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

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Steven Merten:

I have been hearing quite a few people hammering home the claim that man cannot do good works on his own. Is there no way for a non-Christian, outside of the faith, to feel compassion for the poor and choose to feed the poor? Can no one do the right thing without God forcing/assisting them to do so? What do you think?

To do or be any good at all without God is impossible.​

The compassion of believers & unbelievers is equally His gift & deed - not that any one can draw a line round either group to distinguish it from the other: they are not separable in that way, because the divisions are within our hearts;not between “believers” (in the red corner) & “unbelievers” (in the blue corner). Only Christ can separate sheep from goats: until then, we are all shoaps to some degree

I have no idea what the answer is- if there is one - but I like the look of number two. ##

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Bishopite:

Council of Orange 529 A.D. was formed in order to solve the pelagian and semi-pelagian heresy that plagued the Church started by Pelagius who held that there was no such thing as a sinful nature nor original sin. Romans 5 clearing shows we have both. St. Augustine having an orthodox Catholic position fiercly opposed Pelagius’ heretical belief and the council agreed.

CANON 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.

CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.

Just to add a bit to this, especially for those protestants who deny Free Will yet cite this same council on their web page:

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).

Conclusion: …According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.
Also all of Heb11 and James2:
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith** was completed by** works.

 

[Steven_Merten]

hurst:

The good act(s) we must make in our nature is to do justice to God in our hearts and subject ourselves to obedience to His will with perseverance. Then will He in His time, after we are tested, visit us with grace, and strengthen us unto eternal life.

hurst

Hello hurst,

So are you saying that we, through free will, choose to do good works and after this God imputs grace into us?

Some on this thread have indicated that even the faithless, those not in a state of grace and the unbaptized, have God do good works through them, if they have done good works.

There seem to be opposing thoughts here.

I do not think we have yet made it perfectly clear where good works come from, the human heart or God preforming good works through us.

 

[Steven_Merten]

## To do or be any good at all without God is impossible.

. ##

Hello Michael,

So you believe that, had God left him to his own devises, even Pope John Paul II would have been just as evil, maybe more evil, than Hitler?

 

[Bishopite]

Verbum Caro]You went on to say that if a person performs a morally good act or just act (feeding the poor)

Yes, I see what Vatican l is saying and it seems to disagree with what I’m saying and I could be wrong, indeed. This intrigues me even more to find out if I have the wrong position, which I may, and although my gut tells me that I don’t, however, that could be last nights chili, ha *.
What’s strange in an interesting way is what I found from Vatican ll and of course there is always canon 20 of the council of Orange which was specifically dealing with the issue of pelagianism and works and the necessity of grace. Augustine’s battle with Pelagius was one of the necessity of grace, but how far it delved into what grace was, I’m not sure.

What I am asserting is that everyone receives what Catholic apologists and theologians call sufficient grace and some receive efficacious grace, which is the grace needed for salvation. Secifically how those who receive efficacious grace and how it intermingles with free will isn’t addressed by the Church from what I’ve read. This is what I believe to be true and I’d like to quote from Jimmy Akin [of Catholic Answers] book “The Salvation Controversy” page 81. If anyone would know it would be him.

"Catholics must say that, though God may give efficacious grace only to some, he gives sufficient grace to all. This is presupposed by the fact that he intended the atonement to be sufficient for all. Vatican ll states that “since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate calling of man is in fact one and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.” [Vatican ll–Guadium et Spes 22]

I see your point and we may be having a semanitics issue here in describing grace. And we may, or perhaps I may, need clarification from someone who is a bit more theologically in the know. I’m not saying you are wrong and I also do submit to the Church’s teachings and if I’m wrong I’ll concede

You have quoted Vatican l and Ludwig Ott from Dave which does suggest that we can do good works apart from grace, but if God gives everyone sufficient grace by virtue of their birth/life then any good work they do is because of His grace, that would be the logical extention of that assertion. Surely I’d agree that people can do good works apart from faith but that’s different from good works of any sort apart from grace of any type.

And all this is summed up in Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
(taken from a post by ItsJustDave.)

I sincerely am not trying to belabor this point, its just that the Chruch has had to be constantly on gaurd against both extremes when it comes to the doctrine of necessity of grace.

Which extremes you are talking about? Thomistic and Molinistic?

Correct me if I’m wrong but are you talking about the nature of grace, how it works in the soul to save vs mans free will. That is what the Thomists and Molinists argued about but I’m not talking about that.

I just wanted to touch base with you here and try to clarify your position. I know from your previous posts that you originally come from a different tradition and that you have put much time into prayer and study, and so I look forward to your insights and comments. I hope that we can continue a dialog on this important topic.

Just because I’m a convert or have studied Catholic and Protestant theology doesn’t mean I know more than anyone else per se and I very well could be wrong. Certainly there are MANY things in Catholicism I don’t know much about Believe me I’m hardly the intellect when it comes to Catholic theology but I do have a few friends that I will contact this week that know Catholic theology very well and I’ll run it by them. I very well could be wrong and you could be correct and this is good in order to get to the truth which is what we both are searching for.

As always, I submit to the teaching of the Church on this matter. Any errors are mine alone, and any poor exposition is due to me inadequate abilities.

Sincerely,
VC

Yes, me too.
I agree and submit to the teaching of the Church too. Any errors of mine I’ll blame on me myself and I.

 

[hurst]

Steven Merten:

Hello hurst,

So are you saying that we, through free will, choose to do good works and after this God imputs grace into us?

Yes. The test is whether we would do the same good works to God Himself as we would do to other people.

I was focusing on it as doing justice to God in our hearts.

A primary example here would be someone in mortal sin. A good act would be to repent. He would then go to confession, whereupon God imparts the life of grace again via the priest.

Another case would be a heathen who hears the Gospel for the first time, and decides to believe. He then acts according to his belief and obtains baptism, and receives the life of grace.

A third case would be someone in a remote area that has not been reached by the Gospel. Someone might have fostered their intial humility and persevered in various virtues. When God visits them, it will be rewarded.

Proverbs 11:18 The wicked maketh an unsteady work: but to him that soweth justice, there is a faithful reward.

I am reminded of how Christ preached to the souls in prison. I personally think we will all face Christ at some point and make a decision whether to accept and love Him. A person who has kept the humility of their youth would be able to respond positively.

By the way, this is all my own understanding. I hope it accords with Church teaching. If not, someone please correct me.
Steven Merten:

Some on this thread have indicated that even the faithless, those not in a state of grace and the unbaptized, have God do good works through them, if they have done good works.

This is also true. God will sometimes act through a sinner, and there are some scriptural examples of it.

1 Sam 19:1-24 (Is Saul also among the prophets?)
Numbers 22 (Balaam and his donkey)
John 11:48-53 (Caiphas’ prophecy)
Acts 10:44-48 (unbaptised gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues)

The thing to note is that being filled with the Spirit of Prophecy does not imply salvation. Hmm.
Steven Merten:

I do not think we have yet made it perfectly clear where good works come from, the human heart or God preforming good works through us.

Yes, there is more to this than seems at first glance.

But I think we have established that God can work through a sinner, and through someone without the grace of Baptism, without it always helping that person individually.

Ecclesiasticus 37:21 … There is a man that is subtle and a teacher of many, and yet is unprofitable to his own soul.

I am seeing that when God gives grace, we may or may not benefit from it, depending on our disposition. That implies that we must exercise good will apart from additional grace, in order to benefit from additional grace which would elevate our acts into ones meritorious for eternal life. We can do this by our good nature God created (though hindered by the effects of the Fall), and this is what makes God’s law even more valuable for us - it directs us in the way we should act to be ready for God’s visit. So, not that good works obligate God to do anything for us, but rather, they enable God’s gift of grace to have its intended effect, if and when He gives it (which means we should also long for it)! These good works I am speaking of, again, must include our whole being, not just external acts. We must be exercising good will from our hearts for His grace to actually “work” in us.

Yet, we must also persevere in doing good. It is possible to fall from grace, like Adam did, or like David did, or again as is implied by the availability of confession after Baptism. It is really a cooperation with God.

Genesis 17:1 … the Lord appeared to him: and said unto him: I am the Almighty God: walk before me, and be perfect.

Micheas 6:8 I will shew thee, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requireth of thee: Verily, to do judgment, and to love mercy, and to walk solicitous with thy God.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

Col 1:10 That you may walk worthy of God, in all things pleasing; being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God:

1 Thess 4:1 For the rest therefore, brethren, we pray and beseech you in the Lord Jesus, that as you have received from us, how you ought to walk, and to please God, so also you would walk, that you may abound the more.

I am now more astonished than ever that so many Protestants have missed the obvious connection of faith with works.

hurst

 

[Bishopite]

Verbum Caro]You went on to say that if a person performs a morally good act or just act (feeding the poor)

But this again seem to be going a little too far. Look at this from Vatican Council I:
(again, emphasis mine)

And all this is summed up in Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
(taken from a post by ItsJustDave.)

I think what Ott is saying is what I’m saying but using different words. Surely he would know better than I.

Ott uses the word “actual grace” but I’m not sure what he means by “actual grace” but it I’m thinking it isn’t the type of grace needed for salvation and what Akin calls “sufficient grace.”

Ott says a person doesn’t need “sanctifying grace” in order to do good works. True “sanctifying grace” is what Akin calls “efficacious grace.”

A person with just “suffiicient grace” can still do good works apart from faith even, but NOT receive salvation, however that person did still have “grace” given to him/her, at least in some measure [sufficient grace], thus every good act we perform is because of Gods grace; how one defines the grace given in words is what can confuse many.

Ott also says “the grace of faith isn’t necessary for the performance of a morally good action.”
Again, true that every person does receive “sufficient grace” yet never respondes to that grace by their own free will, and thus won’t accept “efficacious grace” [also known as sanctifying grace] which is the type of grace that is needed for salvation.

You quoted Vatican l which says in the highlighted section of the quote… "for there is in nature the power for a rational soul to think and do lawfuly things and this is not blameworthy, but justly and rightly praised."

I think perhaps Vatican l is saying that "there is in nature the power for a rational soul to think and do lawfuly things" means that in mans soul there is the ability to “know” right and wrong which God first put in that soul which is a grace itself, therefore we still have to have grace of some measure in order to do any good.

I think the statement “in nature” is refering to the natural law written on the hearts of everyone.

Catholic Catechism:
**

"**[1954](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1954.htm’)**** Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted."** This is saying that natural law [which is a grace of sorts what I call sufficient grace] gives everyone the ability to know right from wrong * and is written on our hearts from birth, therefore there has to be some sort of “grace” which God has given everyone that enables them to do any good whatsoever.***

---

---

Scripture also addresses the natural law written on our hearts.

---

Romans 2:15:
** “**since they show that the *requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences *also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.”

---

---

If you could give me a reference [since there wasn’t one] to where in Vatican l that is found I’d like to look it up.

---

 

[Bishopite]

Steven Merten asked hurst this question:

Originally Posted by Steven Merten
Hello hurst,

So are you saying that we, through free will, choose to do good works and after this God imputs grace into us?

And hurst answered:

Yes. The test is whether we would do the same good works to God Himself as we would do to other people.

If you are saying that we do good works then God gives us but doesn’t give us grace prior to that then that is FALSE and NOT part of Catholic theology, Protestant nor Christianity either and you would be advocating pelagianism which is a heresy, condemned in 529 at the council of Orange. I didn’t see this post earlier but I wanted to respond to it. So if you could qualify what you meant it would be appreciated.

 

[hurst]

Bishopite:

And hurst answered:

Yes. The test is whether we would do the same good works to God Himself as we would do to other people.

If you are saying that we do good works then God gives us but doesn’t give us grace prior to that then that is FALSE and NOT part of Catholic theology, Protestant nor Christianity either and you would be advocating pelagianism which is a heresy, condemned in 529 at the council of Orange. … So if you could qualify what you meant it would be appreciated.

Oops, I meant good acts, those that we have the power in our own nature to make.

I thought I made myself clear, but I understand that this is a tricky topic. I had said many times that we cannot do anything “good” without God’s grace, and said the witch feeding Hansel and Gretel, or an animal feeding its young do not constitute “good works”. But after Verbum Caro pointed out a distinction between meritorious good works and “morally good actions”, I realized that he was right, for even animals do good actions in that sense. But I don’t call them “good works”. I got thrown off focus a little in post #23 where Steve refers to good act(s) as good works. After that it got mixed up a couple times with good acts.

To distinguish between “good acts” and “good works” is only artificial at this point, since we are talking informally. I am using the term “good act” now to be a natural act which is ordered to its nature as God intended, such as feeding oneself to avoid dying. This has been termed as a “morally good action”, and is not something that requires God to give special grace for beforehand, since He already gave us the ability in our nature. I use the term “good works” to refer to something done that pleases God and is meritorious, but only because it is done in grace.

I also refer to actions done in our hearts at times. I think that part of our nature being made in the image of God is capable of judgment and reason. We can naturally distinguish and choose. While it is true that because of original sin we tend to choose evil, that doesn’t take away from the fact that we retain the ability to choose good. Otherwise, God would have to save us against our will.

Now, let me elaborate on this a moment. We have the ability to go against our own nature. Our free will, part of our soul, can override our natural earthly tendency or instinct. But the natural instinct can serve as practise for our free will to correspond with life. Would this be called grace? I don’t think it is. But for the free will to correspond with natural goodness is a source of natural virtue for the soul, which will be needed to respond to grace. God uses our good actions to catch us in grace, so to speak. If we freely care about preserving our body, then perhaps we will also freely care about preserving our soul. So at some point, God enlightens us to this and lets us freely choose accordingly.

Thus, what I am saying is that we must have “natural” virtue before we can obtain “spiritual” virtue. Did not God follow a progressive course with man over time?

1 Cor 15:46 Yet that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; afterwards that which is spiritual.

Secondly, God makes our virtue praiseworthy by proving it and elevating it.

Luke 14:10 But when thou art invited, go, sit down in the lowest place; that when he who invited thee, cometh, he may say to thee: Friend, go up higher. Then shalt thou have glory before them that sit at table with thee.

Proverbs 11:18 The wicked maketh an unsteady work: but to him that soweth justice, there is a faithful reward.

In a very real way, our natural actions will lead to our being lost or saved. While it is true that we cannot save ourselves by our actions, it is also true that we will not be saved unless we act, albeit on grace which comes apart from our actions. We must cooperate with God for our salvation.

Once we receive grace, we continue to act, but on a higher level. Our natural habit has been elevated, but we still need to be acting. These would be the good works we must be doing and that require God’s grace to be of any value or effect. Just as in the natural case, though, we can freely choose to turn from doing good and throw it all away. We must persevere in doing good works in order to be saved, yet we cannot do any good works without grace, and although we needed to be doing natural good acts before receiving grace, it was only through God’s mercy and love that He gave us that grace, which was earned by Our Savior.

So this is how I currently understand natural good acts to precede grace, which precedes good works.

hurst

 

[Steven_Merten]

hurst:

Oops, I meant good acts, those that we have the power in our own nature to make…

…I got thrown off focus a little in post #23 where Steve refers to good act(s) as good works. After that it got mixed up a couple times with good acts…

I also refer to actions done in our hearts at times. I think that part of our nature being made in the image of God is capable of judgment and reason. **We can naturally distinguish and choose. While it is true that because of original sin we tend to choose evil, that doesn’t take away from the fact that we retain the ability to choose good. Otherwise, God would have to save us against our will. **

Now, let me elaborate on this a moment. We have the ability to go against our own nature. Our free will, part of our soul, can override our natural earthly tendency or instinct. But the natural instinct can serve as practise for our free will to correspond with life. Would this be called grace? I don’t think it is. But for the free will to correspond with natural goodness is a source of natural virtue for the soul, which will be needed to respond to grace. God uses our good actions to catch us in grace, so to speak. If we freely care about preserving our body, then perhaps we will also freely care about preserving our soul. So at some point, God enlightens us to this and lets us freely choose accordingly.

Thus, what I am saying is that we must have “natural” virtue before we can obtain “spiritual” virtue. Did not God follow a progressive course with man over time?

Once we receive grace, we continue to act, but on a higher level. Our natural habit has been elevated, but we still need to be acting. These would be the good works we must be doing and that require God’s grace to be of any value or effect. Just as in the natural case, though, we can freely choose to turn from doing good and throw it all away. **We must persevere in doing good works in order to be saved, yet we cannot do any good works without grace, **and although we needed to be doing natural good acts before receiving grace, it was only through God’s mercy and love that He gave us that grace, which was earned by Our Savior.

So this is how I currently understand natural good acts to precede grace, which precedes good works.

hurst

Hello Hurst and Bishopite,

Hurst, you are not the only one who is getting mixed up on how the Church looks at good works and good actions.

To put this into actual events, how do you see my comparison of Pope John Paul II and Adolph Hitler?

Certianly I think we agree that Pope John Paul II is glorified by the Church as doing good and Hitler is scorned by the Church and the world as doing evil. Is it Pope John Paul II’s good works or his good actions that he is glorified by the Church? Is the Church guilty of “pelagianism” by glorifying, or not stopping glorification, of Pope John Paul II?

Did Pope John Paul II do good works which God chose to work through him and which God did not choose to work through Hitler? In this case should not the Church glorify God for choosing to do good works through Pope John Paul II which God did not choose to preform through Hitler? As you have stated, faith and grace have nothing to do with who God decides to preform good works through.

If it is Pope John Paul II’s good actions which the Church glorifies him for, is this “pelagianism” because Church leaders do not make it clear that what Pope John Paul II has done is not meritous, nor does it make him a saint (salvation)? As you have defined Church teaching, anyway.

I do not see it as being clear as to when and who we should glorify when a human does something good. I am not sure when and how an individual would be guilty of “pelagianism” for glorifying a person like Pope John Paul II and when it is ok to do so. When how and why should we glorify someone like John Paul II over a guy like Adolph Hitler?

What do you, Hurst and Bishopite, think on the issue?

Peace,
Steven

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Steven Merten:

Could Hitler have been as loving as Pope John Paul II, had God chosen to induced him to be so?

I’ve read that Hitler was baptized a Catholic as an infant. Thus, he was made righteous ex opere operato, persuming his baptism to be valid. He fell from grace. Seems both John Paul II and Adolf Hitler started out in life with the same grace. God did indeed choose to induce Hitler to be holy. Yet God’s gifts are not irresistible.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

bishopite:
You have quoted Vatican l and Ludwig Ott from Dave which does suggest that we can do good works apart from grace, but if God gives everyone sufficient grace by virtue of their birth/life then any good work they do is because of His grace, that would be the logical extention of that assertion.

Interesting point, but consider again what Vatican II taught in Gaudium Et Spes.

There is grace from God that is sanctifying, and there is grace from God that is not sanctifying. Sanctifying grace is a prerequisite for salutory acts or supernatural good works. What Ludwig Ott is referring to is the possibility of man, by nature (not anything supernatural) doing *natural good works. *He describes this possibility as a de fide teaching of the Church.

Furthermore, Gaudium Et Spes does not indicate* when *this grace is given. It could be given right before one dies, which would give them a whole lifetime of natural good works before any possibility of supernatural good works.

Gaudium Et Spes does not imply that sanctifying grace is ever given to all mankind (which I find doubtful), but could imply that grace of Christ which does not sanctify, but prepares the will and intellect to cooperate with God.

According to MSgr Paul J. Glenn, A Tour of the Summa:

1. Grace given to make the receiver holy is sanctifying grace*… Grace given to one person for the benefit and holiness of others is gratuitous grace; *such for example, is the grace of miracles, or the grace of prophecy.
2. Grace that directly moves the mind and will to act is operating grace*; *grace which disposes mind and will to receive and use operating grace is ***cooperating grace. ***…
3. ***Santifying grace ***sets man directly in line with God, his last end. ***Gratuitous grace ***stirs man and prepares him to get in line with his last end. Thus a man observing a miracle (wrought by the gratuitous grace of miralces in the person God uses and instruments to perform the miralce) may be stirred to repentance or to deeper piety, and so be moved to obtain sanctifying grace.

… By accepting cooperating grace, we enter into the disposition which prepares us for the receiving of sanctifying or habitual grace.

… In so far as the human will can thus (by accepting cooperating grace and using it) make preparation for grace, it can set up no necessity or demand that grace should actually follow upon the preparation. (pg. 180-181)

my note: This is why I think the Protestants are biased against our terminology of “cooperation,” as they believe we think our understanding of cooperation sets up some kind of condign obligation upon God to give us sanctifying grace [aka ‘condign merit’] . This, of course, is an incorrect understanding of our use of “cooperation.”].

For example, Cain was given this kind of non-sanctifying cooperating grace when God told him that sin was crouching at his door, and he must master sin. Cain rejected this grace from God.

I think the term “sufficient grace for all” is misleading, as “sufficient grace” may mean sanctifying grace, depending upon one’s school of thought.

Instead, I believe there is a grace from God which calls, moves and arouses man’s intellect and will, whereby it disposes and prepares man for the sanctifying grace of justification. (cf. canon 4, Council of Trent, canons on Justification, D 814). I believe it is by this kind of non-sanctifying grace that “*God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery” *(Gaudium et spes, 22). This “light” that God offers to every man can be rejected, and in such cases, sanctifying grace does not follow.

This what I think St. Augustine meant when he asserted:

That light, however, does not nourish the eyes of irrational birds, but the pure hearts of those men who believe in God and turn from the love of visible and temporal things to the fulfilling of His precepts. **All men can do this if they will, because that light illuminates every man coming into this world. **(Genesis Defended Against the Manicheans, AD 389)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Nevertheless, Dr. Ott asserts as certain teaching of the Church:

Actual Grace is not necessary for the performance of a morally good acion. (sent. certa.)
Fallen man can perform good works without help of Divine grace, by his natural powers alone. Therefore not all works which are acheived without actual grace are sins. (ibid., 235)

Ott defines actual grace as, that grace which “internally and directly enlightens the understanding and strengthens the will.” (ibid., pg 225)

Likewise, according to St. Thomas Aquinas,

"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).

 

[hurst]

Steven Merten:

…
Certianly I think we agree that Pope John Paul II is glorified by the Church as doing good and Hitler is scorned by the Church and the world as doing evil.

Actually, the Church is not glorifying him. Many people are calling for him to be declared a saint, and the Church is investigating the matter.
Steven Merten:

Is it Pope John Paul II’s good works or his good actions that he is glorified by the Church?

He has not been declared a saint at this point, but if he is, then for both.
Steven Merten:

Is the Church guilty of “pelagianism” by glorifying, or not stopping glorification, of Pope John Paul II?

If the Church determines he is not worthy of the honor, then it will stop people from publicly honoring him with dulia. And in fact, until the investigation is done, people should not render him dulia.

But it is the people who are acclaiming him “the great”, or “sancto sabito”, etc. That just served to call to the Church’s attention to start the process sooner.

But even if people do so, I don’t think it would be pelagianism, but disobedience.
Steven Merten:

Did Pope John Paul II do good works which God chose to work through him and which God did not choose to work through Hitler?

This requires clarification, since two issues are involved: 1)God doing works, 2) people cooperating with God. I posted earlier that God can work through someone without that person benefitting personally. So in this sense, it is no merit to the person, e.g. Balaam, Saul, Caiphas. etc. No credit is given to those persons. So whether these kind of works were done in either JPII or Hitler is not considered. Instead, what is considered are those works which JPII cooperated with God in, and that is for the Church to decide in the process currently under way.
Steven Merten:

In this case should not the Church glorify God for choosing to do good works through Pope John Paul II which God did not choose to preform through Hitler?

As you put it, yes. So should we glorify only God for speaking through the malicious Caiphas, Balaam, or Saul. In such cases, they did not respond with good will, but God acted through them nonetheless.
Steven Merten:

As you have stated, faith and grace have nothing to do with who God decides to preform good works through.

I could not find where I state this. I think it would be more accurate to say our actions, no matter how good in themselves, do not oblige God to give us grace.

What I have said is:
hurst #26:

So, not that good works obligate God to do anything for us, but rather, they enable God’s gift of grace to have its intended effect, if and when He gives it (which means we should also long for it)!

Steven Merten:

If it is Pope John Paul II’s good actions which the Church glorifies him for, is this “pelagianism” because Church leaders do not make it clear that what Pope John Paul II has done is not meritous, nor does it make him a saint (salvation)? As you have defined Church teaching, anyway.

I think you have a wrong impression of pelagianism. Pelagianism is the error that says we can save ourselves by our own efforts.

It is not an error to honor someone for their merits. Merits are a positive teaching of the Church. We were purchased by the merits of Christ, and we too, can and should acquire merits in our own right, done in cooperation with the grace of God. We don’t merit to receive God’s grace, but the good we do with that grace does redound to our merit and honor.
Steven Merten:

I do not see it as being clear as to when and who we should glorify when a human does something good.

When and if the Church judges that they did them in God’s grace, then we are permitted to render them dulia. The Church is basically saying that the person is with God, and God hears their prayers. This is why miracles are required.
Steven Merten:

I am not sure when and how an individual would be guilty of “pelagianism” for glorifying a person like Pope John Paul II and when it is ok to do so.

When they say he was so good, he didn’t need Jesus to go to heaven. When they say they don’t need the Church to tell them his virtues are worthy to render him public dulia. (Private veneration is not prohibited, from what I understand).
Steven Merten:

When how and why should we glorify someone like John Paul II over a guy like Adolph Hitler?

Again, when the Church establishes it. They check out his life and determine if he lived virtuously. They determine whether anything he wrote or taught is contrary to the Faith or not. They check a number of things. They also listen to testimonies of others in this regard. And solid evidence of miracles by their intercession is also required.

hurst

 

[Bishopite]

Oops, I meant good acts, those that we have the power in our own nature to make.

I thought I made myself clear, but I understand that this is a tricky topic. I had said many times that we cannot do anything “good”
without God’s grace,

Right. That’s called in the theological sense sufficient grace [which everyone gets] and efficacious grace [which only those who cooperate with sufficient grace] get and is the type of grace necessary for eternal reward.

I also refer to actions done in our hearts at times. I think that part of our nature being made in the image of God is capable of judgment and reason. We can naturally distinguish and choose. While it is true that because of original sin we tend to choose evil, that doesn’t take away from the fact that we retain the ability to choose good. Otherwise, God would have to save us against our will.

Exactly You just explained the natural law, concupiscience and cooperating with Gods grace [aka synergism].

Now, let me elaborate on this a moment. We have the ability to go against our own nature. Our free will, part of our soul, can override our natural earthly tendency or instinct. But the natural instinct can serve as practise for our free will to correspond with life. Would this be called grace? I don’t think it is.

No, it’s not grace,you just decribed free will. Grace is an unearned gift from God that He gives us even though we don’t deserve it.

Thus, what I am saying is that we must have “natural” virtue before we can obtain “spiritual” virtue. Did not God follow a progressive course with man over time?

1 Cor 15:46 Yet that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; afterwards that which is spiritual.

Sure, I see your point. Yet both are because God first gave them to us.

Secondly, God makes our virtue praiseworthy by proving it and elevating it.

Luke 14:10 But when thou art invited, go, sit down in the lowest place; that when he who invited thee, cometh, he may say to thee: Friend, go up higher. Then shalt thou have glory before them that sit at table with thee.

Right. I agree.

In a very real way, our natural actions will lead to our being lost or saved. While it is true that we cannot save ourselves by our actions, it is also true that we will not be saved unless we act, albeit on grace which comes apart from our actions. We must cooperate with God for our salvation.

Yes, I would say sufficient grace comes without our actions, efficacious grace with our cooperation/actions toward God by virtue of our free will, which is what you are saying but using different words.

Once we receive grace, we continue to act, but on a higher level. Our natural habit has been elevated, but we still need to be acting. These would be the good works we must be doing and that require God’s grace to be of any value or effect. Just as in the natural case, though, we can freely choose to turn from doing good and throw it all away. We must persevere in doing good works in order to be saved, yet we cannot do any good works without grace, and although we needed to be doing natural good acts before receiving grace, it was only through God’s mercy and love that He gave us that grace, which was earned by Our Savior.

Well said.

So this is how I currently understand natural good acts to precede grace, which precedes good works.

hurst

I see what you are saying. The only thing about using the word(s)
“works” or “good works” especially when speaking to or interacting with Protestants, is that we as Catholics need to clarify what “works” we are talking about, since Protestants almost always, when they here the word works think of it as what you have decribed as “natural good acts.”
Works and works under grace are two differing types of works, one is useless for enternal salvation the other meritorious.

 

[Bishopite]

itsjustdave1988]
Interesting point, but consider again what Vatican II taught in Gaudium Et Spes.

There is grace from God that is sanctifying, and there is grace from God that is not sanctifying.

Right two different types of what theologians call “actual grace.” Sufficient grace is given to everyone, efficacious grace which is sanctifying grace, and is only given to those who cooperate with sufficient grace. What Catholic theologians call two differing types of grace.

Furthermore, Gaudium Et Spes does not indicate* when* this grace is given. It could be given right before one dies, which would give them a whole lifetime of natural good works before any possibility of supernatural good works.

Right. The parable of the workers in the field [Matthew 20:1-15]would perhaps be apropos.
Gaudium Et Spes does not imply that sanctifying grace is ever given to all mankind (which I find doubtful), but could imply that grace of Christ which does not sanctify, but prepares the will and intellect to cooperate with God.

Exactly. That’s what I said prior. All mankind is given sufficient grace [what’s been described as natural grace, natural man etc by others]. Efficacious grace is only given to some because only some will cooperate with Gods love.

According to MSgr Paul J. Glenn, *A *

Tour* of the *Summa:
For example, Cain was given this kind of non-sanctifying cooperating grace when God told him that sin was crouching at his door, and he must master sin. Cain rejected this grace from God.

Sure.

I think the term "sufficient

grace for all" is misleading, as “sufficient grace” may mean sanctifying grace, depending upon one’s school of thought.

Maybe to some but I don’t think it is. “Sufficient grace” is sufficient in that it enables man to qualitatively come to God. It is a term used by Jimmy Akin of “Catholic Answers” who uses it in his book “The Salvation Controversy” page 81.

And theologian Fr. William G. Most an expert on grace and predestination also uses sufficient and efficacious grace. This is from EWTN’s library.
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTURE/2THOMIST.TXT

They are theological terms, but like every word or sentence they sometimes need explanations and interpretations.

And let’s remember that there are MANY other Catholic theological words that are vastly more misleading, yet mean something else.

Take for instance the word merit. I don’t know about ya’ll but being a former Protestant when I heard Catholics use the word “merit” I thought they were speaking of strict earning or what some have decribed as natural works. However, the word merit comes from the Latin word meritum which means reward and not strict earning. Only Christ can earn anything in the strict sense, we earn things in an analogous sense.

Instead, I believe there is a grace from God which calls, moves and arouses man’s intellect and will, whereby it disposes and prepares man for the sanctifying grace of justification. (cf. canon 4, Council of Trent, canons on Justification, D 814). I believe it is by this kind of non-sanctifying grace that “*God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery” *

(Gaudium et spes, 22). This “light” that God offers to every man can be rejected, and in such cases, sanctifying grace does not follow.

Sure, I agree. I suppose we could argue over semantics. You don’t like sufficient but that’s what the Catholic Encyclopedia www.newadvent.com uses to describe the grace that’s given to man that ISN’T sanctifying grace. Both are types of “actual grace.”

Fr. William G. Most a theologian, Jimmy Akin a well studied apologist and I’m sure many other Catholic apologists and theologians use it too. www.newadvent.com is written by very erudite and othorodox Roman Catholic theologians, so I’d perhaps keep that in mind. I’m not making up the words just to try to sound like I’m “Mr. intelligent,” not at all, I’m just conveying what I’ve read/heard from orthodox Catholic theologians who know far more than I.

 

[hurst]

Bishopite:

…
I see what you are saying.

Thanks for going through each point.

Bishopite:

The only thing about using the word(s)
“works” or “good works” especially when speaking to or interacting with Protestants, is that we as Catholics need to clarify what “works” we are talking about, since Protestants almost always, when they here the word works think of it as what you have decribed as “natural good acts.”

Or maybe they think of them as “pious works” or as “works of the law” or maybe something else.

I used to think a similar thing, that we just need to differentiate between works of the law and of grace.

But now I am convinced that most Protestants are in a much more serious error than I previously thought. It is not just a matter of the semantics of words. It is a mindset that taints all other points of doctrine. From what I have come to understand, they primarily deny the concept of created free will being able to act as a “secondary cause” of good. They likewise deny the need (or capability) for a soul to cooperate in the work of its own sanctification. They deny the action and merit of a soul that freely does good.

Thus they claim that any good they do is God doing it.

For example, Luther promotes the idea that “faith is God’s work in us”, and that “Faith cannot help doing good works constantly”. iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt

So instead of believing that God elevates the good we do, they believe that God “imputes” righteousness to us in spite of our inability to freely do any good. This had led to different conclusions and caused Protestantism to branch into calvinism, OSAS, and other variations. For what determines who receives this faith, if it is nothing we do? Some say God, and thus conclude God either saves everyone, or only a select group. Others say that we choose to do the single work of believing (John 6:29), but after that everything is covered by God.

At the same time, they contradict themselves in this. For example, Luther said “Ask God to work faith in you, or you will remain forever without faith, no matter what you wish, say or can do.” What is that but prayer seeking to obtain that faith that leads unto salvation? Yet elsewhere he calls prayers useless “good works” trying to obtain salvation if they are not doing the works of the commandments!

On the other hand, parents cannot earn eternal punishment in any way more easily than by neglecting their own children in their own home, and not teaching them the things which have been spoken of above. Of what help is it, that they kill themselves with fasting, praying, making pilgrimages, and do all manner of good works? God will, after all, not ask them about these things at their death and in the day of judgment, but will require of them the children whom He entrusted to them.
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/work-05.txt

So, while they deny human action in salvation, it is hidden in there, at the very beginning.

And it is this denial has led to the rejection of honoring the saints for their merits, or rejection of infant baptism for salvation before faith, or rejection of indulgences as application of merits, or rejection of the Mass as a source of graces, etc.

So it isn’t just a misunderstanding of the semantics of the word “works”. As you can see, they reject any works as a cause, whether by nature or grace. They deny the need (or capability) for a soul to cooperate in the work of its own sanctification.

They may think they are giving more glory to God in this, but in fact they are denying He created us with a free will and a good nature.

Bishopite:

Works and works under grace are two differing types of works, one is useless for enternal salvation the other meritorious.

I would not say that natural works are totally useless for eternal salvation. They are like training wheels for our free will until we are enlightened. I think God leverages our natural disposition for our spiritual benefit by giving us grace at the best time. Our enlightened will can then choose to do good by applying what it did in earthly things to spiritual things. Jesus made use of this in His parables, using His hearers’ understanding of the world to lead them to an understanding of the Kingdom.

**
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

 

[thistle]

Some people sincerely try to do what is right but have no opportunity to learn about Christ. These are said to have an implicit baptism of desire, and the Church teaches that they can be saved. This teaching has a basis in scripture. The parable of the Last Judgement in Matthew 25 implies that some will be saved because they ministered to Christ in the poor and hungry, even though they were unaware of his presence.

 

[Bishopite]

Steven Merten]Hello Hurst and Bishopite,

Hurst, you are not the only one who is getting mixed up on how the Church looks at good works and good actions.

Maybe I can make it easier to understand.

Many people, i.e. philanthropists do good personal works let me put it that way, however, if they do them in the self-serving sense or to bolster themselves or NOT out of love or for the glory of Christ, i.e. Gal 5:6…faith working through love…then those works are useless.

Works done what some have called supernatural works which are those works to glorify God alone, i.e. Matthew 25…he that has done it to the least of these has done it to Me…Jesus said and do it wihthout expecting anything in return only the glory of God, then those are supernatural works because they are done
for Gods glory and done through faith.

 

[aaronjmagnan]

I think it was St. Thomas Aquinas (who has answered almost every question people ask here in a way consistent with the Bible, Church teaching AND logic [which are one and the same]) who developed the primary theology behind this question. Church tradition, and that means all of the early fathers, assert that without God we are useless. Christ being the revelation to all men, whether they accept it or not, would mean that same thing.

Constantine, who aided in the promotion of Catholicism and its validation as a religion, was not a Catholic, and he did a good work moved by God. Thus, God works in all men, but Christians have direct access to His graces by Sacraments. Any other grace is by His will, which is not limited by our elitism or speculation.

God bless,
Aaron Magnan