Author Topic: The Principle of Predilection (Read 5210 times)

Caraffa · « **Reply #15 on:** July 08, 2010, 04:56:05 PM »

Quote from: Cecelia

In my humble opinion I think you are forgetting about free will. God in His Foreknowledge, knows how we are going to act from the moment of our conception.

But then we have a Frankenstein situation with God and man in which the creature determines the creator's actions. To paraphrase St. Augustine, God grants one efficacious grace not because he foresaw that they would eventually co-operate and be good, but in order that they may be so.

Quote from: MyrnaM

Welcome to the board here DecemRationis, I always think on that one verse in the Bible you quoted: "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,"

I think that's a point a lot of people miss. Everyone at some point has either the guilt of original and/or actual mortal sin on their soul. God is at perfect liberty to either pardon them, grant them efficacious grace, and regenerate their wills, or to leave them in their current state. When God does do this it was not because of one's will, but God's mercy. Also God's mercy does not just mean a pardoning and forgiveness of sin, but also an aid in preventing from falling into future or further sin.

Quote from: Raoul76

Liguori had an in-between view, I forget the name of it, but that is what I have.

Sorbonne Congruism, and St. Alphonsus rejected the scientia media view of other Congruists and Molinists. My own position currently is probably between this one and the Thomist view, yet closer I believe to Banez and the Thomists.

Quote from: Twiceborn

I think Molinism has been like a cancer in The Church, expanding and undermining even the most fundamental of doctrines (Original Sin, EENS, etc).

I agree. It sounds way too close to deism and tends to play out in that way ("I did good work x, God owes me"). Four centuries later and even many if not most Conservative Neo-Catholics and some who call themselves Traditionalists believe that man is basically good, that numerous amounts of pagans will be saved because they followed their pagan "God(s)" as best as they could, etc.

It does not surprise me then that many of the Americanists a century ago had Molinistic views of grace. This view may be unpopular, but I think Molinism has created many false converts/reverts, as well as keeping many people physically/external in the Church, especially this side of the Atlantic who shouldn't be there. There seems to be a tendency amongst those who adhere to Molinism to water-down hard-sayings in order to try and get people to convert or to stay in the Church when they don't really believe, in essence making co-operation easier for them (i.e manipulating grace and playing with souls).

Alexandria · « **Reply #16 on:** July 08, 2010, 05:07:19 PM »

Caraffa said:

"I agree. It sounds way too close to deism and tends to play out in that way ("I did good work x, God owes me"). Four centuries later and even many if not most Conservative Neo-Catholics and some who call themselves Traditionalists believe that man is basically good, that numerous amounts of pagans will be saved because they followed their pagan "God(s)" as best as they could, etc.

It does not surprise me then that many of the Americanists a century ago had Molinistic views of grace. This view may be unpopular, but I think Molinism has created many false converts/reverts, as well as keeping many people physically/external in the Church, especially this side of the Atlantic who shouldn't be there. There seems to be a tendency amongst those who adhere to Molinism to water-down hard-sayings in order to try and get people to convert or to stay in the Church when they don't really believe, in essence making co-operation easier for them (i.e manipulating grace and playing with souls)."

This is absolutely true. I especially agree with the part about Molinism creating many false converts/reverts (Isaac Hecker among others). The past ten years or so a complete change has occurred. It was probably in the making long before. Very few are free of the VII way of thinking. I don't include myself in the select group - as it is so insidious that you don't even realize you have fallen prey to it unless it is pointed out to you.

Caraffa · « **Reply #17 on:** July 08, 2010, 05:21:40 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis

Caminus,

Agree with you on almost all counts. Not quite sure on the "new theology" part, simply because I'm not sure what you mean. But ditto as to Father GL. And I agree about Molinism and the damage it does to the principle of predilection.

DR

Welcome DecemRationis.

I think what Caminus might be getting at may have to do with "The Dignity of Man" in New Theology. Interestingly many who followed William of Ockham (A proto-molinist and proto-Protestant) in the 14th Century rejected the Augustinian and Thomist view of grace presented by Archbishop Thomas Bradwardina on the grounds that it harmed The Dignity of Man.

Caminus · « **Reply #18 on:** July 08, 2010, 08:48:52 PM »

That's right, the new theology is infused with a gross anthropomorphism that reduces God's causality to the position of mere moral support, like a cheerleader of sorts who witnesses man achieve heaven or condemn himself (if any such men have ever done so). This tendency has its roots in nominalism, personalism and positivism.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #19 on:** July 09, 2010, 09:53:52 AM »

Carafa,

Thanks for the welcome.

Ah, the "dignity of man." The answer to a simple question shatters the foundation of the "new theology." From where does this dignity come? Another "reversal" in the moral order, the "spectators" in the seats taking the field and putting the Player in the seats.

Yes, I get it now. I wholeheartedly agree with all Caminus said. And thanks, Caminus, for the clarification.

DR