V
Vico
Guest
Original justice is the supernatural and preternatural gifts given our first parents. The preternatural gifts are not given to the descendants before the glorious resurrection.
- Status
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I am not so sure about this.
Original justice is distinguished from holiness in relation to the losses incurred by OS.
Holiness refers to SG which is obviously supernatural.
Therefore OJ cannot refer to supernatural gifts…unless you know of such a gift other than SG?
V
Vico
Guest
Summa Theologica I, II, Question 82. Original sin, as to its essence
Article 3. Whether original sin is concupiscence?
I answer that, Everything takes its species from its form: and it has been stated (Article 2) that the species of original sin is taken from its cause. Consequently the formal element of original sin must be considered in respect of the cause of original sin. But contraries have contrary causes. Therefore the cause of original sin must be considered with respect to the cause of original justice, which is opposed to it. Now the whole order of original justice consists in man’s will being subject to God: which subjection, first and chiefly, was in the will, whose function it is to move all the other parts to the end, as stated above (I-II:9:1), so that the will being turned away from God, all the other powers of the soul become inordinate. 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.
newadvent.org/summa/2082.htm
S
simpleas
Guest
Permanent means :
- Lasting or remaining without essential change: “the universal human yearning for something permanent, enduring, without shadow of change” (Willa Cather).
- Not expected to change in status, condition, or place: a permanent address; permanent secretary to the president.
n.
Now I have to think on what sanctifying grace meant for Adam and Eve if they also needed preternatural gifts in ordered to be without concupiscence.
All I know is : It is called sanctifying grace because it makes holy those who possess the gift by giving them a participation in the divine life.
Participating in Divine life, one would need to be free from sin, yet not 100% sinless?
S
simpleas
Guest
This isn’t how the CCC explains it.
If original sin is wiped away with SG, and SG is completely lost through sin, what state is that person in? Still mortal sin, even though they no longer have the ‘mark’ of original sin on their soul?
G
grannymh
Guest
When one looks at Catholic teaching as a whole instead of chopping Catholic teachings into bits and pieces, it is easy to understand why the State of Sanctifying Grace is considered a habitual grace.
When one looks at Catholic teaching in a CCC paragraph without looking at Catholic teaching as a whole, it is easy to miss the interpretation.
When one chops a CCC paragraph into hand picked individual pieces, it is totally understandable why understanding Catholic teaching is eluded. In addition, when one does not take the time to read paragraphs above and below, the reader can lose sight of the road.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Sin has multiple meanings in both the Bible and theology. It often is also used to signify the effects of sin.
If you try to simplisticly use the word to mean loss of sanctifying grace your theologising will end in tears I suggest.
Baptism does not restore full original justice, concupiscence remains even in the Holy.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
If other parts of the CCC explicitly deny your interpretation of one part that strongly suggests your interpretation needs more work.This isn’t how the CCC explains it.
If original sin is wiped away with SG, and SG is completely lost through sin, what state is that person in? Still mortal sin, even though they no longer have the ‘mark’ of original sin on their soul?
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Yes they are in a state of mortal sin by commission.This isn’t how the CCC explains it.
If original sin is wiped away with SG, and SG is completely lost through sin, what state is that person in? Still mortal sin, even though they no longer have the ‘mark’ of original sin on their soul?
Previously they were in that state by contraction.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
My research indicates the Church does not have a clear view on what belongs to Original Justice and what belongs to Holiness. SG is usually said to be referred to by Holiness only.
You are correct that Aquinas tends to see SG as belonging to both. That is, SG is implicit in the “ordering of the soul to God” which is an element of OJ.
However Aquinas is not certain of this and he concedes that other theologians may be correct:
De Malo
The CCC as granny noted below is ambiguous on the matter but seems to contradict Aquinas.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I did not have time to add a bit more.This isn’t how the CCC explains it.
If original sin is wiped away with SG, and SG is completely lost through sin, what state is that person in? Still mortal sin, even though they no longer have the ‘mark’ of original sin on their soul?
The “stain”, or more properly the “hereditary stain” is usually considered the privation of SG as you say.
If a baptised person sins mortally then they essentially re-stain themselves I would think. Just as Adam personally stained himself to begin with.
However in your example the new stain is no longer a hereditary (contracted) stain.
It is a new, self committed stain.
S
simpleas
Guest
As I have understood, Baptism can not be undone, the removal of original sin is done once and for all through baptism.
I don’t know why the ccc uses the word permanent when explaining how a person receives SG through baptism, only that if baptism can’t be undone, then the new creation, the reborn soul would always have SG.
That’s not to say that I mean a person can not choose to sin or not, but that the soul of that person is forever changed in order for the person to be able to live with God.
Anyway, I live and learn…
V
Vico
Guest
Original Holiness is supernatural. Original Justice is material. Original Justice allows Adam and Eve in right relationship with themselves, each other, and all of creation (Catechism 376).
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
As I say the Catechism is somewhat (intentionally) minimalist on this point and does not address the variety of contentious heavy weight views that still abide.
Aquinas adds to Original Justice “right relationship of the soul to God” as the primary feature. And by this, as I explained below, he also means sanctifying grace which is not material. He also acknowledges that other valid views hold that RROTSTG may not necessitate SG in which case OJ is not supernatural but material as you say (unless RROTSTG can be called a different type of “supernatural” from SG).
The CCC presents a third approach which seems to assume that RROTSTG is not part of OJ and is likely identified with SG - in which case RROTSTG belongs to OH.
In other words, like the death of Mary, the jury is still out on this point and we may hold a variety of valid views on the matter.
at somewhat vague in this area and is in fact at odds with Aquinas
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I think you need to start thinking beyond the metaphors of crayon marks, stains, blanks pieces of paper and work with the more difficult adult realities/concepts these concrete symbols represent. Real world realities are 3D not 2D. Baptism means many different things depending on context.
Of course the giving of SG in baptism can be undone.
That is exactly what an actual mortal sin does.
Baptism also materially enrols one in the historical Church - that of course cannot be fully undone.
Baptism does not fully restore OJustice - concupiscence and ignorance and illness, aging and death remain (ie the ordering of the body to the soul is not restored). However the ordering of the soul to God (another aspect of OJustice) is restored.
Baptism does restore OHoliness - though some would say we cannot truly distinguish OJ and OH as there is overlap.
And as advised, “permanent” simply means we have a “habit” of virtue due to indwelling Sanctifying Graces rather than fitful and unreliable one off acts of virtue based on external Actual Graces.
Its the difference between running a car with the starter motor and running it after the engine starts. The running engine is “permanent”, habitual. The starter motor is one-time only until the battery goes flat. However even the “permanent” running engine can be stalled and stop. That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have been habitual/permanent if you’d taken care of it properly. Mortal sin is like stalling a running engine.
V
Vico
Guest
I don’t know what RROTSTG means.
These ideas are not irreformable.
Adam and Eve were certainly given both supernatural and preternatural gifts. When the supernatural gift of grace was lost, so then were the preternatural gifts, of which one was integrity (freedom from concupiscence), the integrity of nature.
William Van Roo wrote in Grace and Original Justice According to St. Thomas, p. 89:
"This original sin is an inordinate disposition resulting from the destruction of the harmony in which original justice consisted. It is a sickness, a languor naturae. Original justice, on the contrary, was the perfect health, the harmony of nature whose parts were in perfect order.
Since it held all the parts of the soul together in perfect order, original justice is compared to a bond or a rein.
Finally as we have seen in several texts, the state of rectitude, or perfect order in original justice, is frequently described as the integrity of nature." - In II Sent. d. 30, q. 1, a. 3, sol.; S.T. I-II 1, 84, a. 4 ad 1.
B
BornInMarch
Guest
The Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses this question.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm
G
grannymh
Guest
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
You have effectively simply repeated what I stated above so all good.
Given I gave three different views on the matter that seems fairly crystal!
V
Vico
Guest
For St. Thomas Aquinas his best work on the subject, I think, is in the compendium:
CHAPTER 186
THE COMMANDS LAID ON THE FIRST MAN, AND HIS PERFECTION IN THE PRISTINE STATE
We saw above that man was originally constituted by God in such a condition that his body was completely subject to his Soul. Further, among the faculties of the soul, the lower powers were subject to reason without any rebelliousness, and man’s reason itself was subject to God. In consequence of the perfect subjection of the body to the soul, no passion could arise in the body that would in any way conflict with the soul’s dominion over the body. Therefore neither death nor illness had any place in man. And from the subjection of the lower powers to reason there resulted in man complete peace of mind, for the human reason was troubled by no inordinate passions. Finally, owing to the submission of man’s will to God, man referred all things to God as to his last end, and in this his justice and innocence consisted.
Of these three subordinations, the last was the cause of the other two. Surely man’s freedom from dissolution or from any suffering that would be a threat to his life, did not come from the nature of his body, as we see if we regard its component parts; for the body was made up of contrary elements. Similarly, the fact that man’s sense faculties were subservient to reason without any rebelliousness did not come from the nature of the soul, since the sense powers naturally tend toward objects that cause pleasure in the senses, even when, as often happens, delights of this sort are at odds with right reason.
This harmony came from a higher power, the power of God. It was God who, in the first instance, united to the body the rational soul that so immeasurably surpasses the body and the bodily faculties, such as the sense powers. Likewise it was God who gave to the rational soul the power to control the body itself in a manner that exceeded the natural condition of the body, and also to govern the sense faculties so that they would function in a way befitting a rational soul. In order,.therefore, that reason might firmly hold the lower faculties’ under its sway, reason itself had to be firmly kept under the dominion of God, from whom it received this power so greatly surpassing the condition of nature. Accordingly man was so constituted that, unless his reason was subservient to God, his body could not be made subject to the beck of the, soul, nor his sense powers be brought under the rule of reason. Hence in that state life was in a certain way immortal and impassible; that is, man could neither die nor suffer, so long as he did not sin. Nevertheless he retained the power to sin, since his will was not yet confirmed in good by the attainment of the last end; in the event that this happened, man could suffer and die.
It is precisely in this respect that the impassibility and immortality possessed by the first man differ from the impassibility and immortality to be enjoyed after the resurrection by the saints, who will never be subject to suffering and death, since their wills will be wholly fixed upon God, as we said above. There is another difference: after the resurrection men will have no use for food or the reproductive functions; but the first man was so constituted that he had to sustain his life with food, and he had a mandate to perform the work of generation; for the human race was to be multiplied from this one parent. Hence he received two commands, in keeping with his condition. The first is that mentioned in Genesis 2:16: “Of every tree of Paradise may eat.” The other is reported in Genesis 1:28: “Increase and multiply and fill the earth.”
- Status