Molinism (Middle Knowledge)?

[Uranage]

Is anyone one aware if the Catholic Church has given an official statement with regards to Molinism? Is it consistent with Catholic teaching? Thanks.

 

[flamingsword]

Yes it is line with Catholic teaching, Bellarmine was one I believe. Molinists are opposed to the Thomistic ideas to grace and freedom. Though it has changed a little since it was introduced.

 

[axolotl]

Read this Jimmy Akin piece

catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp

 

[batteddy]

As for the scientia media, or “middle knowledge”…I would say that it is absolutely true.

That God knows:

A) Every Possibility for what could happen;
B) What is actually going to happen; and
C) What WOULD happen if certain pre-conditions were fullfilled

seems utterly obvious based on his omniscience.

HOWEVER, the theory of the “middle knowledge” is NOT all of Molinism.

Molinism, generally spoken of, is a Catholic theory attempting to explain the exact workings of predestination, using the Scentia Media as one of its major elements.

The Church has left the debate about Molinism, Thomism, Augustinianism, etc…open and undefined. Certain things that must be avoided have been condemned (double positive predestination, etc) but has not defined a specific view on predestination, frankly because many were unsatisfying. But both are still “allowed” by the Church.

But I really like the theory of Fr. William Most, I think it solves most of the problems:

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/PREDESTI.TXT

With two modifications to his theory, the first rather major…the other simply a matter of clarifying the terminology which in the fuller explanation of his theory he may have indeed phrased the way I prefer:

1. To non-resist grace, in fallen humans, IS impossible without grace because it IS some good already, and our wills are turned towards evil. Father Most tried to solve this simply by saying that non-resistance to grace is possible in humans, but I think this is giving a little too much credit to humans.

But I solve this by defining the sufficient grace as that grace which preceeds the free act of the will, and allows one to non-resist grace for good…without taking away one’s free will for evil. This explains clearly what the rather vague “sufficient grace” theologians always were talking about is, why it is necessary, how it can be merely sufficient but not always efficacious, and how one can non-resist grace: only with the pre-grace of God. And he offers this grace of the Power to Non-Resist even with a Fallen Nature to all. For sufficient grace was always taught to be given to all, but it does not mean you MUST non-resist for good…but merely allows you to. Then, when you do in fact non-resist, the Sufficient Grace applied becomes the Actual and infallibly Efficacious Grace to an act of the Free Will for Good…but entirely enabled and powered by God’s grace, and impossible without it.

1. As for the part of his theory where God gives predestination to the Elect not on account of merits, but reprobation to the Reprobate on account of demerits (the heart of his theory is the ability to seperate the way one is done from the way the other is, ie…does God consider future acts or not) I would phrase it as such: I would say that God gives the grace of election “UNLESS” one mortally is foreseen to resist his grace. The use of an “unless” instead of an “if” is a tiny tweak that makes this particular aspect a passive negative instead of an active positive.

His theory basically explains, theologically, what people have always sort of known: you can never earn election, it is a free gift of God. And yet, reprobation is not to be attributed to God at all…but is completely the fault of the sinner. How to reconcile these has been a big problem, but I think this theory pretty much solves it.