What I Like about Roman Catholicism's Libertarian, Compatibilist, Annihilationist, Limboic & Subjunctive Infernalisms!
Their best anthropological insights lead, inevitably, to an Indicative Universalism
What I Like about Roman Catholicism's Libertarian, Compatibilist, Annihilationist, Limboic & Subjunctive Infernalisms Is ... (see note, below) …
that each contains one or more theo-anthropological intuitions that I find indispensable to my own Roaming Catholic indicative universalism.
From the libertarian stance, I borrow an account of freedom that pertains to our manner of choosing between various states of well being, as would correspond to the divine aesthetic scope of theophanically equipoised divine optimalities. In this freedom we engage in eternal soul-crafting, co-self-determinedly choosing among spiritual vocations, missions, gifts, charisms, secondary beatitudes & epektatic ventures. The account is otherwise incoherent when it invests in a putative ability to rationally & completely reject God.
From the compatibilist stance, I borrow accounts of predestination, impeccability & inancaritability and so eschew character-based beatific contingencies. Over against any artificial extrinsicisms, I also reject indwelling-based beatific contingencies. Predestination would only refer to divinely gratuitous elevations to sainthood & higher degrees of intimacy.
From the annihilationist stance, I borrow an account of annihilation vis a vis the parasitic existences of our vicious secondary natures. This account remains otherwise incoherent vis a vis any putative annihilation of an intrinsically good imago Dei.
From the limboic stance, I borrow an account of the divine gratuity of apokatastenai, whereby there will be a universal restoration of every original theophanic manifestation, i.e. every creaturely shadow & vestige (divinely omnipresenced) and image & likeness (divinely indwelled) of God.
From the subjunctive stance, I borrow an account of the indispenable role that anagogy must play in every juxtaposition of eros & agape, the proleptic & eschatological, incarnations & deifications, liturgical contemplations & ecclesial communions, which is to say, the anagogical reveals the mystical nexus between our every particular quotidian experience & our final communal beatific consummation.
I would contend that I have not wrenched these conceptual borrowings out of their contexts, as if they were necessarily inextricably intertwined within each competing theological anthropology. Rather, I have juxtaposed them and reintegrated them into a perfectly coherent stance. Taken together, their logic necessarily leads to an indicative universalism. In fact, once properly gleaning certain insights gifted us by these competing Catholic anthropologies, one would have to engage in wholly ad hoc rationalizations (abstractions divorced from any coherence as would be derivable from the plausibility of our collective concrete experiences) to sustain any brand of infernalism.
Perhaps Molina, Báñez, Stump (quiescence) & Scotus (non velle) all have insights to contribute regarding how human persons freely will in response to various divine communications?
And Maritain & HUvB have insights to contribute regarding the bottomless depths of God's mercy & unfathomable heights of His Glory?
Over against their meanings in libertarian, compatibilist, annihilationist, limboic & subjunctive infernalisms, then, I propose the following Glossary of Indicative Universalism:
Apokatastenai refers to the consummation of purgation. Eschatologically, it is - not an alternative destination, but - a pit stop on our journey to apokatastasis.
Emanation can refer, analogically, to both Monarchical & Christological essential self-determinations of universals, both exemplifiable, when infinitely & absolutely immanent, as well as signifiable, when finitely & relatively instantiable.
Generation refers to both infinite Trinitological & finite Christogonic (theophanic) personal otherings.
Perichoresis can refer, analogically, to both Trinitological & Cosmotheandric interpersonal communions as well as the Christological essential harmonies.
Purgation refers to the purging of the parasitic existence of our vicious secondary natures as will obscure (but never obliterate) our primary natures as imagoes Dei (to varying degrees). Per Bonaventure’s universal hylomorphism and Scotus’ angel mutability and over against a spiritual immaterialism, there are no obstacles like a postmortem immutability vis a vis repentance. See God Ordains Our Epistemic Distancing for an account of how our vicious natures come about through our sinfulness.
Apokatastenai refers to the New Earth or universal restoration of the original states of our secondary beatitudes. As per the original gratuity of creation, we'll remain creation's ubiquitously indwelled imagoes Dei, while even creation's shadows & vestiges of God will be restored, thus ubiquitously remaining divinely omnipresenced.
Theosis refers to one's progressive epektatic instantiation of Christ's self-determined cosmic nature (secondary nature) as one grows from Christ's image to likeness.
Apokatastasis refers to the New Heavens or universal attainment of the beatific vision of our primary beatitude in the gratuity of grace, whereby the mutuality of the divine indwelling can, vis epektasis, perpetually deepen from our synergic cooperation.
Note:
For example, I'm thinking of various approaches taken by my coreligionists, such as Rooney, O'Neill, Griffiths, Brotherton & Barron. Although Barron's subjunctive stance is grounded kerymatically but not otherwise probabilistically, that suffices, in my view. Because the reality of hope presents in degrees, I don't think one must adopt Rea's takes on hope or his evidential criteria for rationality.