Merits ...

[buzuxi02]

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."

Yes that I know but how is this applicable to the OP? For example the papal dogma of Immaculate Conception says the merits of Christ went backwards in time and cleansed the Theotokos of all stain of original sin. This to me makes no sense in light of Orthodox soteriology. Are they saying that Christ and the glorified saints have gone so far and above the call of duty as christians that they can give up some of their holiness and donate it to the less holy??? (I understand in Christ's case that it never diminishes) but it makes no sense. If that was the case lets just say Christ's merits saves everyone and call it a day.
Deification is an infinite process so its not like you can donate it, its a personal struggle of holiness. Now if im off in what im saying, perhaps i dont understand the concept especially in light of the op.

 

[ArmyMatt]

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 we would say no because God, before He created the world, saw the prayers and applied them to that person's life.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes that I know but how is this applicable to the OP? For example the papal dogma of Immaculate Conception says the merits of Christ went backwards in time and cleansed the Theotokos of all stain of original sin. This to me makes no sense in light of Orthodox soteriology. Are they saying that Christ and the glorified saints have gone so far and above the call of duty as christians that they can give up some of their holiness and donate it to the less holy??? (I understand in Christ's case that it never diminishes) but it makes no sense. If that was the case lets just say Christ's merits saves everyone and call it a day.
Deification is an infinite process so its not like you can donate it, its a personal struggle of holiness. Now if im off in what im saying, perhaps i dont understand the concept especially in light of the op.

I'm obviously no expert, but what you are saying makes sense and rings true to me.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think we would say no because God, before He created the world, saw the prayers and applied them to that person's life.

Hmmmmm. I'm not sure if I can remember/find the source anymore. I remember thinking it seemed an odd way of looking at things, and it made me uncomfortable. I wish I had written it down so I could check on it later, but it keeps coming back to mind that I needed to check on that.

Of course almost everything I learn fits together into a very integrated theology. But sometimes an idea comes up that doesn't seem to "fit" and this was one of them. I've always been kind of uncomfortable with it.

I think it was in the context of prayers for the sake of the dead (or anyone) not being "wasted". And it seemed to imply that the benefit would build for the sake of the one praying, but (I might be remembering wrong) but I do think they implied it could somehow add to one's prayers for another too.

I'll just say that how I feel about that is that it seems to "measure" the benefit of prayer, which isn't exactly the same as measured grace (and admittedly we have in Revelation the idea of bowls "filling up" with prayer) ... but the idea of transferring excess merit just cannot set well with me, when stated in that way.

Now, the idea that we send out goodwill, share love among persons, bear the burdens of others, and generally "increase good" in the cosmos in these ways makes sense. And the idea that God is perhaps disposed kindly toward the fact that we show love for others by praying for them, as well as (maybe more importantly) the fact that showing love for others (whether by praying for them or in other ways) serves to change US in ways that make us more like Christ - these things I can accept.

But the idea of a seeming ledger of prayer, where unnecessary excesses can be transferred from one person's account to another - just doesn't seem right.

 

[ArmyMatt]

But the idea of a seeming ledger of prayer, where unnecessary excesses can be transferred from one person's account to another - just doesn't seem right.

good, cause that ain't how it works. I recommend Fr Hopko's CD the Death of Christ and our Death in Him, because he gets into prayer and how God hears them

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks, Matt. I appreciate your recommendation.
I'll definitely look for that - sounds like it's not AFR, but hopefully I can soon. I think you might have been the one who recommended the other Fr. Thomas Hopko teaching to me another time, or else commented on it. That was was a HUGE help and in fact, I have it saved in my downloads and have listened to it several times.

 

[Ignatius21]

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.

I actually had a rather lengthy discussion of this with a Catholic "brother" (in the "avowed religious" sense of brother) and teacher of theology. I can't hope to summarize it all. But my main understanding is that the idea of merits evolved out of the idea of Christ making satisfaction for our sins on the Cross, in the sense of paying a debt that we incurred via Adam and can never repay. I believe in the RCC view, following Anselm, the debt is seen more as honor/obedience owed to the Father, than about punishment owed to us. At any rate, someone earlier mentioned "superabundant satisfaction." It makes little sense to me either, but the gist is that Christ "over-satisfied" our debt because he was sinless, and God, whereas Adam was only a man, and this "superabundant grace" now resides in the "treasury of merit" and that merit can be transferred and infused into us by the sacraments, works of mercy and the like.

He commented that this is very heavily tied to the thinking of Thomas Aquinas, and that for the last several hundred years, to study Catholic theology in seminary was essentially to memorize the theology of Aquinas. He was very well versed in Eastern fathers and Eastern theology, and commented that since Vatican 2, and especially in the last two Papacies (neither of whom were Thomist theologians I guess?), there's been more emphasis on recovering some of what came before Aquinas. And seen in this way, he said, things like "merit" and "purgatory" sort of collapse into something not terribly different from what Orthodoxy believes.

I spent so much time reading about the Reformation some years ago, that I have a good sense that the RCC theology of the day was very bent on teaching a concept of grace/merit that was quantifiable, and their explanations of Purgatory sound very financial. The Protestants rejected this (in part...more in a second), and Rome reacted by codifying it even more concretely in Trent and the theology that followed.

As to the Protestants...if you read explanations of the more classical reformers like Calvin, you see that ultimately their view of salvation still heavily depends on merit. They still agree that Christ merited salvation for us, though with a much heavier emphasis on suffering and punishment. Where they differ, is that they insist that this saving merit is "imputed" (i.e. legally credited to our names) when we place our faith in him, rather than being infused into our souls through sacramental means.

At root, both systems seem to agree that man's basic problem of sin is a debt owed to God, Christ's essential function was payment of that debt, and that having "purchased" or "merited" salvation for us, we now are saved when our accounts are credited with his works. They differ in the details of how we withdraw from the ATM at the Bank of God

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks, Ignatius. This sheds a little more light for me.

I actually had a rather lengthy discussion of this with a Catholic "brother" (in the "avowed religious" sense of brother) and teacher of theology. I can't hope to summarize it all. But my main understanding is that the idea of merits evolved out of the idea of Christ making satisfaction for our sins on the Cross, in the sense of paying a debt that we incurred via Adam and can never repay. I believe in the RCC view, following Anselm, the debt is seen more as honor/obedience owed to the Father, than about punishment owed to us. At any rate, someone earlier mentioned "superabundant satisfaction." It makes little sense to me either, but the gist is that Christ "over-satisfied" our debt because he was sinless, and God, whereas Adam was only a man, and this "superabundant grace" now resides in the "treasury of merit" and that merit can be transferred and infused into us by the sacraments, works of mercy and the like.

This is what I've been told sometimes, and it's difficult to make sense of it. I almost want to ask - just how MUCH merit is there? Will it ever run out? Will people no longer be able to be saved in that case? I know that sounds flippant, but it's the quantifying I have had the most trouble with. And in essence, Protestant theology does the same thing, though since they codify it much less clearly, the thinking doesn't normally progress to that point.

He commented that this is very heavily tied to the thinking of Thomas Aquinas, and that for the last several hundred years, to study Catholic theology in seminary was essentially to memorize the theology of Aquinas. He was very well versed in Eastern fathers and Eastern theology, and commented that since Vatican 2, and especially in the last two Papacies (neither of whom were Thomist theologians I guess?), there's been more emphasis on recovering some of what came before Aquinas. And seen in this way, he said, things like "merit" and "purgatory" sort of collapse into something not terribly different from what Orthodoxy believes.

That helps. When I speak to some Catholics, I can barely find the difference between Catholic and Orthodox teaching on some subjects. But then when I speak to others, it can end up seeming Catholics believe something very foreign to Orthodoxy. And since their catechism is so carefully spelled out and codified - I don't know it, but it surprises me that I seem to get different interpretations among different Catholics maybe. Or maybe as you say it's really a matter of differing emphasis in the ones I discuss with.

I spent so much time reading about the Reformation some years ago, that I have a good sense that the RCC theology of the day was very bent on teaching a concept of grace/merit that was quantifiable, and their explanations of Purgatory sound very financial. The Protestants rejected this (in part...more in a second), and Rome reacted by codifying it even more concretely in Trent and the theology that followed.

Perhaps that's why I was so immediately against the idea of quantifiable grace. Though ... when I think about how Protestant theology explains it - as I said, I think I can see "quantified grace" at the end of that road. They just maybe don't follow it so far in their explanations?

As to the Protestants...if you read explanations of the more classical reformers like Calvin, you see that ultimately their view of salvation still heavily depends on merit. They still agree that Christ merited salvation for us, though with a much heavier emphasis on suffering and punishment. Where they differ, is that they insist that this saving merit is "imputed" (i.e. legally credited to our names) when we place our faith in him, rather than being infused into our souls through sacramental means.

Very true. I am being helped too - for the last 2 days I've been listening to a podcast series by Matthew Gallatin (I think it's Fr. Matthew) on imputed grace, and it is really helping it sink in much better for me. I'm almost finished with the series, and there is much emphasis on the grace that comes to us through the way we live our lives in Christ (mainly through the sacraments) rather than being a "thing" that God gives us in the form of "imputed righteousness". It really is helping me quite a bit to see the differences.

At root, both systems seem to agree that man's basic problem of sin is a debt owed to God, Christ's essential function was payment of that debt, and that having "purchased" or "merited" salvation for us, we now are saved when our accounts are credited with his works. They differ in the details of how we withdraw from the ATM at the Bank of God

Thanks very much for your post!

 

[Ignatius21]

Perhaps that's why I was so immediately against the idea of quantifiable grace. Though ... when I think about how Protestant theology explains it - as I said, I think I can see "quantified grace" at the end of that road. They just maybe don't follow it so far in their explanations?

Protestants really don't quantify it. It's painted in fairly stark, all-or-nothing terms. Our debt of sin is infinite, and is canceled by Christ's infinite merit. Their view of original sin has us born legally guilty of infinite debt...faith is the basis on which God imputes infinite merit to our accounts. Then God "sees" us as though we are Christ, when in reality we are always and forever sinful in and of ourselves. Eventually, through their narrow definition of sanctification, we become perfectly sinless--defined generally in terms of a moral similitude to Christ. We act the way Christ would act and cease to will anything else.

The quantification aspect becomes troubling when they (classically) still insist upon the necessity of good works for salvation. "We are saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone" goes the slogan. Faith without works is dead. OK...so works earn merit? NO!!! OUR WORKS ARE FILTHY RAGS!!! OK...so works perfect us? NO!!! GOD PERFECTS US!!! So, we don't need works? YES!!! FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD! OK...um...so works are part of faith? GOOD HEAVENS NO!!! But works are necessary? ABSOLUTELY!!! How many works do I need to know that my faith is real? WHO ARE YOU, O MAN, TO ANSWER BACK TO GOD?

It goes in circles until they tire of speaking to you. They insist that works are absolutely necessary for salvation, while insisting that works are absolutely not necessary for salvation. Good luck with that one

 

[~Anastasia~]

Protestants really don't quantify it. It's painted in fairly stark, all-or-nothing terms. Our debt of sin is infinite, and is canceled by Christ's infinite merit. Their view of original sin has us born legally guilty of infinite debt...faith is the basis on which God imputes infinite merit to our accounts. Then God "sees" us as though we are Christ, when in reality we are always and forever sinful in and of ourselves. Eventually, through their narrow definition of sanctification, we become perfectly sinless--defined generally in terms of a moral similitude to Christ. We act the way Christ would act and cease to will anything else.

The quantification aspect becomes troubling when they (classically) still insist upon the necessity of good works for salvation. "We are saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone" goes the slogan. Faith without works is dead. OK...so works earn merit? NO!!! OUR WORKS ARE FILTHY RAGS!!! OK...so works perfect us? NO!!! GOD PERFECTS US!!! So, we don't need works? YES!!! FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD! OK...um...so works are part of faith? GOOD HEAVENS NO!!! But works are necessary? ABSOLUTELY!!! How many works do I need to know that my faith is real? WHO ARE YOU, O MAN, TO ANSWER BACK TO GOD?

It goes in circles until they tire of speaking to you. They insist that works are absolutely necessary for salvation, while insisting that works are absolutely not necessary for salvation. Good luck with that one

I see what you mean. As in infinite is not quantifiable. You can get completely around quantifiable that way, I guess.

I have heard it said that works "prove" that your faith is real. I'm not sure who the proof is for - seems to be other people in most cases. Which is kind of strange, as in why would people be judging if one another has real faith or not? I did toy with the idea that works are necessary for the sake of faith - and I think in a sense that this can be true, actually. I haven't thought on that in a while now.

I'm no longer interested in debating - though I'm happy to answer questions, and to a degree I try to understand what various denominations believe in relation to one another. That is slowly becoming less of an interest too though. My interest just keeps becoming more focused - there's more than a lifetime worth of study within the Church herself.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The quantification aspect becomes troubling when they (classically) still insist upon the necessity of good works for salvation. "We are saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone" goes the slogan. Faith without works is dead. OK...so works earn merit? NO!!! OUR WORKS ARE FILTHY RAGS!!! OK...so works perfect us? NO!!! GOD PERFECTS US!!! So, we don't need works? YES!!! FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD! OK...um...so works are part of faith? GOOD HEAVENS NO!!! But works are necessary? ABSOLUTELY!!! How many works do I need to know that my faith is real? WHO ARE YOU, O MAN, TO ANSWER BACK TO GOD?

hahahaha, well said

 

[Ignatius21]

I'm no longer interested in debating - though I'm happy to answer questions, and to a degree I try to understand what various denominations believe in relation to one another. That is slowly becoming less of an interest too though. My interest just keeps becoming more focused - there's more than a lifetime worth of study within the Church herself.

Preach on!

Debates usually aren't winnable because neither side is actually open to changing. And, no matter what the issue, it's usually quickly apparent that the real differences are at the level of assumption and presupposition. Each side sees something as simply self-evident, and can't figure out why the other side just can't see it. I think that's why, when a Protestant for instance says "Oh, you aren't interpreting Scripture properly" she/he means "Oh, you aren't interpreting it according to the rules that my tradition presupposes are correct." Hard to get traction that way.

Anyway, yes, debating and discussing for the sake of gaining knowledge and mutual appreciation is preferable to just starting fights. I started a lot of Internet fights back in the day