I've been reading Josef Pieper a highly regarded Thomist Philosopher, though perhaps not very well known by Protestants.. Among his works is a trilogy on Faith, Hope and Love.
So in his book On Hope, he starts by talking about something I hadn't heard of before - the status viatoris.
Pieper explains it as follows:
Now I don't think any of that is controversial as such as far as Catholic Theology is concerned.
Slightly further on though Pieper talks about despair and presumption as being opposed to the theological virtue of Hope. Presumption he writes, reveals itself in two forms:
I'm finding this a bit difficult, because it differs a lot from Protestant teachings.
To give an example, I once heard salvation described like a plane journey, as people who fly can be either nervous passengers, or relaxed, so christians may be either nervous or relaxed. But is that a good analogy?
Pieper refers to presumption as "an attitude of mind that fails to accept the reality of the futurity and "arduousness" that characterise eternal life. In conjunction with attainability, these two characteristics - futurity and "arduousness" - constitute the formal nature of the object of hope. If one characteristic is missing or ceases to be genuine, hope is longer possible."
What is the Reformed teaching on Hope? Do they recognise the status viatoris, that Pieper talks about here?
So in his book On Hope, he starts by talking about something I hadn't heard of before - the status viatoris.
Pieper explains it as follows:
To be a "viator" means to be "one on the way". The status viatoris is, then, the "condition or state of being on the way". Its proper antonym is status comprehensoris. One who has comprehended, encompassed, arrived, is no longer a viator, but a comprehensor. Theology has borrowed this word from one of Paul's epistles: "Brethren, I do not consider that I have laid hold [comprehendisse] of [the goal] already." (Phil 3:13) To be on the way, to be a viator means to be making progress towards eternal happiness; to have encompassed this goal, to be a comprehensor, means to possess beatitude. Beatitude is to be understood primarily as the fulfillment objectively appropriate to our nature and only secondarily as the subjective response to this fulfillment. And this fulfillment is the Beatific Vision.
Now I don't think any of that is controversial as such as far as Catholic Theology is concerned.
Slightly further on though Pieper talks about despair and presumption as being opposed to the theological virtue of Hope. Presumption he writes, reveals itself in two forms:
Theology calls the first kind of presumption "Pelagian". It is characterised by the more or less explicit thesis that man is able by his own human nature to win eternal life and the forgiveness of sins. Associated with it is the typically liberal, bourgeois moralism that, for no apparent reason, is antagonistic not only to dogma per se but also to the sacramental reality of the Church: solely on the basis of his own moral "performance", an "upright" and "decent" individual who "does his duty" will be able to "stand the test before God" as well.
....
The second form of presumption, in which, admittedly, its basic character as a kind of premature certainty is obscured, has its roots in the heresy propagated by the Reformation: the sole efficacy of God's redemptive and engracing action. By teaching the absolute certainty of salvation solely by virtue of the merits of Christ, this heresy destroys the true pilgrim character of Christian existence by making as certain for the individual Christian, as the revealed fact of redemption the belief that he had already "actually" achieved the goal of salvation
....
Presumption has its source in a self-esteem that, while false, is somehow affirmed by the individuals own will; it consists in the will to achieve a certainty that is necessarily invalid because there is no valid ground for it. Even more specifically this false esteem of oneself is a lack of humility, a denial of one's actual creatureliness and an unnatural claim to being like God. Hope presupposes not only magnanimity but also humility. Saint Augustine says in his Commentary on the Psalms that only to the humble is it given to hope.
I'm finding this a bit difficult, because it differs a lot from Protestant teachings.
To give an example, I once heard salvation described like a plane journey, as people who fly can be either nervous passengers, or relaxed, so christians may be either nervous or relaxed. But is that a good analogy?
Pieper refers to presumption as "an attitude of mind that fails to accept the reality of the futurity and "arduousness" that characterise eternal life. In conjunction with attainability, these two characteristics - futurity and "arduousness" - constitute the formal nature of the object of hope. If one characteristic is missing or ceases to be genuine, hope is longer possible."
In theological hope the "antithesis" between divine justice and divine mercy is, as it were, "removed" - not so much "theoretically" as existentially: supernatural hope is man's appropriate, existential answer to the fact that these qualities in God, which to the creature appear to be contradictory, are really identical. One who looks only at the justice of God is as little able to hope as one who sees only the mercy of God. Both fall prey to hopelessness - one to the hopelessness of despair, the other to the hopelessness of presumption. Only Hope is able to comprehend the reality of God that surpasses all antitheses, to know that his mercy is identical with his justice and his justice with his mercy"
What is the Reformed teaching on Hope? Do they recognise the status viatoris, that Pieper talks about here?
Last edited:
