The Sense of Mystery by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange with Dr. Matthew Minerd

[@justinthecatholic9129]

@Matthew Minerd & @Reason & Theology, I was just recently able to view the show on the Order of Things and noticed that you had already answered my question from the live call in that show. Sorry if it wasn’t directly related to the topic of mystery but to be honest the concept of becoming as the ultimate principle of reality is a mystery to me. Thanks for shedding light on this and allowing me to ascend beyond it in my journey into the truth of the Catholic Faith. Eternal thanks for this endeavor of bringing theology to a wider audience that what may be standard. I am in your debit. If I could ask again, my question would revolve around the sense of mystery in Divine Providence. I think this is alluded to in Acts when Gameliel tells his fellow Jews that if the Christian movement be from God, God will bless it, if not it will die out on its own. Lots to explore in this area. God Bless Viva Christo Rey!!!

[@matthewminerd7693]

Glory to Jesus Christ! Dear Justin, No problem whatsoever. It was my joy to answer it - and it's not unrelated to much of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's musings, given the massive influence of Bergson during his days. Be well! Peace, Matthew

[@fiveadayproductions987]

Thank you Dr. Minerd & Michael once again. I wanted to ask a quick question that didn't make it on. In terms of direct experience of God's Mystery what is the relation between the intellect and Somatic experiences. For example infused contemplation as described by the Saints compared to the somatic/bodily experience of seeing the uncreated light. Are these linked? Mutually exclusive, can have one or both experiences etc. God Bless.

[@matthewminerd7693]

This is so weird.... I responded to this too.... And it has disappeared. Let's see if it reposts. I launched into a discussion of "accidental beatitude" and the issue of the light of glory..... I partly tried to discuss this where I talked about the light of Tabor mediating the experience had by the apostles. Alas. I'm out of time this AM. I have no idea why my original response disappeared.... Thank you for your excellent questions and responses. Let's hope that my longer response eventually comes up.

[@hughmungus9739]

1:08:35 C'mon Michael haha, you put Dr. Minerd on the spot, especially seeing he's an Eastern Catholic who works at a Byzantine Catholic Seminary 😅. Good answer though. I will always struggle to understand the necessity of the e/e distinction especially some who I've seen make it seem a real distinction as you mentioned; which I find quite problematic, but when trying to probe what they mean about that, they seem to shut down the topic by saying it's not subject to Aristotelian terms so can't be discussed in that way.

[@matthewminerd7693]

Glory to Jesus Christ! Thanks, Hugh, for your understanding! This has generally been my experience too. It is too "hand waving," and truth be told, there are Aristotelian categories operative in all the parties involved......

[@giuliomuci442]

Dr. Minerd. If one wants to start understanding Thomism in its entirety from the best Thomists in the history of the Church, which Authors and books are entry level for beginners, which ones are mid level for those somehow aware of the conversation, and which ones are the most challenging for those deep in Thomistic theology and philosophy?

[@fiveadayproductions987]

Of course Dr. Minerd is infinitely better placed to answer this but I'll list some resources I found very useful when trying to better understand Thomism as a complete beginner. 1) Watch all the "Aquinas 101" videos by The Thomistic Institute. (It's simplified of course but excellent). For each short video on YT they have a longer lecture on their website alongside reading material for each episode from the Summa/other sources 2) Develop a better philosophical understanding of Aquinas/Aristotle I'd say prior diving deep into his Theology (not that these are unrelated) the two books I would read to get an overview of both are a) "Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide" by Dr. Ed Feser and b) "Aquinas 101" by Francis John Selman (there's a lot of overlap but I think with both you get a strong foundation. 3) Read faithful Thomistic commentators like Garrigou-Lagrange (I'd recommend starting with "Reality a Thomistic Synthesis" and "Grace" as two excellent works) 4) Read from Aquinas directly in bits (I quite like Peter Kreeft's arrangement in the Summa of the Summa); alongside works by Historical Thomists like Cajetan (e.g. The Analogy Of Names And Concept Of Being); John of St. Thomas etc. 5) Familiarise yourself with the prominent writers in the various schools of Thomism: Neo-Scholastics, Existential Thomism (Etienne Gilson), Laval Thomism (William A. Wallace), Analytical Thomism (John Haldane).

[@fiveadayproductions987]

Also I wanted to say take it slow because it can drive you crazy haha. And can seem abstract if not grounded in a deep prayer life and understanding of Catholic Teaching. Also before delving into Thomism have a robust understanding of what the Church teaches i.e. Go through a well detailed (older) Catechism, I think a perfect one is "The Catechism Explained" by Fr. Francis Spirago. And alongside your exploration of Thomism have a good manual of Dogmatic Theology. a) If you're willing to pay "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Ludwig Ott is for me the Crème de la Crème of detail while remaining concise and robust. (Some would disagree) b) If you want a very good freely available online manual I'd suggest "A Manual of Catholic Theology: Based on Scheeben's "Dogmatik" by Joseph Wilhelm, Matthias Joseph Scheeben, and Thomas Bartholomew Scannell.

[@matthewminerd7693]

Oh no...!! I wrote a massive response to this and it's lost! I'm not sure where it is! Let me be very direct. I had lengthy explanations. Alas Intro: Farrell's Introduction to the Summa is wonderful. Consider Pieper's books too. For Aristotelian philosophy: H-D Gardeil's Manuals For theology, in addition to Ott, see if you can puzzle through Fr. Hugon's Latin. (You can supplement Gardeil with his philosophy texts, perhaps also looking at both Maquart and Gredt.) As you develop in philosophy, look into Woodbury's notes. Pure gold, albeit weird in layout and clunky in diction. When it comes to commentaries, work from start to finish through Garrigou's. If you can, read Beatitude in Latin. The English is a paraphrase, not a full translation. Supplement morals with Prummer. (If your Latin is decent, supplement with Merkelbach.) Supplement Christology with Garrigou's Mariology volume (and see Merkelbach's mariology here if you can). Develop sacramental theology by considering the textbook Donlan / Cunningham / Rock, Christ and His Sacraments. Doronzo is the best in this domain, but VERY detailed (and in Latin). For Ecclesiology, use Journet. In English, it is best to use his Theology of the Church, which is a digest of his long work. (Only one volume of his magisterial Church of the Word Incarnate is in english.) I hope that helps!

[@hughmungus9739]

One question I had Dr. Minerd is what the Eastern View of the Eucharist it. I was slightly confused by the response I received saying that Orthodox view it as receiving the Energies of God (and had critiqued Catholics for practices like Eucharistic Adoration as such which confused me even more). What is the Thomist vs Palamite view of the Eucharist, is there any difference? I simply understood in receiving the Eucharist we received the full Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist, under the accidental appearance of bread. I have a very poor, warped understanding of Palamism so forgive me if I've made some rudimentary errors..

[@matthewminerd7693]

Glory to Jesus Christ! You know, Hugh, I don't know the strict "Palamite" position here. It wouldn't surprise me to find someone quickly using the energies of God to do the same lifting that it does for the indwelling / missions of God. It is a heavier version of the Thomist notion of sacramental existence and the unique relational structure it establishes from the sacrament to Christ. (See the wonderful work of Anscar Vonier on this theme.) How you have expressed things is completely correct - we receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in a sacramental mode (not its physical _species_ - but truly as present through in the mode of substance - hence, requiring transubstantiation). We would need to have a very strict palamite (and not a Palamite popularizer) to explain the exact way that they articulate the Eucharistic presence. I personally suspect it will be in line with what the De fide Catholic position holds. The use of "energies" here is likely just doing lifting for the notion of sacramental presence. That's a bit rambling, but it's the end of a very long day.

[@freddyruto3139]

Great talk as always gentlemen. Quick question Dr. Minerd, how do you define the 'supernatural.' I was listening to a talk (by two non-theists) discussing how separating 'supernature' from 'nature' led to the crises we see today. Since the category of supernature was filled with things like hope, the sacred, etc which was abandoned by the moderns as unnecessary, this led to the nihilism issue we see today, was there thesis. Any help would be greatly appreciated since they made a very strong case on not separating the two.

[@fiveadayproductions987]

Following. To my understanding the basic term means "above nature" and can be used in various contexts These definitions you may find helpful with the term supernatural being used in various senses; *SUPERNATURAL ORDER* The sum total of heavenly destiny and all the divinely established means of reaching that destiny, which surpass the mere powers and capacities of human nature *SUPERNATURAL END* The purpose or good to be sought and attained beyond the needs, powers, and tendencies of nature as such. It can only be realized by divine grace, in elevating human nature above its native level of being, and in helping one's activity above its native level of operation. *SUPERNATURAL REVELATION* Divine communication of truth in which either the manner of communication or its content is beyond the capacity of human nature to attain. Thus revelation may be supernatural in its objective source, which is more than the universe naturally tells about its Creator, and again supernatural in the subjective powers by which a person acquires what God desires to reveal. Revelation may also be supernatural in its very essence, as when God discloses such mysteries as the Trinity and the Incarnation. Or it may be, and always is, supernatural in the manner that God chooses to use for communicating himself to human beings. It partakes of a miraculous enlightenment of the seer who then serves as divine legate for sharing with others what God has supernaturally communicated to that person. In every case, however, the acceptance of revelation requires the influx of supernatural grace to enable a person to believe. *SUPERNATURAL THEOLOGY* The scientific exposition of the truths about God as he is known by faith in divine revelation and with the assistance of divine grace. Theology is a true science because it uses principles that are founded on God's revealed word, it draws new knowledge by reflection on these principles, and it unites the whole in a strict, scientific system. *SUPERNATURAL CONTEMPLATION* Elevation of mind to God and divine things, joined with a loving intuition of what is seen. It is the mind resting upon God and tasting the joys of his beatitude. Although still in the realm of faith and not heavenly vision, it is an intuition of Divine Truth terminating in affection and love, excluding long reasonings and a multiplicity of words as found in affective prayer. St. Teresa speaks of it as God acting on the human mind in a special way. *SUPERNATURAL COURAGE* The moral virtue of fortitude divinely infused into the soul along with sanctifying grace. As a supernatural virtue it is needed to practice what Christ commanded (precepts) or recommended (counsels) his followers to do. *SUPERNATURAL MERIT* A morally good action performed by a person in the state of grace and deserving of reward from God.

[@matthewminerd7693]

Glory to Jesus Christ! Dear Freddy, See below, the citations from FiveADay. The argument you present is the famed thesis that inspired so much of De Lubac's critiques of Cajetan et al. (It is reflected by his various disciples.) In the order of salvation, the obediential potency of human nature is ordered to the reception of grace such that the rejection of grace also wounds nature itself. However, the need to distinguish the two is utterly necessary merely on the level of De fide assent, if one considers Dei Filius's remarks concerning the objective and subjective distinction between rational knowledge and the knowledge had through faith (both in principle [reason vs. faith] and in object). Technically, "the sacred" is also reflected even in "mere" nature (though, we tend to mess this up, given the effects of the Fall). Note, that "above nature" in this case is said in the strongest sense possible, though: formally something above the entire natural order; in short, God in His deepest mystery. In any event, the best summary of how I parse the various meanings of "supernatural" can be found in pt. 2, ch. 4 in Garrigou's Sense of Mystery. This is a massive disagreement between the followers of De Lubac and harder-headed Thomists like me, who think that his critiques of the best Thomists are wrongly formulated and that his reading of Thomas is off too. Also, this is very dangerous ground for him in any case, for one could come back, as Maritain does at the start of Integral Humanism and say that the real error of modernity is Molinism....! Hope these rambling AM comments help! Peace, Matthew