Catholic predestination teaching

[Aelred_Minor]

The fundamental teaching regarding this can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 600, which you apparently have found already.

It says: “When [God] establishes his eternal plan of predestination, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace.”

What this means is that our choices are known beforehand and taken into account when God distributes the graces that lead to salvation. Those who are going to refuse grace and die in mortal sin are permitted by God to do that; those who are going to accept grace and die in friendship with God are given the special graces that will lead them toward doing His will. In addition to the Catechism passage you have already read, I encourage you to read paragraphs 1996-2005 (which is the section on “grace”), and paragraph 2008, and paragraph 153. These paragraphs are very related to the doctrine of predestination. What you will learn from those paragraphs is that God moves within man’s heart to bring him in line with the divine will. Everytime we cooperate with God’s plan, that cooperation itself is the result of God at work within us. God’s plan of predestination, is the plan by which He makes all the preparations necessary to bring a man to salvation. And of course some people can’t be brought to salvation without destroying their free will, and so God permits them to go to destruction, even though He wishes the opposite.

People tend to read into this Catechism passage whatever they want it to say. From a Thomist or Congruist perspective the passage could easily be read as saying that our free responses to grace are themselves also predestined. I imagine that the men who prepared the Catechism had no desire to settle the debate with it, so they used a deliberately vague phrase that essentially just gives a nod to the topic without clarifying the Church’s position on it beyond what has already been defined: that there is a plan of predestination and that that our cooperation with grace depends on our free will.

Since the Protestant Reformation the Church’s pastoral emphasis has been on free will. This was an appropriate response to heresies that denied free will, but should not blind us completely to other sides of the truth.

 

[porthos11]

People tend to read into this Catechism passage whatever they want it to say. From a Thomist or Congruist perspective the passage could easily be read as saying that our free responses to grace are themselves also predestined. I imagine that the men who prepared the Catechism had no desire to settle the debate with it, so they used a deliberately vague phrase that essentially just gives a nod to the topic without clarifying the Church’s position on it beyond what has already been defined: that there is a plan of predestination and that that our cooperation with grace depends on our free will.

Since the Protestant Reformation the Church’s pastoral emphasis has been on free will. This was an appropriate response to heresies that denied free will, but should not blind us completely to other sides of the truth.

The Catechism is a, well, catechetical resource, not a theological one so for the purposes of catechesis, the wording of 600 is just fine, after all, that’s all the Church teaches. The Church doesn’t teach Thomism, Molinism or Congruism, she only deems them acceptable. The editors of the Catechism were wise to not mention any of these as, not being Catholic teaching, have no place in a catechetical resource.

For in-depth study of these theological concepts, theological works and compendia such as those by Ott and Denziger are the ones to be used.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

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

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.

As I recall Congruism does indeed hold unconditioned predestination, and this is the principle thing that distinguishes it from non-Congruist Molinism.

The chief thing that distinguishes it from Thomism is in how it thinks God brings predestined salvation about.

According to Congruism, as in Molinism as a whole, a given human being put into a given situation can make only one choice (this from a Thomist perspective is a denial of free will, but the Church has not ruled on the matter). According to Congruism, God places the elect in situations in which he knows they will choose salvation, and declines to do so for the reprobate.

According to Thomism, free will consists in not being naturally bound to any choice between finite goods, but God moves the will as he moves all things, including moving the wills of the elect to accept salvation (this movement of the will is a denial of free will from a Molinist/Congruist perspective, but again the Church has not ruled on the matter).

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The Catechism is a, well, catechetical resource, not a theological one so for the purposes of catechesis, the wording of 600 is just fine, after all, that’s all the Church teaches. The Church doesn’t teach Thomism, Molinism or Congruism, she only deems them acceptable. The editors of the Catechism were wise to not mention any of these as, not being Catholic teaching, have no place in a catechetical resource.

For in-depth study of these theological concepts, theological works and compendia such as those by Ott and Denziger are the ones to be used.

Agreed. I would clarify that in principle it would be a positive thing for the Church to rule out erroneous theological positions and this remains a very real possibility for the future, but the difficulties of the subject have so far prevented this beyond condemning certain clear heresies like double predestination.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

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

Sorry, the author’s last name there should be hyphenated. Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about God knowing whether we will go to Heaven and Hell–and yet still not predetermining it.

Let me explain it this way: I’m from Hoover Alabama. I KNOW and can with 100% certainty tell you that if the university of alabama played hoover high School in football next week that the University of alabama would win.

Me KNOWING it does not MAKE it happen! The college guys would freely exercise their freedom of will and the high school guys would freely exercise their freedom of will and Alabama would easily be the winner!

Same thing would be if the New York Yankees played the Little Leaguers next week.

Now this of course is a simplified answer but EXTRPOLATE from it–if I can know a simple thing such as this–how much would God–who is infinitely knowledgeable know?

God would be able to always know everything.

His knowing every thing would not MAKE all things happen the way they do in the sense that we would still have freedom of will–it’s just that God would know the way we would choose–He wouldn’t MAKE us choose.

In other words though it doesn’t seem to make sense–it is indeed a great mystery and a great paradox–God knows how we will choose without making us choose.

And since He knows He predestines the Elect to heaven. God does that out of love for the elect.

He reprobates those of us that He knows will wind up going to Hell–but not out of a positive act but by an act of ALLOWANCE. God LETS the damned exercise their free will and wind up going to hell.

This is how Catholicism differs from Calvinism. Calvinism says that God INTENDS that some go to Hell–Catholicism says no–God INTENDS or WANTS us all to be saved as the scriptures say but only LETS some go to Hell by their own free will choice.

In other words anyone that goes to Hell goes there not by God’s INTENTIONAL ideal choice but by their own choice.

And God being able to know that they will make that choice does not PREDETERMINE the choice but only ALLOWS the choice.

God wills by INTENDING something to happen or ALLOWING something to happen.

The elect are predestined to Heaven by intention–God gives them grace and they respond to it–the reprobate are damned to Hell against God’s intention by his ALLOWANCE of them exercising their free will–He LETS them go there on their own.

I personally am between Molinism and Thomism when it comes to predestination.

I think Father William Most gets about as close as you can get to the truth that is in between.

I could of course be wrong–is it true–does God Predestine the Elect by INTENDING that for them from the foundation of the world and they freely respond to his grace

But

with the REPROBATE He Reprobates them against His ideal intention that all should be saved and ALLOWS them to exercise their free will choice and then wind up in Hell?

in both events the end is already known to God and in each free will is exercised?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

One thing that I think facilitates discussion of this topic is to make a firm and consistent distinction between God’s foreknowledge, which is something we all agree on, and predestination itself.

 

[CrossofChrist]

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.

Here’s a pretty good explanation for the average layman IMHO:

*One possible scenario is that God first resolves absolutely that Peter should freely elicit A in C and then, as it were, consults his middle knowledge to see just which particular graces would, if bestowed on Peter in C, obtain his free consent and thus issue in A. It follows that, given his antecedent resolution, God would have conferred some grace other than G if he had known by his middle knowledge that G would turn out to be “merely sufficient” with respect to A, i.e., that Peter would not freely consent to G in C. So G is rendered efficacious not only by Peter’s free consent but also, and indeed more principally, by God’s antecedent predetermination to confer a “congruous” grace that will guarantee Peter’s acting well in C. This model, which brings Molinism more into line with Bañezianism, is known as Congruism and was worked out in detail by Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suárez. In 1613 Congruism was mandated for all Jesuit theologians by the Father General Claude Aquiviva. *

So basically God predestined before consulting his middle knowledge who would be saved, but consults his middle knowledge what graces to give individuals to make it congruous. Yet he already knows from all time what graces are efficacious and what won’t be efficacious, but he predestined even before to have it happen regardless. It doesn’t really make sense, since it is “this happened before this but when time wasn’t around so it didn’t actually happen before this…” Kind of like the internal procession of the Trinity. :whacky:

Sorry if this doesn’t make sense. It all makes sense to me.

 

[porthos11]

Here’s a pretty good explanation for the average layman IMHO:

*One possible scenario is that God first resolves absolutely that Peter should freely elicit A in C and then, as it were, consults his middle knowledge to see just which particular graces would, if bestowed on Peter in C, obtain his free consent and thus issue in A. It follows that, given his antecedent resolution, God would have conferred some grace other than G if he had known by his middle knowledge that G would turn out to be “merely sufficient” with respect to A, i.e., that Peter would not freely consent to G in C. So G is rendered efficacious not only by Peter’s free consent but also, and indeed more principally, by God’s antecedent predetermination to confer a “congruous” grace that will guarantee Peter’s acting well in C. This model, which brings Molinism more into line with Bañezianism, is known as Congruism and was worked out in detail by Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suárez. In 1613 Congruism was mandated for all Jesuit theologians by the Father General Claude Aquiviva. *

Exactly; that’s why I commented that Congruism then moves Molinism closer to Thomism, and it seems perfectly reasonable that predestination can be explained this way. I’m not sure though if Congruism can reasonably account for reprobation without falling into the Thomist unconditioned reprobation line of thinking (because it seems that God is also predetermining ante praevisa demerita who gets grace and who doesn’t), unless Congruism affirms classic Molinist thinking that God gives sufficient graces to all. Or perhaps I’m just reading too much into it and Congruism doesn’t attempt to account for reprobation.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Exactly; that’s why I commented that Congruism then moves Molinism closer to Thomism, and it seems perfectly reasonable that predestination can be explained this way. I’m not sure though if Congruism can reasonably account for reprobation without falling into the Thomist unconditioned reprobation line of thinking (because it seems that God is also predetermining ante praevisa demerita who gets grace and who doesn’t), unless Congruism affirms classic Molinist thinking that God gives sufficient graces to all. Or perhaps I’m just reading too much into it and Congruism doesn’t attempt to account for reprobation.

Yes, Congruism says God gives all people sufficient grace. It doesn’t change anything regarding what makes grace efficacious. It basically says the same thing except God predestines before merits to escape the Molinist result that salvation essentially depends on us.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

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).

If I am not mistaken, based on my recent reading of the Catechism on the subject of merit, one may, in fact, merit more grace for themselves or others through their works and prayers, but grace is, in itself, unmerited. Otherwise it would be pointless to pray for others. Is this correct?

 

[porthos11]

If I am not mistaken, based on my recent reading of the Catechism on the subject of merit, one may, in fact, merit more grace for themselves or others through their works and prayers, but grace is, in itself, unmerited. Otherwise it would be pointless to pray for others. Is this correct?

Yes, but that would be your merit. First grace (that is, the sanctifying grace of Baptism or Reconciliation after mortal sin) is always unmerited (i.e. the sinner cannot merit it), but God could tie that first grace as an answer to your prayer (assuming you’re the one praying for the person), but the answer to your prayer is your merit, that is, you have merited the first grace for the other person. The sinner himself did not. For you to merit anything, either for yourself or others, you yourself should have been a recipient of first grace, which you did not and indeed, could not merit.

God, however, is not obligated to give any first or actual grace to anyone as a result of anyone’s prayers or intentions. He could apply the grace you merited to someone else, according to his own will, or maybe even reserve the reward for you yourself. Or he can indeed bestow that grace but only because he has willed that he would grant it contingent upon your prayers and penances. In technical terms, you can merit for others only de congruo, that is, according to God’s own favour towards you. We on earth are not able to merit for others de condigno, that is, according to justice; only Christ is able to merit *de condigno *for others.

 

[dmar198]

People tend to read into this Catechism passage whatever they want it to say. From a Thomist or Congruist perspective the passage could easily be read as saying that our free responses to grace are themselves also predestined.

I wasn’t trying to deny Thomism or Congruism and, in fact, those theories include the divine prescience of our free will decisions – in Congruism, through middle knowledge, and in Thomism, through God’s activity within the human will. Either way you still get God taking man’s free will into account when He prepares him for salvation. In Thomism, God moves within man’s heart to prepare it for grace, and in Congruism, God moves from outside man’s heart to prepare conditions he will respond to; but either way, God is preparing salvation while taking man’s response into account.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Yes, Congruism says God gives all people sufficient grace. It doesn’t change anything regarding what makes grace efficacious. It basically says the same thing except God predestines before merits to escape the Molinist result that salvation essentially depends on us.

Every Catholic school of thought on this subject affirms the doctrine that God gives sufficient grace for salvation.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

I don’t understand how it is as you have said as neither Christian or athiest you refer to the writings of Paul.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Every Catholic school of thought on this subject affirms the doctrine that God gives sufficient grace for salvation.

Yes, but not every school of Catholic thought teaches that efficacious grace is extrinsically efficacious. I think that is what porthos11 meant when I responded. Probably should’ve said it differently.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

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.

Those verses simply mean that God already knows who will reject Him till the day they die, so those who will never turn to Him anyway, He may harden their heart to work out His plan of helping His followers. Pharaoh was never going to turn to God ever and God knew this so He simply used Pharaoh to make a statement to His people by hardening his heart so that He could perform the miracles for His followers.

With the twins, God already knew how things were going to turn out and who the dominant one would be. Everything God does is out of His foreknowledge of choices we already made. He already knew everything each of us would say and do today before any of us were even conceived! That’s what you have to wrap your head around. Before you were conceived and before the internet was invented He already saw every post you will ever make and the post I’m making in response to yours. When you were in your mother’s womb God already saw this post you made. So to say God made a decision when the twins were first born and innocent means nothing when God can see everything each of them will ever do. It’s like God saying when Hitler was born He hated him, God already saw everything he would do so from the moment he was born He hated him. You have to realize God sees things differently than we do. He sees the complete past, present and future at once. He doesn’t make people the way they are, He simply responds to who and what they are/will be. From His perspective it already has been done.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

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.

That still doesn’t leave out man’s free will. Whatever God does or however He molds people is based upon choices they already made because of God’s foreknowledge.