Writing on the subject of special revelation and nature, Bavinck contrasts the traditional Roman Catholic view with the Reformation’s:
Further implied in this is that revelation cannot stand absolutely over against nature. In Roman Catholicism there is a quantitative contrast between the two. Natural religion is essentially different from supernatural religion, and the two are conceptually wholly different—two totally distinct systems and orders. The order of grace is elevated high above the order of nature. The whole of existence, accordingly, is divided between a sacred and a profane area. The world is the unconsecrated, profane area where Satan with his unholy minions hold sway. But squarely within that unholy world God planted his holy, infallible church and endowed it with a great treasure of grace. [1:360]
Ensuing from this worldview are both the world domination for which the Roman Catholic Church always strives and the contempt of the world that it evidences, especially in monasticism. Since nature is of a much lower order than grace, the latter must always have priority over the former and hold sway over it. Further, since what is Christian coincides with the ecclesiastical and does not exist apart from it, the whole world needs to be subordinated to the church. There is no room in Roman Catholicism for the free cultivation of the arts and sciences, for a free state and society, etc. Always the ideal is that the pope as the vicar of Christ possess all power in heaven and on earth. [1:361]
It is worth noting here that that the Anabaptists could share this view with the Roman Church, though they had different visible structures they preferred over the one headquartered in Rome. However, judging by the comments Bavinck makes about how RC theology relates the order of nature to the order of grace, it seems that some Anabaptists, rather than maintaining the superiority of the latter to the former, wholly abandoned the former. (For the sake of symmetry, modern day atheists would be the mirror image, wholly abandoning the order of grace.) In the Zealot/Enthusiast worldview, the only order is the irruptive, the ecclesial. In contrast, the magisterial Reformation fell in line with the following interpretation of scripture:
On the contrary, Jesus prayed to the Father that his disciples would not be taken out of the world but kept in the world from the evil one (John 17:15). In line with this, Christians did not have to go out of the world (1 Cor. 5:10), but to remain in their occupations (1 Cor. 7:17-23); to obey the powers God had ordained (Rom 13:1); to regard all things their own (1 Cor. 3:21-23); to enjoy every gift of God with thanksgiving (1 Tim. 4:3-5); and to consider godliness as of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come (1 Tim. 4:8). And that, too, was what the Reformation wanted: a Christianity that was hostile, not to nature, but only to sin. Such a Christianity was not externally imposed in the name of an infallible church but was inwardly assumed in one’s conscience by a free personality. Thus, through this personality, it had a reforming and sanctifying effect upon natural life as a whole. We are far from having reached the ideal and will presumably never reach it in this dispensation. Still it is full of fascination and beauty and worthy of being pursued with all our strength. Coming again into its own in the Reformation was the old adage: nature commends grace; grace emends nature. [1:362]
Oddly enough, Bavinck’s system is compatible with Thomist thought. So regardless of whether or not Catholics actually practiced it, Thomas did believe similarly to Bavinck in this matter.
I think in this case, actually, Thomas differs from Bavinck. He seems to hold the Catholic line on the two destinies of man, natural and supernatural: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2062.htm. Thomas says of these theological virtues that guide us to the supernatural end: “thirdly, because these virtues are not made known to us, save by Divine revelation, contained in Holy Writ.” And, of course, he would teach that the sole infallible interpreter of that holy Writ is the pope.
In Q1 Thomas claims that only Scripture has the highest authority. Doctors of the church have only probable authority. The idea that the Pope is the infallible interpreter of Scripture is found nowhere in Thomas. He would have rejected that idea.
As for Thomas, he claims that there is a distinction between imperfect natural happiness and perfect spiritual happiness before Q62. He does this in http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2005.htm. See article 3 for further proof. So it is not as if man has two destinies. Rather human beings reach their true end only by grace. Thomas holds that this was true even in Eden. There man was given supernatural gifts from God that he lost in the fall.
There is one main way in which the Reformers corrected what Thomas said. Thomas did claim that the life of the body (animal life) was inferior to a life of contemplation of the divine essence. Therefore, he believed that God would eventually bring us to a life that contained no animal components. This was a mistake. But it is a different mistake than the one you are describing.
Re Papal infallibility in Thomas, consider:
http://newadvent.org/summa/3005.htm#article3
http://newadvent.org/summa/3001.htm#article10
Scripture may be the highest, but the Church is the second highest, and ever over laypeople. A Luther cannot go around the Pope and appeal to scripture. He must always accept the decision of the Church when interpreting scripture.
Re destinies: perhaps my language was inaccurate in using “destiny”, given English connotations of that word. However, the language of article five of the link you gave above suggests that man had a supernatural end at creation unattainable by his natural faculties. Thus his natural faculties had one end, and humanity was given a second, higher end, by supernatural grace. This is not really different than what Bavinck summarized the RC position as saying.
On Thomas and the Pope: I agree that Thomas believed that the Church is the final authority (in the Pope) for the faith. It appears that this is what he said. Unfortunately, he is wrong. If he did believe that the Pope was infallible, then he is not explicit about it.
As for nature and grace, I think that we do have to consider that the natural end of man is not his true end. That is why his happiness though natural means is imperfect. We can’t say that he is given a higher end by grace but that his can only obtain his true end by grace. Is that still what Bavick said? It does not seem so.
“The whole of existence, accordingly, is divided between a sacred and a profane area. The world is the unconsecrated, profane area where Satan with his unholy minions hold sway. But squarely within that unholy world God planted his holy, infallible church and endowed it with a great treasure of grace.”
This reminds me of Charles Taylor’s description of medieval religion. It does seem to fit though with the psychogeography of the middle ages. People living in decentralized agrarian communities would have found the outside world, beyond their fields to be full of every kind of threat – wild animals, invading armies, disease. This is why something like beating the bounds (walking the boundaries of a parish praying for it) was so important.
Matt, I’m still thinking a bit about this, but is it correct to equate “perfect” (end) in Aquinas’ language with “true” (end)? It strikes me that, by logical necessity, Aquinas must admit that man’s natural capacities have a “true” set of ends that are surpassed by the supernatural end we’re talking about.
I really need to get around to reading Taylor.
Andrew,
I think that there are two issues. First, what did Aquinas believe. Second, is it consistent. I do not think that Aquinas believed that man (by nature alone) had an end that was different from the one grace gives us. His natural capacities do have ends in nature, but the end of man is not the same as the ends of his various capacities. Man is a unity, and this unity requires an end. Aquinas believed that the end of man required grace to be achieved. So I do not believe that he is inconsistent. It does mean that he does not recognize a natural end for man as well as a supernatural end. Instead, he recognizes an imperfect end (achieving our end by only natural means) and a perfect end (achieving our end by grace).