Faithless people doing good works equivalent to those “God works through Christians”?

[Nun_ofthe_Above]

Hi,
I apologize if I am going over already covered ground, but we are told of Natural Law, which is given to us by God; which suggests that anyone, even those who are unaware of God as we know Him are all in possession of this grace. We are all therefore capable of doing good deeds through this grace.

Peace…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Bishopite,

Fr. John Hardon, a pretty good theologian in his own right, defines “actual grace” as…

**ACTUAL GRACE. **Temporary supernatural intervention by God to enlighten the mind or strengthen the will to perform supernatural actions that lead to heaven. Actual grace is therefore a transient divine assistance to enable man to obtain, retain, or grow in supernatural grace and the life of God. (Fr. John Hardon, Catholic Pocket Dictionary)

According to another theologian, Dr. Ludwig Ott, it is certain doctrine of the Catholic Church (sententia certa) that "Actual Grace is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action" (Dr. Ludwig Ott, *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *pg 235). Meaning, “Fallen man can perform good works without help of Divine grace, by his natural powers alone.” (ibid).

These naturally good acts are not what Dr. Ott calls, supernatural merit, and as such have nothing to do with salvation. It is simply an affirmation that not all actions of infidels are sinful. But even an infidel’s non-sinful act can do nothing to aid in their salvation.

Do you agree?

 

[aaronjmagnan]

Good call! I don’t know if it is dogma that man cannot do good on his own, but to do good man needs God. To do good requires God, this would make sense because man is naturally tuned into God while because of the Fall he turns away from pride. I think this is typical because man is steered toward the bad from concupiscience. I have read that the Church teaches that invincible ignorance can mean an evil act is not held accountable as a sin, and thus an “infidel” following the one God with all is heart to the best of his conscious ability is not in a state of sin; but the jury is out as to where he goes when he dies.

God bless.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thanks Dave.

Boy, these discussions seem to run the risk of creating a bit of confusion. I am grateful for them, however, because it has caused me to at least make a *beginnning *on the study of the doctrine of Grace. And, I am starting to realize that, as Fr. Hardon has pointed out, it is one of the most misunderstood doctrines.

Here is what I see as the two main difficulties in our discussion:

1. We often use the word “grace” without defining it or classifying it into the different kinds of grace.
2. We have mixed our discussion between the question of “The Necessity of Grace” and “Grace and Free-Will” (but that’s natural because Steven’s orginal question seeemd to combine those two)

I have focused on the necessity of grace. This was the orginal question that I was adressing*:*

Is there no way for a non-Christian, outside of the faith, to feel compassion for the poor and choose to feed the poor?

It seems to me that the teaching of the Church would lead us to answer this with a resounding NO! In otherwords, a Non-Christian can feel compassion for the poor and choose to feed the poor. Furthermore anyone, without grace, can possibly do that.

But I am speaking of “grace” as it is commonly understood – As a direct gratuitous aid from God – and usually called “actual grace”.

I think we confuse things when we speak of “grace” as something that God gives everyone to enable them to do anything at all. God does keep everything in being (even those in Hell) and so every action of ours (good or bad?!?!?) is somehow dependant on God continuing to preserve us in being. If we use this broad definition then we seem to make the whole discussion somewhat unedifying. In that sense every action: whether it be biological, moral, immoral, non-moral, conscious, unconscious, salutary or natural, somehow derives from this “preveniant grace”.

But I think that the largest source of confusion comes from not distinguishing between salutary acts and natural acts. The salutary act has some relation to our supernatural end. The natural act does not.

The Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on Actual Grace is well worth the read. Especially Part II of the article.

See:

As pure nature is in itself completely incapable of performing salutary acts through its own strength, actual grace must come to the rescue of its incapacity and supply the deficient powers, without which no supernatural activity

is possible(emphasis mine)
So, a natural act with grace may become a supernatural activity. But without grace it can still be good!

Giving to the poor becaue our natural reason tells us it is the moral thing to do is a good natural act, and can be done without grace. That same act done *out of Love of Christ *requires grace, is salutary, and leads us to our supernatural end.

See, from the same article:

Against Baianism, the forerunner of Jansenism

, she [The Church]adhered in her teaching to the conviction confirmed by healthy experience, that natural man is capable of performing some naturally good works without actual grace, and particularly without the grace of faith
(emphasis mine)
This is what I was trying to convey, in a much to cursory way, in my original post to Steven. (Post #2)

The article points out this wonderful truth:

Did not the Saviour himself recognize as something good

natural human love and fraternal greeting, such as they exist also among publicans and pagans? He denied to them only a supernatural reward (mercedem, Matt., v, 46 sq.). And Paul has explicitly stated that “the Gentiles, who have not the [Mosaic] law, do by nature naturaliter, physei] those things that are of the law” (Rom., ii, 14). The Fathers of the Church did not judge differently.

Again, I am not trying to understate our need for grace. I am trying to resist a tendency to overstate it. The Chruch has had to constantly correct our course on this subject in order to protect the truth and beauty of God’s gracious gift, of our fallen but uncorrupted nature, and of our need for salvation.

Thoughts? **Bishopite **and **Steven **do you see what Dave and I are getting at?

God Bless,
VC

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Verbum Caro,

Amen! http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

By the way, after this same discussion with Biblereader a couple months ago, he deleted all of his posts and hasn’t posted again since. I sure hope it wasn’t something we said. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif

 

[Steven_Merten]

I have focused on the necessity of grace. This was the orginal question that I was adressing*: *

Steven Merten:

Is there no way for a non-Christian, outside of the faith, to feel compassion for the poor and choose to feed the poor?

Verbum Caro:

It seems to me that the teaching of the Church would lead us to answer this with a resounding NO! In otherwords, a Non-Christian can feel compassion for the poor and choose to feed the poor. Furthermore anyone, without grace, can possibly do that.

But I am speaking of “grace” as it is commonly understood – As a direct gratuitous aid from God – and usually called “actual grace”.

I think we confuse things when we speak of “grace” as something that God gives everyone to enable them to do anything at all. God does keep everything in being (even those in Hell) and so every action of ours (good or bad?!?!?) is somehow dependant on God continuing to preserve us in being. If we use this broad definition then we seem to make the whole discussion somewhat unedifying. In that sense every action: whether it be biological, moral, immoral, non-moral, conscious, unconscious, salutary or natural, somehow derives from this “preveniant grace”.

But I think that the largest source of confusion comes from not distinguishing between salutary acts and natural acts. The salutary act has some relation to our supernatural end. The natural act does not.

God Bless,
VC

Hello VC,

Wow! Beings in hell are in a “state of grace”? This is the “state of grace” that the Church is speaking of when they say that any good (or bad) (like pagans feeding the poor) that humans do, comes from a “state of grace” from God?

I do not think this is actually what you mean. Please clarify this issue.

Thanks!
Steven

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Steven Merten:

I do not think this is actually what you mean.

Steven, that is an understatment.

You might be missing the main point of my last post. The point was that I see the confusion between salutary and natural good acts as the hinge of our discussion. One requires grace the other does not.

My digression about beings in hell needing God in order to preserve them in being was to illustrate the fact that confusing actual grace with “prevenient grace” does not advance the discussion.

But for clarification:
No, people in Hell are not in a state of grace.
Pagans can do morally good acts without actual grace (or sanctifying grace).

I hope that clarifies things a bit.

But let’s stay on target: what do you think about your original question? Has it been answered and supported by Church teaching to your satisfaction?

God Bless,
VC

 

[Steven_Merten]

Verbum Caro:

But let’s stay on target: what do you think about your original question? Has it been answered and supported by Church teaching to your satisfaction?

God Bless,
VC

Hello VC,

God’s sworn Word, His covenant to man, seems very clear from the bible. God promises man that if a man loves God, through free willed obedience, with all his heart, God will bring that man through the saving blood of Jesus into eternal life.

It still seems to me that the Church goes through a long stretch of very confusing teaching to get this point across.

Jesus, What Must I Do To Share In Everlasting Life?

NAB DEU 30:15 The Choice before Israel.

“Here then, I have today set before you life and prosperity, death and doom. If you obey the commandments of the LORD, your God, which I enjoin on you today, loving him, and walking in his ways, and keeping his commandments, statutes and decrees, you will live and grow numerous, and the LORD, your God, will bless you in the land you are entering to occupy.” NAB SIR 15:11 Man’s Free Will.

Say not: “It was God’s doing that I fell away”; for what he hates he does not do. Say not: “It was he who set me astray”; for he has no need of wicked man. Abominable wickedness the LORD hates, he does not let it befall those who fear him. When God, in the beginning, created man, he made him subject to his own free choice. If you choose you can keep the commandments; it is loyalty to do his will. There are set before you fire and water; to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand. Before man are life and death, whichever he chooses shall be given him.

NAB MAR 12:18

Then some **Sadducees who hold there is no resurrection **came to him with a question …\…12:24 Jesus said: “You are badly misled, because you fail to understand the Scriptures or the power of God. When people rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but live like angels in heaven. As to the raising of the dead, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob’? He is the God of the living not of the dead, You are very much mistaken.”

**NAB ISA 53:4 **

(Isaiah to the Israelites.)

Who would believe what we have heard? To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? He grew up like a sapling before him, like a shoot from the parched earth; There was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him, nor appearance that would attract us to him. He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity, One of those from whom men hide their faces, spurned, and we held him in no esteem.

Yet it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he endured, While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted. But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed. We had all gone astray like sheep, each following his own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.

NAB PSA 118:15

The joyful shout of victory in the tents of the just: "The right hand of the LORD has struck with power: The right hand of the LORD is exalted; the right hand of the LORD has struck with power." I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the LORD. Though the LORD has indeed chastised me, yet he has not delivered me to death. Open to me the gates of justice; I will enter them and give thanks to the LORD. This gate is the LORD’s; the just shall enter it. I will give thanks to you, for you have answered me and have been my savior. The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. By the LORD has this been done; it is wonderful in our eyes. This is the day the LORD has made; let us be glad and rejoice in it. O LORD, grant salvation! O LORD, grant prosperity! (MAT 21:42)

 

[aaronjmagnan]

But although grace is good, is everything good a grace? I know the Church teaches that all good comes from God, so that even a non-Chrisitian can do good…

 

[hurst]

Verbum Caro:

…
But I think that the largest source of confusion comes from not distinguishing between salutary acts and natural acts. The salutary act has some relation to our supernatural end. The natural act does not.
…
So, a natural act with grace may become a supernatural activity. But without grace it can still be good!

Giving to the poor becaue our natural reason tells us it is the moral thing to do is a good natural act, and can be done without grace. That same act done *out of Love of Christ *requires grace, is salutary, and leads us to our supernatural end.
…
Thoughts?

You hit the nail on the head in the above statements.

The corollary is that if you refuse to perform natural good acts, how are you ever going to be able to perform salutary ones?

John 3:12 If I have spoken to you earthly things, and you believe not; how will you believe, if I shall speak to you heavenly things?

hurst

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Steven Merten,

I don’t think is is confusing at all, so long as you distinguish between supernatural good works and natural good works as Catholic doctrine does.

For supernatural good works or salutory acts, this is what Catholic doctrine asserts, from James Akin’s explanation…

Despite its name, the doctrine of total depravity does not mean men are always and only sinful. … [a Catholic] would not use the term “total depravity” to describe the doctrine, [That term is badly misleading, as even Calvinists acknowledge…]

… The accepted Catholic teaching is that, because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless God gives him special grace to do so. [In *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

Ludwig Ott gives the following as a defined article of faith: “For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary” (Ott, 229). He goes on to cite the second Council of Orange, which stated that “as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate” (canon 9) and that “man does no good except that which God brings about” (canon 20). The Council of Trent solemnly condemned the proposition that “without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him” (Decree on Justification, canon 3). The Church teaches God’s grace is necessary to enable man to be lifted out of sin, display genuine supernatural virtues, and please God].

Thomas Aquinas declared that special grace is necessary for man to do any ***supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God’s commandments, to gain eternal life, to prepare for salvation, to rise from sin, to avoid sin, and to persevere.***Summa Theologiae (hereafter ST) I:II:109:2-10].

[James Akin, *A Tiptoe Through the TULIP,
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp]

So, supernatural good works are the only works that lead to eternal life, and these works require supernatural grace.

However, for natural good works, the Catholic Church teaches that supernatural grace is not required.

So, according to Dr. Ott:

“For the performance of a morally good action, Sanctifying Grace is not required (de fide)” [Ludwig Ott, *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

, pg 234]

"The grace of faith is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action (sent. certa)" [ibid.]

"Actual grace is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action. (Sent. certa)" [ibid., 235]

"In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order (de fide) [ibid.]

"In the condition of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without restoring grace (gratia sanans) to fulfill the ENTIRE moral law and to overcome ALL serious temptations for any considerable period of time (sent. certa) [ibid., 236]

Natural acts will not suffice for eternal life. But the performance of a natural good work is possible even of the worst infidel, even without actual grace.

Thus, St. Thomas Aquinas asserts, "because human nature is not altogether corrupted by sin, so as to be shorn of every natural good, even in the state of corrupted nature it can, by virtue of its natural endowments, work some particular good, as to build dwellings, plant vineyards, and the like; yet it cannot do all the good natural to it, so as to fall short in nothing; just as a sick man can of himself make some movements, yet he cannot be perfectly moved with the movements of one in health, unless by the help of medicine he be cured. " (*Summa Theologica, *IIa, 109, 2).

It only becomes confusing when one blurs the distinction between natural good works and supernatural good works.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

:clapping:

Thanks Dave. I totally concur that the teaching is not confusing and actually properly understood increases faith and love of God, and helps me to understand my place in salvation history. The caveat is, of course, only if the teaching is taught. I’m disappointed that these things are not being taught as well as they could be.

By the way, Dave, I’ve seen you use that passage from St. Thomas a few times now. I found another passage that might even be better, or could, at least, bolster the teaching. Interested?

VC

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Thanks Dave. I totally concur that the teaching is not confusing and actually properly understood increases faith and love of God, and helps me to understand my place in salvation history. The caveat is, of course, only if the teaching is taught. I’m disappointed that these things are not being taught as well as they could be.

By the way, Dave, I’ve seen you use that passage from St. Thomas a few times now. I found another passage that might even be better, or could, at least, bolster the teaching. Interested?

VC

[/quote]

Of course!! St. Thomas Aquinas is my confirmation name-sake. I’m always interested in his teachings. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

 

[Verbum_Caro]

St. Thomas pray for us!

In the fifth article of the same question, Aquinas restates that man can perform natural acts with actual grace (but which are non-related to supernatural life):

Acts conducing to an end must be proportioned to the end. But no act exceeds the proportion of its active principle; and hence we see in natural things, that nothing can by its operation bring about an effect which exceeds its active force, but only such as is proportionate to its power. Now everlasting life is an end exceeding the proportion of human nature, as is clear from what we have said above (5, 5). Hence man, by his natural endowments, cannot produce meritorious works proportionate to everlasting life; and for this a higher force is needed, viz. the force of grace. And thus without grace man cannot merit everlasting life; yet he can perform works conducing to a good which is natural to man, as “to toil in the fields, to drink, to eat, or to have friends,” and the like, as Augustine says in his third Reply to the Pelagians

What is great about this article is that it very clearly seperates our natural life from our supernatural life, their corresponding ends, and their necessary means.

This echos, in my mind, Frank Sheed’s excellent chapter on The Supernatural Life (ch. 9) in “Theology for Beginnners”

Note that Aquinas here expands his list of good acts done without grace from the physical acts (to be sure, they may also be moral acts) of “building dwellings and planting vineyards” in the previous article to also include “friendship” in this article (which seems to be more readily grasped as a moral act, or one of justice.).

What do you think?
God Bless,
VC
P.S. Note that Aquinas attributes a quote to Agustine that was not his. Just aheads up.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

:clapping:Ah, the Angelic Doctor does it again.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

From St. Augustine, the Doctor of Grace…

"If, however, we do naturally the things that are of the law (Rom 3:21) are not yet to be included in the number of those whom the grace of Christ justifies." (St. Augustine, The Spirit and the Letter, 27,48)

“… since the image of God has not, even until now, been so completely erased in the human soul by the stain of earthly affections that nothing even of its barest outlines remains, whence it can rightly be said that man, even in the very impiety of his life, knows and does something of the law… For just as a righteous man is not kept from eternal life by certain venial sins, which are always a part of this life, so too some good works are of no avail for the advancement of an impious man to eternal salvation; for it would be most difficult to find the life of anyone, even the worst of sinners, without some good works” (ibid.)

 

[Bishopite]

I think what some are missing here is the reality that we as humans, as people created by God CAN’T DO ANYTHING without God first giving us some type of grace in order to allow us to do it.

Even for a person to have life is a type of God given grace. Indeed, every breath we take is because God allows us by HIS GRACE to take that breath. To live life is because God first allowed us to live life, so to say that we can do good works, human or whatever apart from Gods grace at all is crazy!! And ISN’T part of Catholic theology.

How can anyone say that we can do anything good without God first giving us the grace to do it. Can we thus exist without Gods grace? Nope. We can’t do anything without God first giving us the grace at that moment to do it.

God gives us grace [again what theologians term as sufficient grace] and that grace IS a grace, right?? It IS a grace of some measure even though it isn’t salvific in nature, therefore to say that we can do any good apart from any type of Gods grace [however you define this type of grace] is wrong.

God is the source of ALL that is good. And if God is the source of all that is good then He is obviously the source of ALL grace [since grace comes from the goodness of God], therefore man can’t do ANY GOOD, even as the natural man, or personal works apart from Gods grace and I found this in the Catechism.

The Catechism explains:

“1723 The beatitudes we are promised confronts us with decisive moral choices. It invites us to purify our hearts of bad instincts and to seek the love of God above all else. It teaches us that true happiness is not found in riches or well-being, in human fame or power, or in any human achievment - however beneficial it may be - such as science, technology, and art, or indeed in any creature, but in God alone, the source of every good and all love:”

 

[hurst]

Bishopite:

How can anyone say that we can do anything good without God first giving us the grace to do it. Can we thus exist without Gods grace? Nope.

I don’t know about this. You are basically calling it the “grace of existence”. While I agree that our existence is good, I wouldn’t call that grace, nor do I think anyone else calls it grace. It is called “nature”. And nature is not the same as grace, from what I understand. We are now on the level of semantics, but it is important that we at least distinguish between nature and grace. All creatures are good by virtue of their created nature, but not all creatures benefit by the grace of God’s favor.

Consider demons or the devil as an example. In their nature, they are good, since God created it good. But they no longer benefit from the grace of His favor, which they had rejected on a bad gamble. Yet they still give glory to God (though unwillingly) by their existence, and they cannot change their nature. They are not totally “evil”, otherwise they wouldn’t “exist”, for total evil cannot exist of itself. God brings good out of them, but He doesn’t need to give them grace for that.

Bishopite:

We can’t do anything without God first giving us the grace at that moment to do it.

Does natural ability = grace? He gave us our existence and our nature, so we now already have the natural ability to do something at least on that level. But is that grace? And if it is, was it a one-time “grace of existence”, or does He need to give us a moment-by-moment “grace of existence”? If there is such a grace, then every speck of dust would need it. While I believe every speck of dust is a miracle of God, I don’t think its existence requires a grace as such.

As a matter of fact, now that I think about it, existence can’t be a grace, because we are not able to reject it! We have existence by His power. We are forced to exist. We had no choice. He has conquered our nothingness. We are a secondary source for good or evil whether we like it or not. We are forced to make a choice. That is not a grace, that is more like an ordinance. God is a great King!

Bishopite:

God gives us grace [again what theologians term as sufficient grace] and that grace IS a grace, right?? It IS a grace of some measure even though it isn’t salvific in nature,

I think grace is something that is offered, not imposed.

I don’t know about this theological term you refer to, but when I hear it, I keep thinking of the times Jesus says “My grace is sufficient for you”. This means something different than what you are calling “sufficient grace”, I think.

hurst

 

[aaronjmagnan]

Well, we have to distinguish (as was done very thoroughly below) between grace as “God’s favor” and grace as “God’s will affecting us” and from “God’s divine nature shared with us.” Here’s what the catechism says:

Proper grace is God’s sharing of His divine nature [1212] through the Church, etc.

Paragraph 1217 refers to the grace given through the sacraments.
“Father, you give us grace through sacramental signs which tell us of the wonders of your unseen power.”

In paragraph 1989, we are told that the first grace that is given through the Holy Spirit is in conversion.

Thus, if one wishes to divine the creation of man as grace then we we assume that it is not the grace of the Holy Spirit. And in conversion, one’s sins are remitted (see conversion as repentance):
“Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.”

The renewal would be to a state similar to that of Adam before the fall. Thus, if grace was present then, in the beginning, it was rejected (through free will) resulting in concupiscence.

And because we are born of original sin, we do not have that grace that only Adam and Eve shared in. See paragraph 1996:
“Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life”

Through original sin we are not automatically willfully participating in the law of God (see 1997).

Because faith is a virtue (1813) we must see that we are not born with faith because of concupiscence, that is, we are until conversion, unable to participate freely in the good of faith. Faith is considered a grace by many, a gift of the Spirit.
“The virtuous man is he who freely practices the good.” (1804) So while many can be virtuous, faith occurs in conversion and is a virtue that can only occur through the Holy Spirit.

Just some (name removed by moderator)ut, sorry if it’s kind of scattered.
God bless
Aaron

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Verbum Caro already addressed “common grace” above. By this kind of grace, we cannot even do *evil *works. However, that’s not the context of the question, which is: "Can faithless people do good works outside the faith?"

The context implies supernatural grace, not that kind of grace common to all living things, to include even plants and animals.

The answer from Catholic doctrine is that infidels can do naturally good works without the gift of faith. In other words, humans can do morally good acts without supernatural grace, but such naturally good works are not efficacious toward eternal life.

Yes, every breath we take is a gift from God, and we could not do good or evil without this gift from God.