Original Sin and Concupiscence

[Rohzek]

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

Well, I truly question if the environment outside Paradise was ever perfect before the Fall. The scriptures are remarkably silent on the matter or so it seems to me.

As for modern Catholic teaching, I don’t necessarily disagree with modern Catholic sentiment on Original Sin, which more or less conforms exactly how John Cassian framed it. I question some of its inner workings or mechanisms, but the logical results of the framework are totally satisfactory in my opinion: God is necessary for human salvation and humans still maintain a free will to accept or reject it. I only emphasize Cassian, precisely because I don’t find Augustine’s framework as very productive, which I briefly outline in the paragraph below.

This has not always been the case. Contrary to Haydock’s Commentary, which Vico cites, Augustine did not hold the position that Original Sin was merely just an inclination. Rather it was a total depravity for Augustine, which was only remedied by baptism, a form a grace. Augustine had some very radical beliefs regarding predestination as well, in that he said that God did not will all people to be saved because obviously not all people were saved. This sounds strange to us today, but when you account for the fact that Augustine believed that free will itself was a form of grace, it begins to makes sense why Augustine believed that. In other words, the pagans did not have a truly free will. Nevertheless, just because one was doomed to sin due to the lack of free will, did not mean that they were blameless, according to Augustine. For Augustine, they still merited Hell and damnation by virtue of their evil deeds or sins. These beliefs of Augustine were carried on for centuries with very little changes in the writing of Primasius of Hadrumetum, Autpertus Ambrosius, Pseudo-Alcuin, Haimo of Auxerre, Bruno of Segni, Rupert of Deutz, Gottschalk of Orbais, and many others. Bede (early Bede at least) actually rejected Augustine’s harsh views for a mitigated view of Original Sin, nor did he accord free will as a form of grace. We only really begin to see a fundamental shift in the writings of Amolo of Lyons during the 9th Century, which became much more apparent in the writings of the great scholastic theologians. This was in no small part also facilitated by the proliferation of writings that went under the name of “Augustine” but were actually never written by him. They accorded Augustine mellowed beliefs which he never held. And although now we know what Augustine did or didn’t write, the tradition of trying to interpret him in a mellowed way (which only resulted from pseudo-Augustinian writings) has never really faded out of style. For more on reading Augustine’s ideas of grace on his own terms I would recommend the writings of the great Patristic scholar, Gerald Bonner or the following phenomenal essay:

Wetzel, James. “Snares of Truth: Augustine on Free Will and Predestination.” In Augustine and His Critics: Essays in honour of Gerald Bonner, edited by Robert Dodaro and George Lawless, 124-141. New York: Routledge, 2000.

For a great collection of Bonner’s works see the following book: Church and Faith in the Patristic Tradition: Augustine, Pelagianism, and Early Christian Northumbria

 

[frangiuliano115]

Well, I truly question if the environment outside Paradise was ever perfect before the Fall. The scriptures are remarkably silent on the matter or so it seems to me.

As for modern Catholic teaching, I don’t necessarily disagree with modern Catholic sentiment on Original Sin, which more or less conforms exactly how John Cassian framed it. I question some of its inner workings or mechanisms, but the logical results of the framework are totally satisfactory in my opinion: God is necessary for human salvation and humans still maintain a free will to accept or reject it. I only emphasize Cassian, precisely because I don’t find Augustine’s framework as very productive, which I briefly outline in the paragraph below.

This has not always been the case. Contrary to Haydock’s Commentary, which Vico cites, Augustine did not hold the position that Original Sin was merely just an inclination. Rather it was a total depravity for Augustine, which was only remedied by baptism, a form a grace. Augustine had some very radical beliefs regarding predestination as well, in that he said that God did not will all people to be saved because obviously not all people were saved. This sounds strange to us today, but when you account for the fact that Augustine believed that free will itself was a form of grace, it begins to makes sense why Augustine believed that. In other words, the pagans did not have a truly free will. Nevertheless, just because one was doomed to sin due to the lack of free will, did not mean that they were blameless, according to Augustine. For Augustine, they still merited Hell and damnation by virtue of their evil deeds or sins. These beliefs of Augustine were carried on for centuries with very little changes in the writing of Primasius of Hadrumetum, Autpertus Ambrosius, Pseudo-Alcuin, Haimo of Auxerre, Bruno of Segni, Rupert of Deutz

I agree with your first paragraph. I said that the church teaches that there was inter family marriage that populated the earth and I probably didn’t make myself clear in saying that it means that there was NO outside environment and that Adam & Eve were the only two humans alive (which science has confirmed - we all go back to one pair of parents).

What I’m understanding, correct me if I’m wrong, is that you’re saying that they commited the original sin,THEN were banished from the Garden into the environment which by then was also infected or affected by sin, and this harsh invironment caused concup. to enter into their nature - which had been perfect (almost) before the fall.

But, it seems we’ve gone beyond this - maybe.

I don’t know who John Cassian is and see that you’re going to put me to some work! I do, of course, agree that man is in need of salvation - only God can provide it - man is free to accept or deny it. Free will.

Regarding Augustine, I have read some of his writings but cannot remember too much. So of what use am I??? I would agree with you that from all I’ve had to study it would be incorrect to say that man’s nature is totally depraved. In fact, catholicism believes that protestants are under the incorrect doctrine of depravity and thus need Jesus to “cover” their sins, whereas we feel we are indued with grace and only need forgiveness.

Baptism is a form of grace, but what about people who are never baptized? They’re totally depraved according to Augustine? This is beyond radical. If the church taught this, I’d have to abandon it. They would end up in hell? What about Jesus’ sacrifice? So that counts for nothing? It’s preposterous.

And that God did not will all people to be saved because obviously not all people are saved. You mention Calvin. Of course I know Calvin. Did Augustine have a nice long conversation with him??? Throught the ages, of course! Now this could actually get a bit complicated because of the Providence of God. How to reconcile that God is a good God with His providence? Not an easy proposition. Nothing happens unless God ALLOWS it to happen. It’s not the same as His CAUSING it to happen.

But it’s true. Not all people are saved. So? What about free will? Of course Calvin’s theory removes free will because God is doing all the deciding. Kind of reminds me of Islam.

And what about “that WHOSOEVER believth in Him should not perish…” Sounds like it’s MY choice. And all the other scriptures that would prove this.

Free will as a form of grace: The bible teaches that God’s grace falls on all of humanity. It’s God’s grace that brings a man to believe in Him and to accept Him. If pagans didn’t have grace, how could they ever get to know God? Everyone has free will, not just christians.

It’s late here and I have to go. I’m feeling like I have to reread Augustine but will not be inclined to do so at this point. I guess I missed all your saying and am sitting here in shock, I’m embarrased to say.

Augustine is one of the most beloved “doctors” of the catholic church. I intend to do some the reading that you recommend but, of course, cannot go back and read Augustine’s (?) writings because they are too prolific.

Before I say Bon Nuit, I must say that I see much change in the church. It seems to be becoming softer in its tone; accepting Jesus in a personal way, trying to get away from religiosity and that type of idealogy. Which I agree with, BTW.

Maybe we should stop quoting Augustine! -Since you know so much about him, would you say there are any real positives to his writings?

Next time,
God bless
P.S. Is there a phd after your name?!

 

[frangiuliano115]

P.S.
Sorry Rohzek, had to eras a lot of your post.

 

[Vico]

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

Otherwise I agree with you.

God bless

Yes, at birth we do not have sanctifying grace. Once we are baptized we have it again, and with the sacrament of confession it is restored if lost.

 

[Vico]

How do you arrive at that?

The supernatural gift is not natural to mankind.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

The supernatural gift is not natural to mankind.

Neither were the preternatural gifts, by definition.

 

[Rohzek]

What I’m understanding, correct me if I’m wrong, is that you’re saying that they commited the original sin,THEN were banished from the Garden into the environment which by then was also infected or affected by sin, and this harsh invironment caused concup. to enter into their nature - which had been perfect (almost) before the fall.

I wouldn’t even say the concupiscence is part of their nature as a result of the environment. I would say, according to this thought experiment, that it the reactionary inclination to sin as a result to the surrounding environment. Furthermore, I am unsure as to why this world would even have to be affected by the sin of man. Could not God have simply made the world this way, and then placed us in it as a consequence of Original Sin? I lean towards answering the question as yes.

I don’t know who John Cassian is and see that you’re going to put me to some work! I do, of course, agree that man is in need of salvation - only God can provide it - man is free to accept or deny it. Free will.

John Cassian lived during the 4th and 5th centuries and was a monk. He is considered today to be a saint. He participated in the post-Pelagian debates on the roles of grace and free will in salvation.

Regarding Augustine, I have read some of his writings but cannot remember too much. So of what use am I??? I would agree with you that from all I’ve had to study it would be incorrect to say that man’s nature is totally depraved. In fact, catholicism believes that protestants are under the incorrect doctrine of depravity and thus need Jesus to “cover” their sins, whereas we feel we are indued with grace and only need forgiveness.

Baptism is a form of grace, but what about people who are never baptized? They’re totally depraved according to Augustine? This is beyond radical. If the church taught this, I’d have to abandon it. They would end up in hell? What about Jesus’ sacrifice? So that counts for nothing? It’s preposterous.

And that God did not will all people to be saved because obviously not all people are saved. You mention Calvin. Of course I know Calvin. Did Augustine have a nice long conversation with him??? Throught the ages, of course! Now this could actually get a bit complicated because of the Providence of God. How to reconcile that God is a good God with His providence? Not an easy proposition. Nothing happens unless God ALLOWS it to happen. It’s not the same as His CAUSING it to happen.

But it’s true. Not all people are saved. So? What about free will? Of course Calvin’s theory removes free will because God is doing all the deciding. Kind of reminds me of Islam.

And what about “that WHOSOEVER believth in Him should not perish…” Sounds like it’s MY choice. And all the other scriptures that would prove this.

Free will as a form of grace: The bible teaches that God’s grace falls on all of humanity. It’s God’s grace that brings a man to believe in Him and to accept Him. If pagans didn’t have grace, how could they ever get to know God? Everyone has free will, not just christians.

It’s late here and I have to go. I’m feeling like I have to reread Augustine but will not be inclined to do so at this point. I guess I missed all your saying and am sitting here in shock, I’m embarrased to say.

Augustine is one of the most beloved “doctors” of the catholic church. I intend to do some the reading that you recommend but, of course, cannot go back and read Augustine’s (?) writings because they are too prolific.

If you wind up reading Augustine’s opinions on the matter again, I would suggest reading the 20th book from his City of God and his other work On the Predestination of the Saints. But this isn’t necessary to understand Wetzel or Bonner’s pieces.

As for unbaptized people, yes Augustine did hold that those people were beyond hope. It should also be noted that Augustine also held that the wicked or non-predestined do not truly desire God because the desire for God was itself a form of grace. So according Augustine’s logic, it sidestepped any sort of callousness on God’s part.

Before I say Bon Nuit, I must say that I see much change in the church. It seems to be becoming softer in its tone; accepting Jesus in a personal way, trying to get away from religiosity and that type of idealogy. Which I agree with, BTW.

Maybe we should stop quoting Augustine! -Since you know so much about him, would you say there are any real positives to his writings?

Yes, I would say that there are many positives. For example, Augustine was the very first person to advance the cogito argument, which I am a strong advocate of. Historically, René Descartes is generally attributed to formulating it first in the seventeenth century, famously stating: cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am). Augustine, however, actually advanced this first, but it was long forgotten. I am also a fan of his earlier writings where he was against the use of the state military to force heretics to change their beliefs. He believed rather in honest debate. Sadly, later in his life he reversed this position. Nonetheless, I admire his stand. But as with any writings of the Church Fathers there are always going to be flaws. They were human after all. Another good example would be Origen of Alexandria, who was held to be a Church Father until many centuries after his death when he was posthumously declared a heretic. If it wasn’t for Origen, Jerome would probably never have made the Latin Vulgate. Augustine was fortunately never declared a heretic, but it doesn’t mean that everything that he said was correct.

Next time,
God bless
P.S. Is there a phd after your name?!

I hope there will be one day, but for now just an MA.

 

[Vico]

Neither were the preternatural gifts, by definition.

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

Preternatural gifts do not belong to man by nature but do not put man into the supernatural order, so they are natural. There is a wound because the loss of the preternatural gift of integrity makes man vulnerable to concupiscence.

The sanctifying grace was lost through an act of free will. Man still has the free will to choose not to sin. God still gives us supernatural actual graces even without sanctifying grace.

 

[noorez]

I have a question which I don’t think was answered here:

If Adam had these special gifts, why did he choose to sin? Would the special gifts not have informed his intellect/wisdom/will about the consequences of the sin? If he had such gifts, what makes his sin different from the angel? From what I understand about the Catholic teaching, the angel cannot be redeemed (or rather would not choose redemption if offered) because God gave the angels all knowledge and cannot offer any more.

What did man’s gift offer if not this knowledge? (Also, if God did not give man everything from the syart, is this the reason we can be redeemed? Unless God is playing favorites with us and holding back from the angel…)

 

[fhansen]

I have a question which I don’t think was answered here:

If Adam had these special gifts, why did he choose to sin? Would the special gifts not have informed his intellect/wisdom/will about the consequences of the sin? If he had such gifts, what makes his sin different from the angel? From what I understand about the Catholic teaching, the angel cannot be redeemed (or rather would not choose redemption if offered) because God gave the angels all knowledge and cannot offer any more.

What did man’s gift offer if not this knowledge? (Also, if God did not give man everything from the syart, is this the reason we can be redeemed? Unless God is playing favorites with us and holding back from the angel…)

Even with all the knowledge and intelligence they had, some angels still sinned; they still willed wrongly. Man has a reprieve, so to speak, for whatever reason from immediate judgment. Adam willed wrongly and yet the plan appears to be that God intended to draw man, over time and with struggle-and grace-to will rightly. As if our justice increases the more we do so. Something like the refining of gold or the molding of clay into a beautiful sculpture. From the depths that man fell to he will rise to even greater heights than from where he began.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Preternatural gifts do not belong to man by nature but do not put man into the supernatural order, so they are natural. There is a wound because the loss of the preternatural gift of integrity makes man vulnerable to concupiscence.

The sanctifying grace was lost through an act of free will. Man still has the free will to choose not to sin. God still gives us supernatural actual graces even without sanctifying grace.

I can understand why ad orientum isn’t seeing the difference.

I got a dictionary and looked up the two words preternatural and supernatural. It has pretty much the same meaning. So you really have to use the catholic meanings to describe the two.

Which brings me to say that catholicism is too complicated!! I’m beginning to be envious (is that a sin??!!) of solo scriptura!

Anyway, of course you’re right but the difference may not be so easy to see.

If you remove the supernatural, you’re now at the natural state so no wounding.

If you remove the preternatural, you’re already at the natural state so you are taking away even more - and thus causing a wound.

This is the best way I can understand it and explain it.

Now we have noorez asking the unanswerable question.

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

Yes, at birth we do not have sanctifying grace. Once we are baptized we have it again, and with the sacrament of confession it is restored if lost.

Yes. Okay. I agree with the above because it’s what the church teaches. Thought you were saying s.g. doesn’t exist anymore. Sorry.

But I have such a problem with it, which would be a whole different topic. I don’t know, maybe I’m protestant for goodness sake.

Now, keeping in mind that I’ve taught the above (to kids) answer these two questions:

1. What happens to babies who die w/o being baptized.
2. What happens to an adult who comes to believe in Jesus but dies and was never baptized.

I mean, think about it for a minute…

God bless

 

[davidv]

Yes. Okay. I agree with the above because it’s what the church teaches. Thought you were saying s.g. doesn’t exist anymore. Sorry.

But I have such a problem with it, which would be a whole different topic. I don’t know, maybe I’m protestant for goodness sake.

Now, keeping in mind that I’ve taught the above (to kids) answer these two questions:

1. What happens to babies who die w/o being baptized.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

1. What happens to an adult who comes to believe in Jesus but dies and was never baptized.

I mean, think about it for a minute…

God bless

I thought, why are we being asked to judge that which have no authority to judge?

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Preternatural gifts do not belong to man by nature but do not put man into the supernatural order, so they are natural. There is a wound because the loss of the preternatural gift of integrity makes man vulnerable to concupiscence.

I think I get it…but to me, what the loss of sanctifying grace left behind was also a wound. Though I understand it is called a “sin contracted” because it is displeasing to God.

 

[Vico]

I have a question which I don’t think was answered here:

If Adam had these special gifts, why did he choose to sin? Would the special gifts not have informed his intellect/wisdom/will about the consequences of the sin? If he had such gifts, what makes his sin different from the angel? From what I understand about the Catholic teaching, the angel cannot be redeemed (or rather would not choose redemption if offered) because God gave the angels all knowledge and cannot offer any more.

What did man’s gift offer if not this knowledge? (Also, if God did not give man everything from the syart, is this the reason we can be redeemed? Unless God is playing favorites with us and holding back from the angel…)

Adam and Eve had some knowledge - infused knowledge of the moral law - (freedom from ignorance in matters essential for happiness). The natural knowledge of the Angels is superior to mankinds in itself and in its mode of operation which is proportioned to their condition of pure spirits. The fallen angels rejected God irrevocably, whereas mankind has until death to repent.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I thought, why are we being asked to judge that which have no authority to judge?

Gosh davidv. My questions are rhetorical for goodness sake.

I even prefaced them by saying that I TAUGHT all this stuff.

I already know the answers.

Just want to see what Vico thinks about it. We’re just talking here.

God bless

 

[Vico]

I think I get it…but to me, what the loss of sanctifying grace left behind was also a wound. Though I understand it is called a “sin contracted” because it is displeasing to God.

I think St. Thomas Aquinas would agree with you, for example from Summa Theologica I, II, Q85, A5 (Whether death and other bodily defects are the result of sin?):I answer that, As a result of original justice, the reason had perfect hold over the lower parts of the soul, while reason itself was perfected by God, and was subject to Him. Now this same original justice was forfeited through the sin of our first parent, as already stated (81, 2); so that all the powers of the soul are left, as it were, destitute of their proper order, whereby they are naturally directed to virtue; which destitution is called a wounding of nature.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I think I get it…but to me, what the loss of sanctifying grace left behind was also a wound. Though I understand it is called a “sin contracted” because it is displeasing to God.

I’m sorry to get in your way, but would like to say that I understand what you mean.
In the sense that anything lost is a wound. Eve, and Adam, certainly caused us to lose sanctifying grace at birth, or conception, if we want to get theologically technical.

I don’t understand at all what you mean by:

Though I understand it is called a “sin contracted” because it is displeasing to God

All sin is displeasing to God. How are you putting Sanctifying Grace and Sin Contracted in the same sentence.

Are you saying that the Sin Contracted IS the loss of Sanctifying Grace??

Which would not be correct. The Sin Contracted is concupiscence as a result of original sin. We then also lose sanctifying Grace which must be regained, as Vico says, through baptism and confession when necessary.

Am I not understanding you?

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

I think St. Thomas Aquinas would agree with you, for example from Summa Theologica I, II, Q85, A5 (Whether death and other bodily defects are the result of sin?):I answer that, As a result of original justice, the reason had perfect hold over the lower parts of the soul, while reason itself was perfected by God, and was subject to Him. Now this same original justice was forfeited through the sin of our first parent, as already stated (81, 2); so that all the powers of the soul are left, as it were, destitute of their proper order, whereby they are naturally directed to virtue; which destitution is called a wounding of nature.

Could you please explain the above - no time to look it up and it sounds so wrong.

whereby they are naturally directed to virtue;

Thanks.

God bless

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I have a question which I don’t think was answered here:

If Adam had these special gifts, why did he choose to sin? Would the special gifts not have informed his intellect/wisdom/will about the consequences of the sin? If he had such gifts, what makes his sin different from the angel? From what I understand about the Catholic teaching, the angel cannot be redeemed (or rather would not choose redemption if offered) because God gave the angels all knowledge and cannot offer any more.

Your question is the same as mine.

I think God did hold back certain knowledge from Adam and Eve that he subsequently did not hold back from us: namely, that the serpent would tempt them with a lie and that they had better be on the watch for that serpent and ready for the lie. Just the appearance of the serpent would have tipped them off that the serpent was setting them up for the Fall.

Since God walked with Adam and Eve in Eden, they would have had a chance to inform God that indeed the serpent had appeared and tempted them. They should have had the wisdom and strength of character to resist that temptation if they were so full of integrity as some in this forum seem to think. But they did not. This leads me to think that the proclivity to sin (concupiscence) was in them from the start, as it was in the angels who fell right from the start of their creation when, theologians opine, God revealed to them they were destined to fall down and worship the Man/God Jesus Christ.

From those to whom more is given, more is demanded. That is why the angels were damned for all eternity, whereas men were given a reprieve and a chance to repent and be saved by being washed in the blood of the lamb.