by Ludwig Ott
Introduction
The Catholic Church, following St.
Augustine (e.g., Grace and Free Will, 1,1; Sermon 169, 11,13),
accepts predestination of the elect to heaven, but also affirms
the freedom of the human will, thus staking out a position
distinct from Calvinism. Predestination to hell, in Catholicism,
always involves man's free will, and foreseen sins, so that man
is ultimately responsible for his own damnation, not God (double
predestination is rejected).
God is sovereign, in our view, every bit
as much as in Protestantism (particularly Calvinism), as will
amply be demonstrated below. All that is disputed are the
intricacies of the grace / free will antinomy, which is one of
the most mysterious and difficult questions in the history of
both Christian theology and theistic philosophy. Of course, the
allowance of free will is also present in Lutheran, Anglican,
Methodist, most charismatic, non-denominational and Baptist
theologies, etc.
The Catholic Church affirms
predestination as a de fide dogma (the highest level of binding
theological certainty), while at the same time affirming free
will and the possibility of falling away from the faith. The
following material from Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott's
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1974
{orig. 1952}, pp.242-45) ought to be most helpful for Protestants
seeking to understand what Catholics believe about this ever-mysterious,
controversial, complex, highly abstract theological question:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) GOD, BY HIS ETERNAL RESOLVE OF WILL,
HAS PREDETERMINED CERTAIN MEN TO ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS (De fide)
[ De fide = "of faith" - dogmas
are absolutely binding on all Catholics]
This doctrine is proposed by the Ordinary
and General Teaching of the Church as a truth of Revelation. The
doctrinal definitions of the Council of Trent presuppose it . . .
The reality of Predestination is clearly attested to in Rom 8:29
et seq: . . . cf. Mt 25:34, Jn 10:27 et seq., Acts 13:48, Eph 1:4
et seq. . . . Predestination is a part of the Eternal Divine Plan
of Providence.
2) BASIS OF PREDESTINATION
a) The Problem
The main difficulty . . . lies in the
question whether God's eternal resolve of Predestination has been
taken with or without consideration of the merits of the man (post
or ante praevisa merita).
Only incomplete Predestination to grace
is independent of every merit (ante praevisa merita), as the
first grace cannot be merited. In the same way, complete
Predestination to grace and glory conjointly is independent of
every merit, as the first grace cannot be merited, and the
consequent graces, as well as the merits acquired with these
graces and their reward, depend like the links of a chain, on the
first grace . . .
b) Attempts at Solution
The Thomists, the Augustinians, the
majority of the Scotists and also individual older Molinists (Suarez,
St. Bellarmine) teach an absolute Predestination (ad gloriam
tantum), therefore ante praevisa merita. According to them, God
freely resolves from all Eternity, without consideration of the
merits of man's grace, to call certain men to beatification and
therefore to bestow on them graces which will infallibly secure
the execution of the Divine Decree (ordo intentionis). In time
God first gives to the predestined effective graces and then
eternal bliss as a reward for the merits which flow from their
free cooperation with grace (ordo executionis). The ordo
intentionis and the ordo executionis are in inverse relation to
each other (glory-grace; grace-glory).
Most of the Molinists, and also St.
Francis de Sales (+1622), teach a conditioned Predestination (ad
gloriam tantum), that is, postand propter praevisa merita.
According to them, God by His scientia media, sees beforehand how
men would freely react to various orders of grace. In the light
of this knowledge He chooses, according to His free pleasure a
fixed and definite order of grace. Now by His scientia visionis,
He knows infallibly in advance what use the individual man will
make of the grace bestowed on him. He elects for eternal bliss
those who by virtue of their foreseen merits perseveringly
cooperate with grace, while He determines for eternal punishment
of hell, those who, on account of their foreseen demerits, deny
their cooperation. The ordo intentionis and the ordo executionis
coincide (grace-glory; grace-glory).
Both attempts at explanation are
ecclesiastically permissible. The scriptural proofs are not
decisive for either side. The Thomists quote above all passages
from the Letter to the Romans, in which the Divine factor in
salvation is brought strongly to the foreground (Rom 8:29; 9:11-13,
9:20 et seq.) . . . The Molinists invoke the passages which
attest the universality of the Divine desire for salvation,
especially 1 Tim 2:4, as well as the sentence to be pronounced by
the Judge of the World (Mt 25:34-36), in which the works of mercy
are given as ground for the acceptance into the Heavenly Kingdom.
But that these are also the basis for the 'preparation' for the
Kingdom, that is, for the eternal resolve of Predestination,
cannot be definitely proved from them . . .
While the pre-Augustinian tradition is in
favour of the Molinistic explanation, St. Augustine, at least in
his later writings, is more in favour of the Thomistic
explanation. The Thomist view emphasizes God's universal
causality while the other view stresses the universality of the
Divine salvific will, man's freedom and his cooperation in his
salvation. The difficulties remaining on both sides prove that
Predestination even for reason enlightened by faith, is an
unfathomable mystery (Rom 11:33 ff.).
3) PROPERTIES OF PREDESTINATION
a) Immutability
The resolve of Predestination, as an act
of the divine knowledge and will, is as immutable as the Divine
Essence itself. The number of those who are registered in the
Book of Life (Phil 4:3, Rev 17:8; cf. Lk 10:20) is formally and
materially fixed, that is, God knows and determines with
infallible certainty in advance, how many and which men will be
saved . . .
b) Uncertainty
The Council of Trent declared against
Calvin, that certainty in regard to one's Predestination can be
attained by special Revelation only . . . Holy Scripture enjoins
man to work out his salvation in fear and trembling (Phil 2:12).
He who imagines that he will stand should take care lest he fall
(1 Cor 10:12). In spite of this uncertainty there are signs of
Predetermination which indicate a high probability of one's
Predestination, e.g., a persevering practice of the virtues
recommended in the Eight Beatitudes, frequent reception of Holy
Communion, active love of one's neighbor, love for Christ and for
the Church . . .
[For scriptural proofs against absolute
assurance of salvation I submit the following passages: 1 Cor 9:27,
10:12, Gal 5:1,4, Phil 3:11-14, 1 Tim 4:1, 5:15, Heb 3:12-14, 6:4-6,
2 Pet 2:15,20-21. These I consider the most compelling, but there
are many others as well: e.g.: 1 Sam 11:6, 18:11-12, Ezek 18:24,
33:12-13,18, Gal 4:9, Col 1:23, Heb 6:11-12, 10:23,26,29,36,39,
12:15, Rev 2:4-5.]
[Many evangelical Protestants claim to
have an absolute "assurance," but when all is said and
done, both biblically and epistemologically, they simply can't
attain to this certitude, and are no more "certain"
than a devout Catholic or Orthodox is. Such claims are simply
unproven and unprovable. In other words, Protestant "assurance"
involves the following "argument" in a vicious circle:
in order to possess assurance of salvation you must believe that
you have salvation. This has been called "fiducial faith,"
and is completely subjective, every bit as much as the Mormon
"burning in the bosom." Martin Luther himself
illustrates the incoherence of this innovation:
We must day by day struggle towards
greater and greater certainty . . . Everyone should therefore
accustom himself resolutely to the persuasion that he is in a
state of grace . . . Should he feel a doubt, then let him
exercise faith; he must beat down his doubts and acquire
certainty . . . The matter of justification is difficult and
delicate, not indeed in itself, for in itself it is as certain as
can be, but in our regard; of this I have frequent experience.
{In Hartmann Grisar, Luther, London: 1917,
v.4, pp.437-443} ]
4) CONCEPT AND REALITY OF REPROBATION
By Reprobation is understood the eternal
Resolve of God's Will to exclude certain rational creatures from
eternal bliss. While God, by His grace, positively cooperates in
the supernatural merits, which lead to beatification, He merely
permits sin, which leads to eternal damnation.
Regarding the content of the resolve of
Reprobation, a distinction is made between positive and negative
Reprobation, according as the Divine resolve of Reprobation has
for its object condemnation to the eternal punishment of hell, or
exclusion from the Beatific Vision. Having regard to the reason
for Reprobation, a distinction is made between conditioned and
unconditioned (absolute) Reprobation, insofar as the Divine
resolve of Reprobation is dependent on, or independent of the
prevision of future demerits.
GOD, BY AN ETERNAL RESOLVE OF HIS WILL,
PREDESTINES CERTAIN MEN, ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR FORESEEN SINS, TO
ETERNAL REJECTION (De fide)
The reality of Reprobation is not
formally defined, but it is the general teaching of the Church.
5) POSITIVE REPROBATION
Heretical Predestinationism in its
various forms (the Southern Gallic priest Lucidus in the 5th
century; the monk Gottschalk in the 9th century, according to
reports of his opponents, which, however, find no confirmation in
his recently re-discovered writings; Wycliffe, Hus, and esp.
Calvin), teaches a positive predetermination to sin, and an
unconditional Predestination to the eternal punishment of hell,
that is, without consideration of future demerits. This was
rejected as false doctrine by the Particular Synods of Orange,
Quiercy & Valence and by the Council of Trent. Unconditioned
positive Reprobation leads to a denial of the universality of the
Divine Desire for salvation, and of the Redemption, and
contradicts the Justice and Holiness of God as well as the
freedom of man.
According to the teaching of the Church,
there is a conditioned positive Reprobation, that is, it occurs
with consideration of foreseen future demerits (post et propter
praevisa demerita). The conditional nature of Positive
Reprobation is demanded by the generality of the Divine Resolve
of salvation. This excludes God's desiring in advance the
damnation of certain men (cf. 1 Tim 2:4, Ezek 33:11, 2 Pet 3:9) .
. .
6) NEGATIVE REPROBATION
In the question of Reprobation, the
Thomist view favours not an absolute, but only a negative
Reprobation. This is conceived by most Thomists as non-election
to eternal bliss (non-electio), together with the Divine resolve
to permit some rational creatures to fall into sin, and thus by
their own guilt to lose eternal salvation. In contrast to the
absolute Positive Reprobation of the Predestinarians, Thomists
insist on the universality of the Divine Resolve of Salvation and
Redemption, the allocation of sufficient graces to the reprobate,
and the freedom of man's will. However, it is difficult to find
an intrinsic concordance between unconditioned non-election and
the universality of the Divine Resolve of salvation. In practice,
the unconditioned negative Reprobation of the Thomists involves
the same result as the unconditioned positive Reprobation of the
heretical Predestinarians, since outside Heaven and Hell there is
no third final state.
Like the Resolve of Predestination the
Divine Resolve of Reprobation is immutable, but, without special
revelation, its incidence is unknown to men.