Original Sin and Concupiscence

[frangiuliano115]

It states that by original sin, human nature “is wounded in the natural powers proper to it”. The preternatural gifts were lost and they are “beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them” but not supernatural. The powers are proper to the nature but beyond it. Set the use of preternatural by the Catholic Church below.405 Although it is proper to each individual, 295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

http://www.vatican.va/img/vuoto.gif APOSTOLIC PENITENTIARY
DECREE
**Plenary Indulgences for the 15th World Day of the Sick ** Since man fell in consequence of original sin which deprived him of both supernatural and preternatural gifts, God the Creator and Redeemer, in his infinite mercy, has closely united in a mysterious bond what justice demands and what forgiveness obtains; therefore, suffering that has a penal character becomes a favourable opportunity for expiating sin and for obtaining the growth of virtue, and hence, for attaining eternal salvation.

Thanks for posting the above decree.

Now let’s see if we understand it!!

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

FWIW, I tend to think they were already outside of the garden the instant that they sinned. They had placed themselves outside of the garden, no longer in right relationship with God, in a state now separated or distanced from Him.

Humanity’s exile into the world we know now was not so much a punishment or arbitrary choice of God as much as it was a direct natural consequence of their act, like the consequence of dying as a result of trying to defy gravity by stepping off a cliff. God had warned them, “Don’t jump”. They were now spiritually dead, no longer aligned with truth, no longer aligned with Gods will as the rest of creation is, no longer in perfect sync with the universe. This is the world of man that we find ourselves in now.

Alll you say is 100% correct EXCEPT for the fact the Adam and Eve were still IN the garden when they sinned.

The story takes place from Genesis 2:4-24 and don’t get put out of the garden (for fear that they’ll eat of the tree of life) untill Genesis 2:23.

This is what I was asking rohzek to rethink from her/his original post.

God bless

 

[fhansen]

Alll you say is 100% correct EXCEPT for the fact the Adam and Eve were still IN the garden when they sinned.

The story takes place from Genesis 2:4-24 and don’t get put out of the garden (for fear that they’ll eat of the tree of life) untill Genesis 2:23.

This is what I was asking rohzek to rethink from her/his original post.

God bless

Yes, I understand how there’s a chronological sequence in the events as the story is presented. What I’m saying, I guess, is that Eden was already no longer Eden. There change of state in terms of their relationship with God is what changed their whole world; they were now outside of His kingdom and they were afraid and ashamed even as they were as yet unready and unable and probably, in any event, unwilling to repent.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yes, I understand how there’s a chronological sequence in the events as the story is presented. What I’m saying, I guess, is that Eden was already no longer Eden. There change of state in terms of their relationship with God is what changed their whole world; they were now outside of His kingdom and they were afraid and ashamed even as they were as yet unready and unable and probably, in any event, unwilling to repent.

This is a very cogent insight.

When theologians say concupiscence began only after the Fall, do they really mean that man became conscious of himself as fallen and therefore more able and likely to sin than he had been before the Fall now that he knew sin and no longer was in God’s favor?

After all, we do see an escalating inclination to sin in Cain and in the generations to follow given the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. It’s as if the sin of Adam and Eve had poked a hole in the dam that held back the flood of sin that was inevitable once the hole was created and the dam came crashing down.

 

[Rohzek]

Believe me I know catholci teaching well. Concupiscence IS a damaged nature. We did not have it before the fall.

But that is not what I was hinting at. Rohzek puts forth the idea that they became damged by being thrown out into the world and that’s when sin came in. If I understood correctly.

They were IN the garden when they sinned so I just brought that up to her/him to see if they thought it out correctly.

Thanks and God bless

That’s not quite what I am saying. I do not intend to say that they are damaged in their nature as a result of being thrown out of the Garden. What I am proposing is that they have concupiscence solely as a result of them being in a fallen environment. My response to your question is the second-to-last post on the previous page. I’m a bit worried people are passing it on accident.

I’ll quote it real quick, but there is also a follow up question in the original for Ad Orientem, so this is not the full original post.

Interesting. Before I answer the question, I’ll start from another end. Let’s look at Job 32:8, which says the following: “The Spirit is who intercedes for mortals, truly the living breath (inspiratio) is what he gives to me.” This breath or grace is what God gave us upon creation. Solomon says more about this in Proverbs 20:27, which says: “The Light of the Lord is the spirit of a man.” This seems to indicate to me that the mankind still holds the grace of God within themselves. Next turn to Jeremiah 2:13 in the Latin Vulgate version, which says: “In fact, my people have done two evils. They have abandoned me, the fountain of living water, and they have dug themselves cisterns; broken cisterns which are unable to contain water.” David also says in Pslams 5:10: “For with You is the fountain of life.”

So now this brings me to the answer the problem you highlighted. You said that Adam and Eve had both already severed their relationship with God after eating the fruit, but before being cast out of Paradise. I agree that they had damaged that relationship. However, that is a separate matter from concupiscence. I think Jeremiah highlights this quite well. He states that two wrongs were done by humanity: First abandoning God, which Adam and Eve had done when they disobeyed. But the second wrong was the fabrication of new cisterns so as to replace God. The latter sin only compounds the initial problem. Adam and Eve had not done that, particularly because they eventually confessed to God with their shame, although imperfectly. The concupiscence to do the latter evil must therefore be the result of the environment of the fallen world. The fallen world is the creative space given to us by God so that we might choose to create false gods, etc.

To quote Alcuin of York, when asked what exactly was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he replied the following: “It is not that the tree in its nature had reason and had contained knowledge of Good and Evil. But rather in it, man was able to know the difference between the good and the evil of disobedience.” The end result was that they knew they had sinned. Their nakedness was more of a spiritual nature. They realized that they had abandoned the fountain of living water. However, even after they appeared again before God, they through pride continued to pass the blame. It is at that point that God cast them out of Paradise and into the fallen world. Their sin of pride was not the result of concupiscence, but rather it was exactly of the same nature of eating the fruit. The concupiscence was the result of their fall from Paradise. Otherwise, why would Solomon say that the Light of the Lord is the spirit of a man? If the spirit or very being of a man has no grace from birth, then it cannot be the light of the Lord.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

In the end, concupiscence might not lie in our nature, but be the result of our environment.

… But what does it mean to be in a fallen world, except that other souls besides myself have an inclination to evil? And if they have, why not I?

Could you perhaps expand on this question? …

Sure. What does a “fallen environment” consist of, and how would it precipitate disordered desires, especially in a creature with perfect interior harmony? Our Lord was in a fallen environment; but surely you do not assert that he therefore had concupiscence.

In my view, what makes the world fallen is that it contains beings with interior brokenness, who are inclined to sin (i.e. turn to created things rather than God for happiness). Granted, the fall affected the material world also (Gen. 3:18), but I do not see how a world of thorns would make a man desire things inordinately.

Our Lord said: “There is nothing from without a man that entering into him, can defile him. But the things which come from a man, those are they that defile a man” (Mk. 7:15 DRV).

 

[Vico]

… The concupiscence to do the latter evil must therefore be the result of the environment of the fallen world. The fallen world is the creative space given to us by God so that we might choose to create false gods, etc.
…

Their sin of pride was not the result of concupiscence, but rather it was exactly of the same nature of eating the fruit. The concupiscence was the result of their fall from Paradise. …

That concupiscence flows from sin (did not exist before it) is taught in the western Church. The Council of Trent taught certain preternatural gifts, * donum integritatis*, include the freedom from irregular desire. The Fathers defend the donum integritatis against the Pelagians, because Pelagians thought concupiscence was a power of nature (vigor naturae) rather than a defect of nature (defectus naturae),

 

[Rohzek]

Sure. What does a “fallen environment” consist of, and how would it precipitate disordered desires, especially in a creature with perfect interior harmony? Our Lord was in a fallen environment; but surely you do not assert that he therefore had concupiscence.

In my view, what makes the world fallen is that it contains beings with interior brokenness, who are inclined to sin (i.e. turn to created things rather than God for happiness). Granted, the fall affected the material world also (Gen. 3:18), but I do not see how a world of thorns would make a man desire things inordinately.

Our Lord said: “There is nothing from without a man that entering into him, can defile him. But the things which come from a man, those are they that defile a man” (Mk. 7:15 DRV).

Well, a fallen world is difficult to define since it contains all that we are empirically able to observe within our temporal lives. So I am not sure how I could clearly define it other than that it is just this world.

I would say that the Lord Jesus Christ did not have concupiscence solely because of the virtue of the hypostatic union, which nullified concupiscence within his person. This is not to say that fully human persons thus must have some sort of defect that they inherited in their nature after Adam and Eve’s transgression, but merely acknowledges that the person of Christ is very much different from the person of you or I and thereby interacted with the environment of this fallen world differently. Despite this however, he was still subject to temptations, as his trial in the desert so aptly shows.

As for Mark 7:15, I could just as easily state that Jesus is referring to mankind’s exercise of free will in their defying the will of God. As such they turn away from the cisterns of everlasting life that Jeremiah speaks of. This does not necessarily have anything to say about the nature of man.

That concupiscence flows from sin (did not exist before it) is taught in the western Church. The Council of Trent taught certain preternatural gifts, * donum integritatis*, include the freedom from irregular desire. The Fathers defend the donum integritatis against the Pelagians, because Pelagians thought concupiscence was a power of nature (vigor naturae) rather than a defect of nature (defectus naturae),

Could you perhaps clarify or expand upon this statement? I do not fully understand what you are trying to say.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Yes, I understand how there’s a chronological sequence in the events as the story is presented. What I’m saying, I guess, is that Eden was already no longer Eden. There change of state in terms of their relationship with God is what changed their whole world; they were now outside of His kingdom and they were afraid and ashamed even as they were as yet unready and unable and probably, in any event, unwilling to repent.

Okay. In that sense I could understand. Their relationship with God DID change their whole world and they were now outside of His kingdom not only in the literal sense (an actual kingdom on earth which is what Eden was) and also in the spiritual sense like Jesus meant it when He spoke of the Kingdom of God or Heaven. (same meaning).

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

This is a very cogent insight.

When theologians say concupiscence began only after the Fall, do they really mean that man became conscious of himself as fallen and therefore more able and likely to sin than he had been before the Fall now that he knew sin and no longer was in God’s favor?

After all, we do see an escalating inclination to sin in Cain and in the generations to follow given the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. It’s as if the sin of Adam and Eve had poked a hole in the dam that held back the flood of sin that was inevitable once the hole was created and the dam came crashing down.

Very good insight.

Adam and Eve were ASHAMED of their fall, their nakedness, AFRAID of the voice of God.

Generally speaking this isn’t true anymore, is it? So, yes, it got worse and worse, as you said.

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

That concupiscence flows from sin (did not exist before it) is taught in the western Church. The Council of Trent taught certain preternatural gifts, * donum integritatis*, include the freedom from irregular desire. The Fathers defend the donum integritatis against the Pelagians, because Pelagians thought concupiscence was a power of nature (vigor naturae) rather than a defect of nature (defectus naturae),

Well, of course concup. has to be a defect of nature. Nature was perfect before but after the fall nature became defective and sin (sin nature or concup.) entered into EVERYTHING.

I’d say that concup. is an effect of sin. Original sin happened only once but it has left the effect of concup. (I’m not typing that word anymore!)

It has stained us forever. If you say it “flows” from sin, it makes it seem like you sin first, and THEN get concup. It’s the other way around…

God bless
P.S. I know you must know this but just want to clarify.

 

[Vico]

Well, a fallen world is difficult to define since it contains all that we are empirically able to observe within our temporal lives. So I am not sure how I could clearly define it other than that it is just this world.

I would say that the Lord Jesus Christ did not have concupiscence solely because of the virtue of the hypostatic union, which nullified concupiscence within his person. This is not to say that fully human persons thus must have some sort of defect that they inherited in their nature after Adam and Eve’s transgression, but merely acknowledges that the person of Christ is very much different from the person of you or I and thereby interacted with the environment of this fallen world differently. Despite this however, he was still subject to temptations, as his trial in the desert so aptly shows.

As for Mark 7:15, I could just as easily state that Jesus is referring to mankind’s exercise of free will in their defying the will of God. As such they turn away from the cisterns of everlasting life that Jeremiah speaks of. This does not necessarily have anything to say about the nature of man.

Could you perhaps clarify or expand upon this statement? I do not fully understand what you are trying to say.

The western Church states that concupiscence is from sin and inclines to sin, also that original creation man had integrity. Catholics believe that human nature was created good but is now wounded, but Pelagians hold that only adults need healing (the nature is not wounded).

1. The first is from the Council of Trent Session v (June 17, 1546) But this holy Synod confesses and perceives that there remains in the baptized concupiscence of an inclination, although this is left to be wrestled with, it cannot harm those who do not consent, but manfully resist by the grace of Jesus Christ. Nay, indeed, “he who shall have striven lawfully, shall be crowned” [2 Tim. 2:5]. This concupiscence, which at times the Apostle calls sin [Rom. 6:12 ff.] the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin, as truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is from sin and inclines to sin. But if anyone is of the contrary opinion, let him be anathema.

patristica.net/denzinger/#n700

1. The second item from ST. PIUS V 1566-1572, Bull “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1, 1567, condemnation of Errors of Michael du Bay (BAII):26. The integrity of the first creation was not the undeserved exaltation of human nature, but its natural condition.
2. The third is from St. Augustine, in De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia. Catholics believe that human nature was created good but is now wounded. Pelagians think that infants have no need of healing, only adults.Pelagiani et Caelestiani dicunt naturam humanam a bono Deo conditam bonam, sed ita esse in nascentibus paruulis sanam, ut Christi non habeant necessariam in illa aetate medicinam.

 

[frangiuliano115]

That’s not quite what I am saying. I do not intend to say that they are damaged in their nature as a result of being thrown out of the Garden. What I am proposing is that they have concupiscence solely as a result of them being in a fallen environment. My response to your question is the second-to-last post on the previous page. I’m a bit worried people are passing it on accident.

I’ll quote it real quick, but there is also a follow up question in the original for Ad Orientem, so this is not the full original post.

I was out all day and it’s really late now but I did think about your post.

It’s very interesting to me especially for the following reason:

I’m sure you know that there are two theories as to where Adam’s children got their spouses.

One is that there was inter-family marriage.

Another is that there was some kind of civilization OUTSIDE the Garden of Eden. See Genesis 4:16 - the land of Nod, East of Eden. And there he knew his wife.

Now “knew” only means conceived; so she could have been an inhabitant of this land of Nod, or she could have travelled with him and been a relative and he just “knew” her there.

Now I have to say that I’m trained to teach only what the church teaches (I don’t mean teach on this post!) so I feel like I’m going to have to make sure what the catholic church teaches.

I seem to remember, but not sure, that they inter married with family members.

Because, first of all, we have to know where this civilization you’re talking about came from. Was it really out there? Outside of the Garden, I mean?

This is one of those things the bible does not make clear. Some things the church leaves to our own understanding - I’m just not sure if this is one of them.

Regarding concup. coming from being out there in this civilization, I don’t know. I’m going to read your reply again.

I’m having a problem in this sense: When A and E sinned, their nature became damaged. Concup. entered IMMEDIATELY into the “world”. Isn’t this why they were ashamed and afraid of God? Their original state was broken and changed forever.

I think it really has to be that when they went out there they already had concup. When Eve had Cain it was with the pain of childbirth which was one of God’s curses in Genesis 3:16.

Your question is also very interesting because I feel that if you threw me in a prison with murderers I’m 99.999 % sure I wouldn’t become one. On the other hand, if I lived on an island with people with no manners, bad language, violent tendencies, I might pick up on some of that.

I do believe you’ve come up with a question I’ve never encountered and have never heard discussed.

God bless you

 

[Rohzek]

The western Church states that concupiscence is from sin and inclines to sin, also that original creation man had integrity. Catholics believe that human nature was created good but is now wounded, but Pelagians hold that only adults need healing (the nature is not wounded).

1. The first is from the Council of Trent Session v (June 17, 1546) But this holy Synod confesses and perceives that there remains in the baptized concupiscence of an inclination, although this is left to be wrestled with, it cannot harm those who do not consent, but manfully resist by the grace of Jesus Christ. Nay, indeed, “he who shall have striven lawfully, shall be crowned” [2 Tim. 2:5]. This concupiscence, which at times the Apostle calls sin [Rom. 6:12 ff.] the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin, as truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is from sin and inclines to sin. But if anyone is of the contrary opinion, let him be anathema.

patristica.net/denzinger/#n700

1. The second item from ST. PIUS V 1566-1572, Bull “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1, 1567, condemnation of Errors of Michael du Bay (BAII):26. The integrity of the first creation was not the undeserved exaltation of human nature, but its natural condition.
2. The third is from St. Augustine, in De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia. Catholics believe that human nature was created good but is now wounded. Pelagians think that infants have no need of healing, only adults.Pelagiani et Caelestiani dicunt naturam humanam a bono Deo conditam bonam, sed ita esse in nascentibus paruulis sanam, ut Christi non habeant necessariam in illa aetate medicinam.

I think you are correct to state that there is contrary statements to what is generally accepted in my thought experiment. I don’t think though that my thought experiment leads to significantly different results, as Pelagianism does. In short, there is nothing contrary in my experiment to your first statement. However, it doesn’t seem to therefore follow down the path to the idea concupiscence is rooted in the nature, but rather it might be in the environment. The Pelagianism problem is sidestepped once one accounts for the fact humans already hold grace within themselves, but are free to reject it or accept it. I think this also sufficiently accounts for the fact that it does not seem that concupiscence is ever fully resolved or healed when we do participate in the sacraments such as baptism, marriage, confession, etc. In the end, to avoid sin, we have to do what Adam and Eve initially did before the Fall and what Christ was able to do: abide by the will of God; to continuously draw the waters of life from the eternal well, as Jeremiah would say. This is why I think concupiscence might very well be the result of the environment and circumstances that we are placed it.

 

[Vico]

I think you are correct to state that there is contrary statements to what is generally accepted in my thought experiment. I don’t think though that my thought experiment leads to significantly different results, as Pelagianism does. In short, there is nothing contrary in my experiment to your first statement. However, it doesn’t seem to therefore follow down the path to the idea concupiscence is rooted in the nature, but rather it might be in the environment. The Pelagianism problem is sidestepped once one accounts for the fact humans already hold grace within themselves, but are free to reject it or accept it. I think this also sufficiently accounts for the fact that it does not seem that concupiscence is ever fully resolved or healed when we do participate in the sacraments such as baptism, marriage, confession, etc. In the end, to avoid sin, we have to do what Adam and Eve initially did before the Fall and what Christ was able to do: abide by the will of God; to continuously draw the waters of life from the eternal well, as Jeremiah would say. This is why I think concupiscence might very well be the result of the environment and circumstances that we are placed it.

According to the Catholic teaching, which you may not agree with, I don’t know, the preternatural gift of integrity (which overcomes concupiscence) was lost at the Fall, but also at that time sanctifying grace (a supernatural gift) was lost. Loss of a supernatural gift is not a wounded nature, whereas loss of a preternatural gift is. Concupiscence is insubordination of man’s desires to the dictates of reason and propensity of human nature to sin – sensitive likes and dislikes – also unruly desires of the will like pride, ambition, and envy. These are not environmental.

 

[Rohzek]

According to the Catholic teaching, which you may not agree with, I don’t know, the preternatural gift of integrity (which overcomes concupiscence) was lost at the Fall, but also at that time sanctifying grace (a supernatural gift) was lost. Loss of a supernatural gift is not a wounded nature, whereas loss of a preternatural gift is. Concupiscence is insubordination of man’s desires to the dictates of reason and propensity of human nature to sin – sensitive likes and dislikes – also unruly desires of the will like pride, ambition, and envy. These are not environmental.

Yeah, I’m not sure how I feel about the present-day Catholic teaching. I feel pretty strongly against how Augustine framed the matter towards the end of his life, which I don’t see much difference between his views on Original Sin and John Calvin’s views. If I wind up abandoning this thought experiment, which I first began here, I would most likely fall back on the way that John Cassian framed it, who most Orthodox tend to agree with a lot on the matter.

 

[Vico]

Yeah, I’m not sure how I feel about the present-day Catholic teaching. I feel pretty strongly against how Augustine framed the matter towards the end of his life, which I don’t see much difference between his views on Original Sin and John Calvin’s views. If I wind up abandoning this thought experiment, which I first began here, I would most likely fall back on the way that John Cassian framed it, who most Orthodox tend to agree with a lot on the matter.

Calvin is different than St. Augustine: Calvin did not necessarily associate concupiscence with sexual desire, it is for him, a synonym for sin.

In a declaration regarding justification (and the Lutheran concept) the Catholic Church states:1. The major difficulties preventing an affirmation of total consensus between the parties on the theme of Justification arise in paragraph 4.4 The Justified as Sinner (nn. 28-1,0 ). Even taking into account the differences, legitimate in themselves, that come from different theological approaches to the content of faith, from a Catholic point of view the title is already a cause of perplexity. According, indeed, to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in baptism everything that is really sin is taken away, and so, in those who are born anew there is nothing that is hateful to God (3). It follows that the concupiscence that remains in the baptised is not, properly speaking, sin. For Catholics, therefore, the formula “at the same time righteous and sinner”, as it is explained at the beginning of n. 29 (“Believers are totally righteous, in that God forgives their sins through Word and Sacrament …Looking at themselves … however, they recognize that they remain also totally sinners. Sin still lives in them…”), is not acceptable.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html

Once again the decree from the Council of Trent:This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.

Haydock Commentary on Romans 7:14

14 For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Ver. 14. I am carnal, sold under sin, a slave subject to sinful inclinations, which are only properly sins when they are consented to by our free-will. There has been a great dispute both among the ancient and later interpreters, whether St. Paul from this verse to the end of the chapter speaks of a person remaining in sin, either under the law of nature or of the written law, (which was once the opinion of St. Augustine) or whether he speaks of a person regenerated by baptism, and in the state of grace in the new law, and even of himself when he was a faithful servant of God. This is the opinion of St. Augustine in many of his later writings against the Pelagians, for which he also cites St. Hilary, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. Ambrose. It is also the opinion of St. Jerome, (Ep. ad Eustochium de custod. Virg.) of St. Gregory the great, of Ven. Bede, and the more approved opinion, according to which the apostle here by sin does not understand that which is properly speaking a sin, or sinful, but only speaks of sin improperly such, that is of a corrupt inclination, of a rebellious nature corrupted by original sin, of a strife betwixt the spirit and the flesh, which remains for a trial in the most virtuous persons: of which see again St. Paul, Galatians v. 17. We may take notice that the apostle before spoke of what he was and what he had been, but now speaks in the present time of what he is, and what he doth. (Witham) — The law is styled spiritual: 1st, because it prescribes what appertains to the spirit, and to the spiritual man: i.e. to follow virtue and shun vice: 2nd, because it directs man to the worship of God, which is spirit and truth: 3rd, because it cannot be fulfilled by spiritual men, unless by spirit and grace: 4th, because it directs the spirit of man and disposes him properly towards God, towards his neighbour, and towards himself: and lastly, because the law spiritually received and understood, leads and prepares men for the evangelical law, which is the law of grace and spirit. (Menochius)

​

 

[frangiuliano115]

According to the Catholic teaching, which you may not agree with, I don’t know, the preternatural gift of integrity (which overcomes concupiscence) was lost at the Fall, but also at that time sanctifying grace (a supernatural gift) was lost. Loss of a supernatural gift is not a wounded nature, whereas loss of a preternatural gift is. Concupiscence is insubordination of man’s desires to the dictates of reason and propensity of human nature to sin – sensitive likes and dislikes – also unruly desires of the will like pride, ambition, and envy. These are not environmental.

Are you saying we don’t have sanctifying grace anymore??

Otherwise I agree with you.

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

Yeah, I’m not sure how I feel about the present-day Catholic teaching. I feel pretty strongly against how Augustine framed the matter towards the end of his life, which I don’t see much difference between his views on Original Sin and John Calvin’s views. If I wind up abandoning this thought experiment, which I first began here, I would most likely fall back on the way that John Cassian framed it, who most Orthodox tend to agree with a lot on the matter.

I see I’ve missed much since I’ve been gone.

The catholic church’s position is that there was inter family marriage and that’s how Adam and Eve created all those people. This is not a doctrine and since before Abraham we are not dealing with history, you could decide to go with the “outside” poplulation idea. You know, the city of Nod and all that –

In either case, I see that you and Vico are talking this out but I’d have to say that concupiscence, the sin nature, inclination to sin, or whatever else you want to call it cannot come from the environment.

Why?

Because the environment was also perfect before the fall. IT ALSO in infected with concup.

I’m sure I missed a lot and this might have been stated already. Can’t go back and read all…

P.S. Which modern day catholic teaching are you not in agreeement with? Sorry. If you don’t care to answer, it’s okay - the discussion is too far gone.

God bless

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Loss of a supernatural gift is not a wounded nature, whereas loss of a preternatural gift is.

How do you arrive at that?