loving God with all the heart/ prot view Catholic view

comparing what a Protestant and Catholic mean by loving God with all the heart

see comment 10 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/03/st-thomas-aquinas-on-penance/


also

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/does-the-bible-teach-sola-fide/  from comment 257

When I say that God makes us righteous internally, I mean that He infuses into us sanctifying grace and agape. Sanctifying grace and agape are distinct in us, because our human essence is distinct from our will, which is a power of our soul. Sanctifying grace is that supernatural gift by which our nature is made to participate in the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4), and agape is that supernatural gift by which ourwill is granted to participate in the divine nature, by sharing in the supernatural love by which God loves Himself. In God, however, there is no such corresponding distinction between sanctifying grace and agape, because He is simple; His nature is Agape.

One of the weaknesses of our own time, due primarily to the success of modern science, is the tendency to attempt to quantify everything (and also overlook what cannot be quantified). Agape is something we either have or we do not. It is impossible to have some portion or part of agape, becauseagapehas no parts. This is why it is impossible to have 80% agape, or 30% agape, etc. A person either has agape or he does not. But the presence of agape within us does not entail that we cannot sin. So yes, you are one person, but you have a free will, and can freely choose between good and evil. The presence of agape within you in this present life does not remove from you the ability to choose evil. Sinning mortally, however, drives sanctifying grace and agape and the indwelling Trinity from the soul. Through repentance and the turning of the will back to God in contrition, in response to the work of the Holy Spirit, a person can receive again the gifts of sanctifying grace, agape, and the indwelling of the Trinity.

below is from comment 12 here:http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/03/st-thomas-aquinas-on-penance/comment-page-1/#comment-20597

(I don't understand all of this quote but I shall put it here to think more about it):

Yes. If you haven’t looked at it already, I suggest reading my post from last year titled “St. Augustine on Law and Grace,” because it gets at this. Love for God is what unites us to God, and this love is a divine gift, not something intrinsic to our natural powers. It is a gift infused into our soul, as a disposition of the will. If we perform works but do not have agape, this profits us nothing. But if we have love for God (i.e. agape), then all that we do in that love is ordered toward heaven, and merits a supernatural reward, namely, a greater participation in the life of God. And that’s what Trent 6 is talking about when speaking about an increase in justification.

I think it may help to look at St. Thomas here as well. In Summa Theologica II-II Q.23 a.2, he is answering the question, “Whether charity is something created in the soul?” The subsequent article answers the question “Is charity a virtue?”, but the second article is more relevant for your question. He writes:

I answer that, The Master [i.e. Peter Lombard] looks thoroughly into this question in 17 of the First Book, and concludes that charity is not something created in the soul, but is the Holy Ghost Himself dwelling in the mind. Nor does he mean to say that this movement of love whereby we love God is the Holy Ghost Himself, but that this movement is from the Holy Ghost without any intermediary habit, whereas other virtuous acts are from the Holy Ghost by means of the habits of other virtues, for instance the habit of faith or hope or of some other virtue: and this he said on account of the excellence of charity.

So first, St. Thomas describes Peter Lombard’s position. Lombard thought that charity is the Holy Spirit, who dwells within the believer and moves the believer to love God. St. Thomas disagrees with Lombard, and explains why he disagrees, writing:

But if we consider the matter aright, this would be, on the contrary, detrimental to charity. For when the Holy Ghost moves the human mind the movement of charity does not proceed from this motion in such a way that the human mind be merely moved, without being the principle of this movement, as when a body is moved by some extrinsic motive power. For this is contrary to the nature of a voluntary act, whose principle needs to be in itself, as stated above (I-II, 6, 1): so that it would follow that to love is not a voluntary act, which involves a contradiction, since love, of its very nature, implies an act of the will.

Here, St. Thomas says that Lombard’s position would be contrary to charity, because if Lombard were right, this would be kind of monergism. The human agent would be like a puppet, moved to love God, but not moving himself to love God. And this would not allow the act of love for God to be a voluntary act. But love by its very nature is a voluntary act. Therefore, according to St. Thomas, Lombard’s position is contrary to charity.

Next St. Thomas considers another possible position, writing:

Likewise, neither can it be said that the Holy Ghost moves the will in such a way to the act of loving, as though the will were an instrument, for an instrument, though it be a principle of action, nevertheless has not the power to act or not to act, for then again the act would cease to be voluntary and meritorious, whereas it has been stated above (I-II, 114, 4) that the love of charity is the root of merit: and, given that the will is moved by the Holy Ghost to the act of love, it is necessary that the will also should be the efficient cause of that act.

He considers the position in which the Holy Spirit moves the human will as an instrument. That can’t be right, claims St. Thomas, because that too, would remove the power of free choice from the will, and the act of loving God would neither be voluntary nor meritorious. So, it follows, claims St. Thomas, that though the Holy Spirit moves the will to the act of love, He does so in such a way that the will is not made into a mere instrument, but is the efficient cause of its act of loving, and acts voluntarily and freely.

He concludes:

Now no act is perfectly produced by an active power, unless it be connatural to that power of reason of some form which is the principle of that action. Wherefore God, Who moves all things to their due ends, bestowed on each thing the form whereby it is inclined to the end appointed to it by Him; and in this way He “ordereth all things sweetly” (Wisdom 8:1). But it is evident that the act of charity surpasses the nature of the power of the will, so that, therefore, unless some form be superadded to the natural power, inclining it to the act of love, this same act would be less perfect than the natural acts and the acts of the other powers; nor would it be easy and pleasurable to perform. And this is evidently untrue, since no virtue has such a strong inclination to its act as charity has, nor does any virtue perform its act with so great pleasure. Therefore it is most necessary that, for us to perform the act of charity, there should be in us some habitual form superadded to the natural power, inclining that power to the act of charity, and causing it to act with ease and pleasure.

Here St. Thomas argues that for a perfect act to be produced by a power, that act must be proportionate or connatural to that power. (e.g. cows can’t jump over the Moon; that act is not proportionate to the cow’s jumping power.) But, the act of charity surpasses the nature of the power of the human will. We cannot naturally love God, as He loves Himself, i.e. with the love by which He loves Himself. He is His love for Himself. But we are not Him. Therefore, to love Him as He loves Himself infinitely exceeds the natural power of our will, because the Creator infinitely exceeds the creature. For that reason, unless God adds something to our natural power, “inclining it to the act of love,” we could not love God perfectly, i.e. as He loves Himself, nor would it be pleasant for us to do so. But through charity we do have the inclination to love God in this way, and enjoy doing so; with charity, we find that His yoke is easy and His burden is light, much as Jacob’s seven additional years of labor for Rachel seemed like nothing to him, because he loved her. Therefore, concludes St. Thomas, in order for us to perform the act of charity, “it is most necessary that there should be in us some habitual form superadded to the natural power, inclining that power to the act of charity, and causing it to act with ease and pleasure.” In other words, God has to place the virtue of charity in us (as a disposition in the will), in order for us to act with charity. Acts of charity flow from a heart infused with the virtue of charity.

When the Catechumen is baptized, he is given a white robe, representing the righteousness that he has received in baptism, by the infusion of sanctifying grace and faith, hope, and agape into his soul. The priest (or bishop) then says to him, “Receive this baptismal garment and bring it unstained to the judgment seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, so that you may have everlasting life.” What it means, to bring it unstained to the judgment seat of Christ is never to commit a mortal sin for the rest of one’s life, i.e. never to drive from the soul the agape the Holy Spirit infused into him at his baptism. Part of the command then, to love God, is to guard and preserve the agape in his soul. With that disposition (i.e. virtue) of charity in his soul, he may walk in the light, and not in darkness, fulfilling the Lord’s command to love God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength, and loving his neighbor as himself, for God’s sake.

also from comment 263      here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/does-the-bible-teach-sola-fide/

Since you had referred to Ephesians 1:13, I had in mind what St. Thomas says in his commentary on that verse concerning the seal of the Holy Spirit.

Concerning the blessing of justification he mentions that you were signed with the Holy Spirit who was given to you. Concerning this [Spirit] three things are said; he is a sign, the spirit of the promise, and the pledge of our inheritance.

He is a sign inasmuch as through him charity is infused into our hearts, thereby distinguishing us from those who are not the children of God. Relating to this be says you were signed, set apart from Satan’s fold. “Grieve not the holy Spirit of God; whereby you are sealed unto the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30). Just as men brand a mark on their own herds to differentiate them from others, so the Lord willed to seal his own flock, his people, with a spiritual sign. The Lord had the Jews as his own people in the Old Testament. “And you, my flocks, the flocks of my pastures are men” (Ez. 34:31 ). “And we are the people of his pasture and the sheep of his hand” (Ps. 95:7). This flock was fed on the earthly pastures of material teachings and temporal goods: “If you be willing and obedient, you shall eat the good things of the land” (Is. 1:19). The Lord, therefore, differentiated and set them apart from others by means of the bodily sign of circumcision. “And my covenant shall be in your flesh” (Gen. 17:13); before this it says, “You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be for a sign of the covenant between me and you” (Gen. 17:11).

In the New Testament the flock he had is the Christian people: “You have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls” (1 Pet. 2:25). “My sheep hear my voice; and I know them; and they follow me” (Jn. 10:27). This flock is fed on the pastures of spiritual doctrine and spiritual favors; hence the Lord differentiated it from others by a spiritual sign. This is the Holy Spirit through whom those who are of Christ are distinguished from the others who do not belong to him. But since the Holy Spirit is love, he is given to someone when that person is made a lover of God and neighbor. “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us” (Rom. 5:5). Therefore, the distinctive sign is charity which comes from the Holy Spirit: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another” (Jn. 13:35). The Holy Spirit is he by whom we are signed.

and from here from comment 140 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/imputation-and-paradigms-a-reply-to-nicholas-batzig/#comment-36209

 The list-paradigm denies that the agape we have been given is in itself the righteousness required by God’s holy law. It does this by implicitly positing two forms of agape: perfect agape and imperfectagape. Only perfect agape is the fulfillment of the law, but in this present life no one receives perfectagape. In this present life we’re given only imperfect agape, and imperfect agape is not the fulfillment of the law. This entails that agape in itself is not the righteousness required by God’s law. The list-paradigm conceptually defines “perfect agape” in terms of perfect law-keeping, rather than defining perfect law-keeping in terms of agape. The agape paradigm, by contrast, defines perfect law-keeping in terms of agape, holding agape itself to be God’s standard to which the law as external only points, as to something greater than itself.