Merits ...

[~Anastasia~]

I want to ask a question, and I hope I can explain it. I'm not sure if this is something that Orthodoxy has anything to do with, or I just don't understand at all ... so I'm hoping for comments.

"Merit theology" is also under discussion in another thread (I think in TT) so maybe my ears perked up. Anyway - I've kept my car radio off for about a month, and I was hoping to find some music tonight. (There is almost never anything good.) But as I was flipping through our 3 religious stations, I heard on the Catholic one a statement I wanted to ask about.

The person was talking about whether or not the grace would flow to the person who received the Eucharist, and that this grace was "merited by Christ" by His crucifixion.

Frankly, I have no idea really what they are talking about. Should I understand this? Is this in the basis of Christ "paying for" our sins, perhaps?

Then I was thinking about it some more, and in my protestant days, grace was always defined as "unmerited favor". I wonder if the reason Protestants use that particular definition is in reaction against Catholic theology?

My understanding of grace is really that it is the energies of God shared with us, and that it comes - well, because of His grace, goodness, and mercy, not because of any merit really (as in us "earning" it). Though He may bestow His grace via the Eucharist, for example, and it is our right reception of it that allows us to receive the grace, rather than condemnation that could result if we receive wrongly.

I would appreciate comments on any of this really. Thank you so much.

 

[Antony in Tx]

I'd say you've pretty well nailed the gist of it...of course, I'm not a priest or a theologist, so take with a grain of salt.

 

[buzuxi02]

The person was talking about whether or not the grace would flow to the person who received the Eucharist, and that this grace was "merited by Christ" by His crucifixion.

Someone will need to explain this merited, unmerited thing to me.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'd say you've pretty well nailed the gist of it...of course, I'm not a priest or a theologist, so take with a grain of salt.

Thank you Antony.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Someone will need to explain this merited, unmerited thing to me.

Maybe I should have asked in TT, but I really was concerned with the Orthodox pov.

In some cases what I was taught before seems to be washed away, especially in those matters where it didn't make sense to me. In others, I suspect it's still there and influences how I understand Orthodoxy, so I'm trying to sort it all out.

But this seems to be in the category of "washed away". I had to think for a but to recall the "definition of grace" I was taught all my life.

 

[ArmyMatt]

My understanding of grace is really that it is the energies of God shared with us, and that it comes - well, because of His grace, goodness, and mercy, not because of any merit really (as in us "earning" it). Though He may bestow His grace via the Eucharist, for example, and it is our right reception of it that allows us to receive the grace, rather than condemnation that could result if we receive wrongly.

this. grace is the gift of God Himself, and therefore not something that can be earned.

 

[dzheremi]

I won't comment on the EO perspective (obviously), but from what I remember being taught when I was Roman Catholic, merits (and the idea of a "treasury of merits", which is part of the RC theology surrounding indulgences) are more about the power and unlimitedness of God than about what man can do to earn them. Not that that isn't in there too, but Catholic friends of mine will sometimes talk about "the merits of Christ" being applied to this or that person. So, for instance, the "treasury of merits" is defined in Merriam-Websters as "the superabundant satisfaction of Christ for human sins and the excess of merit of the saints which according to Roman Catholic theology is effective for salvation of others and is available for dispensation through indulgences."

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me intuitively (and still didn't after it was explained to me by several priests), but its part of their way of understanding how the communion of the saints affects and uplifts the church here on earth. Of course, not believing in purgatory or indulgences, this whole merits idea is probably at best unnecessary to Orthodox Christians.

 

[All4Christ]

Pope Shenouda wrote a very helpful paper on 'salvation in Orthodox (albeit Coptic) concept' which touched on this subject. I'll look it up hopefully tonight in case you are interested.

 

[dzheremi]

I believe I have read that. Isn't it by Fr. Tadros Malaty, not HH? I may be thinking of something else (there is a whole series of those little booklets called "X in the Orthodox Concept", e.g., "Saint Mary in the Orthodox Concept").

Though maybe you're thinking of someone else, too...I doubt HH or Fr. Tadros would've put "(albeit Coptic)" in there.

 

[All4Christ]

I believe I have read that. Isn't it by Fr. Tadros Malaty, not HH? I may be thinking of something else (there are a whole series of those little booklets called "X in the Orthodox Concept", e.g., "Saint Mary in the Orthodox Concept").

Though maybe you're thinking of someone else, too...I doubt HH or Fr. Tadros would've put "(albeit Coptic)" in there.

Perhaps it was from him. I thought Pope Shenouda wrote a larger book and this was a scaled down version of it. I thought the shorter version had Pope Shenouda's name on it as well, but I could be wrong.

I'm sure they would not have albeit Coptic either That said, she asked for the EO view, so I have to qualify that it isn't strictly written by someone from the EO... no offense intended!

I really loved the book though. It is a perfect response to OSAS. The full version is pretty long though, so anyone reading it will need to set aside a good chunk of time!!

 

[dzheremi]

Hmm. Well, if you could share what you learned from it, I'd be interested (not to drag this thread too far off topic, since HH is not EO, though it is good to present a consistent correction of the errors of RCism which both of our communions see).

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm actually interested in starting another thread to make sure I understand the differences in EO and OO, but I thought on this we were completely the same anyway?

I don't mind where you all take this. I just felt confused listening to that last night, and reflecting on other conversations in CF, and back on Protestant teaching. Sometimes I need to go over this and that to make sure I haven't mixed anything together (or inappropriately separated theologies either).

Thanks very much, all.

 

[dzheremi]

Perhaps that could be better explored in a different thread on the OO board, if you're interested Kylissa? Unfortunately I think I'm the only active poster over there, so it's kind of all the same (I don't know where everybody went), but just to keep everything in the right area.

I don't know that this particular topic is something that we differ on. I've read EO writings on this matter and they're virtually identical to the things that my bishop has said about this topic.

 

[All4Christ]

I'm actually interested in starting another thread to make sure I understand the differences in EO and OO, but I thought on this we were completely the same anyway?

I don't mind where you all take this. I just felt confused listening to that last night, and reflecting on other conversations in CF, and back on Protestant teaching. Sometimes I need to go over this and that to make sure I haven't mixed anything together (or inappropriately separated theologies either).

Thanks very much, all.

I believe Coptic / EO are on the same page with this...I just wanted to clarify in my response that it was from a Coptic Orthodox source since you asked for EO responses

I completely understand how you feel with the theology potentially getting mixed up, etc.!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Perhaps that could be better explored in a different thread on the OO board, if you're interested Kylissa? Unfortunately I think I'm the only active poster over there, so it's kind of all the same (I don't know where everybody went), but just to keep everything in the right area.

I don't know that this particular topic is something that we differ on. I've read EO writings on this matter and they're virtually identical to the things that my bishop has said about this topic.

Could always start a thread there, if you think it might help revitalize the board a bit or if you think someone would know something about the comparison.

I wouldn't honestly know what to ask about because I'm just not aware of any difference in what our Churches teach, from one another?

Or if you'd rather you can discuss it here. It's ok with me either way, and while it's not good to have the exact same thread in several places, I could change the question a bit. LMK what you would rather see, and I will do it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So, for instance, the "treasury of merits" is defined in Merriam-Websters as "the superabundant satisfaction of Christ for human sins and the excess of merit of the saints which according to Roman Catholic theology is effective for salvation of others and is available for dispensation through indulgences."

saying that there is an excess of merit of the saints sounds like it can be quantified, which ties into indulgences. makes sense that the EO and the OO (I am pretty sure) reject that concept, because God's grace toward any saint cannot be quantified since it's Him.

 

[All4Christ]

I believe I have read that. Isn't it by Fr. Tadros Malaty, not HH? I may be thinking of something else (there is a whole series of those little booklets called "X in the Orthodox Concept", e.g., "Saint Mary in the Orthodox Concept").

I just got the link to the PDF up. it was Pope Shenouda that wrote both Salvation in the Orthodox Concept and the Heresy of Salvation in a Moment


http://www.saint-mary.net/Books/Salvation in the Orthodox Concept.pdf

 

[dzheremi]

saying that there is an excess of merit of the saints sounds like it can be quantified, which ties into indulgences. makes sense that the EO and the OO (I am pretty sure) reject that concept, because God's grace toward any saint cannot be quantified since it's Him.

Yes, we also reject this idea. It does make it seem like they're quantifiable. That's weird to me. It's like God is a supernatural ATM or something. I don't like it. Anyway, just to get a Catholic source on this (since Merriam-Webster's isn't one), here is the definition of the Treasury of Merit from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary (1980):

Also called the Treasury of the Church. It consists of the superabundant merits of Jesus Christ and his faithful ones. such a treasury implies that good works benefit others, and that the Communion of Saints is also an intercommunication of merits, not only when a good work is performed but, under God's Providence, for all future time.

And of 'merit' itself (it's longer, but the RCC has lots of different types of this, so it might be good to know about in detail):

Divine reward for the practice of virtue. It is a Catholic doctrine that by his good works a person in the state of grace really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God. "The reward given for good works is not won by reason of actions which precede grace, but grace, which is unmerited, precedes actions in order that they may be performed meritoriously" (II Council of Orange, Denzinger 388).

Certain conditions must be present to make supernatural merit possible. The meritorious work must be morally good, that is, in accordance with the moral law in its object, intent, and circumstances. It must be done freely, without any external coercion or internal necessity. It must be supernatural, that is, aroused and accompanied by actual grace, and proceeding from a supernatural motive. The person must be a wayfarer, here on earth, since no one can merit after death.

Strictly speaking only a person in the state of grace can merit, as defined by the Church (Denzinger 1576, 1582).

Merit depends on the free ordinance of God to reward with everlasting happiness the good works performed by his grace. On account of the infinite distance between Creator and creature, a human being alone cannot make God his or her debtor, if God does not do so by his own free ordinance. That God has made such an ordinance is clear from his frequent promises, e.g., the Beatitudes and the prediction of the Last Judgment.

The object of supernatural merit is an increase of sanctifying grace, eternal life (if the person dies in divine friendship), and an increase of heavenly glory. (Etym. Latin merces, hire, pay, reward.)

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes, we also reject this idea. It does make it seem like they're quantifiable. That's weird to me. It's like God is a supernatural ATM or something. I don't like it.

thanks, that's a great analogy (God being some cosmic ATM)

 

[~Anastasia~]

The idea that grace can be quantifiable is a huge red flag to me. I remember when I came across something - someone was saying the Orthodox Church agreed with certain measured grace statements from a Catholic source, and I remember being hardly able to wait to get to my next catechesis class and ask Father. It would have probably been a "deal breaker" as they say. The other catechumen was Catholic, and he understood my question before Father did, and started to laugh (though he was sympathetic). And I was assured that our Church did not teach that God measure out x-amount of grace for y-behavior.

And yet ... there seems to be some cross-over or connection with an idea that I suppose is maybe on the same spectrum. IF I am starting to properly understand the Catholic pov. That connection has to do with the idea that we can pray for one another, for example. We might ask God's mercy on someone, or even that God will forgive them. And the prayers of some might be especially efficacious, and the amount of prayers offered can be of benefit?

Not only that, but (this I am really not sure about - I think it was a single source and I never checked it out) ... is there something along the lines of "excess prayers" ... meaning if someone prays much for someone, but that person doesn't need it after all, that it's sort of like some kind of cosmic "tipping of the balance" that can benefit someone else in some way? I may be WAY off base with this, and I should have checked it out more carefully, but I had something else that I needed to study out instead, iirc.

I think it connects to the idea of communion of the Saints, and that we are also saved in community (though I think I have heard of two meanings of this second part).

I'm almost hesitant to post this for the risk that it can be seriously misunderstood. But because correction is certainly appreciated on any of this - the only way I know is to ask.