Can we extricate ourselves from Molinism?
#51
(07-20-2011, 04:52 PM)Walty Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 04:09 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 03:44 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 02:09 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: I'd really like to get an answer to my question if those who do not receive efficacious grace can get to Heaven.

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange would say no.

Well thats delightfully ambiguous.  If one can't get to Heaven without efficacious grace, then what is the point of sufficient grace?  How is it sufficient if it can't lead us to Heaven?

It's sufficient in that Christ's death on Calvary is sufficient for the salvation of all.  However, God does not save all, and thus sufficient grace only becomes efficient grace for the elect.

In response to the OP, the end of Molinism will be a great day for the Church.

Amen to that.
Reply
#52
(07-20-2011, 03:42 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 02:35 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 01:12 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 12:26 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 11:37 AM)Christus Imperat Wrote: By the way, I think the A/T doctrine of salvation is well summarized by Our Lord as follows:

"You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."  --St. John 15:16

In context, isn't this about Jesus electing them to the office of apostle, and not a genreal teaching on election to salvation?

Yes it is.  But I would broaden the scope in a metaphorical sense. 

Isn't that one of the ways heresies get started?  Broadening the scope of a passage to use it as a way to explain a theolegoumena the passage was never intended to mean in the first place?  So, to use St. Augustine's (I believe) principle for scriptural interpretation, wouldn't it be unwise to interpret this as anything other than election to the apostolic office?

There are other relevant passages like the one in Romans that I quoted earlier.

Yes, that one is not so easy to dismiss.  I have never been comfortable with that passage.  I want to believe that St. Paul only meant it in a speculative manner, but admittedly there isn't really any reason for it to be there if he only meant it as a speculation.  Hence the discomfoert.
Reply
#53
Simply put, Molinism, in my humble opinion, is Pelagian in spirit, as it takes from God's total providence and puts (at least part of) the essential work of salvation into the hands of men, and in such a way that God is actually subservient to that manly power.

As Lagrange puts it, “In that case there would be some good, and even the best part of our merits, which did not come from the source of all good…. We should have to admit a passivity in the pure Act.”   
Reply
#54
(07-20-2011, 04:59 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 03:42 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 02:35 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 01:12 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 12:26 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 11:37 AM)Christus Imperat Wrote: By the way, I think the A/T doctrine of salvation is well summarized by Our Lord as follows:

"You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."  --St. John 15:16

In context, isn't this about Jesus electing them to the office of apostle, and not a genreal teaching on election to salvation?

Yes it is.  But I would broaden the scope in a metaphorical sense. 

Isn't that one of the ways heresies get started?  Broadening the scope of a passage to use it as a way to explain a theolegoumena the passage was never intended to mean in the first place?  So, to use St. Augustine's (I believe) principle for scriptural interpretation, wouldn't it be unwise to interpret this as anything other than election to the apostolic office?

There are other relevant passages like the one in Romans that I quoted earlier.

Yes, that one is not so easy to dismiss.  I have never been comfortable with that passage.  I want to believe that St. Paul only meant it in a speculative manner, but admittedly there isn't really any reason for it to be there if he only meant it as a speculation.  Hence the discomfoert.

Actually, I find it liberating. God is in control, not me. He is the sovereign king of the universe, the author and finisher of our faith.

Salvation comes from God, not me. I glory in the Lord, not in my merits. He is the source of all good and all justice. I abandon myself to His will.
Reply
#55
With all due respect, if St. Robert wouldn't let the pope settle the question, I doubt we'll get there on Fisheaters.  No one here has trotted out Unigenitus on the Molinist side yet, but there are many statements from the Fathers and the Church that seem to support one view over the other.  I think the issue is above our paygrade, personally, regardless of which I favor.

It will be a good day for the church when clerics are again actually instructed as to what Thomism and Molinism are, however.
Reply
#56
(07-20-2011, 04:09 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 03:44 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 02:09 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: I'd really like to get an answer to my question if those who do not receive efficacious grace can get to Heaven.

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange would say no.

Well thats delightfully ambiguous.  If one can't get to Heaven without efficacious grace, then what is the point of sufficient grace?  How is it sufficient if it can't lead us to Heaven?

Hehe, that's the rub.  If sufficient grace wasn't given, then it would be unjust to send someone to hell to whom God chooses not to give efficacious grace.  Sufficient grace is given so that God can't be accused of injustice for willing people to go to hell so that they can't go against his will and choose salvation anyway.
Reply
#57
(07-20-2011, 05:08 PM)Dusty_Bottoms Wrote: It will be a good day for the church when clerics are again actually instructed as to what Thomism and Molinism are, however.

Vraiment.
Reply
#58
Again, I invite Melkite, Silouan and others to bring other patristic sources to the table.  It IS a tough question and a mystery that cannot be completely resolved.  Thus, whatever light other Fathers and Saints can shed upon it is welcome.  But it does not do us any good if you simply say that I think St. Thomas and St. Augustine are wrong and their teaching makes God unfair, or something to that effect. 

We could discuss the Homily of St. John Chrysostom, for example. 
Reply
#59
(07-20-2011, 05:02 PM)Walty Wrote: Simply put, Molinism, in my humble opinion, is Pelagian in spirit, as it takes from God's total providence and puts (at least part of) the essential work of salvation into the hands of men, and in such a way that God is actually subservient to that manly power.

Well, uh, yeah.  Duh.  That's synergy.  God has ordained that our salvattion come from our free choice.  If that takes away from God's total providence, then God willed it that way.  It's the Protestants that don't believe in synergy.

When you put it like that, I feel like I can confidently reject Augustine and Aquinas as heretics, at least on this topic. 
Reply
#60
This is helping.  Let me make my question a little more specific.

I understand that our salvation is allowed/willed by God.  We can't simply "be good" and have that be enough to get to Heaven.  Supposing two Catholics lived lives of equal temporal merit- they followed church teaching, discipline, evangelized, lived according to the precepts of the Church, Ten Commandments, etc.  They were, in every earthly respect, saints.  They were the kind of men who, if you bet on such things, would wager they would be in Heaven.  ETA They both die in in the state of grace.

But only one of them received efficacious grace while the other received only sufficient grace.  Will only the one who received efficacious grace reach Heaven? 

Christs sacrifice was enough to save all, but not all will be saved.  Is this because not all accept God's grace, or because not all receive God's efficacious grace?

For example, what are the points of the sacraments if we can only be saved by God's efficacious grace?  Or the point of anything, for that matter?
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




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)