On Reincarnation

[Glaurung]

It is amusing that I have seen a few threads on reincarnation as of late. As it is something that has been on my mind a lot recently. Perhaps the universe is trying to tell me something.

Anyway, one criticism of Christianity to which I am sympathetic is the dislike of the rather all or nothing binary of Heaven and Hell. Life is a test of our loyalty to God. We have one life to pass this test (a life that can end at any moment) and failure to pass this test (even if it be by a single mortal sin) warrants endless misery from which there will never be any reprieve.

But it seemingly offends reason that finite crimes can warrant eternal punishment. It is hard to reconcile the notion of a loving god who truly desires the salvation of all and yet has allowed humanity to find itself in a position of spiritual ultimatum. The axe of reprobation hangs above all our necks and yet we are to believe that it is a display of infinite divine mercy that a minority of people (the elect) have been predestined from eternity to escape with their heads. If God sincerely loves us, then why are most of us denied the efficient grace necessary to save our souls? (According to the Thomists). The answer is the inscrutable decree of divine providence. Stiff comfort if you are not among the elect.

It is a question that has kept me awake at night. Do I put my trust in the unfathomable providence of God or do I balk at the seeming injustice apparent to my limited human mind?

There is another possibility though. Reincarnation. True enough, our supreme good, the direct and eternal experience of God is attained by exceedingly few in any given lifetime. But it is not true that failure to attain this supreme good warrants an eternal punishment. You can work on it even if it takes you thousands of attempts. This view does make for a more merciful universe. And it reconciles well with the notion of a loving deity who sincerely desires our happiness. If it turns out that reincarnation is a reality, I will be relived. At least somewhat.

And yet…

The prospect of coming back to this plane of existence does not sit that well with me.

Because the human body - while a remarkable piece of biological machinery - stinks. This contraption called the body requires constant maintenance and it in turn produces little more than blood and excrement. I get nauseous when I dwell too long on the grosser aspects of this physical nature. Further, the body is not only disgusting but it is also subject to suffering in the forms of ageing and disease. Oh sure, with the body comes the capacity for physical pleasure, but the body is never satisfied. Neither the gluttons nor the unchaste experience lasting peace. Only the constant need to gratify their petty and gross obsessions. Sooner or later karma extracts its fee from both.

So why, if a higher spiritual reality exists, would I want to come back to the dog vomit of a physical body? To its smells, fluids, excrement, pains, discomforts and unceasing urges? I would rather move on to something better than to endlessly spin around a wheel of one pointless incarnation after another.

The advantage of the Christian view of the afterlife is that it gives life a deep gravity and meaning. The downside I have already explored. The advantage of reincarnation again I have already explored. The disadvantage is that it seems we spend a long time going from life to life accomplishing very little. There is no real sense of meaning or urgency apart from this vague idea that we are here to learn something… Whatever that something is meant to be.

 

[Estro Felino]

It all depends on the vision of History a culture has.
We Westerners have a linear vision of History.
Orient Cultures have a cyclical vision of History.
Btw I do agree with you.

 

[stvdv]

So why, if a higher spiritual reality exists, would I want to come back to the dog vomit of a physical body?

Attachment to your actions, is the only reason you would reincarnate again, according to my Master and Scriptures I read

Be sure you have no desires left before you leave, to make sure that you "don't have to come back to the dog vomit of a physical body"

How many cookies, chocolate, coffee, tea, beer, wine, women, sex, etc.etc.etc.you still need/want. Better start detaching early, some are hard to overcome

 

[Vinayaka]

It is amusing that I have seen a few threads on reincarnation as of late. As it is something that has been on my mind a lot recently. Perhaps the universe is trying to tell me something.

Anyway, one criticism of Christianity to which I am sympathetic is the dislike of the rather all or nothing binary of Heaven and Hell. Life is a test of our loyalty to God. We have one life to pass this test (a life that can end at any moment) and failure to pass this test (even if it be by a single mortal sin) warrants endless misery from which there will never be any reprieve.

But it seemingly offends reason that finite crimes can warrant eternal punishment. It is hard to reconcile the notion of a loving god who truly desires the salvation of all and yet has allowed humanity to find itself in a position of spiritual ultimatum. The axe of reprobation hangs above all our necks and yet we are to believe that it is a display of infinite divine mercy that a minority of people (the elect) have been predestined from eternity to escape with their heads. If God sincerely loves us, then why are most of us denied the efficient grace necessary to save our souls? (According to the Thomists). The answer is the inscrutable decree of divine providence. Stiff comfort if you are not among the elect.

It is a question that has kept me awake at night. Do I put my trust in the unfathomable providence of God or do I balk at the seeming injustice apparent to my limited human mind?

There is another possibility though. Reincarnation. True enough, our supreme good, the direct and eternal experience of God is attained by exceedingly few in any given lifetime. But it is not true that failure to attain this supreme good warrants an eternal punishment. You can work on it even if it takes you thousands of attempts. This view does make for a more merciful universe. And it reconciles well with the notion of a loving deity who sincerely desires our happiness. If it turns out that reincarnation is a reality, I will be relived. At least somewhat.

And yet…

The prospect of coming back to this plane of existence does not sit that well with me.

Because the human body - while a remarkable piece of biological machinery - stinks. This contraption called the body requires constant maintenance and it in turn produces little more than blood and excrement. I get nauseous when I dwell too long on the grosser aspects of this physical nature. Further, the body is not only disgusting but it is also subject to suffering in the forms of ageing and disease. Oh sure, with the body comes the capacity for physical pleasure, but the body is never satisfied. Neither the gluttons nor the unchaste experience lasting peace. Only the constant need to gratify their petty and gross obsessions. Sooner or later karma extracts its fee from both.

So why, if a higher spiritual reality exists, would I want to come back to the dog vomit of a physical body? To its smells, fluids, excrement, pains, discomforts and unceasing urges? I would rather move on to something better than to endlessly spin around a wheel of one pointless incarnation after another.

The advantage of the Christian view of the afterlife is that it gives life a deep gravity and meaning. The downside I have already explored. The advantage of reincarnation again I have already explored. The disadvantage is that it seems we spend a long time going from life to life accomplishing very little. There is no real sense of meaning or urgency apart from this vague idea that we are here to learn something… Whatever that something is meant to be.

I like your essay, as it clearly explains why many folks do believe in reincarnation. Put more succinctly. it simply makes more sense, and has fewer contradictions than the alternative.

(Not the primary reason I believe in it, but certainly a contributing reason.)

 

[WalterTrull]

we are here to learn something

That's my feeling. I have a hunch it's to learn that we are not carnate. Now that's freedom.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think reincarnation is on the right track, however I'd say rebirth fits in better in light that there is a true death for a persons ego, but not for the continuity of life itself, which I dont think has any end.

 

[Brian2]

It is amusing that I have seen a few threads on reincarnation as of late. As it is something that has been on my mind a lot recently. Perhaps the universe is trying to tell me something.

Anyway, one criticism of Christianity to which I am sympathetic is the dislike of the rather all or nothing binary of Heaven and Hell. Life is a test of our loyalty to God. We have one life to pass this test (a life that can end at any moment) and failure to pass this test (even if it be by a single mortal sin) warrants endless misery from which there will never be any reprieve.

But it seemingly offends reason that finite crimes can warrant eternal punishment. It is hard to reconcile the notion of a loving god who truly desires the salvation of all and yet has allowed humanity to find itself in a position of spiritual ultimatum. The axe of reprobation hangs above all our necks and yet we are to believe that it is a display of infinite divine mercy that a minority of people (the elect) have been predestined from eternity to escape with their heads. If God sincerely loves us, then why are most of us denied the efficient grace necessary to save our souls? (According to the Thomists). The answer is the inscrutable decree of divine providence. Stiff comfort if you are not among the elect.

It is a question that has kept me awake at night. Do I put my trust in the unfathomable providence of God or do I balk at the seeming injustice apparent to my limited human mind?

There is another possibility though. Reincarnation. True enough, our supreme good, the direct and eternal experience of God is attained by exceedingly few in any given lifetime. But it is not true that failure to attain this supreme good warrants an eternal punishment. You can work on it even if it takes you thousands of attempts. This view does make for a more merciful universe. And it reconciles well with the notion of a loving deity who sincerely desires our happiness. If it turns out that reincarnation is a reality, I will be relived. At least somewhat.

And yet…

The prospect of coming back to this plane of existence does not sit that well with me.

Because the human body - while a remarkable piece of biological machinery - stinks. This contraption called the body requires constant maintenance and it in turn produces little more than blood and excrement. I get nauseous when I dwell too long on the grosser aspects of this physical nature. Further, the body is not only disgusting but it is also subject to suffering in the forms of ageing and disease. Oh sure, with the body comes the capacity for physical pleasure, but the body is never satisfied. Neither the gluttons nor the unchaste experience lasting peace. Only the constant need to gratify their petty and gross obsessions. Sooner or later karma extracts its fee from both.

So why, if a higher spiritual reality exists, would I want to come back to the dog vomit of a physical body? To its smells, fluids, excrement, pains, discomforts and unceasing urges? I would rather move on to something better than to endlessly spin around a wheel of one pointless incarnation after another.

The advantage of the Christian view of the afterlife is that it gives life a deep gravity and meaning. The downside I have already explored. The advantage of reincarnation again I have already explored. The disadvantage is that it seems we spend a long time going from life to life accomplishing very little. There is no real sense of meaning or urgency apart from this vague idea that we are here to learn something… Whatever that something is meant to be.

Maybe there are other answers beside reincarnation that leave God as a loving and merciful and understanding God.

 

[Vouthon]

Anyway, one criticism of Christianity to which I am sympathetic is the dislike of the rather all or nothing binary of Heaven and Hell. Life is a test of our loyalty to God. We have one life to pass this test (a life that can end at any moment) and failure to pass this test (even if it be by a single mortal sin) warrants endless misery from which there will never be any reprieve.

Very thought-provoking essay, thanks for sharing your thoughts with us!

I have a few qualifying remarks to make in response to it:

The first: Catholics (like ourselves!) already believe in an intermediate, post-mortem state of purification which arguably has many of the 'benefits' that a belief in samsara offers (the cycle of birth and rebirth, I know our Dharmic friends see it as something that must be escaped from) - in terms of making provision for a less draconian view of the soul's ultimate fate, than would a mere binary "one life, one chance = heaven or hell" - without needing to fear that one is bound to endless re-becoming or reincarnation in the flesh.

I'm talking, of course, about "purgatory".

Our church has only ever recognised 'saints' through the canonization process - that is, she has declared that "so-and-so" is a redeemed soul in heaven now enjoying the eternal beatific vision of God. On the contrary, mother church has not declared that any human being is actually in the state of eternal damnation - hell may be 'empty', as the most famous Catholic theologian of the 20th century Hans Urs Von Balthasar speculated.

That is a perfectly legitimate position for a Catholic to hold since we only have to believe that hell (which the church defines not as a burning furnace but rather as a freely chosen state of total self-exclusion from God) is a genuine possibility.

Likewise, you refer to 'mortal sin': the church doesn't state definitively that anyone is in mortal sin. She merely identifies certain acts as constituting 'grave matter' in the objective sense - without casting any judgment upon the 'heart', knowledge, intention or whatever of the objectively sinning person. As Pope Pius IX described in relation to invincible ignorance:

"...Now truly, who would arrogate so much to himself, as to be able to designate the limits of this kind of ignorance, because of the reason and variety of peoples, regions, natural dispositions, and a great many other things?..."

(Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadam, 1854)

​

St. Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510), renowned for the important theological insights set forth in her Treatise on Purgatory, experienced purgatory in this life for 25 years (during which she also found herself in synergy with the departed souls in the afterlife purgatory and had visions of them, according to her works):


Catholic Treasury | Treatise on Purgatory

"This holy soul, while still in the flesh, was placed in the purgatory of the burning love of God, in whose flames she was purified from every stain, so that when she passed from this life she might be ready to enter the presence of God, her most sweet love.

By means of that flame of love she comprehended in her own soul the condition of the souls of the faithful in purgatory, where they are purified from the rust and stain of sins, from which they have not been cleansed in this world.

And as in the purgatory of that divine flame she was united with the divine love and satisfied with all that was accomplished in her, she was enabled to comprehend the state of the souls in purgatory.

"The soul”, Catherine says, “presents itself to God still bound to the desires and suffering that derive from sin and this makes it impossible for it to enjoy the beatific vision of God

After life on earth the soul remains confirmed, either in good or in evil. Hence the souls in purgatory are confirmed in grace…The souls in purgatory have perfect conformity with the will of God…Hell and purgatory manifest the wonderful wisdom of God. The separated soul goes naturally to its own state. The soul in the state of sin, finding no place more suitable, throws itself of its own accord into hell. And the soul which is not yet ready for divine union, casts itself voluntarily into purgatory. Heaven has no gates. Whoever will can enter there, because God is all goodness. But the divine essence is so pure that the soul, finding in itself obstacles, prefers to enter purgatory, and there to find in mercy the removal of the impediment…” (The Doctrine of Catherine of Genoa).​

So, I don't see it as a matter of "and/or".

For some people, who have died in a state of grace (that is, without any serious violations of conscience - and conscience must be formed individually by each person), their purgatorial journey is not yet complete on earth. They need 'time' - although not in the sense of terrestrial time - to reckon with the life just lived and heal from the leftover psychological pain, regret and sorrow for things they got wrong, perhaps with the ability to see experiences from the perspective of the "other person" or other people they might have wronged or misunderstood in some way.

Heaven, Purgatory and Hell are spiritual states of being (as opposed to physical locations) that occupy no location in space and are even apart from time as well, with the souls of the deceased thought (according to time-honoured, theological speculation) to exist in something mysterious called “aeviternity”.

It entails a mode of existence which is a form of “participated eternity". It lies between the timelessness of God and the temporal experience of material beings - to us, for all intents and purposes, it is akin to “no-time” - although this isn't strictly true. One can legitimately hope that most human beings will first undergo purgatory after death, since it seems apparent to the majority of theologians that a sizeable chunk of humanity is neither wilfully evil nor particularly saintly.

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI expressed the same point in his 2007 encyclical Spe Salvi:


Spe salvi (November 30, 2007) | BENEDICT XVI

The fire of Purgatory which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away…

It is clear that we cannot calculate the “duration” of this transforming burning in terms of the chronological measurements of this world. The transforming “moment” of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning—it is the heart’s time, it is the time of “passage” to communion with God in the Body of Christ. The judgement of God is hope, both because it is justice and because it is grace…

46. With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge. Our choice, which in the course of an entire life takes on a certain shape, can have a variety of forms. There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell. On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighbours—people for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfilment what they already are.

46. Yet we know from experience that neither case is normal in human life. For the great majority of people—we may suppose—there remains in the depths of their being an ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God. In the concrete choices of life, however, it is covered over by ever new compromises with evil—much filth covers purity, but the thirst for purity remains and it still constantly re-emerges from all that is base and remains present in the soul.

It would go against God’s mercy to cast them into hell, but it would go against his justice for them to enter heaven straight away with such stains covering their souls. The answer is clear: they must first be purified. Thus, we hear the Savior’s warning that “you will not be released until you have paid the last penny” (Matthew 5:26). This process of purification is called purgatory for it is a purgation, a cleansing, of the soul.

We speak of the pain of the fire of Purgatory because Saint Paul tells us we will be saved, “but only as through fire” (I Corinthians 3:15). What is this fire, if not the fire of divine love?

Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms us and frees us, allowing us to become fully ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives becomes evident to us, there lies salvation.​

 

[Vouthon]

Reincarnation. True enough, our supreme good, the direct and eternal experience of God is attained by exceedingly few in any given lifetime.

My second set of remarks in response to your very interesting essay:

We learn from the patristic writings of the Church Fathers and heresiologists of the Ante-Nicene period (100 - 325 CE), that some very early Christian sects - in contrast to the stance of the "proto-orthodox" Catholics, which is summarised in the Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament: "it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27) - actually did believe in "reincarnation" (metempsychosis in Greek, a word for rebirth coined by Pythagoras).

And their biblical justification for believing in it was dependent upon the exact same verse of the New Testament that Catholic theologians still employ today in defending our doctrine of purgatory as scripturally warranted; namely Jesus's Parable of the Last Mite or Penny (Matthew 5:26), which Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI cited in his encyclical Spe Salvi as quoted in my previous post.

However, these pre-Nicene Christian 'reincarnationists' had their very own 'unique' riff on the concept, which would likely surprise our Dharmic friends - at least, in terms of what the doctrine of salvation/liberation from 're-becoming' entailed for them in practical terms. You see these Christians were antinomian 'libertines'.

The Carpocratains of the early second century, were particularly successful proponents of the doctrine of reincarnation in a Christian guise. We are informed by St, Irenaeus of Lyons that their leader in Rome, a female prophetess named Marcellina, "led multitudes astray":


Marcellina (gnostic) - Wikipedia

Marcellina was an early Christian Carpocratian religious leader in the mid-second century AD known primarily from the writings of Irenaeus and Origen. She originated in Alexandria, but moved to Rome during the episcopate of Anicetus (c. 157 – 168). She attracted large numbers of followers and founded the Carpocratian sect of Marcellians.

Although the Marcellians identified themselves as "gnostics", many modern scholars do not classify them as members of the sect of Gnosticism. According to David Brakke, the reason why Marcellina and the members of her school identified themselves as "Gnostics" was not as a sectarian identification with the branch of early Christianity known as "Gnosticism",[19] but rather as an epithet for "the ideal or true Christian, the one whose acquaintance with God has been perfected".[20]

As a Carpocratian, Marcellina taught the doctrine of antinomianism, or libertinism,[5][6] which holds that only faith and love are necessary to attain salvation and that all other perceived requirements, especially obedience to laws and regulations, are unnecessary.[5][6] She, like other Carpocratians, believed that the soul must follow the path to redemption, possibly going through many incarnations.[5][6] The goal of the believer is the escape from the cycle of reincarnation by ascending through several stages of deification.[6]

One of the foundational teachings of the Carpocratians was the idea of social egalitarianism, which advocated equality for all people.[8][6] Marcellina's position as the leader of the Carpocratian community in Rome indicates that, for her community at least, this was an idea which was meant to be literally implemented.[8] Some Carpocratians, possibly including Marcellina, held all property in common and shared sexual partners.[6] They also celebrated a form of agape feast.[6]
​

Here is what. St. Irenaeus has to say on the Carpocratians. See the bolded parts pertaining to heir doctrine of reincarnation:



CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, I.25 (St. Irenaeus)

Carpocrates, again, and his followers maintain that the world and the things which are therein were created by angels greatly inferior to the unbegotten Father.​

They also hold that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and was just like other men, with the exception that he differed from them in this respect, that inasmuch as his soul was steadfast and pure, he perfectly remembered those things which he had witnessed within the sphere of the unbegotten God.

On this account, a power descended upon him from the Father, that by means of it he might escape from the creators of the world; and they say that it, after passing through them all, and remaining in all points free, ascended again to him, and to the powers, which in the same way embraced like things to itself...

So unbridled is their madness, that they declare they have in their power all things which are irreligious and impious, and are at liberty to practise them; for they maintain that things are evil or good, simply in virtue of human opinion.

They deem it necessary, therefore, that by means of transmigration from body to body, souls should have experience of every kind of life as well as every kind of action (unless, indeed, by a single incarnation, one may be able to prevent any need for others, by once for all, and with equal completeness, doing all those things which we dare not either speak or hear of, nay, which we must not even conceive in our thoughts, nor think credible, if any such thing is mooted among those persons who are our fellow citizens), in order that, as their writings express it, their souls, having made trial of every kind of life, may, at their departure, not be wanting in any particular.

It is necessary to insist upon this, lest, on account of some one thing being still wanting to their deliverance, they should be compelled once more to become incarnate...

Again, they interpret these expressions of Christ, "You shall not go out thence until you pay the very last farthing", as meaning that no one can escape from the power of those angels who made the world, but that he must pass from body to body, until he has experience of every kind of action which can be practised in this world, and when nothing is longer wanting to him, then his liberated soul should soar upwards to that God who is above the angels, the makers of the world. In this way also all souls are saved, whether their own which, guarding against all delay, participate in all sorts of actions during one incarnation, or those, again, who, by passing from body to body, are set free, on fulfilling and accomplishing what is requisite in every form of life into which they are sent, so that at length they shall no longer be [shut up] in the body.

5. And thus, if ungodly, unlawful, and forbidden actions are committed among them, I can no longer find ground for believing them to be such. And in their writings we read as follows, the interpretation which they give [of their views], declaring that:

"Jesus spoke in a mystery to His disciples and apostles privately, and that they requested and obtained permission to hand down the things thus taught them, to others who should be worthy and believing. We are saved, indeed, by means of faith and love; but all other things, while in their nature indifferent, are reckoned by the opinion of men — some good and some evil, there being nothing really evil by nature

"Jesus spoke in a mystery to His disciples and apostles privately, and that they requested and obtained permission to hand down the things thus taught them, to others who should be worthy and believing. We are saved, indeed, by means of faith and love; but all other things, while in their nature indifferent, are reckoned by the opinion of men — some good and some evil, there being nothing really evil by nature"...

From among these also arose Marcellina, who came to Rome under [the episcopate of] Anicetus, and, holding these doctrines, she led multitudes astray. They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them...
​

More on this from scholars:


Carpocratian | Gnostic sect

Carpocratian, follower of Carpocrates, a 2nd-century Christian Gnostic...

Carpocratians revered Jesus not as a redeemer but as an ordinary man whose uniqueness flowed from the fact that his soul had not forgotten that its origin and true home was within the sphere of the unknown perfect God. In other words, Jesus was to them a fellow Gnostic and as such a model for imitation.

The Carpocratians have been called libertine Gnostics because they contended that the attainment of transcendent freedom depended on having every possible experience, sinful or otherwise. Such an array of experiences normally required more than one lifetime, so the Carpocratians espoused the doctrine of the transmigration of souls, perhaps inspired by Indian or Pythagorean beliefs.​

 

[Vouthon]

But it seemingly offends reason that finite crimes can warrant eternal punishment.

My third set of remarks in response to your very interesting essay:

In my humble opinion, your interpretation of 'sin' expressed above is much too legalistic. I would be disinclined myself to understand it as our being guilty of 'crimes' before the Divine Judge, who correspondingly sends us off to our eternal 'punishment' in the fiery pit.

Disordered attachment is a far more preferable (and indeed Ignatian Jesuit) way of looking at it for me. I cannot relate to the idea of viewing sin primarily as an "offence": that's a legalism in my mind which would make it very difficult to understand what "salvation" (sozo) literally means in Greek: to be made whole.

Sin is not about two categories of avowed "lawful" and "unlawful", and then lapsing into the “bad” pile, but rather in the tradition, a case of not having ordered one's desires properly.

As the Epistle of James in the New Testament puts it:

"Those conflicts and disputes among you, where do they come from? Do they not come from your cravings that are at war within you? You want something and do not have it; so you commit murder. And you covet something and cannot obtain it; so you engage in disputes and conflicts." (James 4:1-2)​

If we had not 'fallen', in the Catholic doctrinal imagination, humankind would have remained perfectly free to make every moral decision but wouldn't have been plagued by selfish cravings which disordered both ourselves and the wider web of our human relationships, as well as our relationship with God too.

In his Spiritual Exercises, St. Ignatius Loyola (founder of the Jesuits) indicated that the exercises were designed to “overcome oneself, and to order one’s life, without reaching a decision through some disordered affection.”

Likewise the conception of theism which presents God as a wrathful divine judge doling out punishments for 'offences' was rejected, even, by many of our medieval 'beatified' mystics, such as Blessed Suso (yep, the church has declared him to be in the state of heaven and has approved his writings as free from doctrinal error):

"...In order to attain perfect union, we must free ourselves of God...The common belief about God, that He is a great Taskmaster, whose function is to reward or punish, is cast out by perfect love; and in this sense the spiritual man does divest himself of God as conceived of by most people.

The intellectual 'where' is the essential unnameable nothingness. So we must call it, because we can discover no mode of being, under which to conceive it. In this wild mountain region of the 'where' beyond God there is an abyss full of play and feeling for all pure spirits. No one can explain this to another just with words. One knows it by experiencing it..."

(Blessed Henry Suso (c. 1296-1366), German Catholic mystic & Dominican priest)
​

Consider how Pope Benedict XVI described the 'process' of divine judgment in his 2007 encyclical Spe Salvi:

Many today are afraid of the notion of judgment “because they confuse judgment with petty calculation and give more room to fear than to a loving trust.”[8] They do not realize that before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms us and frees us, allowing us to become fully ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses.

Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives becomes evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation “as through fire.”

But it is also a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally of ourselves and totally of God. In this way the interrelation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us forever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love… The pain of love becomes our salvation and our joy.[9]
​

That was the point St. Catherine of Genoa tried to get through in her 15th century Treatise on Purgatory cited in my last post: "The separated soul goes naturally to its own state. The soul in the state of sin, finding no place more suitable, throws itself of its own accord into hell. And the soul which is not yet ready for divine union, casts itself voluntarily into purgatory. Heaven has no gates. Whoever will can enter there, because God is all goodness. But the divine essence is so pure that the soul, finding in itself obstacles, prefers to enter purgatory, and there to find in mercy the removal of the impediment…” (The Doctrine of Catherine of Genoa).

 

[alypius]

If God sincerely loves us, then why are most of us denied the efficient grace necessary to save our souls? (According to the Thomists).

Where do Thomists make that claim?

 

[Glaurung]

Where do Thomists make that claim?

As I understand it:

On the question of predestination the Thomistic school makes a distinction between sufficient and efficient grace. According to this school of thought God gives everyone sufficient grace to save their souls. But only the elect (predestined without consideration of their foreseen merits) will actually attain salvation and this is by virtue of the 'efficient' or 'efficacious' grace God grants to them. This is the position held by the Dominicans. And it is called the Thomist position.

In opposition the Jesuits put froward the Molinist position. Molinism in a nutshell argues that predestination is based on God's foreknowledge of our free choices. (Contra the Thomists). Those who will actually attain salvation (the elect) are those who by their free wills positively respond to grace. They are predestined in the sense that God being omniscient already knows who those people will be.

 

[Glaurung]

@Vouthon

Excellent posting. I did not anticipate such a big response (and I'm certainly not complaining) but you've given me much to think about. I certainly need to become more acquainted with the more mystical side of the faith. I'm going to take my time with what you've given me. So any potential responses will take awhile. Not that I think I'll have anything profound to add.

 

[alypius]

But only the elect (predestined without consideration of their foreseen merits) will actually attain salvation and this is by virtue of the 'efficient' or 'efficacious' grace God grants to them. This is the position held by the Dominicans. And it is called the Thomist position.

Okay, so where do Thomists claim that most people are denied membership among the elect?

 

[Glaurung]

Okay, so where do Thomists claim that most people are denied membership among the elect?

There's nothing in Catholic doctrine that commits you to that assertion. But until recent times the Catholic tradition has largely taken it for granted. Man as a massa damnata. Consequently, so does my original post.

But even if you were to hold that the majority of people are among the elect the awful implications of the Thomistic theory remain. Salvation is though an irresistible grace granted in God's good pleasure with no regard to free will. Those who are reprobate are damned because God has chosen to deny them what is necessary to save their souls. Sure, technically, the reprobate are damned by their own mortal sins. Yet without efficient grace one will inevitably die in mortal sin. It is impossible for a soul to respond to merely sufficient grace alone. At least to the degree salvation requires.

If it isn't already obvious the awful implication of this view is that God is not sincere in the claimed universality of his salvific will.

 

[alypius]

There's nothing in Catholic doctrine that commits you to that assertion.

Is there distinction between Catholic Doctrine and Thomistic theories?

 

[Glaurung]

Is there distinction between Catholic Doctrine and Thomistic theories?

Yes. And I've already mentioned the other big alternative... Molinism.

On the debate between Thomism and Molinism the Church refused to side one way or the other ruling that both were valid positions for Catholics to hold. Predestination is de fide but the Thomistic (or rather Dominican) understanding of how predestination works is not. In terms of the majority opinion within the Church it seems to me that the Jesuits have more or less prevailed. That is most Catholics will insist that predestination is based upon God's foreknowledge of our free response to grace. (The Jesuit position). And not an irresistible grace arbitrarily given to some but denied to others. (The Dominican position).

And this is for good reason too. Because if we're honest about it the Thomist position hints to a rather dark soteriology:

God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son so that an elect predestined from eternity without any regards to their merits will be infallibility saved. Everyone else can rot in Hell.

Is that really the good news of the Gospel?

 

[Glaurung]

And if it seems that I have gotten a little emotional it's because I feel strongly that the Thomistic understanding of predestination has to be wrong. Even if it is not condemned it IMO does violence both against the character of God and the clear words of scripture. It functionally denies free will and God's love for all human beings.

 

[ajay0]

It all depends on the vision of History a culture has.
We Westerners have a linear vision of History.
Orient Cultures have a cyclical vision of History.
Btw I do agree with you.

This is true of the Prajapita Brahmakumaris which states as part of its theological doctrine that time is cyclical. However the ancient Greek and Romans also spoke of a repeating cycle of the ages.

https://aboutbrahmakumaris.org/time-and-transformation/

One of the core teachings of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University is the reality of cyclic change. Time is understood to move in eternal cycles that repeat themselves. It is natural for souls and for matter to go through these cycles. As the law of entropy would suggest, there has been devolution of consciousness that has come to a climax. This climax triggers a great transformation when the cycle of human culture moves from a disintegrated, damaged, dysfunctional system to a harmonious, balanced one. From an Iron Age to a Golden one: a cycle of human culture beginning with an age of complete truth and peace called the Golden age, going through a Silver age, a Copper age, and finally ending with an Iron age, an age of complete corruption. The latter is where we find ourselves at the moment.

The idea of cyclic time is not new. The ancient Greeks and Romans spoke of a repeating cycle of the ages. The Roman Ovid (43 BC – 17/18AD), in his poem “Metamorphoses”, wrote of the four ages of human civilization. “This was the Golden Age that, without coercion, without laws, spontaneously nurtured the good and the true. There was no fear or punishment: there were no threatening words to be read, fixed in bronze, no crowd of suppliants fearing the judge’s face: they lived safely without protection ….No pine felled in the mountain had yet reached the flowing waters to travel to other lands: human beings only knew their own shores. There were no steep ditches surrounding towns, no straight war trumpets, no coiled horns, no swords and helmets. Without the use of armies people passed their lives in gentle peace and security. The earth herself also, without the scars of ploughs, untouched by hoes, produced everything freely from herself……..”

It is interesting to note that the peace, balance and respectfulness with which the human race lived at that time, not even cutting down a tree, impacted nature, who, it is said, gave freely and abundantly. ~ Anthony Strano,Director of Brahma Kumaris, Greece

 

[The Sum of Awe]

As I understand it:

On the question of predestination the Thomistic school makes a distinction between sufficient and efficient grace. According to this school of thought God gives everyone sufficient grace to save their souls. But only the elect (predestined without consideration of their foreseen merits) will actually attain salvation and this is by virtue of the 'efficient' or 'efficacious' grace God grants to them. This is the position held by the Dominicans. And it is called the Thomist position.

In opposition the Jesuits put froward the Molinist position. Molinism in a nutshell argues that predestination is based on God's foreknowledge of our free choices. (Contra the Thomists). Those who will actually attain salvation (the elect) are those who by their free wills positively respond to grace. They are predestined in the sense that God being omniscient already knows who those people will be.

I'm curious; are Molinism and Thomism both variations or subgroups of Calvinism or is that something else entirely?

Also, what do Thomists believe qualifies the elected to be granted God's grace if not by responding to grace?