Catholic teaching and predestination

[TheWhim]

I’m sorry I can’t formulate my question in short terms.
According to Luther humas have in relation to their salvation no free will. That is, they are justified by God alone, without any action on their part. Calvin has drawn the logical conclusion that God must have predestined some to hell(those to whom he doesn’t offer the justifying grace). But Luther was horrified by this. He maintained that humas are unfree, totally pasive, when being justified, but when they ar damned, it’s their own fault. Luther said something like this: This is illogical, but nevertheless true.

So much as I could grasp from the pope’s words in Regensburg, the Catholic tradition has always uphold logical actions of God. Thomas Aquinas said so. God can’t contradict himself. I think this reason-centered theology is much ahead of the confessed illogical reasoning of Luther, but one point still bewilders me:

If I am correct in my understanding of the decrees of Trent and the Catholic Catechism, the INITIAL justification is made by God alone and only THEN does the human participate, in the process of justification. But unless God does not justify every human being initially, human freedom is not maintained and we are drawn to the position of Luther(and the consequence of it: Calvin).

I do not think it is licit to say that the declaration that the initial justification is always God’s work alone does mean nothing more than that it was God who redeemed us - and not we who did so. The Catholic church has a clear concept of grace. It is created and it is imparted upon the believer. If the initial justification takes place by grace alone, or EVEN JUST BEGINS by the action of grace, then God must, in order not to engage in a shadowy form of predestination, justify EVERYONE initially. If he does not do so, then person x or y, to whom he does not offer the grace, has no chance at all to cooperate with it in the process of justification, and therefore is damned.

This is my reasoning. If is it right then the boundaries between Catholicism, Lutheranism(and Calvinism) aren’t that clear-cut as one would hope.

I may say that I expect a clear, concise, prooved answer and no shifting aroung or vague terms.

Best regards,
Whim*

 

[Ron_Conte]

I don’t think it is correct to say that God justifies everyone initially. The Virgin Mary, and Jesus in his human nature, had sanctifying grace from conception. Adam and Eve had sanctifying grace from their creation. But speaking generally about the rest of us:

We are conceived without sanctifying grace and so are not initially justified. Then we must seek grace in our life, ordinarily through the Sacrament of Baptism and the other Sacraments. Salvation is not something that we can earn or deserve. But we participate in our own salvation by cooperating with God’s grace, and that cooperation merits a reward from God in this life and the next.

Everyone is constantly and unceasingly offered grace from God, even the worst sinners. For the worst sinners, the grace is mainly the grace to repent. For the saints, the graces offered are myriad.

Predestination is not a kind of unfair and inexplicable or arbitrary choice by God as to who will be saved. All are called to salvation, but many refuse the call. Since God knows the whole future and all our future free will decisions with absolute certainty, then the salvation of the just is known with certainty. Also, Heaven is beyond Time, so everyone who ever will get to Heaven is already there. Predestination is a function of the timelessness of Heaven and the absolute and complete knowledge of God.

And this does in no way diminish free will. Yesterday, you made various free will decisions, and today those decisions cannot be changed because they are in the past. But you still had free will yesterday even though you cannot change those past decisions. Similarly, God knows what are free will decisions will be in the future, and He knows who will be saved, this is predetermined, but is in no way arbitrary, because we all have the opportunity to be saved and we all have free will.

Ron

 

[John_Henry]

If I am correct in my understanding of the decrees of Trent and the Catholic Catechism, the INITIAL justification is made by God alone and only THEN does the human participate, in the process of justification. But unless God does not justify every human being initially, human freedom is not maintained and we are drawn to the position of Luther(and the consequence of it: Calvin).

God initially justifies us in baptism. It is wholly his work. However, in preparation for that work, we have chosen to be baptized. So, we also have a role in the justification. Furthermore, in choosing to be baptized, we have already responded to God’s “predisposing” grace. In Chapter 5 of the decree on Justification, this is what Trent says:

It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace; so that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight.

 

[TheWhim]

Dear friends,

okay, I see taht I have misunderstood something. With initial justification I meant something different.

I meant exactly this:

It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace

Therefore, since God offers this predisposing grace WITHOUT ANY MERIT on the part of the sinners, it is demanded that God offers this predisposing grace to everyone - if he would just offer it to this or that guy, free will could not be maintained - as explained above.

My question therefore is: What is the Catholic Church’s doctrine on this?

Ron wrote:

Everyone is constantly and unceasingly offered grace from God, even the worst sinners.

If this was the Catholic Church’s doctrine, then free will, in regard of attaining our salvation, would be maintained. But I wonder where I can find this doctrine plainly exposed in a document of the Magisterium or in the expositions of angel-like doctors?

Yours,
Whim

 

[Gene_C]

These de fide statements of dogma from Dr. Ludwig Ott’s work might help you. I gave up a long time ago trying to reconcile some of them. Our salvation, while clear enough for a child to understand, is also filled with paradox.

V. God the Sanctifier

1. 
   *]There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will.
   *]There is a supernatural influence of God in the faculties of the soul which coincides in time with man’s free act of will.
   *]For every salutary act, internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary.
   *]Internal supernatural grace is absolutely necessary for the beginning of faith and salvation.
   *]Without the special help of God, the justified cannot persevere to the end in justification.
   *]The justified person is not able for his whole life long to avoid sins, even venial sins, without the special privilege of the grace of God.
   *]Even in the fallen state, man can, by his natural intellectual power, know religious and moral truths.
   *]For the performance of a morally good action, sanctifying grace is not required.
   *]In the state of fallen nature, it is morally impossible for man without supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty, and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order.
   *]Grace cannot be merited by natural works either de condigno or de congruo.
   *]God gives all the just sufficient grace for the observation of the divine commandments.
   *]God, by his eternal resolve of Will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessedness.
   *]God, by an eternal resolve of his Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection.
   *]The human will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible.
   *]There is grace which is truly sufficient and yet remains inefficacious.
   *]The causes of Justification. (Defined by the Council of Trent) :
   1. 
      *]The final cause is the honour of God and of Christ and the eternal life of men.
      *]The efficient cause is the mercy of God.
      *]The meritorious cause is Jesus Christ, who as mediator between God and men, has made atonement for us and merited the grace by which we are justified.
      *]The instrumental cause of the first justification is the Sacrament of Baptism. Thus it defines that Faith is a necessary precondition for justification (of adults).
      *]The formal cause is God’s Justice, not by which He Himself is just, but which He makes us just, that is, Sanctifying Grace.
      
      *]The sinner can and must prepare himself by the help of actual grace for the reception of the grace by which he is justified.
      *]The justification of an adult is not possible without faith.
      *]Besides faith, further acts of disposition must be present.
      *]Sanctifying grace sanctifies the soul.
      *]Sanctifying grace makes the just man a friend of God.
      *]Sanctifying grace makes the just man a child of God and gives him a claim to the inheritance of heaven.
      *]The three Divine or theological virtues of faith, hope and charity are infused with sanctifying grace.
      *]Without special Divine Revelation no one can know with the certainty of faith, if he be in the state of grace.
      *]The degree of justifying grace is not identical in all the just.
      *]Grace can be increased by good works.
      *]The grace by which we are justified may be lost, and is lost by every grievous sin.
      *]By his good works, the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God.
      *]A just man merits for himself through each good work an increase of sanctifying grace, eternal life (if death finds him in the state of grace) and an increase in heavenly glory.
      Peace,
      Gene

 

[Writer]

I’m sorry I can’t formulate my question in short terms.
According to Luther humas have in relation to their salvation no free will. That is, they are justified by God alone, without any action on their part. Calvin has drawn the logical conclusion that God must have predestined some to hell(those to whom he doesn’t offer the justifying grace). But Luther was horrified by this. He maintained that humas are unfree, totally pasive, when being justified, but when they ar damned, it’s their own fault. Luther said something like this: This is illogical, but nevertheless true.

So much as I could grasp from the pope’s words in Regensburg, the Catholic tradition has always uphold logical actions of God. Thomas Aquinas said so. God can’t contradict himself. I think this reason-centered theology is much ahead of the confessed illogical reasoning of Luther, but one point still bewilders me:

If I am correct in my understanding of the decrees of Trent and the Catholic Catechism, the INITIAL justification is made by God alone and only THEN does the human participate, in the process of justification. But unless God does not justify every human being initially, human freedom is not maintained and we are drawn to the position of Luther(and the consequence of it: Calvin).

I do not think it is licit to say that the declaration that the initial justification is always God’s work alone does mean nothing more than that it was God who redeemed us - and not we who did so. The Catholic church has a clear concept of grace. It is created and it is imparted upon the believer. If the initial justification takes place by grace alone, or EVEN JUST BEGINS by the action of grace, then God must, in order not to engage in a shadowy form of predestination, justify EVERYONE initially. If he does not do so, then person x or y, to whom he does not offer the grace, has no chance at all to cooperate with it in the process of justification, and therefore is damned.

This is my reasoning. If is it right then the boundaries between Catholicism, Lutheranism(and Calvinism) aren’t that clear-cut as one would hope.

I may say that I expect a clear, concise, prooved answer and no shifting aroung or vague terms.

Best regards,
Whim*

I’m a little short on time, but you might do a Google search on the term “heretical predestinarianism”. That might be a help at seeing the difference between Catholics and Baptists, for instance.

 

[Ron_Conte]

If this was the Catholic Church’s doctrine, then free will, in regard of attaining our salvation, would be maintained. But I wonder where I can find this doctrine plainly exposed in a document of the Magisterium or in the expositions of angel-like doctors?

Some teachings of the Faith are not found in the documents of the Magisterium, nor explicitly written in Scripture, nor explicitly written in the Living Tradition.

The Faith is not a series of written statements, nor a set of teachings. The Faith is lived. Is this not what we all live? That God’s grace is always available to everyone?

Ron

 

[TheWhim]

okay.
I well see that the questions amounts to an argument about the foreknowledge of God.

Personally I’ve come to accept Monilism. It was delcared by the Church to be authentic doctrine, so I feel entirely safe in representing it on thursday.

A description you can find on: newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm

I think this is the best way to reoncile free will and grace in a manner fitting to logical reasoning.

Thank you for all of your answers, dear friends!

Best regards,
Whim

 

[thistle]

okay.
I well see that the questions amounts to an argument about the foreknowledge of God.

Personally I’ve come to accept Monilism. It was delcared by the Church to be authentic doctrine, so I feel entirely safe in representing it on thursday.

A description you can find on: newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm

I think this is the best way to reoncile free will and grace in a manner fitting to logical reasoning.

Thank you for all of your answers, dear friends!

Best regards,
Whim

By the way Vortrag is the German word for a talk or lecture!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… the INITIAL justification is made by God alone and only THEN does the human participate, in the process of justification.

Incorrect. Trent teaches…
Council of Trent:

Canon 9. If anyone shall say that by faith alone the sinner is justified, so as to understand that nothing else is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification, and that it is in no way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will:let him be anathama." [Denzinger 818]

Asserted positively, Catholic teaching insists: “the sinner can and must prepare himself by the help of actual grace for the reception of the grace by which he is justified” (Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 252); and “***Besides faith, further acts of disposition must be present. [eg. charity, hope]” ***(Ott, pg. 253).

Notice above the distinction in Catholic teaching between ***actual grace ***and sanctifying (justifying) grace. That God gives grace to all so that they may attain justification and eternal life does not mean that God must necessarily justify all.

Thus, while no natural merit of man can oblige God to give the gift of justification, it does not then follow that God necessarily justifies without the participation of the recipient of His sanctifying grace.

The manner in which man is justified by the heavenly gift of God’s grace is similar to that foreshadowed by the OT heavenly gift of manna. God could have poofed the manna directly into the bellies of His people, if He desire. However, he didn’t. Instead, he desired the participation of his people in the reception of His heavenly gift.

Manna, like actual and sanctifying grace, was purely a gift from God. Nothing the people of God did prior to receiving manna set upon God an obligation such that He must give them manna (ie. They didn’t merit manna). Yet, although completely undeserved, in order to receive this gift, God required their cooperation. God didn’t require their deservedness, but required their participation in order that the effects of manna would be produced by God in them (ie., bodily nourishment). If they didn’t receive the manna as God prescribed, the manna turned to worms, and did not produce the intended effect (ie. the gift received was not efficacious). Yet, their cooperation DID NOT ADD to or in any way cause the nutritious effect of manna. Strictly speaking, it was ONLY the gift itself, by the power of God, that produced the effect in them. The “collecting” did not add to the nutritious effect that manna already had. However, defiance in receiving this heavenly gift contrary to God’s instructions certainly placed a barrier in receiving the effect of that gratuitous gift.

Think of this similarly to receipt of the Holy Eucharist. It too is a free gift and always conveys grace ex opere operato so long as we receive it as prescribed by God, to include proper disposition of the recipeint. Yet, if we by our own free will, place a barrier to the worthy reception of the Eucharist, such receiving in a state of unrepentant mortal sin, then like manna, the recipient will not receive the effect of the heavenly gift given by God.

In our analogy of manna, it can be theoretically understood as two graces. Grace A = manna in the field. Grace B = efficacious manna which nourishes the people of God.

Think of actual grace as Grace A in the process of justification. Grace A does not justify, and does not necessarily result in the effect of justification. Instead, it strengthens the will and enlightens the intellect. It is a supernatural gift from God which prompts man to act (that is why it is called “actual”). However, it does not force man to act. A man given actual grace will by necessity have a stronger will and a more enlightened intellect, but he may still freely choose to disobey the Lord. Thus the “act” prompted by God’s gratuitous “actual” grace can be ignored by the freewill of man.

Think of justifying or santifying grace as Grace B in the process of justification. Grace B does justify. It is a gratuitous gift, just as undeserved as the manna from heaven, yet like the gratutitous gift of manna, antecedent disobedience to the Lord would place a barrier for the worthy reception of the grace of justification. God does not justify contrary to the freewill of his people.

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

One important thing I want to emphasize, which is misunderstood by non-Catholics and Catholics alike. ***Just because the recipient cooperates, that STILL doesn’t oblige God to give his gratuitous gift. ***

Thus, According to MSgr Paul J. Glenn, A Tour of the Summa:

1. Grace given to make the receiver holy is sanctifying grace… Grace given to one person for the benefit and holiness of others is gratuitous grace; such for example, is the grace of miracles, or the grace of prophecy.
2. Grace that directly moves the mind and will to act is operating grace; grace which disposes mind and will to receive and use operating grace is ***cooperating grace. ***…
3. ***Santifying grace ***sets man directly in line with God, his last end. ***Gratuitous grace ***stirs man and prepares him to get in line with his last end. Thus a man observing a miracle (wrought by the gratuitous grace of miralces in the person God uses and instruments to perform the miralce) may be stirred to repentance or to deeper piety, and so be moved to obtain sanctifying grace.

… By accepting cooperating grace, we enter into the disposition which prepares us for the receiving of sanctifying or habitual grace.

… In so far as the human will can thus (by accepting cooperating grace and using it) make preparation for grace, it can set up no necessity or demand that grace should actually follow upon the preparation. my note: This is why I think the Protestants are biased against our terminology of “cooperation,” as they believe we think our understanding of cooperation sets up some kind of obligation upon God to give us sanctifying grace. This, of course, is an incorrect understanding of our use of “cooperation.”].
(pg. 180-181)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Personally I’ve come to accept Monilism. It was delcared by the Church to be authentic doctrine, so I feel entirely safe in representing it on thursday.

To clarify, Molinism is not a “doctrine.” Doctrines, strictly speaking, include sententia certa (certain teaching) and de fide (dogmas of faith). What Molinism represents is speculative theology. It belongs to the field of free opinion in Catholic theology. Thus, one can assert Molinism or reject it for Thomism, another schools of opinion which is contrary to Molinisim.

Catholics are obliged to give their assent of will and intellect to all the authentic doctrines of the Catholic magisterium, whether definitive dogmas (de fide) or non-definitive, non-immutable, non-infallible *sententia certa. *Speculative theology and other theological opinions not condemned by the living magisterium can safely be held and believed, but is not obligatory.

I find problems within Molinism and with Thomism. Thus, while they both faithfully conform to Catholic doctine, I belive they both miss the mark in the mystery regarding the process of justification, the distribution of grace, and the freewill participation of man.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Ron wrote:

Everyone is constantly and unceasingly offered grace from God, even the worst sinners.

According to Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

God gives all innocent unbelievers (infideles negativi) sufficient grace to achieve eternal salvation (Sent. certa) (Ott, 241)

Ott considers this sententia certa (doctrine). I think it also depends upon what is meant by “sufficient” grace. If such grace is understood to be external grace, which God offers every man for their salvation, then I believe God certainly does give His external grace constantly and unceasingly to each and every person.

Vatican ll affirmed: “since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.” Guadium et Spes, 22]

I believe this external grace offered to “every man” is what St. Augustine meant by the following…

That light, however, does not nourish the eyes of irrational birds, but the pure hearts of those men who believe in God and turn from the love of visible and temporal things to the fulfilling of His precepts. All men can do this if they will, because that light illuminates every man coming into this world. (Genesis Defended Against the Manicheans, AD 389)

Moreover, Dionysius taught that gentiles obtained the revelation from angels (Coel. Hier. ix). St. Thomas Aquinas similary affirmed, “If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.” (Sent. 11, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4).

St. Thomas Aquinas furthermore affirmed…

If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation [of the mystery of Christ], they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him [Christ] explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith [in Christ] through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth (*Summa Theologica, *IIb, 2, 7)

 

[TheWhim]

Thanks, Dave.

By the way, I’m well aware that Molinism is not dogma. Just read that it was declared by the Magisterium in 1732(don’t ask me just WHERE I read this, along with Augustianism and Thomism, to be an authentic way in representing the doctrine of Trent. But I think I’m not going to make much out of it on thursday- it’s too cpmplicated.

Thank you, Dave, and you all for your efforts again.

Best regards,
Whim