At this point in my theological development, I’m not really either a Thomist or a Molinist. But it would be incorrect to say that there are currently no defenders of Thomism. Take care and God bless, At the same time, one could say that the future is predestined by causes originating outside of nature but nevertheless determining the result of each observation. The 2006 Catholic Blog Awards His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. “It’s also worth remembering that one standard Molinist contention — from the very beginning — is that Thomas Aquinas’s view of predestination leads to Molinism and not to Thomism, which would be perhaps better called Banezianism, after Domingo Banez, one of the great commentators on Aquinas.” I’ll check out the Catholic Encyclopedia shortly. It’s important to remember that both sides claimed to be upholding Aquinas. But maybe, just maybe, God’s hand in it all was in answering all the prayers from 1917 to 1991 by bringing into existence a man named Karol Wojtyla. A materialist might say that if this view of QM constitutes the true description of nature, then the future is not predestined because the only causes that exist are physical causes, and these don’t specify uniquely what the future will be, even if the state of the universe were completely specified in the present. What do you think of Pontificator’s thoughts? *]Freddoso’s essay on Luis de Molina Please check your inbox to confirm your subscription. The flaw in Cajetan’s reasoning, at least as it seems to me, is that he carried the notion of causation beyond its analogical limits, effectively making God a cause among causes (or a being among beings) in near-Scotist fashion. Jimmy: *]Freddoso’s translations of some of Molina’s disputations It’s also worth remembering that one standard Molinist contention — from the very beginning — is that Thomas Aquinas’s view of predestination leads to Molinism and not to Thomism, which would be perhaps better called Banezianism, after Domingo Banez, one of the great commentators on Aquinas; and that the dispute between the two groups sometimes had as much to do with the bickering between Thomistically-inclined Jesuits (who largely followed Molina) and the Dominicans (who largely followed Banez on this point) over which of the two were carrying forward the authentic tradition of St. Thomas as it did with actual Church teaching on predestination. That piece explored how close one could get to Calvinism while remaining within the bounds of Catholic teaching. Aristotelianism is also a scientific theory which is why both the Orthodox and Lutherans have qualms about using Aristotelian language for the conversion of the elements in the Eucharist. As you see here in replies like Ghosty’s, popular contemporary opinions lean toward the Molinistic side. I’ve been looking into both Answer: Molinism is named for the 16th-century Jesuit, Luis de Molina. From what you put on your blog I think you are a bit of both, I admit I have read very little of Molina, but you inform without prejudice St. Thomas employed four distinct notions of causality, I think, and one of them was called “efficient causality”. I believe that predestination exists, for Scripture says that it does. It isn’t that it is not true, but that they don’t want to be locked into Aristotle. Molinism is a system of thought that seeks to reconcile the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. question that you might choose not to answer, as it For example, many of the key terms connected with salvation–"redemption," "justification," "sanctification," and even "salvation" itself–occur in Scripture with more than one meaning. Catholics believe that prayers and rosaries, prompted by Our Lady of Fatima, were the cause of the downfall of communism in Russia, whereas historians, politicians, and economists will point to the inevitability of economic collapse brought about by Stalinist policies in communist Russia. – Best Blog by a Man I do not believe that mankind is an automaton that is forced to have faith or not. These tendencies appear particularly in Calvinist writings, and in reading them one often gets the feeling that a system is being imposed on the data of the text rather than being derived from it. It is those who accept and work with Grace who are saved, without any previous merits of their own, and God knows exactly who those people are because it’s “already happened” in His experience, even though we are experiencing the moments in sequence. What are the others? I need something a 4th grader can understand. Lewis basically propounds a view that, since God is outside of time and space, “causation” as we see it doesn’t really apply to prayer, because we believe that B follows A and C follows B, but we also believe that we can pray for Z to happen. In other words, I try to be transparent to the Church: If the Church allows a variety of opinion on a particular point, I tend to leave matters as they are. They are not fundamentally incompatible. *]Father Hardon’s analysis The answer is “yes” to the extent that Thomism (in the narrow sense that Ghosty described) does indicate that those who are saved are predestined by God to be saved. Therefore your position entails a sort of fatalism with respect to cooperation with grace. God bless! The question in my mind is how predestination works. View all posts by Jimmy Akin. *]Garrigou-Lagrange’s book Grace (available here) following the understanding of Aquinas, which is an umbrella that includes Molinists) followed the argument of Banez, who said that people are saved because God specifically wills this person to be saved irresistably. nota bene: I’m on the other side of the Tiber, so take with a grain of salt as far as application to Catholic theology is concerned. Also, what does either school have to say about God’s desire to save all of humanity and not just particular individuals or groups? But let’s keep in mind what the lesson is here: our real conceptual limitations do not translate into conceptual limitations on reality. I think it would be a bit misleading to call this a “philosophy of quantum mechanics.” Quantum mechanics provided me an example that it is possible to provide meaningful explanations of forms of “causation” that don’t fit into deterministic models, which also convinced me that it was possible to speak meaningfully about God through analogy, even though what we mean in both cases is a bit mysterious (witness Einstein’s frustration: “God does not play dice with the universe.”). Garrigou-Lagrange, one of the most celebrated theologians of the 20th century, was an ardent Thomist, and many Dominican and Thomistic schools support the doctrine. Lewis’ book Miracles, especially one of the last chapters/epilogues(?) The traditional Catholic theologian is strongly committed to both of these doctrines. *]Garrigou-Lagrange’s book Predestination “Quantum entanglement would also provide a modern explanation of the eucharist, though I am in no position to say whether or not it is heretical.” I also don’t agree with the traditional Molinist position mostly because I don’t buy into the “middle knowledge”, i.e. Inocencio Not that I’m going to show it to my 4th grader, but that’s evidently the level I operate on. A Theistically-modifed many-worlds interpretation would have it that God would naturally have known all possible future histories perfectly before creation. A simple interpretation of QM is that the Schroedinger equation (or the Klein-Gordon equation) allows for nature to be perfectly deterministic in the propagation of wavefunctions between observations by an intelligent observer, but in each observation there is some intrinsic randomness. If, contra the Calvinists, the first decree in the ordo salutis is “Let Us make man in Our Image and Likeness”, then naturally God would have chosen the best possible future history, taking that decree into consideration. I was just wondering whether you were a Thomist, Here are some sources that may be helpful (in increasing order according to difficulty and length): [LIST=1] They both say God provides the grace but man must correspond. They are not the only two, however. that God picks the world situation that will save those He will save. These positions are very nuanced, and an official debate went on for many years in the Church regarding them (see 4 below). I never really thought of myself as being dim witted, but reading this stuff is like reading Chineese. – Best Apologetics Blog If anything, I think St. Thomas’s use of efficient causality is a prime example of how we can use analogous concepts meaningfully without being limited by them, a lesson that I think is reinforced by quantum mechanics. At some point I may have the leisure, or the personal motivation, to do a systematic review of this area, but thus far I have not. The popes, although leaning initially heavily in favor of the Thomist resolution, which favored more literally Augustinian conclusions, nonetheless decided not to intervene and to forbid both parties from characterizing the other as heretical.

Fiio Music App Manual, Pkhex Gen 8, James Collins Wife, Orson Welles Iq, Jaheim In The Bible, Fortnite Redeem Code, Blackstone Real Estate Debt Strategies Pdf, Orange County Florida Recorder Of Deeds, Huffy Serial Number, Air Jordan 35 Leak,