|
We will dwell here on the chief difference between the doctrine of
St. Thomas and that of many modern theologians, inspired less by him
than by Suarez. On the fact of the reviviscence of merits, there is
no controversy, since the definitions of Trent [976] imply this
truth. The controversy is concerned with the manner and mode of this
reviviscence.
Suarez [977] maintains, and with him many modern theologians,
that all past merits revive in equal degree as soon as the penitent is
justified by absolution, even though his attrition is barely sufficient
to let the sacrament have its effect. If we represent his merits, for
example, by five talents of charity, then under absolution, even if
attrition is just sufficient, he recovers not only the state of grace,
but the same degree of grace, the five talents which he had lost. The
reason given by Suarez is that these merits remain in God's sight and
acceptance, and since their effect, even as regards essential glory,
is only impeded by the presence of mortal sin, they must revive in the
same degree as soon as that impediment is removed.
St. Thomas, [978] and with him many ancient theologians,
expresses himself in fashion notably different. The principle which he
often invokes in his treatise on grace, and explains also elsewhere,
[979] runs thus: Grace is a perfection, and each perfection is
received in a manner more perfect or less according to the present
disposition of the subject. Hence in proportion to the intensity of
his disposition, attrition or contrition, the penitent receives
grace, and his merits revive, sometimes with a higher degree of
grace, as probably did St. Peter after his denial, sometimes with
an equal degree, and sometimes with a lower degree.
The question is important, and the answer must be sought in what is
true, not in what may seem to be more consoling. It is particularly
important in the spiritual life. If an advanced soul commits a grave
sin, it cannot again begin its ascent at the point where it fell,
unless it has a really fervent contrition which brings back the same
degree of grace as that which it lost, and must otherwise recommence
its climb at a point possibly much lower. Such at least is the thought
of many older theologians, notably of St. Thomas. We will quote
here a passage [980] which seems to have been in some measure
forgotten.
It is clear that forms which can be received in varying degrees owe
their actual degree, as we have said above, [981] to the
varying dispositions of the receiving subject. Hence the penitent
receives grace in a higher degree or in a lower degree, proportionate
to the intensity or to the remissness of his free will against sin.
Now this intensity of the will is sometimes proportioned to a higher
degree of grace than that from which he fell by sin, sometimes to an
equal degree of grace, and sometimes to a lower degree. And what is
thus true of grace is likewise true of the virtues which follow grace.
This passage, let us note, is not merely a passing remark. It is
the very conclusion of the article. In that same question, a little
farther on, [982] he speaks thus: "He who rises in a lower
degree of charity will receive his essential reward according to his
actual measure of charity. But his accidental reward will be greater
from the works he did under his first measure of grace than from those
he does in his second and lower degree of grace."
Banez seems to understand these words in a sense too restricted, which
would exclude reviviscence in regard to the essential reward. Billot
[983] seems to exaggerate in the opposite direction. Cajetan,
in the following passage, keeps well to the thought of St. Thomas.
"When grace revives, all dead merits revive too, but not always in
the same quantity, in their power, that is, to lead the man to a
higher degree of glory as they would have done had he not fallen. This
is the case of a man who, having risen from sin in a degree of grace
lower than was his before his fall, dies in that state. The reason
for this lower degree of reviviscence is the lower degree of disposition
in him who rises." [984] .
To this explanation of Cajetan, Suarez gives no answer. But the
Salmanticenses [985] and Billuart [986] explain St.
Thomas well. The latter writes as follows:1. Merits do not always
arise in that degree which they had before, since they revive in
proportion to the present disposition.
2. Also as regards their quantity, merits revive according to the
present disposition. This does not mean, as Banez thinks, that the
same essential glory is now given to the penitent by a twofold title,
first by reason of his present disposition, secondly by reason of his
now revived merits. What it does mean is this: There is conferred on
the penitent, in addition to that degree of essential glory which
corresponds to his present disposition, a sort of right to additional
glory corresponding to his preceding merits.
To conclude. Merits revive, even as regards their essential reward,
not always in a degree equal to what they formerly had, but in
proportion to the penitent's actual disposition. He who had five
talents and has lost them, can revive on a lower level, and can die on
that level, and hence will have a degree of glory proportioned, not to
the five talents, but to some lower degree of charity, whereof God
alone knows the proportion, as God alone can measure the fervor of
man's repentance.
|
|
