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.

Reviewing Justice and Mercy in Slavery of the Will; Freedom of the Will Part Seven

Last year, I wrote about predestination, going through some points of Garrigou-Lagrange's book. Here are some notes from that book and Providence, also unpacked on this blog.

One of the problems with the thinkers at the Synod is confusion about justice and mercy. Again, I find this confusion in comments made by two cardinals especially, names withheld.

If you are interested in pursuing this point, read this page, and my previous posts.

 http://www.thesumma.info/predestination/predestination7.php

I want to make a small comment on justice and mercy, again somewhat of a repeat of things on the blog in the past.

Here is Garrigou-Lagrange on justice and mercy. First, we realize that justice makes up for horrible injustices on earth. This is clear to most of us. But, when it comes to pastoral decisions, such as those coming out of the Synod, the two virtues, or rather, attributes of God have been confused. What has been set aside in the discussions in Rome has indicated that some of the cardinals lack faith.

Yes...

When one lacks faith in Providence, one sets aside the salvific merit of intense suffering. How many people who could have been called to saintliness have not followed that path as they have avoided, indeed, run away from suffering?

Those in an irregular marriage do not want to face the suffering necessary for justice to work out one's salvation.

Those with homosexual tendencies do not want to face a life of celibacy and even loneliness, which many heterosexuals who do not fornicate and give up consolations do.

Justice demands righteousness and this is being forgotten in Rome.

Providence and justice combine in this present life to give us whatever is necessary to reach our true destiny: that is, to enable us to live an upright life, to know God in a supernatural way, to love and to serve Him, and so obtain eternal life.

There is a great inequality, no doubt, in circumstances, natural and supernatural, among men here on earth. Some are rich, others are poor; some are possessed of great natural gifts, whereas others are of a thankless disposition, weak in health, of a melancholy temperament. But God never commands the impossible; no one is tempted beyond his strength reinforced by the grace offered him. The savage of Central Africa or Central America has received far less than we have; but if he does what he can to follow the dictates of conscience, Providence will lead him on from grace to grace and eventually to a happy death; for him eternal life is possible of attainment. Jesus died for all men, and among those who have the use of reason only those are deprived of the grace necessary for salvation who by their resistance reject it. Since He never commands the impossible, God offers to all the means necessary for salvation.

Moreover, not infrequently providence and justice will make up for the inequality in natural conditions by their distribution of supernatural gifts. Often the poor man in his simplicity will be more pleasing to God than the rich man, and will receive greater graces. Let us recall the parable of the wicked rich man recorded in St. Luke (16: 19-31) :There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and feasted sumptuously every day. And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, who lay at his gate, full of sores, desiring to be filled with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table. And no one did give him: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died.... And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham... and he cried and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me.... And Abraham said to him; Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted and thou art tormented.

This is to declare in effect that, where natural conditions are unequal, providence and justice will sometimes make up for it in the distribution of natural gifts. Again, the Gospel beatitudes tell us that one who is bereft of this world's enjoyments will in some cases feel more powerfully drawn to the joys of the interior life. This is what our Lord would have us understand when He says: "Blessed are the poor in spirit.... Blessed are the meek... that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." [138]

The love of Jesus goes out to those servants of His nailed to the cross, because then they are more like Him through the effective oblation they make of their entire being for the salvation of sinners. In them He continues to live; in them He may be said to prolong down to the end of time His own prayers and sufferings, and above all His love, for perfect love consists in the complete surrender of self.

For some there comes a time when every road in life is barred against them; humanly speaking, the future holds out no prospect whatever to them. In some cases this is the moment when the call comes to something higher. Some there are who spend long years confined to a bed of pain; for these henceforth there is no way open but the way of holiness. [139]

And so providence and justice, while giving to each one what is strictly necessary, will often make up for any disparity in natural conditions by the bestowal of grace. They reward us, even in this life, for the merits we have gained, reminding us, too, of our solemn duties by salutary warnings and well-deserved corrections, which are no more than medicinal punishments for the purpose of bringing us back into the right path. In this way will a mother correct her child if she loves it with a really enlightened, ardent love. When these salutary corrections are well received, we make expiation for our sins, and God takes the opportunity of inspiring us with a more sincere humility and a purer, stronger love. There is a sharp distinction between souls according to their willingness or unwillingness to listen to these warnings from God.

If this solid doctrinal thinking was present in the making of the synodal document, we would see a different emphasis on holiness, through justice.

That mercy is seemingly extended indicates a great deception among some of the leaders. Such a deceit damns souls to eternal loss of God in heaven. The great Dominican writes of disorder and conscious disorder. Those in sin want to change the rules so that the Church accepts sin. Are these people being told the truth of the state of their immortal souls, which is a lack of justice?

A false mercy rises out of all the heresies covered today.

Here is Garrigou-Lagrange again:

Justice will then mete out condign punishment for sins committed, to last for a time or for eternity. Mortal sin still unrepented at the moment of death will be henceforth like an incurable disease, but in something that cannot die, the immortal soul. The sinner has turned his back unrepentantly on the sovereign good, has in practice denied its infinite dignity as the last end, and has failed to revoke this practical denial while there was yet time. It is an irreparable disorder and a conscious one. Remorse is there, but without repentance; pride and rebellion will continue forever and with them the punishment they deserve. But above all it involves the perpetual loss of the divine life of grace and the vision of God, of supreme bliss, the sinner clearly realizing that through his own fault he has failed forever to attain his destined end. 

May I add that the Dominican points out that absolution for our sins is Mercy from God. We do not merit any of the sacraments. which brings me back to the Synod.

The reception of the sacraments is a mercy based on justice. One cannot separate the two concepts.

The grace of absolution from mortal sin is not something that can be merited, it is a gratuitous gift. And how often has that grace been granted us!
Again, by no merit of ours could we obtain the grace of communion; it is the fruit of the sacrament of the Eucharist, which of itself produces that grace within us, even daily if we wish. And how many communions has not the divine mercy granted us! Let us bear in mind that if we are faithful in fighting against all attachment to venial sin, each successive communion becomes substantially more fervent than the last, since each successive communion must not only preserve but increase charity within us, thus disposing us to receive our Lord on the morrow with a substantial fervor, a readiness of desire not merely the same but more intense.

Garrigou-Lagrange also points out that those raised Catholic have been given already a great Mercy, by being given the truth and grace. To turn against these constitutes a serious rebellion against what one knows to be true.

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 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...

A New Experience

Now, it is 37 F in my flat. I have to use now this electric monster heater which is so expensive and just takes off the cold a bit, Under two duvets, have a hat and sweater and woolly scarf on in bed and a coat around my neck. I have never lived in such a cold dwelling.

I have chilblains in my fingers and toes. Typing hurts, but I shall carry on.

Pray for me to live somewhere warm, please.

Other new thing, is that a friend of mine from another city brought me Turkish take-away yesterday. It was yummy. First time for that....

And, look at this, which I predicted...http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/return-debtors-prison/

Maybe all those young in-debt college students will either be put in fema camps or given a choice to go into the army or some type of government service. I said this to friends in 2008.

I have one doctor's bill in the states which is not paid. If anyone wants to help me with that, please let me know.

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...

More Reposts from Last Summer To End The Year

A short but serious meditation from Providence

Posted by Supertradmum

St Prosper wrote from the Council of Quiersey, (853 A.D.), “If some are saved, it is the gift of Him who saves; if some perish, it is the fault of them that perish.”

Perfection Series II: Providence

Posted by Supertradmum

Garrigou-Lagrange may be the greatest Thomist of the 20^th Century. His book, Providence, must be read. I have referred to it about a month ago, and there are too many superb passages to go through the entire book.

The book is a meditation on God, Who He Is. The author’s starting point in the long discussion on providence is the understanding, as far as we can now, of the Nature of God and the nature of human beings.

I have taken so many notes on this book, I really do not know where to begin.

Let me concentrate on one idea today. Garrigou-Lagrange writes that holiness is the life of grace in its perfection.

As I have written many posts on grace, one can follow the tags on those sections. The Dominican notes that sanctifying grace is the participation in the Divine Nature. Knowing this, how can anything turn against grace, freely?

Garrigou-Lagrange makes it clear that it is completely rational to trust in God and to follow Him. So why is it that more people do not follow God, if we are all rational human beings? How is it that humans more and more turn against natural law and their own human consciences?

Providence is hard for many to understand, but the root of God’s care for us, is love. What is missing is the recognition that what all people desire is love, and that there is only one Person Who can meet our deep desires for fulfillment.

The fulfillment of our desire is only God. Love is the answer to all we really need.

Garrigou-Lagrange reminds us that God has a right to be loved by us.

We seek the real good, we desire more than we can see and find on this earth. The entire argument for God involves not only His Attributes, but an understanding of our won nature as human.

As I wrote last year on another blog, the new evangelization must start with the basic questions-who is man, who is woman, where are we going, what is the end of life, why do we exist and so on.

But, in order to evangelize at this level, one must have some knowledge of self and Who God Is.

Herein lies the problem….

Perfection Series II on Providence

Posted by Supertradmum

Garrigou-Lagrange has a chapter on the grace of a happy death. He refers to St. Augustine’s book, Gift of Perseverance, which I have not read. It is now on my list.

This chapter speaks to one of the most common heresies of our day, heresies which are common in both England andAmerica.

The Semi-Pelagians, Protestants and Jansenists all have different views of death, as well as life. Garrigou-Lagrange does us a great favor by defining these heresies, which are so popular.

Here we go and pay attention to this post, as you most likely will encounter or have encountered people who believe in these false positions.

“The Semi-Pelagians maintained that man can have the initium fidei et salutis, the beginning of faith and a good desire apart from grace, this beginning being subsequently confirmed by God. According to their view, not God but the sinner himself takes the first step in the sinner’s conversion. On the same principles the Semi-Pelagians maintained that, once justified by grace, man can persevere until death without a further special grace. For the just to persevere unto the end, it is enough, they said, that the initium salutis, this natural good will, should persist.”

(Should I comment here that this is the case for so many Protestants, who do not believe in sanctifying grace or the sacraments, but think the initial grace of conversion is enough? See my posts on the types of grace and on converting Protestants.)

“It amounted to this, that God not only wills all men to be saved, but wills it to the same extent in every case; and further, that precisely the element which distinguishes the just from the wicked –the initium salutis and those final good dispositions which are to be found in one and not in another, in Peter and not in Judas—is not to be referred to God as its author; He is simply an onlooker.”

“It meant the rejection of the mystery of predestination and the ignoring of those words of our Lord: ‘No man can come to Me, except the Father, who sent me, draw him’ (John 6:44), words that apply both to the initial and to the final impulse of our hearts to God.”

All our thoughts for goodness and all our desires for God are from God and not ourselves.

Continuing, Garrigou-Lagrange notes that St. Augustine makes it clear that “prevenient grace cannot be merited or in any way be due to a purely natural good impulse, since the principle of merit is sanctifying grace, and this, as its very name implies, is a gratuitous gift….”

So, too, the grace of final perseverance is a gift, a special gift, as Garrigou-Lagrange notes referring to St. Augustine. This is a gift of mercy, given to the elect.

Now, here is the area which some people find difficult. And, in the future, I shall unpack Garrigou-Lagrange’s book,Predestination, which this section anticipates.

The Council of Trent makes it clear that God makes it possible for all people to be saved and observe His precepts, and in fact, helps the elect persevere to the end.

God does will a great good for one over another. There are “levels of holiness” according to our own make-up, our unique souls and unique bodies. But, God never asks the impossible and gives to all what is needed for salvation.

The Second Council of Orange used St. Augustine’s arguments against the Semi-Pelagians. “Thus it remains true,”notes Garrigou-Lagrange, “that the grace of a happy death is a special grace peculiar to the elect.”

Now, some Protestants err on the opposite end of this false thinking.  This is the belief that God, indeed, asks for the impossible. The heresy of Jansenism falls into this error, of thinking that certain of God’s commandments are impossible, even for the elect, as they are denied graces to do certain things.

To think that God would ask or even command the impossible is a common thought among some Catholics today, who tolerate serious sin in their own or others’ lives, thinking that is all these people can do, or achieve. They are denying God’s justice and His mercy--His Providence.

I have heard people say, “Catholicism is too hard” as if God is not standing there giving grace to live up to the life of discipleship. If God does not give us sufficient grace to be saved, then human liberty or freedom is impaired as well.

What flows from this error are these fallacies: 1) sin cannot be avoided; 2) sin no longer exists as humans cannot choose; 3) there is no hell.

We have heard these arguments lately, have we not, from certain famous theologians? In their denial of hell, they deny both human liberty and God’s sufficient graces. The fallacy which follows is that of sola fide, maintaining that good works are totally impossible and unnecessary for salvation. I know many people who actually believe this.

There is no hope. There is only presumption, points out Garrigou-Lagrange. “Jansenism and Protestantism, in fact, oscillate between presumption and despair, without ever being able to find true Christian hope and charity.”

So, one of the Baptists I know sins and never goes to Confession, of course, not believing in the sacraments, and thinks he is saved because of his one moment of conversion. That he drinks too much, or sleeps around, or never goes to church on Sunday does not matter.

He is saved.

Trent states the hard truth, “Whereas we should all have a steadfast hope in God, nevertheless (without a special revelation) no one can have absolute certainty that he will persevere to the end.”

Now, the following points may have never been taught to my readers before this.

 “…the principle of merit is the state of grace and perseverance in that state; but the principle of merit cannot itself be merited.” God continues grace in us, we do not. But, we cannot take this for granted.

It is a special gift to die in the state of grace.  As Garrigou-Lagrange notes, the “just must  humbly admit that they have really no right to the grace of final perseverance”.

Obviously, humility is key…the principle of merit cannot be merited. This means that the state of grace to get merit cannot be merited. Such is grace, freely given by God to us and none of our so-called meritorious acts mean anything if we are in mortal sin.

This is the sadness of those who have chosen heresy, even false religions. This is why it is our duty to be involved in evangelization.

At death, we need to be in the state of grace, we need to have lived in charity, and we need to have had our will correspond to the Will of God.

This is why we must pray for a happy death. We cannot take it for granted.

To be continued…