Thomistic Common Sense: The Philosophy of Being and the Development of Doctrine [1.0] 9781645851097

Citation preview

“Students, teachers, and the intellectual community generally owe a debt of gratitude to Matthew Minerd for undertaking this translation of the Le sens commun of Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. This important phil­ osophical work addresses topics as timely now as they were when it was published nearly a century ago: the foundations of human knowledge, the power of human reason to know God, the relationship between faith and reason, the dynamics of the development of doctrine. Readers of this book will understand why the works of this master teacher are lately enjoying a phenomenal revival. Having influenced countless Thomists in the twenti­ eth century, the voice of Garrigou-Lagrange retains its vibrancy and rele­ vance in the twenty-first." Ar c h b is h o p J. Au g u s t in e Di No ia , O.P. Vatican City

“Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange enjoys a comeback! This is fitting inasmuch as the Dominican author masterfully exposes the order of things. Fr. Gar­ rigou-Lagrange never ceases to champion a key truth of both philosophy and theology: All contingent being depends upon Gods absolute actu­ ality. The latter premoves and perfects the former. In this book, Garri­ gou-Lagrange shows how Gods being, truth, and goodness perfect even the contingencies of human knowing and loving. The author further il­ luminates how theology reaches beyond dialectical inquiry and historical genealogy. Instead of expounding what others say about God or how they do theology, the author shows us how theology can attain a true knowl­ edge of God and the things that pertain to God. Garrigou-Lagrange re­ stores dignity to the ‘Queen of the Sciences.’ This volume serves well to introduce students to sound Christian pedagogy. In fact, the recognition that Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange displays the best of la clarttfranfaise probably accounts for one of the reasons that contemporary young scholars find his work so engrossing and informative." Fr . Ro m a n u s Ce s s a r io , O.P. Adam Cardinal M aida Chair of Theology Ave M aria University

“It is impossible to understand the twentieth century discussion of the nature of dogma and of dogmatic development, as well as modern magiste­ rial teaching thereon, without Garrigou-Lagrange’s Le sens commun, and many will be grateful for Matthew Minerd s translation." Fr . Gu y Ma n s in i , O.S.B. M ax Seckier Chair of Theology Ave M aria University

“Despite being one of the most important Catholic philosophical works of the twentieth century, Garrigou-Lagrange s Common Sense has remained unavailable in English for over a century. This remarkable book provid­ ed what many considered to be the definitive statement of common sense philosophy in the modern era. It influenced generations of theologians, was read and discussed by the ressourcement theologians during their formation in the 1920s, and was the principle behind all of GarrigouLagrange s interventions in the nouvelle theologie affair in the 1940s, even eventually influencing St. John Paul Il’s philosophical thought. Published at the height of the Modernist crisis, it served as a preamble and roadmap to virtually all of Garrigou-Lagrange s future philosophical work, which was essentially an extended excursus of common sense and its implications. Natural Theology, the philosophical foundations of Revelation, principles of non-contradiction and final causality, and the immutability of dogma all are treated here in this remarkable synthesis. As we’ve come to expect from Dr. Matthew Minerd, this volume is a translation of the highest quality, read­ able and faithful to the original text, always conscientiously providing—and completing, in many cases—rhe extensive original footnotes.” Jo n Kir w a n Assistant Professor of Theology and D irector of Graduate Programs in Theology

University of St. Thomas, Houston

“Why do we trust common sense? Is there an authentic ‘common-sense phi­ losophy’? Can common sense grasp the meaning of Christian dogma? In his wide-ranging and luminous exploration of these questions, GarrigouLagrange reinvigorates our hope of fulfilling the innate human desire (elo­ quently stressed by John Paul II in Fides et Ratio) for truth that is universal and universally accessible, on both the natural and supernatural planes. We are all in Dr. Minerd s debt for bringing this work to English-speaking read­ ers in such a lucid and insightfully annotated translation.” Fr a n c is Fe in g o l d Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Chair ofPre-Theology Program St. Patrick's Sem inary and University, M enlo Park

THOMISTIC COMMON SENSE

THOMISTIC COMMON SENSE The Philosophy ofBeing and the Development ofDoctrine

REGINALD GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE Translated by MATTHEW K. MINERD

EM M AUS A C A D E M IC w w w .e m m a u s a c a d e m ic .c o m

S t e u b e n v i ll e , O h i o

EM M AUS

ACADEMIC Steubenville, Ohio www.emmausacademic.com A Division of The St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology Editor-in-Chief: Scott Hahn 1468 Parkview Circle Steubenville, Ohio 43952 © 2021 St. Paul Center All rights reserved. 2021 Printed in the United States of America

Original French edition, Le sens commun: la philosophic de Uetre et les formules dogmati ques, 4th ed., published by Desclde de Brouwer & Cie in 1936.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data applied for 978-1-64585-107-3 hardcover / 978-1-64585-108-0 paperback / 978-1-64585-109-7 ebook

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are taken from Revised Stan­ dard Version of the Bible, copyright 1952 [2nd edition, 1971] by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Cover design by Patty Borgman and Emily Demary Layout by Emily Demary

“The formal object of the intellect is being, just as color is the formal ob­ ject of sight.” —Saint Thomas Aquinas, Sum m a contra gentiles II, ch. 83.

Ta b l e o f Co n t

ent s

Foreword by Matthew Levering

xi

Translator’s Introduction

1

Author Introduction to the Third Edition

9

Analytic Table of Contents

11

Introduction

25

Pa r t 1: What Is Common Sense? Ch 1: The Nominalist Theory of Common Sense Ch 2: Realist-Conceptualist Theory of Common Sense

35 37 83

PART 2: Common Sense and the Traditional Proofs of God’s Existence Ch 1: How the Principle ofRaison d'etre Is Connected to the Principle of Identity Ch 2: The Modernist Critique of the Thomist Proofs of God’s Existence Ch 3: The Pantheism of the New Philosophy Ch 4: The Fundamental Truth of the Philosophy of Being Appe n d ix 1 t o Pa r t 2: The Philosophy of Being and Ontologism Appe n d ix 2 t o Pa r t 2: The Natural Affirmation of Being Is Not a Postulate

Pa r t 3: Common Sense and the Understanding of Dogmatic Formulas Ch 1: How Dogmatic Formulas Are Given Precision in Philosophical Terms Ch 2: Do Dogmatic Formulas, Thus Given Precision, Remain Accessible to Common Sense? Ch 3: The Dogmatic Formulas Expressed in Philosophical Language Exceed Common Sense by Their Precision, but They Do Not Render Dogma Subservient to Any System Ch 4: The Intellect’s First Glance and Contemplation Index

135 137 161 189 203

209 213

217

229 245

275 301 321

Fo r e w o r d b y Ma t t h e w Le v e r in g

atchew Minerd’s translation of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s Le

M

sens commun: La philosophic de Vetre et les form ulas dogmatiques

arrives at an auspicious time. Younger theologians and philosophers are in­ quiring into what Garrigou-Lagrange and his generation had to say. Why did contemporaries such as Jacques Maritain so value Garrigou-Lagrange’s Le sens commun, and most importantly, have its main insights been con­ firmed? In this foreword, I hope to explore this question. For me as a Cath­ olic theologian, the importance of Garrigou-Lagrange’s work primarily in­ volves what it may offer to current speculative theology. I do not retrieve him as a figure in today s traditionalist battlegrounds, which strike me as fundamentally misguided. I approach Garrigou-Lagrange’s work with the goal of learning from it (not replicating it),1 on the supposition that the best insights of both the Thomist and ressourcement streams of thought should be appropriated by Catholic theologians today. The underlying issue chat Garrigou-Lagrange is addressing in Le sens commun is the historical contextualization of all truth claims, as under­ stood by the Catholic modernists. Aidan Nichols aptly describes Le sens commun as “at once an affirmation of Thomistic ontology against Bergsonian vitalism, for which becoming is more significant than being, and a rebuttal of Modernism’s view of dogma.”* 2 Can the phrase “Jesus is fully *

S e e t h e b a c k g r o u n d p r o v id e d i n A i d a n N i c h o l s , O .P ., R e a s o n w i t h P i e t y : G a r r i g o u - L a g r a n g e i n t h e S e r v i c e o f C a th o li c T h o u g h t (N a p le s , F L : S a p ie n tia P r e s s, 2 0 0 8 ) , 1 - 8 .

2

N ic h o ls , R e a s o n w i th P i e t y , 9 . N ic h o ls d r a w s a t t e n t io n h e r e to th e r e a d in g o f C a th o lic m o d ­ e r n is m f o u n d i n P o p e P i u s X s 1 9 0 7 e n c y c li c a l P a s c e n d i D o m i n i c i G r e g i s , a r e a d in g ( a c c u r a t e i n m y v i e w , i f s o m e w h a t n e g le c t in g t h e h i s t o r i c a l a n d h i s t o r i o g r a p h ic a l s o u r c e s o f s o m e e x ­

e m p l a r s o f C a t h o l i c m o d e r n is m ) t h a t s h a p e s G a r r ig o u - L a g r a n g e ’ s b o o k . I t s h o u l d g o w i t h -

xi

T H O M IST IC C O M M O N S E N SE

God and fully man" have an enduringly true meaning across diverse lan­ guages, cultures, and personal experiences? In response to this question, some may suppose that no enduringly true propositions about divine re­ alities are possible—even if religious experience remains possible. Others may suppose that we have a natural and immediate intuition of the divine that makes dogma superfluous. By contrast, Garrigou-Lagrange thinks that there are fundamental metaphysical principles constituting the ground of enduring dogmatic truth, that people know without need for study. These principles allow dogmatic propositions to be ontologically understandable by all, so that people are able to affirm the Nicene Creed and to have an adequate sense of what they are affirming. The principles form the foundation of meta­ physical realism: that the intellect’s object is being; the primacy of being over becoming (the act/potency distinction); the principle of non-con­ tradiction (something cannot be and not be in the same way at the same time); the reality of efficient and final causality; the distinction between person and nature; the substance/accident distinction; and so on. In making this argument, Garrigou-Lagrange is immersed in conver­ sations that have been forgotten and neglected to the detriment of theol­ ogy. Post-conciliar Catholic theology has sometimes operated as though the mainstream Catholic theological debates of the late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth centuries can be dismissed as the last gasps of Enlight­ enment-influenced, rationalistic theology. In fact, the debates to which Garrigou-Lagrange contributes never ceased to be relevant. Reading in Le sens commun about the perspectives of such figures as Antonio Rosmini, Anton Gunther, Ernst Renan, fidouard Le Roy, and Henri Bergson, one is struck by how contemporary so much of it still is? o u t s a y in g c h a t I a g r e e w it h P i u s X a n d G a r r i g o u - L a g r a n g e t h a t C a t h o l ic m o d e r n i s m , w h i c h

“ l a t e r i n t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y . . . a c q u ir e d a n a f t e r l i f e " ( N i c h o l s , 4 ) , i s d e s t r u c t i v e t o C a t h ­ o li c f a it h a n d l if e . A s G u y M a n s i n i , O . S . B ., s a y s i n s k e t c h i n g t h e i n f lu e n c e o f B e r g s o n ’ s t h o u g h t u p o n t h e C a t h o l ic m o d e r n is t G e o r g e T y r r e l l: “ F o r B e r g s o n , l a n g u a g e e x h a u s t s i t s e l f i n i t s p r a c t i ­

c a l i m p o r t , t h e h e l p i t g i v e s u s t o n a v i g a t e i n t h e w o r ld . I t s p e a k s o f t h e r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n

t h i n g s , b u t d o e s n o t g e t a t t h in g s i n t h e m s e l v e s . F o r t h a t , t h e r e i s i n t u i t i o n . I n t u i t i o n g iv e s u s o u r s e lv e s — o u r o w n d u r i e — th a t is, th e in m o s t r e a lity o f th e p e r s o n . B u t in tu ­

i t i o n g i v e s u s a l s o w h a t e v e r w c p o s s e s s o f t h e r e a l it y o f a n y t h i n g . B u t o n c e d u r a t i o n a l r e a l it y i s c a s h e d o u t i n l a n g u a g e — t h e m o r c e l a g e o f t h e c o n c e p t u a l p i e c e s o f t h o u g h t a n d

la n g u a g e th a t fr e e z e w h a t is f lo w in g , a n d s to p th e m o t io n th a t is t h e r e a l— t h e n la n g u a g e

a b s t r a c t s , f a ls if ie s , m i s l e a d s . . . . A c c e s s t o t h e t r u e a n d t h e r e a l o c c u r s n o t b y l a n g u a g e ,

t h e r e f o r e , b u t b y e x p e r i e n c e . A n d i f t h i s i s t r u e o f o u r k n o w le d g e o f t h e s e l f , a r e l ig i o u s t h in k e r w i l l i n f e r t h a t i t w i l l b e t r u e a s w e l l o f t h e o n e i n w h o s e i m a g e w e a r c m a d e .

x ii

FOREW ORD

While Garrigou-Lagrange affirms doctrinal development and knows that a dogmatic truth cannot be reduced to its specific formulation, he sees that the crux of the debate is whether the Church has been given a know­ able, propositionally enunciable deposit of faith. Regarding the ongoing development of the Church’s knowledge of this deposit, he argues that the Church today does not know “more” revealed realities, but rather knows more of what is (and was) present in the revealed realities. At stake is the nature of divine revelation, given that an evolutionary view of ongoing “revelation” would, in the end, amount to not having received a revelation at all. In Lesens commun, originally written in 1909 (the present translation comes from the third edition), the anti-modernist condemnations found in Lam entabili Sane and Pascendi D om inici Gregis are a significant pres­ ence. Less explicitly present, but still visible, are the twenty-two Thomistic theses to which Catholic thinkers of the day were formally required to subscribe as expressing the philosophia perennis.*4 As Nichols laments: “Ro­ man neo-Thomism from the pontificate of Pius X onwards, being framed as it was in terms of a response to Modernism, inevitably became associat­ ed with the mechanisms of doctrinal control put in pace by the encyclical. This goes a long way towards explaining the dam natio memoriae it subse­ quently suffered.”5 Reading the book in this light, the theologian today may wonder whether the choice is either to do theology and metaphysics exactly as Garrigou-Lagrange does or to fall into modernist error. The im­ pression that these are the only two choices on the table can be bolstered by the fact that Garrigou-Lagrange’s robust prose and clear argumentation do not lack for confidence. The result is that theologians who do not be­ long to Garrigou-Lagrange’s school of thought may hasten to condemn him before he condemns them; fruitful theological understanding may be cut off before it ever has a chance. A c c e s s c o t h e t r u e a n d r e a l G o d w i l l b e b e y o n d l a n g u a g e , i n r e l ig i o u s e x p e r i e n c e " ( “ E x ­

p e r i e n c e a n d D i s c o u r s e , R e v e la t i o n a n d D o g m a i n C a t h o l ic M o d e r n i s m ," N o v a e t V e t e r a [ E n g l is h ] 1 7 , n o . 4 [ 2 0 1 9 ] : 1 1 1 9 - 4 3 , a t 1 1 3 2 - 3 3 ) . F o r b o t h c r i t i c a l a n d , i n c e r t a i n w a y s ,

a p p r e c ia t iv e e n g a g e m e n t w i t h B e r g s o n ’ s p h i l o s o p h y — B e r g s o n w a s h is t e a c h e r p r i o r t o h i s c o n v e r s i o n — s e c J a c q u e s M a r ic a in , B e r g s o n i a n P h i l o s o p h y a n d T h o m i s m . c d . R a l p h

M c l n e r n y , 2 n d c d ., v o l . 1 o f T h e C o l l e c t e d W o r k s o f J a c q u e s M a r i t a i n ( N o t r e D a m e , I N :

U n iv e r sity o f N o t r e D a m e P r e s s, 2 0 0 7 ) . I n o te th a t G a r r ig o u -L a g r a n g e , to o , a tte n d e d B e r g s o n ’ s c o u r s e s a t t h e S o r b o n n e a s p a r t o f h i s p h i lo s o p h i c a l f o r m a t i o n , t h o u g h u n l i k e M a r i t a i n , G a r r i g o u - L a g r a n g e w a s n e v e r a t t r a c t e d b y B e r g s o n ’s p h i l o s o p h y .

4

N o t e t h a t “ G a r r ig o u d id n o t t h i n k t h a t c o m m o n s e n s e , s p o n t a n e o u s r e a s o n , s u f f i c e d b y

i t s e l f t o f o u n d a ‘p e r e n n ia l p h ilo s o p h y ’" ( N ic h o ls , R e a s o n w i t h P i e t y . 1 3 ) . ’

N ic h o ls, R e a s o n w i t h P ie ty . 8 .

x iii

T H O M IS T IC C O M M O N S E N S E

I submit that this atmosphere of fear and condemnation, at least insofar as it involves distinct theological schools that affirm Catholic dogma, needs to be deliberately set to the side in reading Le sens commun. After all, Le sens commun seeks to defend the claim that non-scholars can know being and can know the truth of the realities attested by historically contextual­ ized dogma. The claim is not that everyone should be Garrigou-Lagrange in nuce. Rather, people naturally know basic ontological truths, and therefore in faith, can understand and affirm the things that the creeds are communi­ cating. This is a refreshingly humble claim for theologians to make. It is not a matter, then, of being required to do theology as GarrigouLagrange does it. To highlight this point, one might examine the approach taken by Pope Francis in his first encyclical, Lum en Fidei— largely written by Pope Benedict XVI, an admirer (and exponent) of the nouvelle theologie, which Garrigou-Lagrange opposed. Pope Francis emphasizes the role of love in faith, in a manner similar to Pierre Rousselot’s The Eyes of Faith. This is not the approach that Garrigou-Lagrange would take to theological virtue of faith. At the same time, Pope Francis goes on to say that “love requires truth. Only to the extent that love is grounded in truth can it endure over time, can it transcend the passing moment and be sufficiently solid to sus­ tain a shared journey.... Without truth, love is incapable of establishing a firm bond.”6 He has in view truth about God, truth about Jesus Christ truth about God’s covenantal love. Of course, such truth does not mean the reduction of God to propositions; on the contrary, as Garrigou-Lagrange emphasizes, the purpose of propositional knowledge is to unite us to reali­ ties, to actual being. According to Lumen Fidei, God “is a subject who makes himself known and perceived in an interpersonal relationship,” and this re­ lationship takes root through an encounter mediated by words (within the Spirit-guided community of believers): “the word which God speaks to us, the word which God speaks about himself.”7 Receiving this word is possible only if minds, and words, intend and communicate being. Pope Francis calls the Trinity a communion of love, “an eternal dia­ logue of communion.”8 In Le sens commun, Garrigou-Lagrange say some­ thing comparable, arguing that the dogma of the Trinity, though expressed in technical terms indebted to Greek philosophy, resonates with the “com­ mon sense” of ordinary believers, with ordinary believers’ sense of being, of the real. Garrigou-Lagrange argues that the beings that we see around

6

P o p e F r a n c is , L u m e n F i d e i ( S a n F r a n c i s c o : I g n a t i u s P r e s s , 2 0 1 3 ) , § 2 7 ( p . 4 8 ) .

7

P o p e F r a n c is, L u m e n F i d e i , § 3 6 (p . 6 7 ).

*

P o p e F r a n c is, L u m e n F id e i , § 3 6 (p . 6 7 ).

x iv

FOREW ORD

us show that the higher forms of existence are more able to communicate and to share themselves. Thus it makes sense that God, as infinitely per­ fect in being, is able to communicate and share himselfperfectly, so much so as to beget a Son who is utterly identical to God the Father in substance, while differentiated from God the Father in the order of origin. Any theologian reading Garrigou-Lagrange s Le sens commun today will need to attend to the insights of the Benedictine theologian Guy Mansini, es­ pecially his recent “The Historicity of Dogma and Common Sense: Ambroise Gardeil, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Yves Congar, and the Modern Magis­ terium.”9 The author of a dissertation at the Gregorian University in Rome on fdouard Le Roy’s understanding of dogma, Mansini has a thorough knowl­ edge of Catholic modernism and its opponents. He writes knowledgeably on the influence of Henri Bergson and Auguste Sabatier, as well as on the views of dogma held by George Tyrrell and Alfred Loisy.1011 He is up to date regarding the contemporary literature about early- to mid-twentieth-century Catholic theology. Among his other contributions, he makes clear that the nouvelle thdologie movement was not modernist, insofar as figures such as Henri de Lubac insisted upon the indispensable truth of dogma. Based on the evidence, however, Mansini also deems that in the work of some figures associated with the nouvelle thdologie — he, names M.-D. Chenu—the enduring truth of dog­ matic propositions was undermined.11 A recurring leitmotif of Mansini’s work is that “human discourse must be capable of making the intelligibility of realities present to us, and we must be able to appreciate ourselves as creatures whose work it is to be receptive to being, before ever we can hear the word of revelation."12 This is another way of saying—more phenomenologically, with more attention to language—what Garrigou-Lagrange is saying, by and large, in Le sens commun. Mansini emphasizes that the appeal to something like “common sense,” which Garrigou-Lagrange worked out in conjunction with his 9

G u y M a n s i n i, O . S .B ., “ T h e H i s t o r ic i t y o f D o g m a a n d C o m m o n S e n s e : A m b r o is e G a r d e i l , R e g i n a l d G a r r i g o u - L a g r a n g e , Y v e s C o n g a r , a n d t h e M o d e r n M a g i s t e r i u m ," N o v a e t V e t ­ e r a (E n g lish ) 1 8 , n o . 1 (2 0 2 0 ): 1 1 1 -3 8 .

10

S e e : G u y M a n s i n i , O . S .B . , W h a t I s a D o g m a ? T h e M e a n i n g a n d T r u t h o f D o g m a i n L d o u a r d L e R o y a n d H is

S c h o la s tic

O p p o n e n ts

( R o m e : G r e g o r ia n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s ,

1 9 8 5 ) ; M a n s i n i, " E x p e r ie n c e a n d D i s c o u r s e , R e v e la t i o n a n d D o g m a i n C a t h o l ic M o d ­

e r n i s m ." 11

S e e G u y M a n s i n i, O . S .B . , R e v ie w o f J o n K ir w a n , A n A v a n t - g a r d e T h e o l o g i c a l G e n e r a ­ t i o n : T h e N o u v e l l e r h e o l o g ic a n d t h e F r e n c h C r i s i s o f M o d e r n i t y ( O x f o r d : O x f o r d U n i ­

v e r sity P r e s s , 2 0 1 8 ), in T h e T h o m i s t 8 3 (2 0 1 9 ): 4 7 9 - 8 2 , a t 4 8 2 .

11

M a n s i n i, “ E x p e r ie n c e a n d D i s c o u r s e , R e v e la t io n a n d D o g m a i n C a t h o l ic M o d e r n i s m ,"

1143.

xv

T H O M IST IC C O M M O N S E N SE

teacher Ambroise Gardeil and others,13 continues after the Second Vatican Council. In Pope John Paul Us 1998 encyclical Fides et Ratio, for example, the Pope reflects upon the situation of theology, and upon the ability of creedal propositions to communicate enduring truth, in light of contemporary epistemic contexts such as post-modernism and (at another extreme) scientif­ ic-technological positivism. At various points in the encyclical, he strongly echoes the perspective of Garrigou-Lagrange s Le sens commun. Thus, refer­ encing Pope Pius XII’s 1950 H um ani Generis, John Paul II makes the fol­ lowing claim: “One must reckon seriously with the meaning which words assume in different times and cultures. Nonetheless, the history of thought shows that across the range of cultures and their development certain ba­ sic concepts retain their universal epistemological value and thus retain the truth of the propositions in which they are expressed.”14 These basic con­ cepts, found in varying formulations across diverse times and cultures, ex­ hibit the ability of the mind to know being. Among these core philosoph­ ical insights, the Pope names “the principles of noncontradiction, finality and causality, as well as the concept of the person as a free and intelligent

,J

O n G a r d e i l, s e e M a n s i n i , " H i s t o r i c i t y o f D o g m a ," 1 1 2 - 1 7 , r e l y in g l a r g e ly u p o n G a r d e i l ’ s L e d o n n i r i v i l e e t l a t h i o l o g i e , 2 n d c d . ( P a r is : C e r f , 1 9 3 2 ) . G a r d e i l ’ s b o o k , l i k e G a r r i g o u *

L a g r a n g e ’ s , w a s o r i g in a ll y p u b l is h e d i n 1 9 0 9 . F o r f u r t h e r b a c k g r o u n d , s e e N ic h o ls , R e a s o n w i t h P i e t y , 1 0 - 1 1 : “ W h a t i s c o m m o n s e n s e ’ , a n d h o w d o e s i t f u n c t io n ? G a r r ig o u s u s e o f

t h is t e r m , t h o u g h i t r e f l e c t s a w i d e r c u r r e n c y t h a n s im p ly a m o n g n e o - s c h o l a s t i c s , s e e m s

t o h a v e e n t e r e d c o n t e m p o r a r y C a t h o l ic p h il o s o p h i c a l p a r la n c e t h r o u g h t h e S u m m a p h i l ­ o s o p h i c a o f t h e I t a l i a n D o m i n ic a n C a r d in a l T o m m a s o Z i g l ia r a — w h o s e l e c t u r e s L e o X I I I

a t t e n d e d f r o m b e h in d a c u r t a i n s i n c e i t w a s t h o u g h t i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a r e ig n i n g p o p e t o b e s e e n t a k in g i n s t r u c t i o n . F o r Z i g l i a r a , t h e ‘ i n c l in a t io n o f r a t io n a l n a t u r e * t o a d m it c e r ­ t a in j u d g e m e n t s i s s e n s u s n a t u r a e c o m m u n i s , ‘ t h e c o m m o n s e n s e o f n a t u r e .* . . . N c o - s c h o -

l a s t i c u s e h a s a l s o t o b e d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m t h a t f o u n d i n t h e s o - c a ll e d c o m m o n s e n s e

s c h o o l i n e ig h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y S c o t la n d . G a r r ig o u c o n s i d e r e d T h o m a s R e id a n d h i s c o l ­ l e a g u e s t o r e p r e s e n t a m e d i o c r e p h i l o s o p h i c a l r e s p o n s e t o D a v i d H u m e ’ s s c e p t i c is m ,

v a g u e l y f o r m u l a t e d — R e id s p o k e o f a ‘ n a t u r a l i n s t i n c t ’ f o r t r u t h — a n d d e p e n d e n t o n a n u n sa tis fa c to r y c o m p r o m ise b e tw e e n m e ta p h y sic s a n d e m p ir ic is m w h ic h fa ile d to r e c o n g n iz e t h a t m i n d i s a f a c u l t y e s s e n t ia ll y r e l a t i v e t o b e i n g . O n l y l a p h i l o s o p h i c d e P i t r e ,

‘ t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f b e in g , ’ a r g u e s G a r r ig o u , r e a l l y d e s e r v e s t h e t i t l e ‘ c o m m o n s e n s e p h i ­ l o s o p h y ,* s in c e o n l y s u c h a n o n t o l o g y c o n f o r m s t o o u r m o s t b a s i c j u d g e m e n t s a n d c a n

c o u n t a s t h e ir i n t e l l e c t u a l d e v e lo p m e n t a n d j u s t i f i c a t i o n .”

M

P o p e J o h n P a u l I I , F i d e s e t R a t i o , $ 9 6 , in T h e E n c y c l ic a l s o f J o h n P a u l I I , e d . J . M ic h a e l

M i l l e r , C .S . B . ( H u n t in g t o n , I N : O u r S u n d a y V is it o r , 2 0 0 1 ) , 8 5 0 - 9 1 3 , a t 9 0 6 . M a n s i n i

o b s e r v e s t h a t F i d e s e t R a t i o e x h i b i t s a " r e c o g n i z a b le r e li a n c e o n a t l e a s t p a r t o f w h a t G a r r i g o u - L a g r a n g e c a ll e d ‘ c o m m o n s e n s e ’ " ( “ H i s t o r i c i t y o f D o g m a , " 1 3 3 ) .

xvi

FOREW ORD

subject, with the capacity to know God, truth and goodness."15 These universally accessible philosophical insights, which John Paul II calls “an im plicit philosophy* possessed by all persons “in a general and unreflective way,” undergird what he describes as “the objectivity of truth,” its con­ tact with being rather than simply with appearances or “becoming,”16 The Pope, who wrote his doctoral thesis under Garrigou-Lagrange, observes with regard to the Christian doctrinal significance of metaphysical real­ ism: “A theology without a metaphysical horizon could not move beyond an analysis of religious experience, nor would it allow the intellectus fidei to give a coherent account of the universal and transcendent value of re­ vealed truth.”17 In “Historicity of Dogma and Common Sense,” Mansini documents that, between 1965 and 1973, during a time of theological and doctrinal turmoil, the Catholic Church likewise repeatedly invoked something like Garrigou-Lagrange’s “common sense.” In his encyclical on the Eucharist, M ysterium Fidei (1965), Pope Paul VI urges that key dogmatic proposi­ tions—such as those regarding the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Eu­ charist—are not strictly culture-dependent for their truth, even though they employ culturally grounded language. Paul VI appeals to the way in which these dogmas build upon the foundation of “what the human mind grasps of reality through necessary and universal experience and what it expresses in apt and exact words, whether it be in ordinary or more refined language.”18 The same proposal appears in the International Theological

”

P o p e J o h n P a u l II, F id e s e t R a tio , § 4 (p . 8 5 2 ).

16

P o p e J o h n P a u l I I , F id e s e t R a tio , § 4 (p . 8 8 2 ) a n d § 4 4 (p . 8 7 6 ).

17

P o p e J o h n P a u l I I, F id e s e t R a t io , § 8 3 (p . 8 9 9 - 9 0 0 ) . J o h n P a u l I I a d d s , a lo n g lin e s th a t

r e s o n a t e w i t h M a n s i n i ’s e m p h a s i s : “ T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f m e t a p h y s i c s b e c o m e s s t i l l m o r e e v i d e n t i f w e c o n s i d e r c u r r e n t d e v e l o p m e n t s i n h e r m e n e u t ic s a n d t h e a n a ly s i s o f l a n ­ g u a g e . T h e r e s u l t s o f s u c h s t u d ie s c a n b e v e r y h e lp f u l f o r t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f f a i t h ,

s i n c e t h e y b r in g t o l ig h t t h e s t r u c t u r e o f o u r t h o u g h t a n d s p e e c h a n d t h e m e a n in g w h i c h l a n g u a g e b e a r s . H o w e v e r , s o m e s c h o l a r s w o r k i n g i n t h e s e f ie ld s t e n d t o s t o p s h o r t a t

th e q u e s tio n o f h o w r e a lity is u n d e r s t o o d a n d e x p r e ss e d , w it h o u t g o in g fu r th e r t o s e e

w h e t h e r r e a s o n c a n d i s c o v e r i t s e s s e n c e . . . . F a i t h c le a r ly p r e s u p p o s e s t h a t h u m a n l a n ­

g u a g e i s c a p a b le o f e x p r e s s in g d i v in e a n d t r a n s c e n d e n t r e a l i t y i n a u n iv e r s a l w a y — a n ­ a l o g ic a ll y , i t i s t r u e , b u t n o l e s s m e a n i n g f u ll y f o r t h a t . W e r e t h is n o t s o , t h e w o r d o f

G o d , w h ic h i s a l w a y s a d i v in e w o r d i n h u m a n l a n g u a g e , w o u l d n o t b e c a p a b l e o f s a y i n g a n y t h i n g a b o u t G o d . T h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h is w o r d c a n n o t m e r e l y k e e p r e f e r r i n g u s t o o n e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a f t e r a n o t h e r , w i t h o u t e v e r l e a d in g u s t o a s t a t e m e n t w h i c h i s s i m p l y

t r u e ; o t h e r w i s e t h e r e w o u l d b e n o R e v e l a t i o n o f G o d , b u t o n l y t h e e x p r e s s io n o f h u m a n n o t i o n s a b o u t G o d a n d a b o u t w h a t G o d p r e s u m a b l y t h i n k s o f u s ’ ( § 8 4 ,9 0 0 ) . 11

P o p e P a u l V I , M y s t e r i u m F i d e i , § 2 4 ( s e c t h e V a t ic a n w e b s it e ) .

x v ii

T H O M IS T IC C O M M O N S E N S E

Commission’s 1972 Unity of the Faith and Theological Pluralism, which argues briefly that dogmas do not require a philosophical education in or­ der to be understood; instead, dogmatic formulations rely upon “the un­ derlying realities of universal human experience” as cognitionally available to everyone, philosopher and non-philosopher.19 And in 1973 the Congre­ gation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in M ysterium Ecclesiae, chimed in by granting, of course, that dogmas are expressed in the philosophical lan­ guage of particular cultures and can be clarified or more fully expressed. Nevertheless, dogmatic truths are not bound to a particular epoch. Dog­ mas do more than approximate truth along lines that will be ever-chang­ ing; they communicate truth in a determinative way. Put simply, “we can know the true and unchanging meaning of dogmas.”20 The post-conciliar Church, then, continued to struggle with the same basic issue and to advance the same basic answer as did Garrigou-Lagrange in his critique of Catholic modernism in Le sens commun. To give one final example of the post-conciliar ecclesiastical engagement with the issue, let me mention (as Mansini also does) the International Theological Com­ mission’s 1990 The Interpretation of Dogma, published eight years prior to Fides et Ratio. The question, again, is how to “take the hermeneutic circle between subject and object seriously”—thereby avoiding a simplistic real­ ism—“without becoming victims of a relativism which recognizes nothing but interpretations of interpretations, which, in turn, give birth to fur­ ther interpretations.”21 Fully granting the historicity of dogma, are there grounds for assurance that dogmatic formulations unite us to unchanging realities and thus express enduring truth for all times and places? Or must

*’

I n t e r n a t io n a l T h e o l o g i c a l C o m m i s s i o n , U n i t y o f t h e F a i t h a n d T h e o l o g i c a l P l u r a l i s m ,

r e p r o d u ce d in I n te r n a ti o n a l T h e o l o g i c a l C o m m is s io n : T e x ts a n d D o c u m e n ts , 1 9 6 9 - 1 9 8 $ ( S a n F r a n c i s c o : I g n a t i u s P r e s s , 1 9 8 9 ) , 9 1 . M a n s i n i s u m s u p t h e c o m m i s s i o n ’s p o s i t i o n ,

l i n k in g i t t o t h a t o f Y v e s C o n g a r : “ D o g m a e x p r e s s e s t h e t r u t h a b o u t d i v in e t h in g s . I t s e x p r e ss io n s a n d c o n c e p tu a lity a r e w o r k e d o u t h isto r ic a lly w ith w h a t is a t h a n d b u t a r e

t h e C h u r c h ’s o w n c r e a t i o n , a c r e a t i o n e n r i c h i n g t h e c o m m o n p a t r i m o n y o f h u m a n i t y . S t i ll , d o g m a r e m a i n s a c c e s s ib l e t o a l l. T h e C o m m i s s i o n r e f u s e s t o l e t t h e t r u t h a b o u t

t h e h i s t o r i c i t y o f d o g m a d e f e a t t h e t r u t h o f i t s a c c e s s ib i li t y , a n d v i c e v e r s a . T h e C o m ­ m is s i o n d o e s t h i s w i t h o u t a n y e x p r e s s a p p e a l t o a l r e a d y a v a i l a b le ’ c o m m o n ’ o r c o m ­

m o n - s e n s e c o n c e p t s , a l t h o u g h t h e r e i s a s u g g e s t io n t h a t t h e r e i s a p r o d u c t i o n o f s u c h a

s t o r e c o m m o n t o a ll m a n k i n d ” ( “ H i s t o r i c i t y o f D o g m a ,” 1 3 2 ) . “

C o n g r e g a t i o n f o r t h e D o c t r in e o f t h e F a i t h , M y s t e r i u m E c c l e s i a e , § 5 ( s e e t h e V a t i c a n

w e b s it e ) . 21

I n t e r n a t i o n a l T h e o l o g i c a l C o m m i s s io n , T h e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f D o g m a , r e p r o d u c e d i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l T h e o l o g i c a l C o m m i s s i o n : T e x t s a n d D o c u m e n t s , 1 9 8 6 - 2 0 0 7 , e d . M ic h a e l

S h a r k e y a n d T h o m a s W c in a n d y ( S a n F r a n c i s c o : I g n a t i u s P r e s s , 2 0 0 9 ) , 2 6 .

x v iii

FOREW ORD

historicism reign? In answering this question, the International Theologi­ cal Commission appeals to what Garrigou-Lagrange calls “common sense’ or to what the commission calls as “certain basic truths (for example, the principle of contradiction)" and “a common pool of human values and, as a consequence, a truth common to all men.”2223 Naturally, Mansini allows that some of Garrigou-Lagrange’s argu­ ments in Le sens commun can be criticized. Chief among the critics was Etienne Gilson in an essay collected in his 1939 work Thom ist Realism and the Critique of Knowledge. 1 * According to Gilson, Garrigou-Lagrange seeks to ignore the historicity of dogmatic formulations and to avoid studying them in their historical contexts. Gilson thinks that Garrigou-Lagrange is amalgamating Thomas Reid, Aristotle, and Thomas Aquinas. More tell­ ingly, he asks how the knowledge of God’s existence, the knowledge of the existence of miracles, and the knowledge of the immortality of the soul can be set up as fundamental principles naturally or easily known to the human intellect (or “common sense”) alongside things such as the principle of non-contradiction. Mansini holds that this aspect of Gilson s critique has merit, as does Gilsons concern regarding the need for more than “common sense” to perceive the reasonableness of the contents of di­ vine revelation. As Mansini points out, Yves Congar, in his 1962 La foi et la thtologie — a work that Mansini identifies as a “vastly under-appreciat­ ed” successor to Gardeil’s Le donnd rdvdld et la theologie — avoids listing the contents of “common sense,” even while arguing that the words that the Church borrows from a particular philosophy and culture in order to define a dogma are employed by the Church not in their most technical

22

I n t e r n a t i o n a l T h e o l o g i c a l C o m m i s s io n , I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f D o g m a . 2 8 . T h e c o m m is s i o n

c a u t io n s a g a i n s t v a r i o u s i n a d e q u a t e s o lu t io n s : “ A t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h is c e n t u r y , M o d ­ e r n i s m a d d r e s s e d i t s e l f t o t h e q u e s t io n [ o f d o g m a a n d h i s t o r y ] . I t w a s a p o o r s o lu t io n :

r e v e l a t io n w a s i m p r o p e r l y c o n c e iv e d a n d d o g m a s w e r e g i v e n a p r a g m a t ic s l a n t . C o n ­ t e m p o r a r y t h e o lo g y o f t h e h e r m e n e u t i c a l s c h o o l t r i e s t o b u il d a b r id g e b e t w e e n t h e d o g m a t i c t r a d i t i o n a n d m o d e r n t h o u g h t b y a s k in g w h a t m e a n in g a n d w h a t i m p o r t a n c e

d o g m a s h a v e f o r m a n t o d a y . B u t i n a c t i n g l i k e t h a t , o n e d e t a c h e s t h e d o g m a t ic f o r m u ­ l a t i o n a s s u c h f r o m t h e P a r a d o s i s [ T r a d i t i o n ] a n d o n e i s o l a t e s i t f r o m t h e l iv i n g l if e o f

th e C h u r c h . I n th a t w a y o n e m a k e s th e d o g m a a s u b sta n c e b y itse lf. W h a t is m o r e , in h a r p i n g o n t h e p r a c t ic a l, e x is t e n t i a l o r s o c i a l m e a n i n g o f d o g m a , t h e q u e s t i o n o f t r u t h i s

l o s t t o s ig h t . A s im il a r o b j e c t i o n h o l d s w h e n d o g m a i s h e ld t o b e a t h in g o f c o n v e n t i o n ,

t h a t i s a f u n c t io n o f e c c le s i a s t i c a l l a n g u a g e , n e c e s s a r y a s a m a r k o f u n i t y , b u t u l t i m a t e l y

m e r e ly p r o v is io n a l a n d o p e n t o f u r t h e r c o r r e c tio n s . I n t h a t w a y , d o g m a is n o lo n g e r r e g a r d e d a s a n i n e v i t a b l e a n d o b l ig a t o r y m e d ia t o r o f r e v e a le d t r u t h " ( 2 9 - 3 0 ) .

23

S e e E t i e n n e G i l s o n , “ R e a li s m a n d C o m m o n S e n s e ," i n T h o m i s t R e a l i s m a n d t h e C r i ­ t i q u e o f K n o w l e d g e , tr a n s . M a r k A . W a u c k (S a n F r a n c isc o : I g n a tiu s P r e ss , 1 9 8 6 ), 2 7 - 5 3 .

x ix

T H O M IS T IC C O M M O N S E N S E

meaning, but in their “common sense" meaning. Thus Congar does not follow Garrigou-Lagrange fully, but Congar does maintain a central el­ ement of Garrigou-Lagrange’s viewpoint—namely that the Church ex­ presses divine revelation, which goes beyond what is available to human thought on its own, “in universally accessible terms”—thus presupposing that there are basic, universally accessible truths constitutive of human in­ tellection.24 In Le sens com m un, and indeed in his work as a whole, GarrigouLagrange does not delve much into the specific historical conditioning of particular dogmatic formulations, although he demonstrates an excellent knowledge of the conciliar texts. With regard to the detailed historical contexts, Congar contributes much more, following in a fruitful Newmanian line.25 Nevertheless, as Mansini notes, “the appeal to universally ac­ cessible notions does not necessarily flatten out the novelty of revelation or make us ignore it.”26 Instead, we are reminded that divine revelation proceeds from within the created order, to which pertain certain basic metaphysical and moral principles of human reason. Nichols sums up the main point regarding common sense: “No child needs to be taught the principles of non-contradiction, of substance, sufficient reason, causality, finality, nor the first principles of practical reason that good should be pursued and evil avoided.”27 In this foreword, my purpose has been to situate the project ofZe sens com m un within post-conciliar Catholic theology, and to do so in conver­

24 25

M a n s in i , “ H i s t o r i c i t y o f D o g m a , " 1 2 2 .

S ee A n d r ew M esza r o s, T h e P r o p h e tic C h u r c h : H is to r y a n d D o c tr in a l D e v e lo p m e n t in J o h n H en ry N ew m a n a n d

Y v e s C o n g a r ( O x f o r d : O x fo r d U n iv e r s it y P r e s s , 2 0 1 6 ) . S e e

a lso , fo r f u r th e r d is c u s s io n o f h is t o r y a n d d o g m a , T h o m a s J o s e p h W h ite , O .P ., “ T h e

P r e c a r it y o f W i s d o m : M o d e r n D o m i n i c a n T h e o l o g y , P e r s p e c t i v a ii s m , a n d t h e T a s k s o f

R e c o n s t r u c t io n , " i n R e s s o u r c e m e n t T h o m i s m : S a c r e d D o c t r i n e , t h e S a c r a m e n t s , a n d t h e M o r a l L i f e , e d . R e in h a r d H u t t e r a n d M a t t h e w L e v e r i n g ( W a s h i n g t o n , D C : C a t h o l i c

U n i v e r s i t y o f A m e r ic a P r e s s , 2 0 1 0 ) , 9 2 - 1 2 3 .

26

M a n s i n i, “ H i s t o r i c i t y o f D o g m a , " 1 3 6 .

27

N ic h o ls , R e a s o n w i t h P i e t y , 1 4 -1 5 . N ic h o ls a d d s s o m e f u r t h e r c la r if y in g r e m a r k s , s u m ­ m i n g u p G a r r ig o u - L a g r a n g e ’ s p o s i t i o n

( to w a r d w h ic h h e is s y m p a t h e t ic ) : “ I n e f f e c t ,

t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s g i v e u s t h e s t r u c t u r e o f r e a s o n i t s e lf . T o g e t h e r w i t h o u r f i r s t n o t i o n s

o f e x t r a - m e n t a l r e a l i t y — t h e i n t e l li g i b l e a s f o u n d i n t h e s e n s u o u s — t h e s e a r e t h e p r i m a i n t e l l i g i b i l i a , t h e p r im a r y i n t e l l i g i b le t h in g s . A n d t h e y a r e a l s o t h e p r o p e r o b j e c t o f t h e s e n s c o m m u n , a l o n g w i t h t h e g r e a t t r u t h s w h ic h a t t a c h t h e m s e l v e s t o t h e s e f i r s t n o t i o n s

b y w a y o f t h e f ir s t p r i n c i p le : n a m e l y , t h e e x is t e n c e o f G o d , f r e e d o m , i m m o r t a l i t y , a n d

o u r f i r s t n a t u r a l d u t i e s , d e d u c e d f r o m a p p l y i n g t o h u m a n n a t u r e t h e f i r s t p r in c ip l e s o f

p r a c tic a l r e a so n ” (1 5 ).

FOREW ORD

sation with Church documents and notable contemporary theologians, sep­ arated from the context of ecclesiastical crackdown in the debates of theolo­ gians faithful to the Church’s dogmatic and moral teachings. At present, it is no doubt the question of whether God has spoken his authoritative Word (of mercy, love, holiness, and redemption from sin and death) in Jesus Christ that burns most urgently. Can we know this Word, or is God’s speech, if it has been given, locked into—and overwhelmed by—the pastness of events and the hermeneutical circle of interpretations of interpretations? The temp­ tation is to turn Catholicism into another human mode of gesturing more or less articulately toward the ineffable, made concrete in human practices that are sociologically liberative. Reinhard Hutter comments accurately that Catholic theology today is largely “absorbed with various aspects of the [hu­ man] subject: its unavoidable construction of religious meaning, its auton­ omous rationality, its existential authenticity, its prelinguistic primordial religious experience, its unfathomable libertarian freedom, its primordially and inescapably graced nature, and... its sociohistorical, cultural, and eco­ nomic location.”28 All this is interesting enough, but it is not Christ, it is not God, it is not the in-breaking of real salvation from sin and death and the opening up of the Trinitarian life, sending us joyfully forth into the world to proclaim and live the good news. Let Garrigou-Lagrange, therefore, have the last word here: “Our faith has as its object these truths hidden in God, truths that can only be known only if God reveals them and that the Holy Spirit has revealed to us.”29

21

R e in h a r d H u tte r , B o u n d f o r B e a t i t u d e : A

T h o m is tic S tu d y in

E s c h a to lo g y a n d E th ic s

(W a sh in g to n , D C : C a th o lic U n iv e r sity o f A m e r ic a P r e ss , 2 0 1 9 ), 2 0 0 .

”

P t. 3 , c h , 2 , § 1 o f th e p r e s e n t v o lu m e .

xxi

Tr a n s l a t o r ’s In t

r o d u c t io n

homistic philosophy is an interesting, if elusive, term. Etienne Gilson and others have done a great deal to draw our attention to the theo­ logical character of the Angelic Doctor’s thought.1 Likewise, this fact was not lost on Jacques Maritain, who observed in his well-known jeremiad, The

T

Peasant of the Garonne:* S e c E t i e n n e G il s o n , T h e C h r i s t i a n P h i l o s o p h y o f S t . T h o m a s A q u i n a s , t r a n s . L . K . S h o o k

(N o tr e D a m e , I N : U n iv e r sity o f N o tr e D a m e P r e s s , 2 0 0 6 ). S u c h to o w a s b e h in d th e w o r k o f F r . S e r v a is P in c k a e r s , T h e S o u r c e s o f C h r is ti a n E t h ic s , tr a n s . S r . M a r y T h o m a s

N o b l e ( W a s h in g t o n , D C : C a t h o l ic U n i v e r s i t y o f A m e r i c a P r e s s , 1 9 9 5 ) . T h i s a l s o c o m e s t o l i g h t i n I g n a t iu s E s c h m a n n , T h e E t h i c s o f S a i n t T h o m a s A q u i n a s : T w o C o u r s e s , e d .

E d w a r d S y n a n ( T o r o n t o : P o n t i f ic a l I n s t i t u t e o f M e d i a e v a l S t u d i e s , 1 9 9 7 ) . F o r a g e n ­ e r a l o v e r v i e w , i n l i g h t o f t h e A r is t o t e l ia n c o m m e n t a r i e s , s e e J e a n - P i e r r e T o r r e l l , S a i n t T h o m a s A q u i n a s , v o l. 1

T h e P e r s o n a n d H i s W o r k , tr a n s . R o b e r t R o y a l (W a sh in g to n ,

D C : C a t h o l ic U n iv e r s i t y o f A m e r i c a P r e s s , 1 9 9 6 ) , 2 3 6 - 3 9 . F o r d i s s e n t in g v o i c e s , s e e :

R a l p h M c ln e r n y , P r a e a m b u l a f i d e i : T h o m i s m a n d t h e G o d o f t h e P h i l o s o p h e r s ( W a s h in g ­ t o n , D C : C a t h o l ic U n i v e r s i t y o f A m e r i c a P r e s s , 2 0 0 6 ) ; J o h n W i p p e l , “ T h o m a s A q u i n a s

a n d t h e P r o b l e m o f C h r is t ia n P h i lo s o p h y ," i n M e t a p h y s i c a l T h e m e s i n T h o m a s A q u i n a s , S t u d i e s i n P h i l o s o p h y a n d t h e H i s t o r y o f P h i l o s o p h y 1 0 ( W a s h i n g t o n , D C : C a t h o l ic

U n iv e r s ity o f A m e r ic a P r e s s , 1 9 8 4 ), 1 - 3 3 .

I n a d d i t io n t o t h e s e r e f le c t io n s o n t h e r e l a t io n o f p h i l o s o p h y a n d t h e o l o g y i n a b r o a d l y c o n s t r u e d “ T h o m i s m ," o n e c a n b e n e f i t f r o m r e a d i n g t h e h i s t o r i c a l w o r k o f F r . G e r a l d M c C o o l. W i t h o u t e n d o r s i n g e v e r y c o n c lu s i o n o f h i s h i s t o r i c a l s t u d i e s , o n e c a n g a i n m u c h f r o m h i s l a y in g o u t o f t h e v a s t a n d d i f f e r e n t ia t e d d o m a i n o f “ T h o m is t s " i n

t h e n in e t e e n t h a n d t w e n t ie t h c e n tu r ie s ( T h e N e o - T h o m i s t s [M ilw a u k e e , W I : M a r q u e tte U n iv e r s it y P r e s s , 1 9 9 4 ] ; F r o m

U n ity to P lu r a lis m : T h e I n te r n a l E v o lu tio n o f T h o m is m

[ N e w Y o r k : F o r d h a m U n iv e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 9 9 ] ; N i n e t e e n t h C e n t u r y S c h o l a s t i c i s m : T h e S e a r c h f o r a U n i t a r y M e t h o d , 2 n d e d . [ N e w Y o r k : F o r d h a m U n i v e r s it y P r e s s , 1 9 9 9 ] ) .

F o r a g e n e r a l o v e r v i e w o f T h o m i s m a n d “ t h e T h o m i s t s , " s e e t h e e x c e l le n t r e c e n t

v o lu m e b y F a th e r s R o m a n u s C e s sa r io a n d C a je ta n C u d d y , T h o m a s a n d t h e T h o m is ts : T h e A c h i e v e m e n t o f T h o m a s A q u i n a s a n d H i s I n t e r p r e t e r s ( M in n e a p o l is , M N : F o r t r e s s

P r e ss, 2 0 1 7 ).

1

T H O M 1S T IC C O M M O N S E N S E

St. Thomas’s disciples have, to be sure, spoken a good deal about Thomist philosophy, and have taught it, in magisterial commentar­ ies, courses, and textbooks where, more often than not, they were content to pick up, in the theological exposition of St. Thomas, the substance which can be found there—brought there to the light of theology and enveloped in theology: a substance splendidly rich, but all theologized in the use St. Thomas had made of it. Once one had extracted this substance from the theological exposition of the master, one had only to trace off the formulas, often the very order of exposition, to offer in handsome syllogisms some philosophical thesis or other, nay, the “philosophical doctrine” or the Angel of the Schools.1 2 Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange is often numbered among those accused of such neat “syllogizing.”3 Certainly, he was not afraid to wield the Scholastic nego, distinguo, and concedo. Especially in his commentar­ ies on the Sum m a and in D e revelatione, the Dominican theologian did not fear to express himself in strict syllogistic form in defense of certain conclusions. Nonetheless, even in those works, he dwells at length on the meaning of the content, not merely reducing the theological enterprise to syllogistic chains. Indeed, on various occasions throughout his works, he did not hesitate to speak ill of many philosophical manuals for sacrificing an appropriate sense of mystery to a wrong-headed desire for a superficial form of clarity.4

1

J a c q u e s M a r ita in , T h e P e a s a n t o f t h e G a r o n n e : A n O ld L a y m a n Q u e s t i o n s H i m s e l f a b o u t t h e P r e s e n t T i m e , t r a n s . M i c h a e l C u d d ih y a n d E l i z a b e t h

H u g h e s (N e w Y o rk : H o lt,

R i n e h a r t , a n d W i n s t o n , 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 3 5 - 3 6 . F o r t h i s t h e m e i n M a r it a in s o w n w o r k , s e e :

“ P h i l o s o p h y a n d C o m m o n S e n s e ," A n I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y , t r a n s . E . I . W a t k i n ( L o n d o n : S h e e d a n d W a r d , 1 9 3 2 ) , 1 3 3 — 4 3 ; “ R e a li s m a n d C o m m o n S e n s e ," i n T h e D e ­ g r e e s o f K n o w l e d g e , t r a n s . G e r a ld B . P h e la n e t a l. ( N o t r e D a m e , I N : U n iv e r s it y o f N o t r e

D a m e , 2 0 0 2 ), 8 6 -1 1 8 .

J

M o s t r e c e n t ly , t h is h a s b e e n r e c o r d e d i n T r a c e y R o w la n d , C a t h o l i c T h e o l o g y ( L o n d o n :

B l o o m s b u r y T & T C l a r k , 2 0 1 7 ) , 5 8 : “ T h i s [ d is p u t a t i o n a l s t y l e ] i s , o f c o u r s e , q u it e a d i f ­

f e r e n t u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e t h e o l o g i c a l e n t e r p r is e f r o m C h e n u ’ s n o t i o n o f t h e d i s c e r n ­

m e n t o f m a s t e r - i n t u i t i o n s e m b o d ie d i n h i s t o r i c a l l y c o n d i t i o n e d c o n c e p t u a l f r a m e w o r k s a n d f r o m t h e e n t i r e P a t r i s t ic a p p r o a c h t o t h e o l o g y , w h i c h w a s n o t c e n t e r e d a r o u n d s y l ­

l o g is m s ." I t s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t R o w l a n d i s n o t s t a t i n g t h i s i n a p u g i l is t i c f a s h i o n , b u t i s o n l y b u il d i n g o n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f F r . G a r r i g o u - L a g r a n g e ’ s s t y le o f f e r e d b y

R i c h a r d P c d d ic o r d i n h i s T h e S a c r e d M o n s t e r o f T h o m i s m .

4

S e e R e g i n a l d G a r r ig o u - L a g r a n g e : T h e S e n s e o f M y s t e r y , t r a n s . M a t t h e w

K . M in e r d

( S t e u b e n v i l le , O H : E m m a u s A c a d e m i c , 2 0 1 7 ) , 7 3 - 1 0 2 ; T h e O r d e r o f T h i n g s : T h e R e a l ­

2

t r a n s l a t o r ’s in t r o d u c t io n

Many readers will likely suspect that Father Garrigou-Lagrange is one of the “Thomists” maligned by Maritain’s aforementioned remark. Their later-life interpersonal difficulties are a matter of common knowledge in Catholic intellectual circles, so one would expect a negative judgment on the “Sacred Monster of Thomism.” Nonetheless, the aging Maritain over­ throws such assumptions in words of a footnote annexed to the very re­ mark noted above:

There were certainly, as I have observed, exceptions, although rare to my knowledge. When it comes to overall expositions which have genuine philosophical value, I will name here old Kleutgen, from whom, at one time, I benefited, and in particular two excel­ lent books: Pire Garrigou-Lagrange’s La Philosophic de Tetre et le senscommun [sic], and Gilson’s The Spirit of M edieval Philosophy.5 The current volume is thus mentioned by the aging Maritain as hav­ ing “genuine philosophical value.” Father Garrigou-Lagrange’s attempt to discuss “common sense” from a Thomistic perspective did not meet with universal agreement. For his part, Gilson did not express himself warmly in referring to Father Garrigou-Lagrange’s text. In a lengthy note in Thom ist Realism and the Critique of Knowledge, Gilson critiques Father Garrigou-Lagrange’s Sens commun, which he believes to represent “the most sustained effort to integrate a doctrine of common sense into Thom­ ism.”6 In the lengthy footnote, it is not completely clear how Gilson inter­ prets Father Garrigou-Lagrange, for as he closes the footnote, he seems to imply that even Father Garrigou-Lagrange holds “common sense” to be a distinct kind of faculty. This is never the position expressed by Father Garrigou-Lagrange, and Gilson himself does not seem to directly assert that it was either. In any case, it is not clear that Father Garrigou-Lagrange has committed a grave error in asking the question “What is a Thomist to make of the expres­ sion ‘common sense?’” Although he discusses the Scottish common-sense philosophy of Thomas Reid and, at times, cites positively Theodore Jouffroy, i s m o f t h e P r i n c i p l e o f F i n a l i t y , t r a n s . M a t t h e w K . M in c r d ( S t e u b e n v i ll e , O H : E m m a u s

A c a d e m i c , 2 0 2 0 ) , 1 6 7 , 2 3 9 - 4 0 . I n d e e d , i n t h e s e p a s s a g e s , F r . G a r r ig o u - L a g r a n g e a l s o

c r i t i q u e s t h e t e n d e n c y o f s u c h m a n u a l s t o r e p r o d u c e t h e o lo g i c a l r e a s o n i n g a s t h o u g h i t w e r e a k i n d o f p u r e p h il o s o p h y . O n t h is , s e e e s p e c ia l l y O r d e r o f T h i n g s , 2 3 4 .

5

M a r ita in , P e a s a n t , 1 3 6 n 7 .

6

f i t i e n n e G i ls o n , T h o m i s t i c R e a l i s m

and

th e

C r itiq u e

o f K n o w le d g e ,

tra n s. M a r k A .

W a u c k (S a n F r a n c isc o : I g n a tiu s P r e ss , 1 9 8 6 ), 4 1 n 2 2 .

3

T H O M IS T IC C O M M O N S E N S E

it is clear in what follows that Father Garrigou-Lagrange docs not endeavor to take up their terms of the discussion, thus “introducing a dose, no matter how infinitesimal, of Reid” into Thomism, as Gilson claims.7 As in the case of the temperamental difference between Maritain (the speculative thinker) and Gilson (the historian-philosopher), it seems that here, too, that Minerva and Clio are in dissonance.8 The current text does indeed provide a clear overview of import­ ant themes in a broadly construed Thomism: opposition to nominalism, the nature of definitions, the nature of knowledge itself, the first meta­ physical principles, natural knowledge of God, the nature of analogi­ cal predication, individuation, and the nature of personality. Granted, “Thomism” is a slippery term, one appropriated by a number of differ­ ent approaches to the Angelic Doctor. By not engaging in the lengthy technical polemics of the commentators, to whom he owed much, Fa­ ther Garrigou-Lagrange presents the reader with a fair account of what is broadly held by any Thomism worthy of the name. To this basic account, he adds the central thesis of the work itself: even when explained in an explicitly metaphysical and philosophical manner, these philosophical positions are wholly conformed to the rudimentary metaphysics con­ tained in the initial insights formed by non-scicntific, “common sense” knowledge of the world. The reader will note, however, that we must make certain attenua­ tions regarding the comments made thus far. Le sens com m un is indeed quite philosophical in bearing. Nonetheless, its lengthy final section has an overtly theological character. Indeed, it brings to completion the subti­ tle of the book itself: “The Philosophy of Reing and D ogm atic Form ulas? In this final section, he takes the natural common sense discussed in the first two sections and elevates it to the supernatural order, particularly in relation to the nature of dogmatic formulas that express the content of revelation in an increasingly distinct manner.

7

G ilso n , T h o m i s t i c R e a l i s m , 4 2 n 2 2 .

•

S e e t h e r e m a r k s i n a p o s t s c r i p t w r it t e n i n 1 9 7 2 , r e c o r d e d i n J a c q u e s M a r i t a i n , “ R e f l e c ­ t io n s o n T h e o lo g ic a l K n o w le d g e ," in U n t r a m m e l e d A p p r o a c h e s , t r a n s . B e r n a r d D o e r in g

( N o t r e D a m e , I N : U n i v e r s i t y o f N o t r e D a m e , 1 9 9 7 ) , 2 6 9 : “ F i n a ll y , l e t m e s a y t h a t w h a t

a p p e a r s t o m e m o s t s ig n if ic a n t w i t h r e g a r d t o m y p r e s e n t p r o p o s a l [ c o n c e r n i n g C h r i s ­ t i a n p h i l o s o p h y a n d t h e o l o g y ] i s t h e f a c t t h a t i n G il s o n ’ s e y e s a s i n m i n e ( a n d h e w a s

f o l l o w i n g t h e p a t h s o f h i s c h e r i s h e d l o v e l y C li o , w h i l e I p r e f e r r e d t h o s e o f M i n e r v a , a n d h a d th e te m e r ity to fe e l m y w a y a lo n g h e r p a th s a t m y o w n r isk a n d p e r il) . . L ik e w is e , s e c K e n n e th L . S c h m itz , W h a t H a s C lio to D o w i t h A t h e n a ? S t ie n n e G ils o n : H is t o r i a n a n d P h i l o s o p h e r ( T o r o n t o : P o n t if ic a l I n s t i t u t e o f M e d i a e v a l S t u d i e s , 1 9 8 7 ) .

4

t r a n s l a t o r ’s in t r o d u c t io n

In discussing the nature of dogmatic development, Father GarrigouLagrange utilizes a notion that he takes from Aristotle’s logic (especial­ ly from the Posterior Analytics), the process of defining a term. This is an appropriate “model”9 for discussing the nature of dogmatic definitions and their development. As human definitions develop in the individual intellect from vague expression to more distinct expression, so too, he holds, there is an analogous process that occurs in the life of the Church in explicating revealed truths. This is a theme that he takes up elsewhere,1011 noting that this sort of progression is a work of nous, of intellectual insight achieved by the first operation of the intellect by means of its “work” of defining.11 It is important to remember the centrality of this theological inquiry with which he ends the current edition of the text.12 The depth of this text’s discussions was not lost on a thinker as profound as Monsignor Charles Journet, who cites them when himself treating of the distinction between grace and the Hypostatic Union of the Incarnation in his Entretienssurdieu le ptre.13 Likewise, in his The M ass: The Presence of the Sacri­ fice of the Cross, in the subsection entitled “The Dogma of Transubstantiation, Like the Christological and Trinitarian Dogmas, Produces from the Faith a Technical Formulation without, however, Enslaving It to Any One System,”14 Journet calls to mind the title of the third chapter of the third part of Father Garrigou-Lagrange’s work, “Dogmatic Formulas Expressed in Philosophical Language Exceed Common Sense by Their Precision, but They Do Not Make Dogma Subservient to Any System.” It is unsurprising that soon thereafter Monsignor Journet cites Father Garrigou-Lagrange precisely on this point.15 This substantial, theological third section lifts up to the plane of supernatural questions the generally philosophical reflec-

’

S e e F r . G a r r i g o u - L a g r a n g e ’ s p l a c e m e n t i n R d g i n a l d - M a r ie S c h u l t e s , I n t r o d u c t i o i n H i s ­ to r ia m D o g m a tu m

10

( P a r i s : L e t h i e ll e u x , 1 9 2 2 ) , 2 8 7 - 9 6 .

S e e , f o r e x a m p le , G a r r ig o u - L a g r a n g e , S e n s e o f M y s t e r y , 2 3 . S e e a l s o , R e g in a l d G a r r i g o u -

L a g r a n g e , “ O n t h e S e a r c h f o r D e f i n i t i o n s A c c o r d i n g t o A r is t o t l e a n d S t . T h o m a s , ” P h i l o s ­ o p h iz in g in F a ith : E s s a y s o n th e B e g in n in g a n d E n d o f W is d o m , c d . a n d tr a n s. M a tth e w K .

M in e r d ( P r o v i d e n c e , R I : C l u n y M e d i a , 2 0 1 9 ) , 2 1 - 3 4 . 11

H e n c e , w e h a v e h e r e th e p s y c h o l o g i c a l a c t i v i t y o f d e fin in g th a t p e r ta in s to th e v i r t u a l p r o d u c t i v i t y p r e s u p p o s e d f o r , b u t n o t i d e n t if ie d w i t h , t h e a c t u a l a c t o f k n o w l e d g e .

12

I n h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n , F r . G a r r ig o u - L a g r a n g e d i s c u s s e s h o w h e r e o r g a n i z e d ( a n d e n l a r g e d ) t h e t e x t i n t h e y e a r s f o ll o w i n g t h e i n i t i a l u p h e a v a l o c c a s i o n e d b y t h e m o d e r n i s t c r i s i s .

15

C h a r le s J o u r n e t , E n t r e t i e n s s u r d i e u l e p i r e ( V i ll a r s - s u r - G l in e , S w i t z e r l a n d : P a r o l e e t S i le n c e , 1 9 9 8 ) . 1 1 2 - 1 3 .

14

C h a r le s J o u r n e t, T h e M a s s :

T h e P resen ce

o f th e S a c r ific e

o f th e

S z c z u r e k ( S o u t h B e n d , I N : S t . A u g u s t i n e ’s P r e s s , 2 0 0 8 ) , 1 5 4 .

15 J o u r n e t, T h e M a s s , 1 5 6 .

C r o s s , tr a n s . V ic to r

t h o m is t ic c o m m o n s e n s e

tions undertaken in the first two sections, and it is brought to a close with the beautiful reflections offered in the closing chapter, which he added to the text for the fourth edition, representing a kind of meditation on the main lines of the arguments made regarding common sense throughout the text. This translation is being offered to the twenty-first century, a time wherein traditional doctrine and philosophy are by far on the wane in popular consciousness. It has often been the case that various “schools” of thought defending the Church have been vociferously opposed to one an­ other. This is nothing new, of course, but today one is faced with the frac­ tured domain of faithful Catholics variously taking titles for themselves: a Comm unio thinkers,” resurgent “Strict Observant Thomists,” “Analytic Thomists,” those who take Alasdair MacIntyre as sine qua non point of departure, “Hildebrandians,” more independent phenomenologists such as Monsignor Robert Sokolowski, a strong streak of “Gilsonian” thought among Thomists, academic medievalists, and others. These groups do not always argue among themselves explicitly, but as Matthew Levering has said with poignancy, there is a kind of “circular firing squad” among those who should be allies. This book is being offered as a voice am ong friends — even if those friends disagree on this or that point. MacIntyre is right: the barbarians are at our doors. Indeed, the destruction that has been wrought in the name of “progress” has been great, and this fact is obvious to any honest observer. In the Peasant of the Garonne, this state of affairs was not lost on Maritain, who prophesied in his strong remarks concerning “neo-modernism”:

When one considers the neo-modernist fever (I was bound to mention this sooner or later), very contagious, at least in circles described as “intellectual,” compared to which the modernism of Pius X’s time was only a modest hayfever, and which finds expression above all in the most advanced thinkers among our Protestant brothers, but is also active in equally advanced Cath­ olic thinkers, this second description gives us the picture of a kind of “immanent” apostasy (that is, which intends to remain Christian at all costs). In preparation for many years, hastened by certain veiled hopes of the repressed regions of the soul which were stirred up here and there on the occasion of the Council, the manifestation of this apostasy is sometimes falsely ascribed to the “spirit of the Council” or even to the “spirit ofJohn XXIII.” We know well to whom it is proper to trace the paternity of such lies

6

t r a n s l a t o r ’s in t r o d u c t io n

(and so much the better if in this way man finds himself a little exonerated).*6 Therefore, I offer this translation as one small portion of the remedy to this situation. It is not at all a silver bullet—but none of us should look for a “silver bullet” in any author or in any school of thought. All thought is not to be captive to Father Garrigou-Lagrange, nor to Saint Thomas and his so-called “school,” nor to any other human reality. No; all thought is to be captive to Christ: “For though we live in the world we are not carry­ ing on a worldly war, for the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor 10:3-5). On the whole, all lengthy citations from Scripture in this volume are taken from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. On occasion, it made sense to translate directly from the text at hand, especially when the sense of the Vulgates Latin was presupposed in an explanation being presented. All citations from Denzinger are amended to follow the nu­ meration and translations from Ignatius Press’s 43rd edition of the text. When Father Garrigou-Lagrange translates Latin texts into French, I have generally translated from the original Latin. Notes in the text address any minor concerns that arise occasionally in this regard. Throughout my translation, I have included some pedagogical footnotes. In these, I have tried to provide the reader with remarks concerning points that may well be opaque, often citing the works of Thomists in the same tradition as that of Father Garrigou-Lagrange. Throughout the text, bibliographical references required expansion, as Father Garrigou-Lagrange often did not provide complete reference in­ formation in his citations. Unless otherwise noted, when possible, I have chosen to cite the relevant pages of the English translations of GarrigouLagrange’s works, as this will be more useful for English readers than would be French citations. I have foregone citing Thomas Joseph Walshe’s adaptation and abridgment of D e revelatione, given that it is not a full translation of the work. Emmaus Academic is planning a translation of this text in the near future. No work comes about without the involvement of many hands. Special thanks go to Chris Erickson for shepherding this project throughout its pro­ cess of publication. Being relatively new to this process, I was in need of able

16

M a r ita in , P e a s a n t , 5 - 6 .

7

T H O M IS T IC C O M M O N S E N S E

guides and gladly had their kind assistance. For help translating an Italian text included in this volume by Father Garrigou-Lagrange, thanks are due to Sister Mary Veronica Sabelli, R.S.M. I owe immense gratitude to the two men who spent much labor respectively reviewing my translation and then copyediting it: Dr. Benjamin Heidgerken and Mr. Brett Kendall. Likewise, I express particular thanks to Dr. Scott Hahn, Dr. Matthew Levering, and Father Thomas Joseph White, O.P., for their interest in this project, as well as to the production staff at Emmaus Academic for their design and layout expertise. And let us, together, give thanks to God Almighty for the grace to begin this project and bring it to completion. This translation is dedicated to my firstborn daughter, Josephine Gaetane Minerd. My dear, my only goal in doing this kind of translation work is to leave you a world a little bit more wise and beautiful than the world that I in­ herited as a cradle Catholic during an era when much confusion still reigned. (This volume was long delayed, due to the vagaries involved in publication. My conscience led me to change its dedication, giving it to my daughter, whose birth, in fact, accompanied the completion of the earliest draft of this text. However, I ask that you, reader, also pray for the repose of Father Paulinus Selle, O.S.B., to whom I also considered dedicating this volume. He was a very faithful servant of God, teaching patristics for over sixty years at St. Vincent Seminary. I had the joy of knowing him and was edified by his peaceful and dedicated long suffering during an era of American ecclesiastical history that was a great cross for his soul. Eternal memory! Vichnaya Pam yat'ty *1

17

F a t h e r G u y M a n s i n i r e c e n t l y p u b li s h e d a n i m p o r t a n t s t u d y c o n c e r n i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n h i s t o r y a n d t h e i n t e ll e c t u a l a p p r e h e n s i o n s p o s s i b l e f o r c o m m o n s e n s e ( in t h e n a t u r a l o r d e r ) a n d C h r i s t ia n c o m m o n s e n s e ( in t h e s u p e r n a t u r a l o r d e r o f f a it h ) .

G u y M a n s i n i , O .S .B ., “ T h e H i s t o r i c i t y o f D o g m a a n d

G a r d e il ,

R e g in a ld

G a r r ig o u -L a g r a n g e ,

Y ves

C ongar,

C om m on

and

th e

S ee

S e n se : A m b r o is e

M o d ern

M a g is te r i­

u m , ’ N o v a e t V e t e r a ( E n g l i s h ) 1 8 , n o . 1 ( 2 0 2 0 ) : 1 1 1 - 3 8 . I n t h is l a s t - m in u t e f o o t n o t e , I w o u ld m e r e ly lik e t o c o m m e n t t h a t I b e lie v e t h a t a p a t h f o r w a r d is p o s s ib le w i t h i n t h e

b a s ic o v e r a l l f r a m e w o r k o f f e r e d b y G a r r ig o u - L a g r a n g e , t h o u g h w i t h i m p o r t a n t e m e n ­ d a t io n s , p r e c i s e l y f o r t h e r e a s o n s o b s e r v e d b y F a t h e r s M a n s i n i, C o n g a r , a n d o t h e r s . I s h a r e w i t h F a t h e r M a n s in i a c o m m o n m a s t e r , n a m e l y , M o n s ig n o r R o b e r t S o k o l o w s k i . P e r h a p s a t r e a t m e n t o f o b j e c t iv e / i n t e n t i o n a l e x i s t e n c e , c o u p l e d w i t h a n a p p r e c ia t io n f o r h i s ­

t o r y a n d t h e p h e n o m e n o n o f “ s e d i m e n t a t io n " c a n h e l p t o a r t i c u l a t e a w a y f o r w a r d t h a t a v o i d s t h e d i s m is s iv e a p p r o a c h o f s o m e o n e l i k e G i l s o n i n r e l a t i o n t o F a t h e r G a r r ig o u -

L a g r a n g e *s T h o m is tic tr e a tm e n t o f c o m m o n s e n s e .

O n t h e p h e n o m e n o lo g ic a l t r e a t­

m e n t o f s e d i m e n t a t i o n , s e e R o b e r t S o k o lo w s k i , F o r m a t i o n o f H u s s e r l ' s C o n c e p t o f C o n s titu tio n

(T h e H a g u e : M a r tin u s N ijh o ff, 1 9 6 4 ), 1 7 2 , 1 8 2 , 1 8 8 , 2 1 2 -2 1 3 ; H u s s e r l i a n

M e d i t a t i o n s ( E v a n s t o n , I L : N o r t h w e s t e r n U n iv e r s it y P r e s s , 1 9 7 4 ) , 4 2 , 6 6 .

8

Au t h o r ’s In t r o d u c t io n t o t h e Th ir d Ed it io n

his book, which first appeared in 1909,1 in the midst of the discus­ sions stirred up by modernism concerning the value of the formulas of the Christian faith, has been revised and somewhat enlarged in view of the publication of this edition. Said controversy, which does not have the same timeliness today, has been placed into the background, leading us to place in sharper relief that which is more positive and of ever-relevant interest in this volume’s topics. The introduction, which is new, poses, from a more strictly philosoph­ ical perspective, the problem concerning the nature and value of common sense, which is the subject of the first part of the book. The study con­ cerning “Common Sense and the Traditional Proofs of the Existence of God,” which originally was placed in an appendix in the first and second editions of this text, has become the second part of this edition. This new arrangement helps to render the third part more intelligible: “Common Sense and the Understanding [intelligence] of theFormulas of the Chris­ tian Faith.” For the same reason, we have transferred to this third part theological considerations that originally were placed in the introduction in earlier editions. This alteration will enable the reader to readily grasp the sense and scope of these matters. Two chapters have been added concerning subjective conceptualism and absolute realism inasmuch as they are related to common sense. We happily express our lively gratitude to Abbe Daniel Lallement, acting professor at the Catholic Institute of Paris, who graciously helped*

T

R e g i n a l d G a r r ig o u - L a g r a n g e , L e s e n s c o m m u n : l a p h i l o s o p h i c d e I ’ i t r e e t l e s f o r m u l e s d o g m a t iq u e s (P a r is: B e a u c h c s n e , 1 9 0 9 ).

9

T H O M IS T IC C O M M O N S E N S E

us make these revisions and corrections. Without his assistance, this third edition likely would not have seen the light of day. Despite its rather ab­ stract character, and notwithstanding the obstacles that its dissemination has encountered, this book, by the grace of God, has already provided light for many sincere, disinterested minds that are desperate not for novelties but for the truth. May it provide light for many others and lead them to see that our intellect, which is made for knowing being, must live, above all, upon knowledge of H im W ho Is, and that our will, which is made for loving and willing the good, must love, more than ourselves and above all else, the Sovereign Good, the possession of which will be our eternal be­ atitude. An hour will come—and this is our steadfast hope—the hour of absolute truth, when all forms of illusion and falsehood will no longer be possible, when the false doctrines discussed in this book will no longer ex­ ist, when the spirit of opportunism will no longer inspire men to diminish the truth, an hour when the truth will appear forever in all its grandeur, being established at once strongly and sweetly. This will be the immutable hour of God, when we will see the Divine Essence facie ad faciem , face to face, as St. Paul says,2 through an absolutely immediate and inamissible in­ tuitive vision, the hour when all our desires will at last be satisfied. In this beatitude, sin will henceforth no longer exist. We will no longer be able to turn away from God, seen as H e is,3 as He sees Himself, and moved by the elan of the purest supernatural love, we will subordinate all things, indeed, even our own happiness, to the glory of Him Who Is, to the brilliant and eternal manifestation of His infinite goodness. Satiabor cum apparuerit gloria tua (Ps 16:15). Ipsigloria in saecula [“I will be filled when your glory appears. To Him be glory forever”]. Fa t h e r Re g in a l d Ga r r ig o u -La g r a n g e Rome, Angelicum October 15,1921, Feast of St. Theresa of Avila

1

1 C o r . 1 3 : 1 2 ( R S V ) : “ F o r n o w w c s e e ( G o d ) i n a m ir r o r d im ly , b u t t h e n f a c e t o f a c e .

N o w I k n o w i n p a r t ; t h e n I s h a ll u n d e r s t a n d f u ll y , e v e n a s I h a v e b e e n f u l l y u n d e r s t o o d . ” 5

1 J o h n 3 : 2 : “ W e k n o w t h a t w h e n H e a p p e a r s w e s h a ll b e l ik e h i m , f o r w e s h a l l s e e H i m a s H e i s " ( R S V ) . ( T r a n s . n o t e : F r . G a r r ig o u - L a g r a n g e i n c o r r e c t ly h a s I J o h n 3 : 1 2 . ]

10