One of our astute readers recently pointed out that the confusion over recent statements about "self-absorbed promethean neo-pelagians" might be allayed a bit by referencing the following reflections on the issue by a reputable Catholic priest, posted by Adfero, "
Confused how some Catholics can be labeled 'Pelagians'?" (RC, August 4, 2013). [Adfero's introduction (in blue), the priest's reflection (in red)] The first part of the reflection reviews the historical heresy known as "Pelagianism." The balance of the article is devoted to noting contemporary instantiations of "Pelagianism" that come from some perhaps unexpected quarters:
Recently, there's been a lot of fingerpointing at traditional Catholics.
Some of it is the same old, same old (insert stale Pharisees joke
here). Some of it, however, is very new and very confusing.
Some Catholics have recently been identified -- more than once -- as "Pelagians."
This will undoubtedly bolster the morale of other Catholics while, yet
again, making life next to impossible for the traditional-minded parish
priest who is, now more than ever, being accused by his flock of putting
himself "above the Church" by his devotion to reverence in the liturgy
and traditional Catholic teaching.
Below, you will find a very interesting retort (notes) from a Catholic priest, who is in full communion:
11th Sunday after Pentecost
“by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace in me has not been fruitless.”
Recently, there has been some mentioning
of the ancient heresy called Pelagianism. I have heard this term used a
number of times in recent months and it seems some confusion has
surrounded its employment. So, without
passing any judgment on those who are using the term, let us take some
time this Sunday to look into this ancient heresy. If we do this well,
we might be surprised at how relevant this matter really is today.
Pelagianism takes its name from an austere
monk, most likely of Irish descent, named Pelagius. He died around 418.
He should not be confused with the two Popes who shared this same name.
Pelagianism can simply be thought of as
the self-help heresy. It essentially “denies the elevation of man into
the supernatural state, and denies original sin. According to Pelagians
the sin of Adam affected his descendants by way of bad example only”
(Ott, pp. 222-3). This means that Christ’s saving work of redemption
consists above all in His teaching and His example of virtue. For
Pelagius, Jesus was just a great teacher as was Moses before Him.
Furthermore,
“Pelagianism regarded grace as within the
natural capacity of man.” According to this view man has a natural
capacity to live a sinless and holy life and merit eternal bliss by
exercising his free will. The Pelagians believed this natural capacity
was aided by external graces given
to us by God… things like the Mosaic Law, the Gospel, the example of
virtue set by Our Lord and His Mother and others. This means that man
can achieve even the remission of his sins by his own power, by the act of turning his will away from sin. This makes Pelagianism pure naturalism.
To re-capitulate, Pelagianism holds “(i)
that the sin of our first parents was not transmitted to their
posterity; [Adam’s sin harmed only himself, not the human race, and
children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.] (ii)
that Christ came into the world, not to restore anything we had lost,
but to set up an ideal of virtue, and so counteract the evil example of
Adam; (iii) that we can, of our own natural powers, and without any
internal assistance from God, [do good that is pleasing to God and
thereby] merit the happiness of the Beatific Vision” (cf. Apologetics
and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, p. 456). (iv) the Law
of Moses is just as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel. Finally, (v)
Pelagians considered death to be natural to man and not a consequence of
Adam’s sin. So even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died in any case.
This heretical, erroneous way of thinking
and acting was countered heavily by the Doctor of Grace, St. Augustine,
as well as many others like St. Jerome and ultimately condemned as
heretical by several Popes and Councils, most notably the Papal approved
Council of Carthage (418).
This Council taught authoritatively what
we still profess today, namely: (i) Death did not come to Adam from a
physical necessity, but through sin. (ii) New-born children must be
baptized on account of original sin. [Note that the current Code of
Canon Law emphasizes this must be done within a couple of weeks of
birth]. (iii) Sanctifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of
past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
(iv) The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God's
commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them. (v)
Without God's grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely
impossible to perform good works. (vi) Not out of humility, but in
truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners… (cf. Dz. nos. 101-8).
This is all very interesting in light of
what has been transpiring over the last half century or so. In fact,
having made this little study, it is amazing to see how much Pelagianism
has returned in our own day.
First, consider that today infant baptism
is very often delayed and put off for months and even years with little
or no concern for the infant’s eternal welfare. Many parishes and
priests directly violate the Canon Law by making
baptisms available to their people only once a month, whereas the
Church demands that their baptism not be delayed over a week or two…and
if they are in the danger of death, they are to be baptized without
delay, even if a priest is not available. Why this nonchalance attitude
toward baptizing infants? Because the prevailing thought today is that
all children who die in infancy, baptized or not, go to heaven. De
facto, they are considered to be like Adam before the fall! This is
Pelagianism. No wonder there has been many efforts over the last decades
to do away with the traditional teaching of the Limbo of the Infants,
that place where unbaptized infants go.
On the other hand, it has been my
experience that traditional minded Catholics seek very diligently to
have their newborns baptized as soon as possible. Why? Because His
Majesty, Our Lord Jesus Christ, taught that we must be born of water to
be saved. St. Paul said in Ephesians, “were by nature children of wrath”
(2:3). But we are reborn children of adoption by the waters of baptism!
It has also been my experience that faithful Catholics always take the Traditional doctrine of the Limbo of the Infants very seriously. No Pelagianism here!
Second, it is bandied about recently that
even atheists can do good works. Pelagius would agree because, as we
heard, he held that any man, believer or not, baptized or not, can do
good. “The root of this possibility of doing good - that we all have -
is in creation” (Pope Francis). In other words, all that is needed to be
good is found in nature. Of course, Pelagius also added that the good
example of Christ, the written law and Gospel help man to this goodness
as external aids. It is interesting to note how Pope John XXIII said at
the start of the Vatican Council, “Nowadays… the Spouse of Christ…
considers that She meets the needs of the present day by more clearly
demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by
condemnations...” He wanted to see the Magisterium be “predominantly
pastoral in character” … “to teach more efficaciously” … “raising the
torch of Catholic truth” (cf. The Second Vatican Council: the Unwritten
Story, Mattei, pp. 174-5). All that is needed is to teach the truth and
people will see the light and do the good.
Whether intended or not, all this leans toward Pelagianism.
From this it follows that Pelagius would
not be very supportive spending much time in prayer. Why pray if we do
not need grace to be good!? Surely, Pelagius would not spend much time
kneeling down to pray the Rosary to gain a heavenly favor. Why have
priests? Who needs the Sacraments? Sadly, over the last century and
still continuing on today, we have had a religious and priests who put
work ahead of prayer. There was the worker priest movement. We have seen
the rise of laicism…where the laity takes over various roles of the
priests. We have seen priests and religious became activists, going to
many meetings and opening soup
kitchens while neglecting the divine office, their holy hours and
spiritual reading. Knowing this, few are surprised at the numerous
scandals and loss of vocations. All this flows perfectly from
Pelagianism.
Yet, St. Paul clearly stated today in the
lesson, “by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace in me has not
been fruitless.” Any man can do a naturally good action…saying giving a
banana to a friend in need.
Yet, only when the action is done with
supernatural charity infused in the soul co-operating with an actual
grace given by God for that particular action can it be pleasing to God
and worthy of Him. St. Paul is crystal clear on this point: “if I should
distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my
body to be burned, and have not charity, it profits me nothing” (1Cor
13:3). This is precisely why Traditional minded
Catholics strive to offer everything up…
This is precisely why such faithful souls pray the Rosary so often…
attend the Holy Mass as much as possible, frequently confess their sins
and use Sacramentals. They are beseeching God for grace to grow in
holiness. No Pelagianism here. St. Padre Pio prayed multiple Rosaries
everyday, even up to 30…pleading for Our Lady’s intercession and aid in
the conversion of sinners. Surely, no one would consider this great
stigmatic a Pelagian for saying so many Rosaries!
Third, consider how it has been bandied
about for some decades now that the Jews do not need to convert, that
they have all they require in the Old Law to be saved… as if Our Lord,
the Messiah, the very fulfillment of the Old Testament types and
prophecies, did not come in the Flesh to establish the New and
Everlasting Covenant in His own Blood. Besides most Jews do not follow
the Old Law but rather the Talmud. In any case, Pelagius would love
this…for, as we heard, he held the Mosaic Law is just as good for going
to heaven as the Gospel. Once
again, faithful Catholics believe that the Old Law has been fulfilled
and completed in the New. That the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the
only Sacrifice pleasing to God. No Pelagianism here.
Fourth, consider how Pelagius held that
death was natural to man. He would find many in agreement with him today
simply because the theory of evolution holds the same. Sad to say, most
members in the Church at this time
seem to think that evolution is the how things came about. Given that
that Pelagius very much agreed with man asserting his will to get things
done, I wonder what he would think today about man intervening
in nature to force evolution to a new level… as, for example,we are
doing in genetically modified foods, environmental controls, and other
areas.
The Traditional Catholic, however, is
repulsed by evolution, knowing that God did not create death and
destruction, but rather death is the wages of sin. Furthermore, the
faithful Catholic knows that the Church has given multiple teachings against the pseudo-science of evolution by Her teachings on creation. No Pelagianism here!
Fifth, the use of confession has greatly
diminished over the last 40 years. Fewer and fewer souls consider sin a
serious concern or a blockage to heaven. Everyone who dies now, goes to
heaven. Sinners often are heard
saying: “God will understand” and “I will not do it again…”. Pelagius
strikes again. Man can overcome sin by himself. God will understand!
The faithful Catholic, however, knows that
sin is deeply offensive to God and can only be erased by the
application of the Precious Blood of Christ, most especially available
in the Confession, and by making reparation
through penance and amendment of life. This is why hundreds of
thousands of people went to St. Jean Vianney and St. Padre Pio… so that
these gifted saints would look into their souls and make sure there were no more sins that needed removal.
Finally, consider how Pelagius denied that
Christ Our Lord came to restore what Adam had lost but rather He came
merely to provide a good example. Thus, it seems to me that Pelagius
would not be a big supporter of any
movement of restoration whereas the faithful Catholic longs to see the
whole world come under the social reign of Christ Our Majestic and
Glorious King. Thus, they love the phrase given to us by St. Paul: “To
restore all things in Christ!”
The only point that coincides between the
monk Pelagius and traditional minded Catholics is the matter of
discipline and austerity. I wish this were more true. Would that more
Traditional Catholics were austere with themselves… and more willing to
do penance and acts of reparation. Oh how they would please Our Lady who
asked us over and over again for nearly 200 years… Penance! Penance!
Penance! For the salvation of souls!
It is clear to me that the modern Church
in her membership has become more Pelagian than ever whereas Traditional
minded Catholics are seeking to hold the line against this most
pestiferous return of heresy… striving not to let the precious grace of
God granted them be in vain!
[Hat tip to RRD]
"Any man can do a naturally good action…saying giving a banana to a friend in need."
ReplyDeleteBut isn't that what Pope Francis was getting at with his remarks on atheists?
That could well be. What is almost never made clear in the context of the public arena, however, is that such goodness is not enough to keep one out of hell. The prophet Isaias, speaking of such natural goodness, even says that "all (such) righteous acts are like filthy rags" before God (Is. 64:6).
ReplyDeleteWhat the atheist needs is not merely a pat on the back for giving a friend a banana, which alone will confirm him in his ignorance and slide into hell. What he needs is to understand that Christ has done for him what he could not possibly do for himself and that is to die for him and redeem him and give him an opportunity for regeneration and the gift of the supernatural virtues: faith, hope, and charity.
Anon. II,
ReplyDeleteFair point, yet I think it needs to be further articulated, at least in the context of this article, how Catholics can hold both that natural goodness is possible but also that it is futile when it really counts. I could see someone, unfamiliar with Catholic anthropology and doctrine wondering about Man, granting Original Sin in theory, being capable still of natural goodness.
How is that goodness possible?
What does it say about Original Sin and Redemption?
Agreed. I think that's really Father's point, wouldn't you agree? Namely, that when Pope Francis calls traditionalists "Pelagians," he's not being particularly helpful. He probably has in mind what he views as traditional "superstitious" Catholics who think they can get to heaven by "counting rosary beads" or wearing scapulars.
ReplyDeleteBut that is a caricature rather than a fair representation of most traditionalists, and it sheds no light on the nature of "Pelagianism" or what traditional Catholics believe about the means of grace by which salvation is obtained, which is really no different from what any faithful Catholic ought to believe, including the Pope.
So, yes, I agree that more clarity is needed. And less name calling.
Isn't it obvious? The entire thrust of Catholic theology in the past hundred years or more has been to degrade the Catholic understanding of the supernatural nature of grace to the level of "natural goodness" -- to introduce an element of ambiguity whereby the terms can be used interchangeably.
ReplyDeleteThat's why rosaries and scapulars and other forms of Catholic devotion are downplayed by the Church. "Bead counters" and their appeals for supernatural grace have no place on the ecumenist catwalk. Give us generic "saints" and "ministers" of trivial pursuits.