I am baffled, please explain

[Peter_Plato]

If you ask for it, and receive it, it is STLL a gift (or a present), but it is not a SURPRISE any more.

Well, no, that is a “grant.”

And if the presenter of a gift (which is not asked for) is a reasonable and decent fellow, then he will NOT get offended if that “gift” is rejected, and does NOT force the recipient to accept and keep that gift. He can just offer a different “gift”, or not offer a gift any more.

Well, not if the gift is “EVERYTHING INCLUDING THE CAPACITY TO PROPERLY ENJOY EVERYTHING.”

Willfully rejecting THAT gift is offensive even to a “reasonable and decent fellow” and suggesting that there can be “a different one” to replace it is the height of audacious presumption and ingratitude. Eminently reprehensible.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

If you do not care whether anyone exists the death wish is still lurking…

Your death wish for the entire human race seems paramount…

Your death wish for everyone who has lived on this planet seems ineradicable…

Come on, Tony get real. If a parent sighs and says: “I wish that I would have had a son and not a daughter”, that is NOT a death wish for the daughter. If I wish that there would be no rapists and murderers that is not a death wish for the “human race”.

Do you believe the sum total of suffering in the world outweighs the value of life on this planet?

These are incommensurables. But I know that the suffering can be decreased and many people devote their lives to that noble endeavor.

You do not really reject the world but the world as it is.

Of course not. And I never said otherwise. I have no problems with the rocks, the trees, etc…

On that we are all agreed - in theory if not in practice. It is within our power to reduce the man-made misery in the world even if we can’t eliminate it completely just as we have found solutions to much of the natural evil in the world. Our views are not so different after all…

Correct. Except I like to contemplate feasible solutions, even if those solutions are beyond my abilities to put into practice. Yes, sometimes the changes WOULD BE drastic.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I suspect slugs say something very similar about us and slime.

Their line of reasoning would hold, according to you.

God must have at least ten toes and two hands since we ourselves have them and God is far above us – okay he has an infinite number of toes and hands, then.

Mr. Plato,

I have noticed that you often compare human beings to slugs, worms, rodents, and other not so cute pests. Could it be that you have contempt for humanity? One does not need to denigrate humanity in order to glorify God. This isn’t a competition. In fact, isn’t God more glorious for having created such a wonderful and ingenious creature as man? If we’re really all just a bunch of ignorant slugs, and we’re made in the image of our creator, what does that imply about our creator?

If, in our feeble minds, we are able to understand counterfacutals (though they are not more than warranted beliefs in my opinion) wouldn’t the omniscient God of the universe actually know them? If we have an image of knowledge, shouldn’t he have the actual knowledge itself?

 

[PRmerger]

Mr. Plato,

I have noticed that you often compare human beings to slugs, worms, rodents, and other not so cute pests. Could it be that you have contempt for humanity?

I will answer not for Peter, but for myself, because I understand the analogy to slugs, worms and rodents.

The analogy is apt when one considers the supreme majesty of the Godhead.

Some may be offended by the analogy of human beings to slugs, but when we compare us to the Infinite, the comparison of slugs to humans is finite, and probably not offensive enough.

In fact, even were Peter to compare us to amoeba, the gulf wouldn’t be wide enough.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Mr. Plato,

I have noticed that you often compare human beings to slugs, worms, rodents, and other not so cute pests. Could it be that you have contempt for humanity? One does not need to denigrate humanity in order to glorify God. This isn’t a competition. In fact, isn’t God more glorious for having created such a wonderful and ingenious creature as man? If we’re really all just a bunch of ignorant slugs, and we’re made in the image of our creator, what does that imply about our creator?

If, in our feeble minds, we are able to understand counterfacutals (though they are not more than warranted beliefs in my opinion) wouldn’t the omniscient God of the universe actually know them? If we have an image of knowledge, shouldn’t he have the actual knowledge itself?

PumpkinCookie,

I have noticed that when you don’t have a good answer to a question or problem with your logic, you sidestep the problem by bringing up some completely unrelated observation.

I happen to like slugs, worms, rodents and the like. Merely because you happen to think them “not so cute” would mean that you are “reading into” my motives your own sensitivities.

Now, kindly address the issue of the implications of your logic rather than make a feeble attempt to sidestep it altogether.

As to: “If we have an image of knowledge, shouldn’t he [God] have the actual knowledge itself?” It is not clear to me that ‘the image of the image of knowledge’ would be ‘the actual knowledge.’ I am also not certain that possessing the ‘image of knowledge’ places human beings in any sufficiently privileged position to say what ‘the actual knowledge’ is, actually.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with speculating about what might be the case, I think going beyond that by claiming our speculations MUST be the case is when we lose sight of the fact that, relatively speaking, we ARE slugs and what our sluggishness tells us should be taken with a pound of salt – and you must know what salt does to slugs, correct? It makes them, as you say, “not so cute,” even to mother slugs.

 

[DCNBILL]

These are incommensurables. But I know that the suffering can be decreased and many people devote their lives to that noble endeavor.

.

Yes it can and do you know what organization feeds, clothes, heals and educates more people throughout the world, every day than any other?

 

[Aloysium]

I am going to suggest that God knows and describes counterfactuals as part of His interaction with ourselves. There are no alternate, counterfactual universes.
In today’s reading we have:

Gospel Mt 11:20-24

Jesus began to reproach the towns
where most of his mighty deeds had been done,
since they had not repented.
“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida!
For if the mighty deeds done in your midst
had been done in Tyre and Sidon,
they would long ago have repented in sackcloth and ashes.
But I tell you, it will be more tolerable
for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you.
And as for you, Capernaum:

Will you be exalted to heaven?
You will go down to the netherworld.

For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Sodom,
it would have remained until this day.
But I tell you, it will be more tolerable
for the land of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”

The people are being told of what could have been, in order to understand their situation and to offer them the opportunity to truly decide and to change.
This also happens early in Genesis, when God speaks to Cain, advising him of a possibility, which unfortunately comes true…
The reality of their response to Jesus is that “it will be more tolerable” for Tyre and Sidon and for Sodom on the day of judgment than for Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum.
Their judgement lies in their denial of God. Sodom et al apperently more embraced sin than denied love, perhaps unaware of the possibility.

God creates everything from eternity.
Unlike the matter of which we are shaped, which behaves solely on the basis of its invariant and predictable nature, we make ourselves into who we want to be, in time.
He is our Father trying to guide us to Him.
In doing so He may describe what could happen as well as what will happen.
Sharing in this knowledge, we are able to make a reasoned decision.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

PumpkinCookie,

I have noticed that when you don’t have a good answer to a question or problem with your logic, you sidestep the problem by bringing up some completely unrelated observation.

I happen to like slugs, worms, rodents and the like. Merely because you happen to think them “not so cute” would mean that you are “reading into” my motives your own sensitivities.

Now, kindly address the issue of the implications of your logic rather than make a feeble attempt to sidestep it altogether.

As to: “If we have an image of knowledge, shouldn’t he [God] have the actual knowledge itself?” It is not clear to me that ‘the image of the image of knowledge’ would be ‘the actual knowledge.’ I am also not certain that possessing the ‘image of knowledge’ places human beings in any sufficiently privileged position to say what ‘the actual knowledge’ is, actually.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with speculating about what might be the case, I think going beyond that by claiming our speculations MUST be the case is when we lose sight of the fact that, relatively speaking, we ARE slugs and what our sluggishness tells us should be taken with a pound of salt – and you must know what salt does to slugs, correct? It makes them, as you say, “not so cute,” even to mother slugs.

OK leaving slugs to one side, may we try to get at this issue from a slightly different perspective?

I understand omniscience as “knowing all that can be known.”
I understand counterfactuals as "something that can be believed about a hypothetical situation.

I believe that no human being is “omniscient” not only because no one knows all there is to know, but also that the certainty of our knowledge isn’t absolute. We have justified and/or warranted beliefs that we call “knowledge” but maybe the kind of knowledge we have never reaches absolute certainty in the way God “knows” everything. I believe that the church teaches that God knows everything with absolute and infallible certainty. Is that true? If not, of what is he ignorant? Is he ignorant of things that have never or will never happen? Why? I believe you should offer an explanation for why God would be ignorant of counterfactuals.

I misspoke in my prior post. I did not mean to say that because we have an inkling of counterfactuals, God must therefore have certainty about them since we are the image and he is the ground of being. I am just suggesting that he might have that knowledge based on those grounds.

You, however, seem to be asserting that he in fact does not have this knowledge? How would you know this, as a self-proclaimed “slug?” If you say that I can’t have enough knowledge to affirm that God knows counterfactuals, how can you confidently say he doesn’t?

Speaking of slugs, I am not trying to evade the questions, but am just making an observation. There seems to be a hatred of humanity and a contempt for human dignity in the idea that we are slugs that need to be burned (your salt comment). Is that unfounded?

Further, what do you make of this verse:

And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

• Matthew 11:23.

Isn’t this an explicit statement of knowledge of a counterfacutal coming directly from the mouth of Jesus himself? Is Jesus lying? Does he actually have no idea what would have happened and is just guessing like we do?

Further: what do you make of the problems of free-will, causality, and grace inherent in the dogma of the immaculate conception without an appeal to middle-knowledge?

 

[PRmerger]

Further, what do you make of this verse:

• Matthew 11:23.

Isn’t this an explicit statement of knowledge of a counterfacutal coming directly from the mouth of Jesus himself? Is Jesus lying? Does he actually have no idea what would have happened and is just guessing like we do?

Do you believe this requires omnsicience, PC:

Mom to 17 yr old: if you had studied as hard for your Chem test as you studied the batting averages of the St. Louis Cardinals’ lineup, you would have gotten an A++++.

I don’t believe so.

I believe it’s simply logic, with perhaps a bit of hyperbole.

 

[Gorgias]

PumpkinCookie:

If God is omniscient, I think he must have this kind of knowledge , since we ourselves have it, and God is far above us.

The thing is… we don’t have knowledge of counterfactuals. We might offer opinions or arguments about what might be (but which does not exist), but we have no knowledge about them. An example might be helpful: if God had created someone (whom He did not, actually, create), and you married them, what would the color of the hair be of the children you would have had? See what I mean? The person doesn’t exist… so we can’t say anything about it; it’s not real … it’s counterfactual.

To those who assert that Molinism is false, please justify the following belief:

“God is ignorant of counterfactuals.”

That’s just a rather poor attempt to shift the burden of proof. If you want to assert that Molinism is true, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it’s true; it’s not our job to disprove a theory you cannot prove on your own.

By intuition, it would seem that God would know what A would do in situation B whether or not A or B are real

in the sense that they have ever or will ever exist. Why is this not the case?

Explain what your intuition is – in concrete terms – and why it’s logical, and we can discuss it. Simply saying “it seems to me that it should be that way” does nothing to help demonstrate your case.

Also, doesn’t the dogma of the immaculate conception imply Molinism? God knew that Mary would say yes, and that is how he was able to preemptively grant her a “singular grace” derived from the merit of her son’s sacrificial act before the fact.

No, it doesn’t demonstrate Molinism. You’re confusing ‘foreknowledge’ with ‘counterfactuals’. God foreknew Mary’s answer because He sees all things timelessly. The “before the fact” part that you attribute to Molinism is instead just a logical result of the fact that there’s no ‘before’ or ‘after’ in God.

If you say this knowledge isn’t counterfactual since both events actually

happened, then how can it be said that Mary’s “yes” proceeds from her free will rather than God’s overwhelming grace obliterating her free will?

Not sure how you’re making the leap from ‘knowledge’ to ‘obliteration of free will’. If I know that your favorite ice cream is pistachio, and I take you to an ice cream shop that sells pistachio ice cream, I might know that you’ll choose pistachio… but that doesn’t mean that I’ve forced or even coerced you into choosing that flavor. The choice is yours; knowledge of that choice is mine. These are two distinct notions.

Consider then, could Mary have said “no?” Impossible!

Not so. It was, in fact, quite possible. The joy of Mary’s fiat was that she, unlike Eve, said ‘yes’ to God when given that choice in that critical moment.

God would not have been able to apply that grace to her at the moment of her conception because Jesus would never have existed, or at least would not have been her

son.

What’s happening here is that you’re getting yourself all twisted up as you move from temporal frameworks to atemporal ones.

 

[Gorgias]

The point is that God is supposed to know whatever:

1. whatever could have happened in the past (but never did),
2. could happen in the present (but never does), or
3. could happen in the future (but never will).

If you don’t wish to call this “counterfactual”, present a better word for it.

This is the ‘merely possible’. It’s been there all along, PA, and we keep pointing it out to you.

The basic point is still this: God’s omniscience allows him to “preview” the actions of Joe (if Joe is actually created) and make a choice whether he will create Joe, or not. And if he creates Joe, then God is indirectly responsible for all actions of Joe.

No; he’s responsible for Joe’s existence – Joe himself (since he has free will) is responsible for his actions.

Mind you, Joe still acts voluntarily, his free will is not impaired, and he is personally and directly responsible for his actions. But God carries the direct responsibility for creating Joe.

Agreed. And Joe, as a rational human being with free will – that is, as a moral agent – is responsible for the content of his decisions and actions.

Just like the owner and trainer of vicious attacking dog is directly responsible for training that dog AND letting it roam free, but only indirectly responsible for the actual harm that dog would produce.

Poor example. A dog does not have free will and is not a moral agent.

 

[Aloysium]

OK leaving slugs to one side, . . . Further: what do you make of the problems of free-will, causality, and grace inherent in the dogma of the immaculate conception without an appeal to middle-knowledge?

The message that the analogy to slugs is trying to convey is simply that our trying to understand God is like a slug trying to understand us.

We can however come to know God through the relationship we have with Him as Father.
From your argumentative stance towards those who would like to help you, I understand that you do not wish to enter into a relationship with God.
A consequence of this is that whatever you understand is based on your understanding of words used by people who are actually engaged in such a relationship.
As long as you do not participate, you will hear only the gibberish that reflects your lack of understanding.
You do not know what they are talking about, so you can only argue with your confused ideas.

What you are doing is more than a waste of time.
Specifically, if you were to listen to the quote you posted, you would know that being exposed to and repeatedly rejecting Jesus’ teachings, you would have been better off if you had just played video games.
I’m not suggesting that you leave by any means, just that you should try to listen and pray to know God. If not now, when?

 

[tonyrey]

It is impossible to know anything about nothing! A non-existent creature is unknowable

A theory is not knowledge, especially if it has no practical implications. It remains a fact that it is impossible to** know **anything about nothing unless you can explain what we already know. Of course I may be mistaken;only God knows the full extent of what is knowable.

 

[Richca]

Further, why are we so eager to reject Molinism? It seems to be the only way to reconcile free will and God’s omniscience, in my opinion. To those who assert that Molinism is false, please justify the following belief:

“God is ignorant of counterfactuals.”

By intuition, it would seem that God would know what A would do in situation B whether or not A or B are real in the sense that they have ever or will ever exist. Why is this not the case?

Also, doesn’t the dogma of the immaculate conception imply Molinism? God knew that Mary would say yes, and that is how he was able to preemptively grant her a “singular grace” derived from the merit of her son’s sacrificial act before the fact. He had to have known that she would say yes or else he wouldn’t have been able to know whether or not to give her the necessary grace to have been conceived without any stain of original sin. If you say this knowledge isn’t counterfactual since both events actually happened, then how can it be said that Mary’s “yes” proceeds from her free will rather than God’s overwhelming grace obliterating her free will? For Mary to have had free will, she must have had the ability to say “no” instead of “yes.” That seems the most basic essence of “free will.” Consider then, could Mary have said “no?” Impossible! Because, then the grace that had been applied to her (at the moment of her conception) on account of the sacrificial death of her son would have made no sense, since her son would have never been born since she said “no.” God would not have been able to apply that grace to her at the moment of her conception because Jesus would never have existed, or at least would not have been her son. If God does not have middle knowledge, how would he have known what Mary would do without forcing her to say “yes” if an essential fact of her existence (sinless-ness) is predicated upon her free choice and she is not a necessary being?

Molinism has its problems with divine revelation, Holy Scripture, and the Church’s official teaching. The theory of God’s choice of orders within Molinism can hardly be reconciled with God’s vehement and sincere universal salvific will to save all mankind as evidenced in the passion, crucifixion, and death of Jesus Christ who underwent his passion for every single human person that ever was, is, or will be. The theory of which order among an infinite variety of orders God chooses to create is a main tenet of Molinism at least as it was theorized by Louis de Molina himself. It is God who freely chooses which order to create with the consequence that some person, for example Mark, is saved in one order if God creates this order but who perishes in another order if God creates this other order. How do you reconcile this theory with the Church’s official teaching concerning God’s universal salvific will to save all mankind in the present real world and real order of things?

Molinism, at least according to the interpretation given to it by some molinists, does have some strong points in keeping with the teaching of the Church. For example, molinism stresses man’s free will and that God’s grace can be accepted or resisted by man’s free will (however, many molinists hold that God gives efficacious graces to the saved, i.e., graces He knows individuals will not refuse and which infallibly produce their effects.) But the theory of God’s choice of orders and which one He actually creates which ultimately determines the salvation or perdition of every human being is weak. Such a theory is based on God’s special predilection for certain individuals (this is a theory shared by some Thomists as well although today it may not be shared by the majority of them) He predestines to eternal salvation even before the consideration of merits or demerits or what use these individuals make of His grace. Those God does not have a special predilection for perish and are lost. Such a view is contrary to God’s universal salvific will to save all mankind.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

This is the ‘merely possible’. It’s been there all along, PA, and we keep pointing it out to you.

If that “merely possible” is all there is, then I have a pretty good “omniscience”. Take a coin toss. There are exactly 4 outcomes: heads, tails, the edge (unlikely, but possible) and none (if someone grabs the coin in mid-air and runs away with it). God’s alleged omniscience should be more than that. The future does not exist as an ontological entity, just like the “could have happened” is not an existing ontological entity. If God is supposed to know the “future”, then he is equally supposed to know the outcome of the “could have happened” - not just as a “mere possibility”, but as an actual outcome. Can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

No; he’s responsible for Joe’s existence – Joe himself (since he has free will) is responsible for his actions.

This is a transitive function:

1. God is directly responsible for Joe’s existence
2. Joe is directly responsible for his actions
3. God foresaw what Joe will do if created… and created him, knowing full well what will happen
4. Therefore God is indirectly responsible for Joe’s actions - after all, if God would NOT have created Joe, then his putative actions would never come to reality.

You cannot “whitewash” God. If he could foresee an event, could have prevented that event, and did not prevent it then he is responsible for the outcome of the event - whether there is a moral agent involved or not, whether there is free will involved or not.

Agreed. And Joe, as a rational human being with free will – that is, as a moral agent – is responsible for the content of his decisions and actions.

And God shares this responsibility, because he was not “forced” to create Joe.

Poor example. A dog does not have free will and is not a moral agent.

The dog is not a “robot”, it has its own freedom. The dog is not a “moral agent”, but that is completely irrelevant. Not being a moral agent the dog cannot be held responsible for its own action.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The message that the analogy to slugs is trying to convey is simply that our trying to understand God is like a slug trying to understand us.

We can however come to know God through the relationship we have with Him as Father.
From your argumentative stance towards those who would like to help you, I understand that you do not wish to enter into a relationship with God.
A consequence of this is that whatever you understand is based on your understanding of words used by people who are actually engaged in such a relationship.
As long as you do not participate, you will hear only the gibberish that reflects your lack of understanding.
You do not know what they are talking about, so you can only argue with your confused ideas.

What you are doing is more than a waste of time.
Specifically, if you were to listen to the quote you posted, you would know that being exposed to and repeatedly rejecting Jesus’ teachings, you would have been better off if you had just played video games.
I’m not suggesting that you leave by any means, just that you should try to listen and pray to know God. If not now, when?

We can change the discussion to whether I “wish to enter into a relationship with God” if you want but maybe we should start a different thread? We can also discuss whether this whole discussion is “more than a waste of time” but maybe we should focus on at least one problem before moving on to others.

I appreciate your style and mode of discourse, but I do not share it. I think maybe you interpret me as being angry, harsh, or pointed because my aim is to upset or frustrate. This isn’t so! Argumentation is my path to understanding. I need to take an idea and sift it before I can grab onto it to make reasonably certain that it is solid. This “sifting” is done by argument. I often try to take both sides of a controversy and write them out in order to better understand other perspectives, but it is more fruitful to come here to discuss with others in the hope that someone will have thought of something that has escaped me so far.

I understand your point to be something like this:

“The propositions of the Roman Catholic faith sound like gibberish to you because you don’t have a relationship with God.”

Is that what you mean? Now, do you mean this generally, as in “Only those who have a relationship with God will understand the propositions of the Roman Catholic faith” or does it only apply to me because I’m somehow especially 1) evil, 2) silly, 3) ignorant? Do you mean something else?

It really doesn’t matter anyway. The question at hand is whether God could or even should have created a better world or not. This is a legitimate problem, in my opinion.

Thank you for encouraging me to pray. I will offer you one thing upon which to meditate. Do you believe, or do you want to believe?

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you for encouraging me to pray. I will offer you one thing upon which to meditate. Do you believe, or do you want to believe?

All Believers should believe for one reason, and one reason only: because it’s true.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Do you believe this requires omnsicience, PC:

Mom to 17 yr old: if you had studied as hard for your Chem test as you studied the batting averages of the St. Louis Cardinals’ lineup, you would have gotten an A++++.

I don’t believe so.

I believe it’s simply logic, with perhaps a bit of hyperbole.

No of course it doesn’t require omniscience. However, if the Mom couldn’t even make a guess like that, she could hardly be said to be omniscient!

I think you might mean that you think Jesus is just stating a reasonable assumption to make a point? That his knowledge of counterfactuals is similar to ours in that way? We don’t actually know what would happen or not, we just make educated guesses based on prior experience and probabilities? I can accept that. But, isn’t that a kind of ignorance? Wouldn’t Jesus be sharing in our ignorance and uncertainty in that case? Does this seem to be at odds with omniscience at all? Why not?

 

[PRmerger]

No of course it doesn’t require omniscience. However, if the Mom couldn’t even make a guess like that, she could hardly be said to be omniscient!

I think you might mean that you think Jesus is just stating a reasonable assumption to make a point? That his knowledge of counterfactuals is similar to ours in that way? We don’t actually know what would happen or not, we just make educated guesses based on prior experience and probabilities?

Yes.

I can accept that. But, isn’t that a kind of ignorance? Wouldn’t Jesus be sharing in our ignorance and uncertainty in that case? Does this seem to be at odds with omniscience at all? Why not?

Jesus had 2 natures: human and divine.

That’s why the Scriptures state that Jesus grew in wisdom–because of his human nature.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Molinism has its problems with divine revelation, Holy Scripture, and the Church’s official teaching. The theory of God’s choice of orders within Molinism can hardly be reconciled with God’s vehement and sincere universal salvific will to save all mankind as evidenced in the passion, crucifixion, and death of Jesus Christ who underwent his passion for every single human person that ever was, is, or will be. The theory of which order among an infinite variety of orders God chooses to create is a main tenet of Molinism at least as it was theorized by Louis de Molina himself. It is God who freely chooses which order to create with the consequence that some person, for example Mark, is saved in one order if God creates this order but who perishes in another order if God creates this other order. How do you reconcile this theory with the Church’s official teaching concerning God’s universal salvific will to save all mankind in the present real world and real order of things?

Molinism, at least according to the interpretation given to it by some molinists, does have some strong points in keeping with the teaching of the Church. For example, molinism stresses man’s free will and that God’s grace can be accepted or resisted by man’s free will (however, many molinists hold that God gives efficacious graces to the saved, i.e., graces He knows individuals will not refuse and which infallibly produce their effects.) But the theory of God’s choice of orders and which one He actually creates which ultimately determines the salvation or perdition of every human being is weak. Such a theory is based on God’s special predilection for certain individuals (this is a theory shared by some Thomists as well although today it may not be shared by the majority of them) He predestines to eternal salvation even before the consideration of merits or demerits or what use these individuals make of His grace. Those God does not have a special predilection for perish and are lost. Such a view is contrary to God’s universal salvific will to save all mankind.

Very good summary, and worth to pursue it to the logical end.

You said: “The theory of God’s choice of orders within Molinism can hardly be reconciled with God’s vehement and sincere universal salvific will…” therefore one of them must be discarded." I suggest to substitute the words “vehement and sincere universal” with “alleged”, and then the solution is simple.

You also said: It is God who freely chooses which order to create with the consequence that some person, for example Mark, is saved in one order if God creates this order but who perishes in another order if God creates this other order. How do you reconcile this theory with the Church’s official teaching concerning God’s universal salvific will to save all mankind in the present real world and real order of things?
The answer is: you cannot. There is a basic disagreement between us: when there is a discrepancy between reason and the teachings of the church, the apologists will gladly discard reason and embrace the teachings. This creates a serious conflict for the apologists, which they attempt to resolve with denying the discrepancy and declaring it to be a “mystery”. And that was called “doublethink” in the novel “1984”.