After some conversations with knowledgeable folks, it seems there are indeed some differences between Arminian and Catholic soteriologies. Here’s how I’d formulate Catholic teaching (with thanks to Jimmy Akin and Wikipedia). I cannot guarantee it is free of error.
Total Deparavity: God gave man free will so that we might choose freely to love Him. Unfortunately, the Fall impaired our free will. Grace restores our unfallen goodness, if only for a time (i.e until we sin).
Semi-Conditional Election: God has told us through Scripture that there is a guaranteed way to be saved. We must accept Jesus Christ by our own free will and live by His commandments. However, God also saves whomever He wills, and we, as mere mortals, have no right to judge which individuals will and will not receive eternal life. We may only say that certain actions are contrary to God’s law and unpleasing to Him.
Unlimited Atonement With Limited Intent: Jesus Christ died for all mankind, but the saving grace He made available is only guaranteed to be efficacious if we accept Jesus Christ by our own free will and live by His commandments. By opening ourselves to grace through faith, we become members of the elect who shall receive eternal life.
Irresistable Grace: The sacraments of initiation, baptism and confirmation, confer grace unconditionally. That is, one need not already be in a state of grace to receive the grace conferred by these sacraments.
Resistable Grace: Grace is not forced upon us. We open ourselves to grace and by doing so restore the free will we were intended to inherit from our progenitors. Grace is conferred conditionally in the Eucharist and annointing of the sick. We must already be in a state of grace to participate in those sacraments. For instance, if we take the Eucharist unworthily, we eat and drink condemnation upon ourselves.
Uncertain Perceverance: Membership in the elect is not made permanent at initiation. God gives us sustaining grace, spiritual sustenance if you will, if we ask for it and through sacraments. However, there are choices we can make (i.e sins we can commit) that separate us from God and remove us from the company of the elect. Like Paul, we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling and strive to finish the good race. We must also seek sustaining grace through praying, reading scripture, receiving the sacraments, etc. In particular, the sacrament of confession restores us to a state of grace if are truly contrite and repentant. There is no such thing as "once saved, always saved" according to the Church. We were saved by Christ’s salvific act. We are being saved as we grow in faith. We hope to persevere to the end and be saved at the judgement.
Questions? Comments? I’m not sure where to put marriage and holy orders. Any suggestions?
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /homepages/46/d106109878/htdocs/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 18
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /homepages/46/d106109878/htdocs/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 42
“If we lack free will without grace, how may we choose to open ourselves to it?”
I think the grace received at baptism, as well as the prevenient grace that is latent (I dunno what Aquinas has to say about prevenient grace; I am most familiar with Wesley’s formulation).
Eric, with regard to the contradiction I perceived, I thought it was in you stating that a) mortals are unable to judge salvation, and b) there is a guaranteed means of salvation.
“we, as mere mortals, have no right to judge which individuals will and will not receive eternal life”
“the saving grace He made available is only guaranteed to be efficacious if…”
This seems like a contradiction to me — am I missing something?
Anyway, I’d say that the sacrament of unction (anointing) is traditionally understood as conferring grace unconditionally; its purpose is to remit sin — why put a restriction on those in a state of mortal sin?
Nowadays, in a shift I’m not entirely comfortable with, people tend to think of unction purely as a symbol (must. . . restrain. . . self), and if it does anything, it helps lessen the pain of those who are sick. I kinda dislike the idea of giving it out to people who are in the hospital for a broken leg, and giving it once a week at that, as seems to be the common practice. It’s almost as though the sacrament has lost its place. It should be for the dying, and given as part of the Viaticum.
Also, I would say that holy orders, as it imparts a permanent character on the soul, conforming it to Christ in a special way, need not be received in a state of grace for the sacrament to do what it’s supposed to. However, the amount of graces received ex opere operantis (see the other thread) are reduced to nil if in a state of mortal sin, I think.
With regard to matrimony. Because I do not understand the matter and form of the sacrament well, I can’t really say where it belongs in your classification. The most widely-accepted theory is that the form of the sacrament is love, and the sacrament is confected by the consummation of the marriage (the matter, obviously enough, being a man and a woman in love and able to conjugate). Perhaps because marriage is something that is permanent, it need not be received in a state of grace to receive graces ex opere operato. (Imagine having to make a quick trip to confession before you consummate your marriage!)
“Eric, with regard to the contradiction I perceived, I thought it was in you stating that a) mortals are unable to judge salvation, and b) there is a guaranteed means of salvation.”
Like I said in my first response, to know a guaranteed way, X, achieve goal Y, does not preclude the possibility of another way, W. Add that to the command to “judge not” and you have pretty solid reasons to not judge the state of a particular soul or even to say with certainty that all members of a certain religion will not be saved. The best we can do is to point out the deficiences of other faiths and show the completeness of the Church. The Church contains the fullness of God’s revealed truth. Varying degrees of incomplete truth may be found outside the Church. How much incompleteness is enough to damn you, we cannot say definitively. Any time I get the urge to say some person or some group is bound for Hell, I remember the criteria for admittance to Heaven in Matthew 25.
“This seems like a contradiction to me — am I missing something?”
There is a difference between “X is guaranteed to save you” and “Without X, you are guaranteed to not be saved”.
A couple of issues arrise from this set of statements. Most of them centering around the notion that, without grace, we have no free will. My issue with that was that it is a tremendously dangerous idea to say “Anyone who doesn’t do exactly as I say is a slave.”
My friend Christy brought up a much better point though.
“We open ourselves to grace and by doing so restore the free will we were intended to inherit from our progenitors.”
If we lack free will without grace, how may we choose to open ourselves to it?
Clarification:
I mean that prevenient grace and the grace of baptism allow us a greater measure of free will, although our wills are most probably nearly free, and are never completely subjugate.
It’s not a lack of free will but an impaired free will. Think of a grocery cart that has a mind of it’s own, so to speak. It can be made to go straight, but it takes work.