FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Can we extricate ourselves from Molinism?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
What would it take for the Catholic Church to return to its Augustinian roots and abandon the Molinism that has seemed to seep in like an oil spill?

I am not a fan of Molinism because it fails to taker seriously not only At. Augustine, but also Saint Thomas; both of whom were basically the theological foundations of the western Church, both of whom taught God's unconditional election of man to salvation, and conditional election to damnation.

Molinism seems soft and kinda wimpy.

What would it take?
Can you give us your definition of Molinism so we're all on the same page?
St. Francis de Sales was a Doctor of the Church and a Molinist. I think maybe Lawrence of Brindisi as well. I'm not sure the criticisms against it are as open and shut as that.
I'm no theologian or philosopher nor will I pretend to know the arguments but I do know that a good book that treats of Grace in general and all the currents of thought in the Catholic Church in a very readable yet learned way is the late Father John Hardon's book History and Theology of Grace. In it he traces the teaching on grace all the way to at least Vatican I in some detail, including the teaching of Molina.
What is Molinism? 

This thread is useless without a definition.
Catholic ENcyclopedia:

The fundamental principles of the Molinistic system of grace are the following: [b]efficacious grace and sufficient grace, considered in actu prima, are not in naturae and intrinsically different one from the other (as the Thomists hold), but only accidentally so and according to their external success, inasmuch as sufficient grace becomes efficacious just as soon as the free will corresponds with it. If the will withholds its consent then sufficient grace remains inefficacious and is termed "merely sufficient grace" (gratia mere suffiiciens). Now since one and the same grace may in one instance be efficacious, and in another inefficacious, it follows that the so-called gratia efficax must be conceived according to its essence as efficax ab extrinsico.[/b] In this conception there is no lessening of the dignity and priority of grace. For since the anticipatory grace invests the created will, quite irrespective of its consent in actu primo, supernaturally with moral and physical powers, and since moreover, as a supernatural concursus, it influences the actus secundus or good act and thus becomes efficacious grace, it follows that the good act itself is the joint product of grace and free will, or rather more the work of grace than of free will. For it is not the will which by its free consent determines the power of grace, but conversely it is grace which makes the free good act possible, prepares for it and cooperates in its execution. The infallibility of the success, which is contained in the very idea of efficacious grace, is not to be explained by the intrinsic nature of this grace, nor by a supernatural proemotio physica, but rather by the Theologoumenon of the scientia media, by virtue of which God foreknows from all eternity whether this particular will would freely cooperate with a certain grace or not. But since God by virtue of His scientia media has at His own disposal all the sufficient and efficacious grace, the infallibility of the successful outcome remains in perfect accord with the freedom of the will, and furthermore the dogma concerning final perseverance and predestination is entirely preserved.

It is apparent that above all, Molinism is determined to throw a wall of security around the free will. The Thomists maintain that this is done at the expense of grace. Instead of making the free will dependent on the power of grace, it is will which freely determines the success or failure of grace. Thus in the last analysis it is human will which decides whether a particular grace shall prove efficacious or not, although revelation teaches that it is God, who with His grace gives both the willing and the doing of a good act. Even friends of Molina, notably Cardinal Bellarmine (De grat. et lib. arbitr., I, 12), saw the force of this difficulty and declined to follow the extreme Molinism, which, by the way, was not taught by Molina. This explains the Instruction issued by Claudius Acquaviva, the General of the Jesuits in the year 1613, directing all the teaching body of the Society to lay increased stress on the fact that efficacious grace differs from sufficient grace not only ab extrinseco, but also in its moral (not its physical) nature even in actu primo, inasmuch as efficacious grace being a special gift of God has a higher moral value than merely sufficient grace, which according to the infallible foreknowledge of God recoils ineffectively in consequence of the resistance of the will. Thus it remains true that God Himself effects our good deeds, not that He merely supplies us with the potentiality.
It is true that if you could poll people with a few questions and then classify them, I'd say 95/100 Catholics lean Molinist.

I think most Catholics probably just think it is Catholic teaching and confuse Augustinianism or Thomism for Calvinism.
long day.
sip
say what?
(07-19-2011, 09:45 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]What is Molinism? 

This thread is useless without a definition.

It is a basic theological school of thought.

It does not normally need to be defined in discussions about it.

(07-19-2011, 10:24 PM)Rosarium Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-19-2011, 09:45 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]What is Molinism? 

This thread is useless without a definition.

It is a basic theological school of thought.

It does not normally need to be defined in discussions about it.


Says who?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35