Sola Fide is driving me crazy!!

[Corpus_Cristi]

headman13:

Nancy, pardon me for correcting you, but no, 1 Corinthians 13 is quite clear, “the greatest of these is charity” St. Paul says " Now I will show you a more excellent way, If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal…though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains and have not charity, I am nothing…though I give my body to be burned and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing…charity never fails…" That’s the Authorized Version of 1611, you realize of course that “charity” and “love” are the same word in Greek. After 30 years as a pastor I can tell you, Charity/Love towards one another is the greatest gift the Savior can give us. It’s a shame not to see more of it all around.

Excuse me, but I must correct YOU by saying that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to correct a joke. She wasn’t stating something by fact, she was just expressing how you talk to me so much about being charitable, when you, a Lutheran, believe in salvation by faith alone, not taking into consideration that charity IS the greatest of all theological virtues, the others being hope and faith. She was telling the truth, she was just making the point that you’re not making accusations that agree with the truth, you were emphasizing charity more than faith, faith being what you believe alone can save someone.

 

[brianberean]

MariaG:

Brian,

While I respect the fact that you want to “agree to disagree” I will still try one more time.
As Nancy said, the good works that the justified perform are through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ. And because the works are through Christ, they will bring us reward in heaven.

I already agreed that works done through Christ can bring us rewards in heaven. What I disagree with, and what I claim canon 33 from Trent states, is that these works can increase justification and eternal life. Justification and eternal life are based on the merits of Christ alone.

As well as it is alluding to the fact that when we respond to the grace that God gives us, it makes us more receptive to receiving even more grace. Let me highlight the same words differently: You seem to be stuck on the word of merit and good works. Focus on where these things come from.

And because the works are done through Christ to say that a person:

will not be rewarded for the work of Christ, work that is only possible through God and because of what Christ did for us, that person is an anathema.

Yes, beleiving those works help merit eternal life is wrong.

And have you read the tract I posted?

No, I haven’t read it. I normally don’t read links, I prefer people to try to explain their position themselves in most cases. I may go back and try to find it.

Brian

 

[Trelow]

ARGH!!! YOU ALL ARE CRAZY!

YOU ARE TALKING PAST EACH OTHER, SAYING THE SAME THING!!!

 

[Shibboleth]

Trelow:

ARGH!!! YOU ALL ARE CRAZY!

YOU ARE TALKING PAST EACH OTHER, SAYING THE SAME THING!!!

Eeeek!!! you are all insane.

Your not listening to each other and repeating what the other said in different words.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

brianberean,

… unless something has been “infallibly” set, it is not binding.

Rubbish.

Your ignorance of Catholic doctrine is showing. I find it incredible when non-Catholics presume to think they can teach Catholicism to Catholics.

Catholics are bound by Divine Law (infallible, immutable), Ecclesiastical Law (not infallible, not immutable), and Civil Law. They are all binding upon Catholics, not just infallible laws.

Observe,

Pope St. Pius X wrote:

We find it necessary to declare and prescribe, as We do now declare and expressly prescribe, that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the Decrees which appertain to doctrine, issued by the Sacred Congregations and approved by the Sovereign Pontiff. (Motu Proprio of St. Pius X, Præstantia Sacræ Scripturæ)

Yet, nobody has ever asserted that the decisions of the Biblical Commission are infallible, yet they are still binding.

With respect to judgments of the Church, even in things not yet expressly defined as infallible …

Pope Pius IX:

it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure. (Denzinger 1684).

Well before the Council of Trent, the Ecumenical Council of Florence affirmed the “common and constant consent of Catholics” regarding the canon of Scripture. While not infallibly defined, it was *binding *as Ecclesiastical Law. Those who differed with the common and constant consent of Catholics were sharply criticized for their heterodox opinon, but not formally heretical until after Trent. You could differ before Trent as to which books of the canon was inspired. Doing so was heterodox. There was only one canon (law) of the Church regarding Scripture after Florence. Making your own personal canon was heterodox and illicit (unlawful). After Trent, differing in opinion as to the list of inspired books, or making your own personal canon of Scripture was heterodox, illicit (unlawful), and heretical.

 

[MariaG]

catholic.com/library/Reward_and_Merit.asp

Here is the tract. Once again, it explains it here. Obviously I am incapable of explaining this to your satisfaction. Please read this. Frankly, I am stumped at why a person would avoid more concise explanations of an issue and try to make the person explain it in their own words. I have never claimed to be able to explain things at the same level as professsional apologists. If it is understanding of a doctrine you seek, why not seek from outside sources when provided? It is a short tract. If you truly seek the answer to your question, look there.

So far, it appears to me that you want to tell me what Catholics believe according to the interpretation of Brian instead of trying to really understand what we believe according to the interpretation of her own Church. I don’t ask you to agree with the teachings of the Church, just represent what those teachings really are.

God Bless
Maria

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I really doesn’t matter what Brian thinks the Catholic Chruch teaches. His credentials for interpreting magisterial texts are far from credible.

It only matters what the Catholic Church actually and authentically teaches.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

**“MERIT: **The reward which God promises and gives to those who love him and by his grace perform good works. One cannot “merit” justification or eternal life, which are the free gift of God; the source of any merit we have before God is due to the grace of Christ in us …” (Glossary)

"SALVATION: The forgiveness of sins and restoration of friendship with God, which can be done by God alone …" (ibid)

 

[brianberean]

itsjustdave1988:

I really doesn’t matter what Brian thinks the Catholic Chruch teaches. His credentials for interpreting magisterial texts are far from credible.

Does Ludwig Ott interpret magisterial texts as well as you?

He writes: As God’s grace is the presupposition and foundation of (supernatural) good works, by which man merits eternal life, **so salutary works are, at the same time gifts of God and meritorious acts of man…By his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God…A just man merits for himself through each good work an increase in sanctifying grace, eternal life (if he dies in a state of grace) and an increase of heavenly glory ** (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), Book Four, Part I, p.219; 3.5, p. 222; Book III, Part 2, Chapter 2.III.11.3, p. 190; Book IV, Section 2, Chapter 3.23.2, 3.25.1, pp. 264, 267).

Brian

 

[brianberean]

catholic.com/library/Reward_and_Merit.asp

Frankly, I am stumped at why a person would avoid more concise explanations of an issue and try to make the person explain it in their own words. I have never claimed to be able to explain things at the same level as professsional apologists. If it is understanding of a doctrine you seek, why not seek from outside sources when provided? It is a short tract. If you truly seek the answer to your question, look there.

I am usually pressed for time when I post. Family man, you know. So I prefer when people can make their own concise arguments instead of linking to long articles. I also am critical of RC apologist articles as I’ve found time and time again that they can disagree with RC scholars and historians who have much more “official credentials” than them.

So far, it appears to me that you want to tell me what Catholics believe according to the interpretation of Brian instead of trying to really understand what we believe according to the interpretation of her own Church. I don’t ask you to agree with the teachings of the Church, just represent what those teachings really are.

Have you noticed that RCs on this board make many derogatory assertions aimed at the integrity or motivation of nonRCs? It is quite unnecessary and annoying. I’ve read church history books by RCs, I’ve read the church fathers, I’ve gone right to the Council of Trent to defend my arguments on this post, and I’ve quoted RC historians and scholars to back up my views on this and other threads. Please stop it.

Anyway here are my comments on your link:

Protestants often misunderstand the Catholic teaching on merit, thinking that Catholics believe that one must do good works to come to God and be saved. This is exactly the opposite of what the Church teaches. The Council of Trent stressed: “N]one of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle [Paul] says, grace is no more grace” (Decree on Justification 8, citing Rom. 11:6).

As I mentioned before, this speaks of works that precede what RCs call “initial” justification. This is not what I am addressing here.

Virtually all of this is agreed to by Protestants, who recognize that, under the impetus of God’s grace, Christians do perform acts which are pleasing to God and which God has promised to reward, meaning that they fit the definition of merit. When faced with this, Protestants are forced to admit the truth of the Catholic position—although, contrary to Paul’s command (2 Tim. 2:14), they may still dispute the terminology.

Protestants agree that works done “under the impetus of God’s grace” can merit rewards, but not increased justification or help earn eternal life which is what canon 33 specifically states.

Here is, to my knowledge, the most respected RC scholar commenting on the subject. If you don’t know who Ludwig Ott is, do a search and check his credentials.

As God’s grace is the presupposition and foundation of (supernatural) good works, by which man merits eternal life, so salutary works are, at the same time gifts of God and meritorious acts of man…By his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God…A just man merits for himself through each good work an increase in sanctifying grace, eternal life (if he dies in a state of grace) and an increase of heavenly glory (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), Book Four, Part I, p.219; 3.5, p. 222; Book III, Part 2, Chapter 2.III.11.3, p. 190; Book IV, Section 2, Chapter 3.23.2, 3.25.1, pp. 264, 267).

Brian

 

[brianberean]

Dave,

To my knowledge, my “binding” comment was made concerning the OT canon. If you look at the evidence I provided, whatever you say about the authority of all councils and popes who “set” the OT canon before Trent, in reality, many RCs in good standing did not consider it “binding”. You might have a point about the idea of what is binding, but history and practice has disproven your argument.

Brian

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Brian,

Yet, you don’t seem to distingish between supernatural merit and natural merit, as Dr. Ott does. I find that rather misleading, perhaps even purposefully misleading.

Can 32 is defending against those that would charge that the justified do not in fact become real co-workers of God, which Scripture insists upon.

“For we are God’s *fellow workers *(sunergoi); you are God’s field, God’s building” (1 Corinthians 3:9).

We cannot merit the grace of justification. However, the Catholic Church teaches that there is a spiritual benefit or advantage (aka merit) for those who act as co-workers with God once they are justified. That spiritual merit is in the form of grace upon grace. Justification is not a matter of just receiving a one-time gift from God, but many gifts over time, grace upon grace. Catholicism teaches that the things we do in a state of justification affect our spirituality, and increase the supernatural gifts (grace) we receive from God.

For example, Paul states that he “buffets” (Gk “hupopiazo”) his body in order to keep himself spiritually fit, such that he will not become reprobate (Gk “adokimos”) [1 Cor 9:27].

Vine’s describes “hupopiazo” as,

hupopiazo lit., “to strike under the eye” (from hupopion, “the part of the face below the eye;” hupo, “under,” ops, “an eye”), hence, to beat the face black and blue (to give a black eye), is used metaphorically, and translated “buffet” in 1 Cor 9:27 (AV, “keep under”), of Paul’s suppressive treatment of his body, in order to keep himself spiritually fit (RV marg., “bruise”)

It seems that Paul asserts that good works of those justified, even acts of penance such as suppressive treatment of one’s body, yield spiritual benefit (merit). In that sense, it is a supernatural merit that is efficacious toward eternal life.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Brian,

… many RCs in good standing did not consider it “binding”.

I disagree. Canon law is binding. However, there are many Catholics who assert particular canons may be imprudent and ought to be changed. So long as any law is merely Ecclesiastical and not yet definitvely declared as Divine Law (*de fide *dogma, as was the canon of Scripture prior to Trent), there will be those wanting to change the law (a modern example being married priests). They may licitly voice their opinion regarding their theological opinions with regard to the prudence of such laws, yet still concede that as long as the law is in force, it is binding. Just because they disagree with the law doesn’t mean they do not consider the law binding.

Erasmus, Cajetan, etc. no doubt wanted canon law to change regarding the canon of Scripture as decree at the Council of Florence. Nonetheless, it was not up to them. Individuals cannot make a canon of their own. Only the government of the Church can establish canons of the Church. They clearly understood the binding authority of the Church, despite their heterodox disagreement with that authority.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Brian,

I’ve read church history books by RCs, I’ve read the church fathers, I’ve gone right to the Council of Trent to defend my arguments on this post, and I’ve quoted RC historians and scholars to back up my views on this and other threads. Please stop it.

I studied Shintoism in college. I also spent three years in Japan as an “outsider looking in” with respect to Shintoism. Yet, I would never presume to think that my knowledge of Shintoism, as well read as I may think it is, was in any way good enough to explain to one actually practicing Shintoism what they believed. Do you see my point?

In all that you have read about somebody else’s religion, I’m betting you will never really understand it as well as one who practices that religion every day. We don’t just ‘read’ our way into understanding our religion, but we hear it everyday in our Mass, in our catechetical classes, our prayers, and our conversations. Our religion comes complete with two-way communication, not just something we read. We know what our Bishops are teaching us in greater context that you do, I assure you.

 

[MariaG]

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

I am not and have not made derogotory remarks about you in any way. Nor have I lumped you together with “have you noticed that Protestants” remark. You stated in numerous way including your last post that Catholic Christians teach that good works help earn eternal life. That is a claim that is false. The church does not teach that nor even say that in canon 32. Nowhere in the canon 32 does it talk of EARNING your way to heaven whether initial justification or not nor does the Catholic Church teach that. You repeatedly have said you are not discussing the initial justification, and neither am I. Here is youlast post, where you once again say Catholics teach that works help earn eternal life.

posted by brianberean
Protestants agree that works done “under the impetus of God’s grace” can merit rewards, but not increased justification or help earn eternal life which is what canon 33 specifically states.

Canon 32 does not state that good works help earn eternal life nor does the church teach this. Good works done in God’s Grace help us continue on the road and path to heaven. Why? Because to the grace of God and the merit of Jesus.

This canon says: merit increase of grace which means good works done under Gods grace enable a person to open to more grace. Do you not believe that the more you walk towards God and respond to His graces that more will be provided?

This canon says: merit…eternal life which means that if I walk in the grace God has given me, do the good works through His grace, I may gain my hope of heaven. Do you not believe that if you follow Christ and respond to God’s graces you will go to heaven?

This canon says: merit…attainment of that eternal **life **which means that if I continue until death, I will go to heaven. Although on this, I am not positive, but it appears to me the church separates these in this manner to emphasize that I must follow Christ unto death. I can’t do it all and then turn my back on Him in the last moment no matter how much grace God has given me in the past. If I turn my back in the end, heaven will not be my reward.

Claiming the Catholic Church in any way shape or form teaches that we can earn our way to heaven or increase our justification through works or help “earn eternal life” is false. We don’t.

posted by brianberean
I also am critical of RC apologist articles as I’ve found time and time again that they can disagree with RC scholars and historians who have much more “official credentials” than them.

The apologists simply explain official “church speak” into everyday language that anyone can understand. When you disagree with most (and I say most because some can be wrong), you are simply choosing to not believe what the Catholic Church really teaches.

 

[brianberean]

itsjustdave1988:

Brian,

Yet, you don’t seem to distingish between supernatural merit and natural merit, as Dr. Ott does. I find that rather misleading, perhaps even purposefully misleading.

Do you know how many times my integrity has been questioned on this board? Why the need to go there? Isn’t it possible that someone can disagree with RC teaching and defend their views without being “purposefully misleading”? This is really getting old.

Can 32 is defending against those that would charge that the justified do not in fact become real co-workers of God, which Scripture insists upon.

“For we are God’s *fellow workers *(sunergoi); you are God’s field, God’s building” (1 Corinthians 3:9).

Can 32 says that men can help earn salvation by good works. If this is what the RCC teaches (like OTT says) then embrace and defend it, don’t try to dance around it.

We cannot merit the grace of justification. However, the Catholic Church teaches that there is a spiritual benefit or advantage (aka merit) for those who act as co-workers with God once they are justified. That spiritual merit is in the form of grace upon grace. Justification is not a matter of just receiving a one-time gift from God, but many gifts over time, grace upon grace. Catholicism teaches that the things we do in a state of justification affect our spirituality, and increase the supernatural gifts (grace) we receive from God.

Ugh? Clear this up for me please: Does the RCC teach that the believer pleads only the merits of Christ for salvation or does it teach that the beleiver pleads the merits of Christ plus the merits of their own good works done in grace for salvation? I’m not talking about rewards, just about salvation - heaven or hell.

For example, Paul states that he “buffets” (Gk “hupopiazo”) his body in order to keep himself spiritually fit, such that he will not become reprobate (Gk “adokimos”) [1 Cor 9:27].

Vine’s describes “hupopiazo” as,
It seems that Paul asserts that good works of those justified, even acts of penance such as suppressive treatment of one’s body, yield spiritual benefit (merit). In that sense, it is a supernatural merit that is efficacious toward eternal life.

Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionary includes the physical definition you give but also includes: that is, (figuratively) to tease or annoy (into compliance), subdue (one’s passions): - keep under, weary.

Also it says the Greek word for body “soma” can be used literally or figuratively.

So I would agree with Gill’s commentary: This is not to be understood by the apostle of his natural body, and of his keeping it under by immoderate watchings, fastings, and labours, or by whipping and scourging, and lying upon the bare ground, and other such practices; but of the body of sin, the corruption of nature, and of that being laid under some restraints; of the mortifying the deeds of the body through the Spirit, of crucifying the affections with the lusts, of putting off the old man with his deeds, as concerning the former conversation, and of making no provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof: it seems to be the same with what the Jews call F23, (wruy vbwk) , “a subduing of a man’s evil concupiscence”: who is a strong man? they say, (wruy ta vbwkh) , “he that subdues his corruption”,

I also think becoming reprobate (or castaway or disqualified) means by men. Meaning Paul doesn’t want to be rejected and disapproved of by men, and become useless as a preacher.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

itsjustdave1988:

Brian,

I disagree. Canon law is binding. However, there are many Catholics who assert particular canons may be imprudent and ought to be changed. So long as any law is merely Ecclesiastical and not yet definitvely declared as Divine Law (*de fide *dogma, as was the canon of Scripture prior to Trent), there will be those wanting to change the law (a modern example being married priests). They may licitly voice their opinion regarding their theological opinions with regard to the prudence of such laws, yet still concede that as long as the law is in force, it is binding. Just because they disagree with the law doesn’t mean they do not consider the law binding.

Erasmus, Cajetan, etc. no doubt wanted canon law to change regarding the canon of Scripture as decree at the Council of Florence. Nonetheless, it was not up to them. Individuals cannot make a canon of their own. Only the government of the Church can establish canons of the Church. They clearly understood the binding authority of the Church, despite their heterodox disagreement with that authority.

Did Cardinal Ximenes understand the binding authority of the church when he produced the Biblia Compulsia edition of the bible that contained an admonition in the Preface regarding the deuteros, that the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel, are not canonical Scripture and were therefore not used by the Church for confirming the authority of any fundamental points of doctrine, though the Church allowed them to be read for purposes of edification?

Did Pope Leo X understand the binding authority of the church when he allowed the Biblia Compulsia to be published under his authority and consent?

Another bible edition by Dominican, Sanctes Pagnini, was published at Lyons in 1528, with commendatory letters from Pope Adrian VI and Pope Clement VII, which sharply separates the text of the canonical books from the text of the deuteros.

Did Sanctes Pagnini, Pope Adrian VI and Pope Clement VII understand the binding authority of the church?

There are too many holes in your theory for me to buy it.

Brian

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Brian,

Can 32 says that men can help earn salvation by good works.

No, it doesn’t. If you going to profess you are not intentionally misleading, then quote the word “earn” from canon 32. Hmmm?

The problem is that you equate supernatural merit to the notion of man “earning eternal life.” Dr. Ott does not. You wanna simply stick to Dr. Ott, then do it. Otherwise, your editorial additions to Dr. Ott are where you misrepresent Catholic teaching. According to Ludwig Ott “merit” is “work completed” for a benefit or reward. The reward is due to 1) justice, or 2) out of graciousness.

Abraham was surely justified prior to his meritorious act in obeying God’s command to sacrifice his son. God rewarded him for his obedience. He didn’t earn a thing. God owed him nothing. Yet, God is just. If he makes a promise of reward for faithfulness, we can count upon him keeping his promises, due to God’s justice and graciousness.

For example, Christians make intercessory prayers for other Christians. We do not believe we “earn” a reward for our prayers. God does not owe anybody anything because they prayed for it. However, Scripture teaches us to pray for one another just the same, and there are many prayers made of God that are granted by God, because he blesses the faithful and punishes the wicked out of justice and graciousness. The example that comes to mind is the request of the Centurian made to Jesus to heal his servant. That Jesus healed the servant was not because the Centurian “earned” it, but “out of graciousness.” It was a reward for the Centurians act of faith. Catholics would not say he “earned” the miracle from Jesus, but we would say the Centurian “merited” the reward that Jesus graciously gave his servant. If understood in the manner that Ludwig Ott describes, this is the sense that supernatural merit operates. It is not deserved, but God nevertheless reward’s the faithfulness of his children. This is contrary to your assertion about Catholic teaching.

Protestants may not use the word “merit” in that way, but might instead think “merit” means “earn” as if gracious gifts were somehow not the Causa Prima of meritorious acts. We cannot help that.

If you take Ludwig Ott’s scholarship into consideration, merit includes reward given due to justice or out of graciousness. The notion of merit is discussed on pg. 189. Dr. Ott describes supernatural merit of the justified on pg. 264-269.

to be continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Brian,

Dr. Ott states Catholic doctrine on pg. 190, that “Christ merited all supernatural graces received by fallen mankind.” This refers to grace towards justification. Once justified, if you die justified, your going to heaven, even if you had no opportunity to perform salutory acts which are the fruit of justification, i.e., meritorious works. The example of the repentent thief who died on the cross next to Jesus comes to mind.
Now, let’s say a man is justified but then deliberately and with full consciousness of the gravity of his sin, commits adultery. In Catholic lingo, he has lost his justification. Can he merit it back? No. He’s not justified. Those not justified cannot perform meritorious works. So, since only someone already justified can perform meritorious works, how would they “earn” eternal life? They are already justified, right? They are already bound for heaven, right?

I don’t know what kind of Protestant you are, but Catholics reject the Protestant doctrine of “eternal security.” So, supernatural merit really pertains to God blessing his children with additional spiritual gifts (grace) due to their faithfulness. Are these additional gifts efficacious for eternal life? Certainly, insofar as they allow the just to increase in their faithfulness, to persevere to the end.

St. Peter tells us of the necessity effort on the part of the just to support their faith:

2 Pet 1:11

To those who have received a faith as precious as ours … you must make every effort to support your faith with goodness, and goodness with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with endurance, and endurance with godliness, and godliness with mutual affection, and mutual affection with love… for if you do this, you will never stumble. For in this way, entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be richly provided for you.

Whose effort is St. Peter speaking of? Is this not the effort of those already justified by faith? Doesn’t he describe this effort such that its rewards are efficacious toward strengthening one’s ability to endure tribulation and not stumble?
It is in this way that good works meritorious efficacious for greater supernatural gifts toward eternal life.

You don’t have to “buy it.” However, your attempt at making this teaching of Catholicism into something it is not is unconvincing.

As for sola fide, why should we buy it? It conflicts with the inspired words explicitly found in Scripture. How much more straight forward does Scripture need to be?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Brian,

Does the RCC teach that the believer pleads only the merits of Christ for salvation or does it teach that the beleiver pleads the merits of Christ plus the merits of their own good works done in grace for salvation?

All those who die justified go to heaven. There’s no pleading. After death, no amount of pleading will change the judgment of Christ. We simply leave things to the will of God. We have hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ.

If one dies in a state of grace (justified), no matter if they have a gazillion meritorious acts or absolutely no meritorious acts, they go to heaven. Therefore, our meritorious acts are not considered by Christ’s judgment as to whether we are or are not going to heaven. Only our state of grace is considered. After death, one’s meritorious deeds ***are ***considered by Christ as it pertains to increase in heavenly glory.

Before we die, meritorious acts are also efficacious toward eternal life in the sense that they are a benefit toward maintaining a state of grace (justification) by increasing sanctifying grace, which strengthens faith, love, and hope and other virtues, thereby helping one to persevere in justification. However, with regard to the judgment of Christ to attaining eternal life, only the state of grace is considered.

You need understand Dr. Ott’s quote in context. Supernatural merit cannot be accomplished by a person who is not already in a state of grace. In other words, you cannot go from an unjustified state to a justified state because of supernatural merit.

Merit has to do with rewards which help one persevere in or maintain the state of grace. In that sense only, eternal life is considered an object of meritorious acts.

According to Dr. Ott (pg. 267) the object of supernatural merit is 1) an increase of sanctifying grace, 2) eternal life (if the person dies in divine friendship), 3) and an increase of heavenly glory.

Regarding the second object of supernatural merit, eternal life, Dr. Ott states: “more exactly the claim to eternal life and, if one is in the state of grace in the moment of death, the real achieving of eternal life.” (ibid)

So, in Catholic theology, nothing matters with regard to achieving eternal life except that a person dies in a state of grace. If one could hypothetically remain justified without any meritorious acts, they go to heaven. The only way this would be likely, in my opinion, is when one repents and is baptized right before death, and did not have an opportunity to act meritoriously. One who lived a long life after justification but did no meritorious acts is likely to not be in a state of grace, because sins of omission can be just as grave as sins of commission.

 

[Philthy]

Hey Brian - I’ll wrestle with ya on this works stuff, and I promise to be nice Your green, Im black. Let me start by bringing up one of your last posts:

Can 32 says that men can help earn salvation by good works. If this is what the RCC teaches (like OTT says) then embrace and defend it, don’t try to dance around it.
Please **remember here that faith and good works are inseparable to a **Catholic. I take James at face value when he says faith without works is dead. Your comment that James concerns “justification to other people” is unconvincing to me. It would seem like a uselessly confusing way for God to make an irrelevant point if what you say is true…
I’ll try and restate what I think is being said in Can 32:
Part 1
If anyone says that the good works of the justified man (ie in Christ, no?) are the gifts of God and that they are not also the good merits of that man – let him be anathema
OK so it seems to be saying that good works are not only the gift of God, but that the man who performs them gets merit for doing them. Im OK with that - the perpective changes when Faith and Works are linked
Part 2(after or)
If anyone says that the good works (which are only performed through the Grace of God and the merits of Jesus Christ) of the justified man (who is of the Body of Christ) do not merit an increase of Grace and glory: and also the attainment of eternal life (as long as he remains in a state of grace until he dies) – let him be anathema.
I think you may have created some ambiguity by saying “help earn salvation”. The good works, of themselves, don’t do that. Everything I read was predicated upon Gods grace and Christs merit first and foremost, and then the discussion of the justified man doing works as a means of cooperating with God’s initiative. So in this light your statement that we can help EARN salvation through our works is innaccurate. They can only keep us on the path(of Grace) that was provided by God and in that sense they are part of that process. An expression of our faith perhaps?
We cannot merit the grace of justification. However, the Catholic Church teaches that there is a spiritual benefit or advantage (aka merit) for those who act as co-workers with God once they are justified. …
Ugh? Clear this up for me please: Does the RCC teach that the believer pleads only the merits of Christ for salvation or does it teach that the beleiver pleads the merits of Christ plus the merits of their own good works done in grace for salvation? I’m not talking about rewards, just about salvation - heaven or hell.

There is no talk of “pleading” in Can 32.
But let me ask you this - Is it a given that “pleading the merits of Christ” and “pleading the merits of Christ…and good works done in grace” are two distinct things? Im not sure that I can do a “good work” separate from Christ. You know…Gal 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ, yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me…"So here we have a little problem: you appear to have established a distinction which may not exist for me! Why don’t you tell me what you mean by “pleading the merits of Christ”. I will take this opportunity to say that “pleading the merits” of Christ’s Crucifixion is what Mass is all about. The eternal, once for all sacrifice of the Crucifixion is made present, applied to our current needs and offered to the Father. Let’s not drift on that topic though…