What is Catholic Predestination exactly

[MindOverMatter2]

I am not sure I agree with predestination. But I am not sure that I understand what that is exactly. I stumbled on a website which claims to be Catholic; but i don’t think it is, or at least I hope it isn’t. Their arguement on predestination appears to contradict this site - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1203&CFID=49766363&CFTOKEN=64799965

Here’s a link to the site in question - romancatholicism.org/

Here’s a link to the predestination part - romancatholicism.org/jansenism/thomism-ignorance.htm

Overall, there idea of predestination disturbs me. Here a quote that greatly disturbs me -

And indeed St. Thomas explained that those who die invincibly ignorant, who have heard nothing about the Faith through no fault of their own (except for the fault of original sin, which is in them as their own, as was defined at Trent, and for which they have an ignorance of divine matters), are damned for their sins, including original sin, which cannot be taken away without the Faith; thus they fail to obtain their end, God not preventing this by sending them a missionary:

This to me sounds as if God arbitrarily chooses who he wants in heaven. Nobody goes to hell because they have freely chosen to go there, but because God has given them the nature to go there. It makes no sense.

What is predestination as legitimately taught by the Catholic faith?

Is it a Dogma or is it a an accepted theological Theory?

Philosophically speaking, I think this doctrine to be the most difficult to accept.

 

[tonyrey]

St Thomas was a great thinker but he was not infallible. God would not allow His children to be condemned to everlasting isolation through no fault of their own. The supreme sacrifice made by Jesus cannot be defeated by invincible ignorance because it does not last forever! It is His love that is invincible…

 

[Katholish]

First of all, the website you linked to is not a Catholic site. It is a schismatic group that has broken away from the Church.

Secondly, the Catholic doctrine on Predestination is not precisely defined. The Church teaches that there is a kind of Predestination, but also condemns the notion of Calvinist Predestination (sometimes called double-predestination, or positive reprobation) which claims that God sends people to Hell, regardless of their sin or free choice.

There are two main schools of thought when it comes to trying to understand the Church actual teaching. It is true that St. Thomas Aquinas argued that while God only sent people to Hell in consideration of the choices they had made in life, that doesn’t mean that people go to heaven because of any free choice. In regards to whom is among the elect going to Heaven, St. Thomas sometimes doesn’t look very different from Calvin (however, in regards to whom is sent to Hell, they are very different.) This school of thought is called the Thomist school

The other school of thought is called the Molinist school, named after one of the theologians who supported it, but I personally usually associate the school with St. Francis de Sales. This school basically defines Catholic predestination as follows: God will all those to Heaven who to not gravely and persistently resist His Grace, whereas he wills all those to Hell who do gravely and persistently resist His Grace. This school of thought came after St. Thomas, and is, for all intents and purposes, the majority opinion among theologians.

The matter has never been defined by Rome, and in fact the disagreements became so severe in the 16th and 17th Century that the popes had to try to forbid some of the fearce accusations of heresy being thrown around by both sides.

I consider myself a died-in-the-wool Thomist, but this is one of only a handful of issues including the Immaculate Conception and the time of the infusion of the soul that I would disagree with the Angelic Doctor on. St. Francis de Sales was also a Doctor of the Church, so I feel I am in good company.

 

[Poustinia]

Here is what my Ignatius Study Bible commentary says on Romans 8:29:
"Predestined: Selected for divine adoption by an eternal decree of God (Eph 1:4). Predestination is a mystery revealed but not fully understood; what we know for certain is that God is free to act as he chooses (Ps 135:6) and man is free to accept or reject his blessings (Rom 2:6-8; Sir 15:11-13). No one is predestined by God for eternal damnation (CCC 1037).

The index cites other passages as well in regards to Predestination:
Election to salvation by the eternal knowledge and plan of God: Mt 20:23; Jn 10:29; Acts 4:28; Rom 8:28-30; Eph 1:3-14; 2 Tim 1:9
Mystery of human freedom mus be affirmed: Mt 4:17; 23:37; Jn 1:12-13; Phil 2:12-13; 2 Pet 1:10; 3:9
Universal salvific will must be affirmed: Mt 18:14; Jn 3:16; Cor 5:19; 1 Tim 2:3-4; 2 Pet 3:9


Poustinia

 

[JDaniel]

I am not sure I agree with predestination. But I am not sure that I understand what that is exactly. I stumbled on a website which claims to be Catholic; but i don’t think it is, or at least I hope it isn’t. Their arguement on predestination appears to contradict this site - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1203&CFID=49766363&CFTOKEN=64799965

Here’s a link to the site in question - romancatholicism.org/

Here’s a link to the predestination part - romancatholicism.org/jansenism/thomism-ignorance.htm

Overall, there idea of predestination disturbs me. Here a quote that greatly disturbs me -

And indeed St. Thomas explained that those who die invincibly ignorant, who have heard nothing about the Faith through no fault of their own (except for the fault of original sin, which is in them as their own, as was defined at Trent, and for which they have an ignorance of divine matters), are damned for their sins, including original sin, which cannot be taken away without the Faith; thus they fail to obtain their end, God not preventing this by sending them a missionary:

This to me sounds as if God arbitrarily chooses who he wants in heaven. Nobody goes to hell because they have freely chosen to go there, but because God has given them the nature to go there. It makes no sense.

What is predestination as legitimately taught by the Catholic faith?

Is it a Dogma or is it a an accepted theological Theory?

Philosophically speaking, I think this doctrine to be the most difficult to accept.

MoM:

I hate to tell you this, but, Predestination is a fact. What it does not mean is the way Calvin defined it, in the 16th century. Calvin put forward the idea that, since the beginning, some men have been chosen for Heaven and some chosen for Hell. Therefore, nothing that man does will alter this. As a consequence, this would mean that God does not will the salvation of all men, but only the “elect.” The rest He wills to Hell. No matter what they do. The fundamental error is that God actually wills the salvation of only the elect.

God wills the salvation of all men, and gives all men the grace to enable them to save their own souls. If some men loose that, it is their fault by their rejection of God’s grace and not God’s choice of eternal damnation. This is the fundamental truth about predestination and must be safeguarded no matter what theory of predestination is held by a man.

St. Thomas says that predestination is a plan in the mind of God according to which some men are to be saved, and that Reprobation is the allowing of some men to be lost. Aquinas says that predestination includes the will to grant grace and eternal glory, while Reprobation is the will to allow some to fall into fault to permit the punishment of them for that fault. (Summa, I, Q, 23, a. 1, 2, 3) So that neither is merely a matter of foreknowledge of what is going to happen. They each involve the element of will. In the case of the predestined, God’s will to first grant them graces which will lead them to salvation, and, ultimately, eternal life as a reward; while those not predestined of His will is to permit them to fall into sin and then to punish them for it.

So, while it is true that God has the power to put all men into the proper circumstances that will direct every man to Heaven, the fact is that He will allow some men to go their own ways and be damned for it. Thus, predestination is nothing more than all that we have been discussing here in these fora for the past months. God simply knows that all of us will not be saved. That some of us will do those things that tell Him, in no uncertain terms, that we do not wish to be with Him and do not Love Him. And, He knows that He will let us go, as much as He might prefer the reverse. That is the consequence of Free Will. No more, no less. This is why we are to continuously pray, worship, and glorify Him, in the hope that we are not going to include ourselves in the second group. We must stay restless and watchful for our entire lives. But, if a man will but love Jesus with his whole heart, mind and strength, we should come out on the better end.

That’s all that it means.

God bless,
jd

 

[MindOverMatter2]

God wills the salvation of all men, and gives all men the grace to enable them to save their own souls. If some men loose that, it is their fault by their rejection of God’s grace and not God’s choice of eternal damnation. This is the fundamental truth about predestination and must be safeguarded no matter what theory of predestination is held by a man.

God bless,
jd

I agree with this. But then why call it predestination? Why not rather call it “eternal-destination”? This would be to say, it is eternally true that he or she would freely choose hell or heaven, and it is in reference to that eternal truth that God speaks of the “elect”. This I would understand, since what ever will happen was in truth always going to happen from all eternity, and God has eternal knowledge of this because God is the beginning and the end of all things.

The word “predestination” on the other hand seems to be a bit misleading.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

First of all, the website you linked to is not a Catholic site. It is a schismatic group that has broken away from the Church.

Secondly, the Catholic doctrine on Predestination is not precisely defined. The Church teaches that there is a kind of Predestination, but also condemns the notion of Calvinist Predestination (sometimes called double-predestination, or positive reprobation) which claims that God sends people to Hell, regardless of their sin or free choice.

There are two main schools of thought when it comes to trying to understand the Church actual teaching. It is true that St. Thomas Aquinas argued that while God only sent people to Hell in consideration of the choices they had made in life, that doesn’t mean that people go to heaven because of any free choice. In regards to whom is among the elect going to Heaven, St. Thomas sometimes doesn’t look very different from Calvin (however, in regards to whom is sent to Hell, they are very different.) This school of thought is called the Thomist school

The other school of thought is called the Molinist school, named after one of the theologians who supported it, but I personally usually associate the school with St. Francis de Sales. This school basically defines Catholic predestination as follows: God will all those to Heaven who to not gravely and persistently resist His Grace, whereas he wills all those to Hell who do gravely and persistently resist His Grace. This school of thought came after St. Thomas, and is, for all intents and purposes, the majority opinion among theologians.

The matter has never been defined by Rome, and in fact the disagreements became so severe in the 16th and 17th Century that the popes had to try to forbid some of the fearce accusations of heresy being thrown around by both sides.

I consider myself a died-in-the-wool Thomist, but this is one of only a handful of issues including the Immaculate Conception and the time of the infusion of the soul that I would disagree with the Angelic Doctor on. St. Francis de Sales was also a Doctor of the Church, so I feel I am in good company.

I very much enjoyed reading your post; it was very enlightening. It reveals to me the possibility of there being different schools of thought within the Catholic faith. I guess that I therefore belong to the school of St. Francis de Sales, on this particular matter.

 

[Pitcharan]

I very much enjoyed reading your post; it was very enlightening. It reveals to me the possibility of there being different schools of thought within the Catholic faith. I guess that I therefore belong to the school of St. Francis de Sales, on this particular matter.

Hi! I am a catholic and have devloped my own view on PREDESTINATION after coming to CAF and participating in several threads on this subject. This is my thinking:
We will find an answer if we look at the subject sans preconceived ideas. My thought is based on the fact that the tallest of humans like St. Paul and St. Louis of Granada, say things in a manner that on the one hand suggests something like pre-destination and on the other hand emphatically denies it in many words. Are we then, mis-reading their words? Or, is there a confusion from translation? Can we not then, arrive at the truth starting from scratch, after temporarily setting aside all that has been said about this. My ponderings led to these ideas:

• Destination means the final goal of the soul
• Pre-destination means, God made humans in His own image and likeness with this purpose: that they may finally share in His kingdom of eternal joy and glory.* Therefore, all humans are created for this final destination: to live with God eternally* Salvation is the process by which we are prepared to realise God’s plan for us. .
• Or more simply put, we are divinised in stages till we are fit for our destination* We can realise God’s plan for us only when we clearly choose to do so. It cannot be imposed.
• Even the most elect like Mary did exactly this. Chose freely between Good and Evil
• In my opinion, Mary being free from the effects of original sin is also by her free choice.
  In support of this view I offer the below quoted explanation of mine which was also posted earlier. Howvever, I emphasize that it is merely my view and No doctrine
• Let us take a look at the creatures other than humans, ie. Angels.They were not given a perishable body or subject to the kind of test that humans need to endure
• But their co-existence with God was purely on the basis of freely choosing Good over Evil. That is why Lucifer and his followers fell while Michael and Co. remained steadfast.
• If God has one plan for humans and another for angels, we simply have to accept it as perfect.
• To delve deep and imagine that God’s actions are contracdictory is the effect of dangerous deception that works in us in order to destroy us.
• We should decisively reject anything that tries to separate us from God’s love. If we don’t do it, then we will be choosing Evil over Good and will only have ourselves to blame in the end.

MY OWN VIEW ON HOW MARY IS IMMACULATE
God is infinitely just and fair and allows each one of us to choose freely between Good and Evil. This process of making the right choice is equally influenced by two opposites, viz., the flesh and the spirit. The ones who get it right the first time will get it right always. Though everyone is born with the potential stain of original sin, it can affect a person only after he or she makes the first choice wrongly, by succumbing to the prompting of their flesh. On the other hand if one rejects the prompting of the flesh and listens to the spirit, in their first ever test, then they cannot be affected by original sin. Mother Mary got it right the first time and hence every time.

 

[Katholish]

Pitcharan,

I am afraid your personal theory on Original Sin is not consistent with how the Church has defined it. Frankly, whenever some one says “I have developed my own view” I think there is reason to mistrust it. No true theological theory would ever be completely new.

 

[Pitcharan]

Pitcharan,

I am afraid your personal theory on Original Sin is not consistent with how the Church has defined it. Frankly, whenever some one says “I have developed my own view” I think there is reason to mistrust it. No true theological theory would ever be completely new.

Thank you for pointing it. I will consult CCC and correct myself

 

[Pitcharan]

… the Catholic doctrine on Predestination is not precisely defined. The Church teaches that there is a kind of Predestination, but also condemns the notion of Calvinist Predestination (sometimes called double-predestination, or positive reprobation) which claims that God sends people to Hell, regardless of their sin or free choice.

There are two main schools of thought when it comes to trying to understand the Church actual teaching. It is true that St. Thomas Aquinas argued that while God only sent people to Hell in consideration of the choices they had made in life, that doesn’t mean that people go to heaven because of any free choice. In regards to whom is among the elect going to Heaven, St. Thomas sometimes doesn’t look very different from Calvin (however, in regards to whom is sent to Hell, they are very different.) This school of thought is called the Thomist school

The other school of thought is called the Molinist school, named after one of the theologians who supported it, but I personally usually associate the school with St. Francis de Sales. This school basically defines Catholic predestination as follows: God will all those to Heaven who to not gravely and persistently resist His Grace, whereas he wills all those to Hell who do gravely and persistently resist His Grace. This school of thought came after St. Thomas, and is, for all intents and purposes, the majority opinion among theologians.

The matter has never been defined by Rome, and in fact the disagreements became so severe in the 16th and 17th Century that the popes had to try to forbid some of the fearce accusations of heresy being thrown around by both sides…

REPEATING MY EARLIER POST AFTER DROPPING UNDESIRABLE CONTENTS
Hi! I am a catholic and would like to share my thoughts on PREDESTINATION, which crystalized after coming to CAF and participating in several threads on this subject. These are some thoughts:
We will find an answer if we look at the subject sans preconceived ideas. My thoughts were provoked by the fact that the tallest of humans like St. Paul and St. Louis of Granada, say things in a manner that on the one hand suggests something like pre-destination and on the other hand emphatically denies it in many words. Are we then, mis-reading their words? Or, is there a confusion from translation? Can we not then, arrive at the truth starting from scratch, after temporarily setting aside all that has been said about this. My ponderings led to these ideas:

• Destination means the final goal of the soul
• Pre-destination means, God made humans in His own image and likeness with this purpose: that they may finally share in His kingdom of eternal joy and glory.* Therefore, all humans are created for this final destination: to live with God eternally* Salvation is the process by which we are prepared to realise God’s plan for us. .
• Or more simply put, we are divinised in stages till we are fit for our destination* We can realise God’s plan for us only when we clearly choose to do so. It cannot be imposed.
• Let us take a look at the creatures other than humans, ie. Angels.They were not given a perishable body or subject to the kind of test that humans need to endure
• But their co-existence with God was purely on the basis of freely choosing Good over Evil. That is why Lucifer and his followers fell while Michael and Co. remained steadfast.
• If God has one plan for humans and another for angels, we simply have to accept it as perfect.
• To delve deep and imagine that God’s actions are contracdictory is the effect of dangerous deception that works in us in order to destroy us.
• We should decisively reject anything that tries to separate us from God’s love. If we don’t do it, then we will be choosing Evil over Good and will only have ourselves to blame in the end.

 

[JDaniel]

I agree with this. But then why call it predestination? Why not rather call it “eternal-destination”? This would be to say, it is eternally true that he or she would freely choose hell or heaven, and it is in reference to that eternal truth that God speaks of the “elect”. This I would understand, since what ever will happen was in truth always going to happen from all eternity, and God has eternal knowledge of this because God is the beginning and the end of all things.

The word “predestination” on the other hand seems to be a bit misleading.

Because God knows beforehand who is going to be on each list. And, since He has the power to make it so, or not.so, it has been called “pre-destination.” Then, Calvin came along and decided since God knows, and can do something about it, as God, that we are destined to one place or another beforehand. Hence predestination…

God bless,
jd

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Because God knows beforehand who is going to be on each list. And, since He has the power to make it so, or not.so, it has been called “pre-destination.” Then, Calvin came along and decided since God knows, and can do something about it, as God, that we are destined to one place or another beforehand. Hence predestination…

God bless,
jd

Thanks, but I still say its easily confusing, since I don’t believe that Gods knowledge functions in the sense of time. God doesn’t know “before”; but rather, God just knows because its true.

 

[JDaniel]

Because God knows beforehand who is going to be on each list. And, since He has the power to make it so, or not.so, it has been called “pre-destination.” Then, Calvin came along and decided since God knows, and can do something about it, as God, that we are destined to one place or another beforehand. Hence predestination…

God bless,
jd

That was so poorly written, which is an indication of just how sensitive a topic this is, that I needed to make some clarifications. Our “destinations” are either Heaven or Hell. (Purgatory is a pseudo-temporary place, that keeps us apart from God when required, but, ultimately, our destinations are still either Heaven or Hell.) The universe is an ongoing creation that is contained within this Now that is but the Now of God. Consider an infinite being, for a moment. It would be so large that surely it would contain that which is over there, in the past, and that which is over there, in the future. But, for God, it is all a Now. It is all analogous to our present.

Therefore, it would be impossible for God not to know, in advance, so to speak, what the destinations were for each of us.That said, we are currently immersed in this Now, in our time, in “segments” of a sort, within it. Fractions, if you will, of the Now of God, conceptually. Thus, we have the wherewithal, with the help of God’s grace, to correct our possibly errant direction. (God is Infinite. His being expands the entire expanse of everything, which engulfs the known and unknown universe, the “outside” of the universe, and all of Time.)

Further, God is Omnipotent. He has the Power to do anything not opposed to itself or His Love or Omnipotence. Therefore, He can make something happen that dis-obliges all of us from our known destiny. But, then He would have to go back to the drawing board and eliminate Free Will. Free Will, is part of a hateful contrary. Without it, there can be no real Love. But, with it it contains some difficulties that ONLY God has the ability to assess and make work.

It is so important that God wants us to know that if we choose the wrong path, including the wrong first move, and all subsequent moves while grace is along with us, there is no turning back. Our fates (destiny) are sealed. That said, He has not revealed these things in order to compel us. This is merely a “matter of fact.” It is a factical we must really deal with seriously.

I pray that there is nothing heretical in the above. If there is, consider it automatically corrected as per the Magisterium of the Church. I do not speak for the Catholic Church. I am doing nothing more than attempting to explain a portion of its teaching as best as I can as a human being.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Thanks, but I still say its easily confusing, since I don’t believe that Gods knowledge functions in the sense of time. God doesn’t know “before”; but rather, God just knows because its true.

God may not know a “before” for Him, as it is non-existent for Him, but, He knows “before” for each of us. We are immersed in Time.

God bless,
jd

 

[The_Exodus]

MindOverMatter,

I have not read over the posts following the initial thread, so I’m not sure how your views have developed. Regarding predestination, I will say this:

It is a hotly debated topic with many differing views. Ever since the 16th century, the Church has left it open to theological speculation, and no official dogma has yet been adopted concerning particulars. Yet there are certain parameters, which have been dogmatically defined, which no theory of predestination or reprobation can violate, such as (I quote here from Ott):

Despite men’s sins God truly and earnestly desires the salvation of all men. (Sent. fidei proxima.)

God gives all the just sufficent grace (gratia proxime vel remote sufficiens) for the observation of the Divine Commandments. (De fide.)

God gives all the faithful who are sinners sufficent grace (gratia saltem remote sufficiens) for conversion. (Sent. communis.)

God gives all innocent unbelievers (infideles negativi) suffienct grace to achieve eternal salvation. (Sent. certa.)

God, by His Eternal Resolve of Will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessedness. (De fide.)

God, by an Eternal Resolve of His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection. (De fide.)

Now, this really revolves around the question of how the creature interacts with God’s grace, under what respect it is free to resist it, how God’s foreknowledge plays a role in salvation, and at what point (in logical sequence) God’s eternal decree comes into play regarding what he willed to bring about.

Personally, I am a Molinist. Yet the Church has forbidden anyone to call the opposing theories (put forward by followers of Banez) heretical.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Because God knows beforehand who is going to be on each list. And, since He has the power to make it so, or not.so, it has been called “pre-destination.” Then, Calvin came along and decided since God knows, and can do something about it, as God, that we are destined to one place or another beforehand. Hence predestination…
God bless,
jd

Perhaps I am reading this wrong, but its appears as if you are saying that God can change destiny. I am not sure I agree with the idea that God can change destiny. If something is destined to happen then it will happen. If God has you on the list for heaven, then nothing change that once it set in eternal stone, not even God. What I mean is that God cannot have actual knowledge of a future that will never exist. If God has actual knowledge of you in heaven, then that is were you are going to be. Nothing can change that.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

MindOverMatter,

I have not read over the posts following the initial thread, so I’m not sure how your views have developed. Regarding predestination, I will say this:

It is a hotly debated topic with many differing views. Ever since the 16th century, the Church has left it open to theological speculation, and no official dogma has yet been adopted concerning particulars. Yet there are certain parameters, which have been dogmatically defined, which no theory of predestination or reprobation can violate, such as (I quote here from Ott):

Despite men’s sins God truly and earnestly desires the salvation of all men. (Sent. fidei proxima.)

God gives all the just sufficent grace (gratia proxime vel remote sufficiens) for the observation of the Divine Commandments. (De fide.)

God gives all the faithful who are sinners sufficent grace (gratia saltem remote sufficiens) for conversion. (Sent. communis.)

God gives all innocent unbelievers (infideles negativi) suffienct grace to achieve eternal salvation. (Sent. certa.)

God, by His Eternal Resolve of Will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessedness. (De fide.)

God, by an Eternal Resolve of His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection. (De fide.)

Now, this really revolves around the question of how the creature interacts with God’s grace, under what respect it is free to resist it, how God’s foreknowledge plays a role in salvation, and at what point (in logical sequence) God’s eternal decree comes into play regarding what he willed to bring about.

Personally, I am a Molinist. Yet the Church has forbidden anyone to call the opposing theories (put forward by followers of Banez) heretical.

Who is Banez, and why would it be wrong to view his ideas as heretical?

Also, what is (De fide) and (sent.certa)?

 

[The_Exodus]

Who is Banez, and why would it be wrong to view his ideas as heretical?

Also, what is (De fide) and (sent.certa)?

Banez is a proponent of a form of Thomism which some Catholics viewed as disguised Calvinism. In the early 17th century this topic was hotly debated in the De Auxillus (spelling?) sessions. Also, although in the above post I said I was a Molinist, after reading Father Garrigou-Lagrange’s treatment of the topic, I lean more now toward traditional Thomism.

De fide and sent. certa are various levels of dogmatic theological certainty. Check out Luddwig Ott’s book Fundamentals of the Catholic Faith or “Dogmatic theology” on the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Banez is a proponent of a form of Thomism which some Catholics viewed as disguised Calvinism. In the early 17th century this topic was hotly debated in the De Auxillus (spelling?) sessions. Also, although in the above post I said I was a Molinist, after reading Father Garrigou-Lagrange’s treatment of the topic, I lean more now toward traditional Thomism.

De fide and sent. certa are various levels of dogmatic theological certainty. Check out Luddwig Ott’s book Fundamentals of the Catholic Faith or “Dogmatic theology” on the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Can you please give a quick summary of what Garrigou Lanrange’s views are, for the sake of this thread please? Links are certainly welcome but I want to turn this thread in to a lengthy discussion of various views concerning predestination…I do have his book on predestination. But haven’t read all of it, and from what I read I cannot be sure that I understood him or agreed with him. It seemed to be a supernatural version of naturalist determinism; which I strongly oppose. They both suffer in regards to the self evident fact of freewill.