Question on condign merit from Catholic encyclopedia

[Nita]

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.

The above explanation does a good job in explaining how, after being initially justified in Baptism, we can increase our degree of blessedness/justification in eternal life. Unfortunately the author doesn’t include that bolded and underlined necessary precondition in his explanation. Thus his explanation is misleading. Also, he starts with “As for meriting eternal life”… as though it’s an RCC teaching that we can merit eternal life. We have no such teaching.

Catholics would not speak about our good works “meriting eternal life”.
We would speak about our good works:
“meriting rewards to be received** in **eternal life”;
or “meriting an increase in the degree/level of blessedness in eternal life.”
Or we may speak about the necessity of good works in order to “retain the eternal life received in Baptism” (the meaning of the parable of the Sheep and the Goats).

Most Protestant denominations differ from Catholicism in their understanding of what justification consists of. The Catholic teaching of sanctifying/justifying grace is just not part of their theology or vocabulary.
(As I understand their theology, “grace” is limited to what we classify as Actual Grace.

Sanctifying Grace is not considered an actual grace. It is in a separate classification all its own; it is an Habitual Grace.) So when a Protestant and a Catholic speak of saving grace, they’re speaking about 2 different things. There’s really no way to explain the Catholic understanding of meriting rewards in eternal life and its necessary precondition, without introducing the terms and meanings of Sanctifying Grace and Justification.

 

[Pete_Holter]

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

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.

Hi Vinny!

Saint Augustine wrote that it is certain that eternal life “is given as due to good works” (, Ch. 13.41On Rebuke and Grace). The Latin being, “est bonis operibus debitam redid.” Eternal life, he is saying, is due or owed (debitam), to good works. But this appears to be against what Paul says in Romans 4:4, as Augustine had quoted in On Grace and Free Will: “To him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt” (Latin: debitum). Augustine’s solution, as we have seen, is to assign our works entirely to the grace of God.

Faith in Jesus is the foundation and root of our good works, and it provides to our works the teleological orientation that God be glorified. Charity or love is the power to perform and the quality of our good works. The orientation provided to our works by faith, and the quality inherent to our works by love are what make good works good. This love by which our works proceed is the Holy Spirit Who has been given to us in baptism and in Whom we perform all that is pleasing to God. For it is not we who perform these works, but it is our Father, living in us by His Spirit, Who performs His works through us and conforms us thereby to the image of His Son (cf. Matthew 10:20, John 14:10, Romans 8:29, 1 Corinthians 15:49, 2 Corinthians 3:18, Philippians 2:13, Colossians 3:10, 1 John 3:2).

Our faith, both leading up to and at the moment of our baptism is the free gift of God given to us in spite of ourselves, for our “merit” prior to the grace of regeneration is all evil and falls short of His glory. But once this unmerited grace has been given to us, we then merit grace by grace, and the ultimate debt of payment owed to this life of grace is the grace of eternal life. We merit eternal life by good works, not only because God has promised to reward our good works with eternal life, but also insofar as our good works proceed from His grace.

If you would like to be able to point to a concise Catholic explanation, I would start with Saint Aquinas on Merit, and fill his thoughts out with Saint Francis de Sales’ , Bk. 11, Ch. 6Treatise on the Love of God.

With love in Christ,
Pete

 

[Vinny213]

Does anyone know if Aquinas is talking about the unregenerate man or regenerate man here?

Aquinas on Galat iii lect 4 upon those words For it is written Cursed is he that continueth not in all things fec remarks that the Apostle proves the proposition and this according to the gloss is made evident that no one can keep the law in that manner which the law itself prescribed in Deut xxviii. That every one who continues not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them that is who does not fulfil the whole law is cursed. But to fulfil the whole law is impossible.

Is it Catholic teaching that man can fully satisfy the law and completely fullill it in this life?

 

[thenobes]

Does anyone know if Aquinas is talking about the unregenerate man or regenerate man here?

Aquinas on Galat iii lect 4 upon those words For it is written Cursed is he that continueth not in all things fec remarks that the Apostle proves the proposition and this according to the gloss is made evident that no one can keep the law in that manner which the law itself prescribed in Deut xxviii. That every one who continues not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them that is who does not fulfil the whole law is cursed. But to fulfil the whole law is impossible.

Is it Catholic teaching that man can fully satisfy the law and completely fullill it in this life?

Dying he destroyed our death. Rising He restored our life.

We have died with Him in baptism, that is, we are made part of His Body and share in His suffering and death. Thus we have undergone the curse of our non-fulfillment of the Law.

But we rise with Him in baptism, and are accorded the reward of His perfect fulfillment of the Law.

peace
steve

 

[Vinny213]

What is the context of the Aquinas qoute here? Is he referring to man not in a state of grace?

 

[thenobes]

What is the context of the Aquinas qoute here? Is he referring to man not in a state of grace?

It seems it could be either.

Aquinas on Galat iii lect 4 upon those words For it is written Cursed is he that continueth not in all things fec remarks that the Apostle proves the proposition and this according to the gloss is made evident that no one can keep the law in that manner which the law itself prescribed in Deut xxviii. That every one who continues not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them that is who does not fulfil the whole law is cursed. But to fulfil the whole law is impossible.

If you are in Christ you have already fulfilled the whole law, because Christ has. “With man this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible”. But to put into Christ, we must die to self, to our flesh. This is the meaning of baptism. We enter into the death of Christ, the curse He underwent on our behalf, and are incorporated into His reward for obedience to the Father.

Just keep faith and remain “In Him”.

peace
steve

 

[Vinny213]

But does not the catholic church teach that man with grace can perfectly fullfill the commandments without fault? Does not the church teach perfectionism? Also what is the context of the aquinas quote? Can we perfectly obey the commandments in this life?

 

[thenobes]

But does not the catholic church teach that man with grace can perfectly fullfill the commandments without fault? Does not the church teach perfectionism? Also what is the context of the aquinas quote? Can we perfectly obey the commandments in this life?

Man can do so, with God’s help, but still has free will to resist God’s grace to live perfectly. As man lives imperfectly, he moves to a degree out of the Body of Christ, and needs confession of his sin and repentance to regain his former place. We are perfected as we learn to live and remain “in Christ”.

I don’t exactly know the context of the quote however.

Do you expect to live a perfect life yourself? Could you?

peace
steve

 

[Vinny213]

But can we fullfil and satisfy the law in this life? Aquinas seems to deny what you are saying. Should we not constantly ask God to forgive us of our sins, even venial? You seem to be advocating forensic justification through Christ’s active obedience.

 

[Vinny213]

Does anyone know the context of the Aquinas quote?

 

[Pete_Holter]

But does not the catholic church teach that man with grace can perfectly fullfill the commandments without fault? Does not the church teach perfectionism? Also what is the context of the aquinas quote? Can we perfectly obey the commandments in this life?

Hey Vinny! Thanks for all of the great questions. You can read Aquinas’ entire commentary on Galatians here. I don’t know Aquinas well enough to read the relevant section and to know how it relates to the rest of his theology because I’ve not read much from him.

Augustine quotes from Galatians 3:10 in , Bk. 12, 11Against Faustus. You can read his work On the Spirit and the Letter for a full elaboration of this thought.

Augustine’s thought is that for us to perfectly obey all of the commands of God is a possibility, but also that this will never happen. Rather, “forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:13-14).

Here are a couple of quotes to illustrate the point about the possibility of perfection without there existing a real-life example of it:

“I should allow the possibility [for a man in this life to be without sin], through the grace of God and the man’s own free will; not doubting that the free will itself is ascribable to God’s grace, in other words, to the gifts of God,— not only as to its existence, but also as to its being good, that is, to its conversion to doing the commandments of God. Thus it is that God’s grace not only shows what ought to be done, but also helps to the possibility of doing what it shows. ‘What indeed have we that we have not received?’( 1 Corinthians 4:7)… I cannot doubt that God has laid no impossible command on man; and that, by God’s aid and help, nothing is impossible, by which is wrought what He commands. In this way may a man, if he pleases, be without sin by the assistance of God. If, however, I am asked the second question which I have suggested—whether there be a sinless man—I believe there is not. For I rather believe the Scripture” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 6.7-7.8On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants).

“[M]an’s righteousness must be attributed to the operation of God, although not taking place without man’s will; and we therefore cannot deny that his perfection is possible even in this life, because all things are possible with God (cf. Mark 10:27)—both those which He accomplishes of His own sole will, and those which He appoints to be done with the cooperation with Himself of His creature’s will. Accordingly, whatever of such things He does not effect is no doubt without an example in the way of accomplished facts, although with God it possesses both in His power the cause of its possibility, and in His wisdom the reason of its unreality” (, Ch. 5.7On the Spirit and the Letter).

Here is Augustine and the Council of Trent on the fact that we will continue to sin at least venially in this life:

“He, moreover, who says that any man, after he has received remission of sins, has ever lived in this body, or still is living, so righteously as to have no sin at all, he contradicts the Apostle John, who declares that ‘If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us’ (1 John 1:8). Observe, the expression is not we had, but ‘we have.’ If, however, anybody contend that the apostle’s statement concerns the sin which dwells in our mortal flesh according to the defect which was caused by the will of the first man when he sinned, and concerning which the Apostle Paul enjoins us ‘not’ to ‘obey it in the lusts thereof’ (Romans 6:12)—so that he does not sin who altogether withholds his consent from this same indwelling sin, and so brings it to no evil work—either in deed, or word, or thought—although the lusting after it may be excited (which in another sense has received the name of sin, inasmuch as consenting to it would amount to sinning), but excited against our will—he certainly is drawing subtle distinctions, and should consider what relation all this bears to the Lord’s Prayer, wherein we say, ‘Forgive us our debts’ (Matthew 6:12). Now, if I judge aright, it would be unnecessary to put up such a prayer as this, if we never in the least degree consented to the lusts of the before-mentioned sin, either in a slip of the tongue, or in a wanton thought” (, Ch. 21.44On Man’s Perfection in Righteousness).

“[D]uring this mortal life, men, how holy and just soever, at times fall into at least light and daily sins, which are also called venial, not therefore do they cease to be just. For that cry of the just, ‘Forgive us our trespasses,’ is both humble and true” (Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Ch. 11).

With love in Christ,
Pete

 

[Vinny213]

Augustine also says that we would be condemned if God where to come into strict judgement with us. He says we must always rely on God’s mercy and constantly ask God to forgive our sins even venial. Is this in agreemnet with Trent? Also would a catholic agree with this sentiment? It is from the Council of Ratisbon:

" God knowing our infirmity does not require from us an absolute perfection in the fulfillment of his law but such a fulfilling as we can perform by the help of his grace if we exert ourselves."

 

[Pete_Holter]

Augustine also says that we would be condemned if God where to come into strict judgement with us. He says we must always rely on God’s mercy and constantly ask God to forgive our sins even venial. Is this in agreemnet with Trent?

Yo Vinny!

We must always rely on God’s mercy and forgiveness. Augustine gave expression to just how far we really are from perfection when he said that “[o]ur very righteousness, too, though true in so far as it has respect to the true good, is yet in this life of such a kind that it consists rather in the remission of sins than in the perfecting of virtues” (, Bk. 19, Ch. 27The City of God). Amen.

Also would a catholic agree with this sentiment? It is from the Council of Ratisbon:

" God knowing our infirmity does not require from us an absolute perfection in the fulfillment of his law but such a fulfilling as we can perform by the help of his grace if we exert ourselves."

I don’t see a problem with this quote except that absolute perfection in the fulfillment of God’s law actually can be performed by the help of His grace if we exert ourselves. This again goes back to the possibility of not sinning. Although we do sin, we are able, by God’s grace, to not sin. It’s the question of whether we can do anything at all without sinning. Can we? Can we do any one thing without sinning, or is there a mixture of sin in everything that we do? The Catholic Church teaches that we can perform single acts, and that we actually do perform single acts, without sinning. And it is always true in every moment of our lives that “God is faithful, and He will not let [us] be tempted beyond [our] ability, but with the temptation He will also provide the way of escape, that [we] may be able to endure it” (1 Corinthians 10:13). And yet, it comes to pass that we all choose to sin (some more often than others).

Although we need to make a true examination of our consciences before God, we don’t have to go sniffing around for that mixed motive or that taint of sin in every little thing we do because it’s not always there. Rather, “we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace” (Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Ch. 16).

Does this get at what you’re trying to get at?

With love in Christ,
Pete

 

[Vinny213]

But Augustine denies that man can attain perfection in this life. He denies that man can fulfill the law in every way.

 

[Vinny213]

Here is what Augustine wrote:

Augustine says" Perfect love is in no one so long as he lives on earth but as long as it is capable of increase its being less than it ought to be arises from corruption in consequence of which there is not a list person upon earth."

 

[Pete_Holter]

But Augustine denies that man can attain perfection in this life. He denies that man can fulfill the law in every way.

If you take another look at the citations that I provided above, you will see that Augustine says that he “cannot deny that [man’s] perfection is possible even in this life,” while at the same time believing that it never comes to pass “as accomplished fact.” God’s “power [is] the cause of its possibility,” and “His wisdom [is] the reason of its unreality.” The former is what we might think of as possible in theory, while the latter is what we see actually coming to pass. And the latter is all that we’ll ever see coming to pass because, again, “during this mortal life, men, how holy and just soever, at times fall into at least light and daily sins, which are also called venial …]. For that cry of the just, ‘Forgive us our trespasses,’ is both humble and true” (Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Ch. 11). Trent says that this cry of the just is “both humble and true,” recalling the points made at the Council of Carthage in canons 114 and 115.

With love in Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

Here is what Augustine wrote:

Augustine says “Perfect love is in no one so long as he lives on earth but as long as it is capable of increase its being less than it ought to be arises from corruption in consequence of which there is not a [just] person upon earth.”

Epistle 29 to Jerome? I’m not sure about this reference, but it is similar to a thought shared at the end of On Nature and Grace:

“Inchoate love, therefore, is inchoate holiness; advanced love is advanced holiness; great love is great holiness; ‘perfect love is perfect holiness,’—but this ‘love is out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned’ (1 Timothy 1:5), ‘which in this life is then the greatest, when life itself is contemned in comparison with it.’ I wonder, however, whether it has not a soil in which to grow after it has quitted this mortal life! But in what place and at what time soever it shall reach that state of absolute perfection, which shall admit of no increase, it is certainly not ‘shed abroad in our hearts’ by any energies either of the nature or the volition that are within us, but “by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us’ (Romans 5:5), and which both helps our infirmity and co-operates with our strength. For it is itself indeed the grace of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, appertaineth eternity, and all goodness, for ever and ever. Amen” (, Ch. 70.84On Nature and Grace).

The only danger here is in thinking that our progress in growing in God’s love is itself a state that “brings on guiltiness, and needs remission.” Augustine held that we are forgiven the guilt of all sins—including the guilt of the concupiscence that remains in us after baptism—when we are baptized, and that we only incur guilt once we actually sin again.

The author also speaks of “the contest between us and the Romanists concerning the two-fold opinion of Augustine” regarding concupiscence. There is no contest or “two-fold opinion” here. Augustine’s teaching on concupiscence is clear, and Trent confirmed the thought of Augustine on this point. For more on Augustine’s teaching on concupiscence, see Augustine on Concupiscence: Part 1 and Augustine on Concupiscence: Part 2.

I’ll be back on another day. I have to get my work done! Have a blessed night!

With love in Christ,
Pete

 

[Vinny213]

Does Trent say perfect sinful obedience is necessary in order to enter heaven? Do we have to fully satisfy the divine law? Augustine says noone can satisfy the law in this life.

 

[thenobes]

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.

Vinny,
Works are proportional to an enlivened faith. Helping us hold to grace. But that grace can still be rejected by our free will.

Eternal life is the reward of a living faith. But that reward is way out of proportion to any work we do. God is rewarding His own gift of faith.
peace
steve

 

[Vinny213]

So our works are not strictly worthy and equal to the reward of heaven? Have you heard of the disticntion between strict and condign merit?