Catholic predestination teaching

[porthos11]

Ohhhh uch: Now I understand what you meant. Yes, indeed, clearly God knows who will reject His graces and forgiveness, which leads to the conditioned reprobation you mention, not due to God’s personal choice, but to God’s foreknowledge of the person’s choices (or rather, demerits). That is true, and another mysterious consequence of omniscience.

I still think these things can be extremely confusing for many…which is why this is barely mentioned in the Catechism, I would guess…ultimately anyone can be saved while in life, and I recall it is impossible to know for anyone alive whether he will be saved or not, so we should all aim to salvation, “run as to win the race”

In Molinist thought, God’s knowledge plays a major role, as the school of thought depends on God knowing how each person will freely respond to his grace (the Thomist school does not account for this). However, the Molinist school also affirms God’s sovereignty (i.e. what he decrees will come to pass must come to pass) by affirming that God, out of no other reason than his own divine will, lays out a fixed order of grace.

We can try to simplify the Molinist thought by reducing the domain of the people affected. Let’s say there are only two human beings, Tom and Harry, both baptized Catholic and both live in the same city. God sees how both Tom and Harry will respond free given any particular set of circumstances. Now let’s say God sees that if it snows, Tom will stay home and Harry will drive. However, the snow will cause major road issues that Harry will pull over and run into a church, where he meets a good priest, regains his faith and from there on, lives a good life and will eventually die in a state of grace. Tom, on the other hand, by staying home, had the opportunity to watch pornography but due to really bad timing, got a heart attack and dies right there, presumably in mortal sin and going to hell.

That’s one set of circumstances. Now God also sees that if the sun shines, Tom drives to work as does Harry, but he also sees that Harry in this case, in the nicenes of the day, takes a quick break in a bar, meets a young woman and one thing leads to another. After the tryst, he walks out and is hit by a bus, presumably dying in mortal sin. Tom gets a heart attack but because of the niceness of the day, quickly gets help and stays alive long enough for a priest to absolve him and give him the apostolic blessing before he dies, ensuring his entry to heaven.

So now what happens? First of all, God desires both Harry and Tom to be saved. But God, for no reason other than his will, decides to let it shine (this is like the fixed order of grace). That’s it. By doing so, he predestined Tom to heaven and Harry to hell. But in neither case did he violate either man’s free will. He also did not destine Harry to mortal sin (this is heretical).

That’s a very simplistic example—after all, the fixed order of grace is much more than just snow or shine—of how Molinism can account for predestination and reprobation. The Church accepts this school of thought but does not mandate it; she only requires that the mysteries of predestination and reprobation be held as true teaching

 

[porthos11]

Thomistic thought on predestination is ante praevisa merita. To simplify, if we take Tom and Harry again, in Thomist thought, God wills: “I decree that Tom be saved.” That’s it. God will then bestow upon Tom the graces that he knows Tom will freely respond to. So for example, if Tom is going to die in a few minutes due to a heart attack, God will ensure that the necessary graces are given to him to secure his salvation, such as by prompting him as to use his free will to drive by a church or Catholic hospital where he freely confesses and receives final absolution and the apostolic blessing. This is without account of Tom’s foreseen merits. This is also acceptable for a Catholic to hold.

There is no good way to reconcile this thought with reprobation, however because if we are to take that God has somehow said, “I will not give Harry any grace such that he will be excluded from the Beatific Vision”, this negative unconditioned reprobation is pretty much equal in effect to Calvinism (which teaches unconditioned positive reprobation ante praevisa demerita, a horrible theology that denies God’s mercy, holiness and contradicts 1 Tim 2:4); because there is no third final state. Exclusion from the Beatific Vision is hell.

 

[R_C]

@porthos11 This is very in-depth, thanks for kindly taking the time to cover this. Personally, I had settled my mind after very little exploration because I saw too many paths before me and was afraid of walking on the wrong one and getting discouraged before my misery rather than exhorted to work harder. I am glad to learn more, though I know each of us benefit in different degrees from knowledge on this topic, and some don’t.

 

[porthos11]

@porthos11 This is very in-depth, thanks for kindly taking the time to cover this. Personally, I had settled my mind after very little exploration because I saw too many paths before me and was afraid of walking on the wrong one and getting discouraged before my misery rather than exhorted to work harder. I am glad to learn more, though I know each of us benefit in different degrees from knowledge on this topic, and some don’t.

Predestination is one of the most difficult concepts to grasp in Catholicism and was badly distorted by the Calvinists such that many Catholics now overreact and deny predestination outright. However, as we can see, there have been multiple schools of thought on predestination within Catholic orthodoxy well before Calvin came along. We cannot just deny predestination and reprobation as they are orthodox Catholic teaching with much support from Scripture and the Fathers.

 

[CrossofChrist]

On reprobation, we have Scripture on our side. Judas was clearly reprobated from the Lord’s own words but did God unconditionally predestine him to hell? No. He went to his death according to his own free will.

“the Church … has never said anything about the damnation of any individual. Not even about that of Judas.” - von Balthasar

This is why the Church doesn’t say God predestines souls to hell–because we have a hope that all will be saved. But we could be in agreement when you say that God predestines in light of foreseen demerits. But this is assuming some go to hell, which, while it is likely, we will never know in this life which is why speculation about this doesn’t happen (we know what happens when it does–Calvinism). We do know some people are in heaven, such as the Blessed Virgin, so we clearly know that God predestines to salvation. But to say for a fact that some are in hell is something the Church can’t and can never do.

 

[ngill09]

Those who die in a state of mortal sin go to hell, yes. And God knows who that will be as well. But, to reiterate Hans Urs von Balthasar in the words of Avery Dulles, “we have a right and even a duty to hope for the salvation of all, because it is not impossible that even the worst sinners may be moved by God’s grace to repent before they die”.

Do you have any Church documents that say God destines certain men to damnation?

This hasn’t been brought up in this thread, surprisingly, but from my understanding it forms the basis of some of Calvinistic thought:

6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”

10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20** But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? **“Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory?

This passage strongly implies that God arbitrarily hardens the hearts of certain people so that they are damned for destruction. The response to the perceived injustice of this is “who are you to talk back to God?” According to this passage, certain people are driven by the irresistible will of God to damnation.

 

[porthos11]

“the Church … has never said anything about the damnation of any individual. Not even about that of Judas.” - von Balthasar

This is why the Church doesn’t say God predestines souls to hell–because we have a hope that all will be saved. But we could be in agreement when you say that God predestines in light of foreseen demerits. But this is assuming some go to hell, which, while it is likely, we will never know in this life which is why speculation about this doesn’t happen (we know what happens when it does–Calvinism). We do know some people are in heaven, such as the Blessed Virgin, so we clearly know that God predestines to salvation. But to say for a fact that some are in hell is something the Church can’t and can never do.

Although we do not know the state of any soul, the Lord’s words regarding Judas are not something to be dismissed so lightly. Besides, that is not the only support from Scripture. Romans 9 clearly states that God does harden hearts and there are men as vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.

Reprobation is de fide, as is predestination. This means there is no denying either mystery; both are teachings of the Catholic Church and must be held as true. I have given the pronouncements of Church councils and Scripture. I have also cited that this reprobation is only conditional, post et propter praevisa (after and because of foreseen) demerita, never ante praevisa demerita as the Calvinists hold, while one can hold to predestination ante praevisa merita or post praevisa merita.

Instead of outright denying one or both mysteries, one should first study why the Catholic Church does teach these difficult mysteries and how they can be reconciled with the universal desire for salvation. Instead of denying these concepts, why not read up on what the Church teaches? Research on Thomism and Molinism and you will see how reasonable and orthodox they are.

 

[porthos11]

This hasn’t been brought up in this thread, surprisingly, but from my understanding it forms the basis of some of Calvinistic thought:

This passage strongly implies that God arbitrarily hardens the hearts of certain people so that they are damned for destruction. The response to the perceived injustice of this is “who are you to talk back to God?” According to this passage, certain people are driven by the irresistible will of God to damnation.

No. God does not desire the damnation of anyone. If one is damned, it is because of his own free choice to reject God’s grace, not because God willed him to damnation in the first place. To say otherwise is to deny Scripture that clearly states that God desires the salvation of all (1 Tim 2:4). Calvinistic double-predestination is an attack on Scripture and is rightly condemned as heretical.

God, however, is not obligated to give more grace to anyone, as grace is unmerited. It is in this negative sense that God can be said to “harden” one’s heart, but he does not actively do so (because to do so would be to contradict Scripture, 1 Tim 2:4 again).

 

[ngill09]

No. God does not desire the damnation of anyone. If one is damned, it is because of his own free choice to reject God’s grace, not because God willed him to damnation in the first place. To say otherwise is to deny Scripture that clearly states that God desires the salvation of all (1 Tim 2:4). Calvinistic double-predestination is an attack on Scripture and is rightly condemned as heretical.

God, however, is not obligated to give more grace to anyone, as grace is unmerited. It is in this negative sense that God can be said to “harden” one’s heart, but he does not actively do so (because to do so would be to contradict Scripture, 1 Tim 2:4 again).

This seems like you’re just acknowledging a contradiction in Scripture and arbitrarily choosing the one you find more palatable. Paul uses the analogy of a potter molding clay into pottery for various uses to illustrate how God molds people for glory or for destruction. To say that God does not mold people for destruction is to deny the clear meaning of this Scripture and to make Paul’s analogy ridiculous. Moreover, what sense does the objection Paul addresses make if what he’s saying is just that people choose to harden their own hearts? The clear meaning of this Scripture is that God hardens the hearts of certain people as a potter molds certain clay into pottery for “common use”. They are “prepared for destruction”. As humans, we see this as unjust, since who can be blamed for doing as God wills? - but we have no right to complain, just as pottery has no right to complain about the purpose for which it was made.

 

[porthos11]

This seems like you’re just acknowledging a contradiction in Scripture and arbitrarily choosing the one you find more palatable. Paul uses the analogy of a potter molding clay into pottery for various uses to illustrate how God molds people for glory or for destruction. To say that God does not mold people for destruction is to deny the clear meaning of this Scripture and to make Paul’s analogy ridiculous. Moreover, what sense does the objection Paul addresses make if what he’s saying is just that people choose to harden their own hearts? The clear meaning of this Scripture is that God hardens the hearts of certain people as a potter molds certain clay into pottery for “common use”. They are “prepared for destruction”. As humans, we see this as unjust, since who can be blamed for doing as God wills? - but we have no right to complain, just as pottery has no right to complain about the purpose for which it was made.

I do no such thing. First of all, I will defend Romans 9 and support predestination and reprobation to the best of my ability as a Catholic. Anyone who tries to argue with you by denying predestination and reprobation is in error. What I’m doing differently is that I’m interpreting Scripture as a whole. You’re doing so in isolation.

That said, your interpretation is Calvinistic and denies 1 Tim 2:4, which clearly states that God desires the salvation of everyone. By claiming that God wills certain men to destruction violates that clear truth. One can and must hold to reprobation, that is, predestination to hell as true teaching, but your Calvinistic interpretation is in isolation from the rest of Scripture and is rightly condemned as heretical.

Catholic Molinistic thought easily reconciles Romans 9 and vessels fitted for destruction without violating man’s free will and God’s sovereignty. Your interpretation affirms God’s sovereignty only at the expense of man’s free will and the universal desire for salvation affirmed by 1 Tim 2:4.

 

[R_C]

This hasn’t been brought up in this thread, surprisingly, but from my understanding it forms the basis of some of Calvinistic thought:

This passage strongly implies that God arbitrarily hardens the hearts of certain people so that they are damned for destruction. The response to the perceived injustice of this is “who are you to talk back to God?” According to this passage, certain people are driven by the irresistible will of God to damnation.

Paul uses the analogy of a potter molding clay into pottery for various uses to illustrate how God molds people for glory or for destruction. To say that God does not mold people for destruction is to deny the clear meaning of this Scripture and to make Paul’s analogy ridiculous. The clear meaning of this Scripture is that God hardens the hearts of certain people … They are “prepared for destruction”. As humans, we see this as unjust, since who can be blamed for doing as God wills? - but we have no right to complain

See, that’s why the Church ever since the days of the apostles employs the term haireomai - in Latin, haeresis - to designate these doctrines…the Greek word meaning “to choose”…that process by which a person (the heresiarch) and a subsequent community deviates from the standard of sound (orthodox) doctrine by picking and choosing, all the while discarding or ignoring other parts, and generally not focusing on the whole picture (in our case, the unity of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition).

If we were to understand God’s thoughts “according to this passage” or “according to that passage”, then we would be utterly lost…yes, for the Sacred Scripture, the word of God with lowercase w, is a canon of books that convey a message that goes through millennia, spanning cultures, places, authors, and whose Old Testament is understood solely through the light of the New Testament, while the New is not comprehensible without knowledge of the Old…and Sacred Tradition is but a continuation of the same word through the mouth of those to whom Christ said: “I have many more things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now…the Spirit will come, he will take what is mine and reveal it to you…those who listen to you listen to me, those who reject you reject me…”…this was necessary, for the Word of God, the living Word with capital W, who in the beginning was with God and was God, now is in the world, He who is the same yesterday, today, and forever, He who is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, for whom a day is a thousand years, a thousand years a day…

That novel, personal, unorthodox, and therefore heretical understanding of this passage is for us a striking contradiction with everything God has ever revealed to His people, with the very essence of the Christ, with the very concept of libero arbitrio, and from the standpoint of reason alone, a direct contradiction of the very fact - as proved by Thomas Aquinas - that God’s nature literally prevents Him from willing evil and death inasmuch as they are non-essence, imperfections in goodness. But if all of the above is unappealing to the protestant mind, then perhaps a more practical argument would be that the idea that God arbitrarily destines certain men to destruction contradicts other parts of Sacred Scripture, such as 2 Peter 3:9 (“The Lord…is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance”). And this irreconcilable contradiction is the ultimate proof that this interpretation is far from the truth, in accordance with the principle taught by Church Father Tertullian:

[W]hat it was which Christ revealed to them [the apostles] can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves.

If then these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those molds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, [and] Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God.

It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood.

…][T]heir very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory.

Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these …] tests by our apostolic Church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not …] because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.

 

[ngill09]

Again, you just seem to be stating that this passage contradicts other passages and must therefore be dismissed.

It may surprise you that I agree. But I also do not hold to Biblical inerrancy. I think Paul was wrong in Romans 9. You, it seems, must deny the clear meaning of this passage and insist that Paul is saying something that directly contradicts what he actually says.

 

[R_C]

Again, you just seem to be stating that this passage contradicts other passages and must therefore be dismissed.

No, that’s not how a Catholic thinks. We understand passages, not dismiss them.

I think Paul was wrong in Romans 9.

**You **think Paul was wrong?

 

[porthos11]

Again, you just seem to be stating that this passage contradicts other passages and must therefore be dismissed.

It may surprise you that I agree. But I also do not hold to Biblical inerrancy. I think Paul was wrong in Romans 9. You, it seems, must deny the clear meaning of this passage and insist that Paul is saying something that directly contradicts what he actually says.

Too bad, because we do. And as I said, Catholic thought has multiple acceptable hypotheses as to how Scripture is in harmony with its whole. There is no “clear meaning” of scripture interpreted in isolation of other scripture. If you only review my previous posts, you will see that I have supported BOTH Romans 9 and 1 Tim 2:4 in the same breath.

I would have challenged you to interpret 1 Tim 2:4 in light of Romans 9. But since we disagree on the fundamental matter of Biblical inerrancy (denial of which is yet another heresy), this discussion with you is over. That is a topic for another thread; keep this one limited to predestination only.

 

[ngill09]

**You **think Paul was wrong?

Yes, and so do you by dismissing what Paul says in this chapter in favor of other Scriptures. You might also disagree with him on other matters, such as whether it is permissible for a woman to teach or have authority over a man.

 

[R_C]

Yes, and so do you by dismissing what Paul says in this chapter in favor of other Scriptures. You might also disagree with him on other matters, such as whether it is permissible for a woman to teach or have authority over a man.

No, I do not disagree wit Paul because I distrust myself very much in matters of faith and morals. I am a very ignorant man that has not known nor been through a fraction of what Paul knew or got into, I did not receive the Spirit in the measure that Paul did, and above all else, I was not called and sent by Our Lord the way Paul was.

What I am doing, as a faithful member of the Church which Paul helped to spread, is to understand what he was stating. This is done, for Scripture as for any other field of the human episteme, by understanding the part in terms of the whole, rather than trying to understand the whole from one part, and either dismissing that one part or ignoring the fact that if interpreted in a certain way it contradicts everything else. Many a heresiarch have done just that: they have cherry-picked one or two statements of Paul and have rejected the tradition of the Church Fathers, elaborating their own personal interpretation concerning salvation and Christ, and I have personally spoken with people who through this process were true believers of the fact that there is no need to baptize, that the Holy Spirit is solely a way to describe God’s actions, and even that Christ is only a creature, the worst of all blasphemies! What I do instead is I look at how the Church explains this based on how this passage fits within the Pauline way of thought, within the general understanding of the economy of salvation portrayed by Scripture as a whole, and also with how the Church Fathers understood this, given that they had been taught directly by the apostles or their direct successors.

While we could argue for an extensive amount of time on Paul’s remarks regarding women and teaching or authority over man, I will simply state that there are remarks in Paul that come straight from the Holy Spirit, while some others are of a pastoral nature, fit for the time and place but not intended to be held as precepts of the Church forever. The authority of a woman to teach may be one of such pastoral remarks, valid in his time, but perhaps not today in most of the world. As for the authority, I do not consider that this was a pastoral matter, because it is very clear from Scripture and Tradition that just like Christ is both bridegroom and shepherd and head of the Church, so in the family the husband is called to be leader and have the last world, though that - as St. Paul beautifully explains - does not imply a submission of the woman to man, but rather a communion and a complementary diversity, in which both fulfill roles in love and charity. Otherwise either the woman should have authority over man - which is nowhere to be read in Scripture and Tradition - or both should have authority over one another, which implies ultimately chaos in decision-making. One thing is certain: concerning the body of the spouses, one belongs to the other in such manner that either can lovingly exercise control over the other, the man no more than the wife, and vice versa. But now I am going off-topic.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Instead of outright denying one or both mysteries, one should first study why the Catholic Church does teach these difficult mysteries and how they can be reconciled with the universal desire for salvation. Instead of denying these concepts, why not read up on what the Church teaches? Research on Thomism and Molinism and you will see how reasonable and orthodox they are.

I’m not denying them. In fact, I think I said that we are probably in agreement.

Personally, Congruism makes the most sense to me.

 

[porthos11]

I’m not denying them. In fact, I think I said that we are probably in agreement.

Apologies; I skimmed over your last few lines. Far be it from me to accuse anyone of denying what he doesn’t.

Personally, Congruism makes the most sense to me.

I have very little understanding of Congruism, but from what I do understand, it appears that Congruism, while keeping the Molinist thought that God sees all possibilities through his middle knowledge and lays out a fixed order or grace, that order is also determined by what graces he knows (again through his middle knowledge) will be effective. In a way, it brings Molinism slightly closer to Thomism, but not so much as to cross into the unconditioned predestination of Thomism.

With a big grain of salt offered at my end, I see nothing unorthodox in this line of thought either. Congruism is actually a variant, or sub-school within Molinism, which we already know is deemed orthodox by the Catholic Church.

 

[josephback]

I’ve been reading an online book yesterday called Grace: Actual and Habitual by Joseph Pohle. I think it mentioned congruism.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

For a detailed exploration of the topic from a Thomist perspective I highly recommend Predestination by Fr. Reginald Garrigou Lagrange, OP.