Confused how some Catholics can be labeled "Pelagians"?

Recently, there's been a lot of fingerpointing at traditional Catholics. Some of it is the same old, same old (insert stale Pharisees joke here). Some of it, however, is very new and very confusing.

Some Catholics have recently been identified -- more than once -- as "Pelagians."

This will undoubtedly bolster the morale of other Catholics while, yet again, making life next to impossible for the traditional-minded parish priest who is, now more than ever, being accused by his flock of putting himself "above the Church" by his devotion to reverence in the liturgy and traditional Catholic teaching.

Below, you will find a very solid retort from a Catholic priest, who is in "full communion":

11th Sunday after Pentecost “by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace in me has not been fruitless.”

Recently, there has been some mentioning of the ancient heresy called Pelagianism. I have heard this term used a number of times in recent months and it seems some confusion has surrounded its employment. So, without passing any judgment on those who are using the term, let us take some time this Sunday to look into this ancient heresy. If we do this well, we might be surprised at how relevant this matter really is today.

Pelagianism takes its name from an austere monk, most likely of Irish descent, named Pelagius. He died around 418. He should not be confused with the two Popes who shared this same name.

Pelagianism can simply be thought of as the self-help heresy. It essentially “denies the elevation of man into the supernatural state, and denies original sin. According to Pelagians the sin of Adam affected his descendants by way of bad example only” (Ott, pp. 222-3). This means that Christ’s saving work of redemption consists above all in His teaching and His example of virtue. For Pelagius, Jesus was just a great teacher as was Moses before Him. Furthermore,

“Pelagianism regarded grace as within the natural capacity of man.” According to this view man has a natural capacity to live a sinless and holy life and merit eternal bliss by exercising his free will. The Pelagians believed this natural capacity was aided by external graces given to us by God… things like the Mosaic Law, the Gospel, the example of virtue set by Our Lord and His Mother and others. This means that man can achieve even the remission of his sins by his own power, by the act of turning his will away from sin. This makes Pelagianism pure naturalism.

To re-capitulate, Pelagianism holds “(i) that the sin of our first parents was not transmitted to their posterity; [Adam’s sin harmed only himself, not the human race, and children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.] (ii) that Christ came into the world, not to restore anything we had lost, but to set up an ideal of virtue, and so counteract the evil example of Adam; (iii) that we can, of our own natural powers, and without any internal assistance from God, [do good that is pleasing to God and thereby] merit the happiness of the Beatific Vision” (cf. Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, p. 456). (iv) the Law of Moses is just as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel. Finally, (v) Pelagians considered death to be natural to man and not a consequence of Adam’s sin. So even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died in any case.

This heretical, erroneous way of thinking and acting was countered heavily by the Doctor of Grace, St. Augustine, as well as many others like St. Jerome and ultimately condemned as heretical by several Popes and Councils, most notably the Papal approved Council of Carthage (418).

This Council taught authoritatively what we still profess today, namely: (i) Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin. (ii) New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin. [Note that the current Code of Canon Law emphasizes this must be done within a couple of weeks of birth]. (iii) Sanctifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins. (iv) The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God's commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them. (v) Without God's grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works. (vi) Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners… (cf. Dz. nos. 101-8).

This is all very interesting in light of what has been transpiring over the last half century or so. In fact, having made this little study, it is amazing to see how much Pelagianism has returned in our own day.

First, consider that today infant baptism is very often delayed and put off for months and even years with little or no concern for the infant’s eternal welfare. Many parishes and priests directly violate the Canon Law by making baptisms available to their people only once a month, whereas the Church demands that their baptism not be delayed over a week or two…and if they are in the danger of death, they are to be baptized without delay, even if a priest is not available. Why this nonchalance attitude toward baptizing infants? Because the prevailing thought today is that all children who die in infancy, baptized or not, go to heaven. De facto, they are considered to be like Adam before the fall! This is Pelagianism. No wonder there has been many efforts over the last decades to do away with the traditional teaching of the Limbo of the Infants, that place where unbaptized infants go.

On the other hand, it has been my experience that traditional minded Catholics seek very diligently to have their newborns baptized as soon as possible. Why? Because His Majesty, Our Lord Jesus Christ, taught that we must be born of water to be saved. St. Paul said in Ephesians, “were by nature children of wrath” (2:3). But we are reborn children of adoption by the waters of baptism! It has also been my experience that faithful Catholics always take the Traditional doctrine of the Limbo of the Infants very seriously. No Pelagianism here!

Second, it is bandied about recently that even atheists can do good works. Pelagius would agree because, as we heard, he held that any man, believer or not, baptized or not, can do good. “The root of this possibility of doing good - that we all have - is in creation” (Pope Francis). In other words, all that is needed to be good is found in nature. Of course, Pelagius also added that the good example of Christ, the written law and Gospel help man to this goodness as external aids. It is interesting to note how Pope John XXIII said at the start of the Vatican Council, “Nowadays… the Spouse of Christ… considers that She meets the needs of the present day by more clearly demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations...” He wanted to see the Magisterium be “predominantly pastoral in character” … “to teach more efficaciously” … “raising the torch of Catholic truth” (cf. The Second Vatican Council: the Unwritten Story, Mattei, pp. 174-5). All that is needed is to teach the truth and people will see the light and do the good.

From this it follows that Pelagius would not be very supportive spending much time in prayer. Why pray if we do not need grace to be good!? Surely, Pelagius would not spend much time kneeling down to pray the Rosary to gain a heavenly favor. Why have priests? Who needs the Sacraments? Sadly, over the last century and still continuing on today, we have had a religious and priests who put work ahead of prayer. There was the worker priest movement. We have seen the rise of laicism…where the laity takes over various roles of the priests. We have seen priests and religious became activists, going to many meetings and opening soup kitchens while neglecting the divine office, their holy hours and spiritual reading. Knowing this, few are surprised at the numerous scandals and loss of vocations. All this flows perfectly from Pelagianism.

Yet, St. Paul clearly stated today in the lesson, “by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace in me has not been fruitless.” Any man can do a naturally good action…saying giving a banana to a friend in need.

Yet, only when the action is done with supernatural charity infused in the soul co-operating with an actual grace given by God for that particular action can it be pleasing to God and worthy of Him. St. Paul is crystal clear on this point: “if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profits me nothing” (1Cor 13:3). This is precisely why Traditional minded Catholics strive to offer everything up… This is precisely why such faithful souls pray the Rosary so often… attend the Holy Mass as much as possible, frequently confess their sins and use Sacramentals. They are beseeching God for grace to grow in holiness. No Pelagianism here. St. Padre Pio prayed multiple Rosaries everyday, even up to 30…pleading for Our Lady’s intercession and aid in the conversion of sinners. Surely, no one would consider this great stigmatic a Pelagian for saying so many Rosaries!

Third, consider how it has been bandied about for some decades now that the Jews do not need to convert, that they have all they require in the Old Law to be saved… as if Our Lord, the Messiah, the very fulfillment of the Old Testament types and prophecies, did not come in the Flesh to establish the New and Everlasting Covenant in His own Blood. Besides most Jews do not follow the Old Law but rather the Talmud. In any case, Pelagius would love this…for, as we heard, he held the Mosaic Law is just as good for going to heaven as the Gospel. Once again, faithful Catholics believe that the Old Law has been fulfilled and completed in the New. That the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the only Sacrifice pleasing to God. No Pelagianism here.

Fourth, consider how Pelagius held that death was natural to man. He would find many in agreement with him today simply because the theory of evolution holds the same. Sad to say, most members in the Church at this time seem to think that evolution is the how things came about. Given that that Pelagius very much agreed with man asserting his will to get things done, I wonder what he would think today about man intervening in nature to force evolution to a new level… as, for example,we are doing in genetically modified foods, environmental controls, and other areas.

The Traditional Catholic, however, is repulsed by evolution, knowing that God did not create death and destruction, but rather death is the wages of sin. Furthermore, the faithful Catholic knows that the Church has given multiple teachings against the pseudo-science of evolution by Her teachings on creation. No Pelagianism here!

Fifth, the use of confession has greatly diminished over the last 40 years. Fewer and fewer souls consider sin a serious concern or a blockage to heaven. Everyone who dies now, goes to heaven. Sinners often are heard saying: “God will understand” and “I will not do it again…”. Pelagius strikes again. Man can overcome sin by himself. God will understand!

The faithful Catholic, however, knows that sin is deeply offensive to God and can only be erased by the application of the Precious Blood of Christ, most especially available in the Confession, and by making reparation through penance and amendment of life. This is why hundreds of thousands of people went to St. Jean Vianney and St. Padre Pio… so that these gifted saints would look into their souls and make sure there were no more sins that needed removal.

Finally, consider how Pelagius denied that Christ Our Lord came to restore what Adam had lost but rather He came merely to provide a good example. Thus, it seems to me that Pelagius would not be a big supporter of any movement of restoration whereas the faithful Catholic longs to see the whole world come under the social reign of Christ Our Majestic and Glorious King. Thus, they love the phrase given to us by St. Paul: “To restore all things in Christ!”

The only point that coincides between the monk Pelagius and traditional minded Catholics is the matter of discipline and austerity. I wish this were more true. Would that more Traditional Catholics were austere with themselves… and more willing to do penance and acts of reparation. Oh how they would please Our Lady who asked us over and over again for nearly 200 years… Penance! Penance! Penance! For the salvation of souls!

It is clear to me that the modern Church in her membership has become more Pelagian than ever whereas Traditional minded Catholics are seeking to hold the line against this most pestiferous return of heresy… striving not to let the precious grace of God granted them be in vain! Labels: A Vatican II Moment, Church of Vatican II Posted by Adfero at 8/04/2013 04:49:00 PM

“Augustine said it so you believe it? Arguing from authority now are you?”

Notice that in all your arguments, you’ve not once made an appeal of any kind, save to your own sentiments. If “Calvinism,” or “Augustinianism,” or “Paulianism,” or, rather, Christianity, has no basis in the scripture, or is backwards or some other issue, then in theory you should be able to tell me what this scripture means:

Joh 6:64-65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. (65) And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

I’ve gone back and forth with you. It’s time for you to put up or shut up on this one. Please tell me, without my saying anything for now, what is the meaning of this verse. You’re free to make use of the context, whatever you like, to make your argument. But please, explain the meaning of this verse.

Divine foreknowledge and salvation by grace through faith.

And you get: ‘you’re either born doomed or saved, luck of the draw as far as you can know.’ Same for your kids.

My appeal is to realize where Calvinism ends up: A capricious pagan god responsible for all personal sin and each man responsible for none.

However you get there, when you get there - no matter how well you think any piece fits - you should realize you made a very wrong turn somewhere. You’ve gone backward.

“Divine foreknowledge and salvation by grace through faith.”

Looking at the verse, you’re saying that the Father had foreknowledge about whom He would give to the Son and whom He wouldn’t? To “give” is not a passive act, it is a positive one. Furthermore, Christ is saying it as an explanation to Jews who did not believe. He is telling them that they don’t believe because it was not given to them to believe. How does your 8 word sentence in any way address what it actually said? Please be more specific.

As for “why does it matter.” It’s the scripture, number one, and therefore is infallible in its teaching. Secondly, the Spirit works through the the hearing and reading of the Word of God, as those who were ordained to eternal life believed at the preaching of Paul.

Act_13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Who knows? Maybe the Holy Spirit will use this preaching to bring you out of Catholicism?

So, again, please give a detailed explanation for the meaning of that verse. Not just a random sentence about what you wished it meant. Or, if that one is too hard, let’s try another one.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

What does this verse mean? Don’t give me just a single sentence here. Use the context, use commentaries, use whatever you gotta use. Just give me the clear meaning of this verse. OR just the other one. Or BOTH if you’re feeling good. Makes no difference to me, honestly.

As for “why does it matter.” It’s the scripture, number one, and therefore is infallible in its teaching.

But you aren't.

The "what does it matter" question is about salvation. You don't think whether you get it right will make you elect do you? Or that not getting it right will make you a reprobate? You are already elect aren't you?

You don't think any of this here matters regarding salvation, do you? It can't possibly change who is born elect and who isn't, can it? It cannot possibly have any effect on this whatsoever. Nothing you or i or anyone else do or can do has any effect at all.

Not in Calvinism. It's all a done deal.

So, again, what is the point of you arguing with me about what a verse of Holy Scripture means?

“You don’t think any of this here matters regarding salvation, do you? It can’t possibly change who is born elect and who isn’t, can it? It cannot possibly have any effect on this whatsoever. Nothing you or i or anyone else do or can do has any effect at all.”

Of course it cannot change the secret counsel of God. But on the other hand, no one is being damned because they tried to believe and God still refused them. Look here, for instance, I’ve given you the opportunity to prove me wrong using the scripture. I’ve asked you to explain, using whatever means available, a simple verse. You haven’t, and you won’t. Who is to blame for this? You, of course. Just because the Holy Spirit decides to pass someone by (not necessarily speaking of you), and He decided to do so before the foundation of the world, doesn’t mean that you have lost your will. If you could believe without the working of the Holy Spirit, that certainly would be wonderful! Though, it’s impossible, seeing as how humanity is utterly subject to sin. The scripture is clear that unless it is given to you, you cannot believe. Unless the Holy Spirit gives it to you, you cannot believe.

1Co_12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Furthermore, man is all gone astray, they do not seek after God (see Romans 3). Though God certainly uses your sinning nature for His own purposes (speaking generally and not of you specifically), and arranges, through His providential power, to fit you for destruction, as He did Judas, you know that every time the truth is preached they are given a chance to believe, and yet, as the scripture teaches, they refuse to.

So then, God knowing this, foreseeing it, and ordaining your fate and purpose, albeit it is a dreadful one, is God unjust? If God, knowing that you are evil, and choosing to create you, knowing full well your nature, and deciding to make you a “vessel of wrath,” will you rail at God for doing what He wants with what belongs to Him? And if God foreseeing you as a sinner who would, if left alone, go straight to hell, decides to actively change the will and nature of the individual, is God unjust for not having this mercy on all?

You punted on those two verses, so let’s try another one.

Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Can you tell me what THIS verse means? Or, maybe, this one:

Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Pick one, you only have to pick one. And let it be longer than a single random sentence, but a strong and detailed response, on what any of these verses mean.

Just because the Holy Spirit decides to pass someone by (not necessarily speaking of you), and He decided to do so before the foundation of the world, doesn’t mean that you have lost your will. If you could believe …though, it’s impossible, seeing as how humanity is utterly subject to sin. The scripture is clear..

I'm sorry, I still don't see the purpose here - from your point of view.

So, again, other than your amusement or some competitive game you're playing, what is the point of you arguing with me about what a verse of Holy Scripture means?

You really do not believe you're going to change whether I or anyone else, Catholic or not, has been born elect or reprobate, do you? This is, at best, sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I’ve given you the opportunity to prove me wrong using the scripture. I’ve asked you to explain, using whatever means available, a simple verse. You haven’t, and you won’t. Who is to blame for this?

God, right?

Why do care so much about winning an argument that changes absolutely nothing important for anyone - yourself included?

And if it matters not a bit, why should I play what is just a game for you?

“So, again, other than your amusement or some competitive game you’re playing, what is the point of you arguing with me about what a verse of Holy Scripture means?”

So what was wrong, exactly, with my previous reply? Just because you’re not happy with a response, doesn’t mean it’s a bad response. You’ve not explained what’s wrong with it. (Though, not explaining things seems to be your habit.) And, actually, there are many other responses I can give you, ranging from “Because I am commanded to,” to “because it robs you (speaking of the general “you,” and not you personally) of excuse on the great judgment day, since God reasoned with you, and proved that mankind can do nothing apart from His grace.”

Or as Augustine puts it,

“We most wholesomely confess that which we most rightly believe, that God, the Lord of all things, who created all things ‘very good,’ foreknew that evil would arise out of this good; and He also knew that it was more to the glory of His omnipotent goodness to bring good out of evil, than not to permit evil to be at all! And He so ordained the lives of angels and of men that He might first show in them what free-will could do, and then afterwards show what the free gift of His grace and the judgment of His justice could do.” (Augustine, qtd in Calvin’s Treatise on Eternal Predestination)

So which of these do you like the best, and will make you happy? If you say “none,” well, I can’t help you there. If you can’t see my “point of view” and what motivates me to respond to you, I can’t help you there, no matter how much you tell me you are answering from my “point of view.” In the end, it is between you and God. In the end it is between you and that verse in chapter 6 of the Gospel of John, and many more just like it. The forgiveness of sins is liberally offered, and you do not know the secret will of God. If you (speaking generally again) will not convert, you only have yourself to blame. If you feel yourself not drawn, well, then go and pray to be drawn. If you feel yourself lost, well then go and pray to be found. But if you find conversion, remember it was God who made you sensible to your lack, and who so arranged everything to bring you, His sheep from before the foundation of the world, into salvation.

PELAGIANISM

Heretical teaching on grace of Pelagius (355-425), the English or Irish lay monk who first propagated his views in Rome in the time of Pope Anastasius (reigned 399-401). He was scandalized at St. Augustine's teaching on the need for grace to remain chaste, arguing that this imperiled man's use of his own free will. Pelagius wrote and spoke extensively and was several times condemned by Church councils during his lifetime, notably the Councils of Carthage and Mileve in 416, confirmed the following year by Pope Innocent I. Pelagius deceived the next Pope, Zozimus, who at first exonerated the heretic, but soon (418) retracted his decision. Pelagianism is a cluster of doctrinal errors, some of which have plagued the Church ever since. Its principal tenets are: 1. Adam would have died even if he had not sinned; 2. Adam's fall injured only himself and at worst affected his posterity by giving them a bad example; 3. newborn children are in the same condition as Adam before hi fell; 4. mankind will not die because of Adam's sin or rise on the Last Day because of Christ's redemption; 5. the law of ancient Israel no less than the Gospel offers equal opportunity to reach heaven. As Pelagianism later developed, it totally denied the supernatural order and the necessity of grace for salvation.

All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.

You’ve not explained what’s wrong with it.

What's wrong with it is there's no purpose to it in your theology. It doesn't matter. You and I can argue interpretation until the second coming and nothing we say or do can possibly affect another human being in any way that matters concerning what is most important in our religion.

You still haven't given a reason that conforms to your theology.

“Because I am commanded to,”

OK, why should I ?

“because it robs you (speaking of the general “you,” and not you personally) of excuse on the great judgment day, since God reasoned with you

What? Some excuse will matter? I'm either doomed or saved already, right? This is nonsensical.

So which of these do you like the best, and will make you happy?

One that has (from the Calvinist theology) any real significance or purpose, makes any difference, will change anything or any one, or matters in any way one way or the other - excepting facilitating your view of your mission from God or for your entertainment or amusement in some competitive dueling scriptures game.

Can you come up with one consistent with Calvinism?

“What? Some excuse will matter? I’m either doomed or saved already, right? This is nonsensical.”

How, exactly, is it nonsensical? Can you tell me? Because, honestly, I’m not sure that you can tell me how it is nonsensical. I think that’s just a comforting word you use, and something you hoped to prove, but couldn’t. After all, I’m literally just telling you what the scripture says, that God “willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” (Rom 9:22). And, through this divine justice on the vessels of wrath, He “make[s] known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.” So then, wouldn’t showing that you, when being reasoned with, and given every opportunity, still refused the Gospel, show to the elect the necessity for His divine grace in salvation?

As for “Why should I?” Umm, because it is a sin to disobey God, and we are ordained for the purpose of producing fruit? As Christ says, ‘ye have not chosen me, I have chosen you, and ordained you to bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should abide.” If God has saved me, why shouldn’t I produce fruit, if that is what God moves me to do? Can you tell me how it is nonsensical in my theology, to believe that I obey God, because God moves me to obey God, as part of the fruit He wanted me to produce?

“Your theology makes this whole discussion nonsensical, purposeless.”

But notice how you subtly changed the goal post. You said that my answers were inconsistent within my own theology. You said, ‘you have not given a reason that conforms to your theology.” So, all I have to do is give an answer consistent with my theology, right? (Which I’ve been doing all along, actually.) Can you tell me how I failed at that? And I mean, in detail. Don’t just say “it’s nonsensical!”, or give one random sentence ignoring everything I said. If God who, through Paul, earlier said “Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?”, and then, a few verses later, makes it clear that He wants the elect to understand something, and to show forth His justice on the reprobate... then how can you accuse me of being “nonsensical” when I merely repeated what the scripture said? I’d consider it the most consistent answer I could give. If God does not think it is nonsensical to show the elect something, to teach them, and to show forth His justice and mercy, His opinion should trump yours, right?

Now, that you find it nonsensical, from my “point of view,” which you are claiming to try to argue from, is the same as saying that the scripture is nonsensical. So, unless I am somehow wrong, why should I regard your opinion about it being nonsensical? From my theological standpoint, all I have to do is conclude that the “carnal mind” cannot comprehend the truths of scripture. Pretty simple to conclude, eh? So, I actually like it when you want me to argue from my own theology.

Now, if you want to drop all this and start saying that this theology, in general, is wrong. Well, then go back to that verse in John 6 and tell me what it means. Can you do that?

If God has saved me, why shouldn’t I produce fruit

Because it isn't fruit. It's a meaningless imitation of fruit in a puppet world where your or anyone else's fruit makes no real difference to anyone. It's busy work that makes you feel good at best.

That's the conclusion of Calvinist theology. A god that you serve by doing something that doesn't matter.

If you end up with this as god, you have left Christ who preaches to us, exhorts us, loves us, calls us to love one another and help each other... because if we do, it really does matter.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.