Original Sin and Jesus

[jimmy]

Hello,

Original sin, like I said above, is simply the loss of Original Holiness of man. As Aquinas says(You can see I like Aquinas by my many references to him. ), OS is not a subject of the flesh, but a subject of the soul. The flesh is not responsible for virtue or for sin, it is the soul. To say that Christ was born without OS, is to say that his Divinity was not affected by sin at all. This does not mean that he could not be tempted. He could be tempted, but the strength he had to reject it was greater than any weakness due to the flesh he had been born to.

 

[Ghosty]

I believe the suffering and concupiscence remain as an aspect of the original disobedience, as a constant reminder to us to choose to remain humble and obedient to God through EVERY trouble.

I agree that concupiscence is inherited from Adam due to the Original Sin, but…

You are correct, he didn’t have sinfull flesh but as a man he had concupiscence, (the ability to be tempted).

on this I disagree because I don’t think you have the correct definition of concupiscence. Those without concupiscence can indeed be tempted to evil, and even perform evil. Adam and Eve did not have concupiscence, but they were tempted and Fell. Humans, by our nature and power of reason, can be tempted regardless of the stain of Original Sin. I don’t think Jesus, or Mary for that matter, can properly be said to have had concupiscence, though they were prone to temptation.

 

[atratus]

Free will is the ability to be tempted; concupiscence is closer to constant temptation in the flesh.

 

[Shiann]

Here is a good and thorough explaination of your comments Ghosty:

The first parents were free from concupiscence, so that their sensuous appetite was perfectly subject to reason; and this freedom they were to transmit to posterity provided they observed the commandment of God. A short but important statement of the Catholic doctrine on this point may be quoted from Peter the Deacon, a Greek, who was sent to Rome to bear witness to the Faith of the East: “Our belief is that Adam came from the hands of his Creator good and free from the assaults of the flesh” (Lib. de Incarn., c. vi). In our first parents, however, this complete dominion of reason over appetite was no natural perfection or acquirement, but a preternatural gift of God, that is, a gift not due to human nature; no was it, on the other hand, the essence of their original justice, which consisted in sanctifying grace; it was but a complement added to the latter by the Divine bounty. By the sin of Adam freedom from concupiscence was forfeited not only for himself, but also for all his posterity with the exception of the Blessed Virgin by special privilege. Human nature was deprived of both its preternatural and supernatural gifts and graces, the lower appetite began to lust against the spirit, and evil habits, contracted by personal sins, wrought disorder in the body, obscured the mind, and weakened the power of the will, without, however, destroying its freedom. Hence that lamentable condition of which St. Paul complains when he writes:

I find then a law, that when I have a will to do good, evil is present with me. For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: but I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (Rom., vii, 21-25)

Christ by His death redeemed mankind from sin and its bondage. In baptism the guilt of original sin is wiped out and the soul is cleansed and justified again by the infusion of sanctifying grace. But freedom from concupiscence is not restored to man, any more than immortality; abundant grace, however, is given him, by which he may obtain the victory over rebellious sense and deserve life everlasting.

Concupiscence- Catholic Encyclopedia

 

[Shiann]

Ghosty:

I agree that concupiscence is inherited from Adam due to the Original Sin, but…

on this I disagree because I don’t think you have the correct definition of concupiscence.

True- I didn’t really word my comments very carefully when speaking of concupiscence. I like atratus’ definition better than mine. Though I think, now reflecting on the Catholic Encyclopidia entry- I like their definition better yet.

In its widest acceptation, concupiscence is any yearning of the soul for good; in its strict and specific acceptation, a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason.

To understand how the sensuous and the rational appetite can be opposed, it should be borne in mind that their natural objects are altogether different. The object of the former is the gratification of the senses; the object of the latter is the good of the entire human nature and consists in the subordination of reason to God, its supreme good and ultimate end.

But the lower appetite is of itself unrestrained, so as to pursue sensuous gratifications independently of the understanding and without regard to the good of the higher faculties. Hence desires contrary to the real good and order of reason may, and often do, rise in it, previous to the attention of the mind, and once risen, dispose the bodily organs to the pursuit and solicit the will to consent, while they more or less hinder reason from considering their lawfulness or unlawfulness.

This is concupiscence in its strict and specific sense. As long, however, as deliberation is not completely impeded, the rational will is able to resist such desires and withhold consent, though it be not capable of crushing the effects they produce in the body, and though its freedom and dominion be to some extent diminished.

If, in fact, the will resists, a struggle ensues, the sensuous appetite rebelliously demanding its gratification, reason, on the contrary, clinging to its own spiritual interests and asserting it control.** “The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.”**

Ghosty:

Those without concupiscence can indeed be tempted to evil, and even perform evil. Adam and Eve did not have concupiscence, but they were tempted and Fell. Humans, by our nature and power of reason, can be tempted regardless of the stain of Original Sin. I don’t think Jesus, or Mary for that matter, can properly be said to have had concupiscence, though they were prone to temptation.

You are correct, Mary did have the gift from God of complete dominion of reason over the yearnings of the flesh. My mistake.

 

[BibleReader]

jphilapy:

Howdy folks, I am interested to know how the catholic church views the following.:

What exactly does it mean that Jesus was born without original sin?

Are you saying that Jesus doesn’t have the basic elements of sin in his flesh?

I guess what I am confused about is that scripture says Jesus was tempted like all men are. Does that mean he was tempted in event only, but he never felt sinful temptations?

Are all men except Jesus born in bondage to sin? Or are they born free from the bondage but later bring themselves into bondage?

Thanks,

Jeff

In effect your words mean, “What is Original Sin?”

Original Sin is that state of alienation from God, built into human flesh, which is addressed in principle by Christ’s atoning sacrifice, and in fact by the grace generated by His atoning sacrifice.

Procedurally prior to Christ’s sacrifice, mankind is nothing but a worthless, Heaven-unworthy dog. The story of Adam and Eve is a hypothetical. It shows what we would do with EVERY SINGLE moral decision, in the absence of the grace of salvation purchased by Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross, because without that mystical grace there is no good reason to be altruistic or to seek friendship with God. Without that mystical grace, every cell in our bodies asks, “When do we eat? When are we going to have some sex? Why must we get up and do work? Leave me alone! – I’m seeking pleasure! Hey, I’m the boss! Get out of my way!” and so on.

Christ did not exist in that state of alienation. His temptation had to come from without.