Change from mortal sin to grace

[james03]

This is St. Thomas talking about man. (emphasis added)

Article 3. Whether the angels were created in grace?

Accepted.  However I'm still confused.  Have we completely departed from the OP now and are just discussing angels?  If you want to discuss St. Thomas's position with regards to Man, then use cites whereby he discusses Man and Mortal Sin.

As far as the discussion on angels and demons, as Michael W. points out, the angels merited Beatitude after their first act of Charity.

[Michael]

The same goes for the quotations. Yes, the devils sinned after the first instant. During the first instant, they merited beatitude.

That is contradicting the quote from St. Thomas that I even highlighted.

Below, it is made crystal clear that the devils sinned after the first instant (in the second), as I said. Furthermore, it is made crystal clear that they were good--that they merited beatitude--in the first instant, as I said.

Here is Aquinas:

I answer that, There is a twofold opinion on this point. But the more probable one, which is also more in harmony with the teachings of the Saints, is that the devil sinned at once after the first instant of his creation. This must be maintained if it be held that he elicited an act of free-will in the first instant of his creation, and that he was created in grace; as we have said (I:62:3. For since the angels attain beatitude by one meritorious act, as was said above (I:62:5), if the devil, created in grace, merited in the first instant, he would at once have received beatitude after that first instant, if he had not placed an impediment by sinning.

Reply to Objection 4.....as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. iv, 24). Hence the first act was common to them all; but in their second they were separated. Consequently they were all of them good in the first instant; but in the second the good were set apart from the wicked..

[The demons] were deprived of the beatitude which they had merited.

"[A]ll were created in grace, all merited in their first instant."

"[It] was impossible for the angel to sin in the first instant by an inordinate act of free-will."

St. Thomas is stating that IF the devil had merited in the first instant, he would AT ONCE have received beatitude.

Yes, unless the latter placed an impediment, which would have had to happen posterior to the first instant, or else the Angelic Doctor would be contradicting himself, as evidenced by the many quotes provided. I even used your quotes from Saint Thomas. You need to read more carefully.

(1) https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1063.htm#article5
(2) Ibid
(3) Ibid

[Michael]

[I'm] still confused.  Have we completely departed from the OP now and are just discussing angels?  If you want to discuss St. Thomas's position with regards to Man, then use cites whereby he discusses Man and Mortal Sin.

That's not necessary. An act of charity can be necessitated. One would want a reason why this would only work for angels. In any case, the same argument Aquinas gives for the inability for angels to sin at their first instant could be used to show that humans couldn't sin in humans' first instant. The universalist would want a reason why there couldn't be other instances of necessitated meritings-by-grace.

[A]s Michael W. points out, the angels merited Beatitude after their first act of Charity.

This is contradicted by the many quotes I cited. The angels merited in the first instant, not after.

[Michael]

This!:

...destroying their preceding merit...

[KreKre]

God created angels for two purposes: to be happy and to love God. For this, He gave them two wills, which st. Anselm of Canterbury calls Affectio Commodi and Affectio Justitiae (the will to be happy and the will to be just). The combination of the two is what makes free will. Before angels could see God, there was some kind of a choice given to them to test them, presented as the conflict of these two wills. Those who chose happiness over justice were condemned and became demons, and those who were willing to sacrifice happiness for justice were given beatitude. It is clear that they could not foresee the consequences (reward and punishment) of their choice because then the choice that maximized happiness would also be the choice that maximized justice, so no conflict between the two wills could be possible. In that case, it would be impossible to make the wrong choice, so they would not have true free will. Free will only exists when there is lack of knowledge about the outcome of choices, then one can choose to be good in spite of it being difficult, and have hope in God, like the good angels did. But that also means one can choose as the demons did, and thus choose one's own damnation. This is why beatitude is not given without merit (and also why there is no second chance after death).

[james03]

The universalist would want a reason why there couldn't be other instances of necessitated meritings-by-grace.

This is the part where you are confusing me.  First, as an aside, I correct myself as you pointed out.  ALL angels MERITED the Beatific Vision due to being created in Grace, however only the angels RECEIVED it due to their free will act of Charity, while the demons did not due to their free-will act of Pride.  Granted.

As far as "meriting by Grace", this is based on St. Thomas's discussion of pre-lapsian theology, i.e., before the Fall.  It appears to me that St. Thomas uses the term "merit" to mean "have the capacity" to view the Beatific Vision.  Man was tested and fell, and returned to a natural state whereby he lacks the capacity to view the Beatific Vision.

With that being said, I'll restate the question of the Universalist:  "Why couldn't God just give those going to hell Sanctifying Grace?".

Because God respects their Free Will choice to reject Him.  Because God is Just.

There is also an interesting question about whether this is even possible.  They freely choose to reject God, but they love God at the same time?  This would only be possible if God eradicated their Free Will, which would be a lie since God ordains Free Will in Man.  And God is Truth and can not lie.

[Michael]

I retract this argument...

This entails either--

A free act can be necessitated. or
Cooperating with grace (meriting-by-grace) need not be free.

They had grace and merited beatitude without the possibility of sin.

...for there is a third possibility, namely, that there were three instances:

2. Instantaneous Choice

At the very moment of creation, so St. Thomas, the angels could not sin, but neither could they fully merit, because their very first act must be specially inspired by God, without their own self-initiated interior deliberation. But at the second instant came either full merit or full demerit. The good angel after the first act of charity, by which he merited supernatural beatitude, was at once among the blessed. [613] Just as immediately the demons were repudiated.

Hence, with St. Thomas, we must distinguish three instants in the life of the angel: first, that of creation; second, that of merit or demerit; third, that of supernatural beatitude [614] or of reprobation. We must note, however, that an angelic instant, which is the measure of one angelic thought, may correspond to a more or less long period of our time, according to the more or less deep absorption of the angel in one thought. An analogy, in illustration, is that of the contemplative who may rest for hours in one and the same truth.

(1) https://thomasofaquino.blogspot.com/2014/09/garrigou-lagrange-on-angels.html

[james03]

If we are going to use angels as the standard, then it follows God will send us to hell after one sin.