Author Topic: Election APM and the Universal Salvific Will  (Read 2712 times)

Offline Justin Martyr

  • Slave of Mary
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 323
  • Thanked: 243 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Election APM and the Universal Salvific Will
« on: July 15, 2021, 10:44:29 PM »
Hello, before I begin I should clarify I am a Thomist, and hold to election prior to foreseen merits or demerits. However, I have recently delved more deeply into this topic in order try and reconcile it with the doctrine of God's universal salvific will. This has lead to me finding what seems to be a clear contradiction I have been unable to resolve. I'm hoping more learned Catholics than I will help me find the flaw in my logic so I can continue to maintain election apm. I will state the difficulty as follows:

Premise 1: God, antecedent to any merit or demerit, wills all men to be saved.
Premise 2: God, antecedent to any merit or demerit, predestines some, but not all, men to be saved.
Premise 3: God's act of predestination is an act of his will.
Therefore, in accordance with premise 2 and 3, God, antecedent to any merits or demerits, wills some, but not all, men to be saved.
However, this contradicts premise 1.
Therefore, either premise 2 is false or premise 1 is false.
However, premise 1 is known to be absolutely certain, as it is a de fide teaching of the Church.
Conclusion: Premise 2 (Election APM) must be false.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Upon further contemplation, it seems that premise 3 is wrong; God's will would be to give all men grace which makes salvation possible, and predestination would be rather God's providence as applied to Man's salvation. However, input is still much appreciated.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2021, 12:05:32 AM by Justin Martyr »
QVICVMQVE•VVLT•SALVVS•ESSE•ANTE•OMNIA•
OPVS•EST•VT•TENEAT•CATHOLICAM•FIDEM

QVAM•NISI•QVISQVE•INTEGRAM•INVIOLATAMQVE•
SERVAVERIT•ABSQVE•DVBIO•IN•ÆTERNUM•PERIBIT
 
The following users thanked this post: Xavier

Offline Xavier

  • Eternal Father, through Mary's Immaculate Heart, We Offer You the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your Dearly Beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ in Atonement for our sins and those of the Whole World.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 6328
  • Thanked: 4948 times
  • Slave of the Risen Jesus in the Holy Sacrifice.
    • Marian Apostolate Life Offering.
  • Religion: Roman Catholic.
Re: Election APM and the Universal Salvific Will
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2021, 01:56:51 AM »
Hi Justin. I'm a Thomist too. I believe in APM Predestination but PPD (post previsa demerita /after foreseen demerits) Reprobation. Predestination is logically prior to merits because it causes them. But reprobation is  posterior to demerits because imo it is on account of them. So predestination is gratuitous, in advance of any foreseen merit, but reprobation is deserved, strictly on account of foreseen demerits.

For what it's worth, the Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with your conclusion, for it says: "Whatever view one may take regarding the internal probability of [antecedent] negative reprobation, it cannot be harmonized with the dogmatically certain universality and sincerity of God's salvific will". Thoughts on that?

God Bless.
"He [His Grace Archbishop Lefebvre]exhorted them:

Quote from: +ABL
Make every effort to have the Mass of St. Pius V, but if it is impossible to find one within forty kilometers and if there is a pious priest who says the New Mass in as traditional a way as possible, it is good for you to assist at it to fulfill your Sunday obligation."

One can counter the dangers for the Faith through solid catechism:

Quote
Should all the world’s churches be emptied? I do not feel brave enough to say such a thing. I don’t want to encourage atheism."

Taken from: https://sspx.org/en/what-archbishop-lefebvre-said-about-new-mass
 
The following users thanked this post: Justin Martyr

Offline Justin Martyr

  • Slave of Mary
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 323
  • Thanked: 243 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Election APM and the Universal Salvific Will
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2021, 11:20:45 AM »
Hi Justin. I'm a Thomist too. I believe in APM Predestination but PPD (post previsa demerita /after foreseen demerits) Reprobation. Predestination is logically prior to merits because it causes them. But reprobation is  posterior to demerits because imo it is on account of them. So predestination is gratuitous, in advance of any foreseen merit, but reprobation is deserved, strictly on account of foreseen demerits.

For what it's worth, the Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with your conclusion, for it says: "Whatever view one may take regarding the internal probability of [antecedent] negative reprobation, it cannot be harmonized with the dogmatically certain universality and sincerity of God's salvific will". Thoughts on that?

God Bless.

While it is de fide that retrobation to the fires of hell is ppd, it is also true in that those whom God has not chosen to elect, are not elect. Ergo, by logical nessecity, God has chosen to order his providence in such a way that prior to any merits or demerits, some are saved in the end through his efficacious grace, while others are to be permitted to perish so as to manifest his justice.

The only way I can think to reconcile this with God's universal salvific will, is that God gives all sufficent grace to be saved in the end and gives all (who make it past the womb atleast) the particular efficacious graces for whatever particular good acts each man performs. Also, by drawing a distinction between God's will and God's providence; as predestination is the result of his providence and not his will.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2021, 11:22:33 AM by Justin Martyr »
QVICVMQVE•VVLT•SALVVS•ESSE•ANTE•OMNIA•
OPVS•EST•VT•TENEAT•CATHOLICAM•FIDEM

QVAM•NISI•QVISQVE•INTEGRAM•INVIOLATAMQVE•
SERVAVERIT•ABSQVE•DVBIO•IN•ÆTERNUM•PERIBIT
 

Offline Arvinger

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 398
  • Thanked: 487 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Election APM and the Universal Salvific Will
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2021, 11:52:45 AM »
Hi Justin. I'm a Thomist too. I believe in APM Predestination but PPD (post previsa demerita /after foreseen demerits) Reprobation. Predestination is logically prior to merits because it causes them. But reprobation is  posterior to demerits because imo it is on account of them. So predestination is gratuitous, in advance of any foreseen merit, but reprobation is deserved, strictly on account of foreseen demerits.

This is impossible - APM predestination and PPD reprobation are contradictory. This is because APM predestination leaves out some people assuring they will be damned and it is certain APD (if they are not elected, they are necessarily reprobated, for there is no third option). Their lack of election APM makes their salvation metaphysically impossible, before God can reprobate them PPD. In other words, lack of election necessarily results in damnation - therefore, if election is APM, damnation is necessarily APD. Which is why the Thomist predestination is in its essence same as the Calvinist one.
 

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 9575
  • Thanked: 9010 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Election APM and the Universal Salvific Will
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2021, 12:51:03 PM »
Fr. Most would explain it this way: APM, God conditionally wills all men to be saved ( Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth."1 Timothy 2:4); and gives all men the means to indeed be saved; however, P.P.M. As not all men will co-operate with this grace and will turn away from God. He then rewards or punishes men according to their co-operation or lack of with His Grace.
The key component is the "Infallible efficacy of diving grace" if men cannot refuse God's grace, then APM is both un-conditional for salvation and damnation; because God only gives His grace to those He wills to save. This evidently is in contradiction with the doctrine of God's universal salvific will. However is man has the ability to refuse God's grace as per the Council of Trent, then the failure to attain salvation is man's fault and not God's.
If you break the Thomistic system down ultimately it holds that God does not will all men to be saved, because God does not give to all men "efficacious grace" that would enable them to actually co-operate with God's call and therefore will inevitably will be lost.
Here is your Syllogism:
Premise 1: God, antecedent to any merit or demerit, wills all men to be saved.True, but it's God's "conditional will"
Premise 2: God, antecedent to any merit or demerit, predestines some, but not all, men to be saved.contradicts God's universal will; therefore, False.
Premise 3: God's act of predestination is an act of his will.True, if "conditional will" False if "absolute will"
Therefore, in accordance with premise 2 and 3, God, antecedent to any merits or demerits, wills some, but not all, men to be saved.False, contradicts Church teaching, on God's universal salvific will.
However, this contradicts premise 1.True, so must discard #2&3
Therefore, either premise 2 is false or premise 1 is false.Premise #1 is Church teaching therefore True.
However, premise 1 is known to be absolutely certain, as it is a de fide teaching of the Church.
Conclusion: Premise 2 (Election APM) must be false. [Correct. There is no way around it.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 

Offline Justin Martyr

  • Slave of Mary
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 323
  • Thanked: 243 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Election APM and the Universal Salvific Will
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2021, 12:56:58 PM »
Upon further reflection, I believe I may have found the reconciliation of the apparent contradiction. I submit my reasoning, fallible as it is, to my fellow Catholics that it may be judged.

First, to define terms.

God's eternal will is a single, absolutely simple act by which he wills Himself, Himself being Goodness itself, Justice Itself, Love itself, etc.

God's temporal will is all those things which he causes to be as a result of his eternal will. This temporal will is not a second will, but a virtual distinction that must be made in order to distinguish God's will as we experience it (his temporal will) and as it truly is in eternity (his eternal will).

God's eternal providence is his single, absolutely simple principle by which he orders all that he wills towards goodness itself. Himself being goodness himself, this means that...

God's temporal providence is the ordering of all that which he has willed, so that they may manifest his attributes to his creation. This is again a virtual distinction in his providence as above.

Predestination is God's providence in regard to the last end of rational beings.

And, lastly, God's will logically precedes his providence, as his providence orders that which he has willed. Likewise, his providence precedes his foreknowledge, for his foreknowledge knows that which he has ordered.

Having clarified this, I posit the logical chain is as follows in regards to God's predestination.

Antecedently, God truly wills all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. To accomplish this, wills from all eternity that his only begotten son would incarnate as man and make possible graces to this end. He further wills that all men will receive these sufficient graces. This grace is truly and really sufficient, and if not resisted will save.

Man, however, sinned in the garden and sins now. Though man retains his his free will, as a result of the fall his use of it is hindered. He retains the power to not resist God's grace, but man freely chooses not to use this power unless his will is further moved by God.

Consequently, God sees man's fallen nature and in accordance with His own nature, God wills two acts

To some, as a result of his mercy, God wills to give efficacious grace so that in spite of their resistance he can accomplish in them his will for man's salvation. This efficacious grace, far from ignoring man's free will, infallibly and freely moves it. Man retains the ability to resist this efficacious grace, but this grace is so powerful and alluring that no man will, in fact, choose to resist it. "Where sin abounded, grace abounded that much more".

To some, as a result of his justice, God wills not to give efficacious grace. Some he permits to perish in original sin alone and be forever deprived of the beatific vision, and others he permits to freely choose to resist him.

God, out of his justice, consequently wills a second time that as a result of man's sin which followed his resistance of grace, that all who have sinned are to be punished with the fires of hell.

Having established God's antecedent will and his consequent wills in regard to how he bestows grace, I move on to how his providence orders his will as outlined above. Since God's providence in regards to the last end of rational creatures is his predestination, I will refer to it as such.

In accordance with his antecedent will, God predestines prior to any foreseen merits or foreseen demerits that all men receive grace sufficient for salvation.

In accordance with his merciful consequent will, God predestines prior to any foreseen merits and prior to any foreseen demerits that some men receive a second, efficacious grace which saves them and is the cause of their merits. This is election.

In accordance with his first just consequent will, God predestines prior to any foreseen merits and prior to any foreseen demerits that some will perish in original sin alone and be deprived of the beatific vision; the rest he predestines to permit to resist his sufficient grace. This is negative retrobation.

I must stress that those who die in original sin alone were still give graces truly sufficient for salvation, in line with God's antecedent will and predestination. Their fallen will freely chooses to resists this sufficient grace just as it does in those who have reached the age of reason, however as a result of the their lack of knowledge and sufficient reflection they are unable to commit the actual mortal sins which follow resistance in those who have reached the age of reason.

Lastly, In accordance with his second just consequent will, God predestines posterior to foreseen demerits that some men will go to hell as a punishment for their sins. This is positive retrobation.

While a lot of distinctions have been made in order to logically understand this, I believe it is simply the teaching of the Council of Quierzy, which condemned Gottschalk. I quote the same council as follows:

"Omnipotent God created man noble, without sin with a free will, and he whom He wished to remain in the sanctity of justice, He placed in Paradise. Man, using his free will, badly sinned and fell, and became the “mass of perdition” of the entire human race. The just and good God, however, chose from this same mass of perdition, according to His foreknowledge, those whom through grace He predestined to life [Rom. 8:29 ff.; Eph. 1:11], and He predestined for these eternal life; the others, whom by the judgment of justice he left in the mass of perdition, however, He knew would perish, but He did not predestine that they would perish, because He is just; however, He predestined eternal punishment for them. And on account of this we speak of only one predestination of God, which pertains either to the gift of grace or to the retribution of justice."

While the mystery of election and retrobation remains quite dark indeed, I at least believe I can rest easy that it is in fact mystery and not contradiction. That said, I still gladly desire the further input of my brothers in Christ, lest I deceive myself.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2021, 01:38:47 PM by Justin Martyr »
QVICVMQVE•VVLT•SALVVS•ESSE•ANTE•OMNIA•
OPVS•EST•VT•TENEAT•CATHOLICAM•FIDEM

QVAM•NISI•QVISQVE•INTEGRAM•INVIOLATAMQVE•
SERVAVERIT•ABSQVE•DVBIO•IN•ÆTERNUM•PERIBIT
 

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 9575
  • Thanked: 9010 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Election APM and the Universal Salvific Will
« Reply #6 on: July 16, 2021, 01:44:27 PM »
Quote
Antecedently, God truly wills all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. To accomplish this, wills from all eternity that his only begotten son would incarnate as man and make possible graces to this end. He further wills that all men will receive these sufficient graces. This grace is truly and really sufficient, and if not resisted will save.
Man, however, sinned in the garden and sins now. Though man retains his his free will, as a result of the fall his use of it is hindered. He retains the power to not resist God's grace, but man freely chooses not to use this power unless his will is further moved by God.Consequently, God sees man's fallen nature and in accordance with His own nature, God wills two acts
To some, as a result of his mercy, God wills to give efficacious grace so that in spite of their resistance he can accomplish in them his will for man's salvation. This efficacious grace, far from ignoring man's free will, infallibly and freely moves it. Man retains the ability to resist this efficacious grace, but this grace is so powerful and alluring that no man will, in fact, choose to resist it. "Where sin abounded, grace abounded that much more".
To some, as a result of his justice, God wills not to give efficacious grace. Some he permits to perish in original sin alone and be forever deprived of the beatific vision, and others he permits to freely choose to resist him.
This is Banezian "double speak": God wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth, yet because of Original Sin, God does not really will all men to be saved, so He gives some the graces necessary to be saved and to others He doesn't.
Calling these second graces "sufficient" which are not "sufficient" for anything, is a falsehood.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 9575
  • Thanked: 9010 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Election APM and the Universal Salvific Will
« Reply #7 on: July 16, 2021, 01:48:36 PM »
Here is Fr. Most in "Grace, Predestination, and the Salvific Will of God", outlining and critiquing the Banezian/Thomist's position:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=214&ChapNum=4
Quote
Grace, Predestination, and the Salvific Will of God
3) The distinction of sufficient and efficacious grace: The reason why sins and positive reprobation infallibly follow after negative reprobation is found in the explanation of the distinction and distribution of sufficient and efficacious graces. For there is14 "a twofold internal actual grace. One is efficacious of itself, and gives the good act itself; the other is inefficacious, but really sufficient, giving the ability to perform a good act, either proximately, or at least remotely." By efficacious grace God "directly and infallibly moves a human will to choose. . . . The efficacy of grace comes . . . properly and formally from a predetermining physical premotion."
4) For what does sufficient grace suffice? It is true, as we have seen that sufficient grace really gives "the ability to perform a good act." So it suffices for that ability. But it does not suffice for salvation, nor even for actually performing a good act:15 "Sufficient grace is certainly not of itself sufficient for salvation, because it cannot produce any acts by itself." Now the fundamental reason for this assertion is:16 ". . . efficacious grace . . . is required as the application of the power to action, not as the power, or part of the power. . . ." St. Thomas himself explains the need of the application by a comparison:17 ". . . an artisan . . . applying the power of a natural thing to some action is said to be the cause of that action, just as a cook [is said to be] the cause of cooking, which is [done] through fire." In other words, just as fire in itself really has the ability or power to cook food, yet never will cook food unless the cook applies the fire to the food; similarly, through sufficient grace a man really has the power or ability to perform a good action, yet will not perform it unless God gives also the application, that is, efficacious grace.
Hence, if we ask: "Can a man perform a good act with sufficient grace?" the answer requires a distinction:
a) He can perform it in one sense: He has the ability or power.
b) He cannot perform it in another sense: He still lacks the application. And without the application, it is impossible that a good act be produced, just as it is impossible for fire to cook food unless it is applied to the food.
5) How is the application or efficacious grace obtained? To reply, we must make a distinction. For we could speak either of what is required on man's side or on God's side:
a) On man's side:
1) Efficacious grace is given if a man does not resist sufficient grace: 18". . . no one who has the use of reason is deprived of the efficacious grace required for salvation except for having, by his own fault, resisted a sufficient grace. . . ." But yet:19 ". . . efficacious grace is required that a man may not fail [to cooperate with] sufficient grace, that is, that he may not resist." Now the reason why efficacious grace is required for not resisting is this: 20". . . not to resist grace is already some good." But to do good, application is required: hence, the same impossibility as before still remains. Therefore, the Thomists say in one sense, that a man21 "although he has the ability not to resist [sufficient grace], nevertheless actually resists" if he does not also receive efficacious grace, because sufficient grace confers only the ability of not resisting, and does not add the application of that ability; but, in another sense, they say that man is not able not to resist because he cannot provide the application: ". . . [man] cannot, of himself alone, refrain from placing an obstacle [to sufficient grace] since this [not placing an obstacle] is good."
2) Efficacious grace will be given if a man prays properly. In regard to prayer, they say:22 "If a man would not resist the sufficient grace to pray, he would receive the efficacious grace to pray. . . ." But, in regard to not resisting the sufficient grace to pray, it is still true, according to the Thomists: ". . . efficacious grace is required that a man may not fail [to cooperate with] sufficient grace, that is, that he may not resist."
b) On God's side: God's reason for refusing the application, efficacious grace can be even an inculpable defect in man: 23"Because of this defective consideration [of the rule of morality in the intellect, before the will acts] . . . which is not yet sinful . . . God can deny efficacious grace to a man."
Therefore on his side, man cannot obtain efficacious grace, because efficacious grace is not given to those who resist sufficient grace, but, in order that he may not resist, efficacious grace is required. On God's side, efficacious grace is often denied without any moral fault on the part of man.
6) Divine foreknowledge: It is obvious that God can foresee by means of His grant or refusal of these graces. For if He gives only a sufficient grace, man infallibly sins:24 "To fail or to resist sufficient grace is not to consent to it, that is, to sin at least by a sin of omission." Man sins infallibly, because,25 "although a man [having only sufficient grace] can perform the act only defectively [because he cannot add the application needed for a good act], and although if God moves the man, it is inconceivable that the man will not be moved to act [because the divine motion is physical] . . . [nevertheless] God moves [the man who does a bad action] to that which is physical . . . in that action, . . ." that is to the exercise of the act. Now if a will that is not able to rise to produce the good application is moved physically, a bad decision, sin, is produced infallibly and infrustrably.
If however God gives an efficacious grace, since God physically moves the man's will to good, man always does good under it.
Obviously, by His decree to give such or such a grace, God infallibly knows what a man will do.
7) Human freedom: Man remains free even though God moves him physically and infallibly or infrustrably. For the will of God is transcendent.
It is obvious that this freedom is not an autonomous freedom, since the first decision, from which all else follows infrustrably, as we have seen, is made by God alone before any consideration of human conditions. For before the divine decree to give sufficient or efficacious grace, there will be neither good nor bad in man. (We could call this freedom secondary freedom).
8) The principle of predilection: This principle underlies the whole opinion of the Thomists, both in regard to predestination and reprobation, and in regard to sufficient and efficacious grace:26 ". . . this principle of predilection is revealed in these words of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians, 4:7: "'For who distinguisheth thee?'"27 Therefore:28 "According to the above mentioned words of St. Paul, the distinction of one man from another ultimately must be found not on the side of the human will, but in God who distinguishes one from another by His grace." Therefore the distinction between the elect and the reprobate ultimately does not depend on the things that men do. Rather, God, before any consideration of merits or demerits, absolutely and infrustrably determines the eternal lot of each man. Otherwise, it could29 "happen that out of two men, equally loved and helped by God, in the same circumstances, one would be converted and the other not. And someone, without being more loved and helped by God, would become better than another by a salutary act, easy or difficult, initial or final."
9) Metaphysical foundations: 30". . . this principle of predilection, in the philosophical order, is a corollary of the principle of causality. . . ." That is, all good, and all being come from God alone. In performing a good act a man must pass from potency to act. But a man cannot cause himself to pass from potency to act. Therefore, this takes place only when and if God so wills. So a man acts well when God wills: otherwise, a man is metaphysically incapable of doing anything but falling. It follows that there is nothing in a man according to which he could "distinguish himself." Therefore, the predestination or reprobation of each man does not depend ultimately on his actions, but solely on God, who "distinguishes" one man from another. Besides, if these things were not true in no way could God foresee the free actions of a man.
7. Summary of the older Thomistic opinion: Before any consideration of the merits and demerits of men, God determines the eternal lot of each man. Man is completely incapable of "distinguishing himself." If God decrees to save him, He sends efficacious graces which will move him to freely and infallibly do good. If God does not decree to save him, He does not send him efficacious graces (at least, not to such an extent as to save him) but He sends only sufficient graces. These graces give the ability to do good, but do not give the application. For the application, efficacious grace is required. Without the application, a good act is metaphysically impossible. The application is given to those who do not resist sufficient grace. But efficacious grace is required not to resist. Efficacious grace is required because not to resist is good. Man has the ability of not resisting, but he does not have the application of the ability of not resisting. This application is given only to those who do not resist. Therefore, man has the ability for both the good work for which a sufficient grace is given, and the ability not to resist that grace. But in both instances, application is required, and application is given only to those who do not resist. On God's part, efficacious grace is denied as God wills; for He can deny it, even without moral fault on the part of a man, because of an inculpable inadvertence in man.
 14    Garrigou-Lagrange, De gratia, Marietti, Taurini, 1947, pp. 152, 204, 205 (emphasis his).
15    F.L.B. Cunningham, OP, (Editor), The Christian Life, Priory Press, Dubuque, 1959, p. 292.
16    John of St. Thomas, Cursus Theologicus, De Gratia, Quebec 1954: Disp. 24, art. 13, reply to arg. 4. § 1221.
17    CG 3.67.
18    Garrigou-Lagrange, Perfection chretienne et contemplation, Editions de La Vie Spirituelle, Saint-Maximin. 1923, p. 96.
19    Garrigou-Lagrange, De gratia, pp. 179-180. The words cited are from an objection but Garrigou-Lagrange says on this objection (p. 180): "I concede the major; I concede the minor. . . ."
20    Ibid., p. 190 (emphasis his).
21    Ibid., p. 190 and p. 62 note 2 (emphasis mine).
22    Garrigou-Lagrange, De Deo uno, p. 431.
23    P. Lumbreras, De gratia, Angelicum, Romae, 1946, p. 96.
24    Garrigou-Lagrange, De gratia, p. 179. The words cited above are from an objection, but Garrigou-Lagrange says on this objection (p. 180): "I concede the major; I concede the minor. . . ."
25    John of St. Thomas, op. cit., Disp. 24, art. 3, reply to arg.7, §1243.
26    Garrigou-Lagrange, De Deo uno, p. 525.
27    This quote is taken from the Rheims-Douay translation of the Latin Vulgate. The RSV would be: "For who sees anything different in you?"
28    Ibid., p. 363 (emphasis mine).
29    Ibid, p. 525.
30    Ibid.
“Manual of Dogmatic Theology” vol. II By A. Tanquerey, pg. 171:
937-a. Explanation of Thomism
First. Sufficient grace differs intrinsically from efficacious grace: sufficient grace grants only the proximate potency to act; efficacious grace moves and applies potency to act-or to put it more briefly: sufficient grace gives “posse”; efficacious grace gives “agere”. Secondly, in order that de facto we may do good, in addition to sufficient grace, there is required efficacious  grace, which is offered to all and is given to those who do not interpose an impedement. Thirdly, efficacious grace is also called physical pre-motion because, in the logical order, it comes before our action, and because by means of it God moves us not just morally by persuasion but also physically by real action.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 

Offline Justin Martyr

  • Slave of Mary
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 323
  • Thanked: 243 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Election APM and the Universal Salvific Will
« Reply #8 on: July 16, 2021, 02:29:30 PM »
Quote
Antecedently, God truly wills all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. To accomplish this, wills from all eternity that his only begotten son would incarnate as man and make possible graces to this end. He further wills that all men will receive these sufficient graces. This grace is truly and really sufficient, and if not resisted will save.
Man, however, sinned in the garden and sins now. Though man retains his his free will, as a result of the fall his use of it is hindered. He retains the power to not resist God's grace, but man freely chooses not to use this power unless his will is further moved by God.Consequently, God sees man's fallen nature and in accordance with His own nature, God wills two acts
To some, as a result of his mercy, God wills to give efficacious grace so that in spite of their resistance he can accomplish in them his will for man's salvation. This efficacious grace, far from ignoring man's free will, infallibly and freely moves it. Man retains the ability to resist this efficacious grace, but this grace is so powerful and alluring that no man will, in fact, choose to resist it. "Where sin abounded, grace abounded that much more".
To some, as a result of his justice, God wills not to give efficacious grace. Some he permits to perish in original sin alone and be forever deprived of the beatific vision, and others he permits to freely choose to resist him.
This is Banezian "double speak": God wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth, yet because of Original Sin, God does not really will all men to be saved, so He gives some the graces necessary to be saved and to others He doesn't.
Calling these second graces "sufficient" which are not "sufficient" for anything, is a falsehood.

It is not doublespeak, as God's will is virtually distinct from his providence. God, by his will, gives all the grace necessary to be saved. His providence merely permits (but not causes) man to resist God's grace, for the purpose of a greater good (manifesting His justice). Man, even after the fall, retains the ability to co-operate with God's grace. However, because of the fall, unless God gives him a (strictly speaking) unnecessary additional grace, man will always choose to resist rather than co-operate. Just as I have the ability to saw off my arm outside the context of medical amputation, but can say with certainty I will never choose to do so. I say efficacious grace is not necessary strictly speaking as God as already provided man necessary grace when he gave man sufficient grace. That man chose not to co-operate with it is man's fault, as he retains the ability to do so. God is blameless, and truly did desire him to be saved.

That said, I do think I may depart with other Thomists on this point, as if I recall Banez held it is impossible for man to co-operate with sufficient grace unless aided by efficacious grace, rather than merely something man never chooses to do unless aided by efficacious grace. Though, I have never read Banez myself so I can not say for sure if he held that position or my own.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2021, 02:33:08 PM by Justin Martyr »
QVICVMQVE•VVLT•SALVVS•ESSE•ANTE•OMNIA•
OPVS•EST•VT•TENEAT•CATHOLICAM•FIDEM

QVAM•NISI•QVISQVE•INTEGRAM•INVIOLATAMQVE•
SERVAVERIT•ABSQVE•DVBIO•IN•ÆTERNUM•PERIBIT
 

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 9575
  • Thanked: 9010 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Election APM and the Universal Salvific Will
« Reply #9 on: July 16, 2021, 03:11:57 PM »
Quote
It is not doublespeak, as God's will is virtually distinct from his providence. God, by his will, gives all the grace necessary to be saved. His providence merely permits (but not causes) man to resist God's grace, for the purpose of a greater good (manifesting His justice). Man, even after the fall, retains the ability to co-operate with God's grace. However, because of the fall, unless God gives him a (strictly speaking) unnecessary additional grace, man will always choose to resist rather than co-operate. Just as I have the ability to saw off my arm outside the context of medical amputation, but can say with certainty I will never choose to do so. I say efficacious grace is not necessary strictly speaking as God as already provided man necessary grace when he gave man sufficient grace. That man chose not to co-operate with it is man's fault, as he retains the ability to do so. God is blameless, and truly did desire him to be saved.

That said, I do think I may depart with other Thomists on this point, as if I recall Banez held it is impossible for man to co-operate with sufficient grace unless aided by efficacious grace, rather than merely something man never chooses to do unless aided by efficacious grace. Though, I have never read Banez myself so I can not say for sure if he held that position or my own.
Banez and those who follow him including (unfortunately) R. Garigou Lagrange (cited in the above excerpt).
How is the above not "double-speak"? Man cannot co-operate with God's "sufficient" grace unless God gives man this additional "efficacious" grace. Then how is this grace "unnecessary"? Since: "man will always choose to resist and not to co-operate"?
Here is Fr. Most again:
Quote
a) On man's side:
1) Efficacious grace is given if a man does not resist sufficient grace: 18". . . no one who has the use of reason is deprived of the efficacious grace required for salvation except for having, by his own fault, resisted a sufficient grace. . . ." But yet:19 ". . . efficacious grace is required that a man may not fail [to cooperate with] sufficient grace, that is, that he may not resist." Now the reason why efficacious grace is required for not resisting is this: 20". . . not to resist grace is already some good." But to do good, application is required: hence, the same impossibility as before still remains. Therefore, the Thomists say in one sense, that a man21 "although he has the ability not to resist [sufficient grace], nevertheless actually resists" if he does not also receive efficacious grace, because sufficient grace confers only the ability of not resisting, and does not add the application of that ability; but, in another sense, they say that man is not able not to resist because he cannot provide the application: ". . . [man] cannot, of himself alone, refrain from placing an obstacle [to sufficient grace] since this [not placing an obstacle] is good."
It's the same merry go round: 1. Efficacious grace is given if man does not resist sufficient grace. 2. But Efficacious grace is required in order for man to not resist sufficient grace. 3. The reason is that "to not resist" is already a "good"; but to do good, application i.e. Efficacious grace is required; therefore 4. Thomists insist that although men have the ability to not resist sufficient grace, he resists it without efficacious grace. because 5. Sufficient grace only confers the ability not to resist, not the application. since: 6. "Man cannot of himself refrain from placing and obstacle, since this not placing an obstacle is a good that can only be accomplished with efficacious grace.
If this doesn't make your head spin, I don't know what does.


« Last Edit: July 16, 2021, 03:13:56 PM by Michael Wilson »
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 

Offline james03

  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 11434
  • Thanked: 6750 times
  • The Brutal Clarity of a Winter Morning
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Election APM and the Universal Salvific Will
« Reply #10 on: July 16, 2021, 04:27:23 PM »
The sufficient/efficacious dichotomy is unnecessary.

God gives all men grace to be saved.  Here grace is not sanctifying grace, but actual graces.  Many people talk about a single grace, a super duper magical grace.  No, God gives us a multitude of actual graces throughout our lives.

Men reject it over and over again, including me and including you.

By Divine Providence, God will continue with some to salvation, and leave others to die in their sin.

Those who die in their sin freely chose it.  There was no coercion.  Those who are saved didn't earn it by condign merit.  God owes us nothing.

I don't see any controversy.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"
 

Offline Justin Martyr

  • Slave of Mary
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 323
  • Thanked: 243 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Election APM and the Universal Salvific Will
« Reply #11 on: July 16, 2021, 04:31:09 PM »
It's the same merry go round: 1. Efficacious grace is given if man does not resist sufficient grace. 2. But Efficacious grace is required in order for man to not resist sufficient grace. 3. The reason is that "to not resist" is already a "good"; but to do good, application i.e. Efficacious grace is required; therefore 4. Thomists insist that although men have the ability to not resist sufficient grace, he resists it without efficacious grace. because 5. Sufficient grace only confers the ability not to resist, not the application. since: 6. "Man cannot of himself refrain from placing and obstacle, since this not placing an obstacle is a good that can only be accomplished with efficacious grace.
If this doesn't make your head spin, I don't know what does.

This is where I depart with my fellow Thomists in that I deny point #6. Man can choose not to place an obstacle in the way of sufficient grace, but as a result of the fall he simply chooses not. Perhaps an analogy will make my point clearer.

Suppose that I am having a discussion with a Southern Baptist family member as to why they should enter the Church. I answer all their objections to their satisfaction, I provide them with innumerable proof of the Church's divine origin, and by the end of the conversation they admit that my reason is sound. I then ask them "Will you, then, seeing that the Church is what it claims to be, choose to become Catholic." To which, they say, they will not. God has given them all the sufficient graces necessary for them to enter the Church. He has given them the extrinsic grace of hearing someone make a fine defense of the faith. He has given them the grace necessary to admit that the Church is in fact what it claims to be. He has no doubt, through his Holy Spirit, called out to them within the interior of their soul so as to impel them to join the Church. But, regardless, the family member in question refuses to join. It does not matter what graces, no matter how sufficient, are supplied to them as they will never choose to make use of them and enter the Church. Is it the fault of God, if he does not choose to move their will while preserving its freedom, that they did not make use of the sufficient graces he gave them?
QVICVMQVE•VVLT•SALVVS•ESSE•ANTE•OMNIA•
OPVS•EST•VT•TENEAT•CATHOLICAM•FIDEM

QVAM•NISI•QVISQVE•INTEGRAM•INVIOLATAMQVE•
SERVAVERIT•ABSQVE•DVBIO•IN•ÆTERNUM•PERIBIT
 

Offline james03

  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 11434
  • Thanked: 6750 times
  • The Brutal Clarity of a Winter Morning
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Election APM and the Universal Salvific Will
« Reply #12 on: July 16, 2021, 04:34:11 PM »
It is important to make some distinctions:

Predestination vs. Divine Providence.  Most people object to Divine Providence, but call it predestination.  Predestination only means that those who are saved are saved by God.

Perspective.  God is outside of time.  God has no Personal concept of now or today.  As He hears your prayer, He is also hearing King David sing a psalm.  Outside of time there is Divine Providence by which all things are accomplished.  "Pre" destination is an absurdity from God's perspective, as there is no "pre" with God.  Same with God "looking ahead".  An absurdity.

Inside of time is man's perspective.  Here we can talk about predestination as a best attempt to explain things.  Inside of time you have free will.  There is no coercion.  You are free to cooperate with Grace or reject Grace.  But inside of time we can say those who are elect were predestined by God unto salvation by Divine Providence.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne

Offline Justin Martyr

  • Slave of Mary
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 323
  • Thanked: 243 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Election APM and the Universal Salvific Will
« Reply #13 on: July 16, 2021, 04:41:09 PM »
The sufficient/efficacious dichotomy is unnecessary.

God gives all men grace to be saved.  Here grace is not sanctifying grace, but actual graces.  Many people talk about a single grace, a super duper magical grace.  No, God gives us a multitude of actual graces throughout our lives.

Men reject it over and over again, including me and including you.

By Divine Providence, God will continue with some to salvation, and leave others to die in their sin.

Those who die in their sin freely chose it.  There was no coercion.  Those who are saved didn't earn it by condign merit.  God owes us nothing.

I don't see any controversy.

Right, but even the co-operation itself is a good that man will refuse unless moved by God's grace. Apart from grace we only ever reject his grace, as a result of freely choosing to do so.

It is important to make some distinctions:

Predestination vs. Divine Providence.  Most people object to Divine Providence, but call it predestination.  Predestination only means that those who are saved are saved by God.

Perspective.  God is outside of time.  God has no Personal concept of now or today.  As He hears your prayer, He is also hearing King David sing a psalm.  Outside of time there is Divine Providence by which all things are accomplished.  "Pre" destination is an absurdity from God's perspective, as there is no "pre" with God.  Same with God "looking ahead".  An absurdity.

Inside of time is man's perspective.  Here we can talk about predestination as a best attempt to explain things.  Inside of time you have free will.  There is no coercion.  You are free to cooperate with Grace or reject Grace.  But inside of time we can say those who are elect were predestined by God unto salvation by Divine Providence.

Predestination is Divine Providence, as applied to the ordering of Man to his final end. To God it is not predestination, because to God his providence is merely one absolutely simple act of ordering all toward the Good, which is itself ontologically identical to the Good and to the Divine Essence. However, from our perspective, it is predestination as before God ever choose to create the world he did so with the intention to providentially order it such that x many people are saved and y many people are damned. The question is on what basis did he choose to order it as such, was it logically prior or posterior to foreseen merits and demerits.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2021, 05:06:11 PM by Justin Martyr »
QVICVMQVE•VVLT•SALVVS•ESSE•ANTE•OMNIA•
OPVS•EST•VT•TENEAT•CATHOLICAM•FIDEM

QVAM•NISI•QVISQVE•INTEGRAM•INVIOLATAMQVE•
SERVAVERIT•ABSQVE•DVBIO•IN•ÆTERNUM•PERIBIT
 

Offline james03

  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 11434
  • Thanked: 6750 times
  • The Brutal Clarity of a Winter Morning
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Election APM and the Universal Salvific Will
« Reply #14 on: July 16, 2021, 05:10:43 PM »
Quote
Right, but even the co-operation itself is a good that man will refuse unless moved by God's grace.

This is where we disagree.  The internal principle of man's good will act is man, otherwise merit has no merit. 

Quote
Not every principle is a first principle. Therefore, although it is essential to the voluntary act that its principle be within the agent, nevertheless it is not contrary to the nature of the voluntary act that this intrinsic principle be caused or moved by an extrinsic principle: because it is not essential to the voluntary act that its intrinsic principle be a first principle.

The actual grace is the extrinsic principle and the First Cause.  The free will cooperation is the internal principle.  It is free and not determined inside of time.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"