Merit = Worthiness - Not "brownie points"

[JRKH]

In a conversation with a protestant the age old issue of “earning salvation” and “merit” came up.
In discussing and reading up on the matter, I discovered that in every place where the term “merit” was used, the term “worthy” or “worthiness” could easily be substituted.
Further, I have never seen the term “merits” (plural) used anywhere in Catholic teaching.

Surely if the view of “Earning heaven” by works, were true then we would be earning “merits” like tokens and by sinning we would be earing demerits. Yet this is not how it is expressed… We either merit (Are worthy) or we do not merit (are unworthy).

Is this a fair rendering of what Catholics mean myb merit?

Thoughts?

Peace
James

 

[MarcoPolo]

Off the top of my head, Augustine uses the plural if this translation is correct:*It is His own gifts that God crowns, not your merits,— if, at least, your merits are of your own self, not of Him. If, indeed, they are such, they are evil; and God does not crown them; but if they are good, they are God’s gifts, because, as the Apostle James says, Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights. James 1:17 In accordance with which John also, the Lord’s forerunner, declares: A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven John 3:27 — from heaven, of course, because from thence came also the Holy Ghost, when Jesus ascended up on high, led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men. If, then, your good merits are God’s gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits, but as His own gifts. (Augustine, On Grace and Free Will)*Augustine’s sentiment is echoed in CCC#2009.

You’ll also want to read the Council of Trent session 6 that speaks frequently on merit:*Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God . . . God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, whose bounty towards all men is so great, that He will have the things which are His own gifts be their merits. (Trent 6.16)*Basically, in Catholic theology, the body of Christ is a far more profound concept than in Protestantism. Another line from Trent session 6 is: “Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God.” When one is incorporated into the body, one is incorporated into Christ. Just as His suffering took place in time on Calvary, it extended through the members of His body wherever and whenever. So too does His righteousness extend through the members of His body throughout time and space. A Protestant cannot reject the merit of one of the members of Christ’s body without rejecting Christ himself. This is why Jesus said to Saul: “Saul, why do you persecute me” in reference to those who were members of His body.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Surely if the view of “Earning heaven” by works, were true then we would be earning “merits” like tokens and by sinning we would be earing demerits. Yet this is not how it is expressed… We either merit (Are worthy) or we do not merit (are unworthy).

Tokens are transferrable; personal merit is not.

If I donate money to the Catholic Church to reduce the time that my already dead relative must spend in purgatory, how does that make him more worthy? Or if bringing money into the equation is too inflammatory, how does my offering up my suffering or having a mass said for someone make them more worthy? There are many aspects of Catholicism that point to the contents of the Treasury of Merit being transferrable, like tokens.

 

[thenobes]

This is another topic altogether, and is a misunderstanding of offering up our sufferings on behalf of those in Purgatory (and such a donation as you menationed must be a real suffering to be included here.)

Tokens are transferrable; personal merit is not.

If I donate money to the Catholic Church to reduce the time that my already dead relative must spend in purgatory, how does that make him more worthy? Or if bringing money into the equation is too inflammatory, how does my offering up my suffering or having a mass said for someone make them more worthy? There are many aspects of Catholicism that point to the contents of the Treasury of Merit being transferrable, like tokens.

I think the treasury of merit in this case is our being allowed to share, to bear, the sufferings that that person undergoes in Purgatory. Thus, because there is only a certain amount of suffering that must be done in Purgatory to purge the stains of one’s sins, when we are allowed the privilege to share it with those who are suffering there, their suffering is lessened.

peace
steve

 

[thenobes]

At the risk of being accused of spamming, I’d like to offer a view of merit.

In a conversation with a protestant the age old issue of “earning salvation” and “merit” came up.
In discussing and reading up on the matter, I discovered that in every place where the term “merit” was used, the term “worthy” or “worthiness” could easily be substituted.
Further, I have never seen the term “merits” (plural) used anywhere in Catholic teaching.

Surely if the view of “Earning heaven” by works, were true then we would be earning “merits” like tokens and by sinning we would be earing demerits. Yet this is not how it is expressed… We either merit (Are worthy) or we do not merit (are unworthy).

Is this a fair rendering of what Catholics mean myb merit?

Thoughts?

Peace
James

Exactly! We are made worthy! We are not earning merit, but given merit as a gift.

But then how can Trent say that by our good works we merit salvation? Isn’t that working for salvation? Didn’t Paul say that to recieve Grace by works would be to make Grace not be Grace?? Well the answer to that is that a portion of each work God gives us has salvific value, and that that portion is indeed a grace. Yet it is not really our work. Let me explain.

First off, works are necessary, in that Paul says God has saved us to walk in them (good works). God wouldn’t save us then say, well, this fellow’s saved, it doesn’t matter any more.

And also-

Paul says that God works in us both to Will and to Do. Thus all works done by us pass through these 2 stages, willing and doing. Now, it is the assent of the will to work, this first step, that actually saves, by keeping our faith in a “living” condition. Also we gain merit (worthiness of being rewarded) by becoming more an image of Christ, our assent resembling His obedience.

Whether the final works actually come about, and in what manner, is the province of God.

However, without God’s working in us to will, we would and could not work. And this assent is more of a stopping us from resisting God than a positive act of moving toward Him. Thus it is in this that it is a Grace. God is doing what we cannot. So at least part this part of what we would consider works are a saving grace.

The resulting works themselves are channels of God’s grace, both to us and to others. But they really, by themselves, cannot cause salvation.

I believe this explanation fits the teaching of the NT and is consonant with the churches teaching.

peace
steve

 

[Tomster]

Merit is the right to a reward due for a morally good action. Merit can be de condigno (condign:adequate), if there is an equal proportion between the good act and its reward, and de congruo (congruous: of convenience) if, in the lack of such proportion, there intervenes some reason of convenience or of benevolence that moves the rewarder.

Supernatural merit is that which arises from an action performed under the influence of divine grace, and thus in relationship with the supernatural end: the beatific vision. Five conditions are required for supernatural merit:

(1) state of mortal life because death is the end of the test

(2) state of sanctifying grace, because sin renders relationship impossible with God

(3) free will, without which there is no responsibility and, therefore, no reason for reward or punishment

(4) good work, since evil deserves punishment

(5) divine agreement or consent (accepting and ordering the good work to its reward), because the supernatural order is absolutely gratuitous and no creature can acquire a true and proper right with reference to God, without His own divine disposition in this regard.

Man, fulfilling these conditions, can merit, even condignly (de congruo), the increase of grace and life eternal, called a “crown of justice” by St. Paul.

Christ, during His mortal life, merited for Himself the glorification of His human body (His soul already enjoyed the beatific vision), and for the whole human race He merited, especially by His passion and death, all supernatural gifts and life eternal. His merit, like His satisfaction, has an infinite value, and this value is, more probably, according to the rigor of justice (i.e., implies the proper and full concept of justice), because it is the merit of the Word of God Himself, who is the operating subject in His assumed nature. Mary has merited de congruo for us all that Jesus merited de condigno.

Lutheranism, holding human nature intrinsically corrupted by original sin to the point of the loss of free will, denied all possibility of merit in man. The Council of Trent condemned this error, asserting both free will and, inder the influence of grace, merit.

 

[JRKH]

Tomster,
Nice exposition - thanks…

In reading through it I noted that, as I pointed out in my OP, the term "worthy or “worthiness” of “of worth” could easily be subsituted for merit and thus you have helped to re-enforce my point. That is that the protestant misunderstanding of how we use the term “merit” stems from their equating it with something of more “monitary” in nature where we use it in terms more akin to “Worthiness”

Peace
James

 

[Odell]

We condign or congruent merit that denotes a non-contractual relationship between two parties in which neither the party doing the work demand payment from the party from whom the work is done, nor can theparty for whom the work is performed be under obligation to pay for the work.

What ever is given to the first party for the work done is only by the sheer gratuity of the second part

The party for whom the work is done may pay the worker out of kindness, but not obligation to do so.

 

[Odell]

God gives what is just but he is not contractually obligated to do so.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 2007 says. “with regard to God, there is no strict right to merit on the part of man.”

So again we only merit in the sense that God gives grace because he is just to those who obey not because he is obligated to do so. And as long as Protestants refuse to see a distinction between strict merit due from obligation and gracious merit provided by benevolence, there can be no resolution.

 

[Odell]

Tokens are transferable; personal merit is not.

If I donate money to the Catholic Church to reduce the time that my already dead relative must spend in purgatory, how does that make him more worthy? Or if bringing money into the equation is too inflammatory, how does my offering up my suffering or having a mass said for someone make them more worthy? There are many aspects of Catholicism that point to the contents of the Treasury of Merit being transferable, like tokens.

First off we never gave money to reduce someones time it reduces the temporal penalty due to sin. And the whole money issue was done away with because of the abuses that have taken place.

You dont have an idea of what you are talking about. You really should come at this different. If you want to know what we teach here it is.

Having a mass said does not make some one other than myself worthy. God may bless them if he is pleased with me. God will bless them by his pure benevolence just as he does to you are I. God can never bless us because we are worthy it is not possible for us to be worthy. And the Catholic Church does not teach so.

We dont transferee merit name one doctrine that says so. You again have no idea what you are saying. God blesses some as a reward to others.

Here is some help

1. Sin results in guilt and punishment
2. Punishments are both temperal and eternal.
3. Temperal penalties may remain when a sin is forgiven.
4. God blesses some people as a reward to others
5. God remits temperal penalties suffered by some as a reward to others.

• This is the kicker 1Kings11:11-13. God was clear Solomon’s kingdom was not torn down not for Solomons sakebut for the sake of David. If david had not pleased God. God would have removed the entire kingdom.
  There are other examples. God promised Abraham that if he could find a certain number of righteous men in Sodom he was willing to defer the city’s destruction for the sake of the righteous.

Do remember there is a difference in temperal salvation and eternal salvation. We can’t earn someones eternal salvation Christ did that! Indulgences only have to do with the temperal aspects of sin

This is off topic if you like start another thread. And I will help you understand what we actually teach so you will no longer miss represent us.

 

[JRKH]

God gives what is just but he is not contractually obligated to do so.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 2007 says. “with regard to God, there is no strict right to merit on the part of man.”

So again we only merit in the sense that God gives grace because he is just to those who obey not because he is obligated to do so. And as long as Protestants refuse to see a distinction between strict merit due from obligation and gracious merit provided by benevolence, there can be no resolution.

Well said and on the bolded section, this was part of the reason why I began investigating “worthiness” as a term to help clarify that distinction.

Peace
James

 

[MarcoPolo]

Five conditions are required for supernatural merit:

(1) state of mortal life because death is the end of the test

(2) state of sanctifying grace, because sin renders relationship impossible with God

(3) free will, without which there is no responsibility and, therefore, no reason for reward or punishment

(4) good work, since evil deserves punishment

(5) divine agreement or consent (accepting and ordering the good work to its reward), because the supernatural order is absolutely gratuitous and no creature can acquire a true and proper right with reference to God, without His own divine disposition in this regard.

Is there a magisterial document from where you got this list?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Tomster:

Five conditions are required for supernatural merit:

(1) state of mortal life because death is the end of the test

The only problem with condition one, is that even the immortal Angels were originally created in a state of meriting. But with respect to human nature alone, yes, #1 applies.

 

[Tomster]

Is there a magisterial document from where you got this list?

I have these references for you:

St Thomas Aquinas’ Summa: I - II, q.114.

“De Poenitentia”, vol. 3, by Doronzo.

“Le mystere de la Redemption”, by Hugon

“The Catholic Doctrine of Grace” pp. 158 ff, 245 ff., by Joyce

“De Verbo Incarnato”, pp. 331 ff, by Perente

“Merit”, by Pohle (Also see “Dogmatic Theology” by Pohle-Preuss, VII, grace: actual and habitual pp. 397-436).

Hope this helps.

 

[Tomster]

The only problem with condition one, is that even the immortal Angels were originally created in a state of meriting. But with respect to human nature alone, yes, #1 applies.

Great clarification.

Thank you.