Yes

I'm asking Enoch

Ah, my apologies

np my lad

of course there is

good

and nobody that doesn't understand Christian theology can understand it properly

do you find any objection to this sentence "there is a divine natural order and another that is surnatural" ?

You don't live in complete ignorant darkness as a non-Christian it should be said of course

divine not to be mistaken with "spiritual"

What exactly do you mean by there being a divine natural order as well as a supernatural

that the natural order is created by God and that it has its laws made by God, and that there is a surnatural order added on top of the natural one by God that decided to freely make that gift to mankind

What would you say this supernatural order is, then?

I have not clear cut definitions of it but it's basically the order that presupposes the natural order (in order to be added to it), a gift of God in order for us to sublimate our nature thanks to His grace and gifts (for example with Adam and Eve that first had the gift of eternal life, then after the Fall, other gifts like the Revelation, the Church, the Sacraments and all the that goes with that)

Because if you agree that Grace is free, God could have created us without giving it to us, and if the natural order has its laws that are willed by God, we would have lived in it without the Revelation and the Church etc, and still, we would have been living in societies since we would have the human nature nonetheless.

being rational animals, we would have exerced this ability to reason, yet without Grace

and we probably would have revered God, even if He would be unknown to us, because by reasoning we can, through His creation, learn that there is a God and that He has some attributes

having a social nature, we would have lived in society without Grace and without the Church, but with the capacity to achieve the Common Good

that's why a Pagan like Aristotle, even if not gifted with Grace, could achieve a good understanding of politics with his reason (but his system was flawed on some things, due to the Original Sin), and that's because he understood things that a Christian like saint Thomas Aquinas went to him in order to develop his (and the Church's) philosophy

in no way then it has been a cause of dereliction of the Catholic Church since the only motivation of Aquinas was Truth

if you say that Monarchy and Theocracy being present in the Scriptures, they are the only forms of ok governments [theocracy is not a prefiguration of anything other than the Church btw] in order to achieve the goal of politics (the Common Good) that could have been achieve without surnature (because we have the human nature and the natural order has an order), you will then be obligated to belittle nature and say that surnature is _needed_ to achieve the natural finality of men

which will make you say that there is a natural-surnatural order that is _one_

which is usually the position of the Orthobros I think (the frontier between the two orders [natural-surnatural] is usually foggy), but also the one of modernists in the Catholic Church

Sounds kinda heretical

what ?

Actually now that I read it again it's not heretical, but convoluted

As in just a lengthily explanation, like you did a good job explaining this idea

it may be because I'm not good in English

I would say that it's easily summarized this way: Pagan humans have the same senses, logic, reason and pattern recognition skills as Christian humans. Of course their wisdom and insight is valuable. We should never shun any knowledge just because it was gathered by someone outside of the Faith, we should scrunitze it heavily, but all knowledge is valuable

And if that knowledge can be used to help the Faith and the Church we would be foolish not to examine it

thing is that, the root of the problem is usually philosophical

and is related to the relation between nature and surnature

I really don't know how present this kind of debates are in the anglosphere

or even in the spanish-speaking sphere

how commonly do you hear about "surnaturalism" for example ? or even fideism, quietism, political augustinianism

I've never heard of surnaturalism, actually.

I know a couple of good French articles, particulary one called "Surnaturalism : the heresy that politically paralyzes Catholics" that I could try to translate, if that sort of stuff interest you.
One of the big problems is that the references, when not directly Aquinas himself and the Social Doctrine of the Church, are French-speaking thomists _only_ (Descoqs, Demangeon, Lachance, Koninck, Jugnet, De Corte, Gagnebet, Tonquédec etc) which are unknown in any other country, while those who are their opponents are a lot more known (Maritain, Lubac and Gilson).
And, not knowing the anglo thomistic production when it comes to political science, I couldn't even try to give some bibliography for non-francophones 🤔

That is unfortunate.

I wish I knew French, given the circumstances.

The articles are quite sufficient by themselves though, since they contain quotes, but for some deeper understanding, it will be harder.

I'll try to see if that make sense anyway, but it'll probably take a couple of days to translate