By St. Alphonsus Liguori
§ I. of free will.
1. As I mentioned in History heresies are countless errors of Luther, Calvin and his disciples. Du Budget raises the number of Calvin against the faith to two hundred and seven (1) ; and another author has until 1400. My intent here is not to refute the main errors of both Calvin and the other sectarians, compared to other available to Bellarmine, Gotti and theologians that disproved. One Calvin capital errors was to say that only Adam had free will, and then not only merited by his disobedience lost freedom, but lost it with him all his posterity by This, according to Calvin, free will is nothing more than a title sine re . But this error was condemned by the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, canon 5), says: "If Adae quis post peccatum hominis arbitrium to missum et extinc t Dixerit um esse, aut esse rem-only title, imo titulum sine re, figmentum denique a Satana invectum in ecclesiam: anathema sit. " [If anyone says that the free will of man is lost and extinguished after the sin of Adam, or is only a matter of degree or rather title without anything, invention, finally, introduced by Satan in the Church, is anaetema (Dz 815) ]
(1) Cap. XI, XVI century, art. 3 §. 3.
2. There are two freedoms, free will, one named contradiction, which is to do something, or stop it, and the other disgruntled , that is to choose between two opposite things, for example between good or evil. These two species have remained free men and consists of the scriptures. For the moment we have the of contradiction, that is, to do or not do good, as demonstrated by numerous passages: shall constitute a Deus hominem ab initio, et reliquit Illum in manu Consilii sui. Adjecit Mandata et Praecepta sua: if volueris Mandata servare, conservabunt t and [God made man from the start and left in the hands of their agency. (He also gave His commandments and precepts) If you want, you can keep his commandments, and it is wise to do his will] (Eccli. XV, 14 ad 16). transgressed potuit, et non est trasgressus [ Who could prevaricate and not transgressed, done wrong and did not?] ( Eccli. XXXI, 10). In erit sive viri faciated discretion, sive non faciated [All vote and any oath which is forced to haunt him, can the husband (in arbitration) ratify or annul] (Num . XXX, 14). manens Nonne tibi manebat, et venumdatum in tua potestate erat? [Do not sell not one for you, and it was not sold at your disposal the price?] (Act V, 4) Sub you erit appetitus ejus, et tu dominaberis illus [(Is not it true that if you do good, would walk upright, while, if not do well, sin is the door?) And feel attachment to you, and you must dominate ] (Gen. IV, 7). regard to freedom of disappointment, here's what you read in the Holy Scriptures: proposuerim Quod vobis vitam et mortem, et maledictionem benedictionem [ (I call today to witness the heavens and the earth that) I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore choose life, to live, you and your descendants] (Deuteronomy XXX, 19). First hominem vita et Morstad, bonum et malum, quod placuerit ei illi dabitur [Before man are life and death, what everyone wants will be given] (Eccli. XV, 18). And so the cult can not attribute the meaning of these passages to single state of innocence, adding those can not refer only to times after the sin of our first father. Ut Domino serviatis, optio vobis datur: hodie elegite quad placet, cui utrum servire Potissimum debeatis DIIS etc. [And if you think it best serve him (Yahweh) , choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served beyond next River ...] (Jos . XXIV, 15). If quis vult post me venire, abneget semetipsum [If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself ...] (Luke IX, 23). Qui statuit in corde suo firmus, non habens necessitatem, potestatem autem suae habens voluntatis [But the sign on their heart, not needed, but free and will, determined to keep virgin his daughter, does best] (ICor. VII, 37). Dedit illi tempus, you paenitentiam ageret, et non vult poenitere [I have given him time to repent, but does not repent ...] ( Apoc. II, 21). If ap quis and ruerit januam mihi, ad Illum intrabo [ Behold I stand at the door and knock: if any hear my voice and opens the door, I will it ... ] (Rev. III. 20). could cite a thousand other similar texts, but the allegations are sufficient to prove that man has free will even after the original sin. We Luther opposes the passage of Isaiah: Bene, aut male, if potestis, facit [... Do do good or evil, that we admire and let's see once] ( XLI, 23). But vative should know that the prophet is not speaking here of men, but the idols, who indeed (as David) are capable of anything: Os habent, et non loquentur; oculos habent, et non videbunt, etc. [... They have mouths, and do not speak, eyes, and do not see .. ] (Psal. XVIII, 5 ff. 3. According to deserve this or not enough to detract as intended Luther and Calvin, who joined after the Jansenists, that man has a freedom free
coercion or violence, because this is fully Jansen's third proposition condemned as heretical Ad merendum in statu naturae et demerendum lapsae in homine non requiritur freedom necessitate, sed libertas a coaction sufficit [To merit and unworthy in the state of fallen nature not required in man freedom of necessity, but simply the freedom to coercion (Dz 1094)] . If so, could also be said that brutes have a free will, since they are taken voluntarily, and without violence (his way) to follow sensible pleasures: but that man is truly free, is also need to have a freedom free of necessity, so it is in their power to choose what you want, as the apostle says: Non necessitatem habens, potestatem sed suae voluntatis [... not needed, but free and will ...] ( I Cor. VII, 37 ). And this is what is voluntary and required to merit and to detract. Here is what Augustine says (1) , speaking of sin "usque adeo Peccatum voluntarium (ie free, as explained later) malum est, . ut nullo mode if non sit peccatum sit voluntarium " ["... so much an evil sin is voluntary, that by no means would be sinful if he has no principio en la voluntad”]. Y da la razón de esto, diciendo: “ Servos suos meliores esse Deus judicavit si ei servirent liberaliter; quod nullo modo fieri posset, si non voluntate, sed necessitate servirent” [“ Pues juzgó Dios que así serían mejores sus servidores, si libremente le servían, cosa imposible de lograrse mediante un servicio forzado y no libre” ] . (1) S. Aug., lib.de ver.relig., c.14
4. protest that in the language of Scripture is God who works in us all the good we do:
operatur Deus qui omnia in omnibus [There are several operations, but the same God who works all things we] (I Cor. XII, 6). Omnia nostra opera nobis est operatus [ peace in store O Lord! For they do for us is you who does] (Isa. XXVI, 12). Ipse facia. Ambuletis meis ut in praeceptis [I will put my spirit within you and cause you to go and observe my commandments, my statutes and do them] (XXXVI Ezech. 27). undoubtedly after the sin was not extinguished free will, although it weakened and prone to evil, as the Council of Trent teaches: " Tametsi in eis esset liberum arbitrium extinctum minime, viribus Licet attenuatum [ ... even though they were extinguished by no means free will (can.5), but weakened in strength and inclined v.181 (Dz 793) ] ( sess. VI, chapter 1). is also true that God works in us all good, but at the same time makes us, as the apostle says: Gratia Dei sum id quod sum ..., sed gratia Dei mecum [But by the grace of God I am what I am, and grace that gave me has not been in vain, I worked harder than all of them, but not me but the grace of God me] (I Cor. XV, 10). Note these words sed gratia Dei mecum : prevenient grace by God turns us well, and the in aide ( adjuvans ) helps us do; but want to join our efforts to his grace, and therefore encourages us to cooperate when we can: Convertimini ad me [... v olveos a mí...] (Zach. I, 3). Facite vobis cor novum [... haceos un corazón nuevo... ] (Ezech. XVIII, 31). Mortificate ergo membra vestra..., expoliantes vos veterem hominem cum actibus suis, et induentes, etc. [Mortificad, pues, vuestros miembros terrenos, …despojaos del hombre viejo con todas sus obras, y vestios del nuevo, etc] (Col III, 5 y sig.). For the same reason strongly rebukes those who resist their invitations: Vocavi, et re n n or istis [ Well I have called you, and you have not heard ... ] (Province I, 24) quoties volui congregaré philias Malfunctioning ... et noluisti [... how many times I wanted to gather your children .. ., and [you] did not want] (Math.E XXIII, 37). Vos semper holy spiritui resistitis [You have always resisted the Holy Spirit] (Acts VII, 51). these appeals would be useless, and unjust reproof, if God did all the pertaining to our salvation, without that she cooperate, but it is not. God is supremely wise, and if you have the main part of the good you do, you stand, however, that the efforts that we can, which was said to S. Paul Abundantius laboravi omnibus illis non ego autem, sed gratia Dei mecum [... I worked harder than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God me ] (I Cor. XV, 10). should not be understood by the grace of God, common grace makes the soul holy, but the present in aide prevenient and gives us the strength to do good, and when it is effective not only tells us that force, as makes sufficient grace, but also makes us do it now. The main error is to assume free will destroyed as a result of sin, many others derive the innovators, namely that it is impossible to compliance with the precepts of the Decalogue, that our works are not necessary for salvation, because faith alone is sufficient, you do not need to cooperate in any way the sinner to justification, which takes place once through the merits of Jesus Christ, though man is sinner refute errors in the following paragraphs. § II.
The observance of the divine law is not an impossible thing.
5. Assuming sectarians lost man free will, say it is impossible to keep the commandments, and especially the tenth and first. Starting as the tenth commandment,
concupiscible not, why pretend that we can not observe? They do based on a false assumption: they say that lust itself is a sin, and come to teach that mortal sins must be regarded as not only the movements of concupiscence in actu secondary , preventing the consent, but also the movements in actu primo , Which prevent reason or warning. But Catholics rightly taught that the movements of concupiscence in actu primo , which prevent reflection, nor are mortal sins or venial, but only natural defects resulting from corruption of our nature God does not impute them as sins. on the movement to prevent the consent of the will, are at most venial sins when we neglect banish from our thoughts as soon as we perceive them as taught Gerson and Salmaticenses with St. Thomas, because then the danger that can have to give consent to the evil desire, not a positive resist or reject the movement of concupiscence, there is nearby, but remote. However, except doctors commonly the movement rightly s of carnal pleasure, considering that in this species is not enough negative is habere, as theologians say, but we must resist them positively; because otherwise, almost violent they are, can easily drag the consent of our will. otherwise (as we have said elsewhere part), the mere consent of the desire for a serious wrong is a mortal sin. But who would dare say that this id entend to the observation of the tenth commandment is impossible with the help of divine grace, which never abandons us? If he perceives the evil desire, and consents to it, or stop with pleasure his thought, is indeed guilty of grave sin , or at least slightly, as the Lord says: . sequaris in Fortitudine Ne tua concupiscentiam cordis tui [ Do not rely on yourself and your strength to live according to the desires of your heart ] (Eccli. V, 2). Post Concupiscentiis tuas non. Eas [ Do not be misled by your greed and your desire cohíbete ] (Eccli. XVIII, 30). Non regnet Vestro peccatum in corpore mortality. Ut ejus obediatis concupiscentiis [That does not reign, therefore, the sin in your mortal body to obey its lusts ] (Rom. VI, 12). I said however slight , because one thing is the pleasure you have in the same bad object, and one which takes on the simple thought of the bad object, the latter pleasure itself is not fatally ill, but venial, and all can still make a fair point innocent reason, such as to hate the bad object, and also thought it would be useful or expose pleasure of indulging danger in the same bad object, because if the danger was near, the pleasure would be seriously guilty, but when we are assailed by lust but it will take part, then there is no sin, because God does not require the impossible. Man is composed of flesh and spirit that are naturally continuous war; of which is often not in our power to not feel movement contrary to reason. Do not be cruel would be to the lord a slave prohibited from thirst, or feel cold attacks? The law of Moses punished more than the actual crimes and outdoor without any basis from which inferred the scribes and Pharisees who were not prohibited internal sins. But our Redeemer formally declared the new law that prohibited even the lust: Audistis, ancient quia dictum est: non maechaberis. Ego autem dico vobis: Qua omnis, qui ad concupiscendum viderit mulierem eam, jam maechatus est eam in corde suo [You have heard that it was said not commit adultery . But I tell you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart] (Matth. V, 27 and 28); and rightly so, because if not rejected evil desires, can hardly be avoided external acts, and rejected are diligently matter of reward rather than punishment. San Pablo, who badgered the thorn in the flesh, complained of this, and asked God to instances that freed him from such an enemy, and God answered that it was sufficient grace: Datus est mihi stimulus carnis meae. .., propter quod ter Dominum rogavi. ut discederet to me, et dixit mihi: sufficit tibi gratia mea, nam virtus in infirmitate perficitur [... was given me a thorn in the flesh .. . , why I begged the Lord three times to withdraw from me, and He said, "My grace is sufficient for you, that in weakness reaches high power "... ] (II Cor. XII, 7 et seq.) Note these words virtus perficitur . lust If it is repelled away from hurting our virtue gives increase. also remember what the apostle says, that will not allow God to be tempted beyond what we can: Fidelis autem Deus est, qui sopra non patretur tempt you potestis id quod, sed etiam cum faciet proventum Tentation [ and God is faithful, who will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, before the temptation to have success, giving them the power to resist] (I Cor. X, 13). 6. more reason, they say, is impossible to observe the first precept:
Dominum Deum tuum diligence ex toto corde tuo
[Love the Lord your God with all your heart (Deuteronomy 6 , 5)] . How is it possible, says Calvin, in the midst of a corrupt nature, have occupied continuously all his heart in God's love? So understood this heretic, but Augustine (1) explained it very differently. Judge the holy doctor that this provision can not be filled in every sense of the word, but in terms of the obligation holds, and that it meets loving God above all things, ie, preferring grace every creature. is also the doctrine of St. Thomas (2) which teaches that the commandment to love God with all my heart there is loving above all things: "Cum mandatur, ex toto corde quod Deum diligamus, intelligis datur, quod Deum super omnia debemus diligere" [In fact, when we are commanded to love God with all your heart, gives us understand that we love Him above all things] . So, the substance of the first commandment is the obligation to prefer God above all things, which is why Jesus tells us: Qui amat patrem aut Matrem ... plus quam me, non est me dignus [ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not digno de mi] (Matth. X, 37). Y san Pablo, robustecido con la divina gracia, protestaba que nada bastaría a separarle del amor divino: Certus sum enim, quia neque mors, neque vita, neque angeli, neque principatus..., neque creatura alia poterit nos separare a charitate Dei [Porque persuadido estoy que ni la muerte, ni la vida, ni los ángeles, ni los principados..., ni ninguna otra criatura podrá arrancarnos el amor de Dios...] (Rom. VIII, 39 y 39). Lo que Calvino (3) decía antes del primero and the tenth commandment, said after all this is taught that everyone was impossible. (1) S. Aug., lib. of Spir. Et lit., C. 1, et l. of. Perf. Just., Resp. 17.
Thom., 2.2, Q. 44, 8, ad 2.
(3) Calv. In Antide. Trid., Sess. 6, c. 12.
7. FIRST OBJECTION. - Oppose the sectarians what Peter said in the council of Jerusalem
tentatis Nunc quid ergo Deum super necks lay upon jugum discipulorum, quod neque patres nostri, neque potuimus portare us? [Now therefore why tempt ye God wanting to impose on the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to endure?] (Acts XV, 10) Did not the apostle declares strictly say that the law is impossible? San Pedro spoke in this place of the ceremonial precepts of the law of Moses, and not those of the Decalogue; said they were not be imposed on Christians, on the grounds that it was so difficult his remark to the Jews, who had seen few, however, that he had some concerns faithful as St. Luke and St. Elizabeth Zacharias: justice both to Erant autem Deum in omnibus mandatus incedentes [ Both were righteous in God's presence, and blameless, walking in the precepts and observances of the Lord] (I. 6) 8. Oppose also what the apostle says of himself:
Scio enim quia non habitat in me, hoc est in carne mea, bonum: nam velle adjacet mihi, perficere autem bonum, non invenio
[For I know that there is in me, that is, in my flesh, good thing. For to will is good I find elk, but not h acerlo] (Rom. VII, 18). For these words: bonum non habitat in me , recognized as not meeting the law. But these words must be added as follows: hoc est in carne mea . S. means Paul Meat fighting spirit, and despite all good will could not defend the movements of concupiscence, but, as already mentioned, these movements prevented him follow the law. 9.
argues
n addition to this passage of John: If dixerimus, quoniam peccatum non habemus, ipsi seducimus us [ If we say we do not have sin, we deceive ourselves ] (I Joan. I, 8). It says the apostle to preclude enforcement of the law, and no one is exempt from mortal sins, but served human weakness, no one is from venial sins, as stated by the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, chapter 2. ) " Licet mortality enim in hac vita, et sancti quantumvis justice, in Levia saltem et Quotidiana, quae etiam peccata venialia dicuntur, quandoque Cadant, non esse propterea desinunt justice." [ Well, even if in this mortal life, even the holy and righteous, ever fall into sin, at least, mild, everyday, which are also called venial (can. 23), so let's be fair (Dz 804 ] 10. fourth Present the text of St. Paul to the Galatians
( III, 13): Christus
us Maledict redemit of legis, factus pro nobis Maledictum . [ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us ] . They conclude from this passage that Jesus freed us from the obligation to observe the law on the merits of his death. one thing to say that Jesus Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, since His grace gives us strength to observe it, and we hereby made to avoid the curse struck by the law against their offenders, and another to suppose that God has waived the enforcement of the law, which is absolutely false. 11. Finally, objects that other passage of the apostle ( I Tim. I, 9
):
Sciense hoc, quia non est lex just granary, sed injustis, et non subditis, et peccatoribus impiis [... taking into account that the Law is not for the righteous, but for the wicked, the rebels, the ungodly and sinners ...] . also are supported in this passage to confirm his assertion that our Redeemer us free from the obligation of the law, and that if the young man said Gospel (Matth. XIX, 17): If vis ad vitam ingredi, serva Mandata [ If you would enter life, keep the commandments ] , was pure irony, and ridicule him, as if he had said Serva office, whether pots [keep the commandments, if you can] , knowing full well that the children of Adam we can not meet the requirements. Respóndese this with Thomas (1) , that the law is for the righteous and the wicked, as to the directive force, ie respect that all brand what to do, but in terms of the coercive force, the law is not observed for those who willingly, and without being obliged to it; yes for the ungodly seeking to escape it, and those are the ones who should be obliged to observe. say after this that Jesus Christ wants to mock the young man spoken of in the Gospel, when he tells Mandata serva, is the language of a heretic used to twist the scriptures to the effect that like, and therefore deserves no response. The true doctrine is taught by the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, chap. 13): " Deus non Jubete impossibilia, sed jubendo monet et facere quod Possis, et petere quod non Possis, et adjuvat . Possis ut " [ Because God does not command impossibilities, but to send alerts to do what you can and ask what you can not help and you can (Dz 804) ] . Each ordinary God gives grace to observe the precepts, and if we need a more abundant, Let us ask, and will rush to give it to us. (1) S. Thom. 1.2, Q. 96, s. 5.
12. Here is what St. Augustine said the religious Adrumeto, who made this objection:
But if God gives us grace not effective for the whole law, why do you rebuke us because we do not observe?
"Cur corripis me? Photius et ipsum non rogas. Ut in me operetur et velle? " [Why is chides me when he did not want to fulfill its precepts, and not rather begs to give me a will effective? ] (1) Respond saintly doctor (2) : "Qui non vult corrected, et dicit, Photius Ora pro me, ideo est corripiendus. Ut faciated (ie BERT ) etiam pro se [ who refuses correction and only supports prayer in their favor, in that it must be corrected so that he too implore for them the divine please] . teaches, then, St. Augustine, that though man not receive efficacious grace of God to obey the law, but must be rebuked, and he sins if he does, it can request and obtain assistance for a heavier sentence to observe the law, yet disregards hereby and therefore not observed. Otherwise, if everyone is not given to prayer, and obtain by prayer force to do good, but would need to ask another efficacious grace, would not have made, what I think, quite rightly Augustine monks in response to above, that man should be reprimanded when it calls itself, and that these had been in his reply: "How will want to ask, if we do not have a grace effective to do so? (1) S. Aug., of Corrept. Et Payable., Tom. 10,
Cap. 4
, n.6 (2) ID
Ibid. Cap. 5, n.7
0 comments:
Post a Comment