Physical Premotion

The doctrine of physical premotion (praemotio physica) has as one of its greatest proponents and defenders the eminent twentieth-century Thomist, Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange (1877-1964). Within the Thomist collective, however, physical premotion is not unanimously accepted. As such, there is a question as to whether the doctrine is problematic on its own terms and, more importantly as regards the current inquiry, whether it is faithful in presenting Thomas Aquinas’s own views as expressed in his writings. While some mention will be made to the first of these questions in the conclusion, it is the latter question upon which this paper will focus, specifically with respect to Garrigou-Lagrange’s understanding and articulation of the doctrine explicated in some of his major works. Thus, the primary aim of the paper will be to properly establish Garrigou-Lagrange’s doctrine of physical premotion and to compare this with a brief analysis of the principal texts supporting it so as to determine whether Aquinas’s view is preserved.

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.

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.

This work seeks to analyze a revisionist movement within Thomism in the 20th century over and against the traditional or classical Thomistic commentatorial treatment of physical premotion, grace, and the permission of sin, especially as these relate to the mysteries of predestination and reprobation.

The over-arching critique leveled by the revisionists against the classic treatment is that Bañezian scholasticism had disregarded the dissymmetry between the line of good (God's causation of salutary acts) and the line of evil (God's permission of defect and sin).

The teaching of St. Thomas is explored via intimate consideration of his texts. The thought of St. Thomas is then compared with the work of Domingo Bañez and the foremost 'Bañezian' of the 20th century, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange.

The work then shifts to a consideration of the major players of the revisionist treatment, including Francisco Marín-Sola, Jacques Maritiain, and Bernard Lonergan. Jean-Herve Nicolas is also taken up as one who had held both accounts during his lifetime.

The work analyzes and critiques the revisionist theories according to the fundamental tenets of the classical account. Upon final analysis, it seeks to show that the classical account sufficiently distances God's causal role in regard to free salutary acts and His non-causal role in regard to free sinful acts. Moreover, the revisionist account presents significant metaphysical problems and challenges major tenets of classical theism, such as the divine omnipotence, simplicity, and the exhaustive nature of divine providence.

Finally, the implications of the traditional view are considered in light of the spiritual life. It is argued that the classical account is the only one which provides an adequate theological foundation for the Church's robust mystical and spiritual tradition.

Examining the influence of Thomas Aquinas and his followers upon the seventeenth century Puritan theologian John Owen, this book breaks new ground in exploring the impact of medieval thought upon Reformed scholasticism. Cleveland argues that Owen uses Thomistic ideas in two ways: first in an Augustinian fashion arguing against Pelagian and semi-Pelagian ideas of human independency; second in a Trinitarian fashion, with Thomistic ideas affecting the understanding of each person of the Trinity. The resulting theological formulation is strongly Western and Orthodox and provides a helpful model for theological formulation seeking to build upon a Western Christian foundation.

Jacques Maritain cited Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange as having been one of the Thomists who had worked toward a revision of the traditional Thomistic, Banezian treatment of providence, reprobation, and the permission of sin. For Maritain, it was specifically the antecedent permissive decree which made God out to be an indirect cause of sin and thus the one primarily responsible for it. Maritain thought that a rejection of the antecedent permissive decree was absolutely necessary to preserve God’s innocence. This paper attempts to show that Garrigou employed a new approach to the topic which is nonetheless completely consistent with the Thomistic tradition. Garrigou is concerned with safeguarding against an overly harsh treatment of reprobation which, in over-stressing God’s providential reign over all things (sin included) could make the traditional treatment vulnerable to modern concerns over theodicy. However, Garrigou utilizes the traditional treatment, formulating it in order to place emphasis upon man’s causal role in sin so as to speak to the concerns of his time, many of which are found within Maritain’s critique. The change in emphasis in no way negates the traditional treatment. Garrigou fully embraces the antecedent permissive decree and the robust sense of providence found throughout the earlier tradition.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/heyj.12379/full

Jacques Maritain cited Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange as having been one of the Thomists who had worked toward a revision of the traditional Thomistic, Banezian treatment of providence, reprobation, and the permission of sin. For Maritain, it was specifically the antecedent permissive decree which made God out to be an indirect cause of sin and thus the one primarily responsible for it. Maritain thought that a rejection of the antecedent permissive decree was absolutely necessary to preserve God’s innocence. This paper attempts to show that Garrigou employed a new approach to the topic which is nonetheless completely consistent with the Thomistic tradition. Garrigou is concerned with safeguarding against an overly harsh treatment of reprobation which, in over-stressing God’s providential reign over all things (sin included) could make the traditional treatment vulnerable to modern concerns over theodicy. However, Garrigou utilizes the traditional treatment, formulating it in order to place emphasis upon man’s causal role in sin so as to speak to the concerns of his time, many of which are found within Maritain’s critique. The change in emphasis in no way negates the traditional treatment. Garrigou fully embraces the antecedent permissive decree and the robust sense of providence found throughout the earlier tradition. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/heyj.12379/full