T
thinkandmull
Guest
I was reading the Old Catholic Encyclopedia article on Molinism, and it mentions the “dogma” of unequal distribution of efficacious grace. What is this referring too?
Efficacious grace means grace which converts a person so that he repents of his sins. Because many people refuse to repent, it is due to their own fault that they do not get efficacious grace. It is offered by God but rejected by them. The phrase “unequal distribution” refers to the fact that some people accept God’s grace and some people do not. Thus, some get it and some don’t (through their own fault). The distribution is unequal because not everybody gets it, even though everybody is offered it.I was reading the Old Catholic Encyclopedia article on Molinism, and it mentions the “dogma” of unequal distribution of efficacious grace. What is this referring too?
God certainly does have freedom, but He does not force His grace on anybody. That idea is contrary to Catholic teaching on the freedom of the will. The Council of Trent condemned it in Session 6 Canon 4: If anyone says that man’s free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God’s call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema. source I emphasize these words: “If anyone says…that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes…let him be anathema.”The Old Catholic Encyclopedia article on Molinism seemed to say what you said, but than in another section seemed to say it was up to GOD to whom is given efficacious grace. Distribution implies the freedom on the part of God, not the human, right?
It isn’t unequal in the sense that everyone is offered grace for living a life leading to salvation. Everyone is offered sufficient grace since Jesus died for all and if some were not offered sufficient grace, then that would be contrary to what Jesus died for.Very helpful.So basically the dogma of unequal distribution is the dogma that people go to hell? That however is interesting, because the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that we pray with hope that all men may be saved. Maybe it means for each person, but still it is very poorly worded.
Do you happen to have the section from Trent on efficacious grace?
The idea that all men will be saved is contrary to Catholic doctrine and the Catechism does not suggest that universal salvation is possible. Here is a helpful article on the subject: catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/are-there-souls-in-hell-right-nowVery helpful.So basically the dogma of unequal distribution is the dogma that people go to hell? That however is interesting, because the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that we pray with hope that all men may be saved. Maybe it means for each person, but still it is very poorly worded.
I don’t believe it had a whole session on efficacious grace, just a few canons and decrees relating to it in the session on justification. Here is a link to that session: ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htmDo you happen to have the section from Trent on efficacious grace?
I don’t think it uses those exact words, but it does have this sentence: “[T]hough He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated.”I guess I’ll have to read through Trent to see if it has the words “unequal distribution of efficacious grace” because if it does that would mean it defined the Thomistic position on efficacious grace.
I don’t think distribution implies that. One reason is, distribution can be spoken of even when there is no giver. E.g. in mathematics, distribution is a term in statistics that refers to how much of a given thing there is in a population.Distribution implies it is given differently on the part of the giver, not given its nature by the acceptance of the receiver.
I don’t think you change it to something else by saying that the thing hoped for won’t end up happening. Take any given man from the past and ask if he is in heaven, and I will say, “I hope so.” Take any man in the future and ask if he will get to heaven, and I will say, “I hope so.” But I know that not all men in the past are in heaven, and I doubt that all men in the future will get there.And the Catechism’s words that that the Church prayers with hope that all men be saved can’t be strained into something else.
It didn’t define the Thomistic position because otherwise all those years following the Council debating this issue were pointless!I guess I’ll have to read through Trent to see if it has the words “unequal distribution of efficacious grace” because if it does that would mean it defined the Thomistic position on efficacious grace.
Some people accept the actual graces God gives, and receive salvation. However you want to understand that is up to you. But it doesn’t prove one side is correct; it only shows that those who have salvation have received efficacious grace, and those that reject salvation don’t have efficacious grace.What is this referring too?
It would be incorrect for us to say that all men will be saved, but I don’t think it’s contrary to Catholic doctrine to say that it’s possible all men will be saved. Lex orandi, lex credendi.The idea that all men will be saved is contrary to Catholic doctrine