Did Trent condemn free will?

[Wesrock]

Free will has one definition. Nothing makes the will go one way or the other. It does it itself.

That’s exactly what I said.

If you think Thomas Aquinas wrote otherwise, I think you misunderstand his position.

 

[thinkandmull]

No you said there are various interpretations of what free will is. There is really one. Aquinas thought fallen nature and grace can infallibly turn one to sin or good respectively. That contradicts free will. So he was sorely mistaken

I didn’t mean to insult you btw. Your post just struck me as so off base though

 

[Vico]

Vico is not a Molinist so he believes with Aquinas that grace can be resisted although it cannot. Read the article on Controversies on Grace in the New Advent site to see what I mean.

There can be no in-between with free will. You either have it or your don’t. We are weakened because of concupiscence, not because there is an in-between between free will and compulsion. Vico says “I can see the pattern of claiming that free will does not exist in the rational being merely because some acts are not voluntary”, thus showing that he doesn’t believe man is free not to sin. Therefore he is a Calvinist. It is up to each person on whether they will sin; it is not up to their nature

Duane1966 wrote: “You can show him where Augustine and Aquinas explicitly deny what he has said about their viewpoints. It does not matter.”

So I answered, where he is thinkandmull:
“I can see the pattern [in the comments of thinkandmull] of claiming that free will does not exist in the rational being merely because some acts are not voluntary”

Not speaking of St. Thomas Aquinas or Augustine.

Personally I accept the teaching of the dogmas of the Catholic Church on grace:

• The Human Will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible. (Second Council of Orange and the Council of Trent (phrasing from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott.))
• There is a grace which is truly sufficient and yet remains inefficacious (gratia vere et mere sufficiens).

 

[thinkandmull]

“I can see the pattern in the comments of thinkandmull of claiming that free will does not exist in the rational being merely because some acts are not voluntary”

Involuntary acts have nothing to do with this issue. You are the one who brought it up because you think it is involuntary to the extent that someone can’t not sin and will infallibly respond to efficacious grace. I don’t want to get into this again with you because I tried in the past and you always turn to sophistry

 

[MarkInOregon]

Since man is free nothing can make him sin. Sin is a personal choice. So one can always refrain from sin, but won’t in the sense that it is foreknown that one won’t. Sad reality. Temptations are strong

But we have concupiscense which “stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.” (ccc 2515)

We are inclined to sin since the fall, and it only with Gods grace (a special privilege of God) that we can avoid sin–act against our inclination/nature. Mans nature after the fall makes him sin. This doesn’t mean we don’t have freewill–though I don’t expect you to see that. We are free to sin/to act according to our inclination/our nature or we are free to respond to the grace of God given to us all in order to help us move closer to God and avoid sin, but we need the grace of God–without it we act according to our fallen nature.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Vico]

“I can see the pattern in the comments of thinkandmull of claiming that free will does not exist in the rational being merely because some acts are not voluntary”

Involuntary acts have nothing to do with this issue. You are the one who brought it up because you think it is involuntary to the extent that someone can’t not sin and will infallibly respond to efficacious grace. I don’t want to get into this again with you because I tried in the past and you always turn to sophistry

Thats fine. However I never used the phrase infallibly and when you said “can’t not sin” does that mean “can sin”?

 

[thinkandmull]

But we have concupiscense which “stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.” (ccc 2515)

We are inclined to sin since the fall, and it only with Gods grace (a special privilege of God) that we can avoid sin–act against our inclination/nature. Mans nature after the fall makes him sin. This doesn’t mean we don’t have freewill–though I don’t expect you to see that. We are free to sin/to act according to our inclination/our nature or we are free to respond to the grace of God given to us all in order to help us move closer to God and avoid sin, but we need the grace of God–without it we act according to our fallen nature.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

Concupiscence doesn’t guarantee there will be sin. Only free choices do that

 

[Vico]

But then he rejected it when it came to predestination, as you know. You know better. We have had this discussion before

Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 23 Predestination
Article 6. Whether predestination is certain?
So also the order of predestination is certain; yet free-will is not destroyed; whence the effect of predestination has its contingency.

 

[thinkandmull]

You are playing games again. You know very well that Aquinas believed fallen nature and grace both had a pull on human nature latter called the physical premotion (proemotio physica). You hid behind the fact that you never said the word “infallibly” but its what you mean in reference to the topic of this thread and the topic of Molinism which we debated awhile back. I don’t want to get into this again with you. You are impossible to pin down because you jump around with quotes. I will pray for you

 

[Vico]

You can show him where Augustine and Aquinas explicitly deny what he has said about their viewpoints. It does not matter.

“There is a grace which is truly sufficient and yet remains inefficacious (gratia vere et mere sufficiens)” is Ludwid Ott’s phrasing of the de fine dogma of faith from the Council of Trent:

Session VI, On Justification (Denzinger)

814 Can. 4. If anyone shall say that man’s free will moved and aroused by God does not cooperate by assenting to God who rouses and calls, whereby it disposes and prepares itself to obtain the grace of justification, and that it cannot dissent, if it wishes, but that like something inanimate it does nothing at all and is merely in a passive state: let him be anathema [cf. n. 797].

 

[thinkandmull]

And there he goes…

 

[fhansen]

Interestingly, perhaps, Trent also says, in Canon 18, if it wasn’t brought up yet:
If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema

and in 20:
If anyone says that a man who is justified and however perfect is not bound to observe the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe, as if the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life without the condition of observing the commandments, let him be anathema.

 

[Vico]

Interestingly, perhaps, Trent also says, in Canon 18, if it wasn’t brought up yet:
If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema

and in 20:
If anyone says that a man who is justified and however perfect is not bound to observe the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe, as if the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life without the condition of observing the commandments, let him be anathema.

Also from Council of Trent, the justified require a special help of God to remain without sin, therefore also the unjustified:

In the condition of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without restoring grace (gratia sanans) to fulfil the entire moral law and to overcome all serious temptations for any considerable period of time. (Sent. certa.) - Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

 

[Wesrock]

Aquinas thought fallen nature and grace can infallibly turn one to sin or good respectively.

Again, you misunderstand Aquinas if you think he believes this is apart from man’s voluntary and free response. There is no coercion involved, nor pulling of puppet strings. It still involves a choice which the man has ownership and control over.

Though the Church’s definition statements aren’t as systematic as Aquinas’, leaving room open for different ideas, so we shouldn’t conflate the two.

 

[fhansen]

Also from Council of Trent, the justified require a special help of God to remain without sin, therefore also the unjustified:

In the condition of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without restoring grace (gratia sanans) to fulfil the entire moral law and to overcome all serious temptations for any considerable period of time. (Sent. certa.) - Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

Yes, and my position here has been that man doesn’t need to obey the law first of all, but rather he needs to turn to God first of all, Who then enables man to be just/obedient. This is a free act even as it is aided by grace.

 

[Vico]

Yes, and my position here has been that man doesn’t need to obey the law first of all, but rather he needs to turn to God first of all, Who then enables man to be just/obedient. This is a free act even as it is aided by grace.

Is what you post seem different that this dogma from the Council of Trent (Can. 3)?

Denzinger
Council of Trent

Chap. 5. On the Necessity of Preparation for Justification of

Adults, and Whence it Proceeds

797 It [the Synod] furthermore declares that in adults the beginning of that justification must be derived from the predisposing grace [can. 3] of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from his vocation, whereby without any existing merits on their part they are called, so that they who by sin were turned away from God, through His stimulating and assisting grace are disposed to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and cooperating with the same grace [can. 4 and 5], in such wise that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself receiving that inspiration does not do nothing at all inasmuch as he can indeed reject it, nor on the other hand can he [can. 3] of his own free will without the grace of God move himself to justice before Him. Hence, when it is said in the Sacred Writings: “Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you” [Zach. 1:3], we are reminded of our liberty; when we reply: “Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted” [Lam. 5:21], we confess that we are anticipated by the grace of God.

813 Can. 3. If anyone shall say that without the anticipatory inspiration of the Holy Spirit and without His assistance man can believe, hope, and love or be repentant, as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be conferred upon him: let him be anathema [cf. n. 797].

814 Can. 4. If anyone shall say that man’s free will moved and aroused by God does not cooperate by assenting to God who rouses and calls, whereby it disposes and prepares itself to obtain the grace of justification, and that it cannot dissent, if it wishes, but that like something inanimate it does nothing at all and is merely in a passive state: let him be anathema [cf. n. 797].

815 Can. 5. If anyone shall say that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost and destroyed, or that it is a thing in name only, indeed a title without a reality, a fiction, moreover, brought into the Church by Satan: let him be anathema [cf. n. 793, 797].

Ludwig Ott:

• There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will. (De fide.)

 

[thinkandmull]

Also from Council of Trent, the justified require a special help of God to remain without sin, therefore also the unjustified:

In the condition of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without restoring grace (gratia sanans) to fulfil the entire moral law and to overcome all serious temptations for any considerable period of time. (Sent. certa.) - Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

That is not a quote from Trent

 

[thinkandmull]

Again, you misunderstand Aquinas if you think he believes this is apart from man’s voluntary and free response. There is no coercion involved, nor pulling of puppet strings. It still involves a choice which the man has ownership and control over.

Though the Church’s definition statements aren’t as systematic as Aquinas’, leaving room open for different ideas, so we shouldn’t conflate the two.

Aquinas says in the First part of the Summa that God directs everything to their end in the way He desires, nothing going out of His plan. So even people going to hell is part of His original plan. I never said Aquinas didn’t say he believed in free will. His belief that efficacious grace inherently will be assented to denies free will however.

 

[fhansen]

Is what you post seem different that this dogma from the Council of Trent (Can. 3)?

Denzinger
Council of Trent

Chap. 5. On the Necessity of Preparation for Justification of

Adults, and Whence it Proceeds

797 It [the Synod] furthermore declares that in adults the beginning of that justification must be derived from the predisposing grace [can. 3] of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from his vocation, whereby without any existing merits on their part they are called, so that they who by sin were turned away from God, through His stimulating and assisting grace are disposed to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and cooperating with the same grace [can. 4 and 5], in such wise that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself receiving that inspiration does not do nothing at all inasmuch as he can indeed reject it, nor on the other hand can he [can. 3] of his own free will without the grace of God move himself to justice before Him. Hence, when it is said in the Sacred Writings: “Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you” [Zach. 1:3], we are reminded of our liberty; when we reply: “Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted” [Lam. 5:21], we confess that we are anticipated by the grace of God.

813 Can. 3. If anyone shall say that without the anticipatory inspiration of the Holy Spirit and without His assistance man can believe, hope, and love or be repentant, as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be conferred upon him: let him be anathema [cf. n. 797].

814 Can. 4. If anyone shall say that man’s free will moved and aroused by God does not cooperate by assenting to God who rouses and calls, whereby it disposes and prepares itself to obtain the grace of justification, and that it cannot dissent, if it wishes, but that like something inanimate it does nothing at all and is merely in a passive state: let him be anathema [cf. n. 797].

815 Can. 5. If anyone shall say that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost and destroyed, or that it is a thing in name only, indeed a title without a reality, a fiction, moreover, brought into the Church by Satan: let him be anathema [cf. n. 793, 797].

Ludwig Ott:

• There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will. (De fide.)

No, it’s the same in my understanding- our ability to resist and reject grace is what makes the act a free one-when we do accept…

 

[Wesrock]

Aquinas says in the First part of the Summa that God directs everything to their end in the way He desires, nothing going out of His plan. So even people going to hell is part of His original plan. I never said Aquinas didn’t say he believed in free will. His belief that efficacious grace inherently will be assented to denies free will however.

Honestly, I think the key to the apparent disconnect lies in his explanation of God’s eternity and how this relates to man’s temporal existence. The flaw is only really there if God isn’t consistently viewed as eternal.