Predestination

Started by Baldrick, November 02, 2014, 03:48:07 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Baldrick

I've been reading Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and John Salza's book on Predestination. 

I am fairly well read in philosophy, theology, thomism etc., and it's a bit embarrassing to say this, but I simply cannot make heads or tails of what they are trying to say with respect to Predestination, except in the most general way.   

Has anyone found a good, clear, direct, traditional Catholic explication of the doctrine: the different schools, what's essential to the doctrine, etc.? 

INPEFESS

I am not sure to which book you are referring--a book about Predestination or a book called Predestination--but the book by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange called "Predestination" is a fantastic analysis of the doctrine and thoroughly answers all the questions/topics you mentioned.
I  n
N omine
P atris,
E t
F ilii,
E t
S piritus
S ancti

>))))))º> "Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time" (II Peter 1:10). <º((((((<


Baldrick

I picked up Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's book last year - and found it rather difficult and so put it down.  Which is odd because I normally find him so very lucid.  So then I picked up Salza's book (the mystery of predestination) last week and it seems very unclear to me.  Maybe I'll go back to GL's book; I have noticed in the past that sometimes I don't quite fully get a book at one point of time, and then I go back to it and it seems to really speak to me.  Anyway, thanks!   

Maximilian

Quote from: Baldrick on November 02, 2014, 03:48:07 PM

I am fairly well read in philosophy, theology, thomism etc., and it's a bit embarrassing to say this, but I simply cannot make heads or tails of what they are trying to say with respect to Predestination, except in the most general way.   


That's not a very good sign, is it? Catholic doctrine should not be difficult to understand. Mysterious, yes, but totally opposed to modern philosophy which cloaks its lack of veracity in an impenetrable jargon.

I once studied deconstructionist philosophy, and the fact that it was incomprehensible convinced me that it must be evil, and that I should flee from it.

If anything presents itself as Catholic doctrine, but you can't make heads or tails of it, then there is something fundamentally wrong, not with you, but with the teaching.

Michael Wilson

You might try reading "Grace, Actual and Habitual; A Dogmatic Treatise" by Msgr. Joseph Pohle.  It not only covers the topic of actual and habitual grace, but also predestination. I found Msgr. Pohle's writing style and explanation easy to read and understand.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Sockpuppet

Quote from: Maximilian on November 02, 2014, 06:39:28 PM
Quote from: Baldrick on November 02, 2014, 03:48:07 PM

I am fairly well read in philosophy, theology, thomism etc., and it's a bit embarrassing to say this, but I simply cannot make heads or tails of what they are trying to say with respect to Predestination, except in the most general way.   


That's not a very good sign, is it? Catholic doctrine should not be difficult to understand. Mysterious, yes, but totally opposed to modern philosophy which cloaks its lack of veracity in an impenetrable jargon.

I once studied deconstructionist philosophy, and the fact that it was incomprehensible convinced me that it must be evil, and that I should flee from it.

If anything presents itself as Catholic doctrine, but you can't make heads or tails of it, then there is something fundamentally wrong, not with you, but with the teaching.

Are you rejecting church teaching?

INPEFESS

Quote from: Maximilian on November 02, 2014, 06:39:28 PM
Quote from: Baldrick on November 02, 2014, 03:48:07 PM

I am fairly well read in philosophy, theology, thomism etc., and it's a bit embarrassing to say this, but I simply cannot make heads or tails of what they are trying to say with respect to Predestination, except in the most general way.   


That's not a very good sign, is it? Catholic doctrine should not be difficult to understand. Mysterious, yes, but totally opposed to modern philosophy which cloaks its lack of veracity in an impenetrable jargon.

I once studied deconstructionist philosophy, and the fact that it was incomprehensible convinced me that it must be evil, and that I should flee from it.

If anything presents itself as Catholic doctrine, but you can't make heads or tails of it, then there is something fundamentally wrong, not with you, but with the teaching.

That doesn't necessarily follow. I would be careful conflating depth with evil. Thomistic predestination is extremely deep and mysterious, but it is not incomprehensible or surreptitious. It took me quite a while to understand it, too, but after reading and studying the topic for over a year, I began to realize that the problem was with my own misunderstanding of fundamental Thomistic concepts. I would have said before then that I was "fairly well read" in Thomism, too, but I learned that I hadn't quite understood it enough to apply it. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange draws his explanations from St. Thomas' own teachings on the matter; in fact, what I learned from studying Garrigou-Lagrange was that I hadn't really studied St. Thomas' own teachings on predestination enough to understand them. What Garrigou-Lagrange proves quite well is that the Thomistic school is in perfect concert with St. Thomas' own teachings on the matter. For example, St. Thomas has a very specific and structured explanation of free choice; if one understands it in the Molinistic sense (which everyone does unless they have specifically studied St. Thomas' teachings of it), Thomistic predestination will be utterly confusing and impenetrable. It assumes as a prerequisite that you know and understand the design, components, and operations of the will.

I do not mean to condescending to the OP, but what helped me was a return to such works as "De Veritate" to get a solid foundation in the Thomistic understanding of the concepts and principles involved, especially the will and how it "works," as it were. I was completely lost until I did this. After that, there are a few other resources on the subject that might be of some help.
I  n
N omine
P atris,
E t
F ilii,
E t
S piritus
S ancti

>))))))º> "Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time" (II Peter 1:10). <º((((((<


Gardener



There are two main schools:

Thomistic - Approaches from one perspective:
1) Ante Praevisa Merita - Before the Consideration of Merit - derived chiefly from Augustine.

Molinist - contains two sub-schools of thought:
1) Ante Praevisa Merita (APM)  -- I see no point in subscribing to APM Molinism; might as well be in the Thomistic camp or in the Congruist (mentioned at end of post).
2) Post Praevisa Merita (PPM) - After the Consideration of Merit -- St. Francis de Sales belonged to this school. It makes the most sense Scripturally, according to him, and I believe it is the most sensible Scriptural position.

The Thomists charge the Molinists with tending towards Semi-Pelagianism; the Molinists say, generally, that Thomism on the issue tends towards Calvinism. It must be noted that Calvin found merit (har har) in his ideas via St. Augustine and St. Thomas.

The Church doesn't subscribe to either school at an official, organizational level. That has to be reiterated, as the discussion can get hot. The. Church. Does. Not. Endorse. Any. Particular. School. St. Francis de Sales himself was the one which discouraged the Pope from doing so when the issue reached an argumentative head between the Dominicans and the Jesuits.

What the Church teaches is that the saved are predestined to glory and the damned are given over to reprobation via willful sin -- this is where the two schools begin their diverging.

Where the Thomists draw a conclusion on this is that the Reprobate were not given "efficacious grace", but were given "sufficient grace" and were not moved by the will of God to make use towards the separate efficacious grace (which calls into question another, unnamed grace between the two, frankly). Thus, the reprobate damn themselves by mortal sin via the lack of the necessary grace to not fall into mortal sin. This differs from Calvinism in that Calvin's system has God as the cause of sin -- literally making evil. I maintain that the Thomistic system does this as well, but implicitly vs explicitly, as God omits the TRULY necessary grace to choose Him. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Augustine's take, the font of the controversy, is due to his inability to reconcile his years of resisting God prior to conversion. It must also be noted that Augustine was in the minority, party of one, Augustine, amongst the Occidental Fathers on the issue, and the East subscribes to more of the PPM school as well -- both Orthodox and Catholic.

The PPM Molinists, such as St. Francis de Sales, say that sufficient and efficacious grace are the same thing, and that man's free choice in making use in accordance with the will of God is what determines his movement toward, or away from, God -- thus, the sufficiency of the grace remains in either, but it becomes efficacious through acceptance. Finally, man's end in eternity, be it heaven or hell, is predicated on his final choice: accept and die in friendship with God, or reject, and be given over to hell. Realistically, that moment, be it at age 15 or minutes before death, multiple or singular, is all which God requires of Himself at the basic level. Whether singular or multiple, it is still gratuitous and of itself cannot be merited. But good use of grace is certainly meritorious.


Where I believe the Thomists err in their charge against PPM thought is the idea of it being man's merit aside from God. This merit must be supernatural in origin. This merit then is the merit of the Cross, of Christ, and man's cooperation with Christ in man's salvation. Such a distinction is perfectly in line with the writings of St. Francis de Sales on the issue -- a take which decidedly castigates the ones who would rightfully earn the ire and charge of the Thomists, for they earn the ire of St. Francis de Sales as well.

If John Salza's book approaches the question from the perspective of Thomism, you're better off putting it away and focusing on Garrigou-Lagrange -- he is a preeminent Thomistic scholar; Salza... not so much. At most, Salza would present a bunch of various theological opinions without a good, solid explanation of them at the level of which Garrigou-Lagrange is most capable. Salza might be able to make it a little more pedestrian, but I am of the opinion that would add to the confusion more than take away. Garrigou-Lagrange's writing on this is THICK, like St. Thomas', but it will present the Thomistic school accurately. Just gotta keep at it.

Here are some excerpts from St. Francis de Sales: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=214&ChapNum=22

Look up Fr. William Most, on the subject of Predestination.

Also, checkout newadvent.org's entry on it.

And now for James03 to come in at some point and argue for the 3rd, more obscure, system: Congruism: which leaves me in the same boat as the OP on Thomism: confused. :D

As a final caveat, I should warn you: be weary of walking into the swamp of this question at a deep level. It can very much mess with you and cause unnecessary grief depending on what you read, where you are in life when you read it, etc. It almost drove St. Francis de Sales to despair before he finally pardoned himself of Sts. Augustine and Aquinas, through the help of Christ. St. Francis was at his mental end after around 3 weeks of wrestling with the issue. According to the story, he heard the voice of Christ saying, "I am not he who damns. My name is Jesus". Jesus, of course, is transliterated Greek for Yehoshua (Joshua), meaning, "God Saves". That is the moment when St. Francis took leave of the opinion of Augustine and Aquinas and fully embraced PPM thought on the issue.

"If anyone does not wish to have Mary Immaculate for his Mother, he will not have Christ for his Brother." - St. Maximilian Kolbe

Maximilian

#8
Quote from: INPEFESS on November 03, 2014, 08:34:07 AM

I would be careful conflating depth with evil.


It is not depth that is evil, but confusion.
Mary said, "He has confused the proud in their inmost thoughts."

St. John the Evangelist wrote the deepest things ever put on paper by a human. But his language is very clear and straightforward. There is no attempt to create an artificial illusion of depth by using incomprehensible language.

As I read through my missal, it repeatedly strikes me just how simple and straightforward is the language used by St. John. His grammar is never complex. He rarely uses any devices of classical rhetoric or unusual vocabulary.

The things he says are deep, but not confusing. His ideas are truly profound, while expressed in straightforward sentences.

Today's Mass had 4 different Gospel readings by St. John. Each of them expressed very profound concepts. But the language of each could be read without much difficulty by a 1st-year Latin student.

Quote from: INPEFESS on November 03, 2014, 08:34:07 AM

Thomistic predestination is extremely deep and mysterious, but it is not incomprehensible or surreptitious. It took me quite a while to understand it, too, but after reading and studying the topic for over a year, I began to realize that the problem was with my own misunderstanding of fundamental Thomistic concepts. I would have said before then that I was "fairly well read" in Thomism, too, but I learned that I hadn't quite understood it enough to apply it. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange draws his explanations from St. Thomas' own teachings on the matter; in fact, what I learned from studying Garrigou-Lagrange was that I hadn't really studied St. Thomas' own teachings on predestination enough to understand them. What Garrigou-Lagrange proves quite well is that the Thomistic school is in perfect concert with St. Thomas' own teachings on the matter. For example, St. Thomas has a very specific and structured explanation of free choice; if one understands it in the Molinistic sense (which everyone does unless they have specifically studied St. Thomas' teachings of it), Thomistic predestination will be utterly confusing and impenetrable. It assumes as a prerequisite that you know and understand the design, components, and operations of the will.


Religion that is available only to those initiated into an esoteric school of arcane jargon is not Christianity but Gnosticism.

Christ didn't use any big words. No one had to go to graduate school to understand what He said. He spoke to simple people, but He was rejected by the scribes and the pharisees.

Lydia Purpuraria

Quote from: Maximilian on November 03, 2014, 01:18:03 PM
Quote from: INPEFESS on November 03, 2014, 08:34:07 AM

I would be careful conflating depth with evil.


It is not depth that is evil, but confusion.
Mary said, "He has confused the proud in their inmost thoughts."

St. John the Evangelist wrote the deepest things ever put on paper by a human. But his language is very clear and straightforward. There is no attempt to create an artificial illusion of depth by using incomprehensible language.

As I read through my missal, it repeatedly strikes me just how simple and straightforward is the language used by St. John. His grammar is never complex. He rarely uses any devices of classical rhetoric or unusual vocabulary.

The things he says are deep, but not confusing. His ideas are truly profound, while expressed in straightforward sentences.

Today's Mass had 4 different Gospel readings by St. John. Each of them expressed very profound concepts. But the language of each could be read without much difficulty by a 1st-year Latin student.

Quote from: INPEFESS on November 03, 2014, 08:34:07 AM

Thomistic predestination is extremely deep and mysterious, but it is not incomprehensible or surreptitious. It took me quite a while to understand it, too, but after reading and studying the topic for over a year, I began to realize that the problem was with my own misunderstanding of fundamental Thomistic concepts. I would have said before then that I was "fairly well read" in Thomism, too, but I learned that I hadn't quite understood it enough to apply it. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange draws his explanations from St. Thomas' own teachings on the matter; in fact, what I learned from studying Garrigou-Lagrange was that I hadn't really studied St. Thomas' own teachings on predestination enough to understand them. What Garrigou-Lagrange proves quite well is that the Thomistic school is in perfect concert with St. Thomas' own teachings on the matter. For example, St. Thomas has a very specific and structured explanation of free choice; if one understands it in the Molinistic sense (which everyone does unless they have specifically studied St. Thomas' teachings of it), Thomistic predestination will be utterly confusing and impenetrable. It assumes as a prerequisite that you know and understand the design, components, and operations of the will.


Religion that is available only to those initiated into an esoteric school of arcane jargon is not Christianity by Gnosticism.

Christ didn't use any big words. No one had to go to graduate school to understand what He said. He spoke to simple people, but He was rejected by the scribes and the pharisees.

I always thought of this when trying to read JPII's Encyclicals, etc when I first converted.  I could not get through them, they were so wordy and it seemed like he could have said what he was saying with about half (or less) the amount of pages.  I noticed early on that for the most part, Pre-JPII Encyclicals were generally much shorter, more clear, and able to be understood without a headache. 

INPEFESS

#10
I agree with most of your post, Gardener. I am pleased by the maturity with which you approach the question.

Still, I think it is worth saying that, from a Thomistic perspective, it is much more likely that St. Francis did not fully understand the Thomistic teaching than that it is truly dangerous. I know this is somewhat of a bold charge to make, but Thomistic predestination, when properly understood, quickness the hope of the soul rather than weakens it. When I first studied it, I spent not weeks but months in confusion. But once I returned to the foundation of Scholasticism, I came to a greater understanding of it, and it all made sense. It has since given me so much peace.

As Molina admitted, he didn't really understand Thomas' teaching regarding the relationship between primary and secondary causes. Unfortunately, that same lack of understanding leads one into the false dichotomy of attributing our destiny either exclusively to God or exclusively to man. Both of these paths end in heresy (to God: Calvinism/Predestinationism; to man: Pelagianism), so the other schools, in attempt to avoid these errors, and not grasping the deep, mysterious Thomistic teaching regarding the relationship between primary and secondary causes, have misunderstood it as Calvinistic/Predestinationistic and instead found their own resting place along these paths, stopping short of the end.

I do not mean to accuse St. Francis of ignorance, but if not formally trained in Scholasticism, it is very easy to misunderstand Thomistic predestination as determinism. Actually, I would say it is almost inevitable. If you plan on studying Thomistic predestination, then be prepared to study it in the context of Scholasticism as a whole. Our modern catechisms are far too Molinistic in presentation for a non-Scholastically-catechized individual to develop their understanding of free choice, good/evil, act/potency, object specification, etc. in a manner conducive to the proper understanding of Thomistic predestination. That was certainly the case with me. I realized while studying Thomistic predestination that my understanding of free choice was completely wrong.
I  n
N omine
P atris,
E t
F ilii,
E t
S piritus
S ancti

>))))))º> "Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time" (II Peter 1:10). <º((((((<


Maximilian

Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 03, 2014, 01:26:10 PM

I always thought of this when trying to read JPII's Encyclicals, etc when I first converted.  I could not get through them, they were so wordy and it seemed like he could have said what he was saying with about half (or less) the amount of pages.  I noticed early on that for the most part, Pre-JPII Encyclicals were generally much shorter, more clear, and able to be understood without a headache.

Yes, exactly. And that turned out to be a very good indicator, even if I didn't realize it at the time.

Some years ago I tried to read "Love and Responsibility." It didn't seem to make any sense at all. And the parts that I could make out didn't seem to be consistent with Catholic teaching. Some people tried to tell me how "deep" it was, and that I just had to read it over and over again until I finally understood the "Theology of the Body." Fortunately, I declined that suggestion.

The incomprehensibility was a warning sign. Only later did I realize just how heretical this whole school of theology really was.

I was burned this way once before when I tried to study deconstructionist philosophy, but eventually ran away in terror while I was still sane.
This wikipedia page can give you a little taste:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida

I learned from the wikipedia page something fascinating:

"At the very beginning of his philosophical career Derrida was concerned to elaborate a critique of the limits of phenomenology. His first lengthy academic manuscript, written as a dissertation for his diplôme d'études supérieures and submitted in 1954, concerned the work of Edmund Husserl."

What a striking coincidence that Karl Wojtyla and Jacques Derrida were both working on dissertations on the same topic at the same time!

INPEFESS

Quote from: Maximilian on November 03, 2014, 01:18:03 PM
Quote from: INPEFESS on November 03, 2014, 08:34:07 AM

I would be careful conflating depth with evil.


It is not depth that is evil, but confusion.
Mary said, "He has confused the proud in their inmost thoughts."

St. John the Evangelist wrote the deepest things ever put on paper by a human. But his language is very clear and straightforward. There is no attempt to create an artificial illusion of depth by using incomprehensible language.

As I read through my missal, it repeatedly strikes me just how simple and straightforward is the language used by St. John. His grammar is never complex. He rarely uses any devices of classical rhetoric or unusual vocabulary.

The things he says are deep, but not confusing. His ideas are truly profound, while expressed in straightforward sentences.

Today's Mass had 4 different Gospel readings by St. John. Each of them expressed very profound concepts. But the language of each could be read without much difficulty by a 1st-year Latin student.

Quote from: INPEFESS on November 03, 2014, 08:34:07 AM

Thomistic predestination is extremely deep and mysterious, but it is not incomprehensible or surreptitious. It took me quite a while to understand it, too, but after reading and studying the topic for over a year, I began to realize that the problem was with my own misunderstanding of fundamental Thomistic concepts. I would have said before then that I was "fairly well read" in Thomism, too, but I learned that I hadn't quite understood it enough to apply it. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange draws his explanations from St. Thomas' own teachings on the matter; in fact, what I learned from studying Garrigou-Lagrange was that I hadn't really studied St. Thomas' own teachings on predestination enough to understand them. What Garrigou-Lagrange proves quite well is that the Thomistic school is in perfect concert with St. Thomas' own teachings on the matter. For example, St. Thomas has a very specific and structured explanation of free choice; if one understands it in the Molinistic sense (which everyone does unless they have specifically studied St. Thomas' teachings of it), Thomistic predestination will be utterly confusing and impenetrable. It assumes as a prerequisite that you know and understand the design, components, and operations of the will.


Religion that is available only to those initiated into an esoteric school of arcane jargon is not Christianity by Gnosticism.

Christ didn't use any big words. No one had to go to graduate school to understand what He said. He spoke to simple people, but He was rejected by the scribes and the pharisees.

Your point is made, but then again, you're comparing apples to oranges. St. John wasn't attempting to explain the theological mechanism of the truths he was presenting. He said enough to inspire the soul, elevate the mind, and arouse the intellect, but "how" was beyond the scope of his writings. His writings answered the "what" and inspired meditation of the "why," but they weren't in any way intended to treat of the "how." Theologically, these are very different questions. I can know that God is triune, understand why it is that He is triune, but not know how, metaphysically, He is (and must be) triune.

Systemic theology seeks to answer these questions, and so each system proceeds with its own collection of definitions and terms that it can use within itself to conceptually organize and systemically structure the "how it works." Scholasticism advances its answer from Scholastic metaphysics, so it seeks to harmonize the simplicity and genius of St. John's writings with the principles of reason, lest they should come under philosophical attack. It is imperative, then, that one be familiar with these Scholastic concepts (which are expressed by technical terminology to establish consistency, organize concepts, and embark on a systematic analysis) in order to see how the Thomistic system is in harmony with the metaphysical principles of the universe. The "how" isn't strictly necessary, but, like the scientist who draws spiritual inspiration from the beautiful complexity of biology, it is useful for answering objections against the Faith and furthering the depth of our love and contemplation of God. 
I  n
N omine
P atris,
E t
F ilii,
E t
S piritus
S ancti

>))))))º> "Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time" (II Peter 1:10). <º((((((<


LausTibiChriste

Threads like this make me thankful I never ended up studying theology...me brain hurts. Thanks though, Gardener, for that summary...because it made my feeble little mind understand it a little more.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son Of God, Have Mercy On Me A Sinner

"Nobody is under any moral obligation of duty or loyalty to a state run by sexual perverts who are trying to destroy public morals."
- MaximGun

"Not trusting your government doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist, it means you're a history buff"

Communism is as American as Apple Pie

Maximilian

Quote from: INPEFESS on November 03, 2014, 02:54:06 PM

St. John wasn't attempting to explain the theological mechanism of the truths he was presenting. He said enough to inspire the soul, elevate the mind, and arouse the intellect, but "how" was beyond the scope of his writings. His writings answered the "what" and inspired meditation of the "why," but they weren't in any way intended to treat of the "how." Theologically, these are very different questions. I can know that God is triune, understand why it is that He is triune, but not know how, metaphysically, He is (and must be) triune.


I'm not sure where you get this distinction.

In any case, it fails in this instance when the subject is predestination. If someone reads the works of neo-scholastic theologians on the subject of predestination, but he can't make heads or tails of what they're saying, then they have failed to explain the "what" and the "why" as well as the "how."

Predestination is an essential dogma of the Faith. Every Catholic should know the teaching on predestination, love the teaching on predestination, and embrace the implications of the teaching.

Unfortunately, that description does not fit even 1 Catholic in 1,000 today. So there has been a complete and utter failure to transmit the truth of the Faith. A total breakdown in the teaching authority.

And it's not the fault of "modernists." They don't give two hoots about predestination one way or the other. Someone else is responsible for the loss of one of the essential dogmas of the Faith.

Quote from: INPEFESS on November 03, 2014, 02:54:06 PM

It is imperative, then, that one be familiar with these Scholastic concepts (which are expressed by technical terminology to establish consistency, organize concepts, and embark on a systematic analysis) in order to see how the Thomistic system is in harmony with the metaphysical principles of the universe. The "how" isn't strictly necessary, but, like the scientist who draws spiritual inspiration from the beautiful complexity of biology, it is useful for answering objections against the Faith and furthering the depth of our love and contemplation of God.

No, I don't believe that academic theology helps us to further the depths of our love and contemplation of God. Rather, it is a rationalistic distraction from it. God is supernatural. All the scholastic arguments in the world cannot get us one step closer to God's divine being. No one has ever gotten to heaven by means of a PhD dissertation. Not even the dissertation written by Karol Wojtyla under the direction of Garrigou-Lagrange. Although the conciliar church would have you think otherwise with its canonizations.