The pity is that those two paragraphs were evidently all you read of Ott's work. I happen to have a copy of Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. In it he preceded his discussion of Grace with the following definitions:
"Habitual grace is a constant supernatural quality of the soul which sanctifies man intrinsically and makes him just and pleasing to God (sanctifying grace or justifying grace). Actual grace or assisting grace or helping grace is a temporary supernatural intervention by God by which the powers of the soul are stirred up to perform a salutary act which is directed to the attaining or preservation or increase of sanctifying grace."
If you accept Ott as an expert (why else would you cite him?) perhaps you would comment on his comments on the Reformation's treatment of the subject:
"While Pelagius denied the supernatural endowment of man, Luther, who strained the doctrine of St. Augustine beyond its proper limits, made grace an essential constituent part of human nature. By its loss human nature was entirely corrupted, as its essential constituent parts were taken away and concupiscence, in which, according to Luther, original sin consists, has ever since ruled man. In Luther's view, therefore: fallen man is, of his own proper power, incapable of achieving knowledge of religious truth, or of performing morally good actions; Man's will is no longer free, and of itself can do nothing but sin ; Grace is not capable of saving or intrinsically renewing and sanctifying human nature, since this is fully and entirely vitiated; What justification effects is merely an external covering of man's sinful state but man himself remains changed intrinsically. Man's will is purely passive and does not cooperate with grace, grace alone performing the work of justification." C£ Luther, In Genesis., c. 19.
Peace be with you
I didn’t say I accepted Ott as an expert. I only quoted that one paragraph to show the two terms you pushed to discuss. Since you continue to refuse to clarify your statements or be more precise as to how my interpretation of your jargon is wrong, I don’t see the point of going off on another tangent where you will have further opportunities to insult my knowledge and understanding. For someone who claims to take the moral high ground and scolds others for failing to demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit, you sure do have a strange way of showing yours. Does saying “peace be with you” absolve you of offensive words?