Question on condign merit from Catholic encyclopedia

[Vinny213]

Can a Catholic agree to this?

No one of the regenerate can observe and fulfil the law of God perfectly but falls short of the perfection of the law through the whole course of his life.

 

[thenobes]

Originally Posted by 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?

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”.
QUOTE=Vinny213;11170550
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.

Good point. As if our imperfect following of the law were covered by Christ’s perfect obedience.

But I don’t believe that that is the necessary interpretation. For instance, we have imperfect obedience, true, but we have paid with the death of Christ for our sake (we have experienced the curse he experienced by being in His Body). And then also, being in Christ’s Body, we can experience the reward of perfect obedience.

The reward of perfect obedience is living with God fully.

However, the justification is not merely forensic, because, when being brought into the Body of Christ, we are changed internally to be actually just.

It is the bringing in, the Baptism which applies to us the life and death of Christ, preparing us to share God’s life and be truly just.

Should we not constantly ask God to forgive us of our sins, even venial?

True, but someone who doesn’t sin may do this anyway (in error, but not sinful error). I believe this was the case with Our Blessed Mother.

But can we fullfil and satisfy the law in this life?

I believe this is yet theolgical speculation (even by Aquinas.)

peace
steve

 

[The_Dude]

Hi Vinny,

Yes one can fulfill the law, properly understood as it ties to agape and participating in the divine nature. It is kept in a qualitative, not quantitative, sense. One can grow further in agape, but as agape is participation in the divine nature, it is not somehow “imperfect” because of this (similar to st therese’s analogy of saints’ glorification in heaven where a “lesser” saint has a thimble-full of water and a “greater” saint has a gallon of water - both are perfectly full for each person).

A sharp Catholic at the website Called to Communion website described this as the “list vs agape paradigm” - the list paradigm being a set of rules (like in the OT) one must keep which is how your questions seem to be framed. I would suggest reading this link and its comments for an extensive discussion.

Also, related to this is how we reconcile biblical and Augustinian statements you’ve cited indicating we all sin and need forgiveness, with the view that we can fulfill the law in some sense. I would say we would also have to reconcile those statements with other biblical statements like:

“love is the fulfilling of the law”

“Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.”

“If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law, according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.”

“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.”

“The man who says, ‘I know him,’ but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did”

“If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love”

So we know we can keep the law in one sense, but yet fail to be “perfect” (Catholicism does not teach Wesleyan perfectionism). This naturally leads to the distinction between venial and mortal sin. Mortal sin destroys agape, venial does not. Another CTC article focuses just on that (and ties into the agape/list paradigms) which you can read here

Thirdly because this started off with questions on merit - there is a link on CTC to a great audio discussion by a professor focused on merit you can check out here

Hope this helps.

 

[Lion_Heart]

Greetings in Christ,
I ask the readers to correct me if I make some errors.

There is a distinction between our Christians work and Christ’s work on the cross for our salvation.
Condign merit In Catholic term it is our merit before God.
Condign merit supposes an equality between service and return; it is measured by commutative justice, and thus given a real claim to a reward in the name of Christ, based on God’s promise.
In reality, our condign merit is God’s gift, because God gives the unmerited grace for to do the work to achieve the merit, and God is the one who does the work through us. Yet God rewards us for this merit.
The reward for our condign merit can never be the reward of heaven, but reward in Heaven. (Rom.4:4; Rom.11:5-6; Eph.2:8)

Congruous merit - It refers to “gaining merit” for others.
Christ’s merit on the cross is congruous merit for our justification and salvation. (Rom.5:18; Rom.3:24; Rev.1:5)

If we mix together Christ’s merit on the cross with our own merit, we open up the door for the greatest heresy in Christianity. Please read Galatians 1:6-9.

The Church Fathers on Merit
The teaching of the Church Fathers on the subject of merit is summarized well in the teaching of the Council of Orange (AD 529)

Merit: “Divine reward for the practice of virtue. It is a Catholic doctrine that by his good works a person in the state of grace really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God. “The reward given for good works is not won by reason of actions which precede grace, but grace, which is unmerited, precedes actions in order that they may be performed meritoriously”
(II Council of Orange, Denzinger 388).

Certain conditions must be present to make supernatural merit possible.
The meritorious work must be morally good, that is, in accordance with the moral law in its object, intent, and circumstances.
It must be done freely, without any external coercion or internal necessity.
It must be supernatural, that is, aroused and accompanied by actual grace, and proceeding from a supernatural motive.
Strictly speaking only a person in the state of grace can merit, as defined by the Church (Denzinger 1576, 1582).

With love in Christ,
Lion Heart

 

[thenobes]

Greetings in Christ,
I ask the readers to correct me if I make some errors.

There is a distinction between our Christians work and Christ’s work on the cross for our salvation.
Condign merit In Catholic term it is our merit before God.
Condign merit supposes an equality between service and return; it is measured by commutative justice, and thus given a real claim to a reward in the name of Christ, based on God’s promise.
In reality, our condign merit is God’s gift, because God gives the unmerited grace for to do the work to achieve the merit, and God is the one who does the work through us. Yet God rewards us for this merit.
The reward for our condign merit can never be the reward of heaven, but reward in Heaven. (Rom.4:4; Rom.11:5-6; Eph.2:8)

Congruous merit - It refers to “gaining merit” for others.
Christ’s merit on the cross is congruous merit for our justification and salvation. (Rom.5:18; Rom.3:24; Rev.1:5)

If we mix together Christ’s merit on the cross with our own merit, we open up the door for the greatest heresy in Christianity. Please read Galatians 1:6-9.

The Church Fathers on Merit
The teaching of the Church Fathers on the subject of merit is summarized well in the teaching of the Council of Orange (AD 529)

Merit: “Divine reward for the practice of virtue. It is a Catholic doctrine that by his good works a person in the state of grace really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God. “The reward given for good works is not won by reason of actions which precede grace, but grace, which is unmerited, precedes actions in order that they may be performed meritoriously”
(II Council of Orange, Denzinger 388).

Certain conditions must be present to make supernatural merit possible.
The meritorious work must be morally good, that is, in accordance with the moral law in its object, intent, and circumstances.
It must be done freely, without any external coercion or internal necessity.
It must be supernatural, that is, aroused and accompanied by actual grace, and proceeding from a supernatural motive.
Strictly speaking only a person in the state of grace can merit, as defined by the Church (Denzinger 1576, 1582).

With love in Christ,
Lion Heart

LH,

The only problem with your reasoning is that Trent clearly says we can merit eternal life by our actions (works), which seems to undermine your definition of condign merit.

I think that rather we must look at our actions as somehow “keeping faith alive” as well as allowing us to gain merit for rewards within that faith.

So I feel the keeping alive of faith is related to both works and to the congruous merit of Christ. But it is because of the assent of the will to do the work and not any actual actions on our part. Remember God works in us both to will and to do. So even to assent to work is a gift of God.

But we are not saved by the actual work, but rather the assent to do them, which keeps a living faith.

At least this is my opinion.

peace
steve

 

[Lion_Heart]

The only problem with your reasoning is that Trent clearly says we can merit eternal life by our actions (works), which seems to undermine your definition of condign merit.

I think that rather we must look at our actions as somehow “keeping faith alive” as well as allowing us to gain merit for rewards within that faith.

So I feel the keeping alive of faith is related to both works and to the congruous merit of Christ. But it is because of the assent of the will to do the work and not any actual actions on our part. Remember God works in us both to will and to do. So even to assent to work is a gift of God.

But we are not saved by the actual work, but rather the assent to do them, which keeps a living faith.

At least this is my opinion.

peace
steve

Greetings in Christ, Steve

1. I agree with you Steve. It not only seems, but as the Trent declares, “we can merit eternal life by our actions (works)”, has totally undermined my definition of condign merit. I still wholeheartedly believe: With my merit (works), I can contribute nothing to my own salvation.
   Not to mention to get my salvation with my works, but even if I work to keep my salvation, I work for me, not for the glory of God. God rejects any works that have NOT been done FREELY by love and for His Glory.
2. Our Church teaches “Salvation is by GRACE ALONE, SOLELY on account of the work of Christ” EXCLUDES our actions/merit (works) for our salvation.
3. God’s provision of His grace for our salvation STRICTLY EXCLUDES our actions/merit (works) for God’s grace. - Rom.11:5-6; Rom.4:4; Rom.5:1-2. (If by actions/merit (works), grace is NO LONGER grace.)

4.Christ’s work on the cross EXCLUDES our actions/merit (works) for our salvation.
Rom.5:18; Rom.3:24; Gal.1:6-9.

1. As our salvation is GOD’S FREE GIFT, EXCLUDES our actions/merit (works) for our salvation. It is the HIGHEST DECEPTION to work for something that we are ABLE TO GET ONLY AS A FREE GIFT.

Our co-operation with the grace of God start at that point when by the power of God and by the grace of God we FREELY SAY YES to the call of God.
From that point on, our works grow to the likeness of Christ (sanctification (Phil.2:12-18)]
and our work is to bring the light of the Gospel of the whole world - I really believe this is the message of the gospel.

How can anyone bear the fruit of their salvation with having salvation?

Your brother in Christ,
LH

 

[Contarini]

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?

The analogy my advisor used to use in his lectures on late medieval theology was this:

Condign merit: my six-year-old sweeps the kitchen and I reward her for it. Her work was not perfect, but it genuinely made the kitchen cleaner and intrinsically deserves a reward.

Congruous merit: I’m trying to sweep the kitchen and my two-year-old (actually my younger daughter is not quite sixteen months old) grabs a broom because she wants to help daddy. Nothing she does actually helps me–if anything she makes the job longer–but I say, “Aren’t you Daddy’s good helper–have a cookie!” (Probably I’d actually give her some raisins or an apple, but the example my advisor used was a cookie.) It’s appropriate for me to praise and reward her, even though her efforts don’t actually contribute to making the kitchen any cleaner.