Can we extricate ourselves from Molinism?
(07-30-2011, 06:27 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-30-2011, 01:30 AM)Gregory I Wrote: Look, I find it very intriguing that I am arguing with EASTERN Catholics about this. It seems that you don't think a single person can possibly make a massive contribution to Christian thought. In keeping with your ecclesiology, you do not appear to like any kind of monolithic unitive structures (like the Papacy) but rather the more collegial and dispersed ones. Hence your emphasis that the other Church Fathers do not say what Augustine said. But let's stop here. YOu are CATHOLICS. THat means you are subject to the dogmas of Rome, even if you choose to express them in the terminology of your own theological patrimony. THat's fine. But you CANNOT deny the truth claims ROme makes, nor can you deny the Ordinary magisterium.

I think what makes it so difficult for Easterners to take what one father said, however brilliant he may have been, are things like what St. Paul said, not to receive any other Gospel, even if an angel or he himself should bring it to them.  Or what, I can't remember if it was St. Irenaeus or St. Vincent of Lerins, who said to receive and practice the Catholic Faith as has been always practiced everywhere and by everyone.  This is why such a heavy importance is placed on what the Fathers as a whole believed.  So if there were a plethora of other saints who agreed with St. Augustine, it wouldn't be so worrisome.  If it were a majority, it wouldn't be worrisome at all.  But because we know we are not supposed to believe another Gospel, even if Rome itself should preach it, and we are supposed to believe what was once believed always and everywhere, it sends up HUGE red flags for us to be told the doctrinal definitions of one man, any man, should now be received as divinely revealed dogma, if the body of Fathers seem to show a faith held always and everywhere that contradicted it.

ETA: are you a TLM only Catholic?  The practice of many trads to reject Vatican II, often with the reason given that it preaches a different Gospel, seems to contradict what you said about Popes and Ecumenical Councils holding the primary authority.  It comes across as you saying basically, 'decrees of the Popes and Ecumenical councils are immediate and final, except when they're not.'  You seem to want to bind us to a rule that you (plural, I don't know your own personal circumstances) yourselves don't necessarily follow.


OK, but let's be real: When you say a majority of saints, you don't mean post-Augustinian saints of the west, for that would be a majority, you mean PRE-Augustinian EASTERN saints. Ultimately, that is the standard you use. The East has never taken the Fathers of the west seriously, as the council of Florence demonstrated. The Easterners under Mark Eugenicus were flabbergasted when the Westerners actually showed the filioque occurring in the saints of the west.

Also, one of the East's Favorite western saints, St. Gregory the Dialogist (Pope St. Gregory I) was fiercely Augustinian. As was St. Anselm of Canterbury, St. Caesarius of Arles, St. Hilary, St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, St. Prosper of Aquitane, St. Jerome (Who agreed with Augustine).

What is so difficult to believe about that? St. Vincent and St. John Cassian were responsible (perhaps unwittingly) for a heresy, and the East Venerates them! In Fact, the objections YOU make to Augustine SOUND like the same objections that Cassian made to Augustine, but the Church proclaimed Augustine orthodox! It condemned what was taught by St. John Cassian and his followers as the heresy of Semi-Pelagianism.

But listen to what the Doctor of Grace Actually had to say about free will, and tell me where he differs from any of the Fathers:

St. Augustine of Hippo ca. 354-430 a.d.


He who made you without your consent does not justify you without your consent. He made you without your knowledge, but He does not justify you without your willing it. (Sermons, 169, 3; Jurgens, III, 29)

Free will is not taken away because it is assisted, but is assisted in order that it not be taken away. (Ep 152, 2, 10)

If grace does not exist, how does he save the world? If there is no free will, how does he judge the world? (Ep 214, 2)

Someone says to me: “Since we are acted upon, it is not we who act.” I answer, “No, you both act and are acted upon; and if you are acted upon by the good, you act properly. For the spirit of God who moves you, by so moving, is your Helper. The very term helper makes it clear that you yourself are doing something.” (Sermons 156, 11; Jurgens, III, 28)

. . . It is not the case, therefore, that because God foreknew what would be in the power of our wills, there is for that reason nothing in the power of our wills. For he who foreknew this did not foreknow nothing. Moreover, if He who foreknew what would be in the power of our wills did not foreknow nothing, but something, assuredly, even though He did foreknow, there is something in the power of our wills. Therefore we are by no means compelled, either, retaining the prescience of God, to take away the freedom of the will, or, retaining the freedom of the will, to deny that He is prescient of future things, which is impious. But we embrace both. We faithfully and sincerely confess both. The former, that we may believe well; the latter, that we may live well. For he lives ill who does not believe well concerning God. Wherefore, be it far from us, in order to maintain our freedom, to deny the prescience of Him by whose help we are or shall be free.

Consequently, it is not in vain that laws are enacted, and that reproaches, exhortations, praises, and vituperations are had recourse to; for these also He foreknew, and they are of great avail, even as great as He foreknew that they would be of. Prayers, also, are of avail to procure those things which He foreknew that He would grant to those who offered them; and with justice have rewards been appointed for good deeds, and punishments for sins. For a man does not therefore sin because God foreknew that he would sin. Nay, it cannot be doubted but that it is the man himself who sins when he does sin, because He, whose foreknowledge is infallible, foreknew not that fate, or fortune, or something else would sin, but that the man himself would sin, who, if he wills not, sins not. But if he shall not will to sin, even this did God foreknow. (City of God, Book V, Chapter X; NPNF 1, Vol. II)


IN response to the issue of ecumenical councils:

I fully subscribe to everything the Popes and Ecumenical councils have taught, condemned and defined.

But Vatican II did not Define, condemn or issue canons. It was pastoral council, and it was NOT infallible by the ADMISSION of Pope Paul VI. Therefore, I do not condemn it, I simply do not address it.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Can we extricate ourselves from Molinism? - by Gregory I - 07-30-2011, 01:49 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)