GRACE: Commentary on the Summa theologica of St. Thomas

 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

 Chapter II: QUESTION 109 THE NECESSITY OF GRACE

 ARTICLE I.

 ARTICLE II.

 ARTICLE III.

 ARTICLE IV.

 ARTICLE V.

 ARTICLE VI.

 ARTICLE VII.

 ARTICLE VIII.

 ARTICLE IX.

 ARTICLE X.

 Chapter III: QUESTION 110 THE GRACE OF GOD WITH RESPECT TO ITS ESSENCE

 ARTICLE I.

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III. WHETHER GRACE IS IDENTICAL WITH VIRTUE, PARTICULARLY WITH CHARITY

 ARTICLE IV. WHETHER HABITUAL GRACE IS IN THE ESSENCE OF THE SOUL AS IN A SUBJECT

 Chapter IV: QUESTION 111 THE DIVISIONS OF GRACE

 ARTICLE I.

 ARTICLE IV.

 ARTICLE V. WHETHER GRACE GRATIS DATA IS SUPERIOR TO SANCTIFYING GRACE

 ARTICLE II.

 ARTICLE III.

 Chapter V: I.  INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: STATE OF THE QUESTION

 Chapter VI: SUFFICIENT GRACE

 Chapter VII: EFFICACIOUS GRACE 

 Chapter VIII: EXCURSUS ON EFFICACIOUS GRACE

 Chapter IX: QUESTION 112   THE CAUSE OF GRACE

 ARTICLE I. WHETHER GOD ALONE IS THE CAUSE OF GRACE

 ARTICLE III.

 ARTICLE IV. WHETHER GRACE IS GREATER IN ONE MAN THAN IN ANOTHER

 ARTICLE V. WHETHER MAN CAN KNOW THAT HE POSSESSES GRACE

 Chapter X: QUESTION 113 THE EFFECTS OF GRACE

 ARTICLE I.

 ARTICLE II.

 ARTICLE III.

 ARTICLE IV.

 ARTICLE V.

 ARTICLE VI.

 ARTICLE VII.

 ARTICLE VIII.

 ARTICLE IX.

 ARTICLE X.

 Chapter XI: QUESTION 114 MERIT

 ARTICLE I.

 ARTICLE II.

 ARTICLE III.

 ARTICLE IV.

 ARTICLE V.

 ARTICLE VI.

 ARTICLE VII.

 ARTICLE VIII.

 ARTICLE IX.

 ARTICLE X.

 Chapter XII: RECAPITULATION AND SUPPLEMENT

 APPENDIX: WHETHER AVERSION FROM THE SUPERNATURAL END CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT AVERSION FROM THE NATURAL END

ARTICLE VII.

WHETHER MAN CAN RISE FROM SIN WITHOUT THE HELP OF GRACE

State of the question. This article, following upon the preceding ones, may seem a useless repetition. Such is not the case, however, for, as Cajetan remarks: “thus far St. Thomas was dealing with the necessity of grace for doing good; now he is concerned with evil,” and in the last two articles with the necessity of grace for the man who is already just.

What is meant by rising from sin? It is not the same as ceasing from the act of sin, as Protestants claim, but it is man being restored to what, by sinning, he had forfeited. Now, by sinning, man incurs a threefold loss: the stain (habitual sin, privation of the ornament of grace), the incurring of punishment, and the decrease of the natural inclination to virtue, as stated previously (q.85-87). The reply to the question thus posed is negative; that is certain, so that Pelagius himself did not deny it but only insisted that grace should be bestowed on account of merits.

The answer is of faith, defined at the Council of Orange, can. 4, (Denz., no. 177) also can. 14 and 19; and at the Council of Trent, Sess. VI, can. 1 (Denz., no. 811), can. 3 (Denz., no. 813). The teaching of the Fathers is clear; cf. the words of Augustine quoted in the argument Sed contra; otherwise “Christ died for nothing,” if man can rise from sin without the help of grace.

This conclusion is proved by theological argument as follows:

To rise from sin is for man to be restored and liberated from the evils which he incurred by sin.

But by sin he incurred a threefold loss which cannot be repaired except by grace.

Therefore.

The minor is proved thus: 1. The stain is a privation of the ornament of grace, therefore it cannot be repaired except by grace itself. 2. The decrease in the inclination of the will toward virtue cannot be repaired unless God draws the will to Himself. 3. The incurring of punishment cannot be remitted except by God against whom the offense was committed. Nevertheless there can be an imperfect resurrection without habitual grace, by actual grace which is present in attrition when the sinner aspires after reconciliation. Cf. on this subject the sixty-fourth proposition of Baius (Denz., no. 1064).