In the Reformed view of predestination and human will, could we say that human will consists of two inseparable parts — a detached will, as the capacity to deliberate or step back from objects, and an oriented will, as the capacity to unite with or choose an object apparently good? If so, would it be accurate to say that any exercise of the will that *chooses* something other than God represents a false or incomplete use of that will, since only God constitutes the true end that fulfills and rightly orients it as true freedom? In this view, God would be not merely one object of choice, but the very source and end of a properly ordered will. All other created goods—wealth, pleasure, ideologies—represent only *apparent* fulfillments. That would mean that, apart from union with God, human willing collapses into a kind of existential fragmentation: always active, but never truly free. This would imply that: 1. Human beings retain a capacity to will and choice (and thus remain morally responsible) *even in their fallen state*, but this will is fundamentally misoriented since *any* object is going to be a sinful one. 2. Only God's grace restores the true orientation of the will, reordering it toward its proper end in Him (= freedom). 3. Thus, God is not the author of our sin (since our willing as a capacity of abstraction from any object, though corrupted, remains our own), but He alone is the author of our salvation (since only He can rightly reorient the will). Would this framework be consistent with Calvinist theology? Or does it risk introducing assumptions that conflict with doctrines such as total depravity or monergistic regeneration?

From the Wikipedia article [Trial of Joan of Arc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Joan_of_Arc) : > Several questions of a theological nature followed, including this one: > >Question: Do you know whether or not you are in God's grace? > >Joan: If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me. I should be the saddest creature in the world if I knew I were not in His grace. > >The question was a deliberate attempt to entrap her, **since the Church's doctrine held that no one could be certain of being in God's grace**; and yet answering 'no' could also be used against her because the judge could claim she had admitted to being in a state of sin. QUESTION: Specifically, in reference to *since the Church's doctrine held that no one could be certain of being in God's grace*, where may I actually find the Catholic Church officially having promulgated the doctrine referred to here? Was it promulgated by a particular Pope? Council? Is it part of official Catholic Dogma? *de Fide*? something lesser? I am looking for an official declaration of doctrine. Thank you.

Based on the question "Should Catholics in a state of grace call themselves sinners?" Does Catholic doctrine allow for such a person to come to know of their state of grace while living?

The Bible says our righteousness is a filthy rag(works) it also says we are the righteous of God in Christ Jesus. As a Catholic at a state of grace is it right to still call myself a sinner when I have been justified by grace taking upon me Jesus Christ righteous?

Since some non-Catholic baptisms are valid, and thereby remit original sin and confer sanctifying grace, there would therefore be some non-Catholics who are in a state of grace. Cf. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/54951/do-the-conditions-for-mortal-sin-apply-to-non-catholics and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/58998/how-can-a-non-catholic-get-into-state-of-grace-as-understood-by-the-catholic-chu I ask this question, because it is not quite answered in either of the linked questions. Note that this question is not not asking if a non-Catholic can commit a *grave sin,* but rather if such a person can fulfill the other two conditions required to lose the state of grace, namely 1. Full advertence [attention] on the part of the intellect 2. Full consent on the part of the will [1]

I was reading and trying to understand [_Amoris Laetitia_](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoris_laetitia) and came up with this question below. The documents talk about irregular couples and basically say that everyone undergoes different timing of conversion. This is a situation: A non-practicing Catholic couple "divorces" and re-marry by state. They end up having families, let's say with 3 or more kids with another husband/wife. According to the Catholic teaching, they live in adultery. Now, they start to be interested in spiritual life and undergo what we call a conversion. But they are stuck because they can't just split and leave their kids or whatever dependencies they have. I know the ideal would be to get an annulment and solve this problem. But let's say they aren't entitled to an annulment. My question is what does the church offer to such couples as a solution? Suggesting to live like a brother and sister isn't going to work unless they stop living in the same household but that might not be ideal for kids (I guess) or it can still cause a scandal. Is splitting couples really the only way to go if they want to live a sacramental life? I know this happened to St. Augustine but his situation wasn't that complicated. Do we have other examples from the past where families needed to separate in order to return back to living in the state of grace? Have Catholic theologians written on this subject and if so could someone explain it to me?

What is the reasoning behind the Catholic Church teaching that only people in the state of grace should be allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist? Lately, I heard a statement: > The Eucharist: A prize for the just or medicine for sinners? > > The Eucharist is no gold star on the forehead of “good” Christians, > but an undeserved gift to strengthen pilgrims who stumble along > through life with their gaze fixed on heaven. What is this teaching based on that one needs to be in the state of grace and why?

State of grace: > Condition of a person who is free from mortal sin and pleasing to God. > It is the state of being in God's friendship and the necessary > condition of the soul at death in order to attain heaven. source Now, > We cannot merit anything supernatural if we are not in a state of > grace. To argue the contrary is to argue for Pelagianism . > Nonetheless, God does hear the prayer of the repentant sinner. > > ... but the prayer of the unrepentant sinner, who prays for something > other than for the graces of conversion, is a prayer lacking in merit > or efficacy it would appear. source I know some Protestants who are sincere in their faith and I saw them deeply praying. But from the quote above I also know that even if they pray deeply they can't merit anything as they aren't in a state of grace because they are not taking part in God's divine nature according to some theologians and the Catholic teaching . My question is, how can a non-Catholic obtain the state of grace as understood by the Catholic Church? Is it even possible without becoming a Catholic? Does it even make sense for a non-Catholic to pray for anything other than for a conversion to become a Catholic?