GRACE: Commentary on the Summa theologica of St. Thomas
Chapter II: QUESTION 109 THE NECESSITY OF GRACE
Chapter III: QUESTION 110 THE GRACE OF GOD WITH RESPECT TO ITS ESSENCE
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 V. WHETHER GRACE GRATIS DATA IS SUPERIOR TO SANCTIFYING GRACE
Chapter V: I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: STATE OF THE QUESTION
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 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
Chapter XI: QUESTION 114 MERIT
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).