Garrigou-Lagrange against Lutheran Errors

One Peter Five ^ | November 5, 2021 | 1P5 Editor

[ebb tide]

Garrigou-Lagrange against Lutheran Errors

From The Three Ages of the Interior Life

Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.

It is all the more important to recall the necessity and the true nature of the interior life, because the true conception of it, as given to us in the Gospel, in the Epistles of St. Paul and in the whole of Tradition, has been partially obscured by many false ideas. In particular it is evident that the notion of the interior life is radically corrupted in the Lutheran theory of justification or conversion. According to this theory, the mortal sins of the convert are not positively blotted out by the infusion of the new life of grace and charity; they are simply covered over, veiled by faith in the Redeemer, and they cease to be imputed to the person who has committed them. There is no intrinsic justification, no interior renewal of the soul; a man is reputed just merely by the extrinsic imputation of the justice of Christ. According to this view, in order to be just in the eyes of God it is not necessary to possess that infused charity by which we love God supernaturally and our fellowmen for God’s sake. Actually, according to this conception, however firmly the just man may believe in Christ the Redeemer, he remains in his sin, in his corruption or spiritual death.^[1]

This grave misconception concerning our supernatural life, reducing it essentially to faith in Christ and excluding sanctifying grace, charity and meritorious works, was destined to lead gradually to Naturalism; it was to result finally in considering as “just” the man who, whatever his beliefs, valued and practised those natural virtues which were known even to the pagan philosophers who lived before Christ.

In such an outlook, the question which is actually of the first importance does not even arise: is man capable in his present state, without divine grace, of observing all the precepts of the natural law, including those that relate to God? Is he able without grace to love God the sovereign Good, the author of our nature, and to love Him, not with a merely inoperative affection, but with a truly efficacious love, more than he loves himself and more than he loves anything else? The early Protestants would have answered in the negative, as Catholic theologians have always done. Liberal Protestantism, the offspring of Luther’s theology, does not even ask the question; because it does not admit the necessity of grace, the necessity of an infused supernatural life.

Nevertheless, the question still recurs under a more general form: is man able, without some help from on high, to get beyond himself, and truly and efficaciously to love Truth and Goodness more than he loves himself?

Clearly, these problems are essentially connected with that of the nature of our interior life; for our interior life is nothing else than a knowledge of the True and a love of the Good; or better, a knowledge and love of God.

In order fully to appreciate the lofty conception which the Scriptures, and especially the Gospels, give us of the interior life, it would be necessary to study a theological treatise on justification and sanctifying grace. Nevertheless, we may here emphasize a fundamental truth of the Christian spiritual life, or of Christian mysticism, which has always been taught by the Catholic Church.

In the first place it is clear that according to the Scriptures the justification or conversion of the sinner does not merely cover his sins as with a mantle; it blots them out by the infusion of a new life.

Have mercy on me, O God, according to thy great mercy, and according to the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my iniquity. Wash me yet more from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin…. Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop and I shall be cleansed; thou shalt wash me and I shall be made whiter than snow…. Blot out all my iniquities. Create a clean heart in me, O God; and renew a right spirit within my bowels. Cast me not away from thy face, and take not thy holy spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation, and strengthen me with a perfect spirit.^[2]

The Prophets use similar language. Thus God says, through the prophet Isaias: I am He that blot out thy iniquities for my own sake.^[3] And the same expression recurs throughout the Bible: God is not content merely to cover our sins; He blots them out, He takes them away. And therefore, when John the Baptist sees Jesus coming towards him, he says: Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who taketh away the sin of the world! ^[4] 

We find the same idea in St. John’s first Epistle: The blood of Jesus Christ… cleanseth us from all sin.^[5] St. Paul writes, similarly, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians :

Not the effeminate nor the impure nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God. And such some of you were. But you are washed; but you are sanctified; but you are justified; in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God.^[6]

If it were true that by conversion sins were only veiled, and not blotted out, it would follow that a man is at once both just and ungodly, both justified, and yet still in the state of sin. God would love the sinner as His friend, despite the corruption of his soul, which He is apparently incapable of healing. The Saviour would not have taken away the sins of the world if He had not delivered the just man from the servitude of sin. Again, for the Christian these truths are elementary; the profound understanding of them, the continual and quasi-experimental living of them, is what we call the contemplation of the saints.

The blotting out and remission of sins thus described by the Scriptures can be effected only by the infusion of sanctifying grace and charity — which is the supernatural love of God and of men for God’s sake. Ezechiel, speaking in the name of God, tells us that this is so:

I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness; and I will cleanse you from all your idols. And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh and will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit in the midst of you; and I will cause you to walk in my commandments.^[7]

This pure water which regenerates is the water of grace, of which it is said in the Gospel of St. John: Of his fullness we have all received; and grace for grace.^[8] We read in the Epistle to the Romans: By (our Lord Jesus Christ) we have received grace,^[9] … the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost who is given to us.^[10]

And in the Epistle to the Ephesians: To every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the giving of Christ.^[11]

If it were otherwise, God’s uncreated love for the man whom He converts would be merely an idle affection, and not an effective and operative love. But God’s uncreated love for us, as St. Thomas shows, is a love which, far from presupposing in us any lovableness, actually produces that lovableness within us. His creative love gives and preserves in us our nature and our existence; but His life-giving love gives and preserves in us the life of grace which makes us lovable in His eyes, and lovable not merely as His servants but as His sons.

Sanctifying grace, the principle of our interior life, makes us truly the children of God because it makes us partakers of His nature. We cannot be sons of God by nature, as the Word is; but we are truly sons of God by grace and by adoption. And whereas a man who adopts a child brings about no interior change in him, but simply declares him his heir, God, when He loves us as adoptive sons, transforms us inwardly, giving us a share in His own intimate divine life.

Hence we read in the Gospel of St. John:

[The Word] came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in His name. Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.^[12]

And our Lord Himself said to Nicodemus:

Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Wonder not that I said to thee: You must be born again.^[13]

St. John himself, moreover, writes in his first Epistle: Whosoever is born of God committeth not sin; for God’s seed abideth in him. And he cannot sin because he is born of God.^[14]

In other words, the seed of God, which is grace — accompanied by charity, or the love of God — cannot exist together with mortal sin which turns a man away from God; and, though it can exist together with venial sin, of which St. John had spoken earlier,^[15] yet grace is not the source of venial sins; on the contrary, it makes them gradually disappear.

Still clearer, if possible, is the language of St. Peter, who writes: By (Christ) He hath given us most great and precious promises, that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature.^[16]

And St. James thus expresses the same idea:

Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change nor shadow of alteration. For of His own will hath He begotten us by the word of truth, that we might be some beginning of His creature.^[17]

Truly sanctifying grace is a real and formal participation of the divine nature, for it is the principle of operations which are specifically divine. When in heaven it has reached its full development, and can no longer be lost, it will be the source of operations which will have absolutely the same formal object as the eternal and uncreated operations of God’s own inner life; it will make us able to see Him immediately as He sees Himself, and to love Him as He loves Himself. Says St. John: Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know that when it shall appear we shall be like to Him, for we shall see Him as He is.^[18]

This is what shows us, better than anything else, in what the true nature of sanctifying grace, the true nature of our interior life, consists. We cannot emphasize it too much. It is one of the most consoling truths of our faith; it is one of those vital truths which serve best to encourage us in the midst of the trials of our life on earth.

Selection arranged by Jacob Bauer.

The Three Ages of the Interior Life (2 vols.)

Original French edition © The Dominican Province, France.

English translation © Baronius Press Ltd

Reprinted with permission.

^[1] Luther went so far as to say: “Pecca fortiter et crede firmius: sin mightily and believe more mightily still; you will be saved.” Not that Luther intended thereby to exhort men to sin; it was merely an emphatic way of saying that good works are useless for salvation — that faith in Christ alone suffices. He says, truly enough (Works, Weimar edition, XII, 559 (1523), that if you believe, good works will follow necessarily from your faith. But as Maritain justly observes (Notes sur Luther; appendix to the second edition of Trois Reformateurs), “in his thought these good works follow from salutary faith as a sort of epiphenomenon.” Moreover, the charity which will follow this faith is the love of our neighbour rather than the love of God. And thus the notion of charity is degraded, emptied gradually of its supernatural and God-ward content and made equivalent to works of mercy. In any case, it remains true that for Luther a man is justified simply by faith in Christ, even though the sin is not blotted out by the infusion of charity, or the supernatural love of God.

^[2] Psalm 50:3-14

^[3] Isaias 43:25

^[4] John 1:29

^[5] 1 John 1:7

^[6] 1 Corinthians 6:10-11

^[7] Ezechiel 36:25

^[8] John 1:16

^[9] Romans 1:5

^[10] Romans 5:5

^[11] Ephesians 4:7

^[12] John 1:11-13

^[13] John 3:5

^[14] 1 John 3:9

^[15] 1 John 1:8

^[16] 2 Peter 1:4

^[17] James 1:17

^[18] 1 John 3:2

[ebb tide]

In such an outlook, the question which is actually of the first importance does not even arise: is man capable in his present state, without divine grace, of observing all the precepts of the natural law, including those that relate to God? Is he able without grace to love God the sovereign Good, the author of our nature, and to love Him, not with a merely inoperative affection, but with a truly efficacious love, more than he loves himself and more than he loves anything else? The early Protestants would have answered in the negative, as Catholic theologians have always done. Liberal Protestantism, the offspring of Luther’s theology, does not even ask the question; because it does not admit the necessity of grace, the necessity of an infused supernatural life.

[ebb tide]

Ping

[Srednik]

Having been to Montpelier and Langedoq, and having visited the Huguenot museum documenting the centuries of torture inflicted by Dominicans on Bible-believing Christians of France, Srednik is not impressed.

[Secret Agent Man]

It does admit grace.

The grace of God in Jesus Christ’s atoning death for all. Given to us freely.

GRACE - God Riches At Christs Expense

[ebb tide]

The grace of God in Jesus Christ’s atoning death for all.

So all Christians go to Heaven?

[Secret Agent Man]

All believers in Jesus Christ as their savior and Lord are saved.

[ebb tide]

So you are now playing God?

You know who are saved? Prior to their judgements?

Mighty presumptuous.

[Secret Agent Man]

I’m not playing God.

I never claimed to know who is saved.

I base it on Scripture. Romans 10:9 1 John 4:15 Mark 16:16 Acts 16:30-31

[ebb tide]

I never claimed to know who is saved.

Sure you did:

All believers in Jesus Christ as their savior and Lord are saved.

[ebb tide]

Srednik is not impressed.

Hands off Jimmy. Don't touch Jimmy

[Secret Agent Man]

Thats not me making a claim, i don’t know everyone who says that or believes that.

This is Scriptural. I cited my evidence, the passages I referenced, supporting this.

I know you don’t care about that though because you didn’t even mention anything.

I’ve provided answers you don’t like and subsequently ignored. I’m done with you.

[ebb tide]

I’ve provided answers you don’t like and subsequently ignored.

You've only provided answers that are wrong.

[LukeL]

So you honestly do not know if you are saved?

[ebb tide]

Not until my final judgement. But I have faith and I have hope.

But I don’t play God like many prots do.

[Jacob Kell]

Sounds like those who say non-RC Christians are going to hell are playing God.

[ebb tide]

Why did you only mention non-RC christians? It seems you, yourself, are implying non-christians are going to Hell.

[Faith Presses On]

You say “prots” but think you’re not playing God?

If you had lived almost 2,000 years ago and had encountered Christ, do you think you would have believed on Him THEN without all that we subsequently know?

We in our time and place have also either been born into a Christian culture, or into a world that’s heavily influenced by Christianity so that there are Christians in just about every nation.

But back then, you would have had to question your beliefs and the religious authorities of that day in order to see God’s will working in who He said He was and what He was doing, in order to believe on Him.

So a word on Protestants. How do you presume to know that the Protestant Reformation wasn’t the work of God to further develop His Church while also delivering some correction to the Roman Catholic Church? How do you know that if you don’t truly consider it? It took truly considering that Jesus might be the Christ to recognize Him as such.

[Faith Presses On]

From what I see, the Sistine Chapel ceiling was finished by Michelangelo just several years before Luther posted the 95 Theses.

Do you think it likely offended God that the Sistine Chapel paintings were full of people portrayed in nakedness? That was a mere return to Classical pagan art which typically portrayed their false gods, just using people mostly from the Bible and Christian themes. Mostly from the Bible, because there are pagan sybils included too. And then on top of it all, God the Father Himself visually portrayed.

Both the ceiling paintings and the later Last Judgment paintings caused a great amount of scandal in their day. And maybe they could be justified by natural thinking (”using artistic talent and creativity is always good since God gave them to us”) and contrived tradition, but they are NOT justified from an honest reading of Scripture. To the contrary. And that’s why the Council of Trent was eventually pressed into backpedaling on the paintings and to cover up at least some of the immodesty.

How much sin have those paintings seeded over the centuries, yet many Catholics are likely either to say that they’re not sin, or else it just doesn’t matter. Maybe it’s considered irrelevant because the “perfect Catholic Church” (the “invisible” Catholic Church within the visible) didn’t do it and can’t err.

https://smarthistory.org/the-council-of-trent-and-the-call-to-reform-art/

“As a baptized Christian, I blush before the license . . . which you have used in expressing ideas connected with the highest aims and final ends to which our faith aspires. . . . Here there comes a Christian, who . . . deems it a royal spectacle to portray martyrs and virgins in improper attitudes, to show men dragged down by their shame, before which things houses of ill-fame would shut the eyes in order not to see them.” Pietro Aretino [1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibyl#/media/File:DelphicSibylByMichelangelo.jpg

http://www.markgreaves.co.uk/2015/04/the-sistine-chapel-shouldnt-be-a-tourist-hell/

“The Church proved harder to please. Pope Julius II, who commissioned the work, liked it, but nine years later Adrian VI threatened to have it chiselled off, saying it was more suited to a bath house than a church. Michelangelo’s second fresco, The Last Judgment, painted 25 years later on the altar wall, provoked more controversy. The chief objection was all the flesh on display: the figures being lifted up to heaven and dragged down to hell were mostly naked. During his lifetime, Michelangelo was eminent enough to have his way, but once he died the most explicit details were painted over with loincloths, breeches and bits of flowing drapery.

“Adrian VI, who reigned for only 18 months, has been much derided for his dislike of the fresco. But he had a point. Michelangelo was enraptured by the human body. Sensual, muscular figures dominate the chapel. No wonder they caused alarm among Vatican officials. Even today Catholics may wonder if they are not perhaps entirely suitable.”

[Faith Presses On]

On looking further into the Sistine Chapel, I found it is far, far worse than I even knew, practically beyond words. It’s so bad it’s been troubling me this morning, and I’ve gone to the Lord in prayer about it, for just having seen it for a few seconds.

Not only is God the Father portrayed and portrayed in the likeness of man, but He is portrayed partially disrobed, from the back. He’s wearing a shirt and a garment is wrapped around His legs, but He is otherwise unclothed.

I believe I’ve encountered that painting before, but it just didn’t entirely sink in what I was seeing. But this morning, I came across an article on it, with the flat-out description.

It’s hard for me to believe there could be a worse blasphemy than to depict God and in that way, “with pants half down.” His GLORY passed before Moses, who was only permitted to see Him from the back.

I don’t see how there could have been any fear of the Lord in Michelangelo, or those who approved of his work. Rather than seeking God for how the chapel should be painted, Michelangelo was said to have been given free reign.

And the sybils were apparently not the only paganism he included. From what I read, he included pagan mythical characters like Charon and Minos of the pagan underworld.

What’s more Jesus Himself was also depicted without clothes by Michelangelo. And among the saints, Mary too, from what I’ve read.

But as evil as it is to depict the Son of God that way, to depict the Father that way, that’s beyond words.

https://www.dailyartmagazine.com/michelangelo-warrior-pope-and-gods-bottom/

“Sistine Chapel: Michelangelo, the Warrior Pope and God’s Bottom.”

“No, I am not indulging in casual profanity, in this painting we are actually looking at God’s bare bottom and it graces the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, courtesy of Michelangelo.”

https://ideas.ted.com/how-the-sistine-chapel-spawned-a-public-relations-nightmare/

“When Michelangelo unveiled The Last Judgment, in 1541, his audience numbered little more than 500 clergy. Their reactions ranged from ecstatic to appalled. ‘The work is of such beauty,’ wrote one eyewitness, an agent to the Cardinal Gonzaga of Mantua, ‘that Your Excellency can imagine that there is no lack of those who condemn it.’”

http://newsletters.artips.fr/English/Last_judgment/

“One day, the pope came by with Cardinal Biagio da Cesena to check on Michelangelo’s progress. The cardinal was horrified by the nudity and compared it to a ‘scene fit for public baths and taverns.’ Not exactly a high compliment.

“The artist refused the cardinal’s requests to clothe the characters in his scene. What’s more, Michelangelo decided to get even with da Cesena for his harsh critique.

“The artist worked the cardinal’s facial features into his representation of Minos, the demon judge of the underworld. The Cardinal-as-Minos character appears in the lower right corner of the fresco. Wearing only his birthday suit, the character is accessorized with donkey ears and a coiled snake that seems to be… biting him where it hurts.”

[ebb tide]

It’s so bad it’s been troubling me this morning...

If the Sistine Chapel troubles you, I feel sorry for you.

Michaeangelo's David must really set you off.

Not only is God the Father portrayed and portrayed in the likeness of man...

How would you like God the Father to be portrayed. As a cow?