The Pope Speaks Out Against Pelaginiasm

Just when I thought only liberals could like what Pope Francis had to say, he writes an exhortation that is a much-needed reassertion of the doctrine that we are saved by grace alone, and not due to our own will or action. I have severe misgivings about the latter part (after paragraph 57) of this, that he intends a knock on conservative Catholics, but I included them anyway, so as not to be guilty of selecting only what I like:

47. Gnosticism gave way to another heresy, likewise present in our day. As time passed, many came to realize that it is not knowledge that betters us or makes us saints, but the kind of life we lead. But this subtly led back to the old error of the gnostics, which was simply transformed rather than eliminated.

48. The same power that the gnostics attributed to the intellect, others now began to attribute to the human will, to personal effort. This was the case with the pelagians and semi-pelagians. Now it was not intelligence that took the place of mystery and grace, but our human will. It was forgotten that everything “depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy” (Rom 9:16) and that “he first loved us” (cf. 1 Jn 4:19).

49. Those who yield to this pelagian or semi-pelagian mindset, even though they speak warmly of God’s grace, “ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style”.[46] When some of them tell the weak that all things can be accomplished with God’s grace, deep down they tend to give the idea that all things are possible by the human will, as if it were something pure, perfect, all-powerful, to which grace is then added. They fail to realize that “not everyone can do everything”,[47] and that in this life human weaknesses are not healed completely and once for all by grace.[48] In every case, as Saint Augustine taught, God commands you to do what you can and to ask for what you cannot,[49] and indeed to pray to him humbly: “Grant what you command, and command what you will”.[50]

50. Ultimately, the lack of a heartfelt and prayerful acknowledgment of our limitations prevents grace from working more effectively within us, for no room is left for bringing about the potential good that is part of a sincere and genuine journey of growth.[51] Grace, precisely because it builds on nature, does not make us superhuman all at once. That kind of thinking would show too much confidence in our own abilities. Underneath our orthodoxy, our attitudes might not correspond to our talk about the need for grace, and in specific situations we can end up putting little trust in it. Unless we can acknowledge our concrete and limited situation, we will not be able to see the real and possible steps that the Lord demands of us at every moment, once we are attracted and empowered by his gift. Grace acts in history; ordinarily it takes hold of us and transforms us progressively.[52] If we reject this historical and progressive reality, we can actually refuse and block grace, even as we extol it by our words.

51. When God speaks to Abraham, he tells him: “I am God Almighty, walk before me, and be blameless” (Gen 17:1). In order to be blameless, as he would have us, we need to live humbly in his presence, cloaked in his glory; we need to walk in union with him, recognizing his constant love in our lives. We need to lose our fear before that presence which can only be for our good. God is the Father who gave us life and loves us greatly. Once we accept him, and stop trying to live our lives without him, the anguish of loneliness will disappear (cf. Ps 139:23-24). In this way we will know the pleasing and perfect will of the Lord (cf. Rom 12:1-2) and allow him to mould us like a potter (cf. Is 29:16). So often we say that God dwells in us, but it is better to say that we dwell in him, that he enables us to dwell in his light and love. He is our temple; we ask to dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of our life (cf. Ps 27:4). “For one day in your courts is better than a thousand elsewhere” (Ps 84:10). In him is our holiness.

52. The Church has repeatedly taught that we are justified not by our own works or efforts, but by the grace of the Lord, who always takes the initiative. The Fathers of the Church, even before Saint Augustine, clearly expressed this fundamental belief. Saint John Chrysostom said that God pours into us the very source of all his gifts even before we enter into battle.[53] Saint Basil the Great remarked that the faithful glory in God alone, for “they realize that they lack true justice and are justified only through faith in Christ”.[54]

53. The Second Synod of Orange taught with firm authority that nothing human can demand, merit or buy the gift of divine grace, and that all cooperation with it is a prior gift of that same grace: “Even the desire to be cleansed comes about in us through the outpouring and working of the Holy Spirit”.[55] Subsequently, the Council of Trent, while emphasizing the importance of our cooperation for spiritual growth, reaffirmed that dogmatic teaching: “We are said to be justified gratuitously because nothing that precedes justification, neither faith nor works, merits the grace of justification; for ‘if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise, grace would no longer be grace’ (Rom 11:6)”.[56]

54. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also reminds us that the gift of grace “surpasses the power of human intellect and will”[57] and that “with regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality”.[58] His friendship infinitely transcends us; we cannot buy it with our works, it can only be a gift born of his loving initiative. This invites us to live in joyful gratitude for this completely unmerited gift, since “after one has grace, the grace already possessed cannot come under merit”.[59] The saints avoided putting trust in their own works: “In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you empty-handed, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justices have stains in your sight”.[60]

55. This is one of the great convictions that the Church has come firmly to hold. It is so clearly expressed in the word of God that there can be no question of it. Like the supreme commandment of love, this truth should affect the way we live, for it flows from the heart of the Gospel and demands that we not only accept it intellectually but also make it a source of contagious joy. Yet we cannot celebrate this free gift of the Lord’s friendship unless we realize that our earthly life and our natural abilities are his gift. We need “to acknowledge jubilantly that our life is essentially a gift, and recognize that our freedom is a grace. This is not easy today, in a world that thinks it can keep something for itself, the fruits of its own creativity or freedom”.[61]

56. Only on the basis of God’s gift, freely accepted and humbly received, can we cooperate by our own efforts in our progressive transformation.[62] We must first belong to God, offering ourselves to him who was there first, and entrusting to him our abilities, our efforts, our struggle against evil and our creativity, so that his free gift may grow and develop within us: “I appeal to you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God” (Rom 12:1). For that matter, the Church has always taught that charity alone makes growth in the life of grace possible, for “if I do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Cor 13:2).

57. Still, some Christians insist on taking another path, that of justification by their own efforts, the worship of the human will and their own abilities. The result is a self-centred and elitist complacency, bereft of true love. This finds expression in a variety of apparently unconnected ways of thinking and acting: an obsession with the law, an absorption with social and political advantages, a punctilious concern for the Church’s liturgy, doctrine and prestige, a vanity about the ability to manage practical matters, and an excessive concern with programmes of self-help and personal fulfilment. Some Christians spend their time and energy on these things, rather than letting themselves be led by the Spirit in the way of love, rather than being passionate about communicating the beauty and the joy of the Gospel and seeking out the lost among the immense crowds that thirst for Christ.[63]

58. Not infrequently, contrary to the promptings of the Spirit, the life of the Church can become a museum piece or the possession of a select few. This can occur when some groups of Christians give excessive importance to certain rules, customs or ways of acting. The Gospel then tends to be reduced and constricted, deprived of its simplicity, allure and savour. This may well be a subtle form of pelagianism, for it appears to subject the life of grace to certain human structures. It can affect groups, movements and communities, and it explains why so often they begin with an intense life in the Spirit, only to end up fossilized… or corrupt.

59. Once we believe that everything depends on human effort as channelled by ecclesial rules and structures, we unconsciously complicate the Gospel and become enslaved to a blueprint that leaves few openings for the working of grace. Saint Thomas Aquinas reminded us that the precepts added to the Gospel by the Church should be imposed with moderation “lest the conduct of the faithful become burdensome”, for then our religion would become a form of servitude.[64]

60. To avoid this, we do well to keep reminding ourselves that there is a hierarchy of virtues that bids us seek what is essential. The primacy belongs to the theological virtues, which have God as their object and motive. At the centre is charity. Saint Paul says that what truly counts is “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6). We are called to make every effort to preserve charity: “The one who loves another has fulfilled the law… for love is the fulfilment of the law” (Rom 13:8.10). “For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’” (Gal 5:14).

61. In other words, amid the thicket of precepts and prescriptions, Jesus clears a way to seeing two faces, that of the Father and that of our brother. He does not give us two more formulas or two more commands. He gives us two faces, or better yet, one alone: the face of God reflected in so many other faces. For in every one of our brothers and sisters, especially the least, the most vulnerable, the defenceless and those in need, God’s very image is found. Indeed, with the scraps of this frail humanity, the Lord will shape his final work of art. For “what endures, what has value in life, what riches do not disappear? Surely these two: the Lord and our neighbour. These two riches do not disappear!”[65]

I don't give a rip about Calvin's theological musings either.

God made the gospel simple.

Romans 10:9-13 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

If people complicate it to the point where only the elitists can *understand* it and have to relay it on to the unwashed, then it needs to go right into the trash, where it belongs.

Your chosen target for your attack is ironic. (Seriously, someone would think this is the first time you read a post in the religion forum.) The 2nd sentence of the post, minus my introduction: “... it is not knowledge that betters us or makes us saints, but the kind of life we lead....”

From there, he provides examples and history of how people forget that, and how it interferes with living the gospel. (Specifically, his topic is pelagianism, the same topic as much of Calvin’s writing.)

His conclusion is simple, and strictly biblical:

“Saint Paul says that what truly counts is “faith working through love”
(Gal 5:6).

We are called to make every effort to preserve charity: “The one who loves another has fulfilled the law… for love is the fulfilment of the law” (Rom 13:8.10).

“For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’” (Gal 5:14).

Actually, I was seeking to attract Calvinists for a discussion about grace alone; pelagianism has been in years past a YUGE topic in Calvinist threads, but there was a false notion that this was a point of departure between Calvinism and Catholic theology.

It still is. In Catholicism, while grace can't be earned, once bestowed it enables one to deserve Heaven. In Fundamentalist Protestantism (at least as I always understood it), it isn't grace but salvation that is freely bestowed. There's a world of difference there. Naturally to anyone of this latter view, the former is going to seem Pelagian.

Fundamentalist Protestants can't really see G-d as capable of creating anything less perfect than He is (an error since by definition anything other than G-d is less perfect than G-d). "Heaven" is simply the world as it was originally created. There was no "test," no provisional period between this world and the next. G-d simply created absolute perfection, and "salvation" is the restoration of this original perfection. In this view it is literally impossible to "merit salvation" any more than one can merit being created in the first place. Thus all human action becomes superfluous.

It was a long time until I could see the flaws in this worldview. For one, as mentioned above, anything G-d created is going to be other than Him and therefore less perfect than He is, however sinless it is. Second, G-d obviously gave Adam and Eve a test when he commanded them not to eat of the fruit (if the world really had been merely created to be Heaven, such a commandment would not have been given). And third, the first sin was not committed by a "fallen" man but by the perfect man. Then you have the Jewish exegesis that when G-d commanded Adam to "guard" and to "keep" the Garden of Eden, the former referred to negative commandments and the latter positive commandments. If the world had been created to be Heaven, no such commandments would have been given.

I suppose all this makes Fundamentalist Protestants look bad to some people, but there is a consistency in their worldview lacking in historical chrstianity. Traditionally, Paul's "antinomian" teachings have been applied only to the Torah, leaving human effort (and even post-Biblical ritual and ceremonial) untouched. There is an inconsistency here. If Biblical rituals and ceremonies commanded directly from the Mouth of G-d are of no use, then how much the more so ('al 'achat kammah vekhammah) are post-Biblical rituals and ceremonies which developed slowly over hundreds of years of no account? Once one begins doing away with rituals and ceremonies, 'im ken, 'ein ladavar sof (if that were so, there would be no end to the matter). This is an inconsistency that all the history and all the authenticity in the world cannot solve. Thus the ultimate end result of the rejection of Protestant "antinomianism" is Judaism, since both Catholicism and Orthodoxy simply go in that direction. Why stop half or two thirds of the way?

VERY interesting comments.

But...

You say, “And third, the first sin was not committed by a ‘fallen’ man but by the perfect man.” THIS is the big point of departure between Catholics and Calvinists. Adam was not the perfect man; he was the incomplete man. He was unblemished by sin, but still did not know God, and therefore could not trust or love God.

Only by sinning, and being redeemed could mankind/Adam understand and therefore at least to some infinitesimally small extent know God. “That has to be a mistake,” you might say, “That would mean GOOD things came from Adam’s sin?” No mistake! This isn’t God’s Plan B. This is why the ancient Easter hymn goes, “O necessary fault of Adam which has gained for us our redeemer!”

The deviation between Catholics and Calvinists is over whether grace is irresistable. Calvinists say that grace cannot be resisted; they consider even the choice to accept grace to be a deed, and therefore amounts to the Semipelagian heresy. Catholics answer that if man cannot resist grace, then Adam’s fall was pointless; if those who are saved are merely automatons, there would be no need to show Adam God’s love through redemption; God could merely have designed Adam to know God’s love and the reason that God allowed Adam to see grace and its absence was to allow him to freely choose between both.

If you don’t mean to be hostile or oppositional, you should be aware that you are choosing very hostile words.

“I don’t need it” is not hostile.

“It goes straight in the trash” is hostile; it implies that it can be of no use to anyone. You’re obviously speaking metaphorically, but to extend that metaphor, throwing it in the trash would be how one disposes of something, so that no-one can use it.

Also, “I don’t give a rip” means it’s not worth a fart. That’s mildly vulgar, but very demeaning of someone else’s work. Again, hostile.

The more you debate that you intended no such hostility, the more you should pay attention when you are informed that you have chosen hostile words.

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.