The discussion on freedom is interesting. I recall one of my professors many years ago distinguishing between freedom and license-between the ability to choose and making the right choice, one which corresponds to our natural end
One can desire to know God in the order of natural revelation (through the created world) and one can desire to know God in the order of supernatural revelation (from Christ through scripture, tradition, magisterium). So no, it cannot just mean a natural desire for God, it must mean a natural desire for a supernatural end: i.e., the vision of God as Father, Son, and Spirit. No Humani Generis does not condemn what the professor is saying. Humani Generis condemns people who “destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order [by saying] God cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision.” De Lubac not only agrees with this, but the expression seems to be taken directly from de Lubac himself.
@@thelogosproject7 Ok…but if God created beings with a natural desire for the beatific vision, wouldn’t it be the same a saying God can create inherently flawed beings, as they would have no means to satisfy said desire? Wouldn’t it be inherently evil and, therefore, impossible to come from God, since he can do only good?
@@lauroantoniocavalcante2670 I recommend re-listening to the video (granted it is dense theology), but we cover these questions. De Lubac is not saying that man does not have a natural end, but only that it is not his ultimate end. That being said, God has given man the means to attain his end through Jesus Christ. What unveils itself here is the mystery of the “person.” In Christology we speak of the fact that Christ had to also have a human will, not just a divine will. The reason being that Christ must assume a complete human nature for human nature as such to be redeemed by God. And yet, Christ is a single person (divine), not two persons (human and divine). The notion of “person” emerges here as pure relation, as that which bridges in nature the natural and the supernatural without confusing nor dividing them.
The discussion on freedom is interesting. I recall one of my professors many years ago distinguishing between freedom and license-between the ability to choose and making the right choice, one which corresponds to our natural end
This is fantastic! Thank you! I am a recovering Mad/Rad-Trad.
Thank you, this was so helpful !
I think the obsession with engaging Kant and Heidegger is a waste of time in a post-modern world which is why Rahner became irrelevant very quick.
“Natural desire for the supernatural” can’t just mean a natural desire for God?
Also, doesn’t Humani Generis condemn what the professor is saying?
One can desire to know God in the order of natural revelation (through the created world) and one can desire to know God in the order of supernatural revelation (from Christ through scripture, tradition, magisterium). So no, it cannot just mean a natural desire for God, it must mean a natural desire for a supernatural end: i.e., the vision of God as Father, Son, and Spirit.
No Humani Generis does not condemn what the professor is saying. Humani Generis condemns people who “destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order [by saying] God cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision.” De Lubac not only agrees with this, but the expression seems to be taken directly from de Lubac himself.
@@thelogosproject7 Ok…but if God created beings with a natural desire for the beatific vision, wouldn’t it be the same a saying God can create inherently flawed beings, as they would have no means to satisfy said desire? Wouldn’t it be inherently evil and, therefore, impossible to come from God, since he can do only good?
With a natural desire for the beatific vision without giving them the means to achieve it*
@@lauroantoniocavalcante2670 I recommend re-listening to the video (granted it is dense theology), but we cover these questions. De Lubac is not saying that man does not have a natural end, but only that it is not his ultimate end. That being said, God has given man the means to attain his end through Jesus Christ. What unveils itself here is the mystery of the “person.” In Christology we speak of the fact that Christ had to also have a human will, not just a divine will. The reason being that Christ must assume a complete human nature for human nature as such to be redeemed by God. And yet, Christ is a single person (divine), not two persons (human and divine). The notion of “person” emerges here as pure relation, as that which bridges in nature the natural and the supernatural without confusing nor dividing them.