Can we extricate ourselves from Molinism?
(08-05-2011, 01:29 AM)wulfrano Wrote:
(08-05-2011, 01:09 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 10:34 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 10:10 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 09:08 PM)Melkite Wrote: Inpefess, I see two possible holes in your argument off the top of my head.  If it were practically impossible to resist the good once it has been seen, then the original sin would presumably never have taken place. 

No. Efficacious grace does not mean one will never sin. It means that one will persevere to the end such that, in the end, he will choose good.

Quote: The Original sin took place because Adam, who saw the good as perfectly as he was capable, resisted it anyway, and was tempted to resist it by one who saw everything the elect will see,

Adam didn't see the Beatific Vision before he fell.

Quote:


and presumably more that no man shall ever see, and also resisted the good as well.  If good were inherently irresistable once seen, neither fall should ever have taken place.

See above.

Satan was the highest of angels, how could he not have seen God?

None of the angels have seen God; nor will they ever. They enjoy His presence but they do not behold the Beatific Vision.

They envy man with a holy envy because we have the ability to see God and they cannot.

I really don't know what you are talking about.  St. Michael the Archangel does see God.  Lucifer doesn't enjoy the presence of God.  Please be specific.  Thank you.

Until the angels confirmed their grace, they could not see God; they could but enjoy His presence.

Those angels who have rebelled have never and will never see the Beatific Vision. These angels envy man because of what we can have that they cannot.

None who have seen the Beatific Vision can rebel against God. This is the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas.

But some angels did rebel against God. This means some angels had not seen the Beatific Vision.

How does this work? Here is a summary of points from the Summa Theologica:

1) Angels were not created in the possession of the Beatific Vision.

2) To possess the Beatific Vision, angels require grace to confirm their glory.

3) The angels were created in the state of grace, but they needed to confirm this grace in order to enjoy the Beatific Vision. If the angels had been created with confirming grace (which is a conceptual contradiction), none of them could have fallen.

4) By using their grace in their first act of selfless charity toward God (serving God by serving man), the angels confirm their grace and merit the Beatific Vision.

5) Upon meriting the Beatific Vision, beatified angels cannot sin. "There is in beatified angels no possible tendency away from God, and therefore no possible sin."

6) But before angels were beatified they could yet sin, and some did so.

7) Lucifer did so not immediately upon creation but immediately after creation.

St. Michael the Archangel didn't always the Beatific Vision, but he did after His choice to confirm the sanctifying grace with which he had been created by choosing to serve God by ministering unto man.

So Lucifer never enjoyed the Beatific Vision, which is why he was able to sin. We, however, cannot sin once we have enjoyed the Beatific Vision, though we retain the power to do so.

Here is the more complete answer from A Tour of the Summa:

Quote:62. GRACE AND GLORY OF THE ANGELS

1. Although the angels were created in heaven, and with natural happiness or beatitude, they were not created in glory, that is, in the possession of the beatific vision.

2. To possess God in the beatific vision the angels require grace.

3. And, while the angels were created in the state of sanctifying grace, this was not the grace which confirms the angels in glory. Had the angels been created with the confirming grace, none of them could have fallen, and some did fall.

4. Angels were created in grace, and by using this grace in their first act of charity (which is the friendship and love of God) they merited the beatific vision and heavenly beatitude.

5. Instantly upon meriting the beatitude of heaven, the angels possessed it. The angelic nature, being purely spiritual, is not suited for steps and degrees of progress to perfection, as is the case with man.

6. The higher angels, those of more perfect nature and keener intelligence, have greater gifts of grace than other angels; for their more perfect powers turn them more mightily and effectively to God than is the case with angels of lesser capacity.

7. The heavenly beatitude enjoyed by the angels does not destroy their nature or their natural operations; hence the natural knowledge and love of angels remain in them after they are beatified.

8. Beatified angels cannot sin. Their nature finds perfect fulfillment in the vision of God; it is disposed towards God exclusively. There is in beatified angels no possible tendency away from God, and therefore no possible sin.

9. Angels who possess God in beatific vision cannot be increased or advanced in beatitude. A capacity that is perfectly filled up cannot be made more full.



63. SIN OF THE FALLEN ANGELS

1. A rational creature (that is, a creature with intellect and will) can sin. If it be unable to sin, this is a gift of grace, not a condition of nature. While angels were yet unbeatified they could sin. And some of them did sin.

2. The sinning angels (or demons) are guilty of all sins in so far as they lead man to commit every kind of sin. But in the bad angels themselves there could be no tendency to fleshly sins, but only to such sins as can be committed by a purely spiritual being, and these sins are two only: pride and envy.

3. Lucifer who became Satan, leader of the fallen angels, wished to be as God. This prideful desire was not a wish to be equal to God, for Satan knew by his natural knowledge that equality of creature with creator is utterly impossible. Besides, no creature actually desires to destroy itself, even to become something greater. On this point man sometimes deceives himself by a trick of imagination; he imagines himself to be another and greater being, and yet it is himself that is somehow this other being. But an angel has no sense-faculty of imagination to abuse in this fashion. The angelic intellect, with its clear knowledge, makes such self-deception impossible. Lucifer knew that to be equal with God, he would have to be God, and he knew perfectly that this could not be. What he wanted was to be as God; he wished to be like God in a way not suited to his nature, such as to create things by his own power, or to achieve final beatitude without God's help, or to have command over others in a way proper to God alone.

4. Every nature, that is every essence as operating, tends to some good. An intellectual nature tends to good in general, good under its common aspects, good as such. The fallen angels therefore are not naturally evil.

5. The devil did not sin in the very instant of his creation. When a perfect cause makes a nature, the first operation of that nature must be in line with the perfection of its cause. Hence the devil was not created in wickedness. He, like all the angels, was created in the state of sanctifying grace.

6. But the devil, with his companions, sinned immediately after creation. He rejected the grace in which he was created, and which he was meant to use, as the good angels used it, to merit beatitude. If, however, the angels were not created in grace (as some hold) but had grace available as soon as they were created, then it may be that some interval occurred between the creation and the sin of Lucifer and his companions.

7. Lucifer, chief of the sinning angels, was probably the highest of all the angels. But there are some who think that Lucifer was highest only among the rebel angels.

8. The sin of the highest angel was a bad example which attracted the other rebel angels, and, to this extent, was the cause of their sin.

9. The faithful angels are a greater multitude than the fallen angels. For sin is contrary to the natural order. Now, what is opposed to the natural order occurs less frequently, or in fewer instances, than what accords with the natural order.

I was vague, and for that I apologize. I hope this helps clear up the question.
Reply
(08-05-2011, 02:10 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-05-2011, 01:29 AM)wulfrano Wrote:
(08-05-2011, 01:09 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 10:34 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 10:10 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 09:08 PM)Melkite Wrote: Inpefess, I see two possible holes in your argument off the top of my head.  If it were practically impossible to resist the good once it has been seen, then the original sin would presumably never have taken place. 

No. Efficacious grace does not mean one will never sin. It means that one will persevere to the end such that, in the end, he will choose good.

Quote: The Original sin took place because Adam, who saw the good as perfectly as he was capable, resisted it anyway, and was tempted to resist it by one who saw everything the elect will see,

Adam didn't see the Beatific Vision before he fell.

Quote:


and presumably more that no man shall ever see, and also resisted the good as well.  If good were inherently irresistable once seen, neither fall should ever have taken place.

See above.

Satan was the highest of angels, how could he not have seen God?

None of the angels have seen God; nor will they ever. They enjoy His presence but they do not behold the Beatific Vision.

They envy man with a holy envy because we have the ability to see God and they cannot.

I really don't know what you are talking about.  St. Michael the Archangel does see God.  Lucifer doesn't enjoy the presence of God.  Please be specific.  Thank you.

Until the angels confirmed their grace, they could not see God; they could but enjoy His presence.

Those angels who have rebelled have never and will never see the Beatific Vision. These angels envy man because of what we can have that they cannot.

None who have seen the Beatific Vision can rebel against God. This is the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas.

But some angels did rebel against God. This means some angels had not seen the Beatific Vision.

How does this work? Here is a summary of points from the Summa Theologica:

1) Angels were not created in the possession of the Beatific Vision.

2) To possess the Beatific Vision, angels require grace to confirm their glory.

3) The angels were created in the state of grace, but they needed to confirm this grace in order to enjoy the Beatific Vision. If the angels had been created with confirming grace (which is a conceptual contradiction), none of them could have fallen.

4) By using their grace in their first act of selfless charity toward God (serving God by serving man), the angels confirm their grace and merit the Beatific Vision.

5) Upon meriting the Beatific Vision, beatified angels cannot sin. "There is in beatified angels no possible tendency away from God, and therefore no possible sin."

6) But before angels were beatified they could yet sin, and some did so.

7) Lucifer did so not immediately upon creation but immediately after creation.

St. Michael the Archangel didn't always the Beatific Vision, but he did after His choice to confirm the sanctifying grace with which he had been created by choosing to serve God by ministering unto man.

So Lucifer never enjoyed the Beatific Vision, which is why he was able to sin. We, however, cannot sin once we have enjoyed the Beatific Vision, though we retain the power to do so.

Here is the more complete answer from A Tour of the Summa:

Quote:62. GRACE AND GLORY OF THE ANGELS

1. Although the angels were created in heaven, and with natural happiness or beatitude, they were not created in glory, that is, in the possession of the beatific vision.

2. To possess God in the beatific vision the angels require grace.

3. And, while the angels were created in the state of sanctifying grace, this was not the grace which confirms the angels in glory. Had the angels been created with the confirming grace, none of them could have fallen, and some did fall.

4. Angels were created in grace, and by using this grace in their first act of charity (which is the friendship and love of God) they merited the beatific vision and heavenly beatitude.

5. Instantly upon meriting the beatitude of heaven, the angels possessed it. The angelic nature, being purely spiritual, is not suited for steps and degrees of progress to perfection, as is the case with man.

6. The higher angels, those of more perfect nature and keener intelligence, have greater gifts of grace than other angels; for their more perfect powers turn them more mightily and effectively to God than is the case with angels of lesser capacity.

7. The heavenly beatitude enjoyed by the angels does not destroy their nature or their natural operations; hence the natural knowledge and love of angels remain in them after they are beatified.

8. Beatified angels cannot sin. Their nature finds perfect fulfillment in the vision of God; it is disposed towards God exclusively. There is in beatified angels no possible tendency away from God, and therefore no possible sin.

9. Angels who possess God in beatific vision cannot be increased or advanced in beatitude. A capacity that is perfectly filled up cannot be made more full.



63. SIN OF THE FALLEN ANGELS

1. A rational creature (that is, a creature with intellect and will) can sin. If it be unable to sin, this is a gift of grace, not a condition of nature. While angels were yet unbeatified they could sin. And some of them did sin.

2. The sinning angels (or demons) are guilty of all sins in so far as they lead man to commit every kind of sin. But in the bad angels themselves there could be no tendency to fleshly sins, but only to such sins as can be committed by a purely spiritual being, and these sins are two only: pride and envy.

3. Lucifer who became Satan, leader of the fallen angels, wished to be as God. This prideful desire was not a wish to be equal to God, for Satan knew by his natural knowledge that equality of creature with creator is utterly impossible. Besides, no creature actually desires to destroy itself, even to become something greater. On this point man sometimes deceives himself by a trick of imagination; he imagines himself to be another and greater being, and yet it is himself that is somehow this other being. But an angel has no sense-faculty of imagination to abuse in this fashion. The angelic intellect, with its clear knowledge, makes such self-deception impossible. Lucifer knew that to be equal with God, he would have to be God, and he knew perfectly that this could not be. What he wanted was to be as God; he wished to be like God in a way not suited to his nature, such as to create things by his own power, or to achieve final beatitude without God's help, or to have command over others in a way proper to God alone.

4. Every nature, that is every essence as operating, tends to some good. An intellectual nature tends to good in general, good under its common aspects, good as such. The fallen angels therefore are not naturally evil.

5. The devil did not sin in the very instant of his creation. When a perfect cause makes a nature, the first operation of that nature must be in line with the perfection of its cause. Hence the devil was not created in wickedness. He, like all the angels, was created in the state of sanctifying grace.

6. But the devil, with his companions, sinned immediately after creation. He rejected the grace in which he was created, and which he was meant to use, as the good angels used it, to merit beatitude. If, however, the angels were not created in grace (as some hold) but had grace available as soon as they were created, then it may be that some interval occurred between the creation and the sin of Lucifer and his companions.

7. Lucifer, chief of the sinning angels, was probably the highest of all the angels. But there are some who think that Lucifer was highest only among the rebel angels.

8. The sin of the highest angel was a bad example which attracted the other rebel angels, and, to this extent, was the cause of their sin.

9. The faithful angels are a greater multitude than the fallen angels. For sin is contrary to the natural order. Now, what is opposed to the natural order occurs less frequently, or in fewer instances, than what accords with the natural order.

I was vague, and for that I apologize. I hope this helps clear up the question.


Thank you, Inpefess, for the beautiful exposition of St. Thomas on Angels.
Reply
(08-05-2011, 02:20 AM)wulfrano Wrote:
(08-05-2011, 02:10 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-05-2011, 01:29 AM)wulfrano Wrote:
(08-05-2011, 01:09 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 10:34 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 10:10 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 09:08 PM)Melkite Wrote: Inpefess, I see two possible holes in your argument off the top of my head.  If it were practically impossible to resist the good once it has been seen, then the original sin would presumably never have taken place. 

No. Efficacious grace does not mean one will never sin. It means that one will persevere to the end such that, in the end, he will choose good.

Quote: The Original sin took place because Adam, who saw the good as perfectly as he was capable, resisted it anyway, and was tempted to resist it by one who saw everything the elect will see,

Adam didn't see the Beatific Vision before he fell.

Quote:


and presumably more that no man shall ever see, and also resisted the good as well.  If good were inherently irresistable once seen, neither fall should ever have taken place.

See above.

Satan was the highest of angels, how could he not have seen God?

None of the angels have seen God; nor will they ever. They enjoy His presence but they do not behold the Beatific Vision.

They envy man with a holy envy because we have the ability to see God and they cannot.

I really don't know what you are talking about.  St. Michael the Archangel does see God.  Lucifer doesn't enjoy the presence of God.  Please be specific.  Thank you.

Until the angels confirmed their grace, they could not see God; they could but enjoy His presence.

Those angels who have rebelled have never and will never see the Beatific Vision. These angels envy man because of what we can have that they cannot.

None who have seen the Beatific Vision can rebel against God. This is the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas.

But some angels did rebel against God. This means some angels had not seen the Beatific Vision.

How does this work? Here is a summary of points from the Summa Theologica:

1) Angels were not created in the possession of the Beatific Vision.

2) To possess the Beatific Vision, angels require grace to confirm their glory.

3) The angels were created in the state of grace, but they needed to confirm this grace in order to enjoy the Beatific Vision. If the angels had been created with confirming grace (which is a conceptual contradiction), none of them could have fallen.

4) By using their grace in their first act of selfless charity toward God (serving God by serving man), the angels confirm their grace and merit the Beatific Vision.

5) Upon meriting the Beatific Vision, beatified angels cannot sin. "There is in beatified angels no possible tendency away from God, and therefore no possible sin."

6) But before angels were beatified they could yet sin, and some did so.

7) Lucifer did so not immediately upon creation but immediately after creation.

St. Michael the Archangel didn't always the Beatific Vision, but he did after His choice to confirm the sanctifying grace with which he had been created by choosing to serve God by ministering unto man.

So Lucifer never enjoyed the Beatific Vision, which is why he was able to sin. We, however, cannot sin once we have enjoyed the Beatific Vision, though we retain the power to do so.

Here is the more complete answer from A Tour of the Summa:

Quote:62. GRACE AND GLORY OF THE ANGELS

1. Although the angels were created in heaven, and with natural happiness or beatitude, they were not created in glory, that is, in the possession of the beatific vision.

2. To possess God in the beatific vision the angels require grace.

3. And, while the angels were created in the state of sanctifying grace, this was not the grace which confirms the angels in glory. Had the angels been created with the confirming grace, none of them could have fallen, and some did fall.

4. Angels were created in grace, and by using this grace in their first act of charity (which is the friendship and love of God) they merited the beatific vision and heavenly beatitude.

5. Instantly upon meriting the beatitude of heaven, the angels possessed it. The angelic nature, being purely spiritual, is not suited for steps and degrees of progress to perfection, as is the case with man.

6. The higher angels, those of more perfect nature and keener intelligence, have greater gifts of grace than other angels; for their more perfect powers turn them more mightily and effectively to God than is the case with angels of lesser capacity.

7. The heavenly beatitude enjoyed by the angels does not destroy their nature or their natural operations; hence the natural knowledge and love of angels remain in them after they are beatified.

8. Beatified angels cannot sin. Their nature finds perfect fulfillment in the vision of God; it is disposed towards God exclusively. There is in beatified angels no possible tendency away from God, and therefore no possible sin.

9. Angels who possess God in beatific vision cannot be increased or advanced in beatitude. A capacity that is perfectly filled up cannot be made more full.



63. SIN OF THE FALLEN ANGELS

1. A rational creature (that is, a creature with intellect and will) can sin. If it be unable to sin, this is a gift of grace, not a condition of nature. While angels were yet unbeatified they could sin. And some of them did sin.

2. The sinning angels (or demons) are guilty of all sins in so far as they lead man to commit every kind of sin. But in the bad angels themselves there could be no tendency to fleshly sins, but only to such sins as can be committed by a purely spiritual being, and these sins are two only: pride and envy.

3. Lucifer who became Satan, leader of the fallen angels, wished to be as God. This prideful desire was not a wish to be equal to God, for Satan knew by his natural knowledge that equality of creature with creator is utterly impossible. Besides, no creature actually desires to destroy itself, even to become something greater. On this point man sometimes deceives himself by a trick of imagination; he imagines himself to be another and greater being, and yet it is himself that is somehow this other being. But an angel has no sense-faculty of imagination to abuse in this fashion. The angelic intellect, with its clear knowledge, makes such self-deception impossible. Lucifer knew that to be equal with God, he would have to be God, and he knew perfectly that this could not be. What he wanted was to be as God; he wished to be like God in a way not suited to his nature, such as to create things by his own power, or to achieve final beatitude without God's help, or to have command over others in a way proper to God alone.

4. Every nature, that is every essence as operating, tends to some good. An intellectual nature tends to good in general, good under its common aspects, good as such. The fallen angels therefore are not naturally evil.

5. The devil did not sin in the very instant of his creation. When a perfect cause makes a nature, the first operation of that nature must be in line with the perfection of its cause. Hence the devil was not created in wickedness. He, like all the angels, was created in the state of sanctifying grace.

6. But the devil, with his companions, sinned immediately after creation. He rejected the grace in which he was created, and which he was meant to use, as the good angels used it, to merit beatitude. If, however, the angels were not created in grace (as some hold) but had grace available as soon as they were created, then it may be that some interval occurred between the creation and the sin of Lucifer and his companions.

7. Lucifer, chief of the sinning angels, was probably the highest of all the angels. But there are some who think that Lucifer was highest only among the rebel angels.

8. The sin of the highest angel was a bad example which attracted the other rebel angels, and, to this extent, was the cause of their sin.

9. The faithful angels are a greater multitude than the fallen angels. For sin is contrary to the natural order. Now, what is opposed to the natural order occurs less frequently, or in fewer instances, than what accords with the natural order.

I was vague, and for that I apologize. I hope this helps clear up the question.


Thank you, Inpefess, for the beautiful exposition of St. Thomas on Angels.

You're welcome. An honest question deserves an honest answer.
Reply
(08-05-2011, 01:09 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 10:34 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 10:10 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 09:08 PM)Melkite Wrote: Inpefess, I see two possible holes in your argument off the top of my head.  If it were practically impossible to resist the good once it has been seen, then the original sin would presumably never have taken place. 

No. Efficacious grace does not mean one will never sin. It means that one will persevere to the end such that, in the end, he will choose good.

Quote: The Original sin took place because Adam, who saw the good as perfectly as he was capable, resisted it anyway, and was tempted to resist it by one who saw everything the elect will see,

Adam didn't see the Beatific Vision before he fell.

Quote:


and presumably more that no man shall ever see, and also resisted the good as well.  If good were inherently irresistable once seen, neither fall should ever have taken place.

See above.

Satan was the highest of angels, how could he not have seen God?

None of the angels have seen God; nor will they ever. They enjoy His presence but they do not behold the Beatific Vision.

They envy man with a holy envy because we have the ability to see God and they cannot.

What exactly is the beatific vision then?  I always thought that was just a fruity way of connoting heaven.  At any rate, it doesn't make sense for the cherubim and seraphim to constantly serve the throne of God if they can't see what they're doing.

The demons don't envy man because we can see God and they can't.  They see him too.  They envy us because God gave us the power of creation, not them.
Reply
(08-05-2011, 06:55 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-05-2011, 01:09 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 10:34 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 10:10 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 09:08 PM)Melkite Wrote: Inpefess, I see two possible holes in your argument off the top of my head.  If it were practically impossible to resist the good once it has been seen, then the original sin would presumably never have taken place. 

No. Efficacious grace does not mean one will never sin. It means that one will persevere to the end such that, in the end, he will choose good.

Quote: The Original sin took place because Adam, who saw the good as perfectly as he was capable, resisted it anyway, and was tempted to resist it by one who saw everything the elect will see,

Adam didn't see the Beatific Vision before he fell.

Quote:


and presumably more that no man shall ever see, and also resisted the good as well.  If good were inherently irresistable once seen, neither fall should ever have taken place.

See above.

Satan was the highest of angels, how could he not have seen God?

None of the angels have seen God; nor will they ever. They enjoy His presence but they do not behold the Beatific Vision.

They envy man with a holy envy because we have the ability to see God and they cannot.

What exactly is the beatific vision then?  I always thought that was just a fruity way of connoting heaven.  At any rate, it doesn't make sense for the cherubim and seraphim to constantly serve the throne of God if they can't see what they're doing.

The demons don't envy man because we can see God and they can't.  They see him too.  They envy us because God gave us the power of creation, not them.

INP answered this question above by expandin on his original statement, saying that the angels couldn't see God at first.  He didn't mean they couldn't and can't see Him at all- which is what I thougt he said to begin with
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
(08-05-2011, 09:05 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(08-05-2011, 06:55 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-05-2011, 01:09 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 10:34 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 10:10 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 09:08 PM)Melkite Wrote: Inpefess, I see two possible holes in your argument off the top of my head.  If it were practically impossible to resist the good once it has been seen, then the original sin would presumably never have taken place. 

No. Efficacious grace does not mean one will never sin. It means that one will persevere to the end such that, in the end, he will choose good.

Quote: The Original sin took place because Adam, who saw the good as perfectly as he was capable, resisted it anyway, and was tempted to resist it by one who saw everything the elect will see,

Adam didn't see the Beatific Vision before he fell.

Quote:


and presumably more that no man shall ever see, and also resisted the good as well.  If good were inherently irresistable once seen, neither fall should ever have taken place.

See above.

Satan was the highest of angels, how could he not have seen God?

None of the angels have seen God; nor will they ever. They enjoy His presence but they do not behold the Beatific Vision.

They envy man with a holy envy because we have the ability to see God and they cannot.

What exactly is the beatific vision then?  I always thought that was just a fruity way of connoting heaven.  At any rate, it doesn't make sense for the cherubim and seraphim to constantly serve the throne of God if they can't see what they're doing.

The demons don't envy man because we can see God and they can't.  They see him too.  They envy us because God gave us the power of creation, not them.

INP answered this question above by expandin on his original statement, saying that the angels couldn't see God at first.  He didn't mean they couldn't and can't see Him at all- which is what I thougt he said to begin with

Yes, I apologize for my vagueness and imprecision. I didn't qualify any of my statements and assumed that the groundwork of what I was saying was already understood. This laziness on my part is the cause of the Melkite's confusion, I believe.

Melkite, please see the above-referenced post. I meant to say that none of the fallen angels ever enjoyed the Beatific Vision at any point (not even Lucifer), so using Lucifer as an example of an angel who sinned after seeing the Beatific Vision is not a valid objection. No fallen angel has ever beheld the face of God; nor will they ever. The only angels who see the Beatific Vision are those who have chosen to serve God (by obeying His command to serve man) after their creation. But I apologize, as my post was vague and misleading. In any case, I hope the cited portion from A Tour of the Summa helps to clarify what I made very confusing by my clumsily-worded post about angels.

As this relates to efficacious grace:

Efficacious grace is in many ways like the effect produced by the Beatific Vision. They are the same in that both efficacious grace and the Beatific Vision never allow one to be finally condemned or damned to hell. They are different in that one may continue to sin after having received efficacious grace, but one cannot sin after having seen the Beatific Vision. (The infinite chasm between not beholding the face of God and beholding the face of God accounts for this difference.) But even those who still sin (due to fallen human nature) while co-operating with efficacious grace will not turn from God in the end; nor will they choose to finally abandon God. This is not to say that they have forfeited the power of their free will; instead, this is to say that the effects of efficacious are irresistible to the soul created in the image and likeness of God.
Reply
(08-05-2011, 06:55 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-05-2011, 01:09 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 10:34 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 10:10 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 09:08 PM)Melkite Wrote: Inpefess, I see two possible holes in your argument off the top of my head.  If it were practically impossible to resist the good once it has been seen, then the original sin would presumably never have taken place. 

No. Efficacious grace does not mean one will never sin. It means that one will persevere to the end such that, in the end, he will choose good.

Quote: The Original sin took place because Adam, who saw the good as perfectly as he was capable, resisted it anyway, and was tempted to resist it by one who saw everything the elect will see,

Adam didn't see the Beatific Vision before he fell.

Quote:


and presumably more that no man shall ever see, and also resisted the good as well.  If good were inherently irresistable once seen, neither fall should ever have taken place.

See above.

Satan was the highest of angels, how could he not have seen God?

None of the angels have seen God; nor will they ever. They enjoy His presence but they do not behold the Beatific Vision.

They envy man with a holy envy because we have the ability to see God and they cannot.

What exactly is the beatific vision then?  I always thought that was just a fruity way of connoting heaven.  At any rate, it doesn't make sense for the cherubim and seraphim to constantly serve the throne of God if they can't see what they're doing.

The Beatific Vision is beholding the face of God. The angels were created in Heaven, in the presence of God, but could not actually see His face until they confirmed the grace with which they had been born by their first act of charity (by choosing to serve God). 

Quote:The demons don't envy man because we can see God and they can't.  They see him too.  They envy us because God gave us the power of creation, not them.

The demons do not see God. That is their biggest torment. There can be no suffering, anguish, or loss of God while beholding the face of God. If they could see God, they would not be in hell; nor would they have any suffering.

Their loss of the opportunity to see God is their primary torment. We can't understand this because our intellects can't fully comprehend the perfect joy of seeing God, but the superior intellects of the angels know exactly what they lost by choosing to forfeit (through their refusal to serve Him after they were created) their opportunity to see God.
Reply
(08-05-2011, 03:49 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-05-2011, 06:55 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-05-2011, 01:09 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 10:34 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 10:10 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 09:08 PM)Melkite Wrote: Inpefess, I see two possible holes in your argument off the top of my head.  If it were practically impossible to resist the good once it has been seen, then the original sin would presumably never have taken place. 

No. Efficacious grace does not mean one will never sin. It means that one will persevere to the end such that, in the end, he will choose good.

Quote: The Original sin took place because Adam, who saw the good as perfectly as he was capable, resisted it anyway, and was tempted to resist it by one who saw everything the elect will see,

Adam didn't see the Beatific Vision before he fell.

Quote:


and presumably more that no man shall ever see, and also resisted the good as well.  If good were inherently irresistable once seen, neither fall should ever have taken place.

See above.

Satan was the highest of angels, how could he not have seen God?

None of the angels have seen God; nor will they ever. They enjoy His presence but they do not behold the Beatific Vision.

They envy man with a holy envy because we have the ability to see God and they cannot.

What exactly is the beatific vision then?  I always thought that was just a fruity way of connoting heaven.  At any rate, it doesn't make sense for the cherubim and seraphim to constantly serve the throne of God if they can't see what they're doing.

The Beatific Vision is beholding the face of God. The angels were created in Heaven, in the presence of God, but could not actually see His face until they confirmed the grace with which they had been born by their first act of charity (by choosing to serve God). 

Quote:The demons don't envy man because we can see God and they can't.  They see him too.  They envy us because God gave us the power of creation, not them.

The demons do not see God. That is their biggest torment. There can be no suffering, anguish, or loss of God while beholding the face of God. If they could see God, they would not be in hell; nor would they have any suffering.

Their loss of the opportunity to see God is their primary torment. We can't understand this because our intellects can't fully comprehend the perfect joy of seeing God, but the superior intellects of the angels know exactly what they lost by choosing to forfeit (through their refusal to serve Him after they were created) their opportunity to see God.


This.
Reply
(08-05-2011, 03:31 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: As this relates to efficacious grace:

Efficacious grace is in many ways like the effect produced by the Beatific Vision. They are the same in that both efficacious grace and the Beatific Vision never allow one to be finally condemned or damned to hell. They are different in that one may continue to sin after having received efficacious grace, but one cannot sin after having seen the Beatific Vision. (The infinite chasm between not beholding the face of God and beholding the face of God accounts for this difference.) But even those who still sin (due to fallen human nature) while co-operating with efficacious grace will not turn from God in the end; nor will they choose to finally abandon God. This is not to say that they have forfeited the power of their free will; instead, this is to say that the effects of efficacious are irresistible to the soul created in the image and likeness of God.

I agree with you about the good angels receiving the beatific vision; thanks for the enlightening information from St. Thomas. Your explanations are excellent.

But one can receive efficacious grace once or more, and still be among the damned, if he is not in the state of Sanctifying Grace when he dies.  Unlike the grace given to angels, grace given to man does not guarantee the beatific vision at the end. Grace is to help us efficaciously to holiness in life, which will help us to heaven, but it is not a guarantee of holiness or heaven at the end.

Maybe I'm not following the usual ordering of these posts, but I'm going to copy an earlier post of mine in its entirety here. 

Note I may well be wrong in some of what I say (I certainly need to learn more about efficacious grace and a lot of things), but it is what I think now. Teach me more about efficacious grace from St. Thomas and other reliable Catholic sources if you can.

My comments are in bold face
(08-04-2011, 06:16 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: I have been pondering this issue and trying to pin-point the exact discrepancy with the so-called Molinists. I have never tried to explain this before, but there is much to be gleaned from the the sources already quoted. I will take a stab at addressing the issue that I believe to be the "sticking point" (as it were) for the Molinists* (though I can't guarantee I won't confuse things even more).

I think that, in order to begin, we need to have a working definition for sufficient grace. Let's try this: Sufficient grace is not grace that, of itself, is sufficient for salvation; rather, sufficient grace is that grace which is always potentially sufficient (like the flower) for efficacious grace (the fruit).

Efficacious grace, by contrast, is that grace which is always effectual for salvation.


From the Catholic Encyclopedia on Sanctifying grace

Since the end and aim of all efficacious grace is directed to the production of sanctifying grace where it does not already exist, or to retain and increase it where it is already present, its excellence, dignity, and importance become immediately apparent; for holiness and the sonship of God depend solely upon the possession of sanctifying grace, wherefore it is frequently called simply grace without any qualifying word to accompany it as, for instance, in the phrases "to live in grace" or "to fall from grace".


Efficacious grace isn't given only once for salvation; a man doesn't necessarily persevere to the end with it. Mortal sin removes all grace. After it man is no longer justified and is not in the state of grace. Those who are saved (the elect) are those who die in the state of grace, no matter how many times they fell and returmed tp grace. Receiving efficacious grace earlier in life does not guarantee that one will be in the state of grace at the end.


These two graces must work together in order to effect salvation. By this it is meant that sufficient grace is only sufficient for salvation when it has been complemented by efficacious grace via the free co-operation of the will with sufficient grace. In this way, efficacious grace proceeds from sufficient grace as the fruit proceeds from the flower.

Thus it can be said that sufficient grace yields the fruit of efficacious grace only after the potentiality of sufficient grace has been actualized by the will’s free co-operation with this sufficient grace. A person whose free co-operation with sufficient grace has yielded efficacious grace is considered “elected” by God’s will. So, as Bossuet says, "one of these graces leaves the will without excuse before God, and the other does not permit the will to glory in itself."

The elect are those who are saved (or will be saved), not those who receive the fruit of efficacious grace at some point in their life

I think everyone agrees up to this point. (Oh well)The tricky part is when we start talking about the role one's will plays in this process, because at this point in the understanding, the Molinist objects: 'But if this election through efficacious grace were contingent upon the will's free co-operation with sufficient grace, then the will is still the principal saving agent because the will freely chose to co-operate with sufficient grace, which inevitably yields election. In this way, it is principally the activity of the free will--not God's will--that saves the soul.'

This appears to be a valid objection, but it is much more complex than that; and this complexity is further complicated by the fact that, based on the nature of this particular grace, there is nothing in the material universe that is perfectly analogous to efficacious grace. But I will try to explain it and then use an imperfect analogy which, though it fails given certain conditions, nevertheless should get the point across to the Molinist.

The objection of the Molinist fails to take something essential into account: that efficacious grace and free will are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they function together in perfect harmony. It must be understood that efficacious grace requires the will to freely co-operate with it in order for it be effectual. So, the free will always retains the power to resist this efficacious grace (calling by God), but, because of the compelling nature of this grace, there are none who will choose to resist it. For once their free co-operation has attracted (as a condition of their free co-operation with sufficient grace) the attention of the will of God to save them, He will see to it that they do not perish.

But why is it said that there are none who will choose to resist it? It is said that there are none who will choose to resist it because, once a soul has beheld the overwhelming goodness of God, there are none who would prefer the world to His infinite goodness. Nevertheless, each soul retains its own power to resist at any time, but, similar to the teaching that the free will is unwilling to offend God once the soul has enjoyed the Beatific Vision (for to do so would be a contradiction), there is no soul that can prefer evil over the supreme goodness of God enjoyed by the effects of efficacious grace.

The lack of a perfect analogy becomes a problem when the Molinist objects that, even though one can prefer something, he still has the power to resist it, so, theoretically, a soul could do so. This could be true, but only theoretically so. In the practical order, a soul that has experienced this efficacious grace (and beheld the goodness of God) is compelled to persevere to the end, for it is the free co-operation of the soul that Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange says is 'gently and mightily stirred up in us and confirmed.' Theoretically, a soul could resist, but it won't. The soul is compelled to comply because it is made in the image and likeness of God and sees Him in its own reflection made by the light of efficacious grace. Though the soul retains the power to resist this beautiful grace, it is useless for the soul to resist its own image and likeness. The soul has beheld good, and it has loved it; it now feels compelled to follow this goodness to the end.

[b]Saints on earth have enjoyed something like what you speak of above and further below (faintly analogous to the Beatific Vision on earth), for example St. Augustine in his conversion.  But I don't think we (or the elect) all do. I think efficacious and Sanctifying Grace can leave at least our  mind still seeing God very faintly, struggling through temptation,  tempted by the world.  Our soul is another matter, but our will and mind are still weak and we  can fall - even at the very end. 

I think that it is not God's irresistible goodness beheld by us that "moves" our will in every instance of efficacious grace in our soul, but God Himself who moves it in its natural way, freely, not in any way forcing it.  Of course he moves it (and we do, with Him) TO Himself who IS irresistible goodness if  only we could see it.  God's will is the primary cause of our will's moving freely; we are the secondary cause.  God causes all things down to the least detail, even when we or some other creature or series of creatures seem to cause it down to the least detail. He is primary cause, we are the secondary cause.  This is hard enough to understand (never in full) for most things.  When it comes to God's moving our will it becomes a true mystery.  It seems that God is ultimately forcing our will.  Melkite's view is more than understandable.  (See previous post of mine, I think 260, for a quote from St. Thomas)

But accepting efficacious grace IS OUR WILLING too, our act of love for God, our choice. God does not remove the goodness or freedom or reality of OUR will  when He causes that goodness.

To me the heart of the matter is TWO seemingly contradictory TRUTHS that are BOTH UNDENIABLY TRUE:  We do have free will and God has absolute power and is the primary cause of all things, including our willing.  The result is a MYSTERY.  Accept both sides of the mystery, and don't think you can ever explain them with complete satisfaction in this life.. not that we can't try to understand better.

Reply
(08-05-2011, 04:59 PM)Doce Me Wrote:
(08-05-2011, 03:31 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: As this relates to efficacious grace:

Efficacious grace is in many ways like the effect produced by the Beatific Vision. They are the same in that both efficacious grace and the Beatific Vision never allow one to be finally condemned or damned to hell. They are different in that one may continue to sin after having received efficacious grace, but one cannot sin after having seen the Beatific Vision. (The infinite chasm between not beholding the face of God and beholding the face of God accounts for this difference.) But even those who still sin (due to fallen human nature) while co-operating with efficacious grace will not turn from God in the end; nor will they choose to finally abandon God. This is not to say that they have forfeited the power of their free will; instead, this is to say that the effects of efficacious are irresistible to the soul created in the image and likeness of God.

I agree with you about the good angels receiving the beatific vision; thanks for the enlightening information from St. Thomas. Your explanations are excellent.

But one can receive efficacious grace once or more, and still be among the damned, if he is not in the state of Sanctifying Grace when he dies.  Unlike the grace given to angels, grace given to man does not guarantee the beatific vision at the end. Grace is to help us efficaciously to holiness in life, which will help us to heaven, but it is not a guarantee of holiness or heaven at the end.

Maybe I'm not following the usual ordering of these posts, but I'm going to copy an earlier post of mine in its entirety here. 

Note I may well be wrong in some of what I say (I certainly need to learn more about efficacious grace and a lot of things), but it is what I think now. Teach me more about efficacious grace from St. Thomas and other reliable Catholic sources if you can.

I am talking about someone who co-operates with efficacious grace, not someone who receives it but then at some point fails to co-operate with it and rejects it (like Solomon). Someone who receives efficacious grace must, by deduction, be co-operating with it when they receive it. Assuming that they continue to co-operate with it and continue receiving it, though they may still be capable of committing sin, they will be saved when they die. These are the elect.

Does that help to clarity what I mean? If not, then I will address the rest of what you have posted.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)