Yes, I’m not suggesting that A&E had concupiscence before the Fall. They did not have it then, while they did have it as soon as they entered the new state–where OJ was lost. In Ques 82, Is OS Concupiscence?, all the objections, denying that concupiscence is original sin, are met with replies that affirm that it is, indeed, original sin- the state of OS that we all now inherit.There is no liability to concupiscence in Adam and Eve due to original justice. See: S.T. First Part of the Second Part, Question 89, A5.
Reply to Objection 3. This freedom from liability to concupiscence was a result of original justice. Wherefore that which is opposed to such liability pertains, not to actual but to original sin.
And from before, widely, pride is “applicable to the intellective appetite”:
“we must needs say that the subject of pride is the irascible not only strictly so called, as a part of the sensitive appetite, but also in its wider acceptation, as applicable to the intellective appetite. Wherefore pride is ascribed also to the demons.”
Also see Q163, A1:
I answer that, Many movements may concur towards one sin, and the character of sin attaches to that one in which inordinateness is first found. And it is evident that inordinateness is in the inward movement of the soul before being in the outward act of the body; since, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 18), the sanctity of the body is not forfeited so long as the sanctity of the soul remains. Also, among the inward movements, the appetite is moved towards the end before being moved towards that which is desired for the sake of the end; and consequently man’s first sin was where it was possible for his appetite to be directed to an inordinate end. Now man was so appointed in the state of innocence, that there was no rebellion of the flesh against the spirit. Wherefore it was not possible for the first inordinateness in the human appetite to result from his coveting a sensible good, to which the concupiscence of the flesh tends against the order of reason. It remains therefore that the first inordinateness of the human appetite resulted from his coveting inordinately some spiritual good. Now he would not have coveted it inordinately, by desiring it according to his measure as established by the Divine rule. Hence it follows that man’s first sin consisted in his coveting some spiritual good above his measure: and this pertains to pride. Therefore it is evident that man’s first sin was pride.
newadvent.org/summa/3163.htm
I realize this.Well, I tend to think CCC406 is relevant or the Church wouldn’t have included it.
It is simply a hylomorphic distinction.Yes, I’m not suggesting that A&E had concupiscence before the Fall. They did not have it then, while they did have it as soon as they entered the new state–where OJ was lost. In Ques 82, Is OS Concupiscence?, all the objections, denying that concupiscence is original sin, are met with replies that affirm that it is, indeed, original sin- the state of OS that we all now inherit.
Ok, but doesn’t Aquinas consider both causes-formal and material- to be constituents of a things substance? Otherwise, if I understand correctly, you’re saying that Aquinas is only stating in ques 82 that concupiscence is the/a chief *consequence *of OS? That’s probably it-it just doesn’t sound that way as he put it. Thank you in any case; I’m learning a few things either way.It is simply a hylomorphic distinction.
Take the word “sin”.
We can identify sin in two ways…by an external deed contrary to a serious law (eg adultery).
Or by an interior gravely malicious act of the will.
The former is the objective material component of sin. But it is not sin proper.
For sin to be truly present the will must be significantly applied. That is the latter formal component.
Now Aquinas holds that a thing is properly defined by its form not by its matter.
Thus a human body is human not by reason of its body but by reason of the soul. Should the soul depart we do not have a human body properly speaking but a complicated collocation of organic chemicals that is slowly disintegrating. Though colloquially we do call it human but only because it once was.
Thus OS is recognised materially by its outward effects of which concupiscence is a major component (it also signifies the wound given to all four powers Vico mentioned and not just the conc. appetite). However the formal cause is loss of the soul’s right relationship with God.
Protestants confused the material cause withe the formal cause.
Pelagians denied both as they saw OS more as psychological than ontological.
Yes, in hylomorphic theory the existence of a material substance requires the two components.Ok, but doesn’t Aquinas consider both causes-formal and material- to be constituents of a things substance? Otherwise, if I understand correctly, you’re saying that Aquinas is only stating in ques 82 that concupiscence is the/a chief *consequence *of OS? That’s probably it-it just doesn’t sound that way as he put it. Thank you in any case; I’m learning a few things either way.
And yet neither can exist without the other. Just trying to understand here what A meant. I’m not familiar enough with his writings to recognize that he’d use the concept of concupiscence as matter to mean a simple consequence, of which there would’ve been others, rather than a cause. But I’m probably still misunderstanding.Yes, in hylomorphic theory the existence of a material substance requires the two components.
But defining of that thing and it’s properties is the function of the form by definition.
So we distinguish between* the personal original sins of Adam and Eve, and * the * state* that they had with their loss of original justice and original holiness.Yes, I’m not suggesting that A&E had concupiscence before the Fall. They did not have it then, while they did have it as soon as they entered the new state–where OJ was lost. In Ques 82, Is OS Concupiscence?, all the objections, denying that concupiscence is original sin, are met with replies that affirm that it is, indeed, original sin- the state of OS that we all now inherit.
To make “Original Sin” work, we must distinguish between the One True God of the Hebrew Nation and the multiple gods of their neighbors.So we distinguish between
- the personal original sins of Adam and Eve, and
- the state that they had with their loss of original justice and original holiness.
If you haven’t studied Aristotle then understanding will be difficult.And yet neither can exist without the other. Just trying to understand here what A meant. I’m not familiar enough with his writings to recognize that he’d use the concept of concupiscence as matter to mean a simple consequence, of which there would’ve been others, rather than a cause. But I’m probably still misunderstanding.
Yes, I suspect that may well be the problem. But I do know that Aristotle considered form and matter to be two inseparably bound elements of a things essence, and when Aquinas states that concupiscence*** is*** original sin materially, it sure sounds that he’s saying that concupiscence is the manifestation of it, rather than a consequence. Would you mind fleshing the explanation out a bit more, dumbing it down further?if you haven’t studied Aristotle then understanding will be difficult.
Ok, could you maybe further explain how the following statement from post #286 or what you’ve posted so far relating to, again, the state of original sin as addressed in ques 82 applies to Aquinas’s question, “Is Original Sin Concupiscence?”:so we distinguish between* the personal original sins of Adam and Eve, and * the * state* that they had with their loss of original justice and original holiness.
Materially seems to mean “improperly”.
St, Thomas Aquinas quotes:Yes, I suspect that may well be the problem. But I do know that Aristotle considered form and matter to be two inseparably bound elements of a things essence, and when Aquinas states that concupiscence*** is*** original sin materially, it sure sounds that he’s saying that concupiscence is the manifestation of it, rather than a consequence. Would you mind fleshing the explanation out a bit more, dumbing it down further?
Ok, could you maybe further explain how the following statement from post #286 or what you’ve posted so far relating to, again, the state of original sin as addressed in ques 82 applies to Aquinas’s question, “Is Original Sin Concupiscence?”:
Ok, can we say then that deprivation of original justice equates to concupiscence, in a one to one relationship? It certainly results in it. Thanks for bearing with me here in any case.St, Thomas Aquinas quotes:
A. “Everything takes its species from its form:”
B. “the privation of original justice, whereby the will was made subject to God, is the formal element in original sin”
C. “every other disorder of the soul’s powers, is a kind of material element in respect of original sin.”
D. “the inordinateness of the other powers of the soul consists chiefly in their turning inordinately to mutable good … called by the general name of concupiscence”
Conclusions:
We call the body alive because of the soul, but the body is still a part of the living thing even though it does not make it alive.
- “The species of original sin is the privation of original justice”
- “original sin is concupiscence, materially”
Similarly we call deprivation of original justice original sin, but concupiesence is still part of the original sin even though it does not make it original sin.
No. Conceptual human thought cannot get beyond the irreducible relationship of matter to form. Form does not “equate” with matter. This is obvious.Ok, can we say then that deprivation of original justice equates to concupiscence, in a one to one relationship? It certainly results in it. Thanks for bearing with me here in any case.
The “**guilt **of original sin” is a writer’s personal exaggeration. Please refer to CCC 404-405.This is from New Advent’s Catholic Encyclopedia, the article on “Concupiscence”:
Christ by His death redeemed mankind from sin and its bondage. In baptism the guilt of original sin is wiped out and the soul is cleansed and justified again by the infusion of sanctifying grace. But freedom from concupiscence is not restored to man, any more than immortality; abundant grace, however, is given him, by which he may obtain the victory over rebellious sense and deserve life everlasting. [Bold emphasis added.]
The legal terminology adopted by the Church is from Justinian.The “**guilt **of original sin” is a writer’s personal exaggeration. Please refer to CCC 404-405.
According to the CCC Index of Citations (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, page 749) St. Justin’s teaching on Baptism is cited in CCC 1216, footnote 8.The legal terminology adopted by the Church is from Justinian.
These are two types for sentence, that have the following meanings.
So reatus poena is translated to the the guilt of original sin and is the analogical sin not the actual sin in the descendents of Adam and Eve.
- Reatus culpa: guilt associated with the sentence (culpability)
- Reatus poena: penalty of the sentence (penalty from poena)
Same in a particulary way (metaphor) is not to say “similarity in some respects” as an analogy is. An analogy is not a figure of speech,According to the CCC Index of Citations (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, page 749) St. Justin’s teaching on Baptism is cited in CCC 1216, footnote 8.
Regarding the guilt of Original Sin, CCC 405 uses the words “personal fault.” CCC 404 is also important about Original Sin.
Today’s difficulty with “guilt” comes from the general misunderstanding of the first three sacred chapters of Genesis. Personally, I consider the word metaphor as the main weapon against the Catholic teachings which obviously flow from the first three amazing chapters of Genesis. Note that in reality, metaphor is not the same as figurative language which is considered a literary device.
And interestingly likewise “sin” in connection with “original sin”. It can only be compared with sin proper (mortal sin) in an analogical sense.Same in a particulary way (metaphor) is not to say “similarity in some respects” as an analogy is. An analogy is not a figure of speech,
The catechism uses “analogical sense”. Analogy, noun (Collins Dictionary) 1. similarity in some respects between things otherwise unlike; partial resemblance
For metaphor (Collins Dictionary)
A metaphor is an imaginative way of describing something by referring to something else which is the same in a particular way. For example, if you want to say that someone is very shy and frightened of things, you might say that they are a mouse.
The Church agrees.It’s a mystery with no real answer…IMO…