Is our free choice real

[John_Martin]

Can the choice between ecstasy (Heaven) and torment (Hell) be considered a real free choice. Is it not more “do it my way or else”.
I hope this is the right forum.
Hope all is well for everyone.

It is not a choice between ecstasy and torment, but whether you get up from your seat and follow when Jesus says, “Follow me.” or you stay seated.
If you get up and follow it is because you desire to follow (that is freedom). if you stay seated and do your own plans, it is because you desire something else than following (that is freedom).
No one shackled you to follow, and no one is chaining you to your chair (these are un-free will).
But it is not about the result of free will that is the choice - it is the movement (or non-movement) when the call is issued.
No one is choosing heaven or hell - they are moving, or freely not moving, when called to come. Serving freely, or freely not serving.
THe Church is a hierarchy of servants with one Master, all freely serving; those perishing are those who freely do not move in service, but move in self-satisfaction. All doing what they want. Grace is that the shepherd is visible to all, going to and fro, calling to follow. But as we saw in Job, Satan is also wandering to and fro on the earth. He is calling people to be their own master and follow none, as with Eve. “You don’t need to listen, you can be like God, knowing good and evil on your own.”

The choice is not about heaven and hell, but about a real person on the earth, whether you are walking behind him or walking in some other direction with no one blocking you.
That real person is capable of raising people on the last day. But today it is about walking in his wake or not - no magic, no super-human endeavor, just Jesus, in his apostolic messengers, servants. You go to mass or you don’t, you eat and drink what he gives you or you don’t, you pray or you don’t, you help the poor or you don’t,

 

[BobCatholic]

Your focus is material not spiritual. Christians strive to be Christlike in their life, which involves suffering, as Jesus Christ said, they hated him so they will hate you too.

My focus is surviving holding on to grace until I die. If I don’t focus on this, I’m guaranteed to lose grace, and go to hell.

You wrote: “OK, so please answer my statement about free will then.”
A. God created mankind with free will by nature. Some individuals have brain or psychological damage or other factors effecting the operation of the will. We do not know the ways that God helps a particular person. Sometimes there are miraculous healings other times not.

And imperfections take away free will.

You wrote: “If it cannot harm someone who resists, then nobody would go to hell. But people do go to hell.”
A. The Catechism did not say resists but consent: “those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ.” One can resist initially but then finally fail by giving consent. Those baptized, that do not consent, do not fail.

How does one give valid consent if they are imperfect? If one does not have sufficient free will, why is the consent valid?

You wrote: “Who cares if we are culpable or gain merit if we are still held temporally responsible for actions done under no free will?”
A. The many people that have contrition care. Catechism

Contrition does not reduce or eliminate temporal punishment.

You asked: “If someone gives me a key, and it does not unlock the lock that stands in the way of sanctification, did they give me something useful?”
A. The key in this case does unlock the lock if the key is used, so yes it is useful. The key is the gift of grace.

In such case, one is sitting in darkness, without a flashlight to see properly to put in the key properly. Either which way, the door is unlocked.

Imperfections rob people of free will.

You wrote: “Another reason why the blessings that Christ brings are not better than what the demon took away.”
A. Adam and Eve were tempted but not forced to fall, it was through their free will. God expelled Adam and Eve, not a demon.

The demon took away the Garden of Eden. The demon took away a personal relationship with God where one could have an actual conversation with him. The demon took away only having to follow one rule to make God happy.

Christ did not restore any of these things.

Thus, the statement is incorrect: “Another reason why the blessings that Christ brings are not better than what the demon took away.”

 

[Vico]

My focus is surviving holding on to grace until I die. If I don’t focus on this, I’m guaranteed to lose grace, and go to hell.
And imperfections take away free will.
How does one give valid consent if they are imperfect? If one does not have sufficient free will, why is the consent valid?
Contrition does not reduce or eliminate temporal punishment.
In such case, one is sitting in darkness, without a flashlight to see properly to put in the key properly. Either which way, the door is unlocked.
Imperfections rob people of free will.

…/QUOTE]

Everyone will suffer some in life, and some of it results from personal sin.

Free will can exist in the imperfect. If a person does not have free will with respect to some act or acts, it is not absolute. To commit an objectively sinful act or omission by compulsion is not free will consent.

Adam and Eve sinned through free will choice which lead to God expelling them. They were not caused to fall by demon, but rather tempted, to fall.

 

[BobCatholic]

Everyone will suffer some in life, and some of it results from personal sin.

I know. That’s why I discussed the problem of good. The cross is guaranteed in life, resistance is futile.

Free will can exist in the imperfect.

If the imperfection is small enough, yes.

If the imperfection is large enough or negatively impacts the will, no.

Suppose someone had the imperfection of pride. That imperfection WILL cause them to eventually be selfish. IF they will fall is not the question, the question is WHEN.

Adam and Eve sinned through free will choice which lead to God expelling them. They were not caused to fall by demon, but rather tempted, to fall.

I question if they had free will. They were created imperfect and that imperfection was deadly to them. I think they had one or more of the following imperfections: naievete, fear, pride, ignorance.

The quote you posted about Christ restoring more than the demon taken away in the garden…makes no sense with your second sentence quote above.

 

[Vico]

I know. That’s why I discussed the problem of good. The cross is guaranteed in life, resistance is futile.

If the imperfection is small enough, yes.

If the imperfection is large enough or negatively impacts the will, no.

Suppose someone had the imperfection of pride. That imperfection WILL cause them to eventually be selfish. IF they will fall is not the question, the question is WHEN.

I question if they had free will. They were created imperfect and that imperfection was deadly to them. I think they had one or more of the following imperfections: naievete, fear, pride, ignorance.

The quote you posted about Christ restoring more than the demon taken away in the garden…makes no sense with your second sentence quote above.

The Catholic teaching (dogma of faith) is that Adam and Eve fall through free will choice, it was grave sin, thus mortal, and caused the loss of sanctifying grace. This statement is consistent with that: “They were not caused to fall by demon, but rather tempted, to fall.” The supernatural gifts that they were given was sufficient that they not sin mortally. It was not a matter of when, but of willingness.

Catechism has:
377 The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence254 that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.

378 The sign of man’s familiarity with God is that God places him in the garden.255 There he lives “to till it and keep it”. Work is not yet a burden,256 but rather the collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation.

379 This entire harmony of original justice, foreseen for man in God’s plan, will be lost by the sin of our first parents.

 

[John_Martin]

The Catholic teaching (dogma of faith) is that Adam and Eve fall through free will choice, it was grave sin, thus mortal, and caused the loss of sanctifying grace. This statement is consistent with that: “They were not caused to fall by demon, but rather tempted, to fall.” The supernatural gifts that they were given was sufficient that they not sin mortally. It was not a matter of when, but of willingness.

Catechism has:
377 The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence254 that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.

378 The sign of man’s familiarity with God is that God places him in the garden.255 There he lives “to till it and keep it”. Work is not yet a burden,256 but rather the collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation.

379 This entire harmony of original justice, foreseen for man in God’s plan, will be lost by the sin of our first parents.

BTW, notice that the temptation and sin of our Parents was totally centered in reasoning about the tree’s fruit - it was not the sight of the fruit nor its aroma that drew Eve to it, but reasoning. Even the mention of it being a delight to the eyes or good for food - she did not grab without thinking as our bodies do when we see something that is a “delight to the eyes” - but only with and upon the (free) conclusion of reason that it made sense to reach did she actually reach.

After they ate, they saw something and heard something and moved without reasoning - they ran and hid without the use of reason, and only used reason afterwards to come up with an explanation of why they hid, “We didn’t want you to see us because we were naked.”

Interesting.

 

[Vico]

BTW, notice that the temptation and sin of our Parents was totally centered in reasoning about the tree’s fruit - it was not the sight of the fruit nor its aroma that drew Eve to it, but reasoning. Even the mention of it being a delight to the eyes or good for food - she did not grab without thinking as our bodies do when we see something that is a “delight to the eyes” - but only with and upon the (free) conclusion of reason that it made sense to reach did she actually reach.

After they ate, they saw something and heard something and moved without reasoning - they ran and hid without the use of reason, and only used reason afterwards to come up with an explanation of why they hid, “We didn’t want you to see us because we were naked.”

Interesting.

It is as St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in the Summa Theologiae Second Part of the Second Part Question 163 Article 1. Whether pride was the first man’s first sin?
…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.

Reply to Objection 2. Gluttony also had a place in the sin of our first parents. For it is written (Genesis 3:6): “The woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold, and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat.” Yet the very goodness and beauty of the fruit was not their first motive for sinning, but the persuasive words of the serpent, who said (Genesis 3:5): “Your eyes shall be opened and you shall be as Gods”: and it was by coveting this that the woman fell into pride. Hence the sin of gluttony resulted from the sin of pride.

newadvent.com/summa/3163.htm

 

[John_Martin]

It is as St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in the Summa Theologiae Second Part of the Second Part Question 163 Article 1. Whether pride was the first man’s first sin?
…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.

Reply to Objection 2. Gluttony also had a place in the sin of our first parents. For it is written (Genesis 3:6): “The woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold, and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat.” Yet the very goodness and beauty of the fruit was not their first motive for sinning, but the persuasive words of the serpent, who said (Genesis 3:5): “Your eyes shall be opened and you shall be as Gods”: and it was by coveting this that the woman fell into pride. Hence the sin of gluttony resulted from the sin of pride.

newadvent.com/summa/3163.htm

Only a devoted student would be so quick to recall his teacher’s words.

 

[BobCatholic]

The Catholic teaching (dogma of faith) is that Adam and Eve fall through free will choice, it was grave sin, thus mortal, and caused the loss of sanctifying grace.

I question how they had free will if they were imperfect. They had the imperfections of pride, stupidity, naivete, ignorance or fear. It was only a matter of time before they fell.

This statement is consistent with that: “They were not caused to fall by demon, but rather tempted, to fall.” The supernatural gifts that they were given was sufficient that they not sin mortally. It was not a matter of when, but of willingness.

I know.

The phrase “the demon took away” was a metaphor, not an actual taking away.

STILL my point is not changed:

What Christ restored was not better that what was lost, because he didn’t restore what was lost - living in paradise with only one rule, and a personal relationship with God where one could have two way conversations with him.

 

[BobCatholic]

BTW, notice that the temptation and sin of our Parents was totally centered in reasoning about the tree’s fruit

And that reasoning was incomplete.

The snake told them that God lied and they believed it without thinking or reasoning. They had the imperfection of stupidity.

Therefore it is evident that man’s first sin was pride.

Pridefulness was also their imperfection.

Yet the very goodness and beauty of the fruit was not their first motive for sinning, but the persuasive words of the serpent

The words were persuasive because they were naive. Another imperfection.

So, proof of a minimum of 3 imperfections from above. Imperfections make it so that it is only a matter of time before they fell.

You’ll notice Adam & Eve had no confessionals and no recourse to forgiveness of sin. As a result, sin was one and done and God kicked them out of the garden.

So, we have a situation where 1) people are imperfect 2) time passes and 3) they inevitably fall and 4) there is no way to gain forgiveness and still stay in the garden.

It was a situation where one was set up to fail. Free will = 0.

 

[Vico]

I question how they had free will if they were imperfect. They had the imperfections of pride, stupidity, naivete, ignorance or fear. It was only a matter of time before they fell.
I know.
The phrase “the demon took away” was a metaphor, not an actual taking away.
STILL my point is not changed:
What Christ restored was not better that what was lost, because he didn’t restore what was lost - living in paradise with only one rule, and a personal relationship with God where one could have two way conversations with him.

One does not loose sanctifying grace through actual sin without it being mortal sin and mortal sin requires free will consent. So the dogmatic teaching of the Church on the fall of Adam and Eve is that they had fallen through exercise of free will.

There was never the intention to restore what was lost to Adam and Eve or even to give what Adam and Eve had to all mankind, instead those that are saved will have something greater, the Beatific Vision, a glorified body, and including that a person can never fall in heaven.

Catechism

999 How? Christ is raised with his own body: “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself”;551 but he did not return to an earthly life. So, in him, “all of them will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear,” but Christ “will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body,” into a “spiritual body”:552

But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. and what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel …What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable… the dead will be raised imperishable… For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality.553

1000 This “how” exceeds our imagination and understanding; it is accessible only to faith. Yet our participation in the Eucharist already gives us a foretaste of Christ’s transfiguration of our bodies:

Just as bread that comes from the earth, after God’s blessing has been invoked upon it, is no longer ordinary bread, but Eucharist, formed of two things, the one earthly and the other heavenly: so too our bodies, which partake of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but possess the hope of resurrection.554​

Also note from prior posts, Catechism:

412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away."307 And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, ‘Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more’; and the Exsultet sings, ‘O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’"308

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."66 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."67

 

[BobCatholic]

One does not loose sanctifying grace through actual sin without it being mortal sin and mortal sin requires free will consent. So the dogmatic teaching of the Church on the fall of Adam and Eve is that they had fallen through exercise of free will.

They clearly had the imperfections which overruled their free will. The Church CLEARLY teaches they had the imperfection of pridefulness. And since they had imperfections, it was only a matter of time before they fell.

I maintain they had other imperfections. This made the fall far more likely.

Free will = 0

But wait, there was also no choice for forgiveness from God. Adam and Eve had zero choice to beg for mercy.

Free will = 0.

I used to want to slap them upside the head for their stupidity. Now I just wonder why God allowed this huge security breach in the Garden. Why did he let the evil snake into the Garden? I thought evil was not allowed in there.

There was never the intention to restore what was lost to Adam and Eve or even to give what Adam and Eve had to all mankind,

And why is that?

Why does God hold us temporally responsible for the sins of Adam and Eve?

instead those that are saved will have something greater, the Beatific Vision, a glorified body, and including that a person can never fall in heaven.

This requires one to survive until death, in a state of grace. Without being perfect, that becomes horrendously difficult or impossible.

Free will = 0.

412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, “Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away.”

I’ve already shown that the demon took something away that Christ didn’t restore. Even you admit it. In order to be better, it must restore what was lost (which was not).

So, let’s see.

Before in the Garden: Superior reasoning power. Only 1 to 5 imperfections. One rule.
Conclusion: Very easy to stay in relationship with God. But this was not to be God’s will for humanity for much longer.

After the Fall: Reasoning power diminished. How many rules? 10 with 600+ sub-rules, and Christ only took away most of them, but there are still far more rules than before.
We are far more imperfect than Adam and Eve, so it is easier to fall than they were. Yet we have far more rules to follow, so that even makes it harder to not fall.

God’s will was that being in relationship with him be difficult and painful. True friends only exist if they suffer for you, and can’t be true friends if they don’t. I don’t understand why God had to make it this way. Even Christ didn’t change this.

And this is BETTER than what the demon took away? I disagree.

Somehow, we must survive until death. Suicide is not an option, that’s elevator down mortal sin. We have to wait until God calls us home. There is no choice there. Free will = 0 there. If suicide were not a mortal sin, I think few would bother sticking around after baptism. We’d see people getting baptized, then offing themselves and then going to heaven. God doesn’t want things this way, so He made it a mortal sin to keep us in this jail cell.

Life on this planet is not a gift, it is a holding cell for criminals. At least, that’s how we are treated in a temporal sense. Again, free will = 0 here.

Eternal life IS a gift, if one manages to survive in a state of grace at the time of death. If one had final perseverance, something not guaranteed to anyone, they would get this beautiful gift. This is yet another stumbling block preventing one from fully cooperating.

No guarantee of final perseverance - free will = 0.

Please explain how this is not a set up for failure?

Whether we are culpable or not, we are held temporally responsible for the sins of others. If we fail, whether culpable or not, we still get the whippings. We still are in this jail cell.

I want to go home to heaven. But that’s not a choice for me. I have to be perfect to go to heaven and that is blocked since God’s grace does not take away imperfections.

I don’t want to go to hell. Do I have a choice for that if the previous one is not a choice for me?

I hate the devil and wish he never existed. But that’s not a choice for me.

Do I have the choice of obliterating him? No, he’s immortal, so again, that’s not a choice for me.

Free will is a cruel joke at the best, and at worst, nonexistent.

 

[Vico]

…

It is dogma of faith of the Catholic Church that Adam and Eve did fall through the exercise of free will. Also those baptized that do not commit post baptismal mortal sin will be in heaven. If, as you claim, you do not have free will, and have been baptized, then you will be in heaven, because you could not sin mortally such as is the case for the infant that has not developed the use of reason.

The Church condemned the teachings of Luther and and Calvin that denied free will.

Council of Trent, Session VI, cap. i and v (original Denzinger numbers)

Chap. 1. On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to Justify Man

793 The holy Synod decrees first that for a correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of justification it is necessary that each one recognize and confess that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam [Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22: see n. 130], “having become unclean” [Isa. 64:6], and (as the Apostle says), “by nature children of wrath” [Eph. 2:3], as it (the Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin, to that extent were they the servants of sin [Rom. 5:20], and under the power of the devil and of death, that not only the gentiles by the force of nature [can. 1], but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom, although free will was not extinguished in them [can. 5], however weakened and debased in its powers [see n. 81].

Chap. 5. On the Necessity of Preparation for Justification of

Adults, and Whence it Proceeds

797 It [the Synod] furthermore declares that in adults the beginning of that justification must be derived from the predisposing grace [can. 3] of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from his vocation, whereby without any existing merits on their part they are called, so that they who by sin were turned away from God, through His stimulating and assisting grace are disposed to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and cooperating with the same grace [can. 4 and 5], in such wise that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself receiving that inspiration does not do nothing at all inasmuch as he can indeed reject it, nor on the other hand can he [can. 3] of his own free will without the grace of God move himself to justice before Him. Hence, when it is said in the Sacred Writings: “Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you” [Zach. 1:3], we are reminded of our liberty; when we reply: “Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted” [Lam. 5:21], we confess that we are anticipated by the grace of God.

814 Can. 4. If anyone shall say that man’s free will moved and aroused by God does not cooperate by assenting to God who rouses and calls, whereby it disposes and prepares itself to obtain the grace of justification, and that it cannot dissent, if it wishes, but that like something inanimate it does nothing at all and is merely in a passive state: let him be anathema [cf. n. 797].

815 Can. 5. If anyone shall say that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost and destroyed, or that it is a thing in name only, indeed a title without a reality, a fiction, moreover, brought into the Church by Satan: let him be anathema [cf. n. 793, 797].

 

[BobCatholic]

It is dogma of faith of the Catholic Church that Adam and Eve did fall through the exercise of free will.

My question is: How imperfect does one have to be before they are not having free will?

Adam and Eve had the imperfections of pridefulness, naivete, stupidity, ignorance and fear.

Yet somehow they maintained free will!

What is the level of imperfection before God says “OK, insufficient free will here.”

The Church condemned the teachings of Luther and and Calvin that denied free will.

I agree that God’s grace is not irresistible, otherwise hell would be empty.

 

[BobCatholic]

In addition, even if one is not culpable due to imperfections, how can they avoid the temporal punishments? We are all in the same jail cell as Adam and Eve here.

 

[Vico]

My question is: How imperfect does one have to be before they are not having free will?

Adam and Eve had the imperfections of pridefulness, naivete, stupidity, ignorance and fear.

Yet somehow they maintained free will!

What is the level of imperfection before God says “OK, insufficient free will here.”

I agree that God’s grace is not irresistible, otherwise hell would be empty.

And heaven is not empty, so conversely it is possible to freely avoid mortal sin.

At Baptism (and with absolution) the supernatural power is given to overcome the passions, but what remains – the temptations - are traditionally identified as pride, avarice, lust, envy, gluttony, anger, and sloth.

Then the person will struggle with temptations. Temptation is in thought first, so, (Catechism 1786) “Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.”

Examination of conscience is difficult, so often one will confess with uncertainty about the gravity of sin or even knowing if something was a sin, which is where a confessor can be of assistance. Some factors to consider in examination of conscience are:

• Physical force or other strong coercion
• Great fear or anxiety
• Extreme fatigue
• Hidden or deep-seated emotional wounds
• Long-established habits

 

[BobCatholic]

At Baptism (and with absolution) the supernatural power is given to overcome the passions,

Where does it say this?

(Catechism 1786) “Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.”

Imperfection causes erroneous judgment.

• Physical force or other strong coercion
• Great fear or anxiety
• Extreme fatigue
• Hidden or deep-seated emotional wounds
• Long-established habits

Right.

Now how do I know I have sufficient imperfection that my free will is sufficiently decimated so God will stop punishing temporally?

In addition, how do I get God to stop punishing me temporally? I want the bad luck to stop.

 

[Vico]

Where does it say this?
Imperfection causes erroneous judgment.
Right.
Now how do I know I have sufficient imperfection that my free will is sufficiently decimated so God will stop punishing temporally?
In addition, how do I get God to stop punishing me temporally? I want the bad luck to stop.

There will always be suffering in this life because this concupiscence is temptation that tries us.

Catechism

“A new creature”

1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte “a new creature,” an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature,"69 member of Christ and co-heir with him,70 and a temple of the Holy Spirit.71

1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:

- enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;

• giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;
• allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.
  Thus the whole organism of the Christian’s supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.

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."67 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."68
​

 

[BobCatholic]

1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte “a new creature,” an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature,"69 member of Christ and co-heir with him,70 and a temple of the Holy Spirit.71

1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:

• enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;
• giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;
• allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.
  Thus the whole organism of the Christian’s supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.

This does not say anything about God’s grace overcoming imperfections. Zero.

It is one thing to say “You can do good” versus “You don’t want to do evil because your imperfections are eliminated and you have the free will to actually choose for a change.”

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."67 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."68
[/INDENT]

Precisely. This even confirms my assertion that God’s grace does not overcome imperfections, since concupiscence has not been obliterated, nor has grace conquered any other imperfections.

Remember, it is for us to wrestle with. That proves it is not eliminated by God’s grace.

If God’s grace eliminated imperfections, we would not have to wrestle with them.

And concupiscence DOES harm us. You will notice we are still held temporally responsible for the sins of our ancestors. We are still in the same jail cell as Adam and Eve. That is harmful!

And I definitely didn’t consent to being kicked out of the Garden of Eden!

 

[Vico]

This does not say anything about God’s grace overcoming imperfections. Zero.

It is one thing to say “You can do good” versus “You don’t want to do evil because your imperfections are eliminated and you have the free will to actually choose for a change.”

Precisely. This even confirms my assertion that God’s grace does not overcome imperfections, since concupiscence has not been obliterated, nor has grace conquered any other imperfections.

Remember, it is for us to wrestle with. That proves it is not eliminated by God’s grace.

If God’s grace eliminated imperfections, we would not have to wrestle with them.

And concupiscence DOES harm us. You will notice we are still held temporally responsible for the sins of our ancestors. We are still in the same jail cell as Adam and Eve. That is harmful!

And I definitely didn’t consent to being kicked out of the Garden of Eden!

I posted: “At Baptism (and with absolution) the supernatural power is given to overcome the passions,”

You asked: Where does it say this?

I answered you question.

Your response is now about your question but something else:
This does not say anything about God’s grace overcoming imperfections. Zero.

The answer is about supernatural power to overcome the passions, not about God’s grace overcoming imperfections. The grace is given that with our free will cooperation it becomes possible to remain without mortal sin. Note the difference is that one is passive and the other is active. We must actively participate. We still have imperfections but can remain without mortal sin when we have sanctifying grace.

Also, this is not about being kicked out of a place we were never in nor ever going to be in. We will be in New Jerusalem with glorified bodies (if saved) and live on Earth in trials until we die, now.