Predestination

[Cesar_Augustus]

St. John wasn't attempting to explain the theological mechanism of the truths he was presenting. He said enough to inspire the soul, elevate the mind, and arouse the intellect, but "how" was beyond the scope of his writings. His writings answered the "what" and inspired meditation of the "why," but they weren't in any way intended to treat of the "how." Theologically, these are very different questions. I can know that God is triune, understand why it is that He is triune, but not know how, metaphysically, He is (and must be) triune.

I'm not sure where you get this distinction.

In any case, it fails in this instance when the subject is predestination. If someone reads the works of neo-scholastic theologians on the subject of predestination, but he can't make heads or tails of what they're saying, then they have failed to explain the "what" and the "why" as well as the "how."

Predestination is an essential dogma of the Faith. Every Catholic should know the teaching on predestination, love the teaching on predestination, and embrace the implications of the teaching.

Unfortunately, that description does not fit even 1 Catholic in 1,000 today. So there has been a complete and utter failure to transmit the truth of the Faith. A total breakdown in the teaching authority.

And it's not the fault of "modernists." They don't give two hoots about predestination one way or the other. Someone else is responsible for the loss of one of the essential dogmas of the Faith.

Maybe, around time of the De Auxiliis controversy, or some decades after?

[Non Nobis]

Maximilian,

Just because something is confusing to one person doesn't mean it is confusing to another, or confusing even with further study, or confusing in itself.

Do you think that no one has ever been confused by pondering deeply on the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, Creation from nothing, the Immaculate Conception, or other mysteries of our Faith?

Do you think study of theological principles is utterly useless in helping us study and become less confused by what does confuse us at first?

I think the Church's praise for St. Thomas' principles and scholasticism makes clear that such an attitude is wrong.

Yes modernistic writing is confusing, but it also doesn't make sense in itself, further study or not.

Even the fact that St. Francis de Sales and even Molina grappled with the notions of predestination shows that perhaps they are worth grappling with rather than abandoning them immediately because they are "confusing".

ETA. 

The fact that people get too caught up in the intellectual mystery and become disturbed shows the deepness and difficulty of the topic.  If one is disturbed then it may very wise for him to discontinue study (at least for a time).  The same thing would be true of the study of the Trinity at the depth at which St. Thomas considers it. Not all men have the intellectual capacity of a theologian such as Garrigou Lagrange, but they shouldn't despise those who do.

[Maximilian]

And it's not the fault of "modernists." They don't give two hoots about predestination one way or the other. Someone else is responsible for the loss of one of the essential dogmas of the Faith.

Maybe, around time of the De Auxiliis controversy, or some decades after?

Yes.

[JubilateDeo]

I am fairly well read in philosophy, theology, thomism etc., and it's a bit embarrassing to say this, but I simply cannot make heads or tails of what they are trying to say with respect to Predestination, except in the most general way.   

That's not a very good sign, is it? Catholic doctrine should not be difficult to understand. Mysterious, yes, but totally opposed to modern philosophy which cloaks its lack of veracity in an impenetrable jargon.

I once studied deconstructionist philosophy, and the fact that it was incomprehensible convinced me that it must be evil, and that I should flee from it.

If anything presents itself as Catholic doctrine, but you can't make heads or tails of it, then there is something fundamentally wrong, not with you, but with the teaching.

I don't know.....I never could make sense of Carmelite spirituality.  They seem very bad at articulating what they're about when you compare them to say, the Franciscans or the Dominicans.  What is Carmel?  The answer is always too vague for me.  It makes no sense.  But that doesn't mean that Carmelite spirituality is bad, it just means that I don't get it--most likely because I'm not called to it.

[Maximilian]

Just because something is confusing to one person doesn't mean it is confusing to another, or confusing even with further study, or confusing in itself.

Predestination is an essential dogma of the faith that must be understood by every Catholic. If understanding predestination is something that is open only to an elite club of specialists in esoteric studies, then it is not a Catholic dogma.

Do you think that no one has ever been confused by pondering deeply on the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, Creation from nothing, the Immaculate Conception, or other mysteries of our Faith?

No, I don't think anyone has become confused by pondering on those things. These are truths of the Faith upon which we should meditate deeply. It's not "pondering" that causes confusion. You can read the article in Cesar Augustus' reference to see the actual way in which confusion comes about.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04238a.htm

Do you think study of theological principles is utterly useless in helping us study and become less confused by what does confuse us at first?

It is useless and causes confusion whenever the natural is mistaken for the supernatural, the worldly is mistaken for the other-wordly, rational thought is substituted for the inspirations of the Holy Ghost.

Some years ago I was reading a book (it might have been "The Twelve Steps to Holiness"), and as I read each chapter I was thinking, "I get an F for this one, and an F for this one." Then as I approached the chapter on "Knowledge," I thought "Well at least I will get an "A" on this one." But instead I got another "F."

Because the chapter explained that true Knowledge does not come from books. We cannot get the Knowledge that belongs to the Holy Ghost through academic study. Reading does not add to our store of real Knowledge.

I think the Church's praise for St. Thomas' principles and scholasticism makes clear that such an attitude is wrong.

Unlike most Catholics today, the Church back in the days when it would praise the philosophy of St. Thomas, used to understand for what it was useful and what it was not. The study of car mechanics can be praised when it fulfills its purpose of fixing cars. But it would be foolish and useful to use that praise as the basis for going to see a car mechanic when you need a heart operation.

Yes modernistic writing is confusing, but it also doesn't make sense in itself, further study or not.

Neither do modern approaches to predestination. After decades of violent controversy, the pope in 1607 called a halt to all further disputation, and said that the Holy See would eventually issue a decision. We've been waiting for over 400 years now.

Even the fact that St. Francis de Sales and even Molina grappled with the notions of predestination shows that perhaps they are worth grappling with rather than abandoning them immediately because they are "confusing".

I'm not sure why you say "even Molina." Molina's theories were condemned on several occasions.

Regarding St. Francis de Sales, however, I believe he is being misrepresented. In his "Treatise on the Love of God," he had no trouble presenting his views in a simple, straightforward way that was easy to understand and which avoided controversy.

And for that matter, St. Thomas himself writes about predestination in simple, direct language. It's his "explainers" who write books that no one can make heads or tails of.

It's not the doctrine of predestination that should be abandoned. I've already said that this is a dogma which is essential for salvation and must be known and loved and embraced by every Catholic. It's the scholastics who write dissertations on topics they themselves don't understand who cause confusion. And who write from a spirit of party politics rather than love of God, as is demonstrated in the link above.

[Maximilian]

I don't know.....I never could make sense of Carmelite spirituality.  They seem very bad at articulating what they're about when you compare them to say, the Franciscans or the Dominicans.  What is Carmel?  The answer is always too vague for me.  It makes no sense.  But that doesn't mean that Carmelite spirituality is bad, it just means that I don't get it--most likely because I'm not called to it.

This is a false comparison.

Three Carmelite writers immediately come to mind off the top of my head -- St. Theresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, and St. Therese of Lisieux. None of them are the least bit confusing. To compare their writings to those of academic theologians is simply perverse in the way it stands reality on its head.

St. Theresa of Avila is world-famous for the quality of her writing. She is studied by non-Catholics in Spanish departments everywhere around the world for the clearness of her writing. She explains the spiritual life in the most direct, least confusing way possible. Everyone has agreed on this for hundreds of years now. I'm very surprised that you would take exception to such a well-established fact. The claim that she is "very bad at articulating what she is about" does not stand up to the most elementary scrutiny.

St. John of the Cross is more difficult because his concepts are more profound, but his language is not at all academic or convoluted. Reading him is not profitable except for those who have made a certain amount of progress in the spiritual life, but that is because of the content of what he is explaining, not because he is trying to win points for his political party against the party of his opponents, like so many of the writers on the subject of predestination.

St. Therese of Lisieux, of course, is world famous for her ability to convey supernatural topics in simple terms. I myself have read aloud her "Story of A Soul" to children on several occasions. I am mystified on what basis you claim to be able to make a comparison between her writing style and that of Garrigou-Lagrange. I can assure you that I have never considered reading Garrigou-Lagrange aloud to children.

[Chestertonian]

i always pictured max's kids begging for one more page from garrigoulage's commentary on yhe summa...in Latin of course

[Maximilian]

i always pictured max's kids begging for one more page from garrigoulage's commentary on yhe summa...in Latin of course

lol Don't I wish.

[Lydia Purpuraria]

Perhaps slightly off-topic, but:

Several years ago I came across an online pdf of Donald P. Goodman III's, A Layman's Guide to Thomistic Salvation.  Unfortunately it is not available online in its entirety anymore, that I have found, but I thought it explained things very well and it was very beneficial as an aid to my understanding. 

Does anyone else know a working link to this online?  I do have it printed out and have considered typing it out and posting it before- but you know, kids and time and stuff. lol.

[Baldrick]

Hi Lydia!  I cannot find it via google.  Might you be willing to post the pdf?  Or if you only have a printed version, might you be willing to scan it?   

Thanks everyone for the excellent discussion and explanations.  I'm now slowly working my way through "de veritate" - and I'll return to Garrigou-Lagrange after having done so. 

[Lydia Purpuraria]

Hi Lydia!  I cannot find it via google.  Might you be willing to post the pdf?  Or if you only have a printed version, might you be willing to scan it?   

Thanks everyone for the excellent discussion and explanations.  I'm now slowly working my way through "de veritate" - and I'll return to Garrigou-Lagrange after having done so.

I will certainly try to scan it (I only have the printed version as the pdf links are broken).  I have a curious condition with my printer/scanner where pages scan but then they are lost and never found again.  I haven't messed with it for a while because it just got on my nerves, but if I am able to get it to work I will certainly scan and post.

[Baldrick]

well, please don't cause yourself any stress! 

[Lydia Purpuraria]

well, please don't cause yourself any stress!

LOL.  No, I should really get it working - it's in the basement so out of sight out of mind, but it would be nice to have it working - so it will give me a good reason to mess with it again (and maybe I have grown in patience by now  )

[Lydia Purpuraria]

Hi Lydia!  I cannot find it via google.  Might you be willing to post the pdf?  Or if you only have a printed version, might you be willing to scan it?   

Thanks everyone for the excellent discussion and explanations.  I'm now slowly working my way through "de veritate" - and I'll return to Garrigou-Lagrange after having done so.

I found my printed version, so I will skim it to see if it deals with your question (I thought it touched on predestination, but so far I'm not so sure that it does).  I'll also see if I can get the scanner to work.

In the meantime, I remembered this link that does deal with the different "schools of thought" on predestination that you may find helpful (if you haven't seen this before already):
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_015.htm

[Maximilian]

In the meantime, I remembered this link that does deal with the different "schools of thought" on predestination that you may find helpful (if you haven't seen this before already):
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_015.htm

Poor Fr. Hardon is doing his best to find a way through this minefield, but ultimately what does his report amount to except a history of theological squabbles that are very disedifying?

The chapter is titled "Analysis of Efficacious Grace," but what is analysis but a dissection? It's like trying to learn to love your cat or dog better by cutting them open to find out how they work. "The operation was a success, but the patient died."

In the case of predestination, after all these "analyses" by so many theologians and churchmen, the body has been cut to pieces and the patient is cold and dead. Who could say after reading Fr. Hardon's explanation, "Now I truly understand predestination, and I glorify God for having ordained it"?

The article by Fr. Hardon does no more than explain some of the historical background to this failure. In no way does it help to remedy the failure either in the grand historical scheme of things or in the case of the individual Catholic who reads Fr. Hardon's work because he wants to know his Faith.

Here is a simple way to look at the issue:

If predestination is an essential dogma of the Faith, then every single Catholic needs to understand it in order to get to heaven. How are we doing on that score?

I would say complete and utter failure. Here is the situation as far as I can tell:

1. The vast majority of nominal Catholics don't even have a clue what the word "predestination" means.

2. The vast majority of Catholics who know what predestination is believe that it is a Calvinist heresy.

3. The very small number of Catholics who realize that predestination is a Catholic dogma believe that it refers only to God's foreknowledge.

4. The miniscule proportion of Catholics who are aware that predestination is Catholic dogma and that it consists of more than foreknowledge are led astray into the fever swamps of theological squabbles which have never been resolved over the past 400 years.

5. Those few brave souls who wish to soldier on and discover the truth of this Catholic doctrine are warned away and cautioned that it is dangerous even to approach the subject.

6. The small handful of theological experts who have made a special study of the subject are unable to come to any conclusions, remain confused on the issue, and transmit that confusion to their readers, often in the disguise of technical jargon and academic writing that pretends to an understanding that in actuality is lacking.

7. That leaves precisely no one who knows and loves and embraces the Catholic teaching on predestination. And if such a one comes along occasionally, he is immediately denounced as a heretic by adherents of one school or another.

So who is going to get to heaven this way?