|
The teaching of St. Thomas on Grace was the teaching followed
generally, not merely by the Dominicans, but by most of the
theologians belonging to the secular clergy and to the other religious
orders. When, however, the systems of Calvin and Luther began to
take root some of those who were brought into close contact with the new
doctrines arrived at the conclusion that the arguments of their
opponents could be overcome more effectually by introducing some
modifications of the theories of St. Thomas concerning the operation
of Grace and Free-will. The Jesuits particularly were of this
opinion, and in 1584 the general, Aquaviva, allowed his subjects
to depart in some measure from the teaching of the "Summa". This
step was regarded with disfavour in many influential quarters, and
induced scholars to be much more critical about Jesuit theology than
otherwise they might have been. In their College at Louvain there
were two Jesuit theologians Lessius (1584-1623) and
Hamel, who both in their lectures and theses advanced certain theories
on man's co-operation with Grace and on Predestination, that were
deemed by many to be dangerously akin to the doctrine of the
Semi-Pelagians (1587). The fact that the Jesuits had been
the consistent opponents of Baianism induced Baius and his friends to
cast the whole weight of their influence against Lessius. A sharp
controversy broke out once more in the Netherlands. The Universities
of Louvain and Douay censured thirty-four propositions of Lessius as
Semi-Pelagian, while the Universities of Ingolstadt and Mainz
declared in favour of their orthodoxy. The matter having been referred
to Rome, Sixtus V imposed silence on both parties, without
pronouncing any formal condemnation or approval of the propositions that
had been denounced (1588).
The controversy in the Spanish Netherlands was only the prelude to a
much more serious conflict in Spain itself. In 1588 the
well-known Jesuit, Luis de Molina (1535-1600) published
at Lisbon his celebrated work, "Concordia liberi arbitrii cum
gratiae donis etc." with the approbation of the Dominican,
Bartholomew Ferreira, and the permission of the Inquisition.
Hardly had the work left the printing press than it was attacked warmly
by Domingo Banez (1528-1604), the friend and spiritual
director of St. Teresa, and one of the ablest Dominicans of his
time. He had been engaged already in a controversy with the Jesuit,
Montemaior, on the same subject of Grace, but the publication of
Molina's book added new fuel to the flame, and in a short time the
dispute assumed such serious proportions that bishops, theologians,
universities, students, and even the leading officials of the state,
were obliged to take sides. The Dominicans supported Banez, while
the Jesuits with some few exceptions rallied to the side of Molina.
The latter's book was denounced to the Inquisition, but as a
counterblast to this Banez also was accused of very serious errors.
If Molina was blamed for being a Semi-Pelagian, Banez was charged
with having steered too closely to Calvinism. In the hope of
restoring peace to the Church in Spain Clement VIII reserved
the decision of the case to his own tribunal (1596).
To get a grasp of the meaning of the controversy, it should be borne
in mind that in all theories concerning the operation of Grace three
points must be safeguarded by all Catholic theologians, namely,
man's dependence upon God as the First Cause of all his actions
natural as well as supernatural, human liberty, and God's
omniscience or foreknowledge of man's conduct. Following in the
footsteps of St. Thomas, the Dominicans maintained that when God
wishes man to perform a good act He not only gives assistance, but He
actually moves or predetermines the will so that it must infallibly
act. In this way the entire act comes from God as the First Cause,
and at the same time it is the free act of the creature, because the
human will though moved and predetermined by God acts according to its
own nature, that is to say, it acts freely. In His eternal decrees
by which God ordained to give this premotion or predetermination He
sees infallibly the actions and conduct of men, and acting on this
knowledge He predestines the just to glory "ante praevisa merita".
According to this system, therefore, the efficaciousness of Grace
comes from the Grace itself, and is not dependent upon the
co-operation of the human will.
Against this Molina maintained that the human faculties having been
elevated by what might be called prevenient Grace, so as to make them
capable of producing a supernatural act, the act itself is performed by
the will co-operating with the impulse given by God. Man is,
therefore, free, and at the same time dependent upon God in the
performance of every good act. He is free, because the human will may
or may not co-operate with the divine assistance, and he is dependent
upon God, because it is only by being elevated by prevenient Grace
freely given by God that the human will is capable of co-operating in
the production of a supernatural act. It follows, too, that the
efficaciousness of Grace arises not from the Grace itself but from the
free co-operation of the will, and that a Grace in itself truly
sufficient might not be efficacious through the failure of the will to
co-operate with it. The omniscience of God is safeguarded,
because, according to Molina, God sees infallibly man's conduct by
means of the "scientia media" or knowledge of future conditional
events (so called because it stands midway between the knowledge of
possibles and the knowledge of actuals). That is to say He sees
infallibly what man would do freely in all possible circumstances were
he given this or that particular Grace, and acting upon this knowledge
He predestines the just to glory "post praevisa merita". The main
difficulty urged against Molina was, that by conceding too much to
human liberty he was but renewing in another form the errors of
Pelagius; while the principal objection brought forward against the
Dominicans was, that by conceding too much to Grace they were
destroying human liberty, and approaching too closely to Calvin's
teaching on Predestination. Needless to say, however much they
differed on the points, both the followers of St. Thomas and the
friends of Molina were at one in repudiating the doctrines of Calvin
and Pelagius.
A special commission ("Congregatio de Auxiliis"), presided over
by Cardinals Madrucci and Arrigone, was appointed to examine the
questions at issue. The first session was held in January 1598,
and in February of the same year the majority of the members reported
in favour of condemning Molina's book. Clement VIII requested
the commission to consider the evidence more fully, but in a
comparatively short time the majority presented a second report
unfavourable to Molina. Representatives of the Dominicans and
Jesuits were invited to attend in the hope that by means of friendly
discussion an agreement satisfactory to both parties might be secured.
In 1601 the majority were in favour of condemning twenty
propositions taken from Molina's work, but the Pope refused to
confirm the decision. From 1602 till 1605 the sessions were
held in the presence of the Pope and of many of the cardinals. Among
the consultors was Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Armagh. The death
of Clement VIII in March 1605 led to an adjournment. In
September 1605 the sessions were resumed and continued till March
1606, when the votes of the consultors were handed in. In July
1607 these were placed before the cardinals for their opinions, but
a little later it was announced that the decision of the Holy See
would be made public at the proper time, and that meanwhile both
parties were at liberty to teach their opinions. Neither side was,
however, to accuse the other of heresy. Since that time no definite
decision has been given, and, so far as the dogmas of faith are
concerned, theologians are at full liberty to accept Thomism or
Molinism.
|
|