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 THE JUST MAN CAN
MERIT THE FIRST GRACE FOR ANOTHER
It seems so, for St. James writes in his Epistle (5:16): “Pray for one another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.”
The precise answer of St. Thomas is: not de condigno; but he can well do so de congruo even properly speaking.
The first part of his reply is based on the scriptural text: “If Moses and Samuel shall stand before Me, my soul is not toward this people” (Jer. 15:1); and yet Moses and Samuel were of the greatest merit before God.
The theological argument is the following. Grace conferred on a mere man is especially ordained to his own sanctification, but not to the sanctification of others. It differs in this respect from the capital grace which existed in Christ, the Redeemer of all (IIIa, q. 8, a. 2). But our work has the reason of merit de condigno on account of the moving force of divine grace, according to the ordination and extention of this grace in justice. Therefore no one but Christ, not even the Blessed Virgin Mary, can merit de condigno the first grace for another. The text should be consulted.
The second part of St. Thomas’ answer, that is, regarding merit de congruo properly speaking is in the affirmative. It is based on several scriptural texts: “The continual prayer of a just man availeth much” (Jas. 5:16); and the reference to prayer for the brethren which obtains their conversion (I John 5:16). Thus the prayer of St. Stephen, the first martyr, obtained the conversion of Paul. Likewise St. Monica procured the conversion of Augustine by her prayers and good works. In these texts it is not a question of the prayer of the sinner, but of the prayer of the just man which is at once impetratory and meritorious, meritorious of itself de condigno and for others de congruo, inasmuch as the just man is a friend of God. Similarly, the Blessed Virgin Mary merited for us de congruo what Christ merited de condigno; cf. Denz., no. 3034, encycl. of Pius X.
The argument is formulated as follows: Merit de congruo properly speaking is based on the right of friendship. But between the just man and God there exists the friendship of charity. Therefore it is properly fitting that God should fulfill the desire and prayer of the just man for the salvation of another, as long as there is no impediment of excessive obstinacy on the part of that other; and this merit de congruo is higher in proportion to the degree of charity which the just man possesses. It reaches its climax in the Blessed Virgin Mary. The text of St. Thomas should be read.
REFUTATION OF THE OBJECTIONS
First objection. Thus the living faith of one is availing for others, according to merit de congruo even properly speaking.
Second objection. “The impetration of prayer rests on mercy; but merit de condigno rests on justice. Wherefore by praying much man impetrates from the divine mercy what he does not in fact merit according to justice.” These words are deserving of particular attention. Cf. Daniel here quoted. (On the other hand, whatever Christ obtains He also merits de condigno.)
Cf. reply to the third objection which applies this to alms given to the poor. St. Thomas’ beautiful interpretation deserves to be read: “The poor receiving alms are said to receive others into eternal dwellings.” Thereby is also explained the true devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary as advocated by St. Grignon de Montfort, according to which we offer to her whatever of our works is communicable to others. Thus we also offer to Mary our incommunicable merits de condigno for the purpose of having them safeguarded by her and augmented by her prayers, and also, in the case of mortal sin, that she may obtain the grace for us, not of any sort of attrition whatever, but of fervent contrition, so as to recover these merits in the same degree and proportionately to the fervor of our contrition; cf. IIIa, q. 89, a. 2.
Moreover, we offer to the Blessed Virgin whatever is communicable to other souls, on earth or in purgatory, of our good works, such as merit de congruo, prayers and satisfactions, so that she may distribute these communicable goods to the souls who need them most and especially to those for whom we ought to pray on account of a relationship of blood or vocation or in gratitude, and of whose present necessities we are often ignorant at the moment. Thus do we enter more profoundly into the mystery of the Communion of Saints.