Aquinas on Nature and Grace

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lazerlike42
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lazerlike42

Guest
I fell in to one of my occassional evenings of getting reading over various topics in the Summa, and I have come across something I can’t seem to figure out. Upon trying to ask the question, I’ve discovered that I can’t figure out how to ask it, so I’ll ask a related one and try to get there from there.

In I, 95, 1, St. Thomas says that the subjection of the lower powers to reason is not from nature, but from Grace.

Why, then, does the restoration of Grace in baptism not restore this proper subjection? Where does St. Thomas explain this?
 
Also, did original sin in fact change human nature, that is, damage it, or simply deprive it of Grace? If so, in what way?

And lastly, how does St. Thomas say that this privation of Grace - that is, original sin - is inherited by nature (I-II, 81) without saying that human naure in some way includesGrace? In other words, if I have inherited a lack of Grace by nature from Adam, then that would seem to say that to have or to not have Grace is itself dictated by or a component of human nature.

These - along with the first question - get more to what I was trying to figure out.

Thanks !👍
 
Why, then, does the restoration of Grace in baptism not restore this proper subjection? Where does St. Thomas explain this?
Hi Lazerlike,

I’m always game for some midnight Thomism. 👍

One place that Thomas addresses this is III, 69, 2.

The Council of Trent offers substantially the same reasoning in Session V when it says: “But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned.”

Thoughts?
VC
 
Also, did original sin in fact change human nature, that is, damage it, or simply deprive it of Grace? If so, in what way?

And lastly, how does St. Thomas say that this privation of Grace - that is, original sin - is inherited by nature (I-II, 81) without saying that human naure in some way includesGrace? In other words, if I have inherited a lack of Grace by nature from Adam, then that would seem to say that to have or to not have Grace is itself dictated by or a component of human nature.

These - along with the first question - get more to what I was trying to figure out.

Thanks !👍
I’m pretty ignorant about St Thomas but I thought that the Church teaches that grace, to have it or not, is an election of Gods’ and that by removing it He allowed us to fall to the natural state we find ourselves in now. In other words grace is an “add-on” and so we are completely dependent upon God to remain in the state where our reason/spirit is in control of our lower appetite/flesh- and by allowing us to struggle with concupiscence we can come to see, and agree, that we need the grace of God, that we need God, to truly live. The reformers taught that our natures were damaged or corrupted by the fall. The Church teaches that we were deprived of grace.
 
The first place I checked was the parts about baptism, in particular that part. What that one basically says is that baptism doesn’t heal all the earthly effects of original sin, and it gives some justification for this (obviously), but it doesn’t quite say why, if Grace ordered the subjection of our powers in what would otherwise be naturally disordered, why the restoration of Grace does not re-order them.

I’m also curious about my other questions, if anyone can help. Thank ye
 
The first place I checked was the parts about baptism, in particular that part. What that one basically says is that baptism doesn’t heal all the earthly effects of original sin, and it gives some justification for this (obviously), but it doesn’t quite say why, if Grace ordered the subjection of our powers in what would otherwise be naturally disordered, why the restoration of Grace does not re-order them.

I’m also curious about my other questions, if anyone can help. Thank ye
I don’t know if Aquinas ever specifically deals with that question, at least in the Summa. It’s certainly been handled by subsequent theologians and Councils, but it may not have been a concern during his time. I’ll have to do some checking to see if Aquinas tackled this issue anywhere.

Peace and God bless!
 
I don’t know if Aquinas ever specifically deals with that question, at least in the Summa. It’s certainly been handled by subsequent theologians and Councils, but it may not have been a concern during his time. I’ll have to do some checking to see if Aquinas tackled this issue anywhere.

Peace and God bless!
What did they have to say on it?
 
“Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott gives a great treatment on justification and sanctifying grace which includes the thoughts of Thomas, Augustine, Trent, the Reformers, and others.
 
Also, did original sin in fact change human nature, that is, damage it, or simply deprive it of Grace? If so, in what way?

And lastly, how does St. Thomas say that this privation of Grace - that is, original sin - is inherited by nature (I-II, 81) without saying that human naure in some way includesGrace? In other words, if I have inherited a lack of Grace by nature from Adam, then that would seem to say that to have or to not have Grace is itself dictated by or a component of human nature.

These - along with the first question - get more to what I was trying to figure out.

Thanks !👍
 
Laserlike-

I’m not sure if this will be a satisfactory answer for you or not, but I’ll give it a shot. First of all, I’m not an expert on Aquinas so forgive some ignorance on my part. Hopefully other Thomists will respond with more comprehensive replies.

St. Thomas identifies the major effect of original sin to be a deformity of the will (I-II, 82 3). He states that “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.” So, original sin deprived our first parents not only of good reason (intellect fully directed toward the good), but primarily the will, which in return weakens the other powers of the soul.

The reason and the will are both “healed” by grace, but because of the incomplete nature of our salvation (both here and “not yet”), recovering our ability to know and do the good is a struggle. The grace that we receive through baptism and the other sacraments does not fully restore us to the state we had in original justice. For example, in III 69 3 on the effects of baptism, St. Thomas states that it is in fact fitting for us to struggle in order that we merit the “crown of victory” in heaven: “…it is suitable for our spiritual training: namely, in order that, by fighting against concupiscence and other defects to which he is subject, man may receive the crown of victory.”

With regard to the intellect, and the continuing effects of original sin having an effect even after baptism, St. Thomas’ entire treatise on the virtues is in effect a training manual for cooperating with God’s grace in order to restore our intellect as much as possible in this life to the holiness we possessed in original justice. (e.g. - II-II Q. 47-148) The first part on prudence speaks directly to the issue of our cooperation with God’s grace in order to restore our ability to make decisions which are in concert with an intellect directed to the good. St. Thomas also addresses this issue in stating that it is only the person who has received the “theological” virtues of faith, hope and charity that prudence can truly be reformed as an antidote to the effects of original sin.

So, in my reading of Aquinas in the Summa, he is stating that ultimately it is fitting for us to not have our intellects completely restored in this life to the extent that our “lower powers” are completely in check, because this life is intended by God to be a struggle within our wills to love God and truly merit our eternal reward through Christ. While it is ultimately God’s grace that gives us the ability to order all of the powers of the soul to good, it is still in this life within our power to resist God’s grace or cooperate with grace and order our soul’s powers accordingly.
 
My original question isn’t so much a problem for me any longer. The answer can be as simple as that different Grace does differnet things, and that which was given to Adam and Eve was a Grace that properly ordered everything, whereas the Grace given us is not one that does, at least not yet. Folks like Francis of Assisi may have eventually attained to this Grace, but folks like me haven’t. I don’t know if this is what Aquinas or any other theologian said, and I would still be curious about differnet opinions they may have had, but so far as a theological question I have a satisfactory answer.

My real questions now are the ones that others have not yet responded to, the questions posed in post #2, and which I will now repost (with a minor clarification):

Also, did original sin in fact change human nature, that is, damage it, or simply deprive it of Grace? If so, in what way? I ask this because Aquinas states that without Grace, human beings by nature do not have the lower powers of the soul subjected. Now if this is so, is there an additional damage done by original sin which even further disorders the human soul?

And lastly, how does St. Thomas say that this privation of Grace - that is, original sin - is inherited by nature (I-II, 81) without saying that human naure in some way includesGrace? In other words, if I have inherited a lack of Grace by nature from Adam, then that would seem to say that to have or to not have Grace is itself dictated by or a component of human nature.
 
Aquinas says that
“the cause of this corrupt disposition that is called original sin, is one only, viz. the privation of original justice, removing the subjection of man’s mind to God.”(ST I-II 82 2)
The cause of this disposition (original sin) is the privation of original justice. Now, it’s my guess that the privation of original justice is the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, the original “set rightness” man had with God.

But if that’s the cause, then we’re missing some things.

Man was given not only supernatural gifts (in the strict sense of “supernatural”), that is, not only sanctifying grace, but also praeternatural gifts which elevated his nature higher. Among these gifts were, as I understand, 1. immortality and 2. the proper ordering, or subjection, of the bodily appetites to the rational faculty. Now, baptism certainly does not restore #1, and so it doesn’t surprise me that it doesn’t restore #2 either.

It seems to me that baptism justifies us only-- restores us to a relationship of sanctifying grace with God-- and that it doesn’t necessarily give anything else in addition.

I’m probably adding things on top of Thomas’s thought which don’t fit with him, but this is where I personally would start looking if I was trying to figure this out.

-Rob
 
Aquinas seems to divide the “good” of human nature into three logical parts: the ontological good (including the parts of the soul), the inclination to virtue, and original justice (ST I-II 85 1). The first good was not destroyed nor diminished according to Aquinas. The third part was obviously destroyed by original sin, and is regained by grace. The inclination to virtue, though was diminished by original sin, and this is what I was trying to get at earlier. So, in answer to your first question: no, human nature was not destroyed by sin in an ontological sense, but our inclination to virtue was diminished and this includes prudence which is the right ordering of the intellect to good.

With regard to your second question, the “inheritance” you speak of is according to nature, not grace. We can’t “inherit” grace from our parents…grace comes directly from God and can’t be inherited. It is the gift of God. For Aquinas, I think it would be an oxymoron to talk about “natural grace”.
 
Aquinas seems to divide the “good” of human nature into three logical parts: the ontological good (including the parts of the soul), the inclination to virtue, and original justice (ST I-II 85 1). The first good was not destroyed nor diminished according to Aquinas. The third part was obviously destroyed by original sin, and is regained by grace. The inclination to virtue, though was diminished by original sin, and this is what I was trying to get at earlier. So, in answer to your first question: no, human nature was not destroyed by sin in an ontological sense, but our inclination to virtue was diminished and this includes prudence which is the right ordering of the intellect to good.
I have read this part. My question is this: Aquinas says that the ordering of the soul in the first place was due only to Grace, not nature, and so the mere privation of Original Justice would itself be sufficient to leave the soul disordered. Is this the only disordering of the soul caused by original sin, or is there additional damage to the soul that leaves it even more disordered than it naturally is?
With regard to your second question, the “inheritance” you speak of is according to nature, not grace. We can’t “inherit” grace from our parents…grace comes directly from God and can’t be inherited. It is the gift of God. For Aquinas, I think it would be an oxymoron to talk about “natural grace”.
I understand this, which is exactly why I’m confused. He says that if not for original sin, we would all be born in Grace, but as the result of original sin, we inherit the privation of Grace because we inherit human nature, which is, thanks to original sin, without Grace. Yet nature is by definition without Grace SOOOOOO… how can nature have anything to do with whether or not a person is born into Grace?
 
Also, did original sin in fact change human nature, that is, damage it, or simply deprive it of Grace? If so, in what way?

And lastly, how does St. Thomas say that this privation of Grace - that is, original sin - is inherited by nature (I-II, 81) without saying that human naure in some way includesGrace? In other words, if I have inherited a lack of Grace by nature from Adam, then that would seem to say that to have or to not have Grace is itself dictated by or a component of human nature.

These - along with the first question - get more to what I was trying to figure out.

Thanks !👍
Great questions. I think we were intened to have Grace. It may not be natural (as in spirit vs. nature) but it is natural (as in the state we are supposed to be in). The word nature can be used in so many ways. lol
 
Great questions. I think we were intened to have Grace. It may not be natural (as in spirit vs. nature) but it is natural (as in the state we are supposed to be in). The word nature can be used in so many ways. lol
Right 🙂

For the sake of this thread, I am using it in the Thomistic sense.
 
I have read this part. My question is this: Aquinas says that the ordering of the soul in the first place was due only to Grace, not nature, and so the mere privation of Original Justice would itself be sufficient to leave the soul disordered. Is this the only disordering of the soul caused by original sin, or is there additional damage to the soul that leaves it even more disordered than it naturally is?
I think the answer to your question is that the disorder is caused by original sin, and can be exacerbated by actual sin. The inclination to virtue has been diminished, our natural powers remain undiminished, but our habits/ vices can make the situation worse. So, no, original sin does not cause additional damage.
I understand this, which is exactly why I’m confused. He says that if not for original sin, we would all be born in Grace, but as the result of original sin, we inherit the privation of Grace because we inherit human nature, which is, thanks to original sin, without Grace. Yet nature is by definition without Grace SOOOOOO… how can nature have anything to do with whether or not a person is born into Grace?
I think the confusion here may be the result of a minor equivocation in the use of the term “nature”. We do not by nature (ontological) carry the burden of original sin, but we by virtue of the fact that we are human (nature), inherit the guilt of original sin from our first parents, which carries with it a penalty of the deprivation of sanctifying grace. So, yes, by definition nature and grace are not synonymous, but it isn’t our “nature” (ontological) which deprives us of grace, it’s the penalty resulting from the guilt of original sin. And, we have a “natural” desire for a supernatural end, which requires grace. We need to distinguish between our ontological nature which in and of itself does not by definition carry with it original sin (we are created in God’s image), and the moral guilt we inherit by virtue of the fact that we are human, and as a race bear the moral penalty for original sin which diminishes our inclination toward virtue.

Is that getting closer to what you are asking?
 
I think the confusion here may be the result of a minor equivocation in the use of the term “nature”. We do not by nature (ontological) carry the burden of original sin, but we by virtue of the fact that we are human (nature), inherit the guilt of original sin from our first parents, which carries with it a penalty of the deprivation of sanctifying grace. So, yes, by definition nature and grace are not synonymous, but it isn’t our “nature” (ontological) which deprives us of grace, it’s the penalty resulting from the guilt of original sin. And, we have a “natural” desire for a supernatural end, which requires grace. We need to distinguish between our ontological nature which in and of itself does not by definition carry with it original sin (we are created in God’s image), and the moral guilt we inherit by virtue of the fact that we are human, and as a race bear the moral penalty for original sin which diminishes our inclination toward virtue.

Is that getting closer to what you are asking?
If we follow Thomstic thought, original sin consists simply in the privation of Grace. When discussing the means by which this is transmitted, St. Thomas says that it is by human nature that it is done:
"Therefore we must explain the matter otherwise by saying that all men born of Adam may be considered as one man, inasmuch as they have one common nature, which they receive from their first parents; even as in civil matters, all who are members of one community are reputed as one body, and the whole community as one man. Indeed Porphyry says (Praedic., De Specie) that “by sharing the same species, many men are one man.” Accordingly the multitude of men born of Adam, are as so many members of one body. Now the action of one member of the body, of the hand for instance, is voluntary not by the will of that hand, but by the will of the soul, the first mover of the members. Wherefore a murder which the hand commits would not be imputed as a sin to the hand, considered by itself as apart from the body, but is imputed to it as something belonging to man and moved by man’s first moving principle. In this way, then, the disorder which is in this man born of Adam, is voluntary, not by his will, but by the will of his first parent, who, by the movement of generation, moves all who originate from him, even as the soul’s will moves all the members to their actions. Hence the sin which is thus transmitted by the first parent to his descendants is called “original,” just as the sin which flows from the soul into the bodily members is called “actual.” And just as the actual sin that is committed by a member of the body, is not the sin of that member, except inasmuch as that member is a part of the man, for which reason it is called a “human sin”; so original sin is not the sin of this person, except inasmuch as this person receives his nature from his first parent, for which reason it is called the “sin of nature,” according to Ephesians 2:3: “We . . . were by nature children of wrath.”
So to (try to) put all the pieces together:
  • Adam was created with a human nature
  • To this nature, God added Grace to Adam at his creation
  • As the result of his sin, Adam lost this Grace
This is all fine so far. Here is where the problem seems to arise for me:
  • Because Adam’s children receive his nature, they are born without Grace. This is the *guilt *of original sin.
  • Because Adam’s children receive his nature, they would be born with Grace had he not forfeited it.
Now nature is by definition infinitely distinct from Grace. Grace is something added to nature. How then, does receiving Adam’s nature dictate that his children receive or fail to receive Grace?
 
How then, does receiving Adam’s nature dictate that his children receive or fail to receive Grace?
This is the crux of the matter, isn’t it? How does an individual bear the guilt of an entire species and why does the species bear the guilt of an individual? If I were to answer this question on my own, I would be forced to punt to “mystery”, but since we’re referring to Aquinas, I’ll defer to him on the matter. Following Aristotle, Aquinas sees a fundamental unity between all men, in that all men share the same universal essence. When Adam sinned, something happened to all of us, and we all bear the burden of responsibility in a collective sense. This is a deeply Catholic theological concept, and it is bound up in the philosophy of universals, but Aquinas also draws this concept from Scripture. The analogy he gives in order to demonstrate the concept, which you quoted, is the analogy of the human body: if one part of a human sins, it isn’t just the hand or the eye…it’s the entire person. He sees a fundamental unity as well in human nature, and thus a collective culpability (not via human nature per se, but because we share that one human nature). In terms of divine justice, the collective guilt that we bear doesn’t automatically condemn us to hell as individuals. But, it does mean that we inherit the deprivation of sanctifying grace (due to guilt) and the diminishing of our inclination to virtue.

I’m also going to punt on behalf of Aquinas in another direction. While we have collectively lost sanctifying grace due to our shared human nature which bears the guilt of original sin, God provides other forms of grace that can lead us in the direction of the good. While we lost “original grace”, we’ve gained actual and effectual grace; actual grace being given to all and effectual given to the “elect” as a restoration of sanctifying grace (e.g - ST I-II 109 9). A Molinist would probably disagree with that distinction, but it’s consistent with the notion that because human nature is what it is, we need God’s grace to attain a supernatural end (either before or after the Fall), and in fact to pursue the good under any circumstances. It’s my understanding, although I can’t quote Aquinas on this, that actual grace can be and is resisted while effectual grace, once freely accepted, always leads to some measure of sanctification, as well as justification. I might be wrong on that last point and I would appreciate any references from the Summa if anyone knows them regarding the distribution and nature of actual grace.
 
If we follow Thomstic thought, original sin consists simply in the privation of Grace. When discussing the means by which this is transmitted, St. Thomas says that it is by human nature that it is done:
So to (try to) put all the pieces together:
  • Adam was created with a human nature
  • To this nature, God added Grace to Adam at his creation
  • As the result of his sin, Adam lost this Grace
This is all fine so far. Here is where the problem seems to arise for me:
  • Because Adam’s children receive his nature, they are born without Grace. This is the *guilt *of original sin.
  • Because Adam’s children receive his nature, they would be born with Grace had he not forfeited it.
Now nature is by definition infinitely distinct from Grace. Grace is something added to nature. How then, does receiving Adam’s nature dictate that his children receive or fail to receive Grace?
For what it’s worth, here’s a point that might apply to this discussion. According to Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, from early on there has been a controversy between a belief in creationism-the idea that God creates each individual soul out of nothing at the time it is unified with the body-and generationism-the idea that souls are created through natural generation. St Augustine wavered between these two, concerned that creationism doesn’t reconcile with the doctrine on the transmission of original sin. But, “St. Thomas went so far as to condemn generationism as heretical” (I 118, 2). And modern theologians apparently agree. So if God creates the soul at or sometime after conception, then might it not follow that this is also the time when man would be endowed with, or deprived of, sanctifying grace, based on whether or not Adam sinned?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top