✝ Catholic Treasury Network
Home ›Tracts››Part II — Sanctifying Grace, Section 2, Article 1: The Nature of Sanctifying Grace
Pohle-PreussGrace — Actual and HabitualChapter 2

Part II — Sanctifying Grace, Section 2, Article 1: The Nature of Sanctifying Grace

Theological note: de fide (in part)

SECTION 2: JUSTIFYING OR SANCTIFYING GRACE

Sanctifying grace is defined by Deharbe as “an unmerited, supernatural gift, imparted to the soul by the Holy Ghost, by which we are made just, children of God, and heirs of Heaven.” As it makes sinners just, sanctifying grace is also called justifying, though this appellation can not be applied to the sanctification of our first parents in Paradise or to that of the angels and the sinless soul of Christ. Justification, as we have shown, consists in the infusion of sanctifying grace, and hence it is important that we obtain a correct idea of the latter. We will therefore consider (1) The Nature of Sanctifying Grace, (2) Its Effects in the Soul, and (3) Its Supernatural Concomitants.

ARTICLE 1: THE NATURE OF SANCTIFYING GRACE

1. Sanctifying Grace a “Permanent Quality” of the Soul

Having no intuitive knowledge of sanctifying grace, we are obliged, in order to obtain an idea of its true nature, to study its effects, as made known to us by Revelation. Sacred Scripture and the teaching of the Church do, however, enable us to form certain well-defined conclusions, of which the most important is that sanctifying grace must be conceived as a permanent quality (qualitas permanens) of the soul. If it is a permanent quality, sanctifying grace cannot be identical with actual grace or with “uncreated grace,” i. e. the Person of the Holy Ghost.

a) In conformity with such Biblical expressions as “the new life,” “renovation of the spirit,” “regeneration,” “divine sonship,” etc., the Council of Trent defines justifying grace as a supernatural something “infused” into and “inherent” in the soul. Both ideas denote a permanent state, not a mere transient act or the result of such acts. “The charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein.”1 “That justice which is called ours, because we are justified from its being inherent in us, that same is (the justice of God) because it is infused into us by God, through the merit of Christ.”2 “If any one saith that men are justified … to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost and is inherent in them, … let him be anathema.”3 Hence Justification is defined by the Fathers of Trent as “a translation … to the state of grace and adoption of the sons of God.”4

Before the Tridentine Council a number of theologians held that sanctifying grace consists in some particular actual grace or in a consecutive series of actual graces. This view is incompatible with the definition just quoted; in fact Suarez, Bellarmine, Ripalda, and others regard it as positively heretical or at least intolerably rash. During the preliminary debates at Trent some of the Fathers asked for an express declaration of the Council to the effect that justification is wrought by the instrumentality of an infused habit; but their request was set aside on the ground that the nature of justifying grace as a stable habit is sufficiently indicated by the word “inhaeret.”5

That sanctifying grace is a permanent state of the soul may also be inferred from the Catholic teaching that the grace which Baptism imparts to children does not differ essentially from that which it imparts to adults. True, this teaching was not always regarded as certain;6 but at the Ecumenical Council of Vienne, A. D. 1311, Pope Clement V declared it to be “the more probable opinion,”7 and it was rendered absolutely certain by the Tridentine decision that infant Baptism results not only in the remission of sins, but likewise in an infusion of sanctifying grace. This being so, there can be no essential difference between the justification of children and that of adults. Now it cannot be actual grace which renders children righteous in the sight of God, for they are unable to avail themselves of actual grace on account of the undeveloped state of their intellect. The grace that Baptism imparts to them is consequently a gratia inhaerens et informans, that is, a permanent state of grace; and it must be the same in adults.8

Peter Lombard9 identified sanctifying grace with the gratia increata, i. e. the Person of the Holy Ghost. This notion was combatted by St. Thomas10 and implicitly rejected by the Tridentine Council when it declared that sanctifying grace inheres in the soul and may be increased by good works.11 To say that the Holy Ghost is poured forth in the hearts of men, or that He may be increased by good works, would evidently savor of Pantheism. The Holy Ghost pours forth sanctifying grace and is consequently not the formal but the efficient cause of justification.12

b) The gratia inhaerens permanens is not a mere relation or denominatio extrinseca, but a positive entity productive of real effects,13 and must consequently be conceived either as a substance or as an accident. We have shown that it is not identical with the uncreated substance of the Holy Ghost. Neither can it be a created substance. The idea of an intrinsically supernatural created substance involves a contradiction.14 Moreover, sanctifying grace in its nature and purpose is not an entity independently co-existing with the soul but something physically inherent in it. Now, a thing which has its existence by inhering in some other thing is in philosophic parlance an “accident.” St. Thomas expressly teaches that, “since it transcends human nature, grace cannot be a substance nor a substantial form, but is an accidental form of the soul itself.”15 Agreeable to this conception is the further Thomistic teaching that sanctifying grace is not directly created by God, but drawn (educta) from the potentia obedientialis of the soul.16 Not even the Scotists, though they held grace to be created out of nothing17 claimed that it was a new substance.

An accident that inheres in a substance permanently and physically is called a quality (qualitas, ποιότης). Consequently, sanctifying grace must be defined as a supernatural quality of the soul. This is the express teaching of the Roman Catechism: “Grace … is a divine quality inherent in the soul, and, as it were, a certain splendor and light that effaces all the stains of our souls and renders the souls themselves brighter and more beautiful.”18

2. Sanctifying Grace an Infused Habit

Sanctifying grace may more specifically, though with a lesser degree of certainty, be described as a habit (habitus). Being entitatively supernatural, this habit must be infused or “drawn out” by the Holy Ghost.

a) Aristotle19 distinguishes four different sets of qualities: (1) habit and disposition; (2) power and incapacity; (3) passio (the power of causing sensations) and patibilis qualitas (result of the modification of sense); (4) figure and circumscribing form (of extended bodies). As sanctifying grace manifestly cannot come under one of the three last-mentioned heads, it must be either a habit or a disposition. Habit denotes a permanent and comparatively stable quality, by which a substance, considered as to its nature or operation, is well or ill adapted to its natural end.20 As a permanently inhering quality, sanctifying grace must be a habit. Hence its other name, “habitual grace.” The Scholastics draw a distinction between entitative and operative habits. An operative habit (habitus operativus) gives not only the power (potentia) to act, but also a certain facility, and may be either good, bad, or indifferent. An entitative habit (habitus entitativus) is an inherent quality by which a substance is rendered permanently good or bad, e. g. beauty, ugliness, health, disease.

Philosophy knows only operative habits. But sanctifying grace affects the very substance of the soul. Hence the supplementary theological category of entitative habits. “Grace,” says St. Thomas, “belongs to the first species of quality, though it cannot properly be called a habit, because it is not immediately ordained to action, but to a kind of spiritual being, which it produces in the soul.”21 There is another reason why grace cannot be called a habit in the philosophical sense of the term: — it supplies no acquired facility to act. This consideration led Suarez to abstain altogether from the use of the term “habit” in connection with grace,22 and induced Cardinal Bellarmine to describe sanctifying grace as a qualitas per modum habitus,23 by which phrase he wished to indicate that it imparts a supernatural perfection of being rather than a facility to act. To obviate these and similar subtleties the Council of Trent defined sanctifying grace simply as a permanent quality.

Nevertheless scientific theology employs the term habitus because it has no other philosophical category ready to hand. This defect in the Aristotelian system is somewhat surprising in view of the fact that besides the supernatural, there are distinctly natural qualities which “belong to the first species,” though they impart no facility to act but merely a disposition to certain modes of being, e. g. beauty, health, etc.

There is also a positive reason which justifies the definition of sanctifying grace as a habit. It is that grace imparts to the soul, if not the facility, at least the power to perform supernaturally meritorious acts, so that it is really more than a habitus entitativus, namely, a habitus (at least remotely) operativus.24

b) The Scholastic distinction between native and acquired habits does not apply in the supernatural domain, because the supernatural by its very definition can never be either a part or an acquisition of mere nature.25 It follows from this that supernatural habits, both entitative and operative, can be imparted to the human soul in no other way than by infusion (or excitation) from above. Hence the name habitus infusus. When the Holy Ghost infuses sanctifying grace, the habitus entitativus imparts to the soul a supernatural principle of being, while the habitus operativus confers upon it a supernatural power, which by faithful coöperation with (actual) grace may be developed into a facility to perform salutary acts. Hence, if we adopt the division of habits into entitative and operative, sanctifying grace must be defined first as an entitative habit (habitus entitativus), because it forms the groundwork of permanent righteousness, sanctity, divine sonship, etc.; and, secondly, as an infused habit, because it is not born in the soul and cannot be acquired by practice. This view is in accord with Sacred Scripture, which describes the grace of justification as a divine seed abiding in man,26 a treasure carried in earthen vessels,27 a regeneration by which the soul becomes the abode of God28 and a temple of the Holy Ghost.29

3. The Controversy Regarding the Alleged Identity of Sanctifying Grace and Charity

As justifying grace and theological love (charity) are both infused habits, the question arises as to their objective identity. The answer will depend on the solution of the problem, just treated, whether sanctifying grace is primarily an entitative or an operative habit. Of theological love we know that it is essentially an operative habit, being one, and indeed the chief of the “three theological virtues.” What we have said in the preceding paragraph will enable the reader to perceive, at the outset, that there is a real distinction between grace and charity, and that consequently the two can not be identical.

a) Nevertheless there is an imposing school of theologians who maintain the identity of grace with charity. They are Scotus30 and his followers,31 Cardinal Bellarmine,32 Molina, Lessius, Salmeron, Vasquez, Sardagna, Tournely, and others. Their principal argument is that Holy Scripture ascribes active justification indiscriminately to theological love and sanctifying grace, and that some of the Fathers follow this example. Here are a few of the Scriptural texts quoted in favor of this opinion. Luke VII, 47: “Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much.”33 1 Pet. IV, 8: “Charity covereth a multitude of sins.”34 1 John IV, 7: “Every one that loveth is born of God.”35 St. Augustine seems to identify the two habits in such passages as the following: “Inchoate love, therefore, is inchoate righteousness; … great love is great righteousness; perfect love is perfect righteousness.”36 According to the Tridentine Council, “the justification of the impious” takes place when “the charity of God is poured forth … in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein.”37 It is argued that, if charity and grace produce the same effects, they must be identical as causes, and there can be at most a virtual distinction between them. This argument is strengthened by the observation that sanctifying grace and theological love constitute the supernatural life of the soul and the loss of either entails spiritual death.

These arguments prove that grace and charity are inseparable, but nothing more. All the Scriptural and Patristic passages cited can be explained without recourse to the hypothesis that they are identical. Charity is not superfluous alongside of sanctifying grace, because the primary object of grace is to impart supernatural being, whereas charity confers a special faculty which enables the intellect and the will to elicit supernatural salutary acts.

b) The majority of Catholic theologians38 hold with St. Thomas39 and his school that grace and charity, while inseparable, are really distinct, sanctifying grace as a habitus entitativus imparting to the soul a supernatural being, whereas charity, being purely a habitus operativus, confers a supernatural power.

Let us put the matter somewhat differently. Grace inheres in the substance of the soul, while charity has its seat in one of its several faculties. Inhering in the very substance of the soul, grace, by a physical or moral power, produces the three theological virtues — faith, hope, and love. “As the soul’s powers, which are the wellsprings of its acts, flow from its essence,” says the Angelic Doctor, “so the theological virtues flow from grace into the faculties of the soul and move them to act.”40 And St. Augustine: “Grace precedes charity.”41

This is a more plausible view than the one we have examined a little farther up, and it can claim the authority of Scripture, which, though it occasionally identifies the effects of grace and charity, always clearly distinguishes the underlying habits. Cfr. 2 Cor. XIII, 13: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity of God.”42 1 Tim. I, 14: “The grace of our Lord hath abounded exceedingly with faith and love.”43 Furthermore, “regeneration” and “new-creation” in Biblical usage affect not only the faculties of the soul, but its substance. Finally, many councils consistently distinguish between gratia and caritas (dona, virtutes) — a distinction which has almost the force of a proof that grace and charity are not the same thing.44 These councils cannot have had in mind a purely virtual distinction, because theological love presupposes sanctifying grace in exactly the same manner as a faculty presupposes a substance or nature in which it exists. The Roman Catechism expressly designates the theological virtues as “concomitants of grace.”45

The question nevertheless remains an open one, as neither party can fully establish its claim, and the Church has never rendered an official decision either one way or the other.46

4. Sanctifying Grace a Participation of the Soul in the Divine Nature

The highest and at the same time the most profound conception of sanctifying grace is that it is a real, though of course only accidental and analogical, participation of the soul in the nature of God. That sanctifying grace makes us “partakers of the divine nature” is of faith, but the manner in which it effects this participation admits of different explanations.

a) The fact itself can be proved from Sacred Scripture. Cfr. 2 Pet. I, 4: “By whom [Christ] He [the Father] hath given us great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature.”47 To this text may be added all those which affirm the regeneration of the soul in God, because regeneration, being a new birth, must needs impart to the regenerate the nature of his spiritual progenitor. Cfr. John I, 13: “Who are born, not of blood, … but of God.”48 John III, 5: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.”49 St. James I, 18: “For of his own will hath he begotten us by the word of truth.”50 1 John III, 9: “Whosoever is born of God, committeth no sin.”51

The Fathers of the Church again and again extol the deification (deificatio, θείωσις) of man effected by sanctifying grace and compare the union of the soul with God to the commingling of water with wine, the penetration of iron by fire, etc. St. Athanasius52 begins his Christological teaching with the declaration: “He was not, therefore, first man and then God, but first God and then man, in order that He might rather deify us.”53 St. Augustine describes the process of deification as follows: “He justifies who is just of Himself, not from another; and He deifies who is God of Himself, not by participation in another. But He who justifies also deifies, because He makes [men] sons of God through justification… . We have been made sons of God and gods; but this is a grace of the adopting [God], not the nature of the progenitor. The Son of God alone is God; … the others who are made gods are made gods by His grace; they are not born of His substance, so as to become that which He is, but in order that they may come to Him by favor and become co-heirs with Christ.”54 The idea underlying this passage has found its way into the liturgy of the Mass,55 and Ripalda is justified in declaring that it cannot be denied without rashness.56

b) In trying to explain in what manner grace enables us to partake of the divine nature, it is well to keep in view the absolutely supernatural character of sanctifying grace and the impossibility of any deification of the creature in the strict sense of the term. The truth lies between these two extremes.

A few medieval mystics57 and modern Quietists58 were guilty of exaggeration when they taught that grace transforms the human soul into the substance of the Godhead, thus completely merging the creature in its Creator. This contention59 leads to Pantheism. How can the soul be merged in the Creator, since it continues to be subject to concupiscence? “We have therefore,” says St. Augustine, “even now begun to be like Him, as we have the first-fruits of the Spirit; but yet even now we are unlike Him, by reason of the old nature which leaves its remains in us. In as far, then, as we are like Him, in so far are we, by the regenerating Spirit, sons of God; but in as far as we are unlike Him, in so far are we the children of the flesh and of this world.”60

On the other hand it would be underestimating the power of grace to say that it effects a merely external and moral participation of the soul in the divine nature, similar to that by which those who embraced the faith of Abraham were called “children of Abraham,” and those who commit heinous crimes are called “sons of the devil.” According to the Fathers61 and theologians, to “partake of the divine nature” means to become internally and physically like God and to receive from Him truly divine gifts, i. e. such as are proper to God alone and absolutely transcend the order of nature.62 Being self-existing, absolutely independent, and infinite, God cannot, of course, be regarded as the formal cause of created sanctity; yet the strictly supernatural gifts which He confers on His creatures, especially the beatific vision and sanctifying grace, can be conceived only per modum causae formalis (not informantis), because through them God gives Himself to the creature in such an intimate way that the creature is raised up to and transfigured by Him.63 Consequently, the so-called deificatio of the soul by grace is not a real deification, but an assimilation of the creature to God.64

c) Which one of God’s numerous attributes forms the basis of the supernatural communication made to the soul in the bestowal of grace, is a question on which theologians differ widely. The so-called incommunicable attributes, (self-existence, immensity, eternity, etc.), of course, cannot be imparted to the creature except by way of a hypostatic union.65

Gonet66 misses the point at issue, therefore, when He declares the essential characteristic of deification to be the communication to the creature of the divine attributes of self-existence and infinity. Self-existence is absolutely incommunicable.67 Somewhat more plausible, though hardly acceptable, is Ripalda’s opinion that deification formally consists in the participation of the creature in the holiness of the Creator, particularly in the supernatural vital communion of the soul with God in faith, hope, and charity, thus making sanctifying grace the radix totius honestatis moralis.68 While it is perfectly true that the supernatural life of the soul is a life in and through God, and that the very concept of sanctifying grace involves a peculiar and special relation of the soul to God, the Biblical term κοινωνία θείας φύσεως points to a still deeper principle of the sanctifying vita deiformis. This principle, as some of the Fathers intimate, and St. Thomas expressly teaches,69 is the absolute intellectuality of God. Hence the object of sanctifying grace is to impart to the soul in a supernatural manner such a degree of intellectuality as is necessary to perceive the absolute Spirit — here on earth in the obscurity of faith, and in the life beyond by the lumen gloriae.70 This view is to a certain extent confirmed by Sacred Scripture, which describes the regeneration of the sinner as a birth of spirit from spirit.71 It is also held by some of the Fathers, who attribute to sanctifying grace both a deifying and a spiritualizing power. Thus St. Basil72 says: “The spirit-bearing souls, illuminated by the Holy Ghost, themselves become spiritual73 and radiate grace to others. Hence … to become like unto God,74 is the highest of all goals: to become God.”75 Finally, since the Holy Ghost, as the highest exponent of the spirituality of the divine nature, by His personal indwelling crowns and consummates both the regeneration of the soul and its assimilation to God, there is a strong theological probability in favor of Suarez’s view. Of course the process does not attain its climax until the creature is finally admitted to the beatific vision in Heaven. Cfr. 1 John III, 2: “We are now the sons of God, and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like to Him, because we shall see Him as He is.”76

Footnotes

  1. Conc. Trid., Sess. VI, cap. 7: “Per Spiritum Sanctum caritas Dei diffunditur in cordibus eorum, qui iustificantur, atque ipsis inhaeret.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 800.) ↩

  2. Sess. VI, cap. 16: “Quae enim iustitia nostra dicitur, quia per eam nobis inhaerentem iustificamur, illa eadem Dei est, quia a Deo nobis infunditur per Christi meritum.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 809.) ↩

  3. Sess. VI, can. 11: “Si quis dixerit, homines iustificari … exclusâ gratiâ et caritate, quae in cordibus eorum per Spiritum sanctum diffundatur atque in illis inhaereat, … anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 821.) ↩

  4. Sess. VI, cap. 4: “[Iustificatio est] translatio … in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 796.) ↩

  5. Cfr. Pallavicini, Hist. Conc. Trid., VIII, 14, 3: “Postulantibus quibusdam, ut expressius declararetur fieri iustitiam per habitum infusum, delecti Patres ad id responderunt, id satis explicari per vocem ‘inhaeret,’ quae stabilitatem significat et habitibus congruit, non actibus.” It was on the same ground that Pius V censured the forty-second proposition of Baius, viz.: “Iustitia quâ iustificatur per fidem impius, consistit formaliter in obedientia mandatorum, quae est operum iustitia; non autem in gratia aliqua animae infusa, quâ adoptatur homo in filium Dei, et secundum interiorem hominem renovatur ac divinae naturae consors efficitur.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1042.) ↩

  6. Cfr. the Cap. Maiores of Pope Innocent III (Decret., l. 3, tit. 42, De Bapt.): “Aliis asserentibus, per virtutem baptismi parvulis quidem culpam remitti, sed gratiam non conferri; nonnullis dicentibus, dimitti peccatum et virtutes infundi quantum ad habitum, non quoad usum.” ↩

  7. De Summa Trinit. et Fide Cath.: “Quantum ad effectum baptismi in parvulis reperiuntur doctores quidam theologi opiniones contrarias habuisse, quibusdam ex ipsis dicentibus, per virtutem baptismi parvulis quidem culpam remitti, sed gratiam non conferri, aliis e contra asserentibus, quod et culpa eisdem in baptismo remittitur et virtutes ac informans gratia infunduntur quoad habitum, etsi non pro illo tempore quoad usum. Nos attendentes generalem efficaciam mortis Christi, quae per baptisma applicatur pariter omnibus baptizatis, opinionem secundam tamquam probabiliorem et dictis sanctorum et modernorum theologorum magis consonam et conformem sacro approbante concilio duximus eligendam.” ↩

  8. Cfr. Conc. Trid., Sess. V, can. 4; Sess. VII, can. 13. For a fuller treatment consult Suarez, De Gratia, VI, 3; Vasquez, Comment. in S. Th., I, 2, disp. 203, cap. 6. The false views of Hermes and Hirscher are refuted by Kleutgen, Theologie der Vorzeit, Vol. II, 2nd ed., pp. 254-343, Münster 1872. ↩

  9. Libri Quatuor Sent., I, dist. 17, § 18. ↩

  10. Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 23, art. 2. ↩

  11. Conc. Trid., Sess. VI, can. 24. ↩

  12. Cfr. Schiffini, De Gratia Divina, pp. 263 sq. ↩

  13. Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1a 2ae, qu. 110, art. 1; Summa contra Gentiles, III, 150. ↩

  14. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, p. 193. ↩

  15. Summa Theol., 1a 2ae, qu. 110, art. 2, ad 2: “Omnis substantia vel est ipsa natura rei, cuius est substantia, vel est pars naturae, secundum quem modum materia vel forma substantia dicitur. Et quia gratia est supra naturam humanam, non potest esse quod sit substantia aut forma substantialis, sed est forma accidentalis ipsius animae.” ↩

  16. Cfr. Billuart, De Gratia, diss. 6, art. 2. ↩

  17. This theory was based on such texts as Ps. L., 12: “Cor mundum crea in me.” ↩

  18. Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 2 de Bapt., qu. 49: “Est autem gratia … divina qualitas in anima inhaerens ac veluti splendor quidam et lux, quae animarum nostrarum maculas omnes delet ipsasque animas pulchriores et splendidiores reddit.” On the supernatural character of sanctifying grace see Pohle-Preuss, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, pp. 191 sqq. ↩

  19. Categ., 6. ↩

  20. ”… qualitas difficile mobilis, secundum quam res bene vel male se habet in ordine ad suam naturam et ad operationem vel finem eius.” Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1a 2ae, qu. 19, art. 2; S. Schiffini, Principia Philosophica ad Mentem Aquinatis, pp. 574 sqq., Turin 1886; A. Lehmen, Lehrbuch der Philosophie auf aristotelisch-thomistischer Grundlage, Vol. I, 3rd ed., pp. 398 sqq., Freiburg 1904. ↩

  21. De Veritate, qu. 27, art. 2, ad 7: “Gratia est in prima specie qualitatis, quamvis non proprie possit dici habitus, quia non immediate ordinatur ad actum, sed ad quoddam esse spiritale, quod in anima facit.” ↩

  22. De Gratia, VI, 4, 1: “Abstinuimus ab hac voce, quia per habitum solet intelligi principium actus; quamvis, si vox illa latius sumatur, pro quacumque qualitate perficiente animam, quae non sit actus secundus, eadem certitudine, quâ ostendimus dari gratiam permanentem, concluditur esse qualitatem habitualem.” ↩

  23. De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, I, 3. ↩

  24. Cfr. Ripalda, De Ente Supernaturali, disp. 30. Under these circumstances Suarez was justified in saying, in regard to the degree of certitude to be attributed to this teaching: “Si quis negaret gratiam sanctificantem esse habitum, licet esse temere dictum, non posset tamen ut haereticum damnari.” ↩

  25. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, pp. 190 sqq. ↩

  26. Cfr. 1 John, III, 9: “σπέρμα αὐτοῦ [scil. Θεοῦ] ἐν αὐτῷ μένει.” ↩

  27. Cfr. 2 Cor. IV, 7: ”… thesaurum in vasis fictilibus.” ↩

  28. Cfr. John XIV, 23: “Mansionem apud eum faciemus.” ↩

  29. Cfr. 1 Cor. III, 16. — On the subtle question whether habitual grace is to be regarded as a real or merely as a modal accident of the soul, see Tepe, Inst. Theol., Vol. III, pp. 154 sqq., Paris 1896; Chr. Pesch, Prael. Dogmat., Vol. V, 3rd ed., pp. 181 sqq., Freiburg 1908. An extreme and altogether unacceptable view is that of Billuart (De Gratia, diss. 6, art. 2), who regards sanctifying grace as an absolute accident, i. e. one which the omnipotence of God could miraculously sustain if the soul ceased to exist. Cfr. Suarez, De Gratia, VII, 15; Schiffini, De Gratia Divina, p. 259; Tepe, Inst. Theol., Vol. III, pp. 164 sqq. ↩

  30. Comment. in Quatuor Libros Sent., II, dist. 27. ↩

  31. E. g., Mastrius, De Iustif., disp. 7, qu. 6. ↩

  32. De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, I, 6. ↩

  33. Luke VII, 47: “Remittuntur ei peccata multa, quoniam dilexit (ἠγάπησεν) multum.” ↩

  34. 1 Pet. IV, 8: “Caritas (ἀγάπη) operit multitudinem peccatorum.” ↩

  35. 1 John IV, 7: “Omnis qui diligit (πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν) ex Deo natus est.” ↩

  36. De Natura et Gratia, c. 70, n. 84: “Caritas ergo inchoata, inchoata iustitia est, … caritas magna, magna iustitia est, caritas perfecta, perfecta iustitia est.” ↩

  37. Conc. Trid., Sess. VI, cap. 7: ”… dum caritas Dei diffunditur in cordibus eorum qui iustificantur atque ipsis inhaeret.” ↩

  38. Preëminently Suarez, Tanner, Ripalda. ↩

  39. Summa Theol., 1a 2ae, qu. 110, art. 3 sq.; De Veritate, qu. 27, art. 2. ↩

  40. Summa Theol., 1a 2ae, qu. 110, art. 4, ad 1: “Sicut ab essentia animae effluunt eius potentiae, quae sunt operum principia, ita etiam ab ipsa gratia effluunt virtutes [theologicae] in potentias animae, per quas [virtutes] potentiae moventur ad actus.” ↩

  41. De Dono Perseverantiae, c. 16, n. 41: “Gratia praevenit caritatem.” ↩

  42. 2 Cor. XIII, 13: “Gratia Domini nostri Iesu Christi et caritas Dei.” ↩

  43. 1 Tim. I, 14: “Superabundavit autem gratia Domini nostri cum fide et dilectione.” ↩

  44. Cfr. Conc. Viennense, A. D. 1311: ”… gratiam informantem et virtutes.” Conc. Trid., Sess. VI, cap. 7: ”… per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et donorum.” Sess. VI, can. 11: ”… exclusâ gratiâ et caritate.” ↩

  45. For a fuller treatment of this topic consult Billuart, De Gratia, diss. 4, art. 4. ↩

  46. Ripalda justly observes (De Ente Supernaturali, disp. 132, n. 132, n. 53): “Haec controversia olim celebris fuit. Nunc facile dirimitur, quum iam constiterit nullius partis argumenta plane convincere.” On the theological aspects of Herbart’s philosophy, which denies the existence of qualities and faculties in the soul, see Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. VIII, p. 560, Mainz 1897. ↩

  47. 2 Pet. I, 4: ”… per quem [i. e. Christum] maxima et pretiosa nobis promissa donavit, ut per haec efficiamini divinae consortes naturae (θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως).” ↩

  48. John I, 13: ”… qui non ex sanguinibus, … sed ex Deo nati sunt.” ↩

  49. John III, 5: “Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei.” ↩

  50. Jac. I, 18: “Voluntarie enim genuit nos verbo veritatis.” ↩

  51. 1 John III, 9: “Omnis qui natus est ex Deo, peccatum non facit.” ↩

  52. Or. contr. Arian., I, 39. ↩

  53. ἵνα μᾶλλον ἡμᾶς θεοποιήσῃ. ↩

  54. In Psalmos, 49, n. 2: “Ille iustificat, qui per seipsum, non ex alio iustus est; et ille deificat qui per seipsum non alterius participatione Deus est. Qui autem iustificat, ipse deificat, quia iustificando filios Dei facit… . Filii Dei facti sumus et dii facti sumus; sed hoc gratia est adoptantis, non natura generantis. Unicum enim Dei Filius Deus, … ceteri qui dii fiunt, gratiâ ipsius fiunt, non de substantia ipsius nascuntur, ut hoc sint quod ille, sed ut per beneficium perveniant ad eum et sint cohaeredes Christi.” Many other cognate Patristic texts in Ripalda, De Ente Supernaturali, disp. 132, sect. 7-9. ↩

  55. See, e. g., the Offertory and Preface for the festival of the Ascension of our Lord and the Secreta for the fourth Sunday after Easter. ↩

  56. Cfr. Ripalda, De Ente Supernaturali, disp. 132, sect. 7: “Per gratiam vero habitualem fieri hominem participem divinae naturae ideoque gratiam esse participationem deitatis, adeo frequens est et constans theologorum assertum, ut absque temeritate negari non possit.” On the teaching of St. Thomas and the Thomists see Billuart, De Gratia, diss. 4, art. 3. ↩

  57. Cfr. Prop. Ekkardi a. 1329 damn. a Ioanne XXII, prop. 10, quoted in Denzinger-Bannwart’s Enchiridion, n. 510. ↩

  58. Cfr. Prop. Mich. de Molinos a. 1687 damn. ab Innocentio XI, prop. 5, in Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1225. ↩

  59. The Fourth Council of the Lateran (A. D. 1215) calls it “doctrina non tam haeretica quam insana.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 433.) ↩

  60. St. Augustine, De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione, II, 8, 10: “Nunc ergo et similes esse iam coepimus primitias spiritus habentes, et adhuc dissimiles sumus per reliquias vetustatis. Proinde inquantum similes, in tantum regenerante Spiritu filii Dei; inquantum autem dissimiles, in tantum filii carnis et saeculi.” ↩

  61. Quoted by Ripalda, De Ente Supernaturali, disp. 132, sect. 9. ↩

  62. Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1a 2ae qu. 112, art. 1: “Donum autem gratiae excedit omnem facultatem naturae creatae, quum nihil aliud sit quam quaedam participatio divinae naturae, quae excedit omnem aliam naturam.” ↩

  63. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, pp. 165 sqq.; Christology, pp. 85 sqq. ↩

  64. Cfr. St. John of Damascus, De Fide Orthodoxa, II, 12: “[ἄνθρωπον] θεούμενον δὲ μετοχῇ τῆς θείας ἐλλάμψεως καὶ οὐκ εἰς τὴν θείαν μεθιστάμενον οὐσίαν.” ↩

  65. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, pp. 165 sqq. ↩

  66. Clyp. Thomist., tom. VI, disp. 2, § 10. ↩

  67. Cfr. Suarez, De Gratia, VII, 1, 27: “Eo ipso quod divinum esse participatur, non participatur ut imparticipatum est.” ↩

  68. De Ente Supernaturali, disp. 20, sect. 14. ↩

  69. S. Theol., 1a, qu. 93, art. 4. ↩

  70. Cfr. Suarez, De Gratia, VII, 1, 30: “Vera ergo excellentia gratiae habitualis, propter quam dicitur esse singularis participatio divinae naturae, est … quia, quum natura divina sit quaedam intellectualis natura altioris ordinis quam sit vel esse possit ulla substantia intellectualis creata, ille gradus intellectualitatis, qui est in divina intellectualitate, divino quodam et supernaturali modo participatur per habitualem gratiam, quo quidem modo a nulla substantia creata per se ipsam vel per potentiam sibi connaturalem participari potest… . Divina enim essentia in ratione obiecti intelligibilis in se et per visionem intuitivam ad ipsam Dei essentiam immediate terminatam adeo est elevata et excellens ratione purissimae actualitatis et immaterialitatis suae, ut a nulla substantia intellectuali possit connaturaliter videri, nisi a seipsa. Per gratiam vero et dona supernaturalia elevatur natura creata intellectualis ad participationem illius gradus intellectualitatis divinae, in quo possit obiectum illud intelligibile divinae essentiae in se intueri.” ↩

  71. John III, 6; cfr. 2 Cor. III, 18; Eph. V, 18. ↩

  72. De Spiritu Sancto, c. 9, n. 23. ↩

  73. πνευματικαί. ↩

  74. ἡ πρὸς Θεὸν ὁμοίωσις. ↩

  75. Θεὸν γενέσθαι. ↩

  76. 1 John III, 2: “Nunc filii Dei sumus et nondum apparuit, quid erimus; scimus quoniam, quum apparuerit, similes ei erimus (ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα), quoniam videbimus eum sicuti est.” On this passage see Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, pp. 96 sq. On the whole subject treated in this subdivision consult Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. VIII, pp. 588 sqq.; A. Rademacher, Die übernatürliche Lebensordnung nach der paulinischen und johanneischen Theologie, pp. 88 sqq., Freiburg 1903; A. Prumbs, Die Stellung des Trienter Konzils zu der Frage nach dem Wesen der heiligmachenden Gnade, Paderborn 1910. ↩

menu_book
Summa Theologica · Ia IIae, qu. 110
Browse Glenn's Tour for this topic →

description Magisterial Documents

description Aeterni Patris 1879 description Mystici Corporis Christi 1943