St. Bridget: Gratuitous predestination and thoroughly deserved reprobation.

[Xavier]

Quare, did you see Cardinal Journet's explanation of what predestination is? As to what difference it implies in you and me, Predestination entails 3 gratuitous effects with respect to the creature (1) the unmerited favor of being created (2) the unmerited grace of being granted justification (we could add being preserved in sanctifying grace) and finally (3) the unmerited gift, given freely by God because of His Goodness, of final perseverance. In this context, saintly Dominican Fr. Garrigou Lagrange mentions the gratuitous promise of the Sacred Heart to confer final perseverance on all who make the Nine First Fridays.

Predestination has pastoral, doctrinal and devotional importance. As St. Thomas says, divine predestination comes under the manifestation of divine Providence ad extra. Having a healthy confidence in divine Providence and in the merciful Love of God Who wants to save you is vital to receiving final perseverance, the great and priceless grace on which our eternal salvation depends. St. Augustine laughs at those who, not understanding the infallible efficacy of God's predestination, think that those whom God wills absolutely to save can be lost. To a Christian, it should be a great ground of confidence: if I duly labor in keeping the 9 First Fridays and related devotions to which God has promised final perseverance, He will see to it that I am confirmed in grace till the end. God has also promised the grace never to sin mortally again to those who pray the Way of the Cross frequently, or make the Double Great Novena. We know God's Providence will arrange everything accordingly.

The importance of reprobation and the great deterrent it can serve to living in unrepented sin should be evident from St. Alphonsus.

Re: "ontologically prior". No, Quare, it is not. It is only ontologically prior if reprobation ante previsa demerita is true. Ppd reprobation is the answer to the dilemma you posed. If you read Dr. Ott, citing one of the ancient Augustinian Councils, he states reprobation is consequent to and on account of foreknown mortal sins. God only wills to reprobate those who prove to be obstinate mortal sinners. He wills to save all without exception antecedently, and consequently saves all who do not exceed that predetermined number of mortal sins which He has willed to permit.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Quare, did you see Cardinal Journet's explanation of what predestination is?

Yes, he seems to equate predestination with dying in the state of grace.  If that is the case, of course, this debate is over, as there is nothing to debate.

As to what difference it implies in you and me, Predestination entails 3 gratuitous effects with respect to the creature (1) the unmerited favor of being created (2) the unmerited grace of being granted justification (we could add being preserved in sanctifying grace) and finally (3) the unmerited gift, given freely by God because of His Goodness, of final perseverance. In this context, saintly Dominican Fr. Garrigou Lagrange mentions the gratuitous promise of the Sacred Heart to confer final perseverance on all who make the Nine First Fridays.

So why isn't everyone saved?  You will bring up sin to no avail.  Either God grants the unmerited gift of persevering and dying in sanctifying grace or He does not.  Only in the case where He does not is sin even possible.

Predestination has pastoral, doctrinal and devotional importance. As St. Thomas says, divine predestination comes under the manifestation of divine Providence ad extra.

Which is garbledygook.  If it is "ad extra", it is not "God's".

Having a healthy confidence in divine Providence and in the merciful Love of God Who wants to save you is vital to receiving final perseverance, the great and priceless grace on which our eternal salvation depends.

But how can I know God wants to save me?  And everyone else?
And God wants to save me, will I infallibly be saved?
If not, of what worth is "confidence" in the Divine desire of salvation?

St. Augustine laughs at those who, not understanding the infallible efficacy of God's predestination, think that those whom God wills absolutely to save can be lost.

I will never forgive St. Augustine for what he wrote about the massa damnata coupled with his mangling of Scripture to support it.

Re: "ontologically prior". No, Quare, it is not. It is only ontologically prior if reprobation ante previsa demerita is true. Ppd reprobation is the answer to the dilemma you posed. If you read Dr. Ott, citing one of the ancient Augustinian Councils, he states reprobation is consequent to and on account of foreknown mortal sins. God only wills to reprobate those who prove to be obstinate mortal sinners. He wills to save all without exception antecedently, and consequently saves all who do not exceed that predetermined number of mortal sins which He has willed to permit.

Look.  If God's causing salvation is ontologically prior to, and a necessary and sufficient condition of salvation, then it is not the case that failure of salvation is ontologically prior to God's failure to cause it.  It doesn't matter if you don't like the consequent.  It is entailed by the antecedent.  The fact that is first in the ontological order is whether or not God causes salvation.

The Banezian Thomists therefore had to admit negative reprobation ante previsa demerita.

[Arvinger]

Re: "ontologically prior". No, Quare, it is not. It is only ontologically prior if reprobation ante previsa demerita is true. Ppd reprobation is the answer to the dilemma you posed. If you read Dr. Ott, citing one of the ancient Augustinian Councils, he states reprobation is consequent to and on account of foreknown mortal sins. God only wills to reprobate those who prove to be obstinate mortal sinners. He wills to save all without exception antecedently, and consequently saves all who do not exceed that predetermined number of mortal sins which He has willed to permit.

Predestination and reprobation both have to be either APM or PPM. It is impossible for one to be APM and the other PPM, since it denies basic logic. If God predestined His elect APM, this (election) also determined that other people will not be elect, and therefore they must be reprobate - APM predestination results in metaphysical necessity of damnation of non-elect APM, as Quare correctly pointed out number of times on this forum.

Predestination is a mystery which we will cannot fully understand - its best to leave it there.

[Vetus Ordo]

Re: "ontologically prior". No, Quare, it is not. It is only ontologically prior if reprobation ante previsa demerita is true. Ppd reprobation is the answer to the dilemma you posed. If you read Dr. Ott, citing one of the ancient Augustinian Councils, he states reprobation is consequent to and on account of foreknown mortal sins. God only wills to reprobate those who prove to be obstinate mortal sinners. He wills to save all without exception antecedently, and consequently saves all who do not exceed that predetermined number of mortal sins which He has willed to permit.

Predestination and reprobation both have to be either APM or PPM. It is impossible for one to be APM and the other PPM, since it denies basic logic. If God predestined His elect APM, this (election) also determined that other people will not be elect, and therefore they must be reprobate - APM predestination results in metaphysical necessity of damnation of non-elect APM, as Quare correctly pointed out number of times on this forum.
(...)

Obviously.

And they are APM.

Romans 9:11 et seq. proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. The objectors to this truth are those also described by the Apostle in the passage.

God dispenses His favors according to His sovereign will and pleasure. Those favors were not conferred in consequence of the merits of the individuals but according to a plan antecedent to the formation of their characters and before they had "done any good or evil" (Rom. 9:11). The favors were thus conferred according to His choice or election.

[Xavier]

Arvinger, one of the ancient Augustinian Councils states it clearly. Note the bolded. By the way, it's apm predestination and apd reprobation. All the merits the elect will have are predestined. All the demerits of the reprobate are foreknown but not predestined. Their punishment is predestined on account of their sin.

Can. 3. But also it has seemed right concerning predestination and truly it is right according to the apostolic authority which says: "Or has not the potter power over the clay, from the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor, but another unto dishonor?" [Rom. 9:21] where also he immediately adds: "What if God willing to show His wrath and to make known His power, endured with much patience vessels of wrath fitted or prepared for destruction, so that He might show the riches of His grace on the vessels of mercy, which He has prepared unto glory" [Rom. 9:22 f.]: faithfully we confess the predestination of the elect to life, and the predestination of the impious to death; in the election, moreover, of those who are to be saved, the mercy of God precedes the merited good. In the condemnation, however, of those who are to be lost, the evil which they have deserved precedes the just judgment of God. In predestination, however, (we believe) that God has determined only those things which He Himself either in His gratuitous mercy or in His just judgment would do * according to Scripture which says: "Who has done the things which are to be done" [ Is. 4 5:11, LXX]; in regard to evil men, however, we believe that God foreknew their malice, because it is from them, but that He did not predestine it, because it is not from Him. (We believe) that God, who sees all things, foreknew and predestined that their evil deserved the punishment which followed, because He is just, in whom, as Saint Augustine says, there is concerning all things everywhere so fixed a decree as a certain predestination. To this indeed he applies the saying of Wisdom: "Judgments are prepared for scorners, and striking hammers for the bodies of fools" [Prov. 19:29]. Concerning this unchangeableness of the foreknowledge of the predestination of God, through which in Him future things have already taken place, even in Ecclesiastes the saying is well understood: "I know that all the works which God has made continue forever. We cannot add anything, nor take away those things which God has made that He may be feared" [ Eccles. 3:14]. "But we do not only not believe the saying that some have been predestined to evil by divine power," namely as if they could not be different, "but even if there are those who wish to believe such malice, with all detestation," as the Synod of Orange, "we say anathema to them" [see n. 200].

The fact that the Councils distinguish the wicked foreknown as reprobate, and reprobated on account of foreknown sins which precedes the manifestation of Divine Justice, and the elect as predestined by pure grace, in whom Divine Mercy precedes the merited good, shows you are mistaken. The opinion hat apm predestination entails apd reprobation is one reason the question is still disputed, but it rests on a subtle fallacy. Try putting it as a syllogism.

In St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, Cardinal Journet, the solution is already clear. And Fr. Most wrote a good work recently, which shows apm predestination and ppd reprobation go together and is the true teaching of Popes, Councils, Saints, Father, Doctors and Mystics of both East and West.

This is the real syllogism, briefly: 1. Cause always precedes effect. 2. But, predestined merits are caused by God. (3) Therefore, God's predestination "precedes the merited good" 4. But, briefly, foreknown mortal sins are cause of man's reprobation. i.e. "the evil which they have deserved precedes the just judgment" of God. 5. Therefore, God's reprobation is consequent to these foreknown mortal sins and on account of them, "God, who sees all things, foreknew and predestined that their evil deserved the punishment which followed, because He is just" Man's evil first, God's Just punishment next. God's Mercy first, man's good works and merits next.

Thomistic Metaphysics is the only school able to provide the solution, because Thomism alone (see +Journet) treats in sufficient detail the metaphysical difference between good and evil acts, begins with the physical premotion that God is He "in Whom we live and move and are" (Acts 17:28) etc. Btw, Banez was mistaken about negative reprobation and there is no need to hypothesize such a thing. St. Alphonsus represents the true continuation of hte Thomistic Tradition in teaching consequent reprobation, and proves from many authorities of both Scripture and Tradition that divine reprobation is consequent to personal mortal sins.

Quare, the sequence is as follows: for sin, btw, man's evil will is a necessary condition and in his power to determine. Man is first cause and creator of evil.

Predestination: The pure Mercy of God===>Justification===>Several merits===>the free gift of perseverance
Reprobation: Man freely commits several Mortal Sins==>Leading up to final impenitence==>Eternal condemnation.

What begins the predestination sequence? God. What begins the reprobation sequence? Man. Who is first cause of good? God. Who is first cause of evil? Man.

And therein lies the difference between gratuitous predestination of the elect, and foreknown reprobation of the wicked, on account of their mortal sins.

Btw, you asked how you can be sure of receiving final perseverance. Simple. You can make the Nine First Fridays. Or Five First Saturdays.

All Catholics can do this freely and easily, hence by this too God makes it manifest His antecedent will excludes no one. All who persevere in prayer will be saved.

When we spend time before the Eucharist, we know by experience that God is Infinite Love and desires to save us all. Say yes to Him.

All these things are plainly taught by the Doctors. Since you are a Catholic, you know God has already predestined you to grace. He is preparing you to inherit glory.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Obviously.

And they are APM.

Romans 9:11 et seq. proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. The objectors to this truth are those also described by the Apostle in the passage.

Ah, yes, Scriptural proof-texting combined with the old argumentum ad baculum. 

God dispenses His favors according to His sovereign will and pleasure. Those favors were not conferred in consequence of the merits of the individuals but according to a plan antecedent to the formation of their characters and before they had "done any good or evil" (Rom. 9:11). The favors were thus conferred according to His choice or election.

But you don't know what it really means, in itself, for God to have a "sovereign will", "pleasure", a "plan", or a "choice".  You're simply grafting human concepts applicable to humans onto God.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Arvinger, one of the ancient Augustinian Councils states it clearly. Note the bolded. By the way, it's apm predestination and apd reprobation. All the merits the elect will have are predestined. All the demerits of the reprobate are foreknown but not predestined. Their punishment is predestined on account of their sin.

This is a regional Council, and not a Council for the whole Church like the Council of Orange.  You should not misrepresent it as such.  All it proves is that theologians are often filled with zeal and pious sentiment and educated in philosophy and metaphysics but lacking in logic and critical thought.  Frankly, so are you, because the logical problem has been pointed out countless times, and you just completely ignore it, brush all logical arguments under the rug, and bring up another citation from wherever. 

If "predestined" means "predetermined", then if the merits of the elect are predetermined, and such predetermination is a necessary as well as sufficient condition for those merits, then indeed the demerits of the reprobate are predetermined as well as foreknown, by logical necessity.  If you refuse to admit this then you have simply thrown logic out the window.

Put simply, if there is a prior decision by God NOT to give to someone the Beatific Vision, then it is absolutely metaphysically impossible that it be obtained.  In the case of those who have reached the use of reason, since the only possible fates are the Beatific Vision or hell, it is metaphysically necessary that he go to hell.

The fact that the Councils distinguish the wicked foreknown as reprobate, and reprobated on account of foreknown sins which precedes the manifestation of Divine Justice, and the elect as predestined by pure grace, in whom Divine Mercy precedes the merited good, shows you are mistaken.

So just what is the status of one not predestined, but before he sins?

The opinion hat apm predestination entails apd reprobation is one reason the question is still disputed, but it rests on a subtle fallacy. Try putting it as a syllogism.

No, it doesn't.  The only way out of this is to appeal to "negative" vs. "positive" reprobation, which doesn't work, since negative reprobation entails positive reprobation in the case of adults.

In St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, Cardinal Journet, the solution is already clear. And Fr. Most wrote a good work recently, which shows apm predestination and ppd reprobation go together and is the true teaching of Popes, Councils, Saints, Father, Doctors and Mystics of both East and West.

Fr. Most and Cardinal Journet mean something else by "apm predestination" than you do.  They mean that all are predestined to receive all the necessary graces.

This is the real syllogism, briefly: 1. Cause always precedes effect. 2. But, predestined merits are caused by God. (3) Therefore, God's predestination "precedes the merited good" 4. But, briefly, foreknown mortal sins are cause of man's reprobation. i.e. "the evil which they have deserved precedes the just judgment" of God. 5. Therefore, God's reprobation is consequent to these foreknown mortal sins and on account of them, "God, who sees all things, foreknew and predestined that their evil deserved the punishment which followed, because He is just" Man's evil first, God's Just punishment next. God's Mercy first, man's good works and merits next....

Thomistic Metaphysics is the only school able to provide the solution, because Thomism alone (see +Journet) treats in sufficient detail the metaphysical difference between good and evil acts, begins with the physical premotion that God is He "in Whom we live and move and are" (Acts 17:28) etc.

It's those very same Thomistic metaphysics which refute you.  Evil (such as mortal sin) is the privation of a due good.  Thus, foreknown mortal sins are the result of God's failing to will such due good, which is ontologically prior to the sin and entails the sin.  Saying the sinner is the "cause" of the sin is an exercise in sophistry, because being such a cause is metaphysically necessary and entailed if God fails to will the due good.

[Michael Wilson]

we believe that God foreknew their malice, because it is from them, but that He did not predestine it, because it is not from Him. (We believe) that God, who sees all things, foreknew and predestined that their evil deserved the punishment which followed, because He is just, in whom, as Saint Augustine says, there is concerning all things everywhere so fixed a decree as a certain

The way I read this declaration from the Council, is that it states that God does not predestine any man to evil, so that it would contradict APM reprobation.
The rest of the quote from the same Council appear to confirm this:

  "But we do not only not believe the saying that some have been predestined to evil by divine power," namely as if they could not be different, "but even if there are those who wish to believe such malice, with all detestation," as the Synod of Orange, "we say anathema to them" [see n. 200].

The Council strikes with anathema those who state that not only men have been predestined to evil by divine power, but also that men that are or were evil, could not have been otherwise.

[Xavier]

This is a regional Council, and not a Council for the whole Church like the Council of Orange.

The Council of Orange was a regional Augustinian Council presided over by St. Caesarius of Arles, just like the Third Council of Valence in 855 from which I quoted was a regional Augustinian Council. Orange has special authority because Ecumenical Councils have later adopted its canons. It is likely the Third Council of Valence will likewise have its canons raised to dogmatic status one day. Dr. Ott mentions the two points I mentioned as already entirely certain, that God predestines purely gratuitously but reprobates deservedly.

If "predestined" means "predetermined"

Predetermination means, as explained, what God "either in His gratuitous Mercy (antecedent)" or "in His just judgment (consequent)" would do, the one preceding and the other following man's actions. God cannot be first cause of evil, so an evil action cannot be predetermined. But only God can be first cause of good, which follows from Divine Simplicity, so no good action can be not-predestined.

then if the merits of the elect are predetermined, and such predetermination is a necessary as well as sufficient condition for those merits

Hold it right there. You are trying to attribute to me a view I do not hold. There are two necessary and sufficient conditions for a supernaturally good act (1) God grants His grace (2) Man does all that lies in his natural power. After this, God infallibly brings about the effect. So that, the true doctrine, as +Journet states is, "The traditional doctrine, the only one rooted in Revelation, has not yet been defined because there still remain certain questions to elucidate. But the definition will come, already the general line is clear: human action is subordinated to the divine action. It is not only God and man, grace and freedom, but God through man, grace through freedom, that does the good act. Is the rose produced by the rose-tree? Or by God? Or else partly by God, partly by the rose-tree? We must say: the rose is produced wholly by the rose-tree as secondary cause, and wholly by God as first cause, the enveloping cause. God gives the rose-tree the ability to produce the rose. God, acting on the rose-tree to make it produce the rose, does not diminish, but rather enriches, it."

What are the two necessary and sufficient conditions for the evil act. On the part of man, there is only one in fact, namely (1) the free-willed decision to sin mortally - clearly an act that imposes or implies no metaphysical necessity on the part of the sinning subject whatsoever. But we will add the second condition for sufficiency, that God without Whose permissive will not even a sparrow would fall to the ground, must permit the deed and not, say, strike him dead, or prevent the sin in some other way. So (2) God's permissive will.

Put simply, if there is a prior decision by God NOT to give to someone the Beatific Vision, then it is absolutely metaphysically impossible that it be obtained.

But this is precisely the fallible opinion among some (like Banez) that I and Cardinal Journet reject. Some make it sound as if God arbitrarily chose, say, 30% or 50% or whatever of humanity and so arbitrarily chose to reject the rest. That's false. See below. Two examples will help illustrate: The antecedent predestination of Mother Mary, and the consequent reprobation of that traitor Judas. God did predestine even His Mother antecedent to Her merit and causing all Her merits. He reprobated Judas consequently. The predestination of Mary, far from necessitating the perdition of Judas, in actual fact was his means of escape from it.

So just what is the status of one not predestined, but before he sins?

Call him a reprobate. His status is the same as any man, God wills to save him, and it is possible (his reprobation not by any means a metaphysical necessity, but only an unfortunate foreknown contingency, consequent upon his freely chosen mortal sins) he be saved.

Cardinal Journet mean something else by "apm predestination" than you do.  They mean that all are predestined to receive all the necessary graces.

All will indeed receive all necessary graces to be saved. I remind you +Journet is firmly Thomistic in approach "There are two schools of thought on this. One is that of St Thomas Aquinas which, through St Augustine, derives from St Paul—the great traditionalist school."

It's those very same Thomistic metaphysics which refute you.  Evil (such as mortal sin) is the privation of a due good.

Stop right there. Mortal sin is not merely the privation of a good (being called to martyrdom, a high perfection, but not co-operating may be a "privation of a good") but mortal sin is a pure and positive evil. It is a creation of man. And the rest of the syllogism collapse.

I will post about the Predestination of the Mother of God later. Here is the foreknown consequent reprobation of Judas, the criminal and reprobate who committed high treason against his King and God, described by Ven. Mary of Agreda: (edit - next post)

[Xavier]

Judas' perfidious treason is admirably described by Ven. Mary of Agreda, "During these words and prayers of the Author of life Judas advanced in order to give the signal upon which he had agreed with his companions (Matth. 26, 48), namely the customary, but now feigned kiss of peace, by which they were to distinguish Jesus as the One whom they should single out from the rest and immediately seize. These precautions the unhappy disciple had taken, not only out of avarice for the money and hatred against his Master, but also, on account of the fear with which he was filled. For he dreaded the inevitable necessity of meeting Him and encountering Him in the future, if Christ was not put to death on this occasion. Such a confusion he feared more than the death of his soul, or the death of his divine Master, and, in order to forestall it, he hastened to complete his treachery and desired to see the Author of life die at the hands of his enemies. The traitor then ran up to the meekest Lord, and, as a consummate hypocrite hiding his hatred, he imprinted on his countenance the kiss of peace, saying: "God save Thee, Master." By this so treacherous act the perdition of Judas was matured and God was justified in withholding his grace and help. On the part of the unfaithful disciple, malice and temerity reached their highest degree; for, interiorly denying or disbelieving the uncreated and created wisdom by which Christ must know of his treason, and ignoring his power to destroy him, he sought to hide his malice under the cloak of the friendship of a true disciple; and all this for the purpose of delivering over to such a frightful and cruel death his Creator and Master, to whom he was bound by so many obligations. In this one act of treason he committed so many and such formidable sins, that it is impossible to fathom their immensity; for he was treacherous, murderous, sacrilegious, ungrateful, inhuman, disobedient, false, lying, impious and unequalled in hypocrisy; and all this was included in one and the same crime perpetrated against the person of God made Man.

... In the measure in which the children of malice increased their irreverence and injuries, She sought to compensate them by her praise and veneration. Thus She continued to placate the Divine Justice, lest it be roused against His persecutors and destroy them; for only most holy Mary was capable of staying the punishment of such great offenses.

And the great Lady not only placated the just Judge, but even obtained favors and blessings from the divine clemency for the very persons who irritated Him and thus secured a return of good for those who were heaping wrongs upon Christ the Lord for his doctrine and benefits. This mercy attained its highest point in the disloyal and obstinate Judas; for the tender Mother, seeing him deliver Jesus by the kiss of feigned friendship and considering how shortly before his mouth had contained the sacramental body of the Lord, with whose sacred countenance so soon after those same foul lips were permitted to come in contact, was transfixed with sorrow and entranced by charity. She asked the Lord to grant new graces, whereby this man, who had enjoyed the privilege of touching the face whereon angels desire to look, might, if he chose to use them, save himself from perdition. In response to this prayer of most holy Mary, her Son and Lord granted Judas powerful graces in the very consummation of his treacherous delivery. If the unfortunate man had given heed and had commenced to respond to them, the Mother of mercy would have obtained for him many others and at last also pardon for his sin. She has done so with many other great sinners, who were willing to give that glory to Her and thus obtain eternal glory for themselves. But Judas failed to realize this and thus lost all chance of salvation, as I shall relate in the next chapter."

How, pray tell, was his reprobation on account of these mortal sins an alleged "metaphysical necessity"? Answer: it was not. It was freely chosen and deserved.

God only reprobates souls after they prove hopelessly obstinate and wicked, as the case of Judas and the Lord's patience with him proves.

Thus, the Mother of God concludes, telling Ven. Mary of Agreda, "Estimate then, and weigh within thy soul, how important is the eternal predestination or reprobation of souls ... By this conflict He manifests to us the importance and gravity of the matter under consideration, He prolonged His supplications and prayers to his eternal Father and his love for men caused his most precious blood to ooze forth from his body on perceiving, that the malice of men would make them unworthy of participation in the benefits of his death. The Lord my Son has indeed justified his cause in thus having lavished his love and his merits without measure for the purchase of man's salvation; and likewise the eternal Father has justified Himself in presenting to the world such a remedy and in having made it possible for each one freely to reach out for such widely different lots, as death and life, fire and water (Eccli. 15, 71)."