Mortal Sin, Prayer, and the Promises of God

A Theological Explanation

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: All subscribers can get 25% OFF an annual subscription! To get exclusive articles and help me out, click here to subscribe.

There is a principle of theology that “the principle of merit does not fall under merit.” While the principle may seem quite abstract, it is an axiom that is quite fruitful in understanding the spiritual life and the importance of prayer. It is by this principle that we understand the sublime place of prayer in the spiritual life and its special importance for those in a state of mortal sin (especially those seeking the truth of the Catholic faith).

To understand this more clearly, it is important to properly understand the sense of ‘merit.’ In the broadest possible sense, ‘merit’ refers to the relation between a certain act and its effect in the moral order. Hence, we can both merit praise and blame. The man who writes an erudite work merits praise due to the good qualities of the work. The man who commits a crime merits punishment due to the evil qualities of his action.

When we consider the concept of merit theologically, the issue becomes more difficult. For the end of beatitude seems to exceed the good qualities of nature, and God the rewarder seems to exceed all just claims of creatures. In order to resolve these difficulties, theologians provide a few helpful distinctions in order to properly understand merit. First, we distinguish between merit that is condign and merit that is congruous. Condign merit is merit whose reward is owed in justice; congruous merit is merit whose reward is fittingly offered. To give an analogy, if I contract a worker to help me move, I owe him his pay in justice (condignly); yet, if I ask a friend to help me move, I owe him a meal and help in the future as a fitting reward (congruously).

Each of these concepts ought to be distinguished further for a better resolution to the problem. For it seems quite unfitting that God would owe anything to creatures in justice, due to the equality implied by natural justice between the rewarder and the one rewarded. Theologians resolve this problem by distinguishing between condign merit in the strict sense (which is an act of commutative justice whose merit is called ‘arithmetic’) and condign merit in the broad sense (which is an act of distributive justice whose merit is called ‘geometric’). To speak simply, God’s rewards are acts of justice insofar as he has bound himself to pay such a reward in justice and ordained such acts to a certain reward (for more, here).

Now, when we say that “the principle of merit does not fall under merit,” we speak of this sort of merit: condign merit. The principle of merit refers to those infallibly efficacious graces that are purely gratuitous. Hence, we cannot condignly merit the infallibly efficacious graces in general, the grace of final perseverance, the grace of conversion, the rise after a fall into mortal sin, etc. Hence, the Council of Trent teaches that “none of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace itself of justification.”

It is here that we must return to our consideration of the other type of merit, congruous merit. Here, we must place a distinction as well that will set the stage for understanding the role of prayer in the spiritual life. Congruous merit is fittingly rewarded with a certain reward. This is the essential notion of congruous merit. It is paid by liberality and mercy rather than by justice. From this, we recognize that there is a world of difference between what is merited condignly and what is merited congruously. The foundation for the reward distinguishes the species of merit. From this, many have become confused in their determination of the question, which has led to severe consequences for the spiritual life and evangelization.

May this be written as a golden principle and recalled by all men: congruous and condign merit are not distinguished by certainty. It follows from God’s justice that he will reward condign merit. Hence, we are infallibly certain that the increase of sanctifying grace and beatitude are rewarded as merits of such acts. Yet, it is fallacious to reason backwards from this that, since there is an infallible connection between condign merit and reward, the only species of merit that is infallibly rewarded is condign merit. Remember: congruous and condign merit are not distinguished by certainty. Hence, it is possible (and actual, as revealed by Scripture) that there can be both an infallible condign merit (which flows from its species) and an infallible congruous merit (which flows from something extrinsic to it and per accidens). It is unfortunate that many understand condign merit inadequately and narrowly by human examples, so as to conclude that condign and congruous merit are distinguished merely by the certainty of payment, rather than by the qualities of the relation of act to reward.

From this, the conclusion follows that there are two species of congruous merit: fallible congruous merits and infallible congruous merits. Or, at least, there are potentially two such species of congruous merit, giving an adequate accidental distinction depending on whether there is something extrinsic added to such merit, i.e., the promise of God. Hence, if the promise of God is added to such an act fitting for a reward, then it is an infallible congruous merit; otherwise it is fallible. Hence, if such has actually been promised in Divine Revelation (which is still necessary to seek in our investigation), then the existence of such is verified. Note that while condign merits and infallible congruous merits both share the same certainty, they do not have this certainty for precisely the same reason. Condign merits have their infallibility on the basis of the ordination and justice of God; infallible congruous merits have their infallibility on the basis of the promise and mercy of God. Note that such concerns the formal and adequate reason and basis in God, not as if condign merits perfectly prescind from and exclude the mercy of God, or infallible congruous merits the justice of God, since mercy and justice are in all his works.

Thus, it is important to conclude that we must firmly stand against the common error that condign and congruous merits are distinguished on the basis of the certainty and infallibility of their rewards. While it is quite true to say that congruous merits do not have from their very nature an infallible connection with reward, it is false to conclude from this that they do not have an infallible connection with reward, since such an infallible connection can come from something outside the very nature of the act, i.e., One whose promises are infallibly verified in their effects.

Up to this point, I have treated the topic quite speculatively, affirming the simple possibility of such infallible congruous merits and their conceptual distinction from condign merits, yet I have not concretely affirmed whether such merits exist in reality as actually promised by God. In Divine Revelation, is there such a promised act? Yes.

Throughout Sacred Scripture, we see that there is one act above all others firmly considered as an act congruously meriting its reward infallibly: prayer. There are countless passages that teach this principle, but here are a few: “Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.” (Mt. 7:7–8) “And all things whatsoever you shall ask in prayer believing, you shall receive.” (Mt. 21:22) “And whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I do: that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you shall ask me any thing in my name, that I will do.” (Jn. 14:13–14) “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be done unto you.” (Jn. 15:7) “Amen, amen I say to you: if you ask the Father any thing in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto you have not asked any thing in my name. Ask, and you shall receive; that your joy may be full.” (Jn. 16:23–24) “And this is the confidence which we have towards him: That, whatsoever we shall ask according to his will, he heareth us. And we know that he heareth us whatsoever we ask: we know that we have the petitions which we request of him.” (1 Jn. 5:14–15)

How slow are we to believe these words! The golden words of the Son of God Himself are abundantly clear: prayer is infallibly efficacious. Why, then, do we often ask and not receive? Here, theologians invoke certain conditions. Throughout the text of Sacred Scripture, we see conditions placed on this infallible effect, e.g., whoever asks in my name. The conditions are boiled down into four: we must ask (1) those things necessary for salvation, (2) for ourselves, (3) piously, and (4) perseveringly. Each of these conditions merits its own treatment, yet to treat each would remove us from the purpose of this article.

There are two excellent corollaries to this doctrine that can be drawn out and that have not been clearly considered by many.

Corollary 1. Comparatively, prayer exceeds other good works in its meritorious effect.

Prayer is an act of a certain virtue. Hence, when done under the influence of charity by those in a state of grace, it merits eternal life and an increase in sanctifying grace. As to those other things that we cannot condignly merit (infallibly efficacious graces, rising after mortal sin, the grace of final perseverance, etc.), like other good works, insofar as it is an act proceeding from a certain virtue under the influence of charity, it does not infallibly and certainly acquire such ends.

To give an example, when we make an act of chastity under the influence of charity, we cannot condignly merit that we rise after a fall into unchastity. Whether or not it has this effect is uncertain. Yet, it is obviously quite fitting that God grant such a reward to the one who makes acts of chastity frequently. Hence, it can congruously merit such a reward in a fallible manner. The same applies to prayer insofar as it is an act of virtue. Hence, considering prayer as an act of virtue under the influence of charity, we would have to conclude likewise that prayer to rise after a future fall into unchastity would only congruously merit such a reward in a fallible manner. The conclusion is solid, yet there is not a complete disjunction of the grounds of merit.

Beside considering prayer as it is an act of a certain virtue (i.e., in its meritorious effect), we can consider prayer as it is a special act petitioning the mercy of God (i.e., in its impetratory effect). Hence, while prayer may only fallibly acquire such effects that do not fall under the principle of merit as an act of virtue, the same cannot be concluded for the effects of prayer as an act of impetration. For this reason, we can hold, for example, that infallibly efficacious graces are not condignly merited by any act of virtue (whether prayer or otherwise), but also hold that such graces are infallibly merited congruously insofar as prayer is an act impetrating the mercy of God.

Hence, there are many gifts of God that will not certainly be given to us unless we pray for them. Final perseverance never certainly comes from a multitude of acts of charity. Yet, we can be confident that praying to God for such gifts will infallibly bring about this great and most noble gift, if we pray for ourselves piously and perseveringly. Pray every day for the gift of final perseverance! God has promised in his mercy to infallibly grant such a gift to all who ask with the proper dispositions.

This corollary is explicitly taught by the great master of the spiritual life, Fr. Antonio Royo Marín:

No one, however just and perfect, can merit for himself the actual efficacious graces by a strict or condign merit, but we can all merit them by congruous merit: infallibly by prayers which have the proper qualifications, and fallibly by good works. The reason for the first statement is the famous axiom cited (the principle of merit does not fall under merit), for the actual graces conservative of grace pertaining to the same grace as a principle of merit. The reason for the second statement is the divine promise to grant us infallibly whatever is necessary for our salvation if we ask for it in prayer that is humble, confident, and persevering. Our simple good works do not have this special promise, given in view of prayer, and for that reason their merit is only congruous and fallible. If God grants it, it will be out of pure mercy, since the works do not merit it of themselves, nor has he promised to give it to us in view of good works. (The Theology of Christian Perfection, pt. 1, ch. 6)

This distinction between prayer as meritorious and prayer as impetratory leads us to a second, more striking conclusion.

Corollary 2. The infallible efficacy of prayer is not dependent on the state of grace.

Here, we reach a second fruitful corollary. If there are two distinct aspects under which prayer is efficacious, i.e., as an act of virtue and as an act of impetration, then such acts are potentially separable. Suppose that God had not promised infallible efficacy to prayer — would it still merit its reward as an act of virtue? Yes. The one proceeds as an act under the influence of charity in relation to the justice of God; the other proceeds as an act impetrating the mercy of God. We know that such is not the case because God has actually promised such effects. Now, suppose the other situation. What if the individual praying did so as an act of natural virtue without an act of the theological virtue of charity influencing such an act? We know that prayer is an act of a natural virtue (i.e., religion, which is a part of justice). Hence, men can pray without charity (although influenced by actual graces). Therefore, with inescapable logic, we must conclude that even those praying outside of a state of grace, while not condignly meriting (since such requires sanctifying grace), can impetrate the mercy of God. The promises of God apply with equal force to the just and the unjust.

This applies with special distinction to two groups of people: those Catholics in mortal sin and non-Catholics seeking the true religion.

For the first, they still have faith and hope (unless they have directly sinned against those virtues); hence they ought to exercise these unformed virtues by prayer. They ought to pray to God to grant them the grace of conversion. They are in mortal sin. They cannot merit such a grace. Yet, we are not considering prayer insofar as it merits, but insofar as it impetrates. Hence, what is best for those Catholics? To fervently pray for the grace of conversion, since the merciful God has promised that those prayers done well will infallibly impetrate their effects. Here, we do not concern ourselves with the justice of God, but the mercy of God.

For the second, non-Catholics seeking the true religion know God by nature from creation. They understand the obligations of religion to worship God as he has commanded. Yet, they seek where God has commanded all men to enter. What ought they to do? Pray. Prayer is the best remedy for those seeking the true religion. The darkness of sin blinds the mind of the hearer to the eminent clarity of the demonstrations for the credibility of the Catholic religion. Has God promised to remove this darkness by the hearing of arguments? No. Has he promised such to those who study such ancillary disciplines to sharpen their understanding? No. God has promised infallibly the grace of conversion to one thing and one thing only: prayer.

God has bound himself by his promise to infallibly grant the grace of conversion to all and to any who pray with the proper conditions. It is for this reason that many who seek conversion by the high road of study are blinded to the truth in their pride, yet the little children who seek conversion by the road of humility are granted the illumination necessary. The latter pray piously and perseveringly for this gift, while the former hardly pray at all. God rewards them for their impudence with blindness and, eventually, damnation.

The apologist or evangelist does less than nothing if they do not encourage their hearers to prayer. The damage is striking and conversions are rare. Yet, those who encourage prayer and preach the promises of prayer to their hearers will bear much fruit. For we appeal to the very mercy of God and rest on his promises. Like the last corollary, this one is confirmed by the eminent Fr. Antonio Royo Marín (although it is treated in sublime detail by the eminent Fr. Francisco Marín-Sola):

It is the impetratory value of prayer which interests us most as an element of increase and development of the Christian life independent of merit. Let us first see the principal differences between the meritorious and impetratory aspects of prayer. As a meritorious act, prayer implies a relation of justice in regard to a reward; its impetratory value implies a relation simply to the mercy of God. As meritorious, it has an intrinsic efficacy for obtaining a reward; as impetratory, its efficacy rests solely on the promise of God. The meritorious efficacy is based above all on charity; the impetratory value is based primarily on faith. The object of merit and of impetration is not always the same, although sometimes these two aspects may coincide…

One must pray piously, and by this word St. Thomas refers to all the conditions which are required on the part of the individual who prays — humility, confidence, attention, and petition in the name of Christ. Some authors include all these subjective conditions under the heading of the state of grace, without which, they say, no one can pray piously. But they are mistaken. St. Thomas raises this very objection, and this is his solution: “The sinner cannot pray piously in the sense that his prayer is informed by the supernatural habit of the virtue of piety, which he lacks, but he can pray piously in the sense that he can ask for something that pertains to piety, just as he who does not have the habit of justice may nevertheless desire something that is just. And although the prayer of the sinner is not meritorious, it can nevertheless have an impetratory value, because merit is based on justice, while impetration is based on pure gratuity or liberality.” Consequently, although the state of grace is undoubtedly most fitting for the infallible efficacy of prayer, it is not absolutely necessary. It is one thing to demand a wage that is due in justice, but it is something quite distinct to beg for alms. In the second case, no other titles are necessary but one’s need. What is always necessary, however, is the previous impulse of an actual grace, which can be given and actually is given to sinners.