Knowledge of Divine Things 30 Caritas in Veritate 5

Moving back a little, I am referring to the section in the encyclical on Original Sin.

Many Catholics do not believe in Original Sin; see my series on heresies, Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism.

Sometimes modern man is wrongly convinced that he is the sole author of himself, his life and society. This is a presumption that follows from being selfishly closed in upon himself, and it is a consequence — to express it in faith terms — of original sin. The Church's wisdom has always pointed to the presence of original sin in social conditions and in the structure of society: “Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action and morals”[85]. In the list of areas where the pernicious effects of sin are evident, the economy has been included for some time now. We have a clear proof of this at the present time. The conviction that man is self-sufficient and can successfully eliminate the evil present in history by his own action alone has led him to confuse happiness and salvation with immanent forms of material prosperity and social action. Then, the conviction that the economy must be autonomous, that it must be shielded from “influences” of a moral character, has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way. In the long term, these convictions have led to economic, social and political systems that trample upon personal and social freedom, and are therefore unable to deliver the justice that they promise. As I said in my Encyclical Letter Spe Salvi, history is thereby deprived of Christian hope[86], deprived of a powerful social resource at the service of integral human development, sought in freedom and in justice. Hope encourages reason and gives it the strength to direct the will[87]. It is already present in faith, indeed it is called forth by faith. Charity in truth feeds on hope and, at the same time, manifests it. As the absolutely gratuitous gift of God, hope bursts into our lives as something not due to us, something that transcends every law of justice. Gift by its nature goes beyond merit, its rule is that of superabundance. It takes first place in our souls as a sign of God's presence in us, a sign of what he expects from us. Truth — which is itself gift, in the same way as charity — is greater than we are, as Saint Augustine teaches[88]. Likewise the truth of ourselves, of our personal conscience, is first of all
given to us. In every cognitive process, truth is not something that we produce, it is always found, or better, received. Truth, like love, “is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings”[89].

The truth is that many Catholics no longer believe in Original Sin, which, unless one is baptized, keeps on in darkness, and, simply, "not saved."

Do not think that children in Original Sin have grace to combat the evils of the world and the devil, as well as the flesh. They do not. Reason is in darkness. And, those unbaptized do not have the virtues of faith, hope, and charity.

to be continued...

Knowledge of Divine Things Part Seven

 Two graphs from Garrigou-Lagrange help us understand the workings of grace and the role of the intellect.

One more reference to Thomas seems appropriate, however. Where the will interacts with grace includes that first movement to repentance and the acceptance of justification.

Before one is baptized, if one is an adult, one is given grace to convert, to repent, to change.

After mortal sin, when one has removed one's self from the life of grace, the will is then turned away from God. Grace moves the intellect to choose repentance and to accept grace.

St. Thomas had also said, Ia IIae, q.55, a.4 ad 6: “Infused virtue is caused in us by God, without our action, not however without our consent”; and further, Ia IIae, q.113, a.3: “By infusing grace God at once moves the free will to accept the gift of grace, in those who are capable of this movement.” As Del Prado rightly observes,op. cit., I, 213: The will cannot strictly move itself to this first act of charity, for as a supernatural conclusion is not contained in a natural principle, neither is a supernatural choice contained in man’s primary natural intention. In fact, before the gift of justifying grace, the will of man is turned away from God on account of mortal sin. Hence it is God who must begin to move the free will of man determinately by grace toward the initial volition of supernatural good, as stated in the famous reply to the third objection, Ia IIae, 9.9, a.6. Similarly, Soto, De nat. et gratia, chap. 16. This is the true interpretation of St. Thomas given by Cajetan, Soto, Lemos, etc.; also by the Salmanticenses, disp. V, dub. VII, no. 165.

God moves the will but does not take over the will. This distinction must be made clearly.

Here is G-L on this point, as clarifying the position of Molina.

For Molina holds (Concordia, disp. 42, p. 242) that according to St. Augustine (De gratia et libero arbitrio, chap. 17) “whatever God effects in us that is supernatural, until the moment when He leads us to the gift of justification, whether we cooperate in it by our free will or not, is called ‘operative grace’; that, however, by which He henceforth assists us to fulfill the whole law and persevere . . . is called ‘cooperative grace.’. . . And this is plainly the sense and intention of Augustine in this place when he draws a distinction between operative and cooperative grace, which will be obvious in the clearest light to anyone examining that chapter, notwithstanding the fact that St. Thomas understands Augustine otherwise in the two articles quoted (Ia IIae, q. III, a. 2 and 3), as well as Soto (De natura et gratia, Bk. I, chap. 16) and some others.”

However, Molina is obliged to explain on the following page (p. 243) the words of St. Paul to the Philippians (2:13): “It is God who works in you, both to will and accomplish,” with regard to which Augustine had said: “Therefore, that we will is brought about by God, without us; but when we will, and so will as to act, He cooperates with us.” With regard to this text, Molina says: “But neither does Augustine mean to assert that we do not cooperate toward willing, by which we are justified, or that it is not effected by us, but by God alone. That certainly would be both contrary to faith and opposed to the teaching of Augustine himself in many other places.”

Referring to these last words of Molina, Father Del Prado (op. cit.  I, 226) declares: “Does St. Thomas teach something contrary to faith in drawing the distinction between operative and cooperative grace? . . . From the lofty and profound teaching of St. Thomas propounded in this article, wherein all is truth and brilliance, does something follow which is contrary to the Catholic faith and the teaching of Augustine himself? . . . Molina departs from the ways of St. Thomas (since he will not admit that God applies and moves the will beforehand, but). . . . He holds that, while God, drawing the soul morally, stands at the gate and knocks, it is man who begins to open, and man alone who actually does open.” In the Apocalypse (3:20) we read: “I stand at the gate, and knock. If any man shall hear My voice, and open to Me the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me.” But man does not open it alone; he opens in fact according as God knocks efficaciously. Otherwise how would the words of St. Paul be verified: “What hast thou that thou hast not received?” In the business of salvation, not everything would then be from God.

So, although the will is moved by the intellect to choose good or evil, God gives the grace both to the intellect, as illumination and then moves the will to choose good. We do not choose good on our own.

This may seem like a subtle distinction from those who insist that God will overcomes our will, or that we are somehow so taken over by the Holy Spirit that we cannot but choose good.  We determine the true good and the apparent good, in a cooperative motion in nature, states Thomas.

We desire happiness in general and in nature, and that is the operative motion.

In the supernatural order, operative grace is the inspiration we receive with "docility" in accordance with the gifts of the Holy Spirit.  (These words are from G-L's section and graph, page 170 of Grace.

Cooperative grace determines the actual exercise of the virtues in the supernatural order.

And in the supernatural order, one finds operative grace in a person moving towards the final supernatural end. Thomas states, "Through the movement of free will, when we are justified, we consent to the justice of God."

In the supernatural order, also, is found the operative motion of special inspiration, such as poetic, philosophic and strategic inspiration. 

We will charity as an action. We will the final end of our existence which is charity. We will cooperating with God's grace, freely consenting to the grace of God. God opens up our heart to accept Him, and gives us the grace to accept Him. This is operative grace. All the gifrs of the Holy Spirit become operative, in humility and docility, given to us and this is operative grace.

G-L's example is piety. The gift of piety in the will can become operative through grace, but through DELIBERATION, that is, through the workings of the intellect.

Natural instincts impel us, but not grace. There is a movement of the will and free choice, St. Paul's famous phrase from Philippians 2:13 is quoted by Thomas and G-L: "For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish."

St. Thomas’ opinion. St. Thomas rightly interprets St. Augustine (cf. Del Prado,op. cit. I, 224 and 202); for Augustine declares:7 “God, cooperating with us, perfects what He began by operating in us; because in beginning He works in us that we may have the will, and cooperates to perfect the work with us once we are willing. For this reason the Apostles say (Phil. 1:6): ‘Being confident of this very thing, that He, who hath begun a good work in you, will perfect it unto the day of Christ Jesus.’ That we should will is, therefore, accomplished without us; but once we are willing, and willing to such an extent that we act, He cooperates with us; however, without either His operation or His cooperation once we will, we are incapable of any good works of piety. With regard to His bringing it about that we will, it is said in Philippians (2:13): ‘For it is God who worketh in you,  . . . to will.’ But of His cooperation, when we already are willing and willingly act, it is said: ‘We know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good’ (Rom. 8:28).” St. Augustine reiterates this opinion in chapters 5 and 14 of the same book. 

Again, writing to Boniface (Bk. II, chap. 9): “God accomplishes many good things in man which man does not accomplish (operative grace); but man does nothing good which God does not enable him to do (cooperative grace).” This is observed by the Council of Orange (c. 20, Denz., no. 193).

Moreover, according to Augustine, operative grace is not simply grace urging equally him who is converted and him who is not, for Augustine repeats in several places, with reference to predestination: “Why does He draw this man and not that? Do not judge if you do not wish to err” (Super Joan., tr. 26; cf. Ia, q. 23, a. 5). This teaching of Augustine is mentioned by St. Gregory (Moral., Bk. XVI, chap. 10) and by St. Bernard (De gratia et libero arbitrio, chap. 14); both are quoted by Del Prado (op. cit., I, 203).

And....

This is well explained by St. Thomas in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (8:14, lect. 3), a beautiful commentary on the present article. Regarding the words: “Whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God,” he writes as follows: “They are said to be led who are moved by some superior instinct: thus we say of brutes, not that they act, but that they are led or impelled to act, since they are moved by natural instinct, and not by personal movement, to perform their actions.  Likewise the spiritual man is inclined to perform some act, not, as it were, mainly by the movement of his own will, but by an instinct of the Holy Ghost.” This does not, however, prevent spiritual men from using their will and free choice, since what the Holy Ghost causes in them is precisely the movement of their will and free choice, according to Phil. 2:13: “For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish.”

And regarding cooperative grace, G-L notes,

It is this cooperative grace that is referred to in Sacred Scripture; indeed there is even a comparison made with operative grace; for example, in Ezech. 36:27: “And I will put My spirit in the midst of you [operative grace]: and I will cause you to walk in My commandments, and to keep My judgments, and do them [cooperative grace].” Again in I Cor. 15:10: “But by the grace of God, I am what I am [operative grace]; and His grace in me hath not been void, but I have labored more abundantly than all they: yet not I, but the grace of God with me.” This latter is cooperative grace.

And for the sake of clarity, I repeat:

Conclusion of Father Del Prado (op. cit., I, 21 I ): By operative grace God operates in us without our acting or moving ourselves, but not without our consent. Cf. a. 2: Thus in the instant of justification and in the operation of the seven gifts. In fact, certain operative grace is even antecedent in time to our consent, such, for instance, as vocation and admonition when God stands at the gate and knocks before it is opened. Here, however, the free consent may, broadly speaking, be called cooperation on our part; but not in the strict and formal sense in which the term is used by St. Thomas in this article. On the contrary, by cooperative grace, God works in us, not only with our consent, but with our action or motion. This is the Thomistic interpretation of St. Augustine’s teaching; it is eminently profound and in full conformity with faith.

We must consent. 

Referring back to another post of mine in which I quoted the Pope Emeritus, who said that the Holy Spirit does not elect popes, men do.

Men can be moved by the instincts of the Holy Spirit or not be so moved.

The same is true with any person who is living in sin. 

One more excellent quotation to help the understanding of operative grace before getting into more detail:

I reply in the affirmative, together with John of St. Thomas and Father Del Prado; for operative grace first enlightens the intellect, then touches the will and causes a sudden desire for the object proposed through the representation of the intellect; and this is the in-spiration that opens the heart, as the heart of Lydia was “opened to attend to those things which were said by Paul” (Acts 16:14). Hence operative grace not only excites by moral movement, but also operates physically, so that by it the heart of man is opened and led not only to indeliberate acts but sometimes to consent as well, for example, in justification or in acts of the gifts of the Holy Ghost.

Now, What does operative grace do in us? What are the effects?

Let me use G-L's own words.

What are the effects of operative grace in us? There are three. (Cf. Father Del Prado, op. cit., I, 234.)

1. The enlightenment of the intellect and the objective pulsation of the heart: this is a moral movement prior to any consent; thereupon the acts are indeliberate, and with respect to this stage operative grace is nothing but a grace which urges.

2. The application of the free will to the holy affection or action, that it may be converted to God; this application is the complement in the secondary cause of the power to operate.

3. The very act of willing, applied to the action, namely, the very act of believing, hoping, and loving: in these acts the will does not remain passive, but elicits the acts freely. However, the will does not properly move itself to such an act as a result of a preceding act, since this act is first in the order of grace and relates to the final end. Hence, contrary to the opinion of Molina, operative grace determinately moving toward these acts is more than a mere urging, and yet liberty is safeguarded, according to St. Thomas.

What about cooperative grace?

Whether cooperative grace produces in us three similar effects. Undoubtedly, for cooperative grace is also a previous movement according to a priority not of time but of causality. But these three effects are in another way, since with cooperative grace the will moves itself on account of some preceding act; thus it wills, presupposing the end already intended. On the contrary, with operative grace the will wills by tending toward the end, and the act of the will resembles that first act of the angels discussed in Ia, q. 63, a. 5, or that first act of the soul of Christ which is considered in IIIa, q. 34, a. 3. In the first instant of His conception, Christ merited not incarnation but the glory of immortality, just as an adult at the instant of justification acquires not the grace of justification but the subsequent grace.

This is an extremely important paragraph. We get all the graces we need for salvation and to avoid sin in baptism. We have to choose the end which is God's Will, and in doing so, cooperate with the grace He has already conferred. 

What is significant is that one can choose otherwise. If one is in sanctifying grace, one will most likely choose to continue in sanctifying grace. If one is not in sanctifying grace, that is, in mortal darkness of serious sin, one can still choose by willing the correct end which God has revealed to us through many sources.

Cooperative grace is a deliberate act. 

We may now read again the well-known reply to the third objection of Ia IIae, q. 9, a. 6, and easily grasp its meaning: “Occasionally God moves some men especially toward willing something determinate which is good, as in those whom He moves by grace, as stated below,” that is, in our article 2. This is operative grace moving determinately, but with which liberty still remains.

I already covered the entire confusion on grace of the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians in that series written a while ago, referring to prevenient and subsequent grace. I shall skip that section of Garrigou-Lagrange and go on to the two encyclicals, with this last reminder that the intellect moves the will, in cooperation with grace. And the will responds, in cooperation with grace. But, none of us are automatons, doomed to act or react in one way of the other, living with the great sacredness of free will.

to be continued...tomorrow with Fides et Ratio.

Slavery of the Will; Freedom of the Will Part Eight Bullet Points

As two people requested bullet points, here are a few. and will be continued...help from Garrigou-Lagrange on this list as it is an expansion of a graph in his book, Grace.

Think of the confusion regarding the wording of the synodal document.

• Catholic teaching-God does not ask the impossible as noted by St. Augustine, so all men can be saved through sufficient grace. God gives efficacious grace. Because of the sacrifice on the Cross, God wills all men to be saved. Not clear in the synodal papers.
• Catholic teaching-God gives us grace to be saved and become holy-gratuitous grace; complete gift and never merited. Predilection means that God gives more to the humble, to those who seek Him. Love comes from the will and Truth from the intellect, as God gives more and more grace to the humble. Not covered in the synodal papers.
• Suarez on congruism, which I did not cover, but which is found both in Garrigou-Lagrange's book Grace and other sources, such as CE. I do not think this falls into the faulty thinking in the Synod.
• Thomistic position, all grace is efficacious and enlightens the will. Will follows grace. Not addressed in the pastoral approaches in the synodal papers.
• Molinists, not all grace is efficacious in and of itself-problem with libertarian will and question of previous merit. Falls into earning salvation too easily.
• Thomism and Augustinism on predestination, which indicates few are saved, despite grace given to all for salvation. The will follows grace. Implied in the synodal papers.
• Semi-Pelagianism-nature brings about conversion without grace; grace coming later. Another aspect of Gradualism and more than implied in the synodal papers.
• Jansenism-opposite heresy to Molina in that this heresy denies the use of free will entirely and that grace cannot be resisted and does not need a person's assent, or conversion. Implied in the synodal papers.
• Pelagianism-grace is not necessary for conversion or holiness and denial of Original Sin. How many of the laity are reading the Synod because many of the laity believe in this heresy.
• Predestinarianism-some people are predestined for hell and salvation is not for all. Few consider this.

Now, obviously, only the Molinist, Semi-Pelagian, Pelagian and Jansenist positions, imho, are infecting the Synod. 

To allow those who do not want to convert to receive Communion, or to continue in same-sex relationships is a position ignoring both Catholic teaching, Thomism and Augustinianism.

I blame the lack of seminary training and the inclusion of heretical ideas in theological studies, not to contradict but to absorb, as one root of the problem.

What the heresies of Jansenism, Pelagianism, gradualism, Semi-Pelagianism and Molinism have in common is the misunderstanding of grace and the misunderstanding of mercy and justice.

Slavery of the Will; Freedom of the Will Part Six

So, what does a theory on God's "conditioned Predestination" and the almost libertarian interpretation of the will have to do with the Synod in Rome? By the way, the Catholic Encyclopedia was written in great part by Molinists, (as well as modernists), so take care when reading the slanted commentaries in that source.

Molinism, outside of the Jesuits, seems to be more popular with certain Protestants, who want to ameliorate the hard teaching of Calvin regarding "double predestination". So, why bring this up in connection with the Semis in Rome?

Four points:

One, if one looks at works and so-called merits rather than grace, one does not need the authority of the Church to be so "disciplined" regarding those in sin. In other words, the exterior disposition of a person lessens in importance. This is a dangerous ideal of our age when we keep hearing from some clerics, that we cannot judge. But, we can judge actions and always have, otherwise there would be no legal systems in the West.

The undermining of Church discipline mirrors this subjective, almost libertarian view that the will is equal to grace.

Two, the Molinists almost deny grace entirely, thus aligning themselves with the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians. Like the Lutherans, Pelagius taught only an external grace, the grace of conversion from hearing the Gospels and not internal, efficacious or sufficient graces.  Pelagius finally admitted to an internal grace, but said it was connected only with the intellect , with is not gratuitous, a gift from God, by from the natural strivings or the person himself. This overlaps somewhat with Molina's idea of the free will being equal to grace in efficaciousness.

The Semis denied the first grace of conversion and the last grace of perseverance. In those at the Synod who hold gradualism as a good idea, which it is not, and which was attacked by the Pope Emeritus, one can see this denial of the first grace of conversion. The Molinist would emphasize free will as bringing one to that conversion moment, in equality with grace, thus denying Providence and Predestination.

The reason why this follows is simply a logical conclusion which now is seen in pastoral attempts to deny conversion as a necessity for Church reception of the sacraments. Cheap grace...indeed. That people cannot be excluded from the sacramental life of the Church because of a lifestyle of sin would be a pastoral interpretation of these points.

By the way, Garrigou-Lagrange reminds us that Pelagianism was condemned by 24 councils. It may have to be condemned in the modern context, along with Semi-Pelagianism, again. I hope the boldface parts convince readers of the flaws in pastoral care which would follow.

Three, that Molinism differs from both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism is clear, but the dangers of interpretation still remain. Let me use Garrigou-Lagrange from Grace, Chapter One, on these points. I highlight the dangers and the opposing ideas from Thomas Aquinas.

Molinism differs from Semi-Pelagianism in three respects: 1. In regard to prevenient grace; 2. in regard to the covenant entered into between God and Christ the Redeemer; 3. in regard to the circumstances of the life of the predestinate. Cf. Molina, Concordia.

1. Molina admits prevenient grace inclining to the initial movement to salvation, or consent to good, but he says: the distinction between the will consenting to this grace offered and the will rejecting it depends on man’s liberty alone. Cf. Molina, op. cit., pp. 230, 459.

The Thomists object that before this distinction, there is not yet any initial step toward salvation, because it is not found in those who resist first grace, as in Lessius,De gratia efficaci, chap. 18, no. 7.

2. Molina maintains that, if anyone does whatever he can by means of mere natural powers, God does not refuse grace; but he avoids Semi-Pelagianism by saying: God does not confer grace on account of this good natural disposition, but because of the covenant entered into between Himself and Christ the Redeemer. Cf. infra, q. 109, a. 6; q. 112, a. 3; Molina, op. cit., pp. 1543, 564; Index, “Faciens quod in se est.”

Molina says (pp. 51, 565): help being equal, it is possible for one of those called to be converted and another not converted. With less assistance from grace it is possible for the one assisted to make progress, while another, with greater help, does not improve, and hardly perseveres. They are not aids established as efficacious in themselves which distinguish between the predestinate and the nonpredestinate.

However, according to Molina, the predestinate receives greater help than the reprobate from the standpoint of the situation in which he is placed by the divine good pleasure, for indeed he is placed in circumstances in which God foresees by mediate knowledge that he will consent to grace.

Hence, from the viewpoint of circumstances, the gift of final perseverance depends solely on the divine good pleasure; thus, to a certain extent at least, the gratuity of predestination, denied by the Semi-Pelagians, is preserved; but, as the Thomists declare, this is seen to be gratuity of predestination only in regard to the circumstances which are more or less appropriate or suitable. 

Four, and this last point might be the most important one pushing the agendas in Rome.

There is a certain type of false supernaturalism, or immanentism, in Molinism, as noted by Garrigou-Lagrange.

That the Jesuits, who are Molinists, fall into the heresies of Teilhard de Chardin regarding immanentism, that there is a spiritual transformation which can take place outside of grace. Immanentism holds that one can be spiritual without religion, and that one can become holy without the Church and community.

The Pope actually wrote about this, and I want to quote part of his work here, from Evangelii gaudium, and no offense, but I think the Pope is looking at the wrong circles of influence regarding immanentism. He is, and partly rightly so, hitting the modern culture of subjectivism and relativism, but he seems not to go far enough in seeing or defining these tendencies in the Church disciplines regarding marriage and same-sex relationships. Those people in sin are self-enclosed, and the Synod did not address this as far as I could see. To extrapolate, certain Catholics would think that if they are spiritual inside, they do not need to convert to the radical Gospel and to the Teaching Magisterium of the Church. I think Molinism leads to this. Maybe this Jesuit Pope needs to apply his good ideas here to more pastoral concerns regarding the selfishness of those who rebel against Church teaching, which is the teaching of Christ.

To be self-enclosed is to taste the bitter poison of
immanence, and humanity will be worse for every
selfish choice we make. The Christian ideal will
always be a summons to overcome suspicion,
habitual mistrust, fear of losing our privacy, all
the defensive attitudes which today’s world
imposes on us. Many try to escape from others
and take refuge in the comfort of their privacy or
in a small circle of close friends, renouncing the
realism of the social aspect of the Gospel. For just
as some people want a purely spiritual Christ,
without flesh and without the cross, they also want
their interpersonal relationships provided by
sophisticated equipment, by screens and systems
which can be turned on and off on command . . .
Isolation, which is a version of immanentism, can
find expression in a false autonomy which has no
place for God. But in the realm of religion, it can
also take the form of a spiritual consumerism
tailored to one’s own unhealthy individualism.

I could write more on all of this, but six section is enough for a New Year's Day. Readers can tell I am not a Molinist, but a Thomist, and if one wants more pros and cons on Molinism, read Garrigou-Lagrange's book Grace, which is on line, and Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, which I have in a box in Silvis.

Most of the Molinists, and also St. Francis de Sales (+1622), teach a conditioned Predestination (ad gloriam tantum), that is, post and propter praevisa merita. According to them, God by His scientia media [middle knowledge], sees beforehand how men would freely react to various orders of grace. In the light of this knowledge He chooses, according to His free pleasure a fixed and definite order of grace. Now by His scientia visionis, He knows infallibly in advance what use the individual man will make of the grace bestowed on him. He elects for eternal bliss those who by virtue of their foreseen merits perseveringly cooperate with grace, while He determines for eternal punishment of hell, those who, on account of their foreseen demerits, deny their cooperation. The ordo intentionisand the ordo executionis coincide (grace-glory; grace-glory).

( Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1974; originally 1952, 242-245)

I want to personally thank a friend of mine who started this conversation with me but does not have the time to write what he and I discussed on these matters. He knows who he is...

Slavery of the Will; Freedom of the Will Part Four

I do not want to get into all the complications of the theory of Molina concerning predestination and the knowledge of God. However,  I want to zero in on one aspect of  Molinism, which I think is infecting the thinking behind the Synod, and obvious in some of the commentary from the two cardinals to which I referred without naming them.

First, if a reader wants a good breakdown on the Molinists controversy, see Garrigou-Lagrange's work Grace, which, of course, as written by a Dominican Thomist, holds the opposite stand to Molina's idea of the middle knowledge of God.

Here is my emphasis. The problem with Molina's position is that predestination, which the Church does hold as a teaching, involves God predestining a person according to merits which are foreseen.

Now, this position undermines grace and free will, as well as putting God's perfect knowledge and providence, as well as predestination, into a category of fluidity, instead of certainty.

Taken to its logical conclusion, Molina's theory, and that is all it is. although it is held by most Jesuits, allows for the meriting of grace, which is totally against Catholic teaching. No one merits grace, which is always a free gift.

Molina's view also makes free will somehow greater than grace, As seen in a previous post, one's free will is enlightened by grace. Yes, there is a cooperation of free will and grace, but the will does not determine grace. This is a Pelagian argument condemned in Trent.

Now, what has all this to do with the Synod?

Firstly, those cardinals who want to give the Eucharist to those in mortal sin as supposing that merit somehow is gained, which it is not, to be "cashed in" or as part of a process of conversion. All these elements of thought contradict Catholic teaching on sin and merit, grace and merit.

Secondly, among some of the cardinals, there is either an out-and-out denial of God's predestination, or a gross misunderstanding based on Molinism which denies that God see merit, gives grace freely and predestines that person for heaven. The fact that God sees a person choosing evil for all eternity, that is, living in a state of de-merit, is also part of the Catholic teaching of predestination. The Molinist would deny, it seems, at least in practice, that damnation and salvation depend on God seeing this merit or demerit, which puts salvation into the hands of a person, not God.

How this plays out in pastoral practice would then be that the will of the person in the irregular marriage trumps grace. If the person wants to be saved, he just gets merit and that is a sign he is saved.

Not so, states the Church in more than one council. Grace is a free gift and grace brings us to salvation, neither intentions, nor good works. Again, we do not merit grace. Here is a note from Garrioug-Lagrange, who in another place in Grace, states the Church's teaching that we do not merit justification.

Proof from the definitions of the Church. This truth is of faith; cf. against the Pelagians, the Council of Orange (Denz., no. 176), can. 3-7, 9, 14-25; the definition is renewed by the Council of Trent, Sess. VI, chap. 6 (Denz., no. 798): “Therefore are we said to be justified gratuitously, since none of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, deserves the grace of justification itself.” It also appears clearly enough from these declarations that man cannot merit even the first grace for himself de congruo properly speaking ; for it is defined against the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians that no one can by merely natural powers dispose himself for grace. (Cf. Council of Orange, can. 3-7, 14-25.)

This doctrine of the Church is manifestly based upon many scriptural texts; especially are cited: “Being justified freely by His grace” (Rom. 3:24; 4:4); “And if by grace, it is not now by works” (ibid., 11:6); in fact, almost the entire dogmatic portion of this Epistle; also I Cor. 12:13; II Cor. 3:5; Eph. 25-10; Phil. 2:13; II Tim. 1:9; John 15:16; I John 4:10-19.

Also, the intention of the person in sin must be that of conversion in order to both receive the gift of grace and, therefore, convert. If the intention is to remain living in sin, either in an irregular marriage or in an active homosexual relationship, there is no conversion. Grace has been refused.

Again, here is Garrigou-Lagrange on merit.

It must be a work ordained by God toward a promised reward; cf. q. 114, a. I ad 3: “Our action has no reason for merit except on the presupposition of a divine ordination; [wherefore] it does not follow that God becomes our debtor absolutely [who hath first given to Him?], but rather His own, so far as it is due to Him that His ordination should be fulfilled.” Again in article 2 c: “The merit of man depends on divine preordination” since “all the good in man comes from God” and man has no right before God unless he receives such a right from God. Hence without this divine ordination and promise, our good works would give us no right to a reward, since they are already due to God by several other titles, such as creation, supreme dominion, final end. Therefore, even if God had not promised us a reward, man ought to love God above all things.6

This doctrine is based on Holy Scripture: “The man that endureth temptation . . . when he hath been proved, . . . shall receive the crown of life, which God hath promised to them that love Him” (Jas. 1:12); “He that cometh to God, must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, chap. 16; Denz., no. 809) defines: “To those who work well unto the end, hoping in God, eternal life is offered both as the grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus and as the reward faithfully rendered to their good works by the promise of the same God.”’

Confirmation. The good works of the blessed and of the souls in purgatory are not meritorious, because God has not ordained them to a reward. For God does not order good works to a reward outside of the state of wayfarer, although He could do so if He so willed. 

Once we are converted and moving towards perfection, we can merit and grow in love. Only then...and to deny that is a false Protestant view as against the teaching of the Church on holiness.

Proof from the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. 32; Denz., no. 842): “If anyone should say . . . he who is justified by good works, which are done by him through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ (of whom he is a living member), does not really merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of eternal life itself (provided, however, that he dies in grace), and also an increase of glory: let him be anathema.” This definition is based upon many scriptural texts, for example: “By doing the truth in charity, we may in all things grow up in Him who is the head, even Christ” (Eph.  4:15); also Phil. 1:9 and Rom. 6:19; Augustine, commenting on chapter 5 of St. John’s Gospel, writes: “Charity merits increase, that being increased, it may also merit to be perfected.”

In addition to these problems of thought, is the heresy which states that we can will final perseverance and that the grace of final perseverance is not a special grace.

Again, one can see how this false idea of persevering on one's own informs the poor pastoral judgement of some of the cardinals. If one is not in grace, how can one persevere to death, and if one denies a special grace of final perseverance, one is denying that salvation is a gift from God and not earned by humans. Going to Mass and being accepted in the community does not merit one salvation. Only grace does this. Those in sin cannot gradually become holy. This is impossible for one in serious sin.

Here is Garrigou-Lagrange again. And here is where the modern Molinists fall into Semi-Pelagianism from a different cliff.

The Councils likewise affirm the gratuity of the gift of final perseverance. Several of the preceding scriptural texts are quoted by the Second Council of Orange, which declared against the Semi-Pelagian contention that this gift fell under merit (can. 10; Denz., no. 183): “Even those reborn and restored to health must always implore the help of God that they may attain to a good end and may persevere in good works.” If this must always be implored, it is not a thing the attainment of which is assured by previous merits.

Again, the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, chap. 13; Denz., no. 806) declares with reference to perseverance, “that a certain gift cannot be had from anyone, unless it be from Him who is able to make him who stands stand, that he may stand perseveringly, and to raise him who falls”; cf. Rom. 14:4 ff. Nevertheless the fact that a man merits, although it derives principally from God, is not said to proceed from God alone, but also from man by his merits. It is likewise defined by the Council of Trent (Denz., no. 826): “If anyone should say with absolute and infallible certainty that he will receive that great gift of perseverance to the end, unless he learns this by special revelation, let him be anathema.” (Also Denz., no. 832.) Chapter Twelve in Grace

to be continued...

Slavery of the Will; Freedom of the Will Part Three

Before moving on to Molinism, let me give a short review of Garrigou-Lagrange in his own words on efficacious grace.

Particularly in contemplative prayer which accompanies the passive purification of the spirit does the soul derive almost an experiential knowledge of what the efficacious grace of God means. And to this grace applies what St. Paul says of the word of God (Heb. 4:12f.): “The word of God is living and effectual, and more piercing than any two-edged sword; and reaching unto th division of the soul and the spirit, of the joints also and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. . . . All things are naked and open to His eyes.” But the knowledge of God founded in His causality (for the knowledge of God is the cause of things) extends even to our interior consent, since His hidden causality, at once gentle and strong, extends to this very consent. These two modalities of the divine action (sweetness and strength) are so closely connected that to minimize one of them, strength, for instance, is by that very fact to minimize the other, that is, sweetness. The grace of God is not gentle, penetrating into the very interior of free will, unless on account of its great effcacy, according to that principle of St. Thomas (Ia, q. 19, a. 8): “Since the will of God is most efficacious, not only does it follow that those things are done which God wills should be done, but also that they are done in the manner in which He wills them to be done.”

4. The doctrine of intrinsically efficacious grace also leads to a high degree of the practice of the theological virtues, for it is closely identified with the sublime mystery of predestination maintained in all its loftiness, in accordance with the teaching of St. Paul (Rom. 8:28; Eph. 1:5); St. Augustine (De praedestinatione sanctorum, De dono perseverantiae), and St. Thomas (Ia, q. 23, a. 5). This doctrine is founded upon the word of God according to St. John (6:39): “Now this is the will of the Father who sent Me: that of all that He hath given Me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day.”

and


Therefore our first conclusion remains firm, that grace is intrinsically efficacious. This truth is closely related to the principle of predilection, namely: “Since the love of God is the cause of the goodness of things, nothing would be better than another if God did not will greater good to one than to the other” (St. Thomas, Ia, q. 20, a. 3).  No one would be better than another if he were not loved and assisted to a greater extent by God. The whole problem can be reduced to the unsolvable dilemma: “God either determines or is determined by another; no mean is possible.” If God does not determine, then He is determined by our consent through foreseenscientia media; He is not entirely independent, but depends in some respect upon His creature.

Second conclusion. The intrinsic efficacious grace is not adequately explained by moral or objective or attracting motion, however it may be termed, that is, by a delight which takes the ascendancy or by an accumulation of moral helps.With respect to the ascendant delight, which, saving free will, the Augustinians, such as Berti and Bellelli admitted (thereby dissenting from the Jansenists), it should be said that it is not necessary, frequently is not present, and does not move infallibly toward free choice. For truly it is often lacking; many men are converted not by the attraction of heavenly joys which surpass those of the flesh, but rather from the fear of hell. (Cf. Council of Trent, Sess. VI, chap. 6.) Besides, the saints performed many good works without any pleasure, indeed with great aridity and suffering attached to them. Hence man does not always pursue the greatest indeliberate pleasure; he chooses what seems to him better here and now, even if it is better only from the motive of obligation, without any antecedent delight.  However, a superior delight follows, namely, that of having accomplished his duty, of conformity to the divine will.

I hope readers are beginning to see the lack of understanding among some of the cardinals regarding what grace is and how it works. Also, the entire question of obedience and trying to conform to God's Will arises after conversion as well as in the conversion moment.

When looking at the giving of Holy Communion to those in irregular marriages, and when considering the value of gay relationships, one must consider that these Catholics are not living a life of virtue, are outside the workings of efficacious grace. 

The Thomists believe that grace penetrates the will. And, it is not only that people are converted by sweetness from God, but by sufferings and the detachment of their wills from pleasure. This strand of thinking seems to be totally lacking in some of the cardinals' comments at the Synod.

If grace penetrates the will, why are people not converting and not growing in holiness?

What has been overlooked is that some people just choose the opposite of God's Will. They choose their own will. They are, as Garrigou-Lagrange writes, resisting sufficient grace, the grace of salvation. This is what certain cardinals are either ignoring or denying with regard to conversion. There can be nothing "gradual" about accepting sufficient grace. It is "sufficient" for salvation, for conversion.

Garrigou-Lagrange in Chapter One of Grace clarifies the first error of the Jansenists, which may be seen in some comments lately in the press from the clergy.

... first Jansenist proposition is, in fact, thus expressed: “Some precepts of God to just men who are willing and striving, are, in the present state of their powers, impossible; grace is wanting to them, also, by which such precepts may become possible.” Augustine declared the contrary, as cited by the Council of Trent: “God does not command the impossible, but by commanding He incites thee both to do what thou canst and to ask what thou canst not, and He assists thee that thou mayest be able” (Denz., no. 804).


Have you not heard people say that conversion to the disciplines of the Church concerning marriage and same-sex relations are "just too hard"? This deceit denies the graces of God through the Catholic Church.

In a footnote in this long and deep chapter on efficacious grace, the author notes this, which will resonate with those who read the long perfection series.

 St. Nicholas de Flue, known in Switzerland as the “Father of his country,” prayed thus: “My Lord and my God, take away from me whatever withdraws me from Thee; give me whatever leads me to Thee; take me away from myself and give me wholly unto Thee, that I may be wholly Thine.” This is a very beautiful expression of the efficacy of grace in the purgative, illuminative, and unitive ways.

To be continued...

Slavery of the Will; Freedom of the Will Part Two

Heroes of the Synod

A slave can decide to run away from his master. Free will is free. And, supernatural grace informs the will.

That so many liberals deny free will shows that they are Semis. They also believe that naturally one can merit grace or do good works.

These ideas have been solidly condemned by the Church. In the Council of Trent, we see clearly the doctrine that Original Sin did not abolish free will. That we are made in the image and likeness of God is partly the reason why we have free will. We are made in the image and likeness of God also in our intellect, our reason.

In Original Sin, as St. Bernard states, we kept the image but lost the likeness, which is sanctifying grace.

To become depraved, through continual choosing sin, a man can become more animal like, and give his will over to demonic influences, infecting the will and the intellect. If one follows certain evil paths long enough, one could become completely enthralled by Satan, but one maintains free will.

But, the will is dependent on grace. Without grace, the will cannot choose good.

The confusion in the Synod fathers who maintain that there must be some good in gay relationships, going back to the reason for these posts, to show the Semis influence in the Synod, is a denial, again, of both prevenient and sanctifying graces.

When one is living in sin, one can do no supernatural works, none. This is the long teaching of the Church and highly logical. Such an idea provides a slam-dunk for gradualism, in that one must decide, make that metanoia choice to cooperate with prevenient grace in order to become holy.

Remember my posts on conversion.

Moving back to the idea of supernatural acts, one can see that without a life of grace, there is no merit, no good.

One cannot merit heaven through acts of nature, natural virtues do not bring merit which is why the Fathers of the Church insisted that pagans cannot merit heaven through natural goodness.

All merit comes from God through grace.

The will decides to cooperate or not. I hope readers can see who confused some of those who have prepare the documents are concerning good works and salvation.

We are only saved in Christ and not through good works. Thus, those who are living in sin cannot merit heaven.

As St. Augustine states over and over, all good acts come from grace. And, grace does not give us merely the potential for doing good works, but God's grace "does" the good works.

Now, one of the problems with those who have muddied the Synod waters is that they do not understand or believe in efficacious grace. God gives us all sufficient grace for conversion.

He gives us efficacious grace in the sacraments, that which makes one holy. Through grace, the will is moved to more and more holiness, seeking perfection, seeking union with God.  But, first we are justified in Christ through sanctifying grace, which is not actual grace. Here is Garrigou-Lagrange with a reminder of sanctifying grace.

The Council of Trent leaves no room for doubt on this point. Denzinger in hisEnchiridion sums up the definitions and declarations of the Church very correctly in the formula: “Habitual or sanctifying grace is distinct from actual grace (nos. 1064 ff .); it is an infused, inherent quality of the soul, by which man is formally justified (nos. 483, 792, 795, 799 ff., 809, 821, 898, 1042, 1063 ff.), is regenerated (nos. 102, 186), abides in Christ (nos. 197, 698), puts on a new man (no. 792), and becomes an heir to eternal life (nos. 792,799 ff .). Chapter 12.

Garrigou-Lagrange gives us Scriptural references to efficacious grace. Here are some from the same chapter and book as the previous quotation in Part One..

In the New Testament, too, we find: “Without Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). Therefore grace is not rendered efficacious through our consent; rather, on the contrary, without the grace of Christ we do not consent to the good conducive to salvation. “My sheep hear My voice . . . and I give them life everlasting and they shall not perish forever, and no man shall pluck them out of My hand. That which My Father hath given Me, is greater than all; and no one can snatch them out of the hand of My Father” (ibid., 10:27-29). That is to say, the souls of the just are in the hand of God, nor can the world with all its temptations nor the demon snatch the elect from the hand of God. Cf. St. Thomas’ commentary on this passage.  It reiterates the words of St. Paul: “Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation or distress or famine . . . or the sword?. . . But in all these things we overcome, because of [or through] Him that hath loved us. . . . For I am sure that neither death nor life . . . nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:35-39). St. Thomas comments here that either St. Paul is speaking in the person of the predestinate or, if of himself personally, then it was thanks to a special revelation. Elsewhere St. Paul writes: “Not that we are sufficient to think anything of ourselves, as of ourselves: but our sufficiency is from God” (II Cor. 3:5). If we are not sufficient to think anything conducive to salvation of ourselves, with still greater reason is this true of giving our consent, which is primary in the role of salvation. Again, “For the word of God is living and effectual, and more piercing than any two-edged sword; and reaching unto the division of the soul and the spirit, of the joints also and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. . . . All things are naked and open to His eyes” (Heb. 4:12 f.). Cf. St. Thomas’ commentary: “The word of God is said to be effectual on account of the very great power and infinite effective force which it possesses. For by it are all things made: ‘By the word of the Lord the heavens were established’ (Ps. 32:6). . . . It effects in the innermost being of things . . . all our works . . . In the order of causes it is to be observed that a prior cause always acts more intimately than a subsequent cause.”

In Rom. 9:14-16 we read: “What shall we say then? Is there injustice in God? God forbid. For He saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy. So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy” (cf. Exod. 33:19)1 To the Philippians, St. Paul writes: “With fear and trembling work out your salvation. For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to His good will” (2:13); hence the soul should fear sin or separation from God, the author of salvation; cf. St. Thomas’ commentary.

But, we see also the problem with some of the Synod fathers not understanding that there is no middle ground between sin and life in God, between the refusal of grace and the acceptance of grace.

In addition, and I blame the seminaries for not teaching Thomas Aquinas or Augustine all these years since the 1950s, there is great confusion concerning graces which are sufficient for salvation and those which are efficacious in making one holy. There is also confusion as to the reliance of the will on efficacious grace. Grace first, will second....is a good measure of the true arguments.

It seems to me that some of the cardinals make no distinctions between living in and living out of grace. They seem to blur the idea of metanoia, of conversion, making it a long process, which the Church has never taught. The long process is that of perfection, of getting rid of sin and the tendencies to sin, not the original acceptance of faith and salvation. This is the part efficacious grace plays in one's life. One begins to see this through prayer, meditation and contemplation.

Why this confusion?

It seems to me that three heresies are informing these cardinals interpretations.

First, Pelagianism, second, Semi-Pelagianism, and third, Jansenism.

These heresies all hold deep contradictions regarding sin and free will, grace and predestination.

Now, because the Pope is Jesuit and because the Jesuits from day one of the ideas of Molina have accepted Molinism, I must address that in a post, but before I examine that, I shall share more bits from Garrigou-Lagrange's book Grace.

to be continued...

Slavery of the Will; Freedom of the Will Part One

Most of the heresies which are operative in the Church today center around two main ideas; the first concerning the nature of Christ, involving the Incarnation and the Redemptive act of the Cross; the second being the nature of Man and his need for salvation.

The first set of errors revolve around incorrect ideas of Christ as Man and as God, or the study of Christology. The second set of errors revolve around the nature of the creation of humans, their fall, their redemption, grace, sin and free will.

Why it is important for us to recognize the heresies behind the sound bites, and especially the ideas begin pushed by certain German and American cardinals is that we can actually, as lay persons, inform those who are in error and help pass on the truths of the Catholic Church.

That there is forma schism on the horizon should surprise no thinking Catholic. In fact, the faulty document coming out of the Synod reflects some of the oldest heresies in the Church.

Looking at Semi-Pelagianism will help clear the air of these problems, alleviate anxiety and show us the direction we must take.

The entire problem of whether those in irregular marriages or those engaged in homosexual lust can be accepted as full members of the Church at Communion hinges on the acceptance or denial of both Semi-Pelagianism or Molinism.

First, one must look at how the Semis, as I shall called them in this series, deny prevenient grace.

The Council of Trent clarified this definition, which was also discussed and noted in the Council of Carthage, which dealt with the Semis.

... that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace.

Before a person converts, God gives the grace of conversion, prevenient grace. This grace comes before conversion, not after. That conversion is a matter of grace means that God gives this grace freely and that men and women freely can accept this grace. This grace is not the sanctifying grace given in the sacraments. 

This grace comes directly from God and is given to all. Whether a person accepts this grace is entirely up to them. The hearing of the Gospel being preached does not give this grace. This grace enlightens the mind to accept the Gospel, which is why we all pray for those we know who are not Catholics, or fallen away Catholics, to convert, to accept prevenient grace.

Now, as I go along in these discussions, I want to point out the faulty thinking of some of the cardinals with regard to the nature of grace, free will, and conversion, which came out in the Synod and in interviews after the Synod.

I do not need to name names, but I have two cardinals in mind who contradicted this idea of prevenient grace by stating that those in mortal sin, such as those in an irregular marriage, get grace by going to Communion to convert.

No, this is not so. Receiving the Lord in the Holy Eucharist gives us sanctifying grace, which is a grace only received by those who are already in grace. Those is sin cannot receive sanctifying grace, which is, as the label indicates, a grace which leads us to greater holiness.

Here comes the crunch line---when one is in mortal sin, one's will is locked in slavery to that sin and other sins. Besides having a soul which is dead and not alive in God, the will has been given over to Satan. The Semis think that a person can will good works without grace, but this is not so. Without grace, the will chooses sin over and over and over. With prevenient grace, the person can convert, and begin anew, repenting and receiving grace in the sacraments for life and growth.

To think that one can do good works without grace is one of the lies of the Semis. Thus, some of the cardinals think that those in serious sin can do good works, can come to holiness without cooperating with the grace of conversion, which may mean either breaking away from the irregular marriage or living in lives of complete chastity, like brother and sister, while together.

Grace first, then conversion, then growth in holiness....Justifying grace not only brings about conversion, but helps one avoid sin going forward.

Second to all of this is that no one can gain any merit for heaven while in serious sin. Merit follows conversion always. Merit comes with a life lived in faith, hope, and love, and in the other virtues.

Faith is a gift of grace which can be refused. When one's will in is slavery to sin, as St. Augustine pointed out, one is inclined to choose evil. After repentance, grace abounds--both actual grace and sanctifying grace. But, one always has free will, although it is harder to choose good, to cooperate with grace, it is not impossible. This is another error of those cardinals who think that one cannot give up sin and choose the life of God in the soul, sanctifying grace. These men think that one cannot choose, that the will is not free, but it is. 

One can see how the gradualists are Semis denying prevenient grace and the gift of faith as necessary for salvation and as prior to growth through the sacramental life of the Church. The Semis also deny, or ignore, that prevenient grace and the gift of faith are gratuitous, absolutely given by God and not earned.

One cannot earn the grace of conversion by receiving Christ in Communion while in mortal sin. There is no "earning" of the grace of conversion.

And here is Garrigou-Lagrange on efficacious grace from Chapter Seven of his book, Grace.

The Council of Orange (Denz., no. 189): “Let no one glory in what he seems to have as if he had not received it from God” (can. 16). This is the formula of the principle of predilection, that is, no one would be better than another if he were not better loved by God.  “No one has anything of his own but sin and lying” (can. 22); “Man does nothing good which God does not enable him to do” (can. 20). Cf. also the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, chap. 13, Denz., no. 806): “For unless they [men] neglect His grace, God perfects a good work as He began it, operating both to will and to accomplish” (Phil. 2:13).  Likewise canon 22 (Denz., no. 832): “If anyone should say either that it is possible to persevere, without the special help of God in accepted justice, or that with it, this is impossible, let him be anathema.” Concerning the mind of the Council of Trent, cf. Father del Prado, De gratia et libero arbitrio, II ,83-91.


to be continued....

Introduction to The Series on Semi-Pelagianism

Before beginning in earnest the series, let me remind readers that at the Council of Trent, two doctrines concerning grace and free will were defined and clarified.

The first is that grace comes first and causes conversion and all good works in men. The second is that all men have "unimpaired freedom of consent in the will."

Already, in 2015, we see serious obstacles for believing these two truths, in that psychology and psychoanalysis have undermined both of these doctrines. Many Catholics simply do not believe in free will nor in grace which is necessary for all good works.

In this series, I shall look at some of the problems concerning heresies which popped up in Rome during the Synod. As I taught my son the game "heresy watch" in the car coming back from Mass, so you can learn to "spot the heresies" and then do something about these, as Voice of the Family and Voris did in Rome.

Remember that in Pelagianism, people deny Original Sin and that man and woman in Paradise were perfect, without death or sin or concupiscence. The theory of evolution has dulled modern men's minds on these points.

Also, Pelagianism denies that the Resurrection was necessary for the redemption, the renewal of the human race and the gift of life eternal.

With these broad characteristics in mind, let us move on to both Semi-Pelagianism and Molinism, both which reared their ugly heads in Rome in October.

to be continued...

Slavery of the Will; Freedom of the Will

Starting tomorrow, a new series on Semi-Pelagianism, one of the most prevalent heresies in the Church today. Since the Synod, (and before), many Catholics have been confused about the nature of grace and free will.

As readers of this blog know, I have written much on grace, so just follow the tags. But, a small series on the heresy, which St. Augustine attacked directly, seems necessary.

See you tomorrow and have a lovely evening wherever you are, dear Readers. Here is what we ate on New Year's before pasta in 1974! Not much has changed.