How Does Sacramental Grace Differ from "Normal" Grace?
A Theological Study
Whenever we speak of grace being received in an extra-sacramental manner, whether through perfect contrition, spiritual communion, or baptism of desire, the question is inevitably posed: What, then, is the use of the sacraments?
There are a number of different reasons that can be given to answer this question, although not every answer is equally fundamental to solving the problem at hand. On the side of the recipient, such acts are extremely difficult to make, and the actual use of the sacraments is morally necessary for the ends established, as I argued in the second conclusion of my article titled The Two-Fold Necessity of the Sacraments: “to receive baptism or penance in re is morally necessary in practice in the economy of salvation.”
Yet there is a reason more fundamental than the moral impossibility of initial justification without the actual use of the sacraments. There is also a proper effect of the sacraments that is physically impossible (in the order established by God) to receive without their actual use. This is what we call “sacramental grace.”
“Sacramental grace” differs for each of the sacraments. According to most theologians, it essentially consists in a certain “right” (ius) or “title” to the actual helps (actual graces, auxilia) that are in conformity with the end of the sacrament, together with an influx of sanctifying grace. If this were not the case, and the only effect of the sacraments were sanctifying grace without any additional title, then we would have no reason to have multiple sacraments; the effect of each sacrament would be exactly the same. Further, there would be no difference between the reception of a sacrament in re (baptism, absolution, eucharist, etc.) and the reception of a sacrament in voto (baptism of desire, perfect contrition, act of spiritual communion, etc.).
Pius XI, in Casti connubii, states this succinctly in relation to matrimony: “the right to the actual assistance of grace, whensoever they need it for fulfilling the duties of their state.” Each of the sacraments has a particular end, and the sacramental graces given to the man who receives the sacrament give him a certain right or title to all those actual graces that are necessary for achieving that end.
To give an example, let us suppose that someone has committed fornication. If he makes an act of perfect contrition, that sin is remitted, and he is in a state of grace. All that remains is a certain legal obligation to go to confession before receiving the Eucharist and within the proper time. If he dies, he dies in a state of grace and goes to heaven. On the other hand, let us suppose that a second fornicator goes to confession and receives absolution. How is he different from the first man? Let us assume that they have exactly the same degree of charity. Is there any difference? Catholic theology answers in the affirmative. The second man, who went to confession, actually has a unique title and right to those helps necessary to overcome the particular sins confessed to the priest, whereas the first man does not have this unique title and right, but still has sanctifying grace.
This is the more fundamental reason for the insufficiency of non-sacramental graces. Although both are in the same order, the former gives sanctifying grace (or an increase thereof), whereas the latter gives sanctifying grace (or an increase thereof) together with a certain title or right to those actual graces that are truly, and even proximately, sufficient both for preserving the degree of grace conferred in the sacrament and for attaining the end to which the sacrament is ordered.
[Note: This reflection can be helpfully combined with my article published earlier this week, titled “An Important Note in Sacramentology.”]
There are quite a few corollaries to this doctrine. However, in order to resolve them, we must first determine what the particular character of this ius ad auxilia actually is.
