in that if human nature is (and always was) sinful by nature,16 then human nature is also not capable of being elevated by grace. On a natural level, Journet’s anthropology maintained the Church’s Tradition in that fallen man is ontologically capable of being redeemed, since, due to sin, human nature is impaired, but not destroyed – fallen man

15 Cf. White, The Incarnate Lord, 136-43. 16 Journet is very clear that divine revelation is needed in order to grasp the truth of original sin: “It will be necessary to know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin.” EVI IV, 497-98.

315 remains a rational being. Consequently and in addition, since the faculties of intellect and will remain extant, man can indeed act subjectively toward his redemption. In sum, Journet’s incorporating the Church’s teaching on the origin of sin and of sin’s limited effect on human nature illustrates that, within his theology of grace, the interaction of divine grace and human freedom cohered with: i) the fact that human nature after the Fall remains rational, and ii) the wounded-but-still-operative natural powers of human nature.

2. Human Free Will is Crucial to Salvation Attained or Missed; Salvation is Open to All

While the Incarnation is God’s response to the Fall of man, man’s redemption is both objective and subjective: what Christ has procured objectively remains to be applied subjectively. Journet’s utilizing the paradigm of the Three Cities (two of which are transcendent and one of which is not) clearly evidenced the importance of human free will, since the two

Transcendent Cities are determined by their final ends. Notice, too, that Three Cities model is applicable to every economy of salvation: at no time is human free will absent from the equation of salvation. The divine invitation of grace places man in the “presence of a supreme decision,”17 whose result decides the “City” in which he will permanently “reside.” By adapting the pattern from Augustine’s City of God to a Thomist Three-City model, Journet stressed more strongly, arguably, than Augustine or at least his Protestant interpreters, the central, irreplaceable place of the free will of the rational creature in the theology of the history of salvation. Since the

“citizens” of the Two Cities decide their “membership” through their acts of will, no one is overlooked and everyone has the opportunity to respond to the gift of grace offered.

17 EVI IV, 570. Cf. EVI IV, 598.

316

Man is not an inanimate robot or an uninterested bystander or a passive spectator in salvation history. Of course, fallen man cannot initiate his salvation any more than prelapsarian Adam could have initiated his primordial elevation by sanctifying grace. However, fallen man can cooperate or refuse to cooperate with divine grace, with the divine offer of happiness beyond the powers of his nature to attain. Salvation history, then, is a “joint effort,” primarily by God, but

God also expects a response from creatures (discussed further in Number 3 infra). We immediately add that any human response to grace originates from a divine initiative. Just as we saw in a natural human act, where God acts as First Mover of the human will and the person

“cooperates,” so, too, in the supernatural order of grace God offers the essential help of grace and the person wills to accept it (or not).

3. Attaining Salvation is a “Joint Effort:” The Rational Creature’s Collaboration with God

Since Journet established that man can be redeemed even after the Fall since human nature remains rational, and that man can act as a true agent towards his subjective redemption since free will remains operative, the next question is to inquire what is the precise place of human free will in man’s redemption.

Of particular emphasis, as Journet noted in EVI III in critiquing the “occasionalism” in the Reformed theology of Karl Barth (1886-1968), there is not a rivalry between God and man wherein God does everything towards man’s salvation and man does nothing, wherein any positive act by man in some way “infringes upon” the divine activity.18 Rather, there is a relationship of first transcendent causality and secondary causality between God and man. There is a cooperation between “divine grace and…human liberty.”19 Such a dual causality (genuine

18 EVI III, 1879. 19 EVI III, 1870.

317 both in regard to divine and human causality) has a prominent effect. Even under the Economy of the Law of Nature, God “asks man to collaborate in the work of his own deliverance, [and] He allows him to have the experience of the resources of his free will.”20 The relationship of causality accrues to man’s benefit, as it is where God invites man “to perfect his own dignity.”21

By perfecting himself, man becomes a “collaborator with God in the completion of the universe.”22 Indeed, the theology of the history of salvation is such that the universe is established wherein the rational creature is placed in a state of journeying, reflecting the divine intention (dessein) “to produce creation entirely in requiring it to fructify itself, with His help,

(to) its final destiny.”23 Man has a privileged and irreplaceable role in reaching, or failing to reach, the final end re-opened for him by the Paschal Mystery. That this privilege is given to fallen man illustrates the great respect that God continues to exhibit toward the rational creature, who remains a true moral agent. Absent the free will of a truly responsible agent, the notion of

“salvation history” is essentially changed, that is, emptied.

That human nature includes a free will cannot be a superfluous fact; that non-rational creatures lack free will cannot be a superfluous fact. Journet wrote: “It is the Catholic doctrine that St. Thomas and Pascal remember when they say that God willed to communicate to creatures the dignity of causality, and to extend this marvelous liberality from the plane of nature to that of His kingdom.”24 This dignity applies both on an individual level (wherein, regarding grace, “the Christian says ‘yes’ to God, when he adheres and freely consents to God, [and] it is

20 EVI IV, 625. 21 EVI IV, 443. 22 EVI IV, 256. [See also Chapter Two, fn 173 on page 91.] 23 EVI IV, 645. 24 EVI III, 1884.

318

God who gives to the Christian to say this ‘yes’ with all the depth of his created free will”25), as well as on an ecclesial level (“[T]his principle [of causality] provides a generic explanation of the grandeurs of the Christian hierarchy, called…to dispense to the world the truth and grace of

Christ”26). Focusing on the former: Journet sees a continuity between God recognizing the free will of rational creatures in both the natural order and in the supernatural order. Similarly, God recognized the free will of the rational creature in the supernatural order before and after the Fall.

Just as Adam was given the task of remaining in the gift of sanctifying grace in which he was constituted, so fallen man is given the task of accepting the offer of sanctifying grace made to him by the Redeemer. God is not arbitrary, but consistent. He wishes the creature to love Him above creatures; love, of course, cannot be forced but can only be freely given (or freely refused). It is by exercising supernatural charity that man attains a perfection corresponding to the divinely-accorded “dignity of causality.”

4. Attaining Salvation via a Love of Preference is Meritorious, which Presupposes Free Will

Characterizing salvation history as man moving from a state of journeying to a state of finality is only possible under the aegis of free will of the rational creature, since that journey consists precisely in man making, or refusing to make, a love of preference. That such a love of preference is supernaturally meritorious27 involves two facts: i) merit is possible vis-à-vis supernatural acts because it is within the supernatural order that God created,28 and ii) merit is

25 EVI III, 1877. A moment later, Journet will quote (without immediately giving the source text) Augustine’s famous phrase: “When God crowns our merits, He crowns His gifts.” Ibid., 1877-78. (In context, Journet is critiquing the view of Calvin, who puts God’s gifts and man’s merits in opposition. Augustine’s phrase can be taken either from On Grace and Free Will or from Letter 194: In the related footnote, Journet cites both texts, but not this precise phrase.) 26 EVI III, 1829. Cf. EVI III, 1884-87. 27 EVI IV, 445. 28 See Joseph P. Wawrykow’s God’s Grace and Human Action: ‘Merit’ in the Theology of Thomas Aquinas (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995).

319 possible because the rational creature acts as a true agent and chooses to cooperate with grace or not. Since the Two Cities are formed based on the object of what each of their members love, coercion never enters into the equation of salvation history. In addition, a doctrine of predestination which bestows beatitude irrespective of one’s freely willed actions (and, consequently, also proscribes merit) is not a logically viable position.

5. The Love of Preference Results in Union with the God

Journet’s teaching on causality between God and man further underlined a theme from

Chapter Two, that of the creature recognizing its creaturely status, here, a status that can, by divine generosity and initiative, be elevated by grace: “In a theology of analogy, therefore there exist relationships which are not in opposition but are participatory, meaning infinite and permanent dependence.”29 The concept of participation is best underlined by comparing the effect of grace under the Protestant and Catholic positions. Under the Protestant conception of grace (Journet here is speaking generally), there is a great separation of God and man (even after justification, man remains “really, formally” a sinner30), whereas for Journet there is a supernatural union between God and man,31 indeed “so that the Church forms with Christ, by

29 EVI III, 1831. “…rapports qui ne sont pas de conflit mais de participation.” See also footnote 592 on pp. 1878- 79, where, summarizing Augustine and Thomas, Journet writes that the act of justification “is entirely from God as first Cause and entirely from man as second cause.” 30 EVI II, 395. 31 EVI II, 394-96: “Between the traditional doctrine of incorporation to Christ and the doctrine proposed by the Reformation, the break is profound. … [Journet now summarizes the two views, first the Reformed and then the traditional.] And the direct effect of such an appropriation is simply for men to pass from (de faire passer) a kingdom of juridical solidarity, where they not yet members of Christ, to another kingdom of juridical solidarity, where they now are members of Christ. … And the direct effect of justification is to cause to descend the justice of Christ, the grace and truth of Christ, into the heart of men, to make them pass from (de les faire passer) a kingdom of simply juridical solidarity, where they were members of Christ potentially (en puissance), to a kingdom of real and ontological solidarity, where they are members of Christ in act.” Under the traditional view, Journet sums up the effect on the Church: “The sin of men passes juridically to Christ, but the justice of Christ passes really to His Church, so that grace superabounds where sin abounded.” Ibid., 396.

320 union of love in grace, a single, real person.”32 Of course, since man must make a love of preference for God over creatures – so desired by God – to reach beatitude and eternal union with God, salvation cannot be the result of a half-hearted effort, or of indifference, or of neglect.

A definitive choice by the subject is fundamental to an act of love, either of creatures over the

Creator, or of the Creator over creatures. What is the goal of love? Better, what is the goal of the subject who exercises the virtue of love? The answer is: union with the beloved. Since the best definition of love (as a verb) is velle alicui bonum,33 salvation, in its simplest form, is a question of ordering one’s loves. And Journet wished to frame the issue of salvation in terms of that virtue which the will exercises, namely love: “Is it an inert statue of clay that God created and loved at the beginning of the world, or is it a living soul which may return him love for love?”34

********

After the Fall, fallen man is not abandoned by God but is rather given the opportunity to re-gain what Adam forfeited. Journet’s theology of grace is consonant with the natural capacities of fallen human nature. Journet concluded, in contrast to classical Reformed theology, that there was an ordered causality with respect to the grace of salvation: the rational creature wills to accept or wills to reject a divinely-offered supernatural gift, to respond positively or negatively to divine charity. God created human nature such that even sin cannot obliterate man’s ontological capacity to choose to love. Man’s free will is respected, first by the Creator (before the Fall) and then by the Redeemer (after the Fall). So much does God desire the rational

32 EVI II, 396. 33 ST I, q. 26, a. 4, resp. 34 EVI III, 1887. [Cf. Chapter Two, fn 453 page 160]

321 creature’s freely willed love of preference that it serves as the basis (along with grace) for the union of God and man in beatitude.

How does man gain access to supernatural, Christic grace in order to make a love of preference? Having noted that both God and man are active in man’s salvation, we now turn to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, the City of God, reiterating that She, too, is not only very active but central in Journet’s theology of the history of salvation.

E. The Visible Church as the Agent of Christ’s Saving Work, Conveying Christic Grace via the Sacraments, as Contrary to the Reformed Notion of an Invisible Church

Introduction As we have noted, one component of the divine response to sin is the establishment of a new order of grace, Christic grace. Journet’s Christological focus, which contemplated the

Church as the agent of recapitulation via its distribution of Christic grace by Derivation by

Contact via the sacraments, is also a defense of the supernatural, visible nature of the Church. It is in describing the Church that Journet stated: “the charity of the new law is colored by the

Christian sacraments.”35 Underlying this description is an assertion that Christ founded a visible

Church to carry on His saving work in the world. Our focus will be on two areas: Journet’s defense of: i) the visible nature of the Church, and ii) the power the Church is given to convey supernatural grace via the sacraments. In his defense, it appears (particularly from EVI III) that

Journet challenged the opposing views of John Calvin (1509-1564) and Karl Barth. Since the

Incarnation is the basis for both the Church’s visibility and the Church’s sacraments, Journet was eager to defend not only the Incarnation but two of its effects. While doing so, he observed that man as a body-soul composite best grasps spiritual realities through sensible things.

35 EVI IV, 309.

322

1. The Visibility of the Church Introduction As to why the Church is visible, Journet explained that the Church is visible following the example of the Word made Flesh, who became visible upon taking flesh. As to how the Church is actually visible, Journet suggested two viewpoints. From a metaphysical perspective, the

Church is visible because Her nature includes a bodily (as well as a spiritual) element. From a theological perspective of grace, Journet notes two aspects of the Church’s visibility: First,

Christic grace assists the believer to act in a supernatural way, who thus makes a visible impression in the world. Second, to convey grace via sacraments having a material element, the

Church, as receiver and bestower of the sacraments, as well as to perform other magisterial acts to benefit the faithful, the Church must possess a physical (and hence visible) point of contact.

We now turn to compare the understanding of the visibility of the Church between Journet and that of Calvin and Barth; this latter view we can only summarize with broad strokes. a. The Position of Calvin and Barth with a Comparison to Journet’s Position

In EVI III, Journet contrasts the understanding of Calvin, Barth, and Thomas vis-à-vis the visibility of the Church. Whereas Calvin taught that there were two , one visible and perishable, and one invisible and permanent,36 Journet understands Barth to teach

“one single Church, [which is] sometimes both visible and invisible, and sometimes visible.”37 In contrast, Journet sees the Church as comprised of “Spirit and body,” consequently, “a synthesis of contrasts.”38 In the Protestant view, this mysterious synthesis turns into “contradictions.”39

36 EVI III, 1837. 37 EVI III, 1837-38. “…une seule Église, qui’il declare, tantôt à la fois visible et invisible, et tantôt visible.” Footnote references omitted. 38 EVI III, 1861. 39 EVI III, 1861.

323

From the Catholic perspective, the Church can be “seen” under three different expressions. First, with “empirical reason” as a society existing in the world.40 Second, with “profound” or

“metaphysical” reason, the Church appears as an “elevated sign” in the world, standing as a

“perpetual motive of credibility,” which is miraculous.41 Third, with supernatural faith, She appears as “the living Body of Christ and the indwelling of the Trinity,” whereby She is mysterious.42

In EVI II, Journet attempted to trace the source of the Protestant idea of the invisibility of the Church. After first noting that “[T]he thesis of the invisibility of the Church is active and often admitted in the Protestantism of modern times,” he proceeds to link it to a broader “overall design of the religious life,” or “evangelical spiritualism” (spiritualisme évangélique).43 He attributes to Protestant spiritualism a decidedly Cartesian bent, calling it:

[A] spiritualism of separation, because it seems to consider the soul as a pure spirit, [and] … that the spiritual energies have for [their] true end not only to free themselves but to separate themselves from matter, from visible things, from social realities, which will remain by definition foreign to the kingdom of God.44

Resulting from this philosophical worldview, Protestantism has a tendency to refuse various mysteries, including the Incarnation, “the mystery of one visible Church which would alone be divine (serait seule divine), [and] the mystery of the necessity of the sacraments for salvation and of the power which they have to cause grace instrumentally.”45 In another place, Journet noticed that this spiritualism leads to separating “the divine element (invisible

Church) from the human (visible Churches) and to oppose grace and nature, faith and

40 EVI III, 1862. 41 EVI III, 1862. 42 EVI III, 1862. 43 EVI II, 88. 44 EVI II, 89. 45 EVI II, 89.

324 reason.”46 A philosophical underpinning leads to a tendency to separate what, in the natural and supernatural orders, ought to be united.

Journet held to a Thomistic anthropology. We keep this in mind as we now look a bit deeper into

Journet’s understanding of the visible nature of the Church. b. An Elaboration on the Position of Journet as to the Visibility of the Church i) A Visible Church Comports to Man as a Body-Soul Composite Why is it, in the divine mind, that the Church is visible? It is the very nature of the

Church to be visible, a point which Journet addresses in the opening pages of his The Theology of the Church. The Church’s visibility has as its basis the hypostatic union of the Word:

It is fitting that the Church, intended for men and gathering them together, is, like man, at the same time invisible and visible, composed of a spiritual soul and a visible body. … As, therefore, Christ has become the point of conjunction of the divine and human natures, so the Church has become the same for the divine supernatural elements – where grace dominates, by which we are rendered participants of the divine nature – and the natural element, which is the complete man, body and soul.47 By establishing a visible, tangible Church, it is as if God wishes to accommodate the twofold nature of man – body and spirit – so as: i) to make the Church more intelligible to man,48 and ii) to make the path to beatitude easier for man.49 Moreover, the Church’s visible nature simplifies man knowing where and how the Church acts sacramentally, what she teaches, and which specific spiritual and corporal She engages in. As a visible society in which man can participate, man gains a sense of solidarity (and, therefore,

46 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 11. 47 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 10-11. 48 Cf. EVI II, 77: “So therefore the Church…[is] first and principally spiritual, is nevertheless absolutely, essentially and formally visible.” Footnote reference omitted. Cf. 74-77. 49 Cf. Journet, The Theology of the Church, 101-04.

325 strength50) in the constant spiritual battle which all men undergo. The sacraments themselves give a certitude, for example, the certitude of Christ’s real, true, and substantial presence in the Holy Eucharist. An invisible Church would not present these benefits to man.

Just as in the Old Testament, a physical temple was constructed, served by an active priesthood performing numerous ceremonies, and attended by both Jews and (in a limited way) Gentiles, so in the New Testament a visible Church is established, and served by a superior priesthood visibly confecting sacraments which confer invisible grace to the faithful. Man, as a body-soul composite, not only learns of natural things through the senses but his spiritual life is also marked by innumerable physical dimensions: the architecture of buildings, the chanting of sacred hymns, the sprinkling of holy water, the presence of statues of the saints, the use incense and of a great number of sacramentals, the innumerable bodily postures and gestures, the specific colors of priestly vestments for certain feast days, and even the clothing of the laity are sensible ways to serve the spiritual life. A system of worship which includes physical, sensible actions seems to be, in the divine design, the most effective way to reach man spiritually. An invisible Church would not place as much emphasis on employing sensible realities to move man to improve his grasp of spiritual truths.

We have one last observation on Journet’s teaching of a visible Church. Recall that

Journet insisted that the Church “began the evening of the Fall.” Said another way, the

Church did not exist “in the beginning.” Furthermore, we know that the Church is closely

50 1 Peter 5:8-9: “8 Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour. 9 Whom resist ye, strong in faith: knowing that the same affliction befalls your brethren who are in the world.”

326 associated with Christic/redemptive grace (not Transfigurative grace). We concluded, then, that Journet’s teaching on a visible Church comported to man as a body-soul composite is even more true of fallen man:

It is at the moment when God decides to pour out upon men his supreme favors…that the law that will preside for the whole economy of salvation appears: namely, that since the Fall, grace and truth will be communicated to us by means of visible things.51

This is not to deny that prelapsarian Adam would not have benefitted from employing sensible things to advance in knowledge and worship of God. Rather, the risk is that fallen man may more easily misuse sensible things. Therefore, God utilizes a visible Church employing material things to reduce this risk, so that man may properly go from the known to the unknown, from the visible to the visible.52 ii) Two Ways in which the Church is Actually Visible

The Church’s actual visibility in the world takes two forms. Journet noted that the

Church is truly visible because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit via grace in men who reflect that fact such that “a change is produced even in their exterior condition and comportment.”53 Since the graced person has a “principle of a new mode of being and acting,” the holiness of a person through grace shows outwardly in acts of virtue.54 In

51 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 99-100. In context, Journet is discussing the Apostolic Hierarchy. Later in the same chapter, he discusses the power of those given to confect the sacraments – cf. Ibid., 113 and fn. 26 supra. 52 We have previously noted Journet quoting ST III, q. 1, a. 3, ad 1: “Because man, having abandoned God, was bogged down in material things, it was fitting that God took flesh in order to open for him a way toward salvation by the very means of corporal things.” EVI IV, 290. I extend the same Thomistic principle which Journet applied to the Incarnation to material things in general. 53 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 9. 54 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 9.

327 addition, Church is visible in a second way, that of Her hierarchical powers, of teaching, of worship (including the sacraments), and of “the liturgical offices and public prayers.”55

********

Since the Mystical Body of Christ is “the Church of the law of grace,” and that grace is Christic, we can summarize that She is “the Church of the Word Incarnate.”56 Just as the Second Person became visible upon assuming a human nature, so the Church as His Kingdom possesses a visible dimension. The Church is actually visible in the world since She is “a prolongation in space and time”57 of Christ, an “extension of the Incarnation,”58 whereby “the mediation of the

Incarnation”59 is prolonged via the Church’s sacramental powers. We shall now turn, briefly, to

Journet’s teaching on that sacramental power of the Church, which, while important in itself also illustrates the visibility of the Church at worship to convey grace through Her use of tangible, material things.

2. The Church Acts in Time to Dispense Grace via the Sacraments

For Journet, the Church is first and foremost the means Christ established to convey grace. It is the Church alone which distributes Christic grace by Derivation by Contact through the sacraments, which is the fullness of Christic grace: indeed, as guardian and dispenser of the sacraments, the Church receives “a causal dignity.”60 Journet describes Christ as “the dispenser of the interior grace of salvation,”61 who established a Kingdom, the Church, through which He

55 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 10. 56 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 12. Cf. EVI IV, 1026: “In this New Law, in which the central element is grace as received by the sacraments and oriented by doctrine, and which, become thus fully Christic…” 57 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 10. 58 EVI I, 14. 59 EVI IV, 909. 60 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 103. 61 EVI IV, 830.

328 distributes said grace: she is “the city of the graces of salvation”62 and the “kingdom of grace.”63

Since Christ has a Kingdom through which He distributes His grace, it is evident that He is active in salvation history continuously, from the Fall to the Last Day. Journet seemed to say that

Christ is at the “center of time” of the Church because He is its linchpin vis-à-vis grace:

It is the center of time of the Church that He [Christ] will occupy, drawing to Him the preceding centuries, giving their impetus (impulsion) to centuries to come. He will be both, in the order of grace, the supreme end of a long preparation [of anticipation] and the supreme beginning of one [the order] of derivation.64

Grace, of course, is what “transforms and makes” men into “living stones of the City of God.”65

In this sense we suggest that Church “is everywhere” in EVI IV because grace is everywhere.66

Journet emphasized consistently throughout that the sacraments are of vital importance for “they are the prolongation in the course of the ages of actions inaugurated by Christ,”67 and have as their purpose to bring “Him to us,”68 or, in language now familiar to us, to help the believer “to be conformed to the image of his Son.”69 It is Christ Himself who, through the sacraments, purifies the world.70 Of course, the sacraments are mysterious, both in themselves

(for example, the various miracles occurring pertaining to the substance and accidents of the

62 EVI IV, 698. 63 EVI IV, 599. 64 EVI IV, 831. [See also fn 154 in Chapter Three, p. 199.] Footnote reference omitted. Such transformation is a key element of the divine intention, since the Trinity “resolved to communicate itself more intimately to men in the last age of their history and, by the visible missions of the Word (at the Incarnation) and the Spirit (at Pentecost), to bring forth for this purpose a Church where charity would be sacramental and directed, supreme and indefectible.” Journet, The Theology of the Church, 83. Emphasis added. 65 EVI IV, 830. Such a transformation is required, since a divine indwelling is not natural to man: to partake of the divine nature, “it is necessary…[that man] be endowed with spiritual gifts.” Journet, The Theology of the Church, 8. 66 See also the Appendix “How Grace Develops and the Classifications of Time,” where we summarize Journet’s Ages of the Church and the associated category of grace. With no qualification Journet declares the Church “is the universe of redemption, mundus reconciliatus.” EVI IV, 32. We add that Journet, in titling Chapter Three of EVI IV, equates the Church with the universe of redemption: “The Church or the Universe of Redemption: Her Pilgrimage in Historical Time.” EVI IV, 553. 67 EVI IV, 906. 68 EVI IV, 906. 69 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 175, quoting Rom 8:29. Emphasis added by Journet. 70 EVI IV, 949.

329 matter the Holy Eucharist) and in their function (to convey supernatural grace). Even on a natural level, the sacraments – in virtue of their sensible element – serve to remind the faithful that created things ought not be an obstacle to spiritual things; rather, they ought to point the believer to the Creator. Similar to what we saw vis-à-vis the visibility of the Church, so also the tangible nature of the sacraments comports to human nature:

This preeminence [of Christ communicating grace by contact] resides in the fact that our nature, in this life and insofar as it is fallen, is in need of a sensible shock, as it were, in order to be connaturally awakened to the life of grace. And this is why when Christ desired to communicate his supreme favors, he touched us in a sensible manner.71

3. Summary

The Church’s visibility arises from Her nature, which in turn serves the Church’s mission to bestow sacraments to dispense the grace of Christ. Since Her visible nature follows the example of the Incarnation, Journet detected a Christological basis for both Her visibility and sacramental power.

Both dimensions, that of sacramental power and actual visibility of the Church: i) illustrate that God is active in the world today, ii) evidence the Church’s divine and supernatural origin, and iii) show the Church’s supernatural purpose.72 Journet’s position was in clear opposition to the understanding of the nature of the Church from that of liberal Protestantism, as well as from classical Protestantism historically. A visible, active Church serves not only to convey grace. By commanding obedience, but all the more by attracting through Her beauty,

71 Journet, The Theology of the Church, 104. 72 In the very beginning of EVI IV, Journet, writes of the Church: “which receives a new finality, a mission higher and holier than that of the first universe.” EVI IV, 32. At the very end of the volume, we read: “It will be clear while the visible missions of the Word and of the Holy Spirit only had for an end to conceal inside the Church a time bomb capable when it [the time bomb] would explode to transfigure the universe.” EVI IV, 1070.

330 historical witness, perennial liturgical cultus, lives of the saints, testimony in the face of persecution, and continuous proclaiming of the Deposit of Faith, the Church prevents a subjectivism and a relativism from attempting to alter or omit what was received from the

Apostolic Tradition. Journet always wishes to keep in mind “the divine-human mystery of the

Church.”73 Thus in many ways Journet’s theology of the visible Church receives and echoes the teaching of Pius XII:

We will set forth before the eyes of all and extol the beauty, the praises, and the glory of Mother Church to whom, after God, we owe everything.74

Chapter Conclusion In the face of various secularist, rationalist, liberal Protestant, and classical Protestant trends in early 20th century Switzerland, Journet endeavored and successfully accomplished a defense of the supernatural, utilizing a thorough Christological emphasis. Since Christ’s

Incarnation and redemptive act form the divine response to sin, the “problem of evil” was met on the divine level by the “solution of mercy.” While everything (in the divine intention) in creation and redemption points to the Word made flesh, Christ did not “need” to become man: He did so as an act of charity on fallen man’s behalf. Journet argued that fallen (but-still-redeemable) man can only reach a supernatural end with the aid of Christic sanctifying grace. Since God respects the natures of rational creatures, even divine aid can be received or refused. Journet was careful to protect the exercise of human free will vis-à- vis supernatural grace. Indeed, now-fallen man’s ability (through grace) to rise above his condition by loving God above all things evidenced a “partnership” in salvation history. As

73 EVI V, Editor’s forward, v (emphasis added), as noted in Chapter One, footnote 172 on page 49. 74 Pius XII, Mystici corporis Christi, June 29, 1943, no. 3.

331 a dispenser of divine grace and charity (most efficaciously through the sacraments), the

Church necessarily possesses a visible nature, which enables man to perceive more easily divine actions (especially the divine offer of grace) in a fallen world. Journet answered various claims of secularism, rationalism, liberal Protestantism, and classical as well as modern Reformed theology by forming a theology of supernatural grace whose origin and development were directly linked to the life of the Incarnate Word, and which simultaneously appealed to man that sin (and its effects of suffering and death) do not render man’s earthly existence meaningless. Rather, the evil of sin and its effects can be overcome by a graced, freely-willed, love of preference, wherein the charitable acceptance of suffering become a means to aid oneself and others to eternal life.

Overall Conclusion

Cardinal Charles Journet’s theology of the history of salvation prioritized the divinity of Christ and illustrated a strong Christological focus, on which is based his theology of grace. His theology of grace, in turn, is founded on a two-fold love, specifically, whether the love of God is returned by fallen man or not. He detailed the development of sanctifying grace (from Transfigurative to Christic) due to the Incarnation and Christ’s redemptive act, from prelapsarian Adam to Pentecost, whereby it changes not in essence but in its characteristics and effects. With this as an overview, let us now summarize the guiding principles of Journet’s theology.

Journet’s overarching organizing theological principle is that all things (even the permission of evil) are ordered to the glory of Christ. The Father glorifies Christ for His objective redemption of fallen man, wherein a new order of grace (Christic grace) is inaugurated.

In addition, man actually reaching beatitude subjectively (via a graced love of preference) results in man rendering a twofold glory of God: i) man receiving divinely-bestowed benefits which reveals divine goodness, and ii) once-fallen and now-restored man exalting Christ. From

Journet’s understanding of recapitulation we learn that the world of redemption is better, in total, than the universe of innocence, precisely because the change in sanctifying grace brought about by the Incarnation and redemptive act (the divine response to sin) permits man to be conformed to the suffering Christ. Such a conformity is preeminently expressed by a love of preference, which leads to man reaching beatitude, which in turn leads to Christ’s glory.

Journet’s theology of creation begins with the principle that God freely created a world of nature and of grace because He wished to be freely loved by rational creatures. Not only are the natures

332

333 of those creatures capable of being elevated to a supernatural state, but such is God’s intention.

His theology of the history of salvation is first informed by God’s antecedent v. consequent will

– God wills the rational creature to have eternal life, but conditionally. (We add that the theology of salvation history is essentially a mystery, since salvation only occurs in that God wills to save fallen man.) In a world of ordinate, divine power, God only moves creatures in accord with their natures; hence, the rational creature is placed in a state of journeying so as to have the opportunity to embrace freely the beatitude offered by cooperating with supernatural grace in order to make a “love of preference.”

His theology of grace is based on two principles: i) the interchange of divine grace and human free will occurs in a relationship of ordered causality, and ii) the freedom of the creature is consistently recognized. As to the latter: with respect to the angels, and in every economy of salvation regarding man, the free will of the rational creature is universally respected. Of crucial importance, the rational creature participates in the work of redemption: attaining salvation is framed by the freely-willed ordering of one’s loves, which can be neither forced nor feigned.

Journet was determined to safeguard the free will of the rational creature against any attempt to excise or overrule its power to love, in part as he wished to stress “the mystery of mutual, consenting love.”75

The ordered causality noted a moment ago is evidenced by cooperative grace; first, a motion of sufficient grace, whereby God offers the rational creature beatitude. If the creature does not “break” the divine motion of sufficient grace, that motion “fructifies of itself” into an “unbreakable” divine motion of efficacious grace, with which the will makes a

75 White, “Von Balthasar and Journet,” 664. Footnote reference omitted.

334 meritorious, graced act wherein the creature not only actively prefers God to lower goods but loves God above all lower goods. Consequently, the rational creature “exceeds”76 its nature and receives the gift of beatitude.

But man is not saved as an isolated individual. Since the Church is the Mystical

Body of Christ and the City of God, it is equivalent to the “universe of redemption,” and is the visible vehicle through which grace is communicated to mankind, most efficaciously through the sacraments. The development of grace (along with the hypostatic union) serves as the basis for explaining Her divine origin, as well as Her supernatural nature, mission, and destiny, along with Her development in time. Since the Church is present throughout salvation history under all economies of grace, we can say God is acting constantly through salvation history. God is not absent. God calls each person individually, but He does so through the mystical society of the Church.

The internal, theological logic of EVI IV is this: Christ’s Incarnation and redemption caused a development in sanctifying grace; the change in grace caused a development of the

Church; these two developments defined the way in which salvation history unfolds in the world.

By a divine condescension, fallen man is once again offered eternal life. By accepting Christic grace merited by the suffering Christ, man is able to follow the Cross to supernatural beatitude.

The Crucified Christ takes hold of the effects of sin entering the world – suffering and death – such that they are no longer methods by which the Enemy mocks man, but instead can become – through a love of preference – occasions of charity.

76 EVI IV, 274.

335

I maintain that at the center of Journet’s theological account of salvation history stands the interaction of sanctifying grace and the freedom of the rational creature, and the paramount impact of the Incarnation and redemptive act on this interchange. The conclusion of my inquiry is that it is the constant availability of Christic sanctifying grace first by anticipation, and then by derivation (ultimately by contact, through the sacraments), all through the Church, which serves: i) to provide an umbrella under which God’s redemptive action in the world can be seen as intelligible through a series of successive acts, and ii) to elucidate and amplify how the rational creature attains (or fails to attain) salvation via redemption. Journet highlighted that Christic grace enables its recipient to be conformed to

Christ, which is most particularly evidenced by man making a love of preference so as to suffer well in imitation of the Master, thereby providing a meaning to suffering, by which man merits also beatitude and thus glorifies Christ.

336

Appendix One

How Grace Develops and the Classifications of Time

Chapter Topic Age Time Key points One Fundamental N/A N/A État de Voie and État de Notions in the Terme Sense of History Two Age of the Father / Time Universe of Creation Creation / Anterior to [Age of Grace of Father] Innocence the Church  Section 1 Creation Creation makes possible the occurred in État de Terme État de Voie  Section 2 Creation of Grace of the Angels; Angels Angels and the Cosmos  Section 3 Creation of Time State of Original Justice/ Man Anterior to Transfigurative Grace; The the Church Fall Three Age of the Son Universe of Redemption  Section 1 Before the Age of the Long- First Divine Christic Grace by Incarnation: Awaited Son / Age Regime of the Anticipation / Virtually / Two of Christ to Come Church Accidentally Economies: / Age of Christ the Law of Nature Promised After the Fall: Redemptive / & Mosaic Law Redeemer Christic Grace  Section 2 Incarnation Age of Christ Second Christic Grace Actually / Present: Divine Essentially for the Angels Time between Regime of the Annunciation and Church Christic Grace by Derivation Ascension  Section 3 After Pentecost Age of the Holy Third Divine Christic Grace by Derivation Spirit / Christ the Regime of the Redeemer Come Church

Works Cited

Primary Sources Journet, Charles. “Dieu, proche ou distant?,” Nova et Vetera, 37, no. 1 (January – March 1962): 33-61.

______. “Dieu est-il responsable du péché?” Nova et Vetera, 34, no. 3 (July – September 1959): 206-236.

______. Entretiens sur L’Incarnation. Paris: Parole et Silence, 2002.

______. Essai de Théologie Spéculative, Volume 1 of L’Église du Verbe Incarné, Five Volumes. Oeuvres Complètes de Charles Journet. Saint-Maurice, Switzerland: Éditions Saint-Augustin, 1998. [La Hiérarchie Apostolique]

______. Essai de Théologie Spéculative, Volume 2 of L’Église du Verbe Incarné, Five Volumes. Oeuvres Complètes de Charles Journet. Saint-Maurice, Switzerland: Éditions Saint-Augustin, 1999. [Sa Structure Interne et Son Unité Catholique – Première Partie]

______. Essai de Théologie Spéculative, Volume 3 of L’Église du Verbe Incarné, Five Volumes. Oeuvres Complètes de Charles Journet. Saint-Maurice, Switzerland: Éditions Saint-Augustin, 2000. [Sa Structure Interne et Son Unité Catholique – Deuxième Partie]

______. Essai de Théologie de L’Historie du Salut, Volume 4 of L’Église du Verbe Incarné, Five Volumes. Oeuvres Complètes de Charles Journet. Saint-Maurice, Switzerland: Éditions Saint-Augustin, 2004.

______. Compléments et Inédits, Volume 5 of L’Église du Verbe Incarné, Five Volumes. Oeuvres Complètes de Charles Journet. Saint-Maurice, Switzerland: Éditions Saint- Augustin, 2005.

______. The Meaning of Evil. Translated by Michael Barry. New York: P.J. Kennedy & Sons, 1963.

______. The Meaning of Grace. Translated by A.V. Littledale. New York: Scepter, 1996. ______. The Theology of the Church. Translated by Victor Szczurek, O. Praem. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004.

337

Secondary Sources Magisterial Documents, all taken from the Vatican website, www.vatican.va.

Donum veritatis Mystici corporis Christi Provindentissimus Deus Salvifici doloris Spe salvi Verbum domini Veritatis splendor

Anselm, Saint. Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works. Edited by Brain Davies and G.R. Evans. 1998. Reissued. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Aquinas, Saint Thomas. Compendium of Theology. Translated by Richard J. Regan. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. ______. Comm. ad Eph. https://dhspriory.org/thomas/Eph1.htm#3. ______. De Malo. Edited by Brian Davies. Translated by Richard Regan. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. ______. De veritate. https://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/QDdeVer27.htm#3. ______. Summa Contra Gentiles. https://dhspriory.org. ______. Summa Theologica. https://dhspriory.org. ______. The Three Greatest Prayers. Translated by Laurence Shapcote, O.P. 1990. Reprint. Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 1997. Augustine, Saint. Concerning the City of God against the Pagans. Translated by Henry Bettenson. London: Penguin Books, 1972. ______. Confessions. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

______. De doctrina christiana. Translated by R. P. H. Green. 1999. Reissued. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Hilary, Saint. De Trinitatae. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 9, St. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus. Edited by Phillip Schaff and Henry Wace. Translated by E.W. Watson and L. Pullan, et al. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999.

338

Anatolios, Khaled. Athanasius. London and New York: Routledge, 2004.

Benedict, XVI [Pope]. General Audience, February 13, 2005. http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2013/documents/hf_ben- xvi_aud_20130213.html, accessed August 1, 2018.

Boethius. The Consolation of Philosophy. Translated by Victor Watts. Revised ed. London and New York: Penguin, 1999.

Boissard, Guy. Charles Journet (1891-1975). Paris: Éditions Salvator, 2008.

Bonino, Serge-Thomas, O.P. Angels and Demons: A Catholic Introduction. Translated by Michael J. Miller. Washington, D.C.: CUA Press, 2016. ______. Preface to Causalité divine et péché dans le théologie de saint Thomas d’Aquin: Examen critique du concept de motion ‘brisable,’ by Fabio Schmitz, 8. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2016.

Bonjour, E., H.S. Offler and G.R. Potter. A Short History of Switzerland. 1952. Reprint. Westport, CT.: Greenwood Press, 1985. Cessario, Romanus, O.P. “Thomas Aquinas: A Doctor for the Ages.” First Things, March 1999, 27-32. Church, Clive H. and Randolph C. Head. A Concise History of Switzerland. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Collins, James. The Thomistic Philosophy of the Angels. Washington, D.C.: CUA Press, 1947. Copleston, Frederick, S.J. A History of Philosophy. Vol. 9, From the French Revolution to Sartre, Camus, and Lévi-Strauss. New York: Image Books, 1994. ______. A History of Philosophy. Vol. 7, Modern Philosophy: From the Post-Kantian Idealists to Marx, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche. New York: Image Books, 1994.

Cottier, Georges, O.P. Preface to Entretiens sur L’Incarnation, by Charles Journet, 6. Paris: Parole et Silence, 2002.

_____. Preface to EVI I, xi.

_____. Preface to The Theology of the Church, by Charles Journet, xxvii. Translated by Victor Szczurek, O. Praem. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004.

339

Davies, Brian. Introduction to De Malo, 35-36. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Diriart, Sister Alexandra. Ses Frontières sont la Charité: L’Eglise Corps du Christ et “Lumen gentium.” Paris: Lethielleux, 2011.

Emery, Gilles, O.P. “La Question du Mal et le Mystère de Dieu chez Charles Journet,” in Charles Journet: Un Témoin du XXe Siècle. Edited by Marta Rossignotti Jaeggi and Guy Boissard. Acts de la Semaine théologique de l’Université de Fribourg Faculté de théologie, 8-12 avril 2002. Paris: Parole et Silence, 2003, at 301-325. Feingold, Lawrence. Faith comes from what is Heard: An Introduction to Fundamental Theology. Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Academic, 2016.

Garrigou-Lagrange, Réginald, O.P. God, His Existence and His Nature: A Thomistic Solution of Certain Agnostic Antinomies. Volume 2. Translated by Dom Bede Rose, O.S.B. St. Louis and London: Herder, 1936.

______. Grace: Commentary on the Summa theologica of St. Thomas, Ia IIae, qu. 109- 14. Translated by the Dominican Nuns, Corpus Christi Monastery, Menlo Park, California. St. Louis and London: Herder, 1952. ______. The One God: A Commentary on the First Part of St. Thomas’ Theological Summa. Translated by Dom Bede Rose, O.S.B. St. Louis and London: Herder, 1952. ______. Predestination. Translated by Dom Bede Rose, O.S.B. St. Louis and London: Herder, 1946. Graham, Aelred, O.S.B. The Christ of Catholicism: A Meditative Study. Garden City, New York: Image Books, 1957. Hütter, Reinhard. Review of Do Not Resist the Spirit’s Call: Francisco Marín-Sola on Sufficient Grace, by Michael Torre. The Thomist, 76, no. 2 (April, 2012): 305-311. Ker, Ian. Newman on Vatican II. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. La Soujeole (de), Benoît-Dominique, O.P. Introduction to the Mystery of the Church. Translated by Michael J. Miller. Washington, D.C.: CUA Press, 2014.

Legge, Dominic, O.P. The Trinitarian Christology of St Thomas Aquinas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Maritain, Jacques. God and the Permission of Evil. Translated by Joseph W. Evans. Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing, 1966. ______. Existence and the Existent. Translated by Lewis Galantiere and Gerald B. Phelan. New York: Pantheon Books, 1948.

340

______. The Sin of the Angel: An Essay on a Re-Interpretation of Some Thomistic Positions. Translated by William L. Rossner, S.J. Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1959. Miller, B. V. “God the Creator,” in The Teaching of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Catholic Doctrine. Vol. 1. Arranged and edited by George D. Smith. New York: MacMillan, 1960.

Newman, John Henry. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1968. O’Neill, John F. The Trinitarian Ecclesiology of Charles Cardinal Journet: The Great Mystery of Christ and the Church as the Visible Missions of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Ph. D dissertation, Ave Maria University, 2019. O’Neill, Taylor Patrick. Grace, Predestination, and the Permission of Sin: A Thomistic Analysis. Ph. D dissertation, Ave Maria University, 2017. ______. “Jacques Maritain and Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange on the Permission of Evil.” The Heythrop Journal (2016): 1-12. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/heyj. 12379. O’Rourke, Fran. “Evil as a Privation: the Neoplatonic Background to Aquinas’s De Malo, I,” in Aquinas’s Disputed Questions on Evil: A Critical Guide. Edited by M. V. Dougherty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016, at 192-221. Osborne, Thomas M., Jr. “Thomist Premotion and Contemporary Philosophy of Religion.” Nova et Vetera, English Edition, 4, no. 3 (2006): 607-631.

Ratzinger, Joseph. Behold the Pierced One: An Approach to a Spiritual Christology. Translated by Graham Harrison. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986. ______. Introduction to Christianity. Translated by J. R. Foster. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004. ______. The Nature and Mission of Theology: Essays to Orient Theology in Today’s Debates. Translated by Adrian Walker. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995.

______. On the Way to Jesus Christ. Translated by Michael J. Miller. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005. ______. Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion. Translated by Henry Taylor. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005. Rime, Jacques. Charles Journet: Vocation et Jeunesse d’un Théologien. Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg, Editions Saint-Paul, 2010.

341

Salmanticenses, The. On the Motive of the Incarnation. Translated by Dylan Schrader. Washington, D.C: The Catholic University of America Press, 2019. Saward, John. Redeemer in the Womb: Jesus Living in Mary. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993. ______. “L’Église a ravi son coeur: Charles Journet and the Theologians of Ressourcement on the Personality of the Church” in “Ressourcement:” A Movement for Renewal in Twentieth-Century Catholic Theology. Edited by Gabriel Flynn and Paul D. Murray. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2012, at 125-137. Schmitz, Fabio. Causalité divine et péché dans le théologie de saint Thomas d’Aquin: Examen critique du concept de motion ‘brisable.’ Paris: L’Harmattan, 2016. Schrader, Dylan. The Motive of the Incarnation and Christocentrism Today: Recovering the Salmanticenses. Ph. D dissertation, The Catholic University of America, 2018. Sheen, Fulton J. Philosophy of Religion: The Impact of Modern Knowledge on Religion. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1948. ______. Life of Christ. New York: McGraw Hill, 1958. Siemering, Sister Lucia M., O.P. “Capital Grace of the Word Incarnate According to Saint Thomas Aquinas.” Studia Gilsoniana 5, no. 2 (April-June 2016): 327-343.

Spiekermann, Dominic. The Christic Character of Grace, according to Charles Journet. Licentiate thesis, University of Fribourg, 2017. Smith, George. D. “An Outline of Catholic Teaching,” in The Teaching of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Catholic Doctrine. Vol. I. Arranged and edited by George D. Smith. New York: MacMillan, 1960.

Swafford, Andrew. Nature and Grace: A New Approach to Thomistic Ressourcement. Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick, 2014. Torre, Michael D. Do Not Resist the Spirit’s Call: Francisco Marín-Sola on Sufficient Grace. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2013. ______. “Francisco Marín-Sola, OP, and the Origin of Jacques Maritain’s Doctrine on God’s Permission of Evil.” Nova et Vetera, English Edition, 4, no. 1 (2006): 55-94. _____. God’s Permission of Sin: Negative or Conditional Decree?: A Defense of the Doctrine of Francisco Marín-Sola, O.P. based on the Principles of Thomas Aquinas. Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg, 2009. Torrell, Jean-Pierre, O.P. “Nature and Grace in Thomas Aquinas,” in Surnaturel: A Controversy at the Heart of Twentieth-Century Thomistic Thought. Translated by Robert Williams. Edited by Serge-Thomas Bonino, O.P. Ave Maria, FL: Sapientia Press, 2009, at 155-188.

342

Wawrykow, Joseph P. God’s Grace and Human Action: ‘Merit’ in the Theology of Thomas Aquinas. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995. Wippel, John F. “Metaphysical themes in De Malo, I,” in Aquinas’s Disputed Questions on Evil: A Critical Guide. Edited by M. V. Dougherty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016, at 12-33.

White, Thomas Joseph, O.P. The Incarnate Lord: A Thomistic Study in Christology. Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2015. ______. The Light of Christ: An Introduction to Catholicism. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2017. ______. “Intra-Trinitarian Obedience and Nicene-Chalcedonian Christology.” Nova et Vetera, English Edition, 6, no. 2 (2008): 377-402. ______. “Von Balthasar and Journet on the Universal Possibility of Salvation and the Twofold Will of God.” Nova et Vetera, English Edition, 4, no. 3 (2006): 633-666. No Author. “The Church, in the Word of God, Celebrates the Mysteries of Christ for the Salvation of the World,” The Final Report of the 1985 Extraordinary Synod. https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/SYNFINAL.HTM, accessed 8.13.2018.

343