V
Vinny213
Guest
Does anyone know if Aquinas considered concupiscence without consent (the first motions) a sin? If any Aquinas experts can answer me i will greatly appreciate it. I wonder if anyone can help me with this.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
V
Vinny213
Guest
I wonder if someone can help me with this question.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
No he doesn’t from memory. More importantly nor does the Church.I wonder if someone can help me with this question.
Francis de Sales talks at some length on this topic and quite intelligently. There are 3 or 4 stages before full consent is to be presumed. The very first stage (a sort or pre-conscious advertance of the passive lower intellectual faculties) is technically called animperfection rather than a venial sin.
T
Texas_Longhorns
Guest
No, he didn’t consider it a sin, because it is not a sin. To be guilty of sin, there must be a consent of the will. Concupiscence, as such, is prior to and independent of consent. As long as a person does not consent to the inordinate desires, there is no sin.Does anyone know if Aquinas considered concupiscence without consent (the first motions) a sin?
V
Vinny213
Guest
Do you guys have any quotes from Aquinas that will support the contention that he did not view concupiscence without consent sin?
V
Vinny213
Guest
I am still waiting for some Aquinas quotes on concupiscence. Can someone at least direct me to some.
T
Texas_Longhorns
Guest
See article 3 here: newadvent.org/summa/2082.htmI am still waiting for some Aquinas quotes on concupiscence. Can someone at least direct me to some.
V
Vinny213
Guest
He says that concupiscence is original sin. Does this not contradict RC theology?
V
Vinny213
Guest
What does Aquinas mean here? Is this in accord with church teaching?
Accordingly the privation of original justice, whereby the will was made subject to God, is the formal element in original sin; while every other disorder of the soul’s powers, is a kind of material element in respect of original sin. Now the inordinateness of the other powers of the soul consists chiefly in their turning inordinately to mutable good; which inordinateness may be called by the general name of concupiscence. Hence original sin is concupiscence, materially, but privation of original justice, formally.
Accordingly the privation of original justice, whereby the will was made subject to God, is the formal element in original sin; while every other disorder of the soul’s powers, is a kind of material element in respect of original sin. Now the inordinateness of the other powers of the soul consists chiefly in their turning inordinately to mutable good; which inordinateness may be called by the general name of concupiscence. Hence original sin is concupiscence, materially, but privation of original justice, formally.
V
Vinny213
Guest
Does anyone know if concupiscence is against the order of nature first constituted?
T
Texas_Longhorns
Guest
There was two aspects, or two elements, of original sin. It is the same two elements found in all sin. The two aspects are: 1) a turning away from God, and 2) a turning toward creatures.He says that concupiscence is original sin. Does this not contradict RC theology?
When God created the first man, he created him in a state of Original Justice. In this state, man not only possessed sanctifying grace (supernatural life) within his soul, but also preternatural gifts that perfected him according to nature. The preternatural gifts were integrity, bodily immortality, impassibility and infused knowledge.
When man sinned, he did two things: 1) he turned away from God, and 2) he turned toward creatures (in a disordered way).
What was the two-fold effect? 1) The loss or Original Justice (which included the loss of sanctifying grace and the preternatural gifts), which caused Him to turn away from God; and 2) Concupiscience, which caused him to turned him toward creatures in a disordered way.
So, concupiscence is one of the effects of original sin, but it is not a sin itself unless it is acted on. It is the tendency to sin, which is the effect of original sin.
T
Texas_Longhorns
Guest
Notice what he said in the last sentence. He mentions the two-fold element of sin that I discussed in the last post. He is distinguishing between the formal and material aspect of original sin: The formal aspect is the loss of Original Justice (which turned man away from God); the material aspect of original sin is concupiscence, which turns man toward creatures.What does Aquinas mean here? Is this in accord with church teaching?
Accordingly the privation of original justice, whereby the will was made subject to God, is the formal element in original sin; while every other disorder of the soul’s powers, is a kind of material element in respect of original sin. Now the inordinateness of the other powers of the soul consists chiefly in their turning inordinately to mutable good; which inordinateness may be called by the general name of concupiscence. Hence original sin is concupiscence, materially, but privation of original justice, formally.
These are the two effects of original sin. Remember that in order for a person to be saved, they must die with supernatural grace in their soul. Supernatural grace, or sanctifying grace, is something that man has no right to. It is a completely free gift; but it is not given to everyone, and it is easily lost. What causes the loss of grace for a person that possesses it? Grace is lost when a person turns away from God and toward creatures. This happens due to concupiscence, since concupiscence is the tendency to sin. When a person gives in to the disordered desires, he turns toward creatures and thereby loses grace.
V
Vinny213
Guest
Can the first motions be considered sin?
T
Texas_Longhorns
Guest
The first motion is an effect of original sin, but it is not a sin itself. Think about this…Can the first motions be considered sin?
The will does two things: It desires and it chooses. Since the will is a blind faculty, the desires are blind. Therefore, we are not responsible for the first motions. What we are responsible for is the choice. If we choose to follow a sinful desire, or if we *choose to desire *the sinful thing, then we are guilty of sin. But the first movement itself is not a sin; it is only an effect of original sin.
V
Vinny213
Guest
Does Aquinas consider the first motions to be sin? Does Aquinas anywhere talk about the first motions being sin?
V
Vinny213
Guest
I found this definition of the first motions:
For the first motion they maintain is an inclination of the evil appetite in accordance with the object of incitement tending impetuously to the enjoyment of the creature delighted in.
For the first motion they maintain is an inclination of the evil appetite in accordance with the object of incitement tending impetuously to the enjoyment of the creature delighted in.
T
Texas_Longhorns
Guest
That looks like a good definition to me. The reason the first movements are not a sin, is because we are not responsible for movement of our lower appetites. These first movements are no due to our choice, but precede our choice. Remember, the will does two things: It desires, and it chooses. The desires are not under our control. It is the choice that is under our control. And the choice is subsequent to the movement of our lower appetites. Hence, the first movements are not sin, but rather the effect of original sin.I found this definition of the first motions:
For the first motion they maintain is an inclination of the evil appetite in accordance with the object of incitement tending impetuously to the enjoyment of the creature delighted in.
V
Vinny213
Guest
What did Aquinas write about the first motions? Does he consider them sin? I know that some scholastics do consider them sins.
T
Texas_Longhorns
Guest
I’ll see if I can find a quote from St. Thomas, but I am sure he did not consider the first motions to be a sin, since they are independent of our will. The most he would say is that it is a tendency to sin; or an effect of original sin, but not a sin itself.What did Aquinas write about the first motions? Does he consider them sin? I know that some scholastics do consider them sins.
Can you quote the Scholastics who did think it was a sin? I’d like to see what they said.
N
Nita
Guest
Can I ask why you are so interested in** Aquinas’ position **on this topic?What did Aquinas write about the first motions? Does he consider them sin? I know that some scholastics do consider them sins.
(It’s the second thread you’ve started on it.)
What Aquinas says seems to be far more important to you than what the Catholic Church officially says ---- in language that is far easier to understand than the philosophical terminology employed by Aquinas, unless you are schooled in philosophy. If you want to understand Aquinas, then you have to take the time to study the language and philosophical concepts he uses. In this thread and in the previous thread people have explained how the philosophical explanation given by Aquinas means the same thing as what the Church teaches. (Eg. Post #12 by Texas Longhorn)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.