Professional Documents
Culture Documents
More On My Subjunctive Apokatastasis & Indicative Apokatastenai
More On My Subjunctive Apokatastasis & Indicative Apokatastenai
More On My Subjunctive Apokatastasis & Indicative Apokatastenai
Ordinally, the reality of our intrinsic desire for God (the existence or thatness
of our immanent inclination toward God) is able to be fulfilled in accordance
with our primary nature as divine images.
Cardinally, the depths to which such a desire can be experienced can only be
known a posteriori to revelation and are able to be fulfilled in accordance with
our secondary natures as divine likenesses.
It is in the gratuity of creation that such intrinsic desires are established (e.g.
as eros) and in the gratuity of grace that their depths are enlarged (e.g. as
agape).
Creation establishes our intrinsic desire for Christ by & in Whom we are
constitutively & mutually indwelled. Through Grace, we’ll then synergistically
self-appropriate both how & how much we’ll express (via our secondary
natures) what we are (per our primary natures).
We make no claims upon the Divine beneficence for any degree of fulfillment
of desires that would be beyond that degree of desire as has already been
awakened in us by Grace. Eternally, we can thus variously manifest God’s
glory & variously enjoy divine beatitude, all of us fully satisfied, none of us
stung by everlasting remorse. By “variously” we refer to both kinds & degrees
of manifestation, glory & beatitude.
Might all, vis a vis apokatastenai, be restored via purgative graces to our
original beatitude as unblemished images of God? It is fitting.
What might be the greater good realized by our historical earthly sojourns
beyond any putative protological existence? Perhaps it was all sub-
eschatological from the get-go & ordered toward a co-creative, adequately
(not absolutely) self-determinative soul-crafting, whereby we synergistically
fashion our unique kinds & degrees of intimacy with God, each other & the
cosmos.
This is all to acknowledge that it doesn’t seem at all coherent to suggest that
any post-mortem existence short of a beatific vision would be tantamount to
an eternal conscious torment. Whether in the lights of experience or of faith or
of glory, all supernatural realities, persons can experience total fulfillment per
whatever degree of divine intimacy as has theretofore already been awakened
in them (synergistically & efficaciously).
We can deny any concrete natura pura even while affirming fully satisfying
states of happiness — short of the beatific vision. After all, no saint in the
unitive way & still enjoying the light of faith (not vision) would describe herself
in hell? Neither would we who remain on our earthly sojourns, variously on
purgative & illuminative ways.
I should’ve been more clear. What I am not seeing as necessary for post-
mortem beatitude are certain aspects of the beatific vision as described per a
neo-Thomist scholasticism. Those inapt descriptions include not only certain
objects of the beatific vision but their anthropological hows. I’m not going to
flesh those out.
Advertisements
Advertisements