R
RSiscoe
Guest
Test
- Status
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I agree that actual grace is not sanctifying grace, but it is a supernatural movement of the soul that is temporary, to enlighten the intellect and strengthen the will. If I remember correctly, Molinists and Thomists disagee as to what actual grace is and how it operates.
The example I think I gave earlier is that of Cain. God told him that sin was crouching at his door (actual grace - enlightned his intellect), then said that he needed to master sin (actual grace - strengthen the will). Cain was not holy because of this grace. Ultimately he rejected the grace God gave freely to him to move his will away from sin and towards the good.
There are many variant ways of describing grace depending upon the “school of thought” that you lean towards. And the different categorizations are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
According to MSgr Paul J. Glenn, A Tour of the Summa:
The example I think I gave earlier is that of Cain. God told him that sin was crouching at his door (actual grace - enlightned his intellect), then said that he needed to master sin (actual grace - strengthen the will). Cain was not holy because of this grace. Ultimately he rejected the grace God gave freely to him to move his will away from sin and towards the good.
There are many variant ways of describing grace depending upon the “school of thought” that you lean towards. And the different categorizations are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
According to MSgr Paul J. Glenn, A Tour of the Summa:
I’m part Molinist and part Thomist, yet with time and study I’m leaning further toward Thomism. I dont’ believe your theology and mine differ substantially. I think that where we differ is our interpretaiton of what the JD is asserting. I think I’m more trusting of the Church’s decision to explain its doctrines using Protestant terminology, in an effort to reach out to Protestants. It seems you see this as a compromise in dogma, where I see it as an attempt to bring them to the truth using a different expression.
R
RSiscoe
Guest
I have a lot to say about that, but I will pass for now.
Regarding actual grace and sanctifying grace. I am wondering if you are real clear on the difference between the two. I don’t mean that in a bad way, but it seems to me that maybe you were confusing actual grace with sanctifying grace. If so, many of your statements make sense. For instance, when you had a problem with my saying that our will must actively correspond with grace. Actually, that is only true with actual grace, not santifying grace. With sanctifying grace, our will can only be a hindrance, as you said: it can only be a “barrier”. But it is different with actual grace. Actual grace inclines our will and strengthens it so that we will turn towards God or our own free will. Our free will works together with actual grace. Now, the actual grace itself is given independent of our will, as you have shown, but it is given so that our will inclines towards God. Actual grace moves the will, but does not override our free choice. We must cooperate with these “inspiritations of the Holy Ghost” (see, I can use Protestant terms too
), if they are to be fruitful.*But sanctifying grace is different. To receive sanctifying grace does not requires the active cooperation of our will - we only need to be properly disposed (that may not have been worded exactly right). *
In a previous post, I said this: “The cause of sanctification is certainly grace; however, in order for this cause to come about (or be produced), the cooperation of free will is required. Grace is not produced by the free will, but in order to the cause to produce its efect, the cooperation of free will is required.”
In that quote I was speaking of actual grace which inclines man to God; for before a man can be justified, he must turn to God. If we are speaking of sanctifying grace, our will can only be a “barrier” like you said; our will does not need to “choose” in order for the sanctification to come about; we just need to be properly disposed. Man’s willing cooperation with actual grace is what causes him to be properly disposed.
Actual grace is given to man so that he will convert and be baptized. Sactifying grace, which gives a new life to the soul, is received at baptism.
The story from Acts 2, is a good example. There was see Peter preaching to the Jews, who listenened and were converted. This conversion came about through actual grace, which enlightened their mind and moved their will to turn to God. God sent the actual grace; they corresponded, and were converted (and properly disposed). Then, the Jews said to Peter “what must we do to be saved”? Peter said “be baptized… and you shall received the gift of the Holy Ghost”, which is sanctifying grace.
Sanctifying grace is what is lost through mortal sin; actual grace is given to the person in mortal sin to bring him back to the sacraments. (Actual grace is also given to those already in the state of grace to incline them to do good.)
But I think that may be where some of the confusion came from. We were speaking of actual grace and you may have been confusing it will sanctifying grace, which brings about justification “instantaneously”.
I began to notice that, although we were speaking of the workings of actual grace, we were relating this to justification which is brought about by sanctifing grace. I think that is where some of the confusion came from. The rest of the confusion came from you trying to reconcile the Joint Declaration with the Catholic faith
R
RSiscoe
Guest
I thought I would post a few passages of the Baltimore Catechism, which describe actual and sanctifying grace.
Q 110: How many kinds of grace are there?
Answer: There are two kinds of grace: sanctifying grace and actual grace
Q 111: What is sanctifying grace?
Answer: Sanstifying grace is that grace which confers upon our souls a new life, that is, a sharing in the life of God Himself.
a. Sanctifying grace is also called habitual grace because we possess this divine grift as a habit of the of the soul, that is, as something permanent.
b. Santifying grace is lost only through mortal sin
Q 112: What are the chief effects of sanctifying grace?
Answer: The Chief effects of santifying grace are:
Answer: Actual grace is a supernatural help of God which enlightens our mind and strengthens our will to do good and to avoid evil
a. unlike sanctifying grace, actual grace is not a habit dwelling in the soul, but a divine impulse moving a person to perform acts above him natural power
b. …
c. Persons in mortal sin cannot gain sanctifying grace without the help of actual grace
d. Christ by his death, merited suffidient grace for all men to be saved.
Q 114: Can we resist the grace of God?
Answer: We can resist the grace of God, for our will is free, and God does not force us to accept His grace.
a. Although God wishes the salvation of all men, those who have attained the use of reason can be saved only by co-operating freely with the grace of God.
b. Those who do not have the use of reason cannot choose to co-operate with God’s grace. They can, however, be saved through baptism.
(Baltimore Catechism, No. # 3, pages 62-63)
Actual grace is what requires the proper cooperation of our will. When Trent speaks of our cooperating with grace, that is what it means - the cooperation of our will with the movements of actual grace, which lead a person to the sacraments, by which they obtain sanctifying grace (justification).
God Bless,
Q 110: How many kinds of grace are there?
Answer: There are two kinds of grace: sanctifying grace and actual grace
Q 111: What is sanctifying grace?
Answer: Sanstifying grace is that grace which confers upon our souls a new life, that is, a sharing in the life of God Himself.
a. Sanctifying grace is also called habitual grace because we possess this divine grift as a habit of the of the soul, that is, as something permanent.
b. Santifying grace is lost only through mortal sin
Q 112: What are the chief effects of sanctifying grace?
Answer: The Chief effects of santifying grace are:
- it makes us holy and pleasing to God
- it makes us adopted children of God
- it makes us temples of the Holy Ghost
- it gives us the right to heaven
Answer: Actual grace is a supernatural help of God which enlightens our mind and strengthens our will to do good and to avoid evil
a. unlike sanctifying grace, actual grace is not a habit dwelling in the soul, but a divine impulse moving a person to perform acts above him natural power
b. …
c. Persons in mortal sin cannot gain sanctifying grace without the help of actual grace
d. Christ by his death, merited suffidient grace for all men to be saved.
Q 114: Can we resist the grace of God?
Answer: We can resist the grace of God, for our will is free, and God does not force us to accept His grace.
a. Although God wishes the salvation of all men, those who have attained the use of reason can be saved only by co-operating freely with the grace of God.
b. Those who do not have the use of reason cannot choose to co-operate with God’s grace. They can, however, be saved through baptism.
(Baltimore Catechism, No. # 3, pages 62-63)
Actual grace is what requires the proper cooperation of our will. When Trent speaks of our cooperating with grace, that is what it means - the cooperation of our will with the movements of actual grace, which lead a person to the sacraments, by which they obtain sanctifying grace (justification).
God Bless,
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
RSiscoe,
I understand what actual and sanctifying grace is and I don’t think I was mixing them up. I believe I even stated:
If I left a different impression, I apologize.
I understand what actual and sanctifying grace is and I don’t think I was mixing them up. I believe I even stated:
There were two aspects of canon 9 I addressed. 1) justifying faith must necessarily include hope and love. 2) cooperation with antecedent actual grace is necessary for justification. I didn’t intend that faith, hope, and love were part of antecedent actual grace. In fact I defined actual grace from two separate sources so we were on the same page.
If I left a different impression, I apologize.
M
mava
Guest
I feel as though that if we were justified by faith alone we could sit back and believe that Jesus is God and read His word but take no action to fullfil what the Bible teaches.I don’t believe it works that way.
S
serendipity
Guest
What are good studies on this topics, that emphasize the Catholic perspective and analyze it scriptural support? I have heard of Not by Faith Alone, by Robert Sungenis, but ist is pretty pricey for a book
B
Beaver
Guest
Works are the pass on of the grace recieved from Christ.We do not hoard grace…
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Gotta say the Not by Faith Alone by Robert Sungenis is worth every penny. It is very comprehensive treatment of this topic.
R
RyanL
Guest
Dave,
I’ll admit that I didn’t exhaustively read the thread (more of a brief skim, really), but I didn’t notice any references to the following document:
RESPONSE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO THE JOINT DECLARATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE LUTHERAN WORLD FEDERATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
Since the Vatican spoke to the issue (at the direct request of JPII to avoid such misunderstandings), why wasn’t there more real estate devoted to the official response? Or was there, and I just missed it?
God Bless, my esteemed brother in Christ,
RyanL
God Bless,
RyanL
I’ll admit that I didn’t exhaustively read the thread (more of a brief skim, really), but I didn’t notice any references to the following document:
RESPONSE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO THE JOINT DECLARATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE LUTHERAN WORLD FEDERATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
Since the Vatican spoke to the issue (at the direct request of JPII to avoid such misunderstandings), why wasn’t there more real estate devoted to the official response? Or was there, and I just missed it?
God Bless, my esteemed brother in Christ,
RyanL
God Bless,
RyanL
L
Linnyo
Guest
I think I can explain.Hi everyone!
Here’s how I look at it:
Our Protestant brothers and sisters speak of “accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior”. Accepting Jesus as “Savior” is the part that we Catholics would call “faith”; acknowledging that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that salvation is through him alone. But then there’s the “Lord” part. If Jesus is Lord of your life you are living in obedience to him. That’s what we Catholics call “works”; living in obedience to Christ, Jesus being Lord of our lives.
What I don’t understand, and hopefully there are some Protestant bretheran here who can explain it to me, is that if we accept Jesus, not only as Savior but as Lord, what exactly does Jesus being “Lord” mean to you and how is Jesus’ Lordship in your life separate from your works (actions)?
Thanks!
In Christ,
Nancy
Christians are people who believe that Jesus has died for them, taken away their sins. They choose to believe the Word of God in the Bible and accept that Jesus is their Lord and saviour. As their Lord, they have faith in Him and are justified through the grace of God. That is salvation.
When a person accepts Jesus as their Lord, they choose to follow him and try to be more Christlike. They desire to please God. This is where works come in. To please God you have to aim to become like Jesus. In living your life, a person should try to think how Jesus would do it. ie Would Jesus stop to help the beggar on the street or just walk on by? A Christian should aim to do as Jesus would do. The closer we get to behaving and doing the work of Christ, the nearer we come to sanctification.
Faith is necessary for justification and works bring us closer to the perfect will of God and sanctification. I think this theory is applicable to RC and non-RC christians.:tiphat:
M
mtr01
Guest
This is incorrect. For Protestants, justification is a one-time “legal” imputation of Christ’s righteousness when one takes Jesus as “his personal Lord and Savior”. Everything else, including good works in obedience to Christ, is called sanctification.
For Catholics sanctification and justification are part of the same process. Through God’s grace, man’s soul is infused with Christ’s righteousness and we are truly made holy (sanctified) and our souls are pleasing to God. Sanctification of the soul is therefore a necessary part of justification. For the Catholic, sin is not covered or hidden away, but is cleansed from the soul by the purification of sanctifying grace.
The two doctrines could not be more dissimilar…
E
Elzee
Guest
Hi! Sorry to barge in on this thread because it’s a great thread, but I’ve always looked at it like Catholic4aReasn did. Your answer above seems to imply that to be saved, you really just have to accept Jesus as your ‘Savior’. Accepting him as ‘Lord’ (desiring/choosing to please him by doing good works and obeying his commands) is, in the end optional, because they do not contribute to your salvation. Is that correct?
If that’s the case, is it correct to say you must accept Jesus as ‘Lord and Savior’ - or really just as Savior? I don’t mean to come across brashly, so please don’t take it that way, but this really confuses me. I’ve always wondered how the ‘Lord’ part fit in if it didn’t mean you were obligated to come under his ‘Lordship’ - obeying Him our of love for Him.
C
Coder
Guest
Faith leads to good works. “By their fruits you shall know them.”
L
Linnyo
Guest
You absolutely must accept him as Lord regardless of denomination. The Bible says that you must believe that in Jesus to gain eternal life but it also says that he must be your Lord therefore faith and works are necessary. I never suggested that they weren’t. As for guaranteed salvation, even a protestant is not daft enough to think that you just have to say a prayer once and be saved. As sinners, everyone has to continually repent and ask forgiveness for their sins cos ,with the best will in the world, we continue to sin even after accepting the Lord.
L
Linnyo
Guest
Yep! I agree that in most cases, faith does lead to good works.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Thanks, Ryan, that was a very useful text. It was simply an oversight on our part not to include this text in the discussion. The text certainly clarifies much of the debate.
The genesis of this discussion was RSiscoe’s claim that John Paul II, in his role as Roman Pontiff exercising his ordinary magisterial authority, formally taught heresy in approving the Joint Declaration on Justification. I don’t know if the above clarifications would have been at all compelling to RSiscoe, as he seemed to me solidly and immovably Lefebvrist in his views.
The problem with failing to have religious submission of intellect and will to the ordinary magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, is that one can easily be predisposed to incorrectly construe what he teaches and thereby be prone to falsely accuse the Vicar of Christ with teaching heresy.
"If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (St. Cyprian, *The Unity of the Catholic Church *4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
I just read through this detailed and interesting debate. What I found even more interesting is that Rome issued the above clarification, which was in agreement with what RSiscoe was saying (I guess RSiscoe and itsjustdave were unaware of this clarification during the debate). The clarification stated that certain sections of the Joint Declaration were “not acceptable”, and the sections that were no acceptable were the ones being debated in this thread. For example:
Official Clarification: A clarification would, however, be necessary as to the compatibility of this involvement with the reception “mere passive” of justification, in order to determine more exactly the degree of consensus with the Catholic doctrine. As for the final sentence of n. 24: “God’s gift of grace in justification remains independent of human cooperation”, this must be understood in the sense that the gifts of God’s grace do not depend on the works of man, but not in the sense that justification can take place without human cooperation.
The majority of the debate dealt with that exact point. RSiscoe maintained that human cooperation was necessary for justification to take place.
Another point addressed in the official clarification that was dealt with in the debate is the following:
The major difficulties preventing an affirmation of total consensus between the parties on the theme of Justification arise in paragraph 4.4 The Justified as Sinner (nn. 28-1,0 ). Even taking into account the differences, legitimate in themselves, that come from different theological approaches to the content of faith, from a Catholic point of view the title is already a cause of perplexity. According, indeed, to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in baptism everything that is really sin is taken away, and so, in those who are born anew there is nothing that is hateful to God (3). It follows that the concupiscence that remains in the baptised is not, properly speaking, sin. For Catholics, therefore, the formula “at the same time righteous and sinner”, as it is explained at the beginning of n. 29 (“Believers are totally righteous, in that God forgives their sins through Word and Sacrament …Looking at themselves … however, they recognize that they remain also totally sinners. Sin still lives in them…”), is not acceptable.
That’ is exactly what RSiscoe said early on in the debate.
I also found the final post by itsjustdave interesting. He claimed that RSiscoe failed to trust the Church, when in fact RSiscoe’s position was vindicated by the official clarification later issued by Rome.
- Status