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

[itsjustdave1988]

Bishopite,

You have many quesitons, I’d figure we’d take turns.

You asked, “Is God the source of evil in His active will?” I answered. You had more questions. Do I get to ask any, or am I just the answer man?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Bishopite:

I’m wondering what Otts definition is of “Divine grace”?

Answer: Ott already provides the context for this answer, when he says “by his natural powers alone.” Thus, supernatural intervention by God is not required for man to act without sin.

We’ve already established that God is the Causa Prima for the continued existence of every being and the enabling force which impels the acts of every being, whether those acts are good or evil. This is called Divine Concurrence, which does not pertain to the superantural order, but only to the natural order. Thus, “Divine grace” is not the natural sustaining and enabling power of God, which is called Divine Concurence.

By Divine Concurrence, without supernatural grace, man can act morally or immorally. Yet, no matter how they act naturally, one cannot attain eternal life without special supernatural intervention by God.

Also from Dr. Ott:

The Catholic doctrine of grace stands between two extremes. Against the naturalism of the Pelagians and modern Rationalism, it defends the absolute necessity of gratia elevans, and the moral necessity of gratia sanans. Against the exaggerated supernaturalism of the Reformers, Baians, and ZJansenists, ***it defends man’s NATURAL capacity to act in the sphere of religion and morals WITHOUT GRACE. ***In opposition to both extremes, Catholic Theology distinguishes sharply between a natural and a supernatural order, between a natural and a supernatural religion and morality. (Ott, 233).

Again, in context, “grace” does not refer to Divine Concurrence, but to supernatural intervention by God.

Dr. Ott explicity asserts as certain Catholic doctrine (sententia certa), the following: “Actual Grace is not necessary for the performance of a morally good actions” (Ott, 235)

Is it equivilant to a Thomists view of efficacious grace?

No.

So…then tell me who gave the pagan man his “natural powers?” Man? or God?

As previously answered, Divine Concurrence gives every living thing (plants, animals, man, angels) the conservative power to exists. Every action of every creauture is impelled to act by Divine Concurrence. This is not a supernatural intervention by God, but pertains to the natural order.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Dave,

Thank you. Your posts # 90, # 92, # 93, and # 102, taken together is such a concise, accurate, and understandable distillation of the necessity of grace that I want to print them out and make a little booklet to carry with me.

Outstanding job once again.

VC

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Thanks VC.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Ott is not alone in his assertions. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1909):

Grace (De gratia)
The Christian idea of grace is based entirely upon the supernatural order. A distinction is made between actual and sanctifying grace, according as there is question of a supernatural activity or merely the state of sanctification. But the crucial point in the whole doctrine of grace lies in the justification of the sinner, because, after all, the aim and object of actual grace is either to lay the foundation for the grace of justification when the latter is absent, or to preserve the grace of justification in the soul that already possesses it. The three qualities of actual grace are of the utmost importance: its necessity, its gratuitousness, and its universality. Although on the one hand we must avoid the exaggeration of the Reformers, and of the followers of Baius and Jansenius, who denied the capability of unaided nature altogether in moral action, yet, on the other hand, theologians agree that fallen man is quite incapable, without the help of God’s grace, of either fulfilling the whole natural law or of resisting all strong temptations. But actual grace is absolutely necessary for each and every salutary act, since all such acts bear a causal relation towards the supernatural end of man. The heretical doctrines of Pelagianism and Semipelagianism are refuted by the Church’s doctrinal decisions based upon Holy Scripture and Tradition. From the supernatural character of grace flows its second quality: gratuitousness. So entirely gratuitous is grace that no natural merit, no positive capability or preparation for it on the part of nature, nor even any purely natural petition, is able to move God to give us actual grace. The universality of grace rests fundamentally upon the absolute universality of God’s salvific will, which, in regard to adults, simply means His antecedent will to distribute sufficient grace to each and every person, whether he be already justified or in the state of sin, whether he be Christian or heathen, believer or infidel. But the salvific will, in as far as it is consequent and deals out just retribution, is no longer universal, but particular, for the reason that only those who persevere in justice, enter heaven, whereas the wicked are condemned to hell.

(Catholic Encyclopedia - Dogmatic Theology)

Note the distinction above as to God’s antecedent will and His consequent will, with regard to the universality of grace. Antecedent means, “precedes the free act of God’s will,” God’s Will of desire, in other words. Consequent means “coincides with the free act of God’s will,” referred to as God’s Will of Decree.

It appears there’s still some disagreement within Catholic theology as to what this means. The only reference I’ve been able to find from magisterial texts is that of Pope Alexander VIII, who condemend the Jansenist proposition that pagans, Jews, heretics and others of this kind “do not receive in any way any influence from Jesus Christ” and are “*without any sufficient grace” *(cf. Denzinger 1295). But this does not necessarily mean that all (each and every person) is given sufficient grace. So, the Church is still a bit ambiguous as to wether sufficient grace is absolutely given (via God’s consequent will or Will of Decree) to each and every person.

One difficulty is that of infants who die without sacramental baptism. They would have no need for sufficient grace, as such grace requires a faculty of the will that infants do not yet possess. One might then assert that such infants are given efficiacious grace instead of sufficient grace, but does this apply to all infants who might die without baptism? The Church has not asserted this, but does pray that God does extra-sacramentally and mercifully sanctify infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC 1261)

 

[Bishopite]

Dave,

Ok, well done Dave except for the fact that you didn’t answer my question, but that’s up to you to decide if you will answer it or not. As I’ve decided to answer yours. I can’t and won’t find anything that the Magisterium says about sufficient grace since it is speculative theology as is your position, simply because the Magisterium has NEVER made a conclusive statement about the nature of grace and its effects upon the soul.

Catholic theologians as to what sufficient grace actually means.
Thomists and Molinists disagree,nevertheless, here’s what I found. Two different sources. The first is the Catholic Encyclopedia online. www.newadvent.com specifically at newadvent.org/cathen/06689x.htm an orthodox Catholic site written by theologians.

"A second pair of graces important for the understanding of the controversies on grace is that of efficacious and merely sufficient grace (gratia efficax et mere sufficiens). By efficacious grace is understood that Divine assistance which, considered even in actu primo, includes with infallible certainty, and consequently in its definition, the free salutary act; for did it remain inefficacious, it would cease to be efficacious and would therefore be self-contradictory. As to whether the infallibility of its success is the result of the physical nature of this grace or of the infallible foreknowledge of God (scientia media) is a much debated question between Thomists and Molinists which need not be further treated here. Its existence, however, is admitted as an article of faith by both sides and is established with the same firmness as the predestination of the elect or the existence of a heaven peopled with innumerable saints. As to “merely sufficient grace”, Calvinists and Jansenists have, as is well known, eliminated it from their doctrinal system. They admitted only efficacious graces whose action overpowers the will and leaves no room for freedom. If Jansen (d. 1638) nominally admitted “sufficient grace”, calling it “little grace” (gratia parva), he understood by it, in reality, only “insufficient grace”, i.e. “one from which no action can result, except its insufficiency be removed by another grace” (De grat. Christ., IV, x). He did not shrink from reviling sufficient grace, understood in the Catholic sense, as a monstrous conception and a means of filling hell with reprobates, while later Jansenists discovered in it such a pernicious character as to infer the appropriateness of the prayer: “a gratia sufficiente, libera nos Domine” (“From sufficient grace, O Lord deliver us”. – Cf. prop. 6 damn. ab Alex. VIII, a. 1690 in Denzinger, n. 1296). The Catholic idea of sufficient grace is obtained by the distinction of a twofold element in every actual grace, its intrinsic energy (potestas agendi, vis) and its extrinsic efficiency (efficientia). Under the former aspect there exists between sufficient and efficacious grace, both considered in actu primo, no real, but only a logical, distinction; for sufficient grace also confers full power for action, but is condemned to unfruitfulness owing to the free resistance of the will. If, on the contrary, extrinsic efficiency be considered, it is evident that the will either co-operates freely or not . If it refuses its co-operation, even the strongest grace remains a merely sufficient one (gratia mere sufficiens) although by nature it would have been completely sufficient (gratia vere sufficiens) and with good will could have been efficacious. This ecclesiastical conception of the nature of sufficient grace, to which the Catholic systems of grace must invariably conform themselves, is nothing else but a reproduction of the teaching of the Bible. To cite only one text (Prov., i 24),…"

---

continued…

 

[Bishopite]

itsjustdave1988]

But this does not necessarily mean that all (each and every person) is given sufficient grace. So, the Church is still a bit ambiguous as to wether sufficient grace is absolutely given (via God’s consequent will or Will of Decree) to each and every person.

But as a Catholic I can still hold to the Thomistic view of grace, you are attempting to assert and affirm that I can’t. And your position ISN’T absolutely THE correct one is it??
Mine is as valid as yours and Jimmy Akin (also a Thomist) of Catholic Answers who is one of the best Catholic apologists in the US, if not the best says something in direct opposition to your view in his book “The Salvation Controversy” page 81:

**"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 the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.” (Guaudium et Spes 22)

This is one of a number of accepted views by the Catholic Church on grace, Thomistic, Molinistic, Augustinian,Conguistic and Sycretistic view; all speculative theology. If anyone has one of these views as a Catholic then that’s alright with me, I’m not saying that mine is absolutely the correct one

My point in this whole thread is that my position is as valid as yours and the Magisterium hasn’t come to a conclusion one way or another, therefore I can assert as a Roman Catholic and as Jimmy Akin affirms that though God may give efficacious grace only to some, **God gives sufficient grace to all, thereby making Gods grace necessary for any good work done with or without faith. **

You say a person can do good works apart from Gods grace, I say they can’t and I guess we will have to agree to disagree

 

[Bishopite]

One difficulty is that of infants who die without sacramental baptism. They would have no need for sufficient grace, as such grace requires a faculty of the will that infants do not yet possess. One might then assert that such infants are given efficiacious grace instead of sufficient grace, but does this apply to all infants who might die without baptism? The Church has not asserted this, but does pray that God does extra-sacramentally and mercifully sanctify infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC 1261)

Actually, if everyone receives sufficient grace by virtue of their conception in that they are an eternal soul, then babies would also receive sufficient grace. However they wouldn’t have the culpablity of the sin of not choosing God through free will since they don’t posess the mental faculties necessary for that choice. But again that’s just my opinion.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Bishopite:

**"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.
(. . .)
**God gives sufficient grace to all, thereby making Gods grace necessary for any good work done with or without faith. **

Bishopite,

Please allow me to interject, although I do not wish to derail the present discussion that you and Dave are having.

It occurs to me that part of the problem here is that you may be misunderstanding what sufficient grace is. (Or perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by it?)

From your post above, it looks like you think sufficient grace is a constantly operating principle, sort of like a continuous outpouring of grace. But this is not what it is. You yourself quoted the dictonary definition for sufficient grace as: “Actual grace considered apart from the supernatural effect for which it was bestowed”.

Actual grace is not, like sanctifying grace, habitual. It comes and goes, it is transitory. Therefore sufficient grace (which is a actual grace considered apart from the supernatural effect) is also transitory.

So, the fact that God gives everyone sufficient grace does NOT mean that that gift of sufficient grace precedes every good natural act.

Implicit in your argument “God gives sufficient grace to all, thereby making Gods grace necessary for any good work done with or without faith” is a conception that this sufficient grace always immediately preceded every good work. Yes and no. It does precede every salutory act or supernatural good work. But it does not have to precede every natural moral act.

Please don’t brush this aside. I am seriously trying to understand your argument and your position. This is of crucial importance to me and I don’t think we should “agree to disagree.” If either of us is in error, or if we need to correct our understanding, I think it required of us that we do so. I do not want to hold error, and I do not want to pass this on to others if it is incorrect.

Again, please read carefull this passage from Fr. Hardon’s Course on Grace:

Many struggled with this question of original sin. One of these was Pelagius, born either in England or Ireland. He later went to Rome. As spiritual director there, he heard people complaining in discouragement that they were unable to keep from sin, through lack of grace. From his own disturbance he emerged with an amazing answer: there is nothing wrong with human nature, no such weakness in it. Man is a moral superman, strong and independent, full master of his destiny: he can do anything, avoid every sin, do any good, even gain the Beatific Vision – without grace. Adam had no grace, lost none for us; in fact he never fell. There was no fall, there is no original sin and hence no need of grace or baptism to remit this sin.

St. Augustine of Hippo struck out fiercely against this, and wrote out boldly: Nature can do *nothing *without grace. The controversy was on – with some monks in Africa, who felt Augustine had gone too far. St. Augustine clarified his position: nature can do nothing salutary, nothing conducive to salvation, without grace. But can human nature do all things natural to it – can it keep the whole moral law – without grace? We answer with St. Thomas and the Church: for a short time, yes; but for a long time, no.

The Fall, then, was devastating. And its extent? Is there complete darkness of mind? Complete loss of freedom? Is man a slave to his passions? Is he depraved? Is his nature corrupted? Luther and Calvin said, Yes. But the Church says, No: man is only deprived – of superadded gifts. The Fall wrought great harm: man lost those supernatural and preternatural gifts, but not free will. Without grace man can still know God and other speculative and moral truths, and can do naturally good acts. But he cannot keep the whole natural law, without grace, for a long time. He is not corrupted or depraved; he is deprived of supernatural and preternatural gifts.

Please give this above quote some consideration. I don’t think Jimmy Akin would contradict Fr. Hardon. I think that you may be misinterpreting Jimmy Akin. Maybe we should pose this question to him directly?

God Bless,
VC

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Bishopite,

Which question of yours remains unanswered? It was difficult to keep track, as there were many.

 

[Bishopite]

Dave asks:

Which question of yours remains unanswered? It was difficult to keep track, as there were many.

Dave,

My question I wanted answered was on post # 94.

You asserted that man with his “natural powers” can do good apart from Gods grace (correct me if I’m wrong). I then asked:

Who gave man his “natural powers” Man? or God?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

But as a Catholic I can still hold to the Thomistic view of grace, you are attempting to assert and affirm that I can’t.

You may certainly hold to a Thomistic view. However, I don’t think it is has an affect upon the question of this thread, as your theological opinion that sufficent grace is given to all does not overturn the sententia certa of the Catholic Church that man can naturally, without actual grace, perform some moral good.

The Catholic Church and the Thomistic view holds:

“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” (*Summa Theologica, *IIa, 109, 2).

Thus, St. Thomas (a Thomist ) asserts that good can be done by man “by virtue of his natural ednowments”, but man cannot persevere in good without supernatural grace. Nor can man do any supernatural good without supernatural grace. Thus, as Verbum Caro pointed out, St. Thomas elsewhere asserted:

… 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 (*Summa Theologica, *IIa, 109, 5)

Sufficient grace, according to even Thomists, is a supernatural intervention by God, and beyond man’s “natural endowments.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Bishopite:

My question I wanted answered was on post # 94.

You asserted that man with his “natural powers” can do good apart from Gods grace (correct me if I’m wrong). I then asked:

Who gave man his “natural powers” Man? or God?

Yes, this was my assertion, St. Augustine’s assertion, St. Thomas’ assertion, the First Vatican Council’s assertion, the Catholic Encyclopedia’s assertion, and Dr. Ludwig Ott’s assertion.

As for your question, my answer was…

As previously answered, Divine Concurrence gives every living thing (plants, animals, man, angels) the conservative power to exists. Every action of every creauture is impelled to act by Divine Concurrence. This is not a supernatural intervention by God, but pertains to the natural order.

Perhaps you didn’t see my answer. But by Divine Concurrence, I presumed the word “Divine” rather explicitly answered your question. Yet you still want us to accept that supernatural grace is needed for the moral acts in the Natural Order. The Catholic Church most certainly disagrees with that thesis.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So, the fact that God gives everyone sufficient grace does NOT mean that that gift of sufficient grace precedes every good natural act.

Exactly the point I was trying to make, but you worded it more clearly.

Whether or not sufficient (actual) grace is given to all mankind is irrelevant to the Catholic doctrine that "Actual grace is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action. (Sent. certa)" [Ott, 235]

 

[Bishopite]

itsjustdave1988:

Whether or not sufficient (actual) grace is given to all mankind is irrelevant to the Catholic doctrine that "Actual grace is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action. (Sent. certa)" [Ott, 235]

Ah, after reading this post and rereading some of your posts and Verbum Caro’s I see where I was in err and now understand what you and Verbum Caro are saying. So, I’ll concede that man can do a morally good action outside of actual grace (and for arguments sake can do a morally good without sufficient grace since it is an actual grace). However man can’t do a salutary good act without actual grace because it is a supernatural act.
Is that correct?

Believe me I want to know what the truth is too!! I even called Catholic Answers yesterday and asked an apologist but I hadn’t figured out specifically what the problem was so that person could only tell me after skimming the postings with little time that they have because they are so busy that we were both correct and should agree to disagree. Well, I didn’t think that was right and either I was correct or Dave and VC were and so it is I haven’t yet read Ott so guess what I’ll ask for Christmas?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Bishopite,

Please allow me to say that you have proven yourself to be a true gentleman. You have comported yourself with charity throughout this discussion, and I admire your post above.

Also, I am deeply edified that you had taken the time to call Catholic Answers to bring this subject up. You are certainly a sincere seeker of the truth. Thank you for your example.

Dave and I teamed up on an almost identical discussion on another thread a while back, but without much fruit. I must tell you that at one time I was not entirely familiar with the complete doctrine on grace but I felt “intuitively” and from what I had been taught, that there was in our nature at least an ability to perform moral actions, and so I had to do quite a bit of searching and study. I am now of the conviction that it is one of the most misunderstood and poorly catechized subjects. And it is one of the most fundamental, and of crucial importance to our understanding of our own nature, our NEED for grace, and Christ’s redemptive work.

The Church’s teaching on grace reflects the Chruch’s teaching on man. She contantly strives to avoid two extremes: on the one hand the denial of the goodness of our bodies and minds, as created by God, and on the other hand the denial of our utter inability to live a life with God without His grace.

Thank you again, Bishopite, for such a fruitful discussion. I am glad that we haven’t “agreed to disagree” – but rather all of us can unite together in a proper understanding of the Truth.

I hope that all of us, and any of the other forum members that have been “along for the ride” have come to the conclusion that the Church’s teaching on grace perfectly preserves and actually amplifies the fact that we need grace more than anything else. Period.

God Bless you,
VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

And since I am shaking hands and back slapping :clapping: , let me just add a “thank you” to all the contributors to this thread. I am going to single out Dave of itsjustdave fame, because he has consistently shown an unflagging zeal for The Truth, complete loyalty to the Magisterium, and a remarkable ability to communicate both, in charity. If I were able, I would award him the title “Defender of the Faith”. :tiphat:

God Bless you all!
VC (who hereby gives this thread a 5 star rating!)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Verbum Caro:

And since I am shaking hands and back slapping :clapping: , let me just add a “thank you” to all the contributors to this thread. I am going to single out Dave of itsjustdave fame, because he has consistently shown an unflagging zeal for The Truth, complete loyalty to the Magisterium, and a remarkable ability to communicate both, in charity. If I were able, I would award him the title “Defender of the Faith”. :tiphat:

God Bless you all!
VC (who hereby gives this thread a 5 star rating!)

Wow, thanks for title! I’m going to demand that my CCD kids refer to me only by that title.

Thanks a bunch for the discussion Bishopite. I highly recommend Ott’s book, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, as well as the the translation of Denzinger’s *Enchiridion Symbolorum, *called The Sources of Catholic Dogma

A great store for Christmas is Aquinas and More Catholic Goods, here:
aquinasandmore.com/

 

[Bishopite]

Dave and VC,

Thanks a bunch for the discussion Bishopite. I highly recommend Ott’s book, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, as well as the the translation of Denzinger’s *Enchiridion Symbolorum, *called The Sources of Catholic Dogma

Yes, I’m going to read Ott soon. Since we are giving each other high fives, I might add that I appreciate the charity you Dave and VC have given to me. Being a former Calvinist, I sometimes revert back to that mind set when the issue of good works and grace comes up. And I should be thanking you since you have shown me what the Catholic Church teaches in regard to her theology of grace, salutary and moral acts; something I’ve not seriously pondered. Last year I read the Summa of the Summa [by Prof. Peter Kreeft] but trying to reference the index, I couldn’t find anything about grace nor works with respect to our thread. But with a family to tend, I don’t have a significant amount of time to devote to research, and, even though I’m a novice, it is still a passion of mine and is obvious that is also the case for the two of you. Perhaps when I’m old and retired I’ll have the time, Lord willing

And I’ve even pondered starting a thread or two with a few questions about hotly debated Catholic/Protestant issues, i.e. the canon and plenary indulgences; I’ll have to scan the threads to make sure I’m not overlapping something already discussed. Perhaps I will soon, if time allows and if I may ask, could I ask for your help Dave and VC if needed?

I’d have to say that I had sensed a bit of turmoil and my position was in trouble after Ludwig Ott, St. Thomas Aquinas and Fr. A. Hardon posts showed up and I might add they were rather explicit. I’d certainly like to refer to them if needed in the future

But I’m not one to give up without some sort of challenge since God asks us to be hot or cold toward Him [preferably HOT] and not tepid [Rev 3:14-15] and if we have tepidity toward Him, He will spit us out of His mouth and I can most certainly assure you that being spit out of Gods mouth can’t be a joyful process! Nevertheless, going through this thread is analogous to my conversion to Catholicism, since it also was an illuminating process; the arguments for Catholicism were much more pursuasive than Protestantism and VC charitably asked if I felt ganged up on. That was apropos to my conversion since my Baptist friends, all deacons, elders gave me the preverbial summons to appear before their round table to answer questions on why I was converting to the Catholic Church. It was both exciting and humiliating but for me it nevertheless was a heck of a lot of fun! I had the four against one, but the beauty of Catholicism is that is it like a deep pool with so many resources at its calling. Protestantism ,although is lacking in its resources is also like a pool also but a shallow one and I mean that in all due deference to them, yet all candor too.

And finally, I’d have to say that when one is shown he is wrong he has to accept it with the greatest amount of humility he can and Lord knows I need ALL the help I can get! I remember hearing Scott Hahn mention a public debate he was in, and at the time when he was just about to enter the room where this debate was to be held, another theologian friend of his stopped him and said [paraphrasing] remember Scott…God hates the proud even when they are right!

christi simus non nostri

 

[hurst]

Verbum Caro:

…
I am now of the conviction that it is one of the most misunderstood and poorly catechized subjects. And it is one of the most fundamental, and of crucial importance to our understanding of our own nature, our NEED for grace, and Christ’s redemptive work.
…

I agree with you here. It seems to be the basis for so many errors leading to heresy, schism, and other strife.

And it probably requires grace to understand this.

I have certainly benefitted from this exchange and thank those involved.

hurst