Question on condign merit from Catholic encyclopedia

[Vinny213]

I have some difficulty wrapping my head around this quote from newadvent:

The Encyclopedia continues:

Condign merit supposes an equality between service and return; it is measured by commutative justice (justitia commutativa), and thus gives a real claim to a reward. Congruous merit, owing to its inadequacy and the lack of intrinsic proportion between the service and the recompense, claims a reward only on the ground of equity. This early-scholastic distinction and terminology, which is already recognized in concept and substance by the Fathers of the Church in their controversies with the Pelagians and Semipelagians, were again emphasized by Johann Eck, the famous adversary of Martin Luther (cf. Greying, “Joh. Eck als junger Gelehrter,” Münster, 1906, pp. 153 sqq.). The essential difference between meritum de condigno and meritum de congruo is based on the fact that, besides those works which claim a remuneration under pain of violating strict justice (as in contracts between employer and employee, in buying and selling, etc.), there are also other meritorious works which at most are entitled to reward or honour for reasons of equity (ex œquitate) or mere distributive justice (ex iustitia distributiva), as in the case of gratuities and military decorations.

Is it saying that in condign merit there is an absolute equality between a work and reward or only a proportional one? Another catholic told me this:

Theologians generally distinguish between not just condign and congruent merit, but also condign strictly taken, and taken more broadly.

The first sense is to merit or earn something, which is now owed to you as a matter of strict justice. Your work is inherently worth and equal to its reward. In the realm of grace, and with God, only one man could merit in this sense, Christ.

The second sense is this…not a strict equivalence, but a proportional one, and not by strict justice, but by promise. I.e., in the strict sense, God owes us absolutely nothing and nothing we do can demand anything from Him. But He was promised us heaven, reward in heaven and growth in His grace if we follow Him. Our acts in following him are not equal to the gift, but do merit them by promise of God. Like a father who offers his son $30 for washing his car, though the carwash will do a better job for $10. The work of the son isn’t worth the $30, but he does earn it by washing the car, because his father promised. A poor analogy in some respects of course (like all are). It is important that this sense of condign merit still rests on our filial relationship with God, namely that we are in His grace. There is no meriting coming to grace. But once God, through no merit of ours, brings us to His grace, then we can merit with God the rewards He has promised for works done in charity, for Him.

I must admit I am confused about this. Can someone help?

 

[Vinny213]

I hope someone can help me with this question, i am having trouble with it.

 

[thistle]

I have some difficulty wrapping my head around this quote from newadvent:

The Encyclopedia continues:

Condign merit supposes an equality between service and return; it is measured by commutative justice (justitia commutativa), and thus gives a real claim to a reward. Congruous merit, owing to its inadequacy and the lack of intrinsic proportion between the service and the recompense, claims a reward only on the ground of equity. This early-scholastic distinction and terminology, which is already recognized in concept and substance by the Fathers of the Church in their controversies with the Pelagians and Semipelagians, were again emphasized by Johann Eck, the famous adversary of Martin Luther (cf. Greying, “Joh. Eck als junger Gelehrter,” Münster, 1906, pp. 153 sqq.). The essential difference between meritum de condigno and meritum de congruo is based on the fact that, besides those works which claim a remuneration under pain of violating strict justice (as in contracts between employer and employee, in buying and selling, etc.), there are also other meritorious works which at most are entitled to reward or honour for reasons of equity (ex œquitate) or mere distributive justice (ex iustitia distributiva), as in the case of gratuities and military decorations.

Is it saying that in condign merit there is an absolute equality between a work and reward or only a proportional one? Another catholic told me this:

Theologians generally distinguish between not just condign and congruent merit, but also condign strictly taken, and taken more broadly.

The first sense is to merit or earn something, which is now owed to you as a matter of strict justice. Your work is inherently worth and equal to its reward. In the realm of grace, and with God, only one man could merit in this sense, Christ.

The second sense is this…not a strict equivalence, but a proportional one, and not by strict justice, but by promise. I.e., in the strict sense, God owes us absolutely nothing and nothing we do can demand anything from Him. But He was promised us heaven, reward in heaven and growth in His grace if we follow Him. Our acts in following him are not equal to the gift, but do merit them by promise of God. Like a father who offers his son $30 for washing his car, though the carwash will do a better job for $10. The work of the son isn’t worth the $30, but he does earn it by washing the car, because his father promised. A poor analogy in some respects of course (like all are). It is important that this sense of condign merit still rests on our filial relationship with God, namely that we are in His grace. There is no meriting coming to grace. But once God, through no merit of ours, brings us to His grace, then we can merit with God the rewards He has promised for works done in charity, for Him.

I must admit I am confused about this. Can someone help?

Father John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary:

CONDIGN. Due to a person for some good he has done. Generally applied to merit before God, who binds himself, as it were, to reward those who do his will. The conditions for condign merit are the state of grace and a morally good action. The beneficiary is the person who performs the good act and not someone else. Condign merit is based on the revealed fact that God has promised such a reward. Thus we condignly merit an increase of the virtue of faith by every act of faith we perform in the state of grace. (Etym. Latin con-, thoroughly + dignus, worthy: condignus, very worthy.)

CONGRUENT MERIT. Also called appropriate merit, it is any good deed that deserves reward on any one or more of a variety of grounds, but not in strict justice or fidelity to a promise. Thus friendship, compassion, kindness, and responding to a request are grounds for congruent merit.

 

[Vinny213]

That does not answer my question about whether our works are equal to the reward of eternal life.

 

[Nita]

That does not answer my question about whether our works are equal to the reward of eternal life.

Good heavens “No”. If they were equal it would mean we could save ourselves thru good works. (Unless I’m misunderstanding what you mean by “equal”.

 

[Nita]

Off the top of my head (which is never the best idea, but it’s late here), I’ll give my understanding. ** Both types of merit are dependent on the person already being in the state of grace (a state where they would already receive the reward of eternal life if they died).**

The 2 types of merit, condign and congruent, have to do with extra rewards – “added on”, so to speak, to that of eternal life (salvation). If I understand Fr. Hardon’s definitions, condign merit is reward received for certain act/s because God promised reward for that particular action/work. Congruent merit is reward received for good acts, but they are not acts that God specifically promised would merit increased rewards.

(Was too late to just tack this on to my previous post.)

 

[Vinny213]

I mean are our works done in grace intrinsically worth eternal life as an equivalent return?

 

[thistle]

I mean are our works done in grace intrinsically worth eternal life as an equivalent return?

I still don’t understand your question.

Good works, whether done in or out of grace, have no merit at all if you die in a state of mortal sin. They only have merit if you die in a state of grace.
Good works on their own cannot save you.

 

[Vinny213]

Are our works equal to the reward of eternal life? That is what i am asking.

 

[thistle]

Are our works equal to the reward of eternal life? That is what i am asking.

What does that mean?

Are you asking if works alone will save us?

 

[Pete_Holter]

Greetings in Christ, Vinny!

Here is an assortment of thoughts from Augustine on this subject:

“ ‘[T]hee He crowneth with pity and mercy’ (Psalm 103:4); and if thy own merits have gone before, God saith to thee, ‘Examine well thy merits, and thou shalt see that they are My gifts’ ” (Sermon 131, 8).

“[A]ll is imputed to His Grace, not to our merits” (Second Exposition on Psalm 32, 9).

“[W]e confess that our good merits themselves are but the gifts of God” (, Bk. 6, Ch. 12.39Against Julian).

“Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God’s gifts” (Augustine, Sermon 298, 4-5, as quoted in , 2009CCC).

“Since those also which are called our deserts (Latin: merita), are His gifts. For, that faith may work by love (cf. Galatians 5:5), ‘the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us’ (Romans 5:4-5). And He * was then given, when Jesus was glorified by the resurrection. For then He promised that He Himself would send Him, and He sent Him (cf. John 7:39, 15:26, 20:22); because then, as it was written and foretold of Him, ‘He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men’ (Ephesians 4:8; Psalm 68:18). These gifts constitute our deserts (Latin: merita), by which we arrive at the chief good of an immortal blessedness” (On the Trinity, Bk. 13, Ch. 10.14).

“And what could have made [the mind] wretched under an omnipotent and good God, except its own sin and the righteousness of its Lord? And what will make it blessed, unless its own merit, and its Lord’s reward? But its merit, too, is His grace, whose reward will be its blessedness; for it cannot give itself the righteousness it has lost, and so has not. For this it received when man was created, and assuredly lost it by sinning. Therefore it receives righteousness, that on account of this it may deserve to receive blessedness; and hence the apostle truly says to it, when beginning to be proud as it were of its own good, ‘For what hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?’ (1 Corinthians 4:7). But when it rightly remembers its own Lord, having received His Spirit, then, because it is so taught by an inward teaching, it feels wholly that it cannot rise save by His affection freely given, nor has been able to fall save by its own defection freely chosen” (On the Trinity, Bk. 14, Ch. 15.21).

“[L]et not that make the mind to be as of its own merit uplifted, wherewith he is told that he is of Another’s mercy gifted” (On Patience, 22).

“If eternal life is rendered to good works, as the Scripture most openly declares: ‘Then He shall reward every man according to his works’ (Matthew 16:27): how can eternal life be a matter of grace, seeing that grace is not rendered to works, but is given gratuitously, as the apostle himself tells us: ‘To him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt’ (Romans 4:4); and again: ‘There is a remnant saved according to the election of grace’; with these words immediately subjoined: ‘And if of grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace’ (Romans 11:5-6)? This question, then, seems to me to be by no means capable of solution, unless we understand that even those good works of ours, which are recompensed with eternal life, belong to the grace of God. …] It follows, then, dearly beloved, beyond all doubt, that as your good life is nothing else than God’s grace, so also the eternal life which is the recompense of a good life is the grace of God; moreover it is given gratuitously, even as that is given gratuitously to which it is given. But that to which it is given is solely and simply grace; this therefore is also that which is given to it, because it is its reward—‘grace is for grace’ (John 1:16)” (On Grace and Free Will, Ch. 8:19-20).

“Even as the Psalmist says to his soul, ‘Who crowneth thee with mercy and compassion’ (Psalm 103:4). Well, now, is not a crown given as the reward of good deeds? It is, however, only because He works good works in good men, of whom it is said, ‘It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure’ (Philippians 2:13), that the Psalm has it, as just now quoted: ‘He crowneth thee with mercy and compassion,’ since it is through His mercy that we perform the good deeds to which the crown is awarded” (On Grace and Free Will, Ch. 9.21).

“[T]o [the elect] grace is all merit” (On Rebuke and Grace, Ch. 7.13).

“Nevertheless, since even that life eternal itself, which, it is certain, is given as due to good works, is called by so great an apostle the grace of God (cf. Romans 6:23), although grace is not rendered to works, but is given freely, it must be confessed without any doubt, that eternal life is called grace for the reason that it is rendered to those merits which grace has conferred upon man” (On Rebuke and Grace, Ch. 13.41).

With love in Christ,
Pete*

 

[Vinny213]

Augustine does not imply that our works are intrinsically worth heaven as an equivalent return for our merits.

 

[thenobes]

Augustine does not imply that our works are intrinsically worth heaven as an equivalent return for our merits.

Who said he did?

He agrees that heaven is rendered to good works.

“If eternal life is rendered to good works, as the Scripture most openly declares:

This could simply mean we are made ready to receive and to hold to grace better by participating in good works. But not that God is required to give us more grace.

peace
steve

 

[Vinny213]

But your saying that Augustine taught that our good works are equal in value to reward of heaven. Augustine rather says there is only a corresponding proportion and not a strict equality.

 

[Nita]

Are our works equal to the reward of eternal life? That is what i am asking.

Vinny, everyone here has answered your question. We’ve told you that our works **do not **equal the reward of eternal life (that is, they do not merit eternal life).

In Catholic teaching, what equals eternal life is God’s Divine life. Only God’s Divine life is “eternal”. It is the presence of His Divine, sanctifying life in our souls that ensures us of having eternal life. God infuses His Divine, sanctifying life of grace into our souls when we are baptized. We do not do any works to merit receiving that gift of sanctifying grace.

So, if you go back to the definitions of Fr. Hardon which thistle gave please note that Fr. Hardon specifies that condign merit is reward that can only be received by someone who is in the state of grace.CONDIGN. Due to a person for some good he has done. Generally applied to merit before God, who binds himself, as it were, to reward those who do his will. **The conditions for condign merit are the state of grace **and a morally good action.

I’ll repeat again, a “state of grace” is not merited by any good works of ours; it is a free gift from God given in Baptism. If we lose/reject that life of grace in our souls through willed serious sin, we can receive it back after repenting and Confession. There also, it is a free gift given when we repent and confess; no good works merit it.

 

[Vinny213]

Of course I don’t mean works from our natural powers. But do our grace-assisted works become equal to the reward of eternal life or is there only a certain proportion between heaven and our merits?

 

[Nita]

Of course I don’t mean works from our natural powers. But do our grace-assisted works become equal to the reward of eternal life or is there only a certain proportion between heaven and our merits?

It’s your word “equal” that causes problems for us in trying to answer your question. Maybe you can find a better word because the only understanding we get is that “equal” means our good works (grace assisted or otherwise) merit entry into heaven.

Another point: by eternal life, I’m presuming you mean entry into heaven. If you mean something else you’ll have to let me know. But assuming that’s what you mean, then “No”, grace-assisted works done by us would not merit entry into heaven. The **only thing **that allows one to enter into heaven is the presence of God’s sanctifying, eternal, Divine life of grace present in one’s soul. And there is no work, grace assisted or otherwise, which can merit it. It is a free gift from God (merited for us by Jesus alone).

Now, what good works can do, if we are already in the state of grace - that is, have God’s Divine life present already in our soul - is merit a deeper/greater share of participation in It.
If you want sort of a visual analogy, picture your soul as a wineskin that at Baptism received from God as much of His heavenly wine as it could hold. Now, imagine that when you carry out grace-assisted good works, they soften the wineskin, make it more elastic. The wineskin (your soul) is now capable of receiving more wine (more sanctifying grace).

 

[Vinny213]

Can a Roman Catholic agree with this?

22 The Canons of Cologne in the manual which they added to the Council of Cologne held in the year 1536 under the title De Justiftcatione thus write The Scripture is not afraid to call life eternal the reward of good works not that we should suppose our good deeds to be worthy of life eternal or that life eternal is due to them in consequence of the worthiness of the works themselves. for who is so stupid as to entertain such notions. But rather because to our faith which by these works he set in exercise within us it is that God has freely promised life eternal.

Does anyone know if Jimmy Akin answers emails?

 

[Vinny213]

I found the follwoing explanation on merit:

As for “meriting eternal life”, without understanding what the RCC means by merit here, one will waste one’s time. They teach that we merit, not because our good works done by faith are intrinsically worth eternal life insofar as they proceed from us, but because God has promised to reward them eternally in his grace. The eternal reward is thus “due” by promise, not equity of value. See the Parable of the Sheep and Goats and the Parable of the Talents for Christ’s teaching on eternal “reward”. The RCC also teaches that the promise to reward, and the ability to do works, are themselves unearned graces.

 

[Nita]

Can a Roman Catholic agree with this?

22 The Canons of Cologne in the manual which they added to the Council of Cologne held in the year 1536 under the title De Justiftcatione thus write The Scripture is not afraid to call life eternal the reward of good works not that we should suppose our good deeds to be worthy of life eternal or that life eternal is due to them in consequence of the worthiness of the works themselves. for who is so stupid as to entertain such notions. But rather because to our faith which by these works he set in exercise within us it is that God has freely promised life eternal.

When you give a quote (as above) please identify the source (author and/or title of the work in which it appears). And, if possible, give a computer link. It just helps responders, and saves them trying to track it down.

I was unable to find the Council of Cologne texts online. If you have a link, please post it.
The Catholic Encyclopedia had the following to say about the Cologne teachings on justification:

newadvent.org/cathen/07036b.htm
Notwithstanding the fact however that the work was placed on the index of prohibited books by Clement VIII, because of the author’s adoption of a twofold formal cause of justification, namely the “justitia inhaerens” and the “justitia imputata”,……

…

When, however, the Council of Trent defined the Catholic doctrine of justification, he at once submitted to its decision.As I read the quote in your post, the problem I see is that it seems to indicate we can achieve eternal life as a result of our good deeds – as a reward for our good actions. Such thinking is contrary to Church teaching. So, to answer your question, “No, a Roman Catholic cannot agree”.

Here is what the Church teaches:
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html
CHAPTER VIII.
… but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that **none of those things **which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

…

CHAPTER X.
On the increase of Justification received.
Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church,** faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified,** as it is written; He that is just, let him be justified still; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and also, Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And this increase of justification holy Church begs, when she prays, “Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity.”
Compare this teaching of Trent to what I said in Post #17.

Does anyone know if Jimmy Akin answers emails?

I don’t know.