Question on merit

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vinny213
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aquinas denies that good works are equal to the word of eternal life. This is what he says:
Justice is a kind of equality and therefore absolute justice obtains only among those between whom there is an absolute equality. But in those in whom there is merely a relative and not an absolute justice there does not exist any absolute principle of merit. Now it is manifest that between God anji man there is the greatest inequality and therefore there cannot be any merit on the part of man before God except so far as the appoint rnent of God is recognised that is so that a man attains from God by his performance of good works as a reward that for which God has previously imparted to him the power of performing them.
 
Vinny213 said:
Does condign merit imply that our works are equal or proportionate to the reward of eternal life? I know that Bellermine thought so, but what do modern catholic scholars and theologians say?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. What exactly does Bellarmine say?
 
II do not have the exact Bellarmine quote, but he states that between the reward and the good work there is a strict equality. So therefore the reward of eternal life is equal in proportion to our merits. More modern catholic theologians have backed away from this notion. An example is
the twentieth century, theologian Michael Schmaus who writes, “In this connection, it must be remembered that man cannot make any valid claim on God. Since the ‘reward’ give by God always infinitely exceeds what is due man, the word ‘merit’ can only be used analogously. Because of God’s transcendence and the resultant inequality between God and man, merit in the strict sense of the word cannot occur in the relationship between God and man.”[8]
 
I still would like to know what the difference between strict and codign merit? What does the cathecism say?
 
Vinny213 said:
I still would like to know what the difference between strict and codign merit? What does the cathecism say?
Click to expand...
The catechism speaks in more general terms about merit. Here are a few examples:
**
2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.

2026 The grace of the Holy Spirit can confer true merit on us, by virtue of our adoptive filiation, and in accordance with God’s gratuitous justice. Charity is the principal source of merit in us before God.

2092 There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God’s almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit).

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”

Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where “men will weep and gnash their teeth.”
**
 
Vinny213 said:
A priest said the following things to me about merit. Is he correct in what he says?
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.
Click to expand...
Yes this seems to be very well explained. Dare I to hope that you are making progress in this issue?

Because this has been explained to you before, both by myself and others on this site, and you still seem to suffer hangups from it.
 
But are our goods intrinsically worth eternal life? Is their an equality between our works and eternal life? Nobody has answered that.
 
Vinny213 said:
But are our goods intrinsically worth eternal life? Is their an equality between our works and eternal life? Nobody has answered that.
Click to expand...
I don’t think we even need to know. God will be the judge in any case. I’d contemplate on the Parable of the Talents; there’s a lot in there!
 
Was there not once a discussion on this blog that discussed three different types of merit, being strict, condign and congruous? It was a discussion on Jimmy Akin. Can someone link me that discussion, if they happen to find it.
 
Here is what Suarez says. Are his opinions binding on all catholics?

condignity by Suarez in tertiam Thomve toq 1 quaest 2 disp 10 sect 6 says Merit of condignity is in its own nature adapted to a reward to which it bears a natural proportion And in section 7 he says The work which lays a party under obligation on the score of justice and which bears a proportion of equality with the reward is merit of condignity but if these are wanting it will be only merit of congruity if there be any merit at all in it In fine in disp 41 sect

3 he confidently asserts that It is not to be denied that our merits are truly merits so that the works of the regenerate proceeding from grace have of themselves an intrinsic proportion and a worth equal to the reward Vas in 1.2 quvest 114 art 5 disp 218 4 makes
 
I am aware that Trent never dogmatically defined what the exact worthiness of our works are in relation to the reward of eternal life.
 
Can someone link me that long discussion on the three different types of merit that happened on this blog a couple of years ago. It discussed Jimmy akins three distinctions aswell. Or any other discussion on merit that happened on catholciaswners would be good aswell, in case no one cane find that previous discussion.
 
I found some of these quotes from catholic writers:
Hosius in Confess cap 73 affirms No act originating in love and carried on in love however good it may be is worlhy of life eternal from anything intrinsic it becomes worthy of life eternal solely in consequence of meeting with acceptance from God.

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

15 Peter d Ailay in 4 quoost 1 art 1 says It is an abuse of terms to say that a meritorious act is the cause of reward for although the reward follows upon its performance yet this proceeds not from its intrinsic goodness nor from the nature of the thing but from the good pleasure of God alone.

It seems that all these writers denied that there is an absolute equality between our merits and heaven. They seem to deny strict merit. Is this in accordance with Trent and the catechism?
 
Vinny, you are making fine distinctions, which belong to the science of theology and not necessarily Church teaching. These sorts of distinctions aren’t going to be in the Catechism, which confines itself to more basic concepts. Church teaching does make fine distinctions, but not about everything. I don’t know if this particular one has been defined, but I doubt it. You could check Denzinger or Ott.

Theology explores, systematizes, and builds on Church teaching, but the opinions of theologians as such are not binding. In matters not defined by the Church, it seems prudent to defer to the consensus of theologians (not just living ones, but over time), if there is one; and I would give more weight to St. Thomas and the other Doctors of the Church at least in their areas of expertise. St. Robert Bellarmine is a Doctor of the Church, but it appears his opinion on the matter in question may be in the minority.

Sorry I can’t help more.
 
Can anyone link me to other discussions that have taken place on catholicanswers with regard to the issue of merit? I know there was one discussion which dealt with Jimmy Akin’s article which discussed the issue of merit. Does anyone know where that particular discussion can be found?
 
Don’t know about on CAF, but there’s a fairly long discussion of this (from 2008) over at Steve Ray’s board. One of the more knowledgeable members says that what Akin calls “strict” is the same as “strict condign” (what I found in Prümmer).
 
Can someone give a list of links to other discussions which deal with the topic of merit on catholicaswers?
 
Vinny,

This is a pretty interesting thread. Could you sum up or restate your current questions? That might give us a more accurate picture of where you are in your investigation of this issue.

Thanks,
VC
 
I am trying to understand what the difference between condign merit and strict merit is. Also does the idea of condign merit make our works intrinsically worth eternal life and equal and proportionate to it? I know that Aquinas and many of the scholastics denied this, and said that heaven is a reward that is based on God’s promise and not any strict obligation and that the reward of heaven is worth more than even our best works.

Aquinas says the following:
“[W]here there is no simple right [to a thing], but only relative, there is no character of merit simply, but only relative . . . [as when] the child merits something from his father and the slave from his lord. Now it is clear that between God and man there is the greatest inequality, for they are infinitely apart, and all man’s good is from God. Hence there can be no justice of absolute equality between man and God, but only of a certain proportion, inasmuch as both operate after their own manner. Hence man’s merit with God only exists on the presupposition of the divine ordination.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top