Grace, Actual and Habitual Part 15

b) Nevertheless, it would be unreasonable to contend that Congruism solves all difficulties. The mystery surrounding both the unequal distribution of efficacious grace and the _scientia media_ still remains. Moreover, the theory that G.o.d adjusts himself slavishly to all the circ.u.mstances of His creatures, can hardly be reconciled with His dignity and omnipotence. It would no doubt be far worthier of His majesty to seize upon the free will of man and compel it to perform the salutary act which He wishes it to perform. Whoever has studied the lives of saints and eminent converts knows that the sudden and seemingly unaccountable changes of heart which many of them have experienced can hardly be regarded as miracles in the strict sense, though on the other hand it seems certain that grace worked in them with little or no regard to the "congruity" of circ.u.mstances.

Again, it is one of the highest and most sublime missions of grace not to be balked by unfavorable circ.u.mstances but to re-shape them by changing a man's temperament, dulling concupiscence, weakening the power of temptation, and so forth. In other words, grace does not depend on but controls and fashions the circ.u.mstances of the recipient.

After all is said, therefore, the relation of grace and free-will still remains an unsolved mystery.(775)

3. SYNCRETISM.-Seeing that each of the different systems which we so far reviewed contains grains of truth, some theologians(776) have adopted the good points of all four and combined them into a fifth, called Syncretism.

These authors begin by a.s.suming the existence of two quite distinct sorts of efficacious grace, the (Thomistic-Augustinian) _gratia efficax ab intrinseco_, and the (Molinistic-Congruistic) _gratia efficax ab extrinseco_. The former, they contend, is bestowed for the performance of more difficult good works, such as resisting grievous temptations, observing onerous precepts, exercising patience in severe tribulation, etc.; while the latter enables man to accomplish less difficult acts, such as short prayers, slight mortifications, etc. The connecting link between the two is prayer, which has been inst.i.tuted for the purpose of enabling man to obtain that _gratia efficax ab intrinseco_ which is necessary for the performance of the more difficult works of salvation. Sacred Scripture teaches that prayer originates in grace, that it is binding upon all men, and that it accomplishes its purpose infallibly.(777)

CRITICAL ESTIMATE OF SYNCRETISM.-The outstanding characteristic of Syncretism is its insistence on prayer as a highly important, not to say the most important, factor in the work of salvation.

a) In this the Syncretistic school is undoubtedly right. Sacred Scripture and Tradition both strongly emphasize the importance and necessity of prayer, so much so that one naturally expects to find prayer playing an essential and indispensable role in every complete and orthodox system of grace. "The present economy of grace is essentially and intrinsically an economy of prayer," is a theological axiom which cannot be too strongly insisted upon. To have brought out this great truth forcibly and luminously is the merit of Syncretism.

b) We do not mean to intimate, however, that the Syncretistic theory has solved the problem of the relation between free-will and grace. On the contrary, by adopting two such heterogeneous concepts as _gratia efficax ab intrinseco_ and _gratia efficax ab extrinseco_ it has actually increased the difficulties found in the other systems. For now we are put before the dilemma:-the Thomistic _gratia efficax_ either supposes free-will or it does not: if it does, there is no reason to limit this grace to the more difficult works of salvation; if it does not, then the _gratia efficax_ can be of no a.s.sistance in the performance of more difficult works, because these too, to be meritorious, require the cooperation of free-will.

The Syncretists try to evade this dilemma by contending that prayer, as the connecting link, communicates its own liberty and meritoriousness to the salutary acts performed through its agency, in other words, that these acts are the effect of prayer (_effectus orationis_). But aside from the fact that prayer itself is quite often a difficult act, the more arduous works of salvation would in the Syncretist hypothesis be stripped of their meritoriousness and degraded to the level of a _voluntarium in causa_, which is an untenable a.s.sumption.(778) Finally, there is something illogical and unsatisfactory in admitting on equal terms, as it were, two such incompatible notions as the Thomistic _cognitio Dei in decretis praedeterminantibus_ and the Molinistic _scientia media_.

Thus in the end all attempts to harmonize the dogmas of grace and free-will fail to solve the mystery, and we are compelled to exclaim with St. Paul: "O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of G.o.d! How incomprehensible are His judgments, and how unsearchable His ways!"(779)

READINGS:-Molinistic and Congruistic works of importance are: *Molina, S. J., _Concordia Liberi Arbitrii c.u.m Gratiae Donis_, Lisbon 1588 (repr. Paris 1876).-Platel, S. J., _Auctoritas contra Praedeterminationem Physicam pro Scientia Media_, Douai 1669.-Henao, S. J., _Scientia Media Historice Propugnata_, Lyons 1655.-IDEM, _Scientia Media Theologice Defensa_, Lyons 1674-6.-De Aranda, S. J., _De Deo Sciente, Praedestinante et Auxiliante seu Schola Scientiae Mediae_, Saragossa 1693.-*Suarez, S. J., _De Concursu, Motione et Auxilio Dei_, new ed., Paris 1856.-IDEM, _De Auxilio Efficaci_, Paris ed., 1856, t. XI.-IDEM, _De Vera Intelligentia Auxilii Efficacis_ (_Op. Posthum._, t. X, Appendix).-*Lessius, S. J., _De Gratia Efficaci_ (_Opusc._, t. II, Paris 1878).-Sardagna, S. J., _Theologia Dogmatico-Polemica_, Ratisbon 1771.-Wirceburgenses (Kilber, S. J.), _De Gratia_, new ed., Paris 1853.-Murray, _De Gratia_, Dublin 1877.-B. Jungmann, S.

J., _De Gratia_, 6th ed., Ratisbon 1896.-Th. de Regnon, S. J., _Banez et Molina, Histoire, Doctrines, Critique, Metaphysique_, Paris 1883.-Card. Mazzella, S. J., _De Gratia Christi_, 3rd ed., Rome 1882.-Palmieri, S. J., _De Gratia Divina Actuali_, thes.

49-58, Gulpen 1885.-*V. Frins, S. J., _S. Thomae Doctrina de Cooperatione Dei c.u.m Omni __ Natura Creata, Praesertim Libera, seu S. Thomas Praedeterminationis Physicae Adversarius_, Paris 1890.-*Schiffini, S. J., _De Gratia Divina_, disp. 5, Freiburg 1901.-Card. Billot, S. J., _De Gratia Christi et Libero Hominis Arbitrio_, I, Rome 1908.-Limbourg, S. J. "_Selbstzeichnung der thomistischen Gnadenlehre_," in the Innsbruck _Zeitschrift fur kath. Theologie_, 1877.-B. J. Otten, S. J., _A Manual of the History of Dogmas_, Vol. II, St. Louis 1918, pp. 493 sqq.

Among the theologians who have tried to harmonize Thomism and Molinism we may mention, besides Ysambert and St. Alphonsus de'

Liguori, *Tournely, _De Gratia_, Venice 1755.-Card. Jos. Pecci, _Sentenza di S. Tommaso circa l'Influsso di Dio sulle Azioni delle Creature Ragionevoli e sulla Scienza Media_, Rome 1885.-A.

Adeodatus, J. _Pecci's Schrift: Lehre des hl. Thomas uber den Einfluss Gottes, etc., a.n.a.lysiert_, Mainz 1888.-C. Krogh-Tonning, _De Gratia Christi et de Libero Arbitrio S. Thomae Doctrina_, Christiania 1898.-J. Herrmann, C. SS. R., _De Divina Gratia_, Rome 1904.

The history of the great controversy between Thomism and Molinism can be studied in H. Serry, O. P., _Historia Congregationum de Auxiliis Divinae Gratiae_, Louvain 1700 and Antwerp 1709.-Livinus de Meyer, S. J., _Historia Controversiarum de Divinae Gratiae Auxiliis_, Antwerp 1705.-*Schneemann, S. J., _Entstehung der thomistisch-molinistischen Controverse_, Freiburg 1879.-*IDEM, _Weitere Entwicklung der thomistisch-molinistischen Controverse_, Freiburg 1880.-*IDEM, _Controversiarum de Divinae Gratiae Liberique Arbitrii Concordia Initia et Progressus_, Freiburg 1881.

PART II. SANCTIFYING GRACE

The grace of justification, commonly called sanctifying grace, is related to actual grace as an end to its means. Actual grace introduces the state of sanctifying grace or preserves and augments it where it already exists.

This fact makes it advisable to consider the genesis of sanctifying grace before studying its nature and effects.

We shall therefore treat in three chapters: (1) of the Process of Justification (_iustificatio in fieri_); (2) of the State of Justification (_iustificatio in esse_), and (3) of the Fruits of Justification (_iustificatio in facto esse_), or the Merit of Good Works.

Chapter I. The Genesis Of Sanctifying Grace, Or The Process Of Justification

The justification of an adult human being does not take place suddenly, but runs through certain well-defined stages, which in their totality are called the process of justification.

Being a "regeneration in G.o.d," justification bears a striking resemblance to the development of the ftus in the maternal womb. Like physical birth, spiritual regeneration is preceded by travailing, _i.e._ fear and painful contrition.

The dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church on justification is formally defined by the Tridentine Council, whose decrees(780) contain a masterly a.n.a.lysis of this most interesting of psychological processes. The holy Synod puts faith at the beginning. "Faith," it says, "is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and the root of all justification."(781) The nature of faith and the part it plays in justification were the chief points in dispute between the Church and the so-called Reformers. Luther and his followers denatured the traditional Catholic teaching by basing justification solely on faith, which they falsely defined as mere confidence or trust in the mercy of G.o.d.

Section 1. The Necessity Of Faith For Justification

1. THE LUTHERAN HERESY VS. THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH.-The Protestant Reformers, notably Luther and Calvin, did not deny that justification is wrought by faith, but they defined justifying faith in a manner altogether foreign to the mind of the Church.

a) They distinguished three kinds of faith: (1) belief in the existence of G.o.d and the historical fact that Christ has come on earth, suffered, and ascended (_fides historica_); (2) the sort of trust which is required for exercising the gift of miracles (_fides miraculorum_); and (3) faith in the divine promises with regard to the remission of sin (_fides promissionum_). The last-mentioned species of faith they subdivided into general and particular. _Fides generalis_ is that by which we believe that the righteousness of Christ "covers" (but does not wipe out) our sins.

_Fides specialis_ or fiduciary faith (_fiducia_) is that by which a man applies to himself the righteousness of the Redeemer, firmly trusting that his sins are for Christ's sake not imputed to him. Thus the Reformers erroneously transferred the seat of justifying faith from the intellect to the will and completely subverted the Catholic notion of faith as an intellectual a.s.sent to revealed truth.

b) To this fundamental error the Fathers of Trent opposed the orthodox doctrine that (adults) "are disposed unto justice when, excited and a.s.sisted by divine grace, receiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards G.o.d, believing those things to be true which G.o.d has revealed and promised, ..."(782) and they solemnly anathematized those who a.s.sert "that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sin for Christ's sake, or that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified."(783)

Hence it is _de fide_ that the faith whereby man is justified, is not a confident persuasion of being esteemed righteous in the sight of G.o.d, but a dogmatic or theoretical belief in the truths of Divine Revelation.

2. REFUTATION OF THE LUTHERAN DOCTRINE OF FIDUCIARY FAITH.-Whenever Sacred Scripture and Tradition speak of justifying faith, they mean a dogmatic belief in the truths of Revelation,-that faith which the Protestants call _fides historica_.

a) Christ Himself solemnly commanded His Apostles and their successors to preach the Gospel to all nations, and before baptizing them to convert them to a firm belief in certain specified truths which no man may reject except at the peril of his eternal salvation.

a) Mark XVI, 15 sq.: "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel(784) to every creature: He that believeth [_i.e._ in the Gospel]

and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned." Agreeable to this injunction St. John declares it to be the object of his Gospel "that you may believe that(785) Jesus is the Christ, the Son of G.o.d, and that believing, you may have life in his name."(786) The Gospel is written "that we may believe." What must we believe? That "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of G.o.d." This is a revealed truth by firmly believing which we shall be saved. When the treasurer of Queen Candace begged to be baptized, Philip the deacon said to him: "If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest." The eunuch replied: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of G.o.d," whereupon Philip baptized him.(787)

) St. Paul in his Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians eloquently insists on the necessity of faith, not a mere _fides fiducialis_, but a believing acceptance of Divine Revelation. Cfr. Rom. X, 9 sq.: "For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that G.o.d hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart we believe unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."(788) We must confess with the mouth and believe with the heart. External profession and internal faith go together and have for their common object a certain truth open to our knowledge, _viz._: the resurrection of Christ,-a dogma in which the whole teaching of the atonement lies imbedded.

The character of justifying faith is still more plainly evident from Heb.

XI, 6: "Without faith it is impossible to please G.o.d. For he that cometh to G.o.d [he that is to be justified], must believe that He is [the existence of G.o.d], and is a rewarder to them that seek Him."(789) The Apostle here clearly a.s.serts both the necessity of justifying faith and the minimum of doctrine to be explicitly "believed," _viz._: the existence of G.o.d and eternal retribution.(790)

?) The Lutherans appeal chiefly to Matth. IX, 2, Luke XVII, 19, Rom. IV, 5, and Heb. XI, 1. But not a single one of these texts represents fiduciary faith as the instrumental cause of justification. The word p?st?? occurs no less than eighty times in the Synoptic Gospels and in St.

Paul's Epistle to the Romans, but there are only six pa.s.sages in which it could possibly be construed as synonymous with _fiducia_, and in none of these is the interpretation entirely certain. Not once does the New Testament employ p?st?? in the sense of "fiduciary faith," _i.e._ a confident persuasion of one's own righteousness.(791)

b) Tradition is in such perfect agreement with Scripture on this point that the Reformers did not venture to deny that their doctrine ran counter to the time-honored teaching of the Church. The Fathers unanimously insist on the necessity of dogmatic faith as a requisite of justification.

a) St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, who is regarded as "the best theologian of his time" (468-533),(792) in his golden booklet _De Fide seu de Regula Verae Fidei ad Petrum_, says: "I rejoice that you take care to preserve the true faith without which conversion is useless, nay, impossible. Apostolic authority tells us that we cannot please G.o.d without faith. For faith is the foundation of all good [works]; it is the beginning of human salvation, and without it no one can obtain a place among the children of G.o.d, because without it no one can obtain the grace of justification in this world or possess eternal life in the next."(793) St. Fulgentius was a faithful disciple of St. Augustine, and the whole trend of his treatise shows that by _vera fides_ he understands not the Lutheran _fiducia propriae iustificationis_, but Catholic belief in revealed truth.(794)

) This teaching is corroborated by the ancient practice of instructing the catechumens in the truths of revelation and requiring them to make a public profession of faith before Baptism. It was because they believed and professed the true faith that the early Christians, who knew nothing of the Lutheran _fides fiducialis_, were called "faithful" (_fideles_, p?st??), to distinguish them from false believers or heretics (_haeretici_, a???t????, from a??e?s?a? to choose), who denied some portion or other of the orthodox creed.

c) In a.n.a.lyzing the notions of _fides_ and _necessitas_ theologians distinguish between _fides explicita_ and _fides implicita_, and between _necessitas medii_ and _necessitas praecepti_.

_Fides explicita_ is an express and fully developed belief in the truths of revelation; _fides implicita_, a virtual belief in whatever may be contained in a dogma explicitly professed. I make an act of implicit faith when I say, for instance: "I believe whatever the Church teaches," or: "I heartily accept whatever G.o.d has revealed."

The _necessitas medii_ is based on the objective relation of means to an end, and consequently binds all men, even the ignorant and those who are in error without their own fault. Such, for example, is the necessity of the eye for seeing, of wings for flying, of grace for performing salutary acts, of the _lumen gloriae_ for the beatific vision. The _necessitas praecepti_, on the other hand, is founded entirely on the will of G.o.d, who positively commands or forbids under pain of grievous sin, but is willing to condone non-compliance with his precepts when it is owing to guiltless ignorance. This applies to all positive divine precepts, _e.g._ the law of fasting and abstinence. It is to be noted that the _necessitas medii_ always involves the _necessitas praecepti_, because G.o.d must needs will and impose upon us by positive precept whatever is objectively necessary as a means of salvation.

a) The first question that arises with regard to this twofold faith and necessity is: Are sinners preparing for justification, and the faithful in general, obliged by necessity of precept to believe explicitly all revealed truths? The answer is, No; because this is practically impossible, and G.o.d does not demand the impossible.

Generally speaking, it is sufficient to have an explicit knowledge of, and give one's firm a.s.sent to, the more important dogmas and moral precepts-the twelve articles of the Apostles' Creed, the Commandments of G.o.d and the Church, the Sacraments (as needed), and the Our Father. All other revealed truths need be held only _fide implicita_.(795) More is of course demanded of educated persons and those who are in duty bound to instruct others, such as priests and teachers.(796)