God passing over people

[oldcelt]

Its not really relevant because it is not what most Catholics believe and it is not from Church authority. At the most you can say it is that it is an oddity like the elephant man

I don’t have a problem at all with the way you express yourself, but I don’t feel you pay attention to what people write for you

Just so all reading understand the authority under which the Catholic Encyclopedia was formulated and published, I offer the specific Canon Laws pertaining to such activity:

Can. 823 §1. In order to preserve the integrity of the truths of faith and morals, the pastors of the Church have the duty and right to be watchful so that no harm is done to the faith or morals of the Christian faithful through writings or the use of instruments of social communication. They also have the duty and right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgment and have the duty and right to condemn writings which harm correct faith or good morals.
§2. Bishops, individually or gathered in particular councils or conferences of bishops, have the duty and right mentioned in §1 with regard to the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the supreme authority of the Church, however, has this duty and right with regard to the entire people of God.
Can. 824 §1. Unless it is established otherwise, the local ordinary whose permission or approval to publish books must be sought according to the canons of this title is the proper local ordinary of the author or the ordinary of the place where the books are published.
§2. Those things established regarding books in the canons of this title must be applied to any writings whatsoever which are destined for public distribution, unless it is otherwise evident.
Can. 830 §1. The conference of bishops can compile a list of censors outstanding in knowledge, correct doctrine, and prudence to be available to diocesan curias or can also establish a commission of censors which local ordinaries can consult; the right of each local ordinary to entrust judgment regarding books to persons he approves, however, remains intact.
§2. In fulfilling this office, laying aside any favoritism, the censor is to consider only the doctrine of the Church concerning faith and morals as it is proposed by the ecclesiastical magisterium.
§3. A censor must give his or her opinion in writing; if it is favorable, the ordinary, according to his own prudent judgment, is to grant permission for publication to take place, with his name and the time and place of the permission granted expressed. If he does not grant permission, the ordinary is to communicate the reasons for the denial to the author of the work.

So far as what 'most" Catholics believe…I doubt any of us have the expertise or data to claim any such knowledge.

John

 

[thinkandmull]

A bishop can’t usually bind everyone in his diocese to a doctrine, certainly not from a hundred years ago from the grave

 

[littlestsouls2]

Possibly for Augustine, and for sure for Banez and many others, God antecedently wants everyone to be saved, but even more wants the majority to fall so His justice can be expressed in the separation of goats from sheep. This is a foolish doctrine

God wants the majority to fall? I could be wrong, but it seems that your theology is guided by your philosophy, rather than the other way around. However difficult it is for us to resolve, the Church clearly teaches that God loves all souls, and therefore has provided us with the means necessary to attain our final end.

"If all sinners wished to return to God with contrite and humble hearts, all would be saved.”

• St. Leonard of Port Maurice

I will leave the discussion at this point; I have very little to add to this topic that has not already been said by St. Alphonsus, Fr. William Most and a host of mystics.

“… I can wish for no greater joy than to see men return to Me by repentance and love.”

• Jesus to St. Mechtilde

Pax!

 

[Vico]

Assuming your position, sinners responsibility in rejecting sufficient grace does not exonerate God for not giving them efficacious grace.

He give sufficient grace. It is only with the capability of free will choice that there can be efficacious grace or grace that is inefficacious. If God did not give free will then there could be no expression of love or malice. God does not* create* sin but the capability of it.

From Isaiah 45:7: "I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things."Haydock Commentary on Ver. 7. Create evil, &c. The evils of affliction and punishments, but not the evil of sin. (Challoner) — I afflict and comfort my people.

 

[oldcelt]

A bishop can’t usually bind everyone in his diocese to a doctrine, certainly not from a hundred years ago from the grave

The Archbishop did not bind anyone to any particular doctrine. He agreed with the Ecclesiastical Censor that nothing contained with the encyclopedia was contrary to morals or doctrine (nihil obstat) and allowed it to be printed (Imprimatur). Standard procedure according to Canon Law.
So, have the teachings changed?

John

 

[Vico]

I’ve been waiting for some to help us translate this from Augustine (2. 13), but nobody has yet

1573

[1, 2, 13]

But if that call is efficacious of good will, in such a way that everyone who is called follows that call, how will it be true that “many are called, but few are chosen” (13)? But if this is true, and consequently not everyone who is called obeys the call, since it is in the power of his will not to obey, it can rightly be said that it is not of God that he has mercy, but of the man who wills and runs, because the mercy of God’s calling him does not suffice unless it be followed by the obedience of him that is called. Or is it perhaps that those who are called in this way and do not consent might he able to direct their wills to faith if they were called in some other way, so that it were still true that many are called but few are chosen, if many are called in one way, but not all are affected in the same way, and only those follow the call who are found fit to receive it? And thus it would be no less true that it is not of him who wills and of him who runs, but of God who has mercy: (14) of God, who called in a way that was apt to those that followed His call. Certainly His call comes to others; but because it were such that they could not be moved by it, nor were they apt to its reception, they can be said to have been called but not chosen. And again it would not be true that it is not of God who has mercy, but of man who will and who runs. For the effect of God’s mercy cannot be in the power of man, so that God would be merciful in vain if man willed not to have it; because, if God willed to be merciful even to those, He were able to issue a call that were apt to them, so that they would be moved and would understand and would follow His call. It is true, therefore, that many are called, but few are chosen. There are the chosen who are called aptly (15); and there are those that neither correspond (16) to the call nor obey it, to those that are not chosen, because they did not follow, even though they were called. And again it is true that it is not of him who is willing and who runs, but of God who has mercy, because, even it He calls many, it is on those whom He calls in such a way that they are apt to His call, so that they may follow it, that He has mercy.

– The Faith of the Early Fathers: St. Augustine to the end of the patristic age By W. A. Jurgens, pp. 48-49.

 

[lmelahn]

“Now God is His own uniform being; and hence as He is His own essence, so He is His own eternity”. Aquinas uses syllogism like this all the time. I am not sure the necessary follow though

Aquinas is assuming that you have read the first 9 questions .

One of the fundamental aspects of Aquinas’ system is that creatures are always composed: which is to say, they are constituted by two or more priniples. That, argues Aquinas, is the only way to explain why creatures display partial convergence and partial difference.

For example, all human beings are men (understood in the inclusive sense)—i.e., all have the very same human nature in common—and yet each person is unique, and each is very different (in certain aspects) from all the others.

The fundamental composition, for Aquinas—one that all creatures possess, from angels to men to animals to stones—is that between being (esse) and essence. By being Aquinas refers to the act by which a creature simply exists; by essence, he means what that a creature is, simply because it exists. He conceives of essence as a capacity or measure of (if you like) how much “being” the creature has. Creatures with a nobler essence (angels, say) simply “are” in a more intense way than creatures with a less noble essence (say, stones).

However, for God, it is different. God comes before all the differences in His creatures; indeed He is the cause of those differences. That also means that He is the composer of the compositions that constitute them.

There is nothing, however, that can compose God—since God is the First Cause—and so it follows that God has no composition whatsoever: He is utterly simple.

Hence, He does not even have that fundamental composition between being and essence. His Being is identical with His Essence—or else, as Aquinas puts it, He is Being Itself (Ipsum Esse).

So, regarding the argument you are referring to: when Aquinas says “God is His own uniform being,” he is saying synthetically what I just mentioned above: God has no composition, but is His own Being.

God’s utter simplicity means that He has no compositon even between Himself and His attributes. God is not merely “good;” He is Goodness Itself. He is not merely “just;” He is Justice Itsef, and so on.

Likewise, God is not merely “eternal;” He is His own Eternity.

Does that make it clearer?

 

[rinnie]

Here is the translation:

Cuius autem miseretur, sic eum vocat, (quomodo scit ei congruere, ut vocantem non respuat.

However, to someone who shows mercy, even so [God] calls him, in the way that He considers appropriate for him [for that person], lest he * reject the One * who calls.**

Illi enim electi, qui congruenter vocati; illi autem, qui non congruebant neque contemperabantur vocationi, non electi, quia non secuti, quamvis vocati".

Those who have been called in an appropriate way, in fact, have been chosen; however, those who have not corresponded or obeyed the call, even though they are called, have not been chosen, because they have not followed the call.

Both are from De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum, q. ii, no. 13.

It seems pretty simple to me, my words: In the first one God finds his own way to call someone to himself, it is a teaching of the Church that they were never taught, nor know exists. They were never taught that God gives Grace and we can choose to accept or reject it. But although they were not chosen to receive his teaching, they received his Grace and used it. They felt his Holy Spirit telling them to do God and obeyed it.

Then as the second ones says God teaches us (like how we have his Church to know what his Grace is and how we are called to use it) Although he chose us to reveal himself through the Church, still choose to reject him.

 

[thinkandmull]

The Archbishop did not bind anyone to any particular doctrine. He agreed with the Ecclesiastical Censor that nothing contained with the encyclopedia was contrary to morals or doctrine (nihil obstat) and allowed it to be printed (Imprimatur). Standard procedure according to Canon Law.
So, have the teachings changed?

John

The Church has not condemned the idea that God preordains everything. It has not taught it either

 

[thinkandmull]

He give sufficient grace. It is only with the capability of free will choice that there can be efficacious grace or grace that is inefficacious. If God did not give free will then there could be no expression of love or malice. God does not* create* sin but the capability of it.

From Isaiah 45:7: "I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things."Haydock Commentary on Ver. 7. Create evil, &c. The evils of affliction and punishments, but not the evil of sin. (Challoner) — I afflict and comfort my people.

If you are saying that God gives sufficient grace to everyone, and that the only difference between the graces is that for those who accept it the grace is then efficacious… if that is your position, then you must set aside the idea that God could infallibly save everyone.

Many Catholics have believed that God loves everyone, but loves His glory more which is reflected by not infallibly saving everyone, but establishing that there will be sheep AND goats, although technically he gives everyone opportunity to be saved. The Church has not condemned this doctrine and the Catholic schools that believed it, but it is clearly erroneous

 

[thinkandmull]

1573

[1, 2, 13]

But if that call is efficacious of good will, in such a way that everyone who is called follows that call, how will it be true that “many are called, but few are chosen” (13)? But if this is true, and consequently not everyone who is called obeys the call, since it is in the power of his will not to obey, it can rightly be said that it is not of God that he has mercy, but of the man who wills and runs, because the mercy of God’s calling him does not suffice unless it be followed by the obedience of him that is called. Or is it perhaps that those who are called in this way and do not consent might he able to direct their wills to faith if they were called in some other way, so that it were still true that many are called but few are chosen, if many are called in one way, but not all are affected in the same way, and only those follow the call who are found fit to receive it? And thus it would be no less true that it is not of him who wills and of him who runs, but of God who has mercy: (14) of God, who called in a way that was apt to those that followed His call. Certainly His call comes to others; but because it were such that they could not be moved by it, nor were they apt to its reception, they can be said to have been called but not chosen. And again it would not be true that it is not of God who has mercy, but of man who will and who runs. For the effect of God’s mercy cannot be in the power of man, so that God would be merciful in vain if man willed not to have it; because, if God willed to be merciful even to those, He were able to issue a call that were apt to them, so that they would be moved and would understand and would follow His call. It is true, therefore, that many are called, but few are chosen. There are the chosen who are called aptly (15); and there are those that neither correspond (16) to the call nor obey it, to those that are not chosen, because they did not follow, even though they were called. And again it is true that it is not of him who is willing and who runs, but of God who has mercy, because, even it He calls many, it is on those whom He calls in such a way that they are apt to His call, so that they may follow it, that He has mercy.

– The Faith of the Early Fathers: St. Augustine to the end of the patristic age By W. A. Jurgens, pp. 48-49.

What this shows is that Augustine was not a Calvinist. He may have agreed with Banez though, still not sure

 

[thinkandmull]

Aquinas is assuming that you have read the first 9 questions .

One of the fundamental aspects of Aquinas’ system is that creatures are always composed: which is to say, they are constituted by two or more priniples. That, argues Aquinas, is the only way to explain why creatures display partial convergence and partial difference.

For example, all human beings are men (understood in the inclusive sense)—i.e., all have the very same human nature in common—and yet each person is unique, and each is very different (in certain aspects) from all the others.

The fundamental composition, for Aquinas—one that all creatures possess, from angels to men to animals to stones—is that between being (esse) and essence. By being Aquinas refers to the act by which a creature simply exists; by essence, he means what that a creature is, simply because it exists. He conceives of essence as a capacity or measure of (if you like) how much “being” the creature has. Creatures with a nobler essence (angels, say) simply “are” in a more intense way than creatures with a less noble essence (say, stones).

However, for God, it is different. God comes before all the differences in His creatures; indeed He is the cause of those differences. That also means that He is the composer of the compositions that constitute them.

There is nothing, however, that can compose God—since God is the First Cause—and so it follows that God has no composition whatsoever: He is utterly simple.

Hence, He does not even have that fundamental composition between being and essence. His Being is identical with His Essence—or else, as Aquinas puts it, He is Being Itself (Ipsum Esse).

So, regarding the argument you are referring to: when Aquinas says “God is His own uniform being,” he is saying synthetically what I just mentioned above: God has no composition, but is His own Being.

God’s utter simplicity means that He has no compositon even between Himself and His attributes. God is not merely “good;” He is Goodness Itself. He is not merely “just;” He is Justice Itsef, and so on.

Likewise, God is not merely “eternal;” He is His own Eternity.

Does that make it clearer?

I am just not sure that eternity is an attribute

 

[lmelahn]

I am just not sure that eternity is an attribute

Well, can I truly say “God is eternal?” (I.e., can “eternal” be attributed to God?) In that case, it is one of His attributes.

 

[oldcelt]

The Church has not condemned the idea that God preordains everything. It has not taught it either

So believing that he preordains nothing is not out of line.

John

 

[thinkandmull]

So believing that he preordains nothing is not out of line.

John

He preordained the life of Adam and Eve, but not their choices. He “then” preordained the saving of fallen us, but he does not preordain chosen sin

 

[thinkandmull]

Well, can I truly say “God is eternal?” (I.e., can “eternal” be attributed to God?) In that case, it is one of His attributes.

God is eternal because He is, He exists, always has. Eternity is not that by which He always was. He always was because… well, He’s there

 

[thinkandmull]

oldcelt, maybe Vivo (since he has Ludwig Ott’s book) can provide more info on this, but I don’t think a Catholic, for example, has to believe the commonly held idea that God sustains all of creation by a positive act. A lot of Catholics books say it, but its not part of actual Church teaching. I interpret the statements on this from the Bible in the sense of the children’s song “He has the whole world in His hands”. He negatively sustains by not acting to annihilate things. But surely He doesn’t sustain the molester and the child during the molestation. That would be wicked

My two sense (or is it cents?)…

 

[Vico]

If you are saying that God gives sufficient grace to everyone, and that the only difference between the graces is that for those who accept it the grace is then efficacious… if that is your position, then you must set aside the idea that God could infallibly save everyone.

Many Catholics have believed that God loves everyone, but loves His glory more which is reflected by not infallibly saving everyone, but establishing that there will be sheep AND goats, although technically he gives everyone opportunity to be saved. The Church has not condemned this doctrine and the Catholic schools that believed it, but it is clearly erroneous

The Catholic dogma is that God gives sufficient grace. Efficacious grace is actual grace to which free consent is given by the will so that the actual grace produces its divinely intended effect. Sufficient grace *can mean *that actual grace that does not meet with adequate human co-operation.

The cause of the efficacy is one of the debated topics, not the co-operation of free will.

 

[Vico]

oldcelt, maybe Vivo (since he has Ludwig Ott’s book) can provide more info on this, but I don’t think a Catholic, for example, has to believe the commonly held idea that God sustains all of creation by a positive act. A lot of Catholics books say it, but its not part of actual Church teaching. I interpret the statements on this from the Bible in the sense of the children’s song “He has the whole world in His hands”. He negatively sustains by not acting to annihilate things. But surely He doesn’t sustain the molester and the child during the molestation. That would be wicked

My two sense (or is it cents?)…

There are two related dogmas of faith:

• God keeps all created things in existence.
• God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created.

 

[oldcelt]

He preordained the life of Adam and Eve, but not their choices. He “then” preordained the saving of fallen us, but he does not preordain chosen sin

That is your belief, and I respect it. BTW, I also do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve…

John