Molinism vs Thomism

[theAuthor]

The following was asked by a friend of mine on another inter-denominational forum, and I thought it was a really interesting question. I wanted to post it here in full to see specifically what Catholics thought. I am a new convert to the RCC:

I just kind of always assumed that the entirety of the Roman Catholic Church was Thomist in it’s views and that, indeed, Thomism had been enshrined as an official defined dogma of the RCC. I just found out that this is not the case and that, while the vast majority of Roman Catholic philosophers and theologians are Thomist, there are, in fact, at least a few subscribers to a contrary view called Molinsm (after the Jesuit Luis de Molina).

If I’m reading the descriptions correctly, Molinism is a kind of “weak” Calvinism that holds that, while God never directly over-rides the free will of man, is capable of forseeing a world in which any given person will come to faith in Christ and persevere unto the end and that He, in fact, actualizes such a world in which the maximum number of people possible end up getting saved. Regeneration doesn’t preceed Justification, but God was still providentially at work “behind the scenes” actively working for the salvation of at least some people.

Obviously such a position was deemed pretty darn controversial when it appeared at the turn of the 17th century and Pope Paul V appointed a congregation to settle the issue, but the Molinist controversy was quickly eclipsed by the Jansenist controversy (which was full blown Calvinist soteriology in Roman Catholic form) and the issue was never settled.

I’ve yet to read fully the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the subject, but I was wondering if anyone else has heard of this? Are there still Molinists within the RCC or is this a kind of “Calvinist Methodist” thing (sure… Methodists are technically free to believe in Calvinism and there even were Calvinist Methodists at one time but good luck finding any today)?

 

[dylanschrader]

There are various theological theories within the Catholic Church which faithful Catholics are free to hold.

Molinism and Thomism are alternate theories which try to explain how grace, free will, and predestination work, but both fit within the parameters of what the Church has defined. Catholics are free to profess either theory or even another theory on predestination as long as it does not contradict anything held by the Church.

 

[Ghosty]

Thomism, in the general sense, is simply one of many theological systems in the Catholic Church. It’s the most popular because it’s the most comprehensive, and draws from the widest base of Catholic tradition, but it’s still just one of many.

That being said, this particular debate doesn’t actually touch on Thomism in general, though it’s easy to get confused. The “Thomists” and “Molinists” in question were both Thomists in the broad sense of following the theological school of St. Thomas Aquinas. The “Thomists” in question were simply called by that name, even though they were following a specific interpretation of Aquinas led by a man named Banez. Sometimes you’ll see them refered to as “Banezian Thomists”. The Molinists were following the ideas of a man named Molina, but both they and the Thomists were arguing from “within” the Thomistic tradition.

As for Molinists being “weak Calvinists”, I don’t know if that term fits them any better than it fits the Banezian Thomists. It’s the Banezian Thomists who are often viewed as being closer to Calvin, though there view has fallen out of favor among Thomists in general, but not necessarily to the favor of Molinism, which is even less favored for the most part (in system, if not in sentiment).

Peace and God bless!

 

[theAuthor]

I am glad the Molinist view is OK. It helps me explain how God has made certain circumstances occur in my life that have drawn me to him, that others seem to have missed out on. And yet I cannot accept Calvinisms “the elect” because it negates free will. It is a compomise which sits well with me.