S
simpleas
Guest
I totally do not get this…it drives me mad…
They did not have concupiscence, which is described as ‘the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason’
They sinned.
- Status
They did not have concupiscence, which is described as ‘the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason’
They sinned.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Right. On the face of it, it’s like “wait – that doesn’t make sense!”
Here’s the thing: in humans these days, we often sin because our sensitive appetite isn’t well-regulated by our rationality!
But, that doesn’t mean that this disordered appetite is the only reason we sin. When we say that Adam and Eve didn’t have a disordered sensitive appetite, what we’re saying is that this is exactly the case – it wasn’t the situation that their sensitive appetites overwhelmed their sense of reason. (This is the point that @OneSheep is struggling with – but from the opposite side; I think @OneSheep wants to reject that there are other ways to sin, and therefore conclude that “disordered sensitive appetite” is the only way humans can sin.
)
V
Vico
Guest
I answered this before. They had a supernatural and preternatural gifts, so it is not about “preternatural state”.
The supernatural grace makes it possible to not sin mortally, and only requires individual will of cooperation. The preternatural Infused Knowledge was given was for both moral and other issues. I gave you what the Catechism states also. Fr. John Hardon wrote:
For the “blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven” the Catechism give us the teaching:
The unforgivable sin is the deliberate refusal to accept God’s mercy and forgiveness (Catechism 1864). Species of it are
- Despair (Catechism 1817),
- Presumption (Catechism 2092),
- Impenitence or a firm determination not to repent (Catechism 1430-33),
- Obstinacy (Catechism 1430-33),
- Resisting divine truth known to be such (Catechism 2089), and
- Envy of another’s spiritual welfare (Catechism 2538, Wisdom 2:24).
A. No, the Church says that we cannot know with certainty the state of salvation of a soul unless it is divinely revealed. When material sin states occur, it is sometimes necessary to make a determination to avoid giving scandal.
You wrote: "Pope Benedict’s image was more active, "
A. No, what I posted is also active. God gives actual graces for conversion – this is reinforcement to do what is right coincident with the will of the person.
Last edited:
S
simpleas
Guest
Right, because they were supposed to have complete dominion of reason over their appetite which should have helped them make the good choice.
- Reason should of won the day, but instead their appetite won over.
- Their individual wills won over reason.
- They had no disorders of the mind, will, body, but they still chose a lower appetite decision.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Yes, but only if this is a matter of their sensitive appetite winning out. It isn’t.
We’re gonna get in the weeds here, so buckle up…
Aquinas defines the “sensitive appetite” in a particular way. It’s the technical definition of ‘sensitive appetite’ that’s in play here. (For background, you might want to Google “Aquinas sensitive appetite”.) There are two aspects to the sensitive appetite: being simply drawn toward (or away from) an object that is perceived by the senses, and dealing with an object that is ‘arduous’ (that is, a good that is unattainable or an evil that is inescapable).
If this had been a matter of “appetite over reason”, then we’d see that that Eve simply wanted what she saw. But, that’s not what the story tells us. Instead, it paints a picture of what’s going on in Eve’s mind:
- The tree was good for food
- the fruit was pleasing to the eyes
- Eve desired to gain wisdom
Instead, the story continues: Eve desires wisdom. This isn’t something that she perceives with her senses. She can’t see, or smell, or taste or touch ‘wisdom’ in the tree! Rather, this is evidence of something going on in her intellect. She chooses to believe the serpent over God. And, desiring wisdom and believing the case that the serpent makes, she decides to eat the fruit.
Therefore, this isn’t ‘appetite over reason’ – this is reason itself failing Adam and Eve.
Among the consequences of this sin, then, are the loss of preternatural gifts. Our wills are weakened and our intellect darkened. Because of this, then, our sensitive appetites are now able to dominate our reason, and perhaps, that’s what gives rise to sin most often for us. For Adam and Eve, though? It was a different dynamic.
So… I think I would say that, if we look at the causes of our sins, and attempt to project them on Adam & Eve, we have the difficulties understanding that you’ve expressed. A close examination of the Scriptural text, however, shows that a different dynamic was in play with our first human parents…
H
hergratefulchild
Guest
If I may, I have responded before on this post and had many threads with OneSheep too. Can we look at the theology of the Fall and its mystery as this is the key that unlocks the narrative. I think we are bringing the words into the human reasoning realm which although is good food for thought is not part of God’s plan for salvation through his Son, Jesus Christ.
G
Gorgias
Guest
H
hergratefulchild
Guest
what is the simplified question the topic is asking? was Eve (and Adam) knowlingly created with a fault to cause them to sin?
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
It seems it’s this question:
If we’re going to answer that question, we first must define what “complete dominion of reason over appetite” means. And, as it turns out, that’s the issue that @OneSheep seems to be stuck on, moreso than the question itself…
H
hergratefulchild
Guest
and this is either yes or no, if no then God created them with a known fault and it was him that made us fall?If we’re going to answer that question, we first must define what “complete dominion of reason over appetite” means. And, as it turns out, that’s the issue that @OneSheep seems to be stuck on, moreso than the question itself…
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Not really. The question asks for an explanation, not a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’: “how can it be said…?”, @OneSheep writes.
Right. We’re not asserting that Adam and Eve had “a known fault.” Rather, we’re asking “how is it that, although they didn’t have any ‘known faults’, Adam and Eve were nevertheless able to commit a sin?”
It’s a good question – and an important one! – in our understanding of the faith!!!
H
hergratefulchild
Guest
The answer is the Devil is it not?
G
Gorgias
Guest
I would say ‘no’. If the answer “why do we sin?” is laid solely at the feet of the devil, then we bear no responsibility for sin – and therefore, God is unjust and cruel in allowing us to be lose our salvation!
H
hergratefulchild
Guest
But in the instance of Eve and Adam who were without sin, it was the Devil… following that humanity is born into sin through the fall. correct me if I am wrong.I would say ‘no’. If the answer “why do we sin?” is laid solely at the feet of the devil, then we bear no responsibility for sin – and therefore, God is unjust and cruel in allowing us to be lose our salvation!
G
Gorgias
Guest
I would say that you’re mistaken in this case. Certainly, there’s the notion of temptation, but temptation is distinct from sin. From the catechism:
So, Adam bears responsibility for sin by virtue of his own personal decision to not trust in God and to disobey His command.
H
hergratefulchild
Guest
What part did the serpent play in the Fall? and innocent bystander?
G
Gorgias
Guest
Tempter…
H
hergratefulchild
Guest
The tempter deceived Eve?
H
hergratefulchild
Guest
I don’t think it fair to say that Eve had right reason when the Devil played with it and put it into unwanted disorder. Do you?
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Yes. He told her something different than what God had told her, and she believed him over God.
Yes, I think it’s fair. Why would you suggest she didn’t have the faculties of reason?
No one is saying that Adam and Eve were perfect, I hope! After all, the Church doesn’t teach that. Nevertheless, God looked at them and said, “Very good!” (according to Genesis 1). He also gave them the gift of a free will, which allowed them to make their own decisions.
The fact that they made a decision contrary to God’s will for them only shows that they’re not perfect.
- Status