Not just super-class of souls, but elect. There is no “average class”. Those not of the elect are the reprobate, that is, damned. Like the elect, the number of the reprobate is unknown, and immutable.
- Status
B
bilop
Guest
B
bilop
Guest
Right, but both classes were given the same chance. If God make sure the elect (elect by His choice, not by there free response to His grace) are saved “no matter what”, then free-will is a sham.
God Bless
Nope. Again, Catholic teaching affirms free will. He knows exactly how you will respond to any given order of grace. He simply gives those graces to you that he knows you will freely respond to, if we’re to take the Thomist line of thought. God’s giving you actual graces does not contradict free will at all. But if you’re of the elect, then you WILL be saved, because God will ensure that you freely choose it.
Predestination and reprobation are among the most difficult theological concepts in Catholicism, and I assure you, they are truly Catholic teaching. Rejecting them is not an option for us.
Read up on Thomism and Molinism. Also check out Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, where he has a good treatment of both predestination and reprobation.
R
Richca
Guest
B
bilop
Guest
That leads to the obvious question, “Why doesn’t God give the damned the graces He knows they will respond to?”.
I think it is better for Catholics to avoid discussions of the elect and the reprobated. I fail completely to see how it adds anything to our understanding of salvation beyond the simple statement I made above. The workings of God’s grace are a mystery; we can leave it at that. This speculation simply leads people into Calvinist errors.
God Bless
R
Richca
Guest
Hi porthos,
What you are talking about is a theory of predestination of eternal decrees that began with Domingo Banez and also taught by the popular theologian Fr Garrigou Lagrange in the last century. The Church has never considered this theory as being its official position as to the doctrine of predestination.
As a matter of fact, the teaching of the Church as found in the CCC is contrary to it if we consider the following points found in the CCC:
- God’s universal redeeming love.
CCC#605: "At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God’s love excludes no one: “So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” He affirms that he came “to give his life as a ransom for many”; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us. The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: “There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.”
- GRACE and FREE WILL
CCC#2002 : “God’s free initiative demands man’s free response.”
CCC#1993: “When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.” - Predestination
CCC#600: “When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace”
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
**Rich
CCC#1037: “God predestines no one to hell.” **
Nor does God predestine anyone to heaven in the strict sense of the word. God cannot force us to be saved any more than he can force us to be lost. In either even free will would be completely lost.
Porthos
Please identify the passage from Aquinas that you say confirms your view of predestination.
Thank you.
CCC#1037: “God predestines no one to hell.” **
Nor does God predestine anyone to heaven in the strict sense of the word. God cannot force us to be saved any more than he can force us to be lost. In either even free will would be completely lost.
Porthos
Please identify the passage from Aquinas that you say confirms your view of predestination.
Thank you.
C
Contarini
Guest
That’s a very interesting question.
Of course, that would mean that all who are baptized in infancy are saved–that if God knows that an infant will eventually fall into sin and go to hell, God will cause that person to die in infancy. Indeed, even if people who grow up to commit great sins are eventually saved, in some cases one could argue that it would have been better for them to have died in infancy. Hitler comes to mind–even if somehow Hitler did not go to hell, it seems clear that he was closest to God when he was baptized in the Catholic Church as an infant than he was at any time during his adult life–even leaving aside the great harm he did to others!
In other words, the evidence seems clear that God can’t be expected, necessarily, to work this way.
This is why the doctrine of predestination, particularly in its Molinist form, is so much more complicated than most people realize. If God chooses to allow a person to die outside in a state of grace, even though He knows that under other circumstances the person would have died in a state of grace, then we do indeed have a kind of predestination to damnation.
I suppose my response to all of this would be simply to say that we should trust in God’s mercy but should not make confident statements beyond what the Church teaches: that God desires the salvation of all and does not directly, unconditionally reprobate anyone.
Edwin
R
Richca
Guest
porthos11;11360351:
hi bilop,
In your post #37, you responded to a post from porthos but have my name instead of his. I did not say what porthos said. Oh well
C
Contarini
Guest
No, he’s not talking about the “Thomist” or Banezian view necessarily. He’s just defining what predestination means.
His definition would fit the Molinist view just as well.
And Banez’ contributions to the tradition he inherited from St. Thomas and St. Augustine were fairly modest and technical. It’s true that the concept of “sufficient” vs. “efficient” grace originated with him (or at least with the post-Reformation Thomists generally), but it’s unfair to “blame” him for the Thomist theory as a whole. The theory is not commonly called Thomist without good reason–most of it is from Aquinas, with some technical refinements added after the Reformation.
These passages from the Catechism do seem to point away from St. Thomas’ more “Calvinist” sounding position. Aquinas explains this passage in three ways:
- Like Calvinists, he suggests that it may mean “all kinds of people” not "everyone without exception;
- Following Augustine, he suggests that it may mean simply that all those who are saved are saved because God wants them to be; and
- He draws a distinction between the “antecedent” and “consequent” will of God, which is the most nuanced and satisfactory of the three approaches, I think. (And some Calvinists do something like this as well.)
I am not sure how Banez interpreted this passage, but my guess is that he went more with the third interpretation. The post-Reformation Thomists were well aware of the dangers of Calvinism as well as of the power of the Calvinist claim to be more authentic followers of Paul and Augustine than Catholics were. Both Thomists and Molinists were walking a tightrope between Pelagianism and Calvinism. Each side accused the other of having fallen off the tightrope, and the Pope told them to stop. As far as I can see, the Catechism does not intended to revisit this decision by condemning the “Thomist” position, but it certainly seems to lean in a more Molinist direction or even beyond Molinism.
You have a weaker case here. The Thomist position was constructed precisely in order to maintain free will and avoid direct, unconditional divine reprobation.
Edwin
It’s not St. Thomas himself, but it refers to the Thomist school. The “Thomist” position was actually formulated by Domingo Banez. St, Thomas himself did not hold the Thomist position on predestination.
If you want, read up at least on the theories of predestination ante praevisa merita and post praevisa merita. You can find them under the article on Predestination in the Catholic Encyclopedia. newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm
But outside of the theories (which again, the Church has not ruled on), Predestination and Reprobation are de fide.
C
Contarini
Guest
I don’t know of anyone–except maybe some theologically crude Calvinists–who thinks that God forces us. This is a straw man.
And the Church has not condemned the idea that God predestines people to heaven. On the contrary, I think it has taught clearly that God does–the question is how this can be reconciled with the universal salvific will and with human free will.
I cited above Aquinas’s discussion of the fulfillment of the divine will from ST 1, Question 19, Article 6. Question 23 of Part 1 of the Summa deals with predestination as a whole. Aquinas certainly speaks about it in many other places as well.
I would also recommend Fr. Brian Davies, O.P.'s introduction to Aquinas for its discussion of predestination, as well as the work of Matthew Levering and Michael Dauphinais.
Edwin
No the Church hasn’t. The Church hasn’t considered Molinism official as well, or any other school. The Church forbade both camps from accusing each other of heresy, thereby considering both allowable. That’s nowhere near endorsement, just saying that holding on to it is not forbidden.
What IS forbidden though, is denying the reality of predestination and reprobation.
B
bilop
Guest
bilop;11360365:
Oops, Sorry!hi bilop,
In your post #37, you responded to a post from porthos but have my name instead of his. I did not say what porthos said. Oh well
Don’t know how that happened. My apolgies.
God Bless
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
**Porthos
What IS forbidden though, is denying the reality of predestination and reprobation. **
Predestination in the Calvinist sense? Please clarify.
Thank you.
What IS forbidden though, is denying the reality of predestination and reprobation. **
Predestination in the Calvinist sense? Please clarify.
Thank you.
Predestination and Reprobation period. Both are dogmas of the Catholic faith and cannot be denied.
R
Richca
Guest
Hi porthos,
Predestination and reprobation are truly catholic teaching. St Paul talks about predestination in the New Testament. The teaching of the Church on reprobation is that God predestines some men to eternal punishment on account of foreseen demerits. But reprobation must be understood according to God’s sincere and vehement universal salvific will to save all men. The CCC#1037 says “God predestines no one to hell.” God predestines no person to hell in advance or an absolute manner in any way whatsoever.
Theologians have struggled throughout the history of the Church on reconciling the doctrines of God’s foreknowledge, predestination, grace, and free will.
The CCC#600 simply says “To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace.” I think this one sentence reconciles the doctrines of God’s foreknowledge, predestination, grace, and free will.
The older thomists and molinists theories on predestination cannot be reconciled with God’s universal salvific will to save. Their theories on predestination survived into the 20th century and probably in some circles even to today. These theories arose at around the time of the grace controversy in the Church which took place in the 16th century. It was a controversy on how grace is efficacious and took place between the Jesuits and Dominicans. The Dominicans led by Domingo Banez said that grace was of two kinds, namely, sufficient and efficacious. Efficacious grace infallibly moves man to perform a good act. Sufficient grace does not move man to perform a good act. To perform a salutary good act, God must give man an efficacious grace. By eternal decrees of His will, God predestines some men to heaven by giving them efficacious grace. For those who are not saved, God merely gave them sufficient grace. This can hardly be reconciled with God’s universal will to save nor even with free will.
Molinists on the other hand, defended free will and said that there is one grace, namely, sufficient grace. Sufficient grace becomes efficacious if man does not resist it but freely responds to it. Molinists were right on this point. They said that God foreknows if a person will resist or not resist His grace by His middle knowledge. If God puts a person in a certain set of circumstances and gives this person a certain grace, He knows whether that person will either accept it or not. The same grace given to a person in another set of circumstances may refuse the grace. Since God created the entire order of the world, He infallibly knows who will get to heaven or not. The same person who may get to heaven in one world order could be lost if God had created another world order. Whether a person is saved or not is entirely dependent on which world order God creates. For example, suppose God wants to save Mark. God creates a world order and places Mark in a certain set of circumstances by which Mark will infallibly accept God’s grace. God could have created a world order in which Mark would not be saved. Again, this theory cannot be reconciled with God’s universal salvific will to save all mankind.
The grace controversy was brought to the Pope. But the Pope, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, refused to decide on the matter and decreed that both the Jesuits and Dominicans could continue teaching their respective doctrines and that neither side should declare the other side heretical.
One of the principle problems for both the Jesuits and Dominicans was a doctrine they adhered too called “principle of predilection.” Why God saves one person and not another is simply because He loves one person more than another. Of course, this cannot be reconciled with God’s universal will to save nor with man shaping his own eternal destiny by freely resisting or not resisting God’s grace.
As the CCC#600 says: “When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace.”
This statement of the CCC Fr. William G. Most elaborates on in his book "Grace, Predestination, and the Salvific Will of God. Fr Most goes over the history of these doctrines throughout the history of the Church and presents a solution corresponding to the CCC. I highly recommend the reading of the book. Fr. Most’s solution to the whole problem is simply this: man can resist or not resist God’s grace which is exactly what the CCC states.
blessings and peace, Richca
T
tonyrey
Guest
I breathe a sigh of relief!
T
tonyrey
Guest
An excellent synopsis of the situation.There is no reason why God should love everyone equally but it doesn’t follow that He predestines anyone to heaven or hell. Nor is grace coercive: it doesn’t override free will. Otherwise a person would be incapable of love.
- Status