Americanism

I began a huge study on the heresy of Americanism in 2007, when I started this blog. My first book to read of many was a Notre Dame publication, by Thomas J. McAvoy, The Americanist Heresy in Roman Catholicism 1895-1900.

I also read some excellent "conservative", and, therefore, critical biographies of Gibbons, Keane, Ireland and other bishops who began the rot in the Church regarding compromising Catholic identity, education, liturgy, culture and even, the Faith.

Part of my reparation this weekend hearkens back to the evil these men let into the Church, including false ecumenism. Those who blame Vatican II for the ills of the American Church do not know the history of compromise, called "progressivism" which undermined the authority of Rome and caused the political playing footsy with anti-Catholic groups, even those associated with the Masons, which have led this country to the recent decision.

The rotten roots of the Americanist heresy brought us to this state of paganism enshrined by law.

I highly suggest reader consider this heresy, as I did in 2007, as worthy of study. Basically, these bishops pushed Catholics into being Americans first, and Catholics second.

I am on a mini-retreat this weekend because of the evil which these men wrought a long time ago.

More on Sunday...bye for now.

Protestant Errors on Purgatory and the Last Judgment-an aside

The Protestant Error http://www.catholictreasury.info/books/everlasting_life/ev21.php

The doctrine of purgatory was denied by the Albigenses, the Hussites, and the Protestants. [339] Luther began, in 1517, by denying the value of indulgences, saying that they had no value before God for the remission of the punishment due to our sins. [340] Then he went on 
to maintain that purgatory cannot be proved by Holy Scripture; that the souls in purgatory are not sure of their salvation; that we cannot prove the impossibility of merit in purgatory; that the souls in purgatory may sin by attempting to escape the sufferings they are undergoing.

Later on, Luther reached the doctrinal root of all his negations, namely, justification by faith alone. Then he affirmed the uselessness of good works and hence the uselessness of purgatory. Supported by popular favor, he became more and more audacious. In 1524 he published his book on the abrogation of Mass. In this work he says that the denial of purgatory is not an error.

Finally, in 1530, he denied absolutely any necessity of satisfaction for our sins. To uphold this, he said, would be an injury to Christ, who has satisfied superabundantly for all sin. For the same reason he denied that the Mass is a true sacrifice, particularly a propitiatory sacrifice. We have here the radical denial of a life of reparation, as if the sufferings of the saints for the expiation of sin would be an injury to the Redeemer.

Now the first and universal cause does not exclude second causes, but grants them the dignity of causality, somewhat like a sculptor who should make statues which live. Thus the satisfactory merits of Christ do not exclude our own, but rather create them. Christ causes us to work with Him and in Him. St. Paul said: "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so you shall fulfill the law of Christ." [341] Again: "I now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for His body, which is the Church." Certainly nothing was lacking to the sufferings of Christ in themselves, but they lacked fulfillment in our own flesh.

Calvin [342] and Zwingli [343] followed Luther in denying indulgences, in denying the sacrifice of the Mass, and purgatory.

Protestants of the present day have separated from their masters on this subject. Many of them admit an intermediate state between hell and heaven. They will not call it purgatory, but do say that the souls there can still merit and satisfy. Some hold that the sufferings of hell are not eternal. Now this temporary hell does not at all resemble the purgatory taught by the Catholic Church, according to which all souls in purgatory are in the state of grace and can no longer sin.

This is but one more example of the variations and contradictions to be found among Protestant Churches.

The chief Catholic theologians who wrote against this Protestant error are Cajetan, Sylvester Ferrariensis, St. John Fisher, John Eck, and St. Robert Bellarmine. St. John Fisher speaks thus to the Lutherans: "In suppressing the sacrifice of the Mass you have excluded the sun which illumines and warms each day of our life, and makes its influence felt even in purgatory."

The Church condemned this Protestant error. The Council of Trent declares: "If anyone says that the man who has repented and received the grace of justification is forgiven and released from obligation to eternal punishment, in such fashion that he no longer has any obligation to temporal punishment, whether in this world or in purgatory, before he can be given entrance into heaven: let him be anathema." [344] 

In the fourteenth chapter, which corresponds to this cannon, the Council affirms the necessity of satisfaction for sins committed after baptism: satisfaction in the form of fasting, of almsgiving, of prayer, and of other exercises of the spiritual life. These satisfactions are not meant for the eternal punishment, which was remitted by the sacrament of penance or by the desire of the sacrament, but for the remission of temporal punishment, which is not always remitted entirely, as it is in baptism. [345] The Council quotes these words of Scripture: "Be mindful therefore from whence thou art fallen, and do penance and do the first works." [346] "For the sorrow that is according to God worketh penance." [347] "Do penance." [348] "Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance." [349] And if this reparation, this satisfaction, has not been paid in this world, the soul will have to undergo the satisfactorial punishment of purgatory.

And I add this on choosing to take one's purgatory on earth, rather than after the particular judgment.

Blessed are those who take their purgatory on earth, by generous acceptance of daily trials. The multiple sacrifices of daily life purify and perfect their love, and by this love they will be judged.

Love itself has many degrees. St. Peter seemed to make an act of perfect love when he protested to Jesus his readiness to die. But mingled with his act was presumption. To purify him from this presumption, Providence permitted the threefold denial, whence he came forth more humble, less trustful in himself, more trustful in God, until pure love led him to martyrdom and answered his prayer to be crucified head downward.

How do we attain pure love? Saudreau answers: "Love is not an effect of headwork, not a pushing forward of will to give to it greater force. It is the result of accepting generously all sacrifices, in accepting with a loving heart all trials." [130] 
The Lord augments the infused virtue of charity, the accepting soul prepares itself for the particular judgment, where it will find in Jesus rather a friend than a judge.

While the particular judgment, then, settles for each soul its place in eternity, the general judgment still remains necessary. Man is not a mere individual person, but also a member of human society, on which he has had an influence, good or bad, of longer or shorter duration. 

And although most Protestants believe in the Last Judgment, some have a wrong idea about it because some of their heroes are actually great evil men.

Here is G-L again:

The Fathers, both Latin and Greek, not only teach this dogma explicitly, but most vividly describe the last judgment. Let it suffice to cite St. Augustine: "No one denies, or puts in doubt, that Jesus Christ, as the Scriptures have announced, will pronounce the last judgment." [157] 

...

Reasons for the Last Judgment

St. Thomas [167] explains these reasons. First, dead men live in the memory of men on earth and are often judged contrary to truth. Spirits, strong and false, like Spinoza, Kant, and Hegel, are judged as if they were great philosophers. False prophets and heresiarchs, such as Luther and Calvin, are considered by many to be masters of religious thought, whereas great saints and doctors are profoundly ignored.

Judgment Day will show how much value is to be assigned to certain histories of philosophies, to many studies on the origins of Christianity, written in a spirit absolutely rationalistic. It will show how their perpetual variations and contradictions come from their fundamental error, the negation of the supernatural. It will manifest all lying propaganda. It will unmask hypocrites who enslaved religion instead of serving religion. Universal history will no longer be seen as a mere horizontal line of time, passing from the past to the future, but as a vertical line which attaches each event to the unique moment of an immovable eternity. The secrets of the hearts will be revealed. [168] The Pharisees, Caiphas, Pilate, will be judged definitively. Truth will conquer all these lies. It is clear that, if God exists, truth must be the absolutely last word.

Further, the dead have had imitators, in good or in evil. Evil is easier to imitate. Truth and justice must be vindicated. "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after justice, for they shall have their fill."

Lastly, the effects of men's actions last long after their death. Arius and other heresiarchs troubled souls for some centuries, whereas, on the contrary, the teaching of the apostles will exercise its influence to the end of the world. Only a final and infallible judgment of God is here sufficient, and this cannot take place until the end of time.

And against Calvin and the other prosperity Gospel preachers...

Blessed those who, like Bernadette of Lourdes, hear this word: "I promise you happiness, not in this life, but in the next." This was a special revelation. She was predestined, but she would have great crosses on earth. All genuine Christian lives are marked with the cross. Crosses well borne are a sign of predestination, says St. Thomas. A rain of afflictions is better than a rain of diamonds. This truth we shall see clearly after death. [173] Providence will then appear absolutely irreproachable in all its way

Blasphemy!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/28/yoga-stations-of-the-cross_n_6954992.html

All the yoga positions relate exactly to one of the 900 plus gods of the Hindus. Yoga is one of the things mentioned in....

 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html

This is blasphemy.  Christ died to free us from superstition and false "religions". To join paganism with Catholicism is too horrible to contemplate.

Kyrie eleison...

1 Timothy 4 Douay-Rheims 

4 Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils,

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared,

3 Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth.

4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving:

5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

6 These things proposing to the brethren, thou shalt be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished up in the words of faith, and of the good doctrine which thou hast attained unto.

7 But avoid foolish and old wives' fables: and exercise thyself unto godliness.

8 For bodily exercise is profitable to little: but godliness is profitable to all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

9 A faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.

10 For therefore we labor and are reviled, because we hope in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful.

11 These things command and teach.

12 Let no man despise thy youth: but be thou an example of the faithful in word, in conversation, in charity, in faith, in chastity.

13 Till I come, attend unto reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine.

14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

15 Meditate upon these things, be wholly in these things: that thy profiting may be manifest to all.

16 Take heed to thyself and to doctrine: be earnest in them. For in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.

Heresy from The Pulpit Part Four

Cardinal Wolsey: More! You should have been a cleric! 
Sir Thomas More: Like yourself, Your Grace? from A Man for All Seasons

Two other errors have crept into the Catholic Church and are heard even from the pulpit.

The first error in this category of "wishy thinking" came from the Protestants and the second may come from false seers.

The first is this, "Our faith is 2,000 years old. Our thinking is not." Now, this is actually a motto of a Protestant denomination which prides itself on re-working doctrine. The great error here is the separation of faith and doctrine. Our faith, as Catholics, is the same thinking as 2,000 years ago, which we call the "depost of faith". We learn to "think like Catholics", one of my tags.

Here is the CCC, with a rather long introduction for your benefit to undestand that definitions are important to our Faith. We do not believe, of course, in sola fide--see my posts on the solas.

ARTICLE 2

THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION
74 God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth":²⁹ that is, of Christ Jesus.³⁰ Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:

God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.³¹

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION
75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."³²
In the apostolic preaching. . .
76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";³³
- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".³⁴
. . . continued in apostolic succession
77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."³⁵ Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."³⁶
78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."³⁷ "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."³⁸
79 The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."³⁹
II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE
One common source. . .
80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."⁴⁰ Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".⁴¹
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."⁴²
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."⁴³
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."⁴⁴
Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions
83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

III. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HERITAGE OF FAITH

The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church
84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei),⁴⁵ contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."⁴⁶
The Magisterium of the Church
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."⁴⁷ This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."⁴⁸
87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",⁴⁹ the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

The second error is this: "God is revealing new things daily".  No, the teaching of the Catholic Church is that Revelation ended with the last word of the book of the Apocalypse. 

The Church alone may interpret Revelation but there is no new revelation. False seers are deemed false because they attempt to push "new revelation". Protestants also allow for new revelation because it suits their idea of sola fide.

If you hear priests from the pulpit, or at meetings, or in prayer groups bending the defintions of both Revelation and Tradition, please question them. And correct them if they are in error. That is a corporal work of mercy, by the way.

Heresy from The Pulpit Three

Another quotation from the Decree on Ecumenism helps all understand the real problem of "imprudent zeal.

I have written on this blog before what an old priest told me of his confreres and himself in the seminary in the 1950s. He admitted, and this is a quotation, "We wanted to protestantize the Church."

They went into the seminary wanting to make the Catholic Church look, act and believe in a more protestant fashion, as they honestly saw the waning of Christianity as only stopped by a pan-Christianity. Some of the German bishops still hold this idea, based on the destruction of the Catholic Church in many areas under Communism and Nazism. This is part of the problem with the Synod.

This false ideal of pan-Christianity is the false message of Vassula Ryden, also referred to here on this blog. Pan-Christianity denies the real differences of belief and worship. And, only the Holy Spirit, through the action and decrees of the Church, can bring about unity of any separated brethren, including the SSPX, the Old Catholics and the Orthodox, as well as the eccelsial communities of Protestants.

Again from the Decree:

This Sacred Council exhorts the faithful to refrain from superficiality and imprudent zeal, which can hinder real progress toward unity. Their ecumenical action must be fully and sincerely Catholic, that is to say, faithful to the truth which we have received from the apostles and Fathers of the Church, in harmony with the faith which the Catholic Church has always professed, and at the same time directed toward that fullness to which Our Lord wills His Body to grow in the course of time. It is the urgent wish of this Holy Council that the measures undertaken by the sons of the Catholic Church should develop in conjunction with those of our separated brethren so that no obstacle be put in the ways of divine Providence and no preconceived judgments impair the future inspirations of the Holy Spirit. The Council moreover professes its awareness that human powers and capacities cannot achieve this holy objective - the reconciling of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ. It is because of this that the Council rests all its hope on the prayer of Christ for the Church, on our Father's love for us, and on the power of the Holy Spirit." And hope does not disappoint, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us".(42)

Heresy from The Pulpit Two

On top of the misuse of the word "church, is the misuse of the word "traditions". Too many priests are stating that the Catholic Church is merely one of many "traditions" of worship and belief.

Not so, as the only one tradition back to Christ is the Catholic Church.  The Othodox Church derives "efficacy" "from the very fullness and grace entrusted to the Catholic Church."  There is a mistaken view that the word "traditions" can be applied to the Protestants, while is only applies to the Orthodox. See the last paragraph from the Decree on Ecumenism below. The Protestant communities are not different traditions, but dissenting groups. Only the Orthodox may be called one of the "traditions". The Protestants are called a strange title, "ecclesial Communities", but not Church or church. They are "sort-of" church communities, but not quite and absolutely not a "tradition".


Here is a key section from Dominus Iesus:

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54  With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57 17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60  On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63 “The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65“Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66 And from Unitatis-Redintegratio: The Special Consideration of the Eastern Churches 14. For many centuries the Church of the East and that of the West each followed their separate ways though linked in a brotherly union of faith and sacramental life; the Roman See by common consent acted as guide when disagreements arose between them over matters of faith or discipline. Among other matters of great importance, it is a pleasure for this Council to remind everyone that there flourish in the East many particular or local Churches, among which the Patriarchal Churches hold first place, and of these not a few pride themselves in tracing their origins back to the apostles themselves. Hence a matter of primary concern and care among the Easterns, in their local churches, has been, and still is, to preserve the family ties of common faith and charity which ought to exist between sister Churches. Similarly it must not be forgotten that from the beginning the Churches of the East have had a treasury from which the Western Church has drawn extensively - in liturgical practice, spiritual tradition, and law. Nor must we undervalue the fact that it was the ecumenical councils held in the East that defined the basic dogmas of the Christian faith, on the Trinity, on the Word of God Who took flesh of the Virgin Mary. To preserve this faith these Churches have suffered and still suffer much. However, the heritage handed down by the apostles was received with differences of form and manner, so that from the earliest times of the Church it was explained variously in different places, owing to diversities of genius and conditions of life. All this, quite apart from external causes, prepared the way for decisions arising also from a lack of charity and mutual understanding. For this reason the Holy Council urges all, but especially those who intend to devote themselves to the restoration of full communion hoped for between the Churches of the East and the Catholic Church, to give due consideration to this special feature of the origin and growth of the Eastern Churches, and to the character of the relations which obtained between them and the Roman See before separation. They must take full account of all these factors and, where this is done, it will greatly contribute to the dialogue that is looked for. And, All this heritage of spirituality and liturgy, of discipline and theology, in its various traditions, this holy synod declares to belong to the full Catholic and apostolic character of the Church. We thank God that many Eastern children of the Catholic Church, who preserve this heritage, and wish to express it more faithfully and completely in their lives, are already living in full communion with their brethren who follow the tradition of the West. Now, the problem in the United States is that some Orthodox communities have become protestantized, no longer believing in the True Presence, for example, or the Immaculate Conception. Some of these problems are the result of heretical Orthodox priests, who like some Catholic priests, bring their own brand of theology into the pulpit. Sadly, the term Orthodox in some parts of the world covers truly protestant communities.  to be continued...

Heresy from The Pulpit

Most Catholics would not catch the "new" and dangerous misuse of the word "Church" among some Catholic priests.

The term "church" or ekklesia, specifically refers to the Catholic Church, and, as the Pope Emeritus pointed out, the Orthodox Church. The term "church" does not apply to Protestant denominations, nor does the term "Christian Church". This latter term applies to the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church only. One can read Dominus Iesus on this blog and on the Vatican site found here.

To refer to other denominations, of which there are at least 43,000, all split-offs from the Catholic Church and from each other, as "church" is not only an incorrect use of the term, but heretical.

To use the term "church" to mean only the local church, such as a parish or diocese, is also incorrect, as the Catholic Church is universal. This usage has been heard many times, incorrectly, by priests and lay people in authority. To keep saying, "We are church" implies that "we" are not connected to Rome, and the intent may be creeping Americanist ideas.

But, to actually say that the Christian Church includes Protestants is incorrect. Church indicates the liturgical assembly, the local Church, and the universal Church, but not the separated brethren.

To state further, like some Protestants do, that there is an "invisible" church denies the establishment of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church by Christ through the apostles. There is no invisible church denying an institution.

When Catholics refer to the invisible Church we mean the Church Suffering in purgatory and the Church Triumphant in heaven, not some sort of vague unseen union.

The Bride of Christ is real and visible. The Church is an institution. The Church in the Catholic Church hoping for complete union of separated Christians, which does not mean some "pan-Christian church", but the conversion of our brothers and sisters in the Protestant denomnations to Catholicism, the only one, true way to God.

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."²⁶⁹ The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism²⁷⁰ - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.²⁷¹

Americanism Part Two

This heresy reveals itself most subtlely. Most people would not recognize the characteristics of Americanism as it is so common and yet so hard to "pin down" in conversation.

A few points which exemplify an attitude of Americanism may help.

• Priests who do not read the updates from Rome or follow the suggestions of the Popes regarding liturgy determine their own actions from an attitude that Rome does not understand Americans.
• Misunderstandings among Americans that Rome is somehow "rich" and that the American Church does not need to support the Church there.
• The ideal that the Church should be based on democracy and the voice of the people rather than on the hierarchical structure of the past.
• The idea that Church and State should be completely separate, not a teaching of the Catholic Church, which holds that States should not only listen to the true teachings of Christ through the Church, but that the States should protect the Catholic Church.
• That Latin is unnecessary and divisive, as not "American".
• Interdenominational relations are most important and should be encouraged even in conferences and congresses.
• Almost hatred for passive virtues and an over-emphasis on activity.
• Most, if not all, the bishops involved in the early days of Americanism were Irish, seeking the domination of Irish Catholics over more conservative and ethnic Catholics, such as the Germans, a problem which came to a head over parishes and Catholic European vs. Catholic American identity.
• The support of Progressive political ideas instead of conservatism, leading to the overwhelming support of the Irish immigrants for the Democratic Party.
• An affiliation with the ideals of the French Revolution and the American Revolution rather than an affiliation with "Christendom".
• The great influence of Americanism in the East Coast spread to Minnesota and Iowa through the appointment of bishops holding Americanist ideas created an attitude of rebellion which surfaced in the conflict over Humanae Vitae.
• The idea that Catholic schools should adopt curriculum of the public schools rather than classical Catholic education.
• That the "local" church is more important than the universal Church, a false dichotomy. 
• More later...

The Heresy of Americanism

Years ago, when I taught a class which involved looking at all the heresies, called the "isms" class by my students, one of the heresies we studied was that of Americanism.

This heresy was defined and condemned by Pope Leo XIII in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, which may be found here among other places.

Part of the heresy is accommodation to the world. Another part is that Rome does not understand America. In 2007, as a run up to the elections and the presidential election of 2008, I did a serious study on this heresy. One of the shocking things I discovered was how many bishops were actually involved, and how many dioceses, even those west of the Mississippi, were infected.

Here is a key paragraph from the encyclical.


The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind. The Vatican Council says concerning this point: "For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them." -Constitutio de Fide Catholica, Chapter iv.

Clearly, the spirit of compromise is behind this heresy, which has take over many dioceses in the States. Another point in the heresy is that active participation in the Church is more important than passive. In other words, works over prayer and contemplation.

This pope reminds us in this encyclical that the call to perfection involves recognizing that there is a more perfect way--the life of the contemplative.  I have referred in the long perfection series that Garriou-Lagrange and others note that this lifestyle is more perfect. Sadly, this has not been taught consistently in the Catholic Church in America.

There have always been some bishops, some cardinals, some priests and religious, who have wanted the Church in America to be different than the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.

It is not. The glory of the Church is that it is universal, and not a national church like the Anglican one, for example. The Church of England lacks the universality, the oneness, and of course, the apostolic nature of the Catholic Church.

Americanism seeks to accommodate itself to the Protestant denominations by accepting false premises of ecumenism. How often one hears in America that all Christian churches "are the same" as they believe in Christ as God. But the sameness ends with the Trinitarian baptism.

I shall write more on this later...

Infidelity

Playmobile St. Nicholas given to a certain sem 

Two types of heresies have plagued the Church from the beginning. God gives men and women free will to choose good or evil, to be faithful or unfaithful. One thing the great heresies have caused, in spite of chaos and the loss of souls, is the clarification of all the major doctrines of the Church. God brings good out of evil.

For a Catholic to accept heretical ideas constitutes a serious sin against the virtue of faith, given in baptism. The office of teaching belongs to Holy Mother Church, ecclesia docens. To purposefully deviate from Her teachings indicates a rebellious, fractious spirit.

Canon 1325 indicates that a person must know he or she is a heretic. But, guilt depends on many things, and there are levels of culpability. These two types of heresy can be seen in and out of the Church today.

The first category is "material" heresy, under which most Protestants fall. This category assumes good will, good faith, but involves ignorance. If one, for example, has never heard or discovered that Christ is truly Present in the Eucharist, one is a material heretic. However, if one has heard this true teaching, and rejects it after being told this truth, one falls into "formal heresy".  Most likely, no Catholic can be a material heretic, as all Catholics have access to the true teaching of the Catholic Church and it is the adult responsibility of each Catholic to discover this teaching. One can have doubts, but these must be resolved as quickly as possible through study and prayer.

Formal heresy may be found in the Church today, most commonly in the forms of Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, universal salvation, and Modernism (the Modernist heresies). I have many posts on all of these heresies. A formal heretic publicly states his or her erroneous opinions and is culpable, incurring great sin and consequences. Public announcement is the key here. A person may have private views, and struggle to find the truth without being a formal heretic. Once a person has made their views known publicly, that person, lay or cleric, is a formal heretic.

The punishment is excommunication, which is automatic. Sadly, some Church leaders are in this position and allowed to spew heretical ideas, as we all have seen of late.

Ignorance must not be accepted in a Christian who has been shown the truth of the Catholic Church. However, faith is a gift, and one might have to acknowledge that a particular person has refused this gift, which is given in baptism.

Infidelity to the one, true, Church constitutes a serious position, endangering a person's soul. If one holds to an erroneous idea even after being told of the errors, one is responsible for this position.

Another consideration is that of "bad will", or the sin of  "malice". Malice reveals an unrepentant heart, mind, soul. The great, condemned heretics exhibited malice: Arius, Luther, Calvin and so on. Hatred for Holy Mother Church underscores most heretical positions.

Some high profile clerics teach heresy publicly. Why they are not corrected publicly, and why their automatic excommunication is not revealed to the public for clarification for the confused faithful remains a mystery. One can only come to the conclusion that these priests have the support of their bishops in errors, or that the bishops, or even cardinals, enjoy some sort of protection because of their office, which creates a scandal in the Church.

Playmobile Luther, not given to a certain sem

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 Five

Hero of the Synod

I want to get back to the Molinists, but here is a short excursion into the Jansenist aspect of the problem in Synod perspectives.

It could be that Jansenism still infects some thinking among some cardinals.

I only want to highlight one aspect which would impact pastoral concerns on irregular marriages. The pastoral view of some who are in error is that people simply do not have the grace to separate or be chaste. I find it amazing that there could still be cardinals and bishops influenced by Jansenism, but it seems so after October. It seems that at least two cardinals think it is too hard to convert, that it is impossible to give up a life of sin. Is not the cry of the false pastor that the Church must accept these sinners without expecting conversion? Does not the false pastor state that it is too hard to live according to the laws of God concerning marriage?

Here is Garrigou-Lagrange in Chapter Five of Grace.

At first, the Jansenists denied sufficient grace. Jansen himself (De gratia Christi, Bk. III, chap. I) admits no grace that is not efficacious. Quesnel (Denz., nos. 1359 ff.) and the Pistoians (Denz., no. 1521) adhere to this fully. Jansen’s first proposition (Denz., no. 1092) should be cited in particular: “Some commands of God are impossible to just men who are willing and striving, according to their present powers; moreover they lack grace which would make their observance possible to them.” In other words, many just men of good will, who make an effort, are deprived of sufficient grace which gives a real power or faculty for good works commanded by God; it would follow that the wicked are punished unjustly, since they could not be good. This proposition is declared heretical.

The second proposition is closely related to the first: “In the state of fallen nature, interior graces are never resisted,” that is to say, interior grace is always efficacious, which is heresy.

Likewise the third proposition of Jansen: “For meriting and demeriting in the state of fallen nature man does not require freedom from necessity; freedom from constraint is sufficient.” This proposition pertains rather to efficacious grace which, according to the Jansenists, removes freedom from necessity and leaves only spontaneity. Their fourth proposition is that the Semi-Pelagian heresy consisted in maintaining that the human will can resist or obey grace. The fifth proposition declares that Christ did not die for all men.

Does Arnauld’s explanation preserve sufficient grace? I reply: not really, but only as a matter of verbiage, for actions to be accomplished are not general but concrete and individual. Hence, if grace does not suffice for each particular precept or each individual temptation, it is simply insufficient. Therefore Arnauld does not escape from Jansen’s first proposition: “Some commands of God are impossible to just men who are willing and striving, according to their present powers; moreover, they lack grace which would make their observance possible to them” here and now.

Since this proposition is condemned as heretical, it is a dogma of faith that at least grace which is truly, yet merely, sufficient is not lacking to the just; truly, since it confers a real power of acting virtuously; merely, since it is resisted and fails of its final effect. This dogma of faith had already been equivalently expressed in several councils. The Council of Orange (Denz., no. 200) declared that “all the baptized, by the help and cooperation of Christ, can and ought to accomplish whatever pertains to salvation, if they are willing to work faithfully.” The Second Council of Valence maintained against Scotus Erigenus (Denz., no. 321): “Therefore the wicked themselves are not lost because they could not be good, but because they would not.” And the Council of Trent (Denz., no. 804) adopts the formula: “God does not command the impossible, but by commanding He teaches thee to do what thou canst and to ask what thou canst not, and He assists thee that thou mayest be able.” Therefore God confers sufficient help to enable us, not only in general, but in individual cases, to observe His commandments.

What, then, is the scriptural basis for this dogma of sufficient grace? Especially worthy of citation are the words of the Lord in Isa. 5:4: “What is there that I ought to do more to My vineyard, that I have not done to it?” For if God ought not to do anything more, then His help is truly sufficient. However, in this text it does not say: “What is there that I could do more,” and we shall see that God can do more, although not bound to do so.

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...