Mortal sin, death, repentance and salvation

[Latin]

Latin:

If would be potentially efficacious combined with His special grace, The Gift of Final Perseverance NO ONE would end up in hell.

I think you are making a little confusion. According to molinism and many contemporary thomists (Fr. Most for example), sufficient Grace is always potentially efficacious. If it’s not efficacious is only because you refused to cooperate with it, but you do have the real, actual, true power to cooperate. Under classical thomism however you would never cooperate with sufficient Grace. You need efficacious Grace to begin with, otherwise you are s**i out of luck.

According to Fr. Most: (THE MYSTERY OF PREDESTINATION by John Salza, page 121.)

Fr. Most identifies the metaphysical issue as follows:

Sufficient grace gives man the potency to do good, but efficacious grace is required to move him from potency to act.

Therefore, sufficient grace is insufficient to move him to act.

This is what Fr. Most calls the “vicious circle.”

God bless

 

[StAugustine]

Orange is dogmatic, it was Ratified by Pope Boniface II. Read Denzinger.

From Valence-
322 Can. 3. But also it has seemed right concerning predestination and truly it is right according to the apostolic authority which says: “Or has not the potter power over the clay, from the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor, but another unto dishonor?” [Rom. 9:21] where also he immediately adds: “What if God willing to show His wrath and to make known His power, endured with much patience vessels of wrath fitted or prepared for destruction, so that He might show the riches of His grace on the vessels of mercy, which He has prepared unto glory” [Rom. 9:22 f.]: faithfully we confess the predestination of the elect to life, and the predestination of the impious to death; in the election, moreover, of those who are to be saved, the mercy of God precedes the merited good. In the condemnation, however, of those who are to be lost, the evil which they have deserved precedes the just judgment of God. In predestination, however, (we believe) that God has determined only those things which He Himself either in His gratuitous mercy or in His just judgment would do * according to Scripture which says: “Who has done the things which are to be done” [ Is. 4 5:11, LXX]; in regard to evil men, however, we believe that God foreknew their malice, because it is from them, but that He did not predestine it, because it is not from Him. (We believe) that God, who sees all things, foreknew and predestined that their evil deserved the punishment which followed, because He is just, in whom, as Saint Augustine* says, there is concerning all things everywhere so fixed a decree as a certain predestination. To this indeed he applies the saying of Wisdom: “Judgments are prepared for scorners, and striking hammers for the bodies of fools” [Prov. 19:29]. Concerning this unchangeableness of the foreknowledge of the predestination of God, through which in Him future things have already taken place, even in Ecclesiastes the saying is well understood: “I know that all the works which God has made continue forever. We cannot add anything, nor take away those things which God has made that He may be feared” [ Eccles. 3:14]. “But we do not only not believe the saying that some have been predestined to evil by divine power,” namely as if they could not be different, “but even if there are those who wish to believe such malice, with all detestation,” as the Synod of Orange, “we say anathema to them” [see n. 200].

 

[Robert1111]

According to Fr. Most: (THE MYSTERY OF PREDESTINATION by John Salza, page 121.)

Fr. Most identifies the metaphysical issue as follows:

Sufficient grace gives man the potency to do good, but efficacious grace is required to move him from potency to act.

Therefore, sufficient grace is insufficient to move him to act.

This is what Fr. Most calls the “vicious circle.”

Exactly. Under classical thomism, you have to cooperate with Grace in order to be saved but you cannot actually do that unless God gives you efficacious Grace. Talk about vicious circle.

It’s like saying to someone “you absolutely need to walk towards me otherwise i will not save you, but you will actually be able to walk towards unless i untie my strings. And guess what poor slob? I will NOT untie your strings and i will also blame you and punish you because, since i haven’t untied your strings, you have walked towards me”.

It this is not textbook psychopathy then i don’t know what is. How can anyone believe that a God like this can be real is beyond me.

 

[StAugustine]

BONIFACE II 530-532

Confirmation of the Council of Orange II *

[From the letter “Per filium nostrum” to Caesarius of Arles, January 25, 531].

200a 1 . . . To your petition, which you have composed with laudable solicitude for the Faith, we have not delayed to give a Catholic reply. For you point out that some bishops of the Gauls, although they now agree that other goods are born of God’s grace, think that faith, by which we believe in Christ, is only of nature, not of grace; and that (faith) has remained in the free will of man from Adam-which it is a sin to sayand is not even now conferred on individuals by the bounty of God’s mercy; asking that, for the sake of ending the ambiguity, we confirm by the authority of the Apostolic See your confession, in which in the Opposite way you explain that right faith in Christ and the beginning of all good will, according to Catholic truth, is inspired in the minds of individuals by the preceding grace of God.

 

[Robert1111]

According to Fr. Most: (THE MYSTERY OF PREDESTINATION by John Salza, page 121.)

Fr. Most identifies the metaphysical issue as follows:

Sufficient grace gives man the potency to do good, but efficacious grace is required to move him from potency to act.

Therefore, sufficient grace is insufficient to move him to act.

This is what Fr. Most calls the “vicious circle.”

Exactly. Under classical thomism, you have to cooperate with Grace in order to be saved but you cannot actually do that unless God gives you efficacious Grace. Talk about vicious circle.

It’s like saying to someone “you absolutely need to walk towards me otherwise i will not save you, but you will NOT actually be able to walk towards me unless i untie your strings. And guess what, poor slob? I will NOT untie your strings and i will also blame you and punish you because, since i haven’t untied your strings, you have not walked towards me”.

It this is not textbook psychopathy then i don’t know what is. How can anyone believe that a God like this can be real is beyond me.

 

[StAugustine]

In answer to this I say with the Church-

From Orange II

Canon 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).

Canon 14. No mean wretch is freed from his sorrowful state, however great it may be, save the one who is anticipated by the mercy of God, as the Psalmist says, “Let thy compassion come speedily to meet us” (Ps. 79:8), and again, “My God in his steadfast love will meet me” (Ps. 59:10).

Canon 15. Adam was changed, but for the worse, through his own iniquity from what God made him. Through the grace of God the believer is changed, but for the better, from what his iniquity has done for him. The one, therefore, was the change brought about by the first sinner; the other, according to the Psalmist, is the change of the right hand of the Most High (Ps. 77:10).

 

[Robert1111]

Orange is dogmatic, it was Ratified by Pope Boniface II. Read Denzinger.

This doesn’t mean that the Calvinist understanding of salvation is true. The Church allows alternative understandings and those that actually recognize free will and the universal salvific will of God are by far the most common and widespread.

Also, those canons are compatible with with what i said about Grace.

 

[StAugustine]

I never claimed to defend Calvinism. Read the synod of Valence. It is the dogmatic Understanding. There is room for variation, but only within the framework of all the dogmas and canons officially embraced.

Double predestination is taught by the Church as de fide, it’s not heretical, understood as predestined punishments for sinners. The predestination of the reprobate is NOT the same as the elect. You need to correct that misconception.

 

[Robert1111]

Canon 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).

Council of Trent, Session V, Canon V

“If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.”

Canon 14. No mean wretch is freed from his sorrowful state, however great it may be, save the one who is anticipated by the mercy of God, as the Psalmist says, “Let thy compassion come speedily to meet us” (Ps. 79:8), and again, “My God in his steadfast love will meet me” (Ps. 59:10).

And in fact without Grace nobody would be saved. But this doesn’t mean that you need a special Grace to cooperate with Grace (this is what classical thomism teaches) nor does it mean that God doesn’t give to some people what is necessary for salvation. Grace enables you to cooperate and be in the State of Grace, whether you accept this gift or not is up to you. You cannot be saved without this gift but you can choose to accept it or not.

Canon 15. Adam was changed, but for the worse, through his own iniquity from what God made him. Through the grace of God the believer is changed, but for the better, from what his iniquity has done for him. The one, therefore, was the change brought about by the first sinner; the other, according to the Psalmist, is the change of the right hand of the Most High (Ps. 77:10).

I don’t see how this contradicts what i said.

 

[StAugustine]

Regarding the canon by orange- there is no contradiction between orange and Trent.

Trent is defending against the reformers that the spiritual faculty of the will remained intact, but was broken. Orange is defending against the semi-pelagians that the FREEDOM of the will is destroyed, not the capacity for willing, the same way you would say the drug addicts freedom from the drug is destroyed, but not his capacity to will counter to it.

The choice for or against grace- does this choice itself come from nature or from grace?

 

[Robert1111]

Double predestination is taught by the Church as de fide, it’s not heretical, understood as predestined punishments for sinners. The predestination of the reprobate is NOT the same as the elect. You need to correct that misconception.

This is only true if predestination is not unconditional. If it’s both unconditional and absolutely necessary for salvation, then this means that those who are not predestined are reprobated from the beginning for no reasons (if God unconditionally predestined some people to Heaven, he also unconditionally decided to NOT predestine other people to Heaven. And if predestination is absolutely necessary for salvation, this means that these people are unconditionally reprobated. There is no getting around it, no matter how you slice it).

 

[Robert1111]

The choice for or against grace- does this choice itself come from nature or from grace?

From nature aided by Grace. Without Grace it would be absolutely impossible to be saved. Grace makes salvation actually possible and makes your cooperation actually possible, but you can make your choice. You have the real power to cooperate, it’s not like God gives a sufficient Grace which in all actuality is not sufficient at all and he gives efficacious Grace (which according to the classical thomists and augustinians is absolutely necessary for salvation ) only to the elect.

 

[StAugustine]

Well then let me slice it thinly for you-

Strictly speaking, the act of predestination Is composed of two parts- the choice of individuals, and the destiny.

In the election of the just, the choice of individuals is unconditionally active and the choice of their destiny is unconditionally active. There is in view nothing that merits heaven, because each man only possesses sin apart from grace. They will obtain heaven because God wills it.

In the election of the reprobate, the choice of individuals is unconditionally passive, but the choice of their destiny is conditionally active. The punishments which are predestined for them is on account of the sins they will accomplish in the full freedom of choice. They obtain to Hell because THEY will it.

Now between the two, why does God not overcome the stony hearts of the reprobate?

That’s the mystery of his will. But he is not the author of their sin.

 

[Robert1111]

In the election of the just, the choice of individuals is unconditionally active and the choice of their destiny is unconditionally active. There is in view nothing that merits heaven, because each man only possesses sin apart from grace. They will obtain heaven because God wills it.

Under your understanding, not mine. In my understanding they obtain Heaven for two reasons: God wills it and they accepted his will. But they didn’t accept his will only because willed it in the first place. They could have decided differently despite God’s desire.

In the election of the reprobate, the choice of individuals is unconditionally passive, but the choice of their destiny is conditionally active.

It doesn’t matter. At all. Since predestination is absolutely necessary for salvation, under the Augustinian and thomistic understanding these people who are not predestined are HELL BOUND from the start. Sure, they will sin and merit Hell, but without the graces given to the elect it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to act otherwise. This means that they never had a chance to begin with and they have been created for the sole purpose of satisfying God’s wrath in Hell.

 

[StAugustine]

Ah, but that’s the role of sufficient grace, so they can’t say it was impossible. And the proof of that is the apostate.

The apostate is himself a kind of apostle to hell. He can lay claim to the fact that the sufficiency of grace was truly sufficient, that the sacraments truly worked on him! But because he abandoned God, and God did not will to grant him repentance, he is justly punished.

This man, even in hell, is a standing testimony to the real sufficiency of sufficient grace apart from perseverance.

So there are no illusions.

 

[Robert1111]

But they didn’t accept his will only because willed it in the first place.

I meant “But they didn’t accept his will only because God willed it in the first place”.

 

[Robert1111]

Ah, but that’s the role of sufficient grace, so they can’t say it was impossible.

Only if sufficient Grace is different from the thomistic sufficient Grace. Under classical thomism, literally nobody cooperates with sufficient Grace, we all need efficacious Grace to repent or to resist temptation.

It’s a mere technicality, it’s a loophole which allows classical thomism to avoid heresy but it’s like putting lipstick on a pig. They are both the same, classical thomism is only better disguised.

 

[StAugustine]

I will leave you with some Amazing Considerations of St. Augustine. From “On Rebuke and Grace” I recommend you read that work, because it was written to monks who had all of your objections.

“It is, indeed, to be wondered at, and greatly to be wondered at, that to some of His own children — whom He has regenerated in Christ — to whom He has given faith, hope, and love, God does not give perseverance also, when to children of another He forgives such wickedness, and, by the bestowal of His grace, makes them His own children. Who would not wonder at this? Who would not be exceedingly astonished at this? But, moreover, it is not less marvellous, and still true, and so manifest that not even the enemies of God’s grace can find any means of denying it, that some children of His friends, that is, of regenerated and good believers, departing this life as infants without baptism — although He certainly might provide the grace of this laver if He willed, since in His power are all things — He alienates from His kingdom into which He introduces their parents; and some children of His enemies He causes to come into the hands of Christians, and by means of this laver introduces into the kingdom, from which their parents are aliens; although, as well to the former infants there is no evildeserving, as to the latter there is no good, of their own proper will. Certainly, in this case the judgments of God, because they are righteous and deep, may neither be blamed nor penetrated. Among these also is that concerning perseverance, of which we are now discoursing. Of both, therefore, we may exclaim, O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments”

 

[Robert1111]

This man, even in hell, is a standing testimony to the real sufficiency of sufficient grace apart from perseverance.

Claiming that sufficient Grace is really sufficient when according to the thomists is literally impossible for someone to cooperate with it unless God gives him efficacious Grace is ludicrous. It’s exactly as i said above

“ you absolutely need to walk towards me otherwise i will not save you, but you will NOT actually be able to walk towards me unless i untie your strings. And guess what, poor slob? I will NOT untie your strings and i will also blame you and punish you because, since i haven’t untied your strings, you have not walked towards me”.

This is thomistic “sufficient” Grace in a nutshell.

 

[Robert1111]

I will leave you with some Amazing Considerations of St. Augustine. From “On Rebuke and Grace” I recommend you read that work, because it was written to monks who had all of your objections.

I really don’t see how he managed to refute said objections. He basically admitted many time that there is no reason behind the reprobation of some people and the predestination of other people. He always said, like Aquinas, that God simply “picks” up some lucky bastards from the “massa dannata” while withholding to give what is needed for salvation to all the other not-so-lucky bastards. It would basically be a sadistic, malignant, psychopathic, petty cosmic game. A game in which some people were conceived out of sheer hatred and hate, with their existence serving no other purpose than suffering in Hell in order to satisfy God’s wrath.

I gladly leave this malignant narcissistic deity to you, believe me.