16th Sunday After Pentecost

In the traditional Calendar, today is the 16th Sunday after Pentecost. The Epistle read today was formerly read on the 15th Sunday going back to the 4th century, and sometime before the 9th was shifted to this Sunday, when all the Epistles after Pentecost shifted ahead one Sunday, whilst the Gospels and other propers remained. One can readily see the connection between the Gospel of today (Luke 14:1-11), which includes the parable spoken by Christ to the Pharisees, over taking the lowest seat at the table, with the Epistle formerly read on this day, but now next Sunday, Ephesians 4:1-6, which calls us to walk in humility and meekness.

But the change was not unfitting

Is Proselytism An Evil? Is it Really Different from Evangelization?

The word proselytize means, etymologically, "to come toward." It is a term used in the Greek Septuagint and in the New Testament to refer to gentiles that were God-fearing and had entered Judaism (e.g. προσήλυτος is used in Matthew 23:15.)  It was also used in the early Church to refer to new converts. So when did it become a bad word? We see even the pope himself saying we must not proselytize. (cf Here and in his earlier interview with Scalfari)

15th Sunday after Pentecost and St. Matthew

Today was a liturgical two-fer in the 1962 Missal- 15th Sunday after Pentecost and the Feast of St. Matthew, Apostle. Starting in 1955, the Sunday take precedence with a commemoration of St. Matthew. The Gospel for today brought to mind my last post, in light of the claims of Cardinal Kasper that Christ's raising people from the dead were "non-historical" stories.

Luke 7:11-16

Crisis in the Church as Dark Night of the Soul

I have largely kept silent during Francis' pontificate. I have ignore most controversies that have arisen. I broke silence when Cardinal Daneels was named as a pontifical appointee to the Synod of the Family. I easily expected having to deal with those like Kasper, but Daneels appointment shattered my trust in the pope's prudential judgment. I was accused of being a Martin Luther for criticizing bishops and cardinals!

I could always come up with some plausible understanding of what the pope was doing. I don't always, or even usually, agree with said reasoning, but it allowed me not to be troubled in spirit and to give a reasonable response to those who were troubled and  answer those who let such controversies cast doubt or support denial of real Catholic doctrine. On this issue, I was and am still flummoxed. I can only throw up my hands and give up on plausible rationalizations. There isn't one. I can only hope for an implausible reason to show itself later.

How can I avoid criticizing prelates when one promotes a catechism that encourages docility on the part of children to sexual assault and battery by adults and the other considers the miracles of Jesus mere stories, not history?

A Return to Blogging and the Crisis in the Church

I have kept meaning to return to this blog, but other projects, forgetfulness and intellectual difficulties with trying to figure out rights language kept getting in the way. I plan to re-attempt an examination of firearm rights sometime soon. But there are far more important concerns plaguing my mind I will try to post at least once a week from now on. I invite, as always, discussion on the thoughts presented.

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.

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.