Tuesday, October 22, 2013

St. Boethius?

In the traditional Roman Office, the Martyrology is read at Prime, the day before its entry. So today, amongst other saints, I was reminded of this saint.

Papiae in Liguria, commemoratio sancti Severini Boetii, martyris, qui, scientia ac scriptis praeclarus, in carcere detentus tractarum scripsit de consoloatione philosophiae et Deo usque ad mortem a Theodorico rege inflictam cum integritate servivit.

At Pavia in Liguria, the commemoration of St. Severinus Boethius, martyr, who, renowned for his knowledge and writing, while detained in prison wrote The Consolation of Philosophy and served God wholly even till killed by the king Theodoric. 

Many students have read The Consolation of Philosophy. Most Thomists are at least aware of his influence of St. Thomas Aquinas. But they tend to treat him the way they would Avicenna or Averröes. It may surprise them that this man is buried in the same Church as the great St. Augustine.

St. Boethius always struck me as a proto-Thomas. He anticipated, certainly, the synthesis that St. Thomas would later bring to great fruition. But he was also one of the last martyrs of an era. A Roman Senator, a subject of the Roman empire.

Benedict XVI has some poignant remarks about this holy man. Because of Boethius's unique contribution, Benedict echoes the sentiment, "Boethius was ... as the last representative of ancient Roman culture and the first of the Medieval intellectuals."

Benedict's full remarks are Here. St. Boethius, doctor and martyr, pray for us.

Monday, October 21, 2013

Efficacious and Sufficient Grace

Confídimus in Dómino Iesu, quia, qui coepit in vobis opus bonum, perfíciet usque in diem Christi Iesu.
We confide in the Lord Jesus, since He who has begun a good work in you shall bring it to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. (Philippians 1:6)

These words of St. Paul, which were read this last Sunday in the traditional form of the Roman Rite, are taken by St. Thomas Aquinas as a reproach against the Pelagians. For they held that the beginning of our conversion and salvation is from us, but God brings it to completion. On the contrary, the Apostle says, God has begun the good work in us. And He shall perfect it, that is bring it to completion. Both the beginning and end of salvation is from God.

In pondering these words, I am reminded of the connection between sufficient and efficacious grace in the Thomistic understanding. Sufficient grace is the ability to perform some salutary, or grace-filled action. Efficacious grace is the actual work itself. God is, at least, prepared in Himself to give all men sufficient grace. But efficacious grace is not given to all. For not all men come to grace to begin with, but resist. And others, who have come to God's grace, fall away and therefore do not persevere. They were able to persevere, they had sufficient grace, but they did not. They lacked efficacious grace.

The Molinists generally hold that the difference between these graces is only extrinsic. In actu secundo. That is, sufficient grace is efficacious grace when the will consents. They object to the Thomist view which states that not only are these two graces different in themselves, but one who does the salutary act does it because he was given efficacious grace, and the one who does not do so was not given efficacious grace.

Blaise Paschal, though motivated by Jansenist concerns, places the objection very bluntly. He reports a conversation with a Dominican:

“But tell me, Father, is this grace given to all men sufficient?” “Yes,” he said. “And yet it is of no effect without efficacious grace?” “That is true,” he said. “That means,” I said, “that all have enough grace, and all do not have enough; that this grace suffices, although it does not suffice; that it is sufficient in name and insufficient in fact.” (The Provincial Letters, Blaise Pascal. Letter II. Translation for Penguin Books. ©1967)


I am not here prepared to offer a full account or defense of the Thomistic doctrine. Rather, I mean only to bring up one aspect of the solution. "He who has begun a good work in you, shall bring it to completion." One does not sharpen a pencil unless he intends to write with the pencil. God does not act in vain. He does not bestow sufficient grace without there being a real connection between it and efficacious grace. As sharpening a pencil imparts an ability to the pencil to be an instrument of writing, so sufficient grace imparts an ability upon the created free agent to be an instrument of God's grace.

Still, even among the just, even among those elect, there are sins and failings. There are times when sufficient grace is given, not efficacious grace. We may respond, that though we sharpen a pencil in order to write with it, still we may omit writing with it if there is some fault in the pencil, such as if the tip breaks. Likewise, it is only on account of such a fault in us, our resistance to the good work, that sufficient grace is not brought to completion; that efficacious grace is denied. We must conceive the order in the person whom grace acts without impediment as- sufficient grace, efficacious grace, salutary act. The consent itself is from efficacious grace. But in the one who resists, we find that God has permitted (not caused!) the man to posit some resistance and only on account of that resistance, God denies efficacious grace. In the just, the grace causes the free consent. But in the sinner, it is not the denial of the grace that causes the resistance, but the resistance that causes the denial.
Although someone through the motion of his free choice is neither able to merit nor call upon divine grace, still he is able to impede himself lest he should receive it...And since this is in the power of free choice, to impede or not impede the reception of divine grace, it is not unjustly imputed to him as fault who presents an impediment to the reception of grace. For God, as much as He is in Himself, is prepared to give grace to all, for he wills all men to be saved... but those only are deprived of grace who present in themselves an impediment to grace. (Summa Contra Gentiles lib. 3 cap. 159)

So why is St. Paul so confident? If indeed God permits some to resist and thus denies completion to the good work? St. Paul justifies his confidence in the verses following the one at the top of this post.

And I have the right to feel so about you all, because I have you in my heart, all of you, alike in my chains and in the defense and confirmation of the Gospel, as sharers in my joy. For God is my witness how I long for you all in the heart of Christ Jesus. And this I pray, that your charity may more and more abound in knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve the better things, that you may be upright and without offense unto the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of justice, through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.

It is because St. Paul prays that they be upright and without offense "until the day of Christ." And he has confidence in the object of his prayer because this is a good work begun by God. His confidence is wholly in God throughout, and this is why he may state so confidently that God shall bring the good work, to completion.This same and complete trust in God is echoed in the Thomist doctrine. St. Thomas, in the Summa Contra Gentiles passage, does not say it is in his power to "consent or reject." He says "to impede or not to impede." The sinner posits a contrary act, he rejects. But the just man rests on God. He does not need to posit some act in order for God to do anything. He merely must be docile to God, and in this docility he obtains true freedom and his will is brought to freely act in grace.

Friday, October 18, 2013

Where Have All the Heretics Gone?

Heretic. "It's not a likeable word or thing," as Sir Thomas More quips in A Man for All Seasons.We shy away from that word. And we deny it of those who would have easily been called heretics without a moment's though just a few decades ago. Eastern Orthodox? Schismatic but not heretical; even though there are clearly rejections of Catholic dogma, e.g. the infallibility of the pope. And protestants are not heretics either because they lack obstinacy. They were born and raised in that error. Not their fault.

Well I am not going to judge the change in Church practice, whereby we no longer presume formal adherence to heresy by protestants and I will leave the Orthodox alone (for now). But what intrigues me is whether the whole framework in which these things are addressed is hopeless detached from reality.

St. Thomas, in discussing heresy, states:

The name heresy ... implies choice. ...One can deviate from the correct Christian faith in two ways. In one way when he does not will to assent to Christ Himself...in another way by this, that he intends to assent to Christ, certainly, but fails in choosing those things by which he assents to Christ, since he does not choose those things that are truly handed down by Christ, but those which are suggested by his own mind.  S. Th. II q. 11 a. 1 co.

In another article (S. Th. II-II q. 5 q. 3) he explains the difference between formal and material heretics much the same way we distinguish between liars and people who are just wrong. If I say X is true, and believe it, but am wrong, then I am not a liar. But if I say X is true, believing it false, then I am a liar. Any individual can be mistaken about some doctrine of the faith. Just ask your average Catholic to explain predestination. But there is a different between being materially wrong and choosing to cling to something based on one's own will, rather than obedience to God.

We live in an age where the word choice, from whence we get the term heresy, is enshrined as something sacred. One's opinions are sacrosanct and no matter your qualifications, or lack thereof, your opinion is of equal worth. It is certainly not an age of obedience.

We can certainly imagine someone born and raised in a protestant tradition, adhering to what was handed down to him, and acting in good faith. But that picture is exceeding rare in reality. I do not speak here of protestantism, but just modern man as such. It holds true from Catholic households just as much. We exalt in making our choice.

Regardless of the presence or absence of other doctrinal errors, I am quite afraid that the disappearance of the term heretic or heresy is not a sign of a lack of the formal element of heresy. It arises more from the fact that modern man has made heresy itself a tenet. The choice and the faculty to choose are celebrated. So regardless of whether you choose truth or falsity, the important thing is that you choose. And this, it seems to me, is a far more pernicious heresy.

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Return to Blogging

      I created this blog over a year ago, after having written on other blogs in the past. Then I thought, do I have the time to run a blog? But more importantly, am I saying anything that is worth sharing? Other people have blogs and cover much ground. What can I add? So I abandoned the blog and deleted the posts I had prepared.

     But I have decided to resurrect the idea. Not because I will necessarily add anything unique to what is out there, but because this will provide me an outlet to partake in my writing. If anything I write provides benefit to anyone else, so much the better. But I am not so arrogant as to aim for such a high goal in all my posts. Rather, I hope to foster feedback and discussion for my own benefit as much as anyone else.

    I have pondered what should be the main focus of this blog. My interests are varied and will likely not be found together in too many others. So, dear (prospective) readers I ask your patience if I one day post on some obscure theological text and the next day ramble on about some mundane hobby, as I figure out, through trial and error, what form this blog shall take.