Reginald Garrigou Lagrange and St. Alphonsus Ligouri

1. Catholic Thomist Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s Summary of Predestination:

“Herein lies the great mystery of grace: it’s two aspects which are to be harmonized, may be expressed in the following manner: this mystery contains a striking light and shade: The light is expressed in two principles; the shade is their intimate harmonization.

“On the one hand, God never commands the impossible (that would be neither just nor merciful); but out of love, He makes the duties to be performed really possible for all. No adult is deprived of the grace necessary for salvation unless he refuses it by resisting the divine call, as did the bad thief dying besides the Savior.

“On the other hand “since the love of God for us is the cause of all good, no one would be better than another if he were not more greatly loved by God,” as St. Thomas says (Ia, q.20, a.3). In this sense, Christ said, “Without me you can do nothing” (John 15:5); and in speaking of the elect, He added “No man can snatch them out of the hand of the Father” (John 10:29). St. Paul also asks, “For who distinguisheth thee? Or what hast thou that thou hast not received?” (1 Cor. 4:7). What more profound lesson in humility could be taught?

“As a council of the Middle Ages states: “If some are saved, it is by the gift of the Savior; if others are lost it is through their own fault.” (Designer Enchiridion, no. 318). Resistance to grace is an evil which can only come from us; non-resistance is a good which springs from the Source of all good.

“These formulas reconcile the two aspects of the mystery, and the principles we have just recalled are incontestable. Each of these two principles taken separately is absolutely certain. That salvation is possible to all is a principle as certain as that “no one would be better than another if he were not more loved by God.” What have we that we have not received?”

“But how can these two incontestable principles be reconciled? No created intellect can see this harmony before receiving the beatific vision.

“In fact were we to see it we would see how infinite mercy, infinite justice, and sovereign liberty harmonize in the eminence of the Deity”

— (Thomist) Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Three Ages of the Interior Life, p.95, n. 22.

—

2. St. Alphonsus on Suffient Grace and Prayer in God’s universal will in Christ to save all, in relation to man’s freedom and prayer, reconciling the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church as they approach these same Truths from different angles — though he was uncomfortable with the Dominican approaches to the subject and certain neglects of other related biblical truths.

Excerpts from The Great Means of Salvation and of Perfection (though the entire treatise should be read by those who can; Some heading titles here are supplied. Footnotes in the text pertain to the original text — SH):

“Final perseverance is not a single grace, but a chain of graces, to which must correspond the chain of our prayers; if we cease to pray, God will cease to give us his help, and we shall perish. He who does not practice meditation will find the greatest difficulty in persevering in grace till death.”

“GOD Wishes All Men to be Saved and has provided all graces in the life, death and resurrection of Christ

“God loves all things that he has created: For Thou lovest all things that are, and hatest none of the things that Thou hast made. 2441 Now love cannot be idle: “All love has a force of its own, and cannot be idle,”2442 says St. Augustine.

Hence love necessarily implies benevolence, so that the person who loves cannot help doing good to the person beloved whenever there is an opportunity: “Love persuades a man to do those things which he believes to be good for him whom he loves,”2443 says Aristotle. If, then, God loves all men, he must in consequence will that all should obtain eternal salvation, which is the one and sovereign good of man, seeing that it is the one end for which he was created: You have your fruit unto sanctification; but your end eternal life. 2444

This doctrine, that God wishes all men to be saved, and that Jesus Christ died for the salvation of all, is now a certain doctrine taught by the Catholic Church, as theologians in common teach, namely, Petavius, Gonet, Gotti, and others, besides Tourneley, who adds, that it is a doctrine of the faith. 2445 1

DECISION OF THE CHURCH

With reason, therefore, were the predestinarians condemned, who, among their errors, taught (as may be seen in Noris, Petavius, and more especially in Tourneley) that God does not will all men to be saved; as Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, testifies of them in his first letter, where he says, “The ancient predestinarians asserted that God does not will all men to be saved, but only those who are saved.”2446 These persons were condemned, first in the Council of Arles, a.d. 475, which pronounced “anathema to him that said that Christ did not die for all men, and that he does not will all to be saved.”2447

They were next condemned in the Council of Lyons, a.d. 490, where Lucidus was forced to retract and confess, “I condemn the man who says that Christ did not suffer death for the salvation of all men.”2448 So also in the ninth century, Gotheschalcus, who renewed the same error, was condemned by the Council of Quercy, a.d. 853, in the third article of which it was decided “God wills all men, without exception, to be saved, although all men be not saved;” and in the fourth article:

“There is no man for whom Christ did not suffer, although all men be not redeemed by the mystery of his Passion.”2449 The same error was finally condemned in the 12th and 13th Propositions of Quesnel. In the former it was said: “When God wills to save a soul, the will of God is undoubtedly effectual;”in the latter: “All whom God wills to save through Christ are infallibly saved.”2450

These propositions were justly condemned, precisely because they meant that God does not will all men to be saved; since from the proposition that those whom God wills to be saved are infallibly saved, it logically follows that God does not will even all the faithful to be saved, let alone all men.

This was also clearly expressed by the Council of Trent, in which it was said that Jesus Christ died, “that all might receive the adoption of sons,”and in chapter iii.: “But though he died for all, yet all do not receive the benefits of his death.”2451 The Council then takes for granted that the Redeemer died not only for the elect, but also for those who, through their own fault, do not receive the benefit of Redemption. Nor is it of any use to affirm that the Council only meant to say that Jesus Christ has given to the world a ransom sufficient to save all men; for in this sense we might say that he died also for the devils.

Moreover, the Council of Trent intended here to reprove the errors of those innovators, who, not denying that the blood of Christ was sufficient to save all, yet asserted that in fact it was not shed and given for all; this is the error which the Council intended to condemn when it said that our Saviour died for all. Further, in chapter vi. it says that sinners are put in a fit state to receive justification by hope in God through the merits of Jesus Christ: “They are raised to hope, trusting that God will be merciful to them through Christ.”2452

Now, if Jesus Christ had not applied to all the merits of his Passion, then, since no one (without a special revelation) could be certain of being among the number of those to whom the Redeemer had willed to apply the fruit of his merits, no sinner could entertain such hope, not having the certain and secure foundation which is necessary for hope; namely, that God wills all men to be saved, and will pardon all sinners prepared for it by the merits of Jesus Christ. And this, besides being the error formerly condemned in Baius, who said that Christ had only died for the elect, is also condemned in the fifth proposition of Jansenius: “It is Semi-Pelagianism to say that Christ died or shed his blood for all men.”2453 And Innocent X., in his Constitution of a.d. 1653, expressly declared that to say Christ died for the salvation of the elect only is an impious and heretical proposition.

2. THE CELEBRATED TEXT OF ST. PAUL

On the other hand, both the Scriptures and all the Fathers assure us that God sincerely and really wishes the salvation of all men and the conversion of all sinners, as long as they are in this world. For this we have, first of all, the express text of St. Paul: “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” 2454 The sentence of the Apostle is absolute and indicative—God wills all men to be saved. These words in their natural sense declare that God truly wills all men to be saved; and it is a certain rule, received in common by all, that the words in Scripture are not to be distorted to an unnatural sense, except in the sole case when the literal meaning is repugnant to faith or morals.

St. Bonaventure writes precisely to our purpose when he says, “We must hold that when the Apostle says, God wills all men to be saved, it is necessary to grant that he does will it.”2455 It is true that St. Augustine and St. Thomas mention different interpretations which have been given to this text; but both these Doctors understand it to mean a real will of God to save all, without exception.

“I have no intention here of blaming the opinion that men are predestined to glory previously to the prevision of their merits; I only say that I cannot understand how those who think that God, without any regard to their merits, has elected some to eternal life, and excluded others, can therefore persuade themselves that he wills all to be saved; unless, indeed, they mean that this will of God is not true and sincere, but rather a hypothetical or metaphorical will.

I cannot understand, I say, how it can be maintained that God wills all men to be saved, and to partake of his glory, when the greater part of them have been already excluded from this glory antecedently to any demerit on their part. Petavius says, in defence of his contrary opinion, What was the use of God’s giving to all men the desire of eternal happiness, when he had excluded the majority of them from it antecedently to any demerits of theirs?

What was the use of Jesus Christ’s coming to save all men by his death, when so many poor creatures had been already deprived by God of all benefit therefrom? What was the use of giving them so many means of salvation, when they had been already excluded from the attainment of the end?

Therefore, adds Petavius (and this is a most weighty reflection), if this ever was the case, we must say that God, who loves all things that he has created, yet in creating mankind did not love them all, but rather utterly detested the greater part of them, in excluding them from the glory for which he had created them. It is certain that the happiness of a creature consists in the attainment of the end for which it was created.

On the other hand, it is certain that God creates all men for eternal life. If, therefore, God, having created some men for eternal life, had thereupon, without regard to their sins, excluded them from it, he would in creating them have utterly hated them without cause, and would have done them the greatest injury they could possibly suffer in excluding them from the attainment of their end, that is, of the glory for which they had been created—“For,” says Petavius in a passage which we abridge,

“God cannot feel indifferent between love and hatred towards his creatures, especially towards men, whom he either loves to eternal life, or hates to damnation; but it is the greatest evil of man to be alienated from God and to be reprobate; wherefore, if God wills the everlasting destruction of any man’s soul, he does not love him, but hates him with the greatest hatred possible, in that kind which transcends the natural order.”2469

And by this eternal ruin or “everlasting destruction,”he does not mean the positive damnation which God destines for certain individuals, but simply the exclusion from glory; since in fact, as Tertullian says, of what use would it ever be to us that God had not created us for hell, if in creating us he had separated us from the number of his elect? since the separation from the elect necessarily implies the loss of salvation, and therefore damnation; since there is no mean between them. “For what,”says Tertullian, “will be the end of the separated? Will it not be the loss of salvation?”2470

Whence Petavius concludes,

—“Wherefore, if God loves every man with a love which is antecedent to their merits, he does not hate his soul, and therefore he does not desire the greatest evil to him.”2471 If, therefore, God loves all men, as is certain, we ought to hold that he wills all to be saved, and that he has never hated any one to such a degree, that he has willed to do him the greatest evils, by excluding him from glory previously to the prevision of his demerits.

For who hath known the mind of the Lord? 2472 We ought to submit ourselves to the will of God, who has chosen to leave this mystery in obscurity to his Church, that we all might humble ourselves under the deep judgments of his divine Providence. And the more, because divine grace, by which alone men can gain eternal life, is dispensed more or less abundantly by God entirely gratuitously, and without any regard to our merits. So that to save ourselves it will always be necessary for us to throw ourselves into the arms of the divine mercy, in order that he may assist us with his grace to obtain salvation, trusting always in his infallible promises to hear and save the man who prays to him.

Part II Which proves that the Grace of Prayer is given to all, and which treats of the Ordinary Mode in which this Grace operates

Chapter II GOD COMMONLY GIVES TO ALL THE JUST THE GRACE NECESSARY FOR THE OBSERVANCE OF THE COMMANDMENTS, AND TO ALL SINNERS THE GRACE NECESSARY FOR CONVERSION

I PROOFS

If then God wills all to be saved, it follows that he gives to all that grace and those aids which are necessary for the attainment of salvation, otherwise it could never be said that he has a true will to save all. “The effect of the antecedent will,” says St. Thomas, “by which God wills the salvation of all men, is that order of nature the purpose of which is our salvation, and likewise those things which conduce to that end, and which are offered to all in common, whether by nature or by grace.”2542

It is certain, in contradiction to the blasphemies of Luther and Calvin, that God does not impose a law that is impossible to be observed. On the other hand, it is certain, that without the assistance of grace the observance of the law is impossible; as Innocent I. declared against the Pelagians when he said, “It is certain, that as we overcome by the aid of God, so without his aid we must be overcome.”2543 Pope Celestine declared the same thing.

Therefore, if God gives to all men a possible law, it follows that he also gives to all men the grace necessary to observe it, whether immediately, or mediately, by means of prayer, as the Council of Trent has most clearly defined:

“God does not command impossibilities; but by commanding he admonishes you both to do what you can, and to ask for that which is beyond your power, and by his help enables you to do it.”2544

Otherwise, if God refused us both the proximate and remote grace to enable us to fulfil the law, either the law would have been given in vain, or sin would be necessary, and if necessary would be no longer sin, as we shall shortly prove at some length…

Sufficient Grace

Bellarmine makes a sound distinction on this point, and says that for avoiding fresh sins every sinner has at all times sufficient assistance, at least mediately:

“The necessary and sufficient assistance for the avoidance of sin is given by God’s goodness to all men at all times, either immediately or mediately. . . . We say or mediately because it is certain that some men have not that help by which they can immediately avoid sin, but yet have the help which enables them to obtain from God greater safeguards, by the assistance of which they will avoid sins.”2601

But for the grace of conversion, he says that this is not given at all times to the sinner; but that no one will be ever so far left to himself “as to be surely and absolutely deprived of God’s help through all this life, so as to have cause to despair of salvation.”2602 And so say the theologians who follow St. Thomas—thus Soto: “I am absolutely certain, and I believe that all the holy Doctors who are worthy of the name were always most positive, that no one was ever deserted by God in this mortal life.”2603

And the reason is evident; for if the sinner was quite abandoned by grace, either his sins afterwards committed could no longer be imputed to him, or he would be under an obligation to do that which he had no power to fulfil; but it is a positive rule of St. Augustine that there is never a sin in that which cannot be avoided:

“No one sins in that which can by no means be avoided.”2604

And this is agreeable to the teaching of the Apostle: But God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be templed above that which you are able; but will also make with the temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it. 2605

The word “issue”means the divine assistance, which God always gives to the tempted to enable them to resist, as St. Cyprian explains it: “He will make with the temptation a way of escape.”2606 And Primasius more clearly: “He will so order the issue that we shall be able to endure; that is, in temptation he will strengthen you with the help of his grace, so that ye may be able to bear it.”2607 St. Augustine and St. Thomas go so far as to say that God would be unjust and cruel if he obliged any one to a command which he could not keep. St. Augustine says,

“It is the deepest injustice to reckon any one guilty of sin for not doing that which he could not do. 2608

And St. Thomas:

“God is not more cruel than man; but it is reckoned cruelty in a man to oblige a person by law to do that which he cannot fulfil; therefore we must by no means imagine this of God.”2609

“It is, however, different,” he says, “when it is through his own neglect that he has not the grace to be able to keep the commandments,”2610 which properly means, when man neglects to avail himself of the remote grace of prayer, in order to obtain the proximate grace to enable him to keep the law, as the Council of Trent teaches:

“God does not command impossibilities; but by commanding admonishes you to do what you can, and to ask for that which is beyond your power; and by his help enables you to do it.”2611 St. Augustine repeats his decision in many other places that there is no sin in what cannot be avoided.

In one he says, “Whether there be iniquity or whether there be justice, if it was not in the man’s power, there can be no just reward, no just punishment.”2612

Elsewhere he says, “Finally, if no power is given them to abstain from their works, we cannot hold that they sin.”2613 Again, “The devil, indeed, suggests; but with the help of God it is in our power to choose or to refuse his suggestions. And so, when by God’s help it is in your power, why do you not rather determine to obey God than him?”2614 Again, “No one, therefore, is answerable for what he has not received.”2615 Again, “No one is worthy of blame for not doing that which he cannot do.”2616

Other Fathers have taught the same doctrine. So St. Jerome, “We are not forced by necessity to be either virtuous or vicious; for where there is necessity, there is neither condemnation nor crown.”2617 Tertullian: “For a law would not be given to him who had it not in his power to observe it duly.”2618 Marcus the Hermit:

“Hidden grace assists us; but it depends on us to do or not to do good according to ourstrength.”2619 So also St. Irenæus, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Chrysostom, and others. Nor is there any difficulty in what St. Thomas says, that grace is denied to some persons, in punishment of original sin: “To whomsoever the assistance of grace is given, it is given through simple mercy; but from those to whom it is not given, it is withheld justly in punishment of previous sin, or at least of original sin, as Augustine says.”2620

…[for] how can sin be imputed to a man who must sin in some way or another?

Elsewhere, “All the misfortunes of unbelievers spring from too great an attachment to the things of life. This sickness of heart weakens and darkens the understanding, and leads to eternal ruin. If they would try to heal their hearts by purging them of their vices they would soon receive light, which would show them the necessity of joining the Catholic Church where alone is salvation” — http://www.olrl.org

We also hold, as we said before , that efficacious grace is necessary for the observance of the commandments; but we say that for actual prayer, whereby we may obtain efficacious grace, the sufficient grace which God gives to all the faithful is enough . And thus we do no violence to the truth that God’s commandments are not impossible to any one; since every man, by means of the sufficient grace only, can perform such an easy thing as prayer; and by means of prayer he will obtain the assistance of gratuitous efficacious grace, which is necessary for the actual performance of difficult things—such as the observance of the commandments.

Otherwise, if sufficient grace were not enough for actual prayer, and the addition of efficacious grace were always necessary, and if this were denied to any man—as, in fact, efficacious grace is denied to many—I cannot see how the commandments of God could be said to be possible to such a person, and how God could demand of him the observance of his law (at the time when he denies him even the efficacious grace to enable him actually to pray), and how with justice he could condemn him to hell for not observing

…And hence we can easily understand the axiom universally received in the schools: “To him who does what in him lies, God does not refuse his grace.” 2746 That is, to the man who prays , and thus makes good use of the sufficient grace which enables him to do such an easy thing as prayer, God does not refuse the efficacious grace to enable him to execute difficult things.

Habert, Bishop of Vabres and Doctor of the Sorbonne [says,] We think, further, that ‘sufficient grace’is a grace that disposes for efficacious grace, since from a good use of it God afterwards grants to the created will the grace that performs the complete effect.”2752 He had said before that “all Catholic Doctors, of all schools, have professed, and do profess, that a real inward grace is given, which is capable of persuading the will to consent to good, though, on account of the free resistance of the will, it sometimes does not persuade it thus to consent,”2753 and for this doctrine be quotes Gamaches, Duval, Isambert, Perez, Le Moyne, and others. Then he goes on: “The assistance, therefore, of sufficient grace disposes us for the reception of efficacious grace; and is in some sort efficacious, namely, of an incomplete effect, obtained first remotely, then more nearly, and at last proximately—such as is an act of faith, hope, love, and, mixed with these, one of prayer…

Gaudenzio Bontempi in like manner demonstrated that sufficient grace obtains efficacious grace by means of prayer, which is given to all who will avail themselves of it…Dominic Soto asks, “Why of two persons whom God is most ready and desirous to convert, one is drawn by grace, and not the other?”And he answers: “No other reason can be given, except that one consents and co-operates, while the other does not co-operate.”2767

So, to verify the proposition that it is in a man’s power to persevere, it is necessary to grant both that he can, without needing any further grace, obtain by prayer the assistance requisite for perseverance; and, also, that with only the sufficient grace common to all, without need of any special grace, he can actually pray, and by prayer obtain perseverance; otherwise it could not be said that every man had the grace necessary for perseverance, at least remotely or mediately, by means of prayer.”

Again, it is strongly recommend that the entire treatise be read by those who can for an even fuller and more comprehensive appreciation of the Church’s teaching on Christ’s universal salvific will of God in Christ and its reconciliation with man’s liberty to either accept and pray for more light, or to reject and lose the possibility of efficacious graces unto salvation. — Editor

See testimonies:

(Papal approval)

St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church

“No ecclesiastical writer has ever received more direct, positive and formal approbation than that accorded by the Holy See to the moral writings of this Doctor of the Church. While still alive, four Popes expressed their admiration of his prudent doctrine. (…)

In 1831, Pope Gregory XVI enhanced this approbation when he decreed that professors of theology could safely teach **any opinion** of St. Alphonsus, and that confessors, without weighting reasons, could safely follow him – ***simply on the fact that St. Alphonsus said so***.

Each of the thirteen predecessors of Pius XII in the chair of Peter has in some way or another recommended, approved or exalted the ‘Moral Theology’ of the Patron of confessors. In his Apostolic Brief of April 26, 1950, Pope Pius XII alludes to some of them. «By his learned writings, especially his ‘Moral Theology,’ he dissipated the darkness of error with which Jansenists and unbelievers have cloaked the world» (Pius IX). He was «the most illustrious and benign of moralists» (Leo XIII).

«He illumined obscurity, made doubts plain and clear, and in the maze of over-strict and over-lax theological opinions, he hewed a path which directors of souls can tread in safety» (Pius IX).

To this chorus of pontifical voices, Pope Pius XII felt, he said, constrained to add his own, declaring St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori the celestial Patron of both confessors and moral theologians. For, as the Cardinals and bishops of Spain and Austria declared in their petition for his Doctorate, «the Moral Theology of St. Alphonsus has given back to the Sacred Tribunal of Penance the mercy and the kindness of the Sacred Heart.» We priests therefore, when hearing confessions, will do well to imitate the example and practice the teachings of this great Patron of Confessors. In particular, we should avoid severity, impatience, unkindness, and haste. Let us give the people time enough to make their confession and say their act of contrition, and be kind to them; and let us never fail in that sympathy which should be the outstanding characteristic of an ‘alter Christus’.” (Source: Homoletic and Pastoral Review: New Patron of Confessors, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Vol. LI, No. 6, March 1951, Fr. Galvin J. J. C.SS.R., 1951, p. 511)

(Pius IX)

“During his exile in Naples, Pope Pius IX, in his veneration for St. Alphonsus, determined to make a pilgrimage to the Saint’s tomb. On 8 October, 1849 he celebrated Mass at the altar beneath which lie Alphonsus’ venerated remains; after which he knelt down and exchanged his pastoral ring for that which encircled the Saint’s finger.” (Source: Catholic, 2005, p. 10)

In 1831, Pope Gregory XVI enhanced this approbation when he decreed that professors of theology could safely teach **any opinion** of St. Alphonsus, and that confessors, without weighting reasons, could safely follow him – ***simply on the fact that St. Alphonsus said so***.

Each of the thirteen predecessors of Pius XII in the chair of Peter has in some way or another recommended, approved or exalted the ‘Moral Theology’ of the Patron of confessors. In his Apostolic Brief of April 26, 1950, Pope Pius XII alludes to some of them. «By his learned writings, especially his ‘Moral Theology,’ he dissipated the darkness of error with which Jansenists and unbelievers have cloaked the world» (Pius IX). He was «the most illustrious and benign of moralists» (Leo XIII).

«He illumined obscurity, made doubts plain and clear, and in the maze of over-strict and over-lax theological opinions, he hewed a path which directors of souls can tread in safety» (Pius IX).

To this chorus of pontifical voices, Pope Pius XII felt, he said, constrained to add his own, declaring St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori the celestial Patron of both confessors and moral theologians. For, as the Cardinals and bishops of Spain and Austria declared in their petition for his Doctorate, «the Moral Theology of St. Alphonsus has given back to the Sacred Tribunal of Penance the mercy and the kindness of the Sacred Heart.» We priests therefore, when hearing confessions, will do well to imitate the example and practice the teachings of this great Patron of Confessors. In particular, we should avoid severity, impatience, unkindness, and haste. Let us give the people time enough to make their confession and say their act of contrition, and be kind to them; and let us never fail in that sympathy which should be the outstanding characteristic of an ‘alter Christus’.” (Source: Homoletic and Pastoral Review: New Patron of Confessors, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Vol. LI, No. 6, March 1951, Fr. Galvin J. J. C.SS.R., 1951, p. 511)

(Pius IX)

“During his exile in Naples, Pope Pius IX, in his veneration for St. Alphonsus, determined to make a pilgrimage to the Saint’s tomb. On 8 October, 1849 he celebrated Mass at the altar beneath which lie Alphonsus’ venerated remains; after which he knelt down and exchanged his pastoral ring for that which encircled the Saint’s finger.” (Source: Catholic, 2005, p. 10)

John Paul II:

“To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination,’ he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place” [Acts 4:27-28]. For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.

In affirming predestination, the catechism does two other things at the same time: it also affirms the freedom of the will and clarifies that sin is permitted, not predestined, by God.”

——–

— Predestination and Freewill —

SH: The greatest expounder of the Church’s teaching regarding Grace and Free Will is, imo, St. Alphonsus Liguori, who shows in his writings on the subject(1), that the first grace must certainly come gratuitously from God who is hardly stingy with this unmerited gift and all subsequent gifts.

Then we all are given Sufficient Graces throughout our lives to enable us to *pray* for more graces and strength all the way to Heaven. But our real liberty can frustrate these sufficient graces or yield to them.

Yes, mystery remains in this, which no created intellect can “solve” (else it would not be a Mystery), but both the necessity of unmerited grace and free will are forever affirmed as certain by the Church.

Quibbling in no way removes the Mystery. The key, for Alphonsus, is to pray for more graces, to pray all the way to the true and final Freedom of salvation. God does not refuse the sincerely praying heart.

Get comfortable with mystery, Alphonsus insists, trusting the All Good God who is perfect love, mercy, justice and knowing. All remaining questions, mysteries and antinomies will be resolved for us by Him in the Beatific Vision.

— St. Alphonsus Ligouri: on Daily Prayer and the Chain of Grace to Ensure Salvation

The Daily Prayer Discipline Recommended by Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori, for Graces to Ensure Salvation

1) Short prayers immediately upon rising
2) ½ hour’s meditation each day (or at least 15 minutes)
3) 15 minutes of spiritual reading each day
4) A daily examination of conscience (particularly considering the quality of our prayer)
5) To make a confession and take Holy Communion at least once per week
6) Avoid the near occasions of sin and bad company
7) Entrust yourself to the Blessed Virgin Mary
8) Pray to Our Savior to obtain his Holy Love
9) Daily ask for the grace of final perserverance

“If we are not saved, the whole fault will be ours; and we shall have our own failure to answer for, because we did not pray.” –from The Way of Salvation and Perfection

“Final perseverance is not a single grace, but a chain of graces, to which must correspond the chain of our prayers; if we cease to pray, God will cease to give us his help, and we shall perish. He who does not practice meditation will find the greatest difficulty in persevering in grace till death.”

— from The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection

(1) E.g., The Great Means of Salvation and of Perfection

The theological claims of the Protestant Reformers, especially the unbending views of John Calvin, made questions almost inevitable ones for Catholic theologians, but the results were not always satisfying. The Jesuits in fact argued that the Dominican position was indistinguishable from that of Calvin, whereas the Dominicans resorted that the Jesuits had reintroduced Pelagianism into the Christian life. Even after years of patient debate and commission work, no authoritative declarations were delivered by the Holy See, which instead preferred to counsel forbearance to both parties. — Romanus Cessario. A Short Introduction to Thomism (Washington, DC: CUA Press, 2005, emphasis mine) p. 78.

[Excerpts selected by the editor]

St. Thomas Aquinas and a Just and Proper freedom, the very “Life-blood” of Orthodox Catholic Theology

Josef Pieper, the renowned Thomist, in his 1953 study, The Silence of St. Thomas (St. Augustine’s Press, South Bend, Indiana) reminds theologians and students of St. Thomas that while Pope Pius XI in his 1923 Encyclical, Studiorum Ducem, insisted that the Angelic Doctor is to be esteemed by all Schools of Theology, he also reminded all in what a spiritually healthy theology consists as shown by the Saint, and specifically “warns against a pedantic and unfruitful canonization of St. Thomas, which would be contradictory to his own spirit” (Pieper, Silence of St. Thomas, Note I, 23).

Pieper quotes Pius admonishing all to imitate Thomas’ own charitable methods, allowing schools a just and proper freedom to differ within traditional dogmatic limits which always existed, at least implicitly:

“We desire that lovers of St. Thomas-and all sons of the Church who devote themselves to higher studies should be so-be incited by an honorable rivalry in a just and proper freedom which is the life-blood of studies, but let no spirit of malevolent disparagement prevail among them, for any such, so far from helping truth, serves only to loosen the bonds of charity…

“Let everyone therefore inviolably observe the prescription contained in the Code of Canon Law that “teachers shall deal with the studies of intellectual philosophy and theology and the education of their pupils in such sciences according to the method, doctrine and principles of the Angelic Doctor and religiously adhere thereto”; and may they conform to this rule so faithfully as to be able to describe him in very truth as their master.

“Let none require from another more than the Church, the mistress and mother of all, requires from each: and in questions, which in Catholic schools are matter of controversy between the most reputable authorities, let none be prevented from adhering to whatever opinion seems to him the more probable.” —- Studiorum Ducem, June 29, 1923, #30

— White Lies. James White and Biblical Human Destiny

— Augustine Had It Right; Calvin Did Not. Catholic Answers.