Did Jesus have concupiscence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WesleyF
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WesleyF

Guest
What is the church’s teaching regarding this? When the Son of God took on human flesh, did he have concupiscence too?
 
scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p1.htm Church teaching regarding Jesus’ humanity, Catechism of the Catholic Church

From the Bible:

Hebrews 4:15 “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are–yet was without sin.”
  • Matthew 4:1* “Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.”
Romans 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,

2 Corinthians 5:21 “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Hebrews 2:17 “For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.”

Hebrews 2:18 “Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.”

*Hebrews 5:2 *“He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness.Hebrews 7:26 Such a high priest meets our need–one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.”

bible.cc/hebrews/4-15.htm
 
WesleyF said:
What is the church’s teaching regarding this? When the Son of God took on human flesh, did he have concupiscence too?
Click to expand...
No, concupiscence is a consequence of original sin, which Jesus did not have.
 
fhansen said:
No, concupiscence is a consequence of original sin, which Jesus did not have.
Click to expand...
But concupiscence is not sin in itself. And as Trishie mentioned, he had to be made like his brothers in every way.
 
WesleyF said:
But concupiscence is not sin in itself. And as Trishie mentioned, he had to be made like his brothers in every way.
Click to expand...
I think it would be have to excluded in this case, because concupiscence is still disordered desire, the appetites not fully controlled. But Jesus, having no OS, would always have his human reason in complete control of the natural desires. And being always in full communion with the Father would exclude concupiscence I would think.
 
What is so special about overcoming sin and temptation if you have no concupiscence?
 
WesleyF said:
What is so special about overcoming sin and temptation if you have no concupiscence?
Click to expand...
You may be right-I just don’t think so. He could be tempted same as anyone, but with no compulsion at all to give in. At some point He’s different in any case. Adam & Eve would’ve lacked concupiscence as well, I believe. It came about at the Fall as man chose to determine righteousness for himself, rather than conform to the righteousness of God. Concupiscence is that sort of wanton desire to have whatever entices at the moment.
 
So the question that still bothers me is if Jesus didn’t have concupiscence, then what’s so special about his obedience. Heck, I think I could have had a great shot at not sinning if I didn’t have concupiscence.
 
WesleyF said:
What is so special about overcoming sin and temptation if you have no concupiscence?
Click to expand...
Adam and Eve had no concupiscence, and yet they did NOT overcome temptation. Hmmm…

It is special because he was tempted and did NOT sin. Neither did Mary.
 
no he did not, and neither did Mary, as it is a result of original sin and they were free of this
 
puzzleannie said:
no he did not, and neither did Mary, as it is a result of original sin and they were free of this
Click to expand...
St. Thomas mentions something similar (ST: III, 15, 2) to this in an objection, where the objector argues that Christ would have concupiscence (fomes):
Objection 1. It would seem that in Christ there was the “fomes” of sin. For the “fomes” of sin, and the passibility and mortality of the body spring from the same principle, to wit, from the withdrawal of original justice, whereby the inferior powers of the soul were subject to the reason, and the body to the soul. Now passibility and mortality of body were in Christ. Therefore there was also the “fomes” of sin.
Click to expand...
Thomas answers that objection by saying:
Reply to Objection 1. The inferior powers pertaining to the sensitive appetite have a natural capacity to be obedient to reason; but not the bodily powers, nor those of the bodily humors, nor those of the vegetative soul, as is made plain Ethic. i, 13. And hence perfection of virtue, which is in accordance with right reason, does not exclude passibility of body; yet it excludes the “fomes” of sin, the nature of which consists in the resistance of the sensitive appetite to reason.
Click to expand...
His precise answer is that Christ was not subject to concupiscence because “it is plain that the more perfect the virtues are in any man, the weaker the “fomes” of sin becomes in him. Hence, since in Christ the virtues were in their highest degree, the “fomes” of sin was nowise in Him”.

I would guess that, strictly speaking, we might not be able to say logically that Christ had to be free from concupiscence due to being free from Original Sin. . . since as noted in the first objection being mortal was also a consequence of Original sin and Christ was mortal. But we can come to the conclusion by other means, as Thomas does – the in Christ concupiscence could not exist since His reason perfectly controlled his sensuous appetite.

I think this “disconnect” between Original Sin and concupiscence also comes into play when the Reformers denied that baptism actually took away the guilt of original sin. They reasoned that since concupiscence was a result of original sin, and that we still have concupiscence after baptism, then we still have the guilt of original sin (though we are imputed as righteous). (I.e. this is the opposite of but similar to reasoning that since Christ was free from Orignal Sin he must not be concupiscent)

Trent answers that by stating that baptism does in fact remove the guilt of original sin, but that concupiscence remains so that we may strive to overcome it “for our exercise”. We can find this in the Catechism as well:
1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence “is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ.” Indeed, “an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.”
Click to expand...
VC
 
Verbum_Caro said:
St. Thomas mentions something similar (ST: III, 15, 2) to this in an objection, where the objector argues that Christ would have concupiscence (fomes):

Thomas answers that objection by saying:

His precise answer is that Christ was not subject to concupiscence because “it is plain that the more perfect the virtues are in any man, the weaker the “fomes” of sin becomes in him. Hence, since in Christ the virtues were in their highest degree, the “fomes” of sin was nowise in Him”.

I would guess that, strictly speaking, we might not be able to say logically that Christ had to be free from concupiscence due to being free from Original Sin. . . since as noted in the first objection being mortal was also a consequence of Original sin and Christ was mortal. But we can come to the conclusion by other means, as Thomas does – the in Christ concupiscence could not exist since His reason perfectly controlled his sensuous appetite.

I think this “disconnect” between Original Sin and concupiscence also comes into play when the Reformers denied that baptism actually took away the guilt of original sin. They reasoned that since concupiscence was a result of original sin, and that we still have concupiscence after baptism, then we still have the guilt of original sin (though we are imputed as righteous). (I.e. this is the opposite of but similar to reasoning that since Christ was free from Orignal Sin he must not be concupiscent)

Trent answers that by stating that baptism does in fact remove the guilt of original sin, but that concupiscence remains so that we may strive to overcome it “for our exercise”. We can find this in the Catechism as well:

VC
Click to expand...
Thanks for answering.

:bowdown: Thomas Aquinas
 
ConstantineTG said:
I’m Eastern Catholic, there is no such thing as Original Sin 😉
Click to expand...
OK, Ancestral Sin. 🙂 Anyway, what’s your thoughts on concupiscence? If nothing else I’d say the Catholic position is that it constitutes injustice in man in some manner or another.
 
fhansen said:
OK, Ancestral Sin. 🙂 Anyway, what’s your thoughts on concupiscence? If nothing else I’d say the Catholic position is that it constitutes injustice in man in some manner or another.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it propensity to sin? I think that is why we have come to understand Jesus having two natures and two separate wills. While the divine will cannot be corrupted by sin, the human will is similar to ours. I must admit I haven’t read a lot on the subject just yet, but my current understanding of the matter is that Jesus took upon our flesh with all its imperfections, that He may repair our fallen nature with His divine perfection. If Jesus didn’t took upon himself our flawed humanity, why did He become human in the first place?
 
ConstantineTG said:
Isn’t it propensity to sin? I think that is why we have come to understand Jesus having two natures and two separate wills. While the divine will cannot be corrupted by sin, the human will is similar to ours. I must admit I haven’t read a lot on the subject just yet, but my current understanding of the matter is that Jesus took upon our flesh with all its imperfections, that He may repair our fallen nature with His divine perfection. If Jesus didn’t took upon himself our flawed humanity, why did He become human in the first place?
Click to expand...
In my understanding, He didn’t take on any of our “fallenness”, “He was like us in all things except sin”; His human nature was the way it was originally intended to be. It seems to me that, if concupiscence is “a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason” as described by the Catholic Encyclopedia, also defined as a “disordered desire”, then, I believe, Jesus would have no such desire. To be tempted, to hear the tempters enticements and reasons for giving into them would be separate from the desire within us that might just respond to and give way to the enticements, IMO.
 
Concupiscence isn’t actual sin but INCLINATION towards committing sin.

Jesus didn’t have INCLINATION towards committing sin. Mary didn’t have INCLINATION towards committing sin.

All the rest of us who are born of original sin DO have INCLINATION towards committing sin.

This INCLINATION remains even after baptism but it can be overcome by the grace of God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top