Started by Bernadette, May 31, 2023, 06:23:41 AM
QuoteAs I'm sure you're undoubtedly aware, when we discuss the "Thomistic System/View" in the context of grace, what is referred to is the system developed by the commentators of St. Thomas. Particularly the Dominicans.
Quote from: james03 on June 12, 2023, 02:28:30 PMI'm not talking about Divine Providence nor pre-destination. Those cites are non-sequiturs. I'm a predestinationist. For example, if by Divine Providence a man does not receive Sanctifying Grace, infallibly he is not saved.At issue is the false term "efficacious". As if there are graces from God that are not efficacious. ALL GRACE accomplishes its purpose. It is up to man to choose to cooperate or not. However his free will choice is incorporated into Divine Providence. God can't make a circle a square at the same time because that would be a lie, and He is Truth. He can't make men with free will, and have them not have free will. Thus free will is according to His purpose. And since God is outside of time, all reality is forever before Him in the present and according to His Sovereign Plan.
Quote from: james03 on June 12, 2023, 02:31:17 PMQuoteAs I'm sure you're undoubtedly aware, when we discuss the "Thomistic System/View" in the context of grace, what is referred to is the system developed by the commentators of St. Thomas. Particularly the Dominicans.Then call it the Dominican view.
QuoteI. On sufficient graceThesis 30. In the state of fallen nature grace truly and purely sufficient isgiven, not only absolutely but also relatively.286. Definition of terms. In the state o f fallen nature, the state in which we now are, that is, in the state of nature fallen into original sin and restored by Christ the Redeemer, but burdened with concupiscence. For the Jansenists conceded truly sufficient grace to the angels before they sinned, and to our parents in the state of innocence, but they denied it to fallen man.It is given, at least some times, according to what we said about the universality of grace in theses 13-15. When we speak about the help of sufficient grace to perform salvific acts, it is clear that this applied only to adults.Truly sufficient grace is called the help by which a man is made capable of eliciting salvific acts. It is proximately sufficient if it is completely and immediately capable; but it is remotely sufficient if, because of the good use of some grace, v.gr., prayer, it can arrive at new salvific acts.Purely sufficient grace is said to be that which does not obtain its effect. For truly sufficient grace can be considered in a prescinding way or negatively:a) In a prescinding way, inasmuch as it confers a true sufficiency to act in a salutary manner, while prescinding from whether or not it actually achieves its effect. For this reason it is opposed to insufficient grace, and it can be efficacious or inefficacious.b) Negatively, inasmuch as it confers a true sufficiency to act in a salvific way, but de facto the effect does not take place. For this reason it is opposed to efficacious grace, and it is called purely sufficient.Truly sufficient grace is said to be:a) Absolutely sufficient: a grace which, according to nature alone, prescinding from the present circumstances of the man to whom it is given, confers the power of acting in a salvific manner.b) Relatively sufficient: a grace which confers that power, considering also the present circumstances of the man, especially his irregular concupiscence.We assert in the thesis that graces are given, which are truly sufficient to act in a salvific way, but which remain purely sufficient because of the resistance of the human will.287. Adversaries. 1) The Protestants deny that there is a purely sufficient grace, since they hold that every grace is efficacious. Therefore if someone does not act in a salvific manner, that is due to a lack of grace that is not given.2) Jansen distinguished a twofold help of God: a necessary help of God, and a simple help. The former was given in the state of innocent nature, the latter in the state of fallen nature. In this last state, man does not have freedom from necessity, but necessarily follows the greater delight— earthly or heavenly. If the heavenly delight is greater than the earthly delight, it infallibly produces a supernatural act; this is called a great grace, victorious, giving not only absolute power, but also relative power, and this is efficacious grace. But if the heavenly delight is less, it does not produce the act, because it was not sufficient to overcome the earthly delight; this is a small grace, vanquished, giving absolute power, not relative, and it must be said to be insufficient grace (although it is absolutely sufficient). Therefore there is no place remaining for grace that is truly and merely sufficient, with a sufficiency that is not only absolute but also relative. Some Jansenists spoke about a small grace, but which would be sufficient and most sufficient; but they understood this to be about absolute sufficiency, not about relative.288. Doctrine of the Church. Orange (D 397), Valence (D 627), Later an IV (D 802) testify that man enjoys truly sufficient grace to act in a salvific manner, but that he freely refuses to do it.Trent, s.6 ch.5 (D 1525), acknowledges the grace, which is necessary so that a man can prepare himself for justification (truly sufficient grace), but which a man can resist (grace which is not efficacious). S.6 eh. 11, cn. 18 and cn.23 (D 1536-1539, 1568, 1573) defines that a just man can always observe all the commandments because of God's grace (truly sufficient grace), but that he can also sin (grace which is not efficacious). Therefore in these definitions a truly and purely sufficient grace is implicitly contained.Innocent X condemned the propositions of Jansen (D 200 If.). From the condemnation of the first proposition it follow that the just always have grace by which they can keep the commandments: this is a grace that is truly sufficient. From the second proposition the just can resist this grace and sin: so grace is not always efficacious. Therefore there is a grace that is truly and purely sufficient. It is clear that there he is talking about relatively sufficient grace, which Jansen denied.Alexander VIII taught against the Jansenists that purely sufficient grace is a gift of God (D 2306).Clement XI condemned the proposition of Quesnel which contained a denial of purely sufficient grace (D 2419-2429).Pius VI condemned similar views against the Synod of Pistoia (D 2621).Vatican I s.3 eh.3 (D 3010) acknowledged the grace of faith, which can be purely sufficient.Theological note. Defined divine and Catholic faith.289. Proof from Holy Scripture. It is certain that God did whatever was necessary on his part so that men might produce salvific fruits, which however sometimes they did not do. But they would not be able to produce salvific fruits, unless God gave them truly sufficient grace, even relative. Therefore, also in the state of fallen nature graces are given that are truly and purely sufficient.The major: It is illustrated by various passages of Scripture: a) From Isa. 5:1-7: where, under the parable of vineyard, the solicitude of God for men is described and also their iniquity.1 For there the prophet speaks aboutinternal grace: for this was necessary to accomplish the works which God expected of the Israelites (see v.7 and 18-20, and thesis 1). It is a matterof purely sufficient grace: because de facto the Israelites did not produce the fruit that God expected (v.7). On the other hand, the grace was trulysufficient, even relatively: for God did not have to do anything more on his part, but he would have, if he had not given them grace that is truly sufficient also relatively (see v.1-2, nothing was lacking in the vineyard; v. 2, therefore he expected some fruits; v.4, what more should I have done;add that otherwise God would be reprehending the Israelites unjustly), b) From Matt. 11:21: Chorazin and Bethsaida are judged very severely, because they refused to believe, while those in Tyre and Sidon, given the same grace, would have believed. There it is a matter of internal grace(not just miracles): because without that grace their conversion would have been impossible, nor could they be condemned because of a failure to convert. It is a matter of purely sufficient grace: because de facto they did not repent. It is a matter of truly sufficient grace, also relatively: because otherwise they could not be punished because they did not do penance, for they had a true excuse.290. Proof from tradition. The Fathers, both Greek and Latin, constantly affirm that God provides men with whatever is necessary for salvation, even to those who are lost. Therefore they acknowledge gracethat is truly and purely sufficient. Thus Chrysostom: "And if by grace, he says, why are we not all saved? Because you would not. For grace, though it be grace, saves the willing, not those who will not have it, and turn away from it..." (R 1188; see 1158f.). One should also consult St. Irenaeus (R 244, 247, Amobius (R 622), St. Ephraem (R 704), St. Gregory of Nyssa (R1034). St. Augustine often thought about sufficient grace in his writings before the year 418; but very little in those after that year (see those in the first period: R 1556, 1571, 1722, 1735-6; those in the later period: R 1955, 1957, which speak about the order before the fall of Adam). Here are the words of Damascene: "Without his cooperation and help we cannot will or do any good thing. But we have it in our power either to abide in virtue and follow God, who calls us into ways of virtue, or to stray from the path of virtue" (R 2359).2291. Theological reasoning. God does not command the impossible. But he commands that all his commandments be observed. Therefore at the same time he offers sufficient grace to keep the commandments. But many de facto do not keep the commandments. Therefore there is grace truly and purely sufficient.A similar argument can be made from the universal salvific will of God, and from the death of Christ for all men.292. Objections. 1. From Rom. 9:19: Who can resist his will? Hence the will o fGod is always efficacious. Therefore sufficient grace is repugnant.I distinguish the antecedent. The antecedent and conditioned will of God is always efficacious, denied; the absolute and consequent will of God, conceded. These words are not the words o f the Apostle, but of the one who is speaking with him.2. From Phil. 1:6: He who began a good work in you will bring it to completionat the day of Jesus Christ. And 2:13: God is at work in you, both to will and to work.Therefore Paul presents the divine help as joined together with a salvific act. Therefore there is no purely sufficient grace.I distinguish the antecedent. He presents grace together with a salvific act, inasmuch as it gives the power to act in a salvific way, conceded; inasmuch as it always acts, I subdistinguish: efficacious grace, conceded; any grace whatsoever, denied.In this place the Apostle is speaking about the necessity of grace in order to act in a salvific way. Therefore whenever a salvific act takes place, there must necessarily be grace involved.But Paul is not teaching that grace is given only to someone who acts in a salvific way.3. In Isa. 55:11 the prophet says about the word o f God: It shall not return to me empty, but it shall accom plish that which I purpose. But this cannot be understood except about efficacious grace. Therefore purely sufficient grace does not exist.I concede the major, bypass the m inor and deny the consequent and the conse-quence. For just because sometimes Holy Scripture speaks about efficacious grace is not an argument that it is ignorant of sufficient grace (see. n. 275).4. Temptation is often more intense than the grace urging someone to act well. Butthis grace cannot be truly sufficient. Therefore, at least in this case, there is no truly sufficient grace.I concede the m ajor and distinguish the minor. This grace cannot be truly sufficient in order to restrain cupidity, conceded; it cannot be sufficient to act in a salvific manner contrary to this inclination, denied. I also distinguish the consequent. Sufficient grace is not given in order to restrain cupidity, conceded; to act in a salvific manner, denied.This objection of Jansen is based on the false assumption that the will is passive, but not actively involved in choosing.5. In order for grace to confer relatively sufficient powers to overcome the earthlydelight, it must establish the will in a true equilibrium. But this equilibrium is not present, since the earthly delight is superior to the heavenly. Therefore in this case there is no relatively sufficient grace.I distinguish the major. In a true equilibrium of choice, so that the will is the master of its own act, conceded; in a true equilibrium o f inclination, denied. I also distinguish the minor. There is no equilibrium of choice, denied; o f inclination, conceded. Therefore, an equilibrium of inclination is not required for the exercise of freedom.6. Grace truly and purely sufficient is a faculty for acting, which however is notable to move into act. But such a faculty is repugnant. Therefore grace truly and purely sufficient is repugnant.I distinguish the major. It is a faculty which is not able to move into act with animpotency consequent to the resistance o f the will which was foreseen by God, con-ceded; with an impotency preceding the exercise of freedom, denied. I also distinguish the minor. A faculty of acting is repugnant if it brings with itself a preceding impotency,conceded; a consequent impotency, denied.
QuoteAlso, I'm pretty sure the distinction between sufficient and efficacious grace is de fide.
QuoteTruly sufficient grace is called the help by which a man is made capableof eliciting salvific acts. It is proximately sufficient if it is completely and immediately capable; but it is remotely sufficient if, because of the good use of some grace, v.gr., prayer, it can arrive at new salvific acts.
Quotea) In a prescinding way, inasmuch as it confers a true sufficiency toact in a salutary manner, while prescinding from whether or not it actually achieves its effect. For this reason it is opposed to insufficient grace, and itcan be efficacious or inefficacious.
QuoteWe assert in the thesis that graces are given, which are truly sufficientto act in a salvific way, but which remain purely sufficient because of theresistance of the human will.
Quote from: james03 on June 13, 2023, 07:05:40 AMQuoteAlso, I'm pretty sure the distinction between sufficient and efficacious grace is de fide.Your quote cites some Church doctrine. None of which makes this distinction.The quote is also self contradictory:QuoteTruly sufficient grace is called the help by which a man is made capableof eliciting salvific acts. It is proximately sufficient if it is completely and immediately capable; but it is remotely sufficient if, because of the good use of some grace, v.gr., prayer, it can arrive at new salvific acts.A single grace, termed sufficient, that is efficacious. A single grace.Quotea) In a prescinding way, inasmuch as it confers a true sufficiency toact in a salutary manner, while prescinding from whether or not it actually achieves its effect. For this reason it is opposed to insufficient grace, and itcan be efficacious or inefficacious.Again, a single grace.I have no problem changing terms. "All grace is sufficient. There is not a second grace given that is called efficacious. A sufficient grace can be efficacious or inefficacious depending on the free will choice of man."Your cite weasels out on this key point:QuoteWe assert in the thesis that graces are given, which are truly sufficientto act in a salvific way, but which remain purely sufficient because of theresistance of the human will.And what causes them not to remain purely sufficient? Silence.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 14, 2023, 03:47:05 PMWhat James means by "every grace accomplishes its purpose" is that every grace given to man inspires him to do a good that would eventually lead to his eternal salvation; not that grace is irresistible. It does "tis job" but man does not always do his. In that context I can agree, otherwise God would not send a "useless" grace. I also agree that all the schools use the term "sufficient" and "efficacious" in regards to actual grace.
QuoteI cannot agree with the Dominican concept of "sufficient" grace, because as Fr. Garigou Lagrange explains, this grace cannot be assented to by man, unless a second and efficacious grace comes to his aid; and God does not give this grace to all men; therefore inevitably, God does not will the salvation of all men; and those men that do not receive "efficacious grace" (in the Dominican sense) will infallibly be lost.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 14, 2023, 04:05:36 PMThe Banezian system leads to despair in God's mercy and goodness in most people, so that this is a reason enough not to embrace it.
Quote from: james03 on June 12, 2023, 02:28:30 PMAt issue is the false term "efficacious".
Quote"efficacious" is not a false term.
Quote from: andy on August 23, 2023, 10:15:11 PMQuote from: james03 on June 12, 2023, 02:28:30 PMAt issue is the false term "efficacious"."efficacious" is not a false term."The Human Will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible." is de fide.
Quote from: james03 on August 24, 2023, 07:57:02 AMBut by it's bare-bones definition all actual graces are efficacious in that they accomplish their task. And nothing I wrote contradicts your cite.