Catholic doctrine on Predestination

[DeaconDean]

Here is a new one for me.

Since when is:

"A. The Predestination of the Elect.—He who would place the reason of predestination either in man alone or in God alone would inevitably be led into heretical conclusions about eternal election. In the one case the error concerns the last end, in the other the means to that end. Let it be noted that we do not speak of the "cause" of predestination, which would be either the efficient cause (God), or the instrumental cause (grace), or the final cause (God's honor), or the primary meritorious cause, but of the reason or motive which induced God from all eternity to elect certain definite individuals to grace and glory. The principal question then is: Does the natural merit of man exert perhaps some influence on the Divine election to grace and glory? If we recall the dogma of the absolute gratuity of Christian grace, our answer must be outright negative (see Grace). To the further question whether Divine predestination does not at least take into account the supernatural good works, the Church answers with the doctrine that heaven is not given to the elect by a purely arbitrary act of God's will, but that it is also the reward of the personal merits of the justified (see Merit).

Source

Just a plain reading says that believing isn't enough to get you into heaven. While works alone won't get you into heaven.

Entrance to heaven is granted to you by "meritorious" works, heaven, is your "reward".

Learn something new everyday.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

Faith and rewards go hand in hand if you want to please God. The works is in the seeking.

 

[sdowney717]

Here is another Catholic teaching. Thank God He caused the reformation, The roman church was just one of many churches that has placed itself higher, lording itself over all the others and wrote into their doctrine many man mad teachings, contrary to scripture.. To me they are about as bad as the Mormon church.

Catholicism teaches that Protestantism is a part of Christianity, the only true "faith" (Catholicism regards all non-Christian religions as "beliefs" since they are not based on God's revelation in history, Dominus Iesus p. 7),[34] nevertheless, individual Protestants aware of the fact that Christ established the Catholic Church, but fail to join its membership, "cannot be saved" since they are living in open contempt towards God's known truth.[32]

 

[kepha31]

Here is a new one for me.

Since when is:

"A. The Predestination of the Elect.—He who would place the reason of predestination either in man alone or in God alone would inevitably be led into heretical conclusions about eternal election. In the one case the error concerns the last end, in the other the means to that end. Let it be noted that we do not speak of the "cause" of predestination, which would be either the efficient cause (God), or the instrumental cause (grace), or the final cause (God's honor), or the primary meritorious cause, but of the reason or motive which induced God from all eternity to elect certain definite individuals to grace and glory. The principal question then is: Does the natural merit of man exert perhaps some influence on the Divine election to grace and glory? If we recall the dogma of the absolute gratuity of Christian grace, our answer must be outright negative (see Grace). To the further question whether Divine predestination does not at least take into account the supernatural good works, the Church answers with the doctrine that heaven is not given to the elect by a purely arbitrary act of God's will, but that it is also the reward of the personal merits of the justified (see Merit).

Source

Just a plain reading says that believing isn't enough to get you into heaven. While works alone won't get you into heaven.

Entrance to heaven is granted to you by "meritorious" works, heaven, is your "reward".

Learn something new everyday.

God Bless

Till all are one.

That is a misrepresentation of Catholic teaching on "merit".
2006 The term "merit" refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.

2007 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, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us "co-heirs" with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life."60 The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.61 "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God's gifts."62

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.

After earth's exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone. . . . In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.63
CCC 2006-2011

That is from the catechism, not a footnote from wikipedia.

 

[kepha31]

Here is another Catholic teaching. Thank God He caused the reformation, The roman church was just one of many churches that has placed itself higher, lording itself over all the others and wrote into their doctrine many man mad teachings, contrary to scripture.. To me they are about as bad as the Mormon church.

Catholicism teaches that Protestantism is a part of Christianity, the only true "faith" (Catholicism regards all non-Christian religions as "beliefs" since they are not based on God's revelation in history, Dominus Iesus p. 7),[34] nevertheless, individual Protestants aware of the fact that Christ established the Catholic Church, but fail to join its membership, "cannot be saved" since they are living in open contempt towards God's known truth.[32]

Your quote from Dominus Iesus does not exist. Your assault the CC is just as baseless. Instead of making broad meaningless remarks, pick ONE doctrine that disturbs you and start a thread.
Don't start it with a man made definition of "doctrine".

 

[sdowney717]

Your quote from Dominus Iesus does not exist. Your assault the CC is just as baseless. Instead of making broad meaningless remarks, pick ONE doctrine that disturbs you and start a thread.
Don't start it with a man made definition of "doctrine".

Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Unam Sanctam — Papal Bull of Pope Boniface VIII

 

[kepha31]

Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Unam Sanctam — Papal Bull of Pope Boniface VIII

Anti-Catholics who love this quote are unaware it was written in 1302, when there was only one Church.
It does not follow at all that "all non-Catholics are damned" for a number of reasons. The objection also displays a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching and takes the Papal Bull out of context from history and theology.

A non-Catholic CANNOT submit or be subject to the Pope, even if the person sincerely desired to obey the Pope in everything and believe all his teachings. Only CATHOLICS can submit to the Pope since one CANNOT submit to the Pope without being a member of the visible One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ as necessary for salvation of whom the Pope is the visible head. And that is precisely the point Pope Boniface VIII is making...

...In the context of the Bull itself, Boniface is making a statement about the true nature of the true visible Church, that it must have a visible head (see "The Bull in Context"). So when Boniface insists "all human beings" (Latin omni humanae creaturae) must be subject to the visible head for their eternal salvation, they must be members of the one visible Church for eternal salvation. The first and last sentences of the Bull must be taken together. While the last sentence is the only infallible definition in the Bull, the first sentence has also been infallibly defined (see "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church: Historical Teaching").

Now it would follow from the above that those who do not submit to the Pope are not FORMAL members of the Catholic Church -- that is true. But it does not follow that all non-Catholics (for example, those BORN into Protestant or Orthodox Christian churches) are necessarily damned. Notice also that Boniface VIII does not define precisely MEMBERSHIP in the Church and the Bull is not a "be-all-end-all" statement on that subject since it does not stand alone. It has a context both in Church history and Catholic theology. Further distinctions can and have been made by later Popes (especially those of the 19th and 20th centuries).

So in answer to the specific question : Can an Orthodox, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, pagan or atheist be subject to the Pope? No, not unless and until they become formal members of the Catholic Church

The issue for Protestant Christians (who not only deny Papal authority but any number of defined Catholic doctrines) is how they RELATE TO that one true visible Church (for example, see Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism 3).

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

(1) The objection ignores the immediate context of the Bull, written to French CATHOLICS in the 14th century who were not submitting to the Pope. This will be covered in detail under "The Bull in Context."

(2) The objection ignores the broader context of Catholic theology, especially on salvation, Baptism, and the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.

The Bull simply CANNOT be applied to (for example) modern Protestant Christians (who did not exist in the 14th century and had nothing whatsoever to do with the Bull) without carefully considering the WHOLE teaching of the Church on salvation and the Body of Christ. To so misapply the Bull is to show contempt for Church history, Papal documents, and Catholic theology in general.
Unam Sanctam "Problem" Resolved
Your quote doesn't say what you want it to say.

 

[kepha31]

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Toward unity

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279
CCC 817-820

 

[sdowney717]

Anti-Catholics who love this quote are unaware it was written in 1302, when there was only one Church.
It does not follow at all that "all non-Catholics are damned" for a number of reasons. The objection also displays a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching and takes the Papal Bull out of context from history and theology.

A non-Catholic CANNOT submit or be subject to the Pope, even if the person sincerely desired to obey the Pope in everything and believe all his teachings. Only CATHOLICS can submit to the Pope since one CANNOT submit to the Pope without being a member of the visible One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ as necessary for salvation of whom the Pope is the visible head. And that is precisely the point Pope Boniface VIII is making...

...In the context of the Bull itself, Boniface is making a statement about the true nature of the true visible Church, that it must have a visible head (see "The Bull in Context"). So when Boniface insists "all human beings" (Latin omni humanae creaturae) must be subject to the visible head for their eternal salvation, they must be members of the one visible Church for eternal salvation. The first and last sentences of the Bull must be taken together. While the last sentence is the only infallible definition in the Bull, the first sentence has also been infallibly defined (see "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church: Historical Teaching").

Now it would follow from the above that those who do not submit to the Pope are not FORMAL members of the Catholic Church -- that is true. But it does not follow that all non-Catholics (for example, those BORN into Protestant or Orthodox Christian churches) are necessarily damned. Notice also that Boniface VIII does not define precisely MEMBERSHIP in the Church and the Bull is not a "be-all-end-all" statement on that subject since it does not stand alone. It has a context both in Church history and Catholic theology. Further distinctions can and have been made by later Popes (especially those of the 19th and 20th centuries).

So in answer to the specific question : Can an Orthodox, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, pagan or atheist be subject to the Pope? No, not unless and until they become formal members of the Catholic Church

The issue for Protestant Christians (who not only deny Papal authority but any number of defined Catholic doctrines) is how they RELATE TO that one true visible Church (for example, see Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism 3).

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

(1) The objection ignores the immediate context of the Bull, written to French CATHOLICS in the 14th century who were not submitting to the Pope. This will be covered in detail under "The Bull in Context."

(2) The objection ignores the broader context of Catholic theology, especially on salvation, Baptism, and the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.

The Bull simply CANNOT be applied to (for example) modern Protestant Christians (who did not exist in the 14th century and had nothing whatsoever to do with the Bull) without carefully considering the WHOLE teaching of the Church on salvation and the Body of Christ. To so misapply the Bull is to show contempt for Church history, Papal documents, and Catholic theology in general.
Unam Sanctam "Problem" Resolved
Your quote doesn't say what you want it to say.

'Your quote doesn't say what you want it to say'
Only if you twist the meaning of the Papal Bull.
So what if it was written in 1302, Catholic doctrine evolves and changes with time?
The scriptures were written long before 1302, still relevant today for doctrine, and reproof, etc... and do not change in their meaning.
Hundreds of millions lived and died under those Papal decrees with the understanding that those outside the Catholic church, the protestants, were damned according to church teaching.. Many were killed, I wont let that go, they were martyred by Catholics following Papal orders..what they experienced is still fresh to God awaiting the final judgement.

 

[kepha31]

'Your quote doesn't say what you want it to say'
Only if you twist the meaning of the Papal Bull.

Demonstrate what I have twisted instead of making meaningless assertions.

So what if it was written in 1302, Catholic doctrine evolves and changes with time?

Catholic doctrine develops, changing the essence is impossible.

The scriptures were written long before 1302, still relevant today for doctrine, and reproof, etc... and do not change in their meaning.

There are at least 12 scripture quotes in Unam Sanctum, and comparatively, it's a rather short document. Pope Boniface changed no scriptures. I gave you a link explaining the historical and theological context but apparently you are not interested. Unam Sanctam "Problem" Resolved You got caught taking a snippet out of context and now you re having a temper tantrum.

Hundreds of millions lived and died under those Papal decrees with the understanding that those outside the Catholic church, the protestants, were damned according to church teaching.. Many were killed, I wont let that go, they were martyred by Catholics following Papal orders..what they experienced is still fresh to God awaiting the final judgement.

You have no scholarly evidence to support that LIE. Just the psychotic ramblings of wanna-be-preachers on you tube, and elsewhere.

 

[DeaconDean]

That is a misrepresentation of Catholic teaching on "merit".
2006 The term "merit" refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.

2007 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, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us "co-heirs" with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life."60 The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.61 "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God's gifts."62

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.

After earth's exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone. . . . In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.63
CCC 2006-2011

That is from the catechism, not a footnote from wikipedia.

See, that's why I disagree with Catholicism.

If you get right down to the nitty-gritty.

What does God owe us? Nothing.

Even though I'm born-again, saved by the shed blood of Jesus Christ, if I die and God sends me to the lake of fire for all of eternity, He would still be a righteous God.

Beside that, the ULTIMATE "work" of righteousness, was done on the cross at Calvary. Anything, and I do mean anything that don't equal or surpass that fails.

What are we told in Luke 17:10?

"So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do."

You have gone no further, than what is expected. Just like a mail or butler, you have done your job, nothing more, nothing less.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[kepha31]

See, that's why I disagree with Catholicism.

If you get right down to the nitty-gritty.

What does God owe us? Nothing.

This is why I disagree with Calvinism. Of course God doesn't owe us anything, but He wants to make us His sons and daughters. He doesn't create people just to throw them into hell.

Even though I'm born-again, saved by the shed blood of Jesus Christ, if I die and God sends me to the lake of fire for all of eternity, He would still be a righteous God.

Beside that, the ULTIMATE "work" of righteousness, was done on the cross at Calvary. Anything, and I do mean anything that don't equal or surpass that fails.

That has nothing to do with good works, which is rarely defined properly. "works righteousness" is called Pelagianism, declared a heresy by the Church in the 5th century 1000 years before the first Protestant was born.

 

[DeaconDean]

This is why I disagree with Calvinism. Of course God doesn't owe us anything, but He wants to make us His sons and daughters. He doesn't create people just to throw them into hell. That has nothing to do with good works, which is rarely defined properly. "works righteousness" is called Pelagianism, declared a heresy by the Church in the 5th century 1000 years before the first Protestant was born.

But yet, as a reward, you can earn entry to heaven.

" but that it is also the reward of the personal merits "

I'm well aware of the position of the Catholic church on "God's Sovereignty".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[kepha31]

But yet, as a reward, you can earn entry to heaven.

" but that it is also the reward of the personal merits "

I'm well aware of the position of the Catholic church on "God's Sovereignty".

God Bless

Till all are one.

Could you provide a source for that line but that it is also the reward of the personal merits "?
It doesn't exist in the catechism page on merit, and nothing in google. Are you perpetuating the Protestant myth that we can earn our way to heaven?
Catechism of the Catholic Church - Grace and justification 2006-2011

 

[98cwitr]

When did Indulgences get lifted again? I forget.

 

[kepha31]

When did Indulgences get lifted again? I forget.

That's a derail tactic.

First up have to understand what it means.
"An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishment due for their sins." The Church does this not just to aid Christians, "but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity" (CCC 1478).

The pious use of indulgences dates back into the early days of the Church, and the principles underlying indulgences extend back into the Bible itself. The principles behind indulgences are as clear in Scripture as those behind more familiar doctrines, such as the Trinity.
Primer on Indulgences | Catholic Answers

Step number one in explaining indulgences is to know what they are. Step number two is to clarify what they are not. Here are the seven most common myths about indulgences:
Myths about Indulgences | Catholic Answers

 

[actionsub]

Anti-Catholics who love this quote are unaware it was written in 1302, when there was only one Church.
It does not follow at all that "all non-Catholics are damned" for a number of reasons. The objection also displays a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching and takes the Papal Bull out of context from history and theology.

...

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

(1) The objection ignores the immediate context of the Bull, written to French CATHOLICS in the 14th century who were not submitting to the Pope. This will be covered in detail under "The Bull in Context."

(2) The objection ignores the broader context of Catholic theology, especially on salvation, Baptism, and the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.

Interesting historical context, considering even by 1302 there were at least two churches: Roman Catholicism in the West and Orthodoxy in the Middle East and Russia. I would have thought the Unam Sanctum quote to be another dig at those stubborn Christians in Constantinople who simply refused (by Roman perspective) the obvious logic of backing the Pope.

 

[kepha31]

Interesting historical context, considering even by 1302 there were at least two churches: Roman Catholicism in the West and Orthodoxy in the Middle East and Russia. I would have thought the Unam Sanctum quote to be another dig at those stubborn Christians in Constantinople who simply refused (by Roman perspective) the obvious logic of backing the Pope.

Another derailer. Unam Sanctum was aimed at the French.

 

[actionsub]

Another derailer. Unam Sanctum was aimed at the French.

Stop. Just because someone says in response to context that they had thought something else upon original reading, only to have caught your correction the first time, is not an attempt to derail your train. The main point of your Unam Sanctum not being binding on Protestants still stands.

Some people cannot deal with agreement at all...

 

[kepha31]

Here is a new one for me.

Since when is:

"A. The Predestination of the Elect.—He who would place the reason of predestination either in man alone or in God alone would inevitably be led into heretical conclusions about eternal election. In the one case the error concerns the last end, in the other the means to that end. Let it be noted that we do not speak of the "cause" of predestination, which would be either the efficient cause (God), or the instrumental cause (grace), or the final cause (God's honor), or the primary meritorious cause, but of the reason or motive which induced God from all eternity to elect certain definite individuals to grace and glory. The principal question then is: Does the natural merit of man exert perhaps some influence on the Divine election to grace and glory? If we recall the dogma of the absolute gratuity of Christian grace, our answer must be outright negative (see Grace). To the further question whether Divine predestination does not at least take into account the supernatural good works, the Church answers with the doctrine that heaven is not given to the elect by a purely arbitrary act of God's will, but that it is also the reward of the personal merits of the justified (see Merit).

Source

Just a plain reading says that believing isn't enough to get you into heaven. While works alone won't get you into heaven.

Entrance to heaven is granted to you by "meritorious" works, heaven, is your "reward".

Learn something new everyday.
God Bless
Till all are one.

You left a few things out, immediately following your quote:

Those who, like the Pelagians, seek the reason for predestination only in man's naturally good works, evidently misjudge the nature of the Christian heaven, which is an absolutely supernatural destiny. As Pelagianism puts the whole economy of salvation on a purely natural basis, so it regards predestination in particular not as a special grace, much less as the supreme grace, but only as a reward for natural merit.

The Semipelagians, too, depreciated the gratuity and the strictly supernatural character of eternal happiness by ascribing at least the beginning of faith (initium fidei) and final perseverance (donum perseverantice) to the exertion of man's natural powers, and not to the initiative of preventing grace. This is one class of heresies which, slighting God and His grace, makes all salvation depend on man alone. But no less grave are the errors into which a second group falls by making God alone responsible for everything, and abolishing the free cooperation of the will in obtaining eternal happiness. This is done by the advocates of heretical Predestinarianism (q.v.), embodied in its purest form in Calvinism and Jansenism. Those who seek the reason of predestination solely in the absolute Will of God are logically forced to admit an irresistibly efficacious grace (gratia irresistibilis), to deny the freedom of the will when influenced by grace and wholly to reject supernatural merits (as a secondary reason for eternal happiness). And since in this system eternal damnation, too, finds its only explanation in the Divine will, it further follows that concupiscence acts on the sinful will with an irresistible force, that there the will is not really free to sin, and that demerits cannot be the cause of eternal damnation.
Predestination | Catholic Answers

learn something new every day.