De Auxiliis Controversy

Pedro de Ledesma is one of the Dominican theologians of the School of Salamanca involved in the De Auxiliis controversy, i.e., the disputes around a famous book by Luis de Molina on the relation between divine foreknowledge and providence and our free will. Studying an unpublished manuscript by Ledesma and his 1611 book on this subject, the article shows that he opposed Molina with a Thomistic position that we call deflationary. According to this interpretation, God, in moving the created will to do good actions, does not bring about an entity distinct from volition itself. Contrary to other Thomists, he does not think that the immediate effect of the divine motion of the will is an intermediary entity used by God to produce, with the will, the created free act. Ledesma defends his thesis by using some elements of Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics, in particular, a minimalist interpretation of the relation between action and passion already present in Domingo de Soto and the specific causality of immanent acts.

Usada como instrumento de disputa religiosa durante a Reforma Católica, a arte barroca pode ser usada como meio de análise sobre as mudanças sociais, políticas e religiosas ocorridas nesse momento da História Moderna. Um de seus artistas mais conhecidos, Michelangelo Merisi Caravaggio, produziu dezenas de telas em seu breve período ativo que mudaram a forma de retratar artisticamente o sagrado. O presente trabalho tem como objetivo analisar as relações políticas e religiosas de uma de suas telas pintadas para a capela Contarelli, na igreja de São Luís dos Franceses em Roma: A Vocação de São Mateus.

Used as an instrument of religious quarrel during the Catholic Reformation, baroque art can be used as means of analysis on the social, political and religious changes occurred during this moment in Modern History. One of its most well-known artists, Michelangelo Merisi Caravaggio, painted dozens of works in his brief active period that changed how the sacred was depicted in art. The present work has as an objective the analysis of the political and religious relationships in one of his works painted for the Contarelli chapel, in the church of St. Louis of the French in Rome: The Calling of St. Matthew.

Edition of the opuscules by D. Báñez on De auxiliis controversy. There is the critical edition of three manuscripts and the first Spanish annotated translation of the opuscules. The Latin text is disposed together with the translation. An introduction situates the opuscules in its systematic and historical context.

To speak of grace according to a certain western philosophical tradition cannot fail to imply a certain theological background. Without it, in fact, the same term would be misleading. Theology, however, has roots that sink into the fertile land constituted by the Revelation contained in Scripture, which constitutes the cantus firmus for any subsequent spiritual reflection or theoretical speculation. Only by understanding what are the connotations of the grace that the Jewish-Christian revelation, conveyed by Scripture, restores to us, will it be possible to grasp the interaction of that same grace with the human event and therefore, in the final part of this contribution, to note how grace and man say at once a two-way relationship and universal openness.

This chapter provides context for the doctrine of premotion by emphasizing the importance of divine exemplarity in relation to created causes and the connection between Aristotelian approaches to nature and the Christian doctrine of creation in the thought of Thomas Aquinas and the reception of these ideas by Domingo Bañez.  Subsequently, this chapter examines the adoption of some of these concepts by Gisbertus Voetius. 

As a whole, this edited volume focuses on the relationship between Catholic and Protestant theologies of grace and human freedom in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries: "Beyond Dordt and ‘De Auxiliis’ explores post-Reformation inter-confessional theological exchange on soteriological topics including predestination, grace, and free choice. These doctrines remained controversial within confessional traditions after the Reformation, as Dominicans and Jesuits and later Calvinists and Arminians argued about these critical issues in the Augustinian theological heritage. Some of those involved in condemning Arminianism at the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619) were inspired by Dominican followers of Thomas Aquinas in Spain who had recently opposed the vigorous defense of free choice by Jesuit Molinists in the Congregatio de auxiliis (1598-1607). This volume, appearing on the 400th anniversary of the closing of the Synod of Dordt, brings together a group of scholars working in fields that only rarely speak to one another to address these theological debates that cross geographical and confessional boundaries."  (see https://brill.com/view/title/38929?lang=en)

The article explores the modern distrust of God as a threat to human freedom. The teachings on the relationship between freedom and grace sustained by the Spanish theologian Luis de Molina have some features that could be related to this distrust. Divine providence is preserved in his system by a somewhat deterministic conception of the human psyche. Thus, freedom is not completely safeguarded but a certain suspicion about Divine power is introduced nevertheless. As an answer to these difficulties, the author proposes an alternative Thomist consideration to contemplate the relationship between God and man in a harmonious way.

written in 2012 for a doctoral course on grace, based in part on my Master’s thesis in Philosophy (2010-2011), which was based largely on stuff I wrote as a teenager (c. 2001-2003), thus not the most mature treatment of this incredibly complex topic, about which I’ve been writing a book for a few years now

Thomas Osborne has asserted that ‘No one has developed an argument against premotion that works if the distinctions made by the Thomists are granted.’ This article attempts to form just such an argument. Specifically, it argues that the Thomistic system – even with the distinctions it relies on having been granted – cannot account for human freedom, at least not in a sense sufficiently strong to sustain human guilt for sin. Further, it argues that the Thomists, by their own clear though tacit admission, acknowledge this insufficiency.

En el contexto de la famosa e importante controversia filosófico-teológica "De auxiliis divinae gratiae", se demuestra, por parte del reconocido teólogo tomista Norberto del Prado, O.P., que no es en manera alguna posible un término medio entre el tomismo y el molinismo, y en definitiva, que no es posible el mismo molinismo.

With the publication in France in 1636 of De praedestinatione et reprobatione auxiliis divinae gratiae, Tommaso Campanella (1568-1639) comes back to the themes of divine grace and predestination, which had already engaged him, especially in youth writings. Among the reasons for this choice, the need to maintain a high level of theological confrontation against representatives of Dominican orthodoxy, who had been the cause of his exile. Campanella carries on his personal battle, by criticizing one of the most daring and original theses of the Spanish Scholasticism, that’s Odium Dei, inserting it within the broader framework of his thought. From the pages of the work, the great originality of Stilese’s proposal on the topics dealt with emerges, which, however, will not prevent the Roman Inquisition from condemning the writing.

Nell’estate del 1594, il Consiglio dell’Inquisizione chiede a Francisco Suárez (1548-1617), di essere informato sulla diversità di opinioni tra domenicani e gesuiti sui temi della grazia, della predestinazione e del libero arbitrio. Il Gesuita affida la sua risposta a un memoriale. Quando il domenicano Domingo Báñez (1528-1604) viene in possesso del documento, si presenta davanti al Consiglio per denunciare Suárez. La polemica che ne segue vede confrontarsi due tra le più autorevoli figure in campo teologico e filosofico del Cinquecento, inaugurando ufficialmente lo scontro al centro della celebre Controversia de Auxiliis (1597-1606). Il lavoro di traduzione, elaborazione e approfondimento critico dei testi, prova a chiarire come, al contrario di quanto creduto in passato l’episodio sia, oltre che indicativo, importante, offrendo una diversa prospettiva di lettura dei temi e dei problemi della prima modernità.

"Existe una gran dificultad, a saber: cómo se puede concordar la libertad de necesidad de Cristo en los actos preceptuados, con su absoluta impecabilidad.
En efecto, o bien Cristo pudo no cumplir el acto preceptuado, y entonces habría podido pecar; o bien no pudo no cumplir el acto preceptuado, y entonces no fue libre con libertad de necesidad, y por tanto no mereció. Así parecería que la impecabilidad de Cristo y su libertad requerida para merecer son inconciliables...".

Comentarios a Summa Theologiae, III, q. 18, a. 4.

Este fue uno de los puntos con que se desató la Controversia "De Auxiliis", ya en 1582.

En el contexto de la famosa e importante controversia filosófico-teológica "De auxiliis divinae gratiae", se demuestra, por parte del reconocido teólogo tomista Norberto del Prado, O.P., que no es en manera alguna posible un término medio entre el tomismo y el molinismo, y en definitiva, que no es posible el mismo molinismo. En definitiva, el apartarse del tomismo implica, velis nolis, caer en el erróneo molinismo...

Resumen: 

La tercera y última etapa del pensamiento de Luigi Pareyson, la “ontología de la libertad”, ha desconcertado a buena parte de sus estudiosos. Enfermo y en un retiro cada vez más permanente en la localidad de Rapallo –donde casi cien años antes Nietzsche concentraba sus fuerzas para redactar su Zaratustra- Pareyson emprende esta última aventura filosófica. Pero la soledad en la que la concibió parece haberse reflejado en la repercusión de sus ideas. Aun sus discípulos más cercanos -entre los que se cuentan Giuseppe Riconda, Gianni Vattimo, Umberto Eco y Sergio Givone- carecen del entusiasmo con el que habían seguido su “personalismo ontológico” o su “hermenéutica de lo inagotable”. El “discurso temerario” de Pareyson acerca de Dios, el mal y la libertad desorienta a sus lectores. Se propone en estas líneas una interpretación de los motivos que lo llevaron a escribir su Ontologia della libertà, basada, en particular, en su reacción a la llamada “teodicea”, entendida ésta como modelo de respuesta puramente racional al problema del mal. Detenerse en su actitud frente a la teodicea permitiría observar algunos matices que tal vez puedan pasar desapercibidos cuando se privilegia la perspectiva aportada por otras categorías de análisis. Por otra parte, el mismo Pareyson le otorgó a este tema un lugar preferencial. Además, se trata de una cuestión con una muy extendida historia propia, que Pareyson conoce y en cuya discusión interviene.
 
Abstract
The third and final stage of Luigi Pareyson’s thinking, the "ontology of freedom", has baffled many of its scholars. Sick and in an increasingly permanent retirement in the town of Rapallo -where nearly a hundred years before Nietzsche concentrated his forces to draw his Zarathustra- Pareyson undertakes this latter philosophical adventure. But the loneliness where he has conceived it seems to be reflected in the impact of their ideas. Even his closest disciples -among whom are counted Giuseppe Riconda, Gianni Vattimo, Umberto Eco and Sergio Givone- lack the enthusiasm with wich they had followed his "ontological personalism" or his "hermeneutics of the inexhaustible". The "rash statement" of Pareyson about God, evil and freedom misleads its readers. These lines propose an interpretation of the motives that led him to write his Ontologia della libertà, based in particular on their reaction to the "theodicy", understood as purely rational model of response to the problem of evil. Focusing on his attitude to theodicy, we could observe some nuances that might go unnoticed when the perspective provided by other categories of analysis is privileged. Moreover, the Pareyson himself gave this issue a special place. Finally, it is a matter of universal scope with its own history, well known by Pareyson, which was an important part of it.

This article intends to examine the problematic question of the ontological status of “physical premotion,” that is, the divine motion of created free will. This idea was developed by the Dominican Báñez and was strongly criticised by the Jesuit Suárez. Suárez’s description of physical premotion shows that he gradually conditioned the debate in a way which compelled to see the premotion as an entity different from the creator and the free agent. Several texts of Suárez are also reviewed in discussion with a recent study of Matava. Finally, the article concludes that Báñez follows the main lines of the thought of Aristotle and Aquinas; consequently, he does not believe that the divine motion has any other effect in the world than that of the free action of the created agent.

RETRACTATIO: In this paper I attributed to Suárez the negation of divine motion, as if he reduced it to divine conservation. But Suárez did not sustain this doctrine.

This unpublished manuscript of the Spanish Dominican Domingo Báñez reflects his personal account of the proceedings held during July 1602 in Valladolid in defense of his own doctrine against suspicious theses formulated by some Jesuits from Alcalá de Henares the previous March. The Jesuits denied that the adhesion of faith to the Roman Pontiff included him as a specific man, e.g. Pope Clement VIII. In support of their thesis, they provided the authority of Báñez. The Dominican theologian clarified in Valladolid that the fact that Clement VIII was Pope did belong to the faith indeed but not in a primary and immediate sense, although this was later supported by other Jesuits in a third session held a few days later, again in Valladolid.

In this paper I argue that the concept of cooperation with God is intrinsic not only to spiritual theology but also to Christian ethics. This is not a simple concept. It lies between two extremes – the one is the idea of a God who uses human beings as mere tools through whom He acts; the other is the understanding of the human being as somebody who acts independently of, or even as being equal to God. On the basis of the thought of Blondel and Guardini, and looking also to the roots of their thought in early medieval theology, I maintain that it may be more suitable to say from the Christian view-point that the human being acts as a co-subject with God, i.e., that through grace the human being becomes a real agent when acting, but that the origin of the action lies in God. God’s gifts are given in such a way that they really belong to the person who is carrying out the activity. Indeed, this co-subjectivity offered by God to human freedom lies at the foundation of human agency. Rm 8:16, despite some difficulties in translating the text, can be offered as scriptural basis for this claim. We give testimony in a way that is neither the action of the human acting alone, nor can it be considered as coming only from the Holy Spirit: it is a “common testimony” (symmartyria) given by the Holy Spirit with the human being. Herein lies the task of conscience – not in terms of implementing divine orders, nor of the application to the particular situation of general rules, but as giving witness to one’s divine filiation, confirmed continually by the Holy Spirit. Our being children of God is nothing other than our participation in and co-realization of Christ’s own identity.

¿Cómo debería rezar un molinista, conforme a sus principios? ¿Y cómo debería hacerlo un tomista, conforme a los suyos? ¿Puede acaso esta "aplicación de principios" ayudar a dirimir la Controversia "de Auxiliis"?

"Lex orandi, lex credendi".

The notion of physical predetermination arose out of the debates known as the de auxiliis controversy. Dominicans, Jesuits, and others debated how God’s auxilium—his help or aid—moved the human will, especially to supernatural actions that led to eternal salvation. The teaching of Dominican Thomists regarding God’s physical predetermination or premotion of all things became a central feature of what opponents called the school of modern Thomists or even pseudo-Thomists. When Thomists responded to the charge of distorting Thomas Aquinas’s teaching, they did not claim that Aquinas used the term physical predetermination; they generally acknowledged that this terminology was innovative. These Thomists thought that this novel term helped to prevent equivocations and clarify God’s primary causality of all things, even human choices.

While Augustine was the most important Church Father in this debate, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite became a key figure because Aquinas employed forms of the term predetermination in his commentary on Dionysius’s The Divine Names. Some Thomists, particularly Antonin Massoulié (1632–1706), elaborated the Dionysian dimensions of this teaching. In seeking to find an ancient source for physical predetermination, Massoulié drew upon developments in the Catholic world from the previous few centuries such as Renaissance Platonism and Spanish mysticism.

In the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Catholic theologians debated how to reconcile God’s predestination and grace with human free choice. The de auxiliis controversy had as its touchstones the works of the Dominican Domingo Báñez and the Jesuit Luis de Molina. Pope Paul V concluded the debates in Rome on these questions, the Congregatio de auxiliis (1597–1607), by prohibiting the accusation of heresy from either side in this quarrel. Dominicans, initially accused of Calvinism, and Jesuits, charged at first with semi-Pelagianism, generally claimed that their conclusions were at least consistent with Thomas Aquinas’ principles. But key notions in this controversy, such as physical predetermination, middle knowledge, and efficacious grace, are not found in Aquinas’ corpus, which encouraged theologians to account for the appearance of novelty. In the aftermath of these debates, Thomism was associated with these soteriological questions, and many Catholic theologians envisioned Thomas Aquinas as Augustine’s faithful disciple.

This article deals with the historical position of Domingo Báñez in the De Auxiliis Controversy. He was a protagonist of the beginning of the dispute and his name was used by the defenders of Luis de Molina to describe the traditional Thomist account on divine providence and free will; even today, many Thomists use the name of Báñez to designate their own position. This article tries to determine his personal opinion regarding the ontology of physical premotion without presupposing the later development of Bañecian doctrine. Most Thomists conceive it as a kind of entity inherent in the creature, but Báñez did not interpret it this way in his own account. According to him, God moves the created will so that the free human act is the first new entity in the creature, and it is produced by both God and created free will.

This book argues that Augustine assimilated the Stoic theory of perception and mental language (lekta/dicibilia), and that this epistemology underlies his accounts of motivation, affectivity, therapy for the passions, and moral progress.  (Since Augustine thought that moral progress is effected by grace, his use of Stoic epistemology extends to his descriptions of how grace influences motivation.)  Byers elucidates seminal passages which have long puzzled commentators, such as Confessions 8, City of God 9 and 14, Replies to Simplicianus 1, and confusing sections of the later ‘anti-Pelagian’ works.  Tracking the Stoic terminology, and using his sermons to supplement his treatises, Byers analyzes Augustine’s engagement with Cicero, Seneca, Ambrose, Jerome, Origen, and Philo of Alexandria, demonstrating that Augustine appropriated Stoicism with greater comparative sophistication than other religious writers.  She also shows how he moved beyond the Stoics in a number of ways by enriching Stoic cognitivism with Platonism, and she argues that he did so in such a way as to create a coherent synthesis.  This newly discovered Augustinian moral psychology has elements that contemporary philosophers and psychologists have identified as important.  Finally, Byers makes a substantive contribution to the scholarly debate concerning the chronological development of Augustine’s theory of grace, and provides a fresh evaluation of the early modern controversy about grace and free choice (Bañez vs. Molina), in which both sides claimed to be descended intellectually from Augustine.