St. Catharine of Siena: A Calvinist?

[Tolkien13]

Tolkien13;12736689:

And so have I

A link to a show that discusses Calvinism in general, not this very specific issue. The link I have provided contains Calvin’s OWN WORDS.

I beg to differ

Because you are not interested in impartial discussion.

And if you would listen to the podcasts at Called to Communion, you would find our differently.

See my first point.

 

[Tolkien13]

Most of the responses you received explained well how St. Catharine is not a Calvinist.

God allows us to be tempted so that we may resist and grow in spiritual strength. Satan and his comrades are on a leash.

Yes, there are times when people have deep-rooted evil practiced over a long period of time they may be tormented by the evil ones. Even that is not hopeless! While they are still in the flesh they can be saved.

Again, no disagreement. But this is not what St. Catherine said!

 

[Mintaka]

Okay, I’ve found a good book for the original poster. I hope he can find it in a library, because it’s kinda pricey! But it’s by Matthew Levering, who is a Catholic prof and has done a lot of work on Aquinas, etc.

The book is called Predestination: Biblical and Theological Paths. It basically explains various different predestination theories and theological movements (Catholic and otherwise) and how they fit together or don’t.

Here’s what a reviewer said:

In his introduction Levering lays out the core problem:

“If God permits some rational creatures to be ultimately lost … can predestination be upheld while also affirming that God’s love from eternity for each and every rational creature is unrestricted and superabundant?” (7)

The book contemplates this and other questions in a chronological progression with sixteen interlocutors over five chapters. Each chapter is devoted to a different period: Biblical (chapter one), Patristic (chapter two), Medieval (chapter three), Reformation (chapter four), and Twentieth Century (chapter five).

The sixteen interlocutors represent five different positions on election. To begin with there are those who explain predestination in terms of human self-determination. This group is represented by John of Damascus, John Eriugena, William of Ockham, and Luis de Molina. The second group emphasizes God’s determining role in predestination but attributes the decree of reprobation to divine permission. This view is represented by Augustine, Boethius, and Aquinas. The third position, represented by John Calvin, affirms that God’s active predestination extends not only to election but to reprobation as well. The fourth position, represented in Catherine of Siena and Francis de Sales, eschews systematic attempts to resolve the tension by invoking paradox. Finally, the fifth position proposes that election to salvation ultimately extends to all. This position is represented by Origen, Bulgakov, Barth and Balthasar.

After completing this historical survey of sixteen interlocutors over five chapters Levering devotes the final chapter to defending the paradoxical position represented by Catherine and Francis in which God’s unqualified love for every creature and the fact that his purposes are not thwarted are both affirmed along with the recognition that some creatures will rebel eternally.

So yeah, this would seem to be able to explain to you the various theological differences and similarities out there, including what’s the difference between Catherine Benincasa and Jean Calvin. (Besides the bit where one would send you a nice orange, and the other would burn you at the stake.)

Also, you could always send the good professor an email, since he seems to be more up on the subtleties than, say, me. He works at the University of Dayton.

 

[Tolkien13]

I have one question, and it is serious. I want a well thought-out answer for this. The Haydock Bible Commentary says: “Both good and bad spirits may be considered as the ministers of God.” In your opinions, how can this be?

 

[Dorothy]

I have one question, and it is serious. I want a well thought-out answer for this. The Haydock Bible Commentary says: “Both good and bad spirits may be considered as the ministers of God.” In your opinions, how can this be?

I’m doing my best in explaining it this way:

The good angels do God’s bidding; the fallen angels are on a “leash” so to speak, and God allows them to tempt us, but not beyond our strength. When, in the malice of their temptations we resist and make choices according to God’s will, we grow spiritually stronger.

 

[Mintaka]

Good angels want to do God’s will and to help us.

Bad angels want to go against God’s will and hurt us. However, God is such a good planner that He can fit their evil acts into His plan, and make them turn to our benefit. So if we trust God and do His will, all things work together for our good.

The fact that the bad guys don’t have any intention of helping us is still true, and we sure don’t owe them any favors.

The same thing goes with evil humans. If some guy from ISIS cuts off my head, he’s not intending to help me. He’s hoping I go straight to Hell, and given how lousy they are at cutting off heads, he’s probably hoping I suffer a lot along the way.

But if I trust in God and pray for my enemies and do all the things God has commanded, then even my death can work in my favor. As someone martyred for hatred of the faith, I can go straight to Heaven. As a saint, I can help my friends and relations by powerful prayer. Since the ISIS guy would be a human and not an evil angel, I could even pray for him and try to convert him. That’s why there’s a long tradition of those who kill martyrs tending to repent and become Christian.

All things work together for those who love and serve God, including (inadvertently) the evil works of our enemies. That doesn’t make those evil actions into good actions; it doesn’t make evil humans or angels into actual servants of God. But God can use those actions for His own purposes, even despite them.

 

[petra22]

Good angels want to do God’s will and to help us.

Bad angels want to go against God’s will and hurt us. However, God is such a good planner that He can fit their evil acts into His plan, and make them turn to our benefit. So if we trust God and do His will, all things work together for our good.

The fact that the bad guys don’t have any intention of helping us is still true, and we sure don’t owe them any favors.

The same thing goes with evil humans. If some guy from ISIS cuts off my head, he’s not intending to help me. He’s hoping I go straight to Hell, and given how lousy they are at cutting off heads, he’s probably hoping I suffer a lot along the way.

But if I trust in God and pray for my enemies and do all the things God has commanded, then even my death can work in my favor. As someone martyred for hatred of the faith, I can go straight to Heaven. As a saint, I can help my friends and relations by powerful prayer. Since the ISIS guy would be a human and not an evil angel, I could even pray for him and try to convert him. That’s why there’s a long tradition of those who kill martyrs tending to repent and become Christian.

All things work together for those who love and serve God, including (inadvertently) the evil works of our enemies. That doesn’t make those evil actions into good actions; it doesn’t make evil humans or angels into actual servants of God. But God can use those actions for His own purposes, even despite them.

I like this explanation!

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)