Question about Aquinas on original sin and baptism?

[Vinny213]

Hello everyone its me Vinny again and i have a few questions about the following two qoutes from Aquinas;

“The sacraments are applied to persons: therefore baptism takes away from man that which , through the corruption of his nature, involved his person; and on account of this, that infection of fault, so far as it reflects the person, and that penalty which deprived him of personal act, namely the deprivation of divine vision, baptism removes, but does not take away the infection of reality as it affects the nature.”

Although a man says Aquinas be so cleansed from Original Sin by the Sacraments of grace that this is not imputed to him for a fault which is to be personally freed from Original Sin yet he is not totally healed In man therefore as continuing his kind as far as he is an individual Original Sin does not exist but so far as the man who continues his kind is a natural principle or source of generation according to the course of nature the taint of Original Sin which has reference to nature remains in him f CHAP XIX OR HABITUAL RIGHTEOUSNESS 133

These two quotes seem to contradict Trent which say that original sin is taken completely away in baptism. Am i misunderstanding something by any chance?

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

Catechism:

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

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

I hope that answers your question.

Basically, original sin is washed away at baptism, but the inclination to sin, concupiscence, remains.

 

[Vinny213]

But Aquinas seems to be saying that original sin still inheres in the person after baptism and is not taken away completely like Trent says, with regards to nature. So there seems a contradiction between the two.

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

But Aquinas seems to be saying that original sin still inheres in the person after baptism and is not taken away completely like Trent says, with regards to nature. So there seems a contradiction between the two.

Not at all. Aquinas says the sin is forgiven/removed, but its temporal effects remain.

The Council of Trent agrees:

"But this holy council perceives and confesses that in the one baptized there remains concupiscence or an inclination to sin, which, since it is left for us to wrestle with, cannot injure those who do not acquiesce but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; indeed, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned.[22]

This concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin,[23] the holy council declares the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin in the sense that it is truly and properly sin in those born again, but in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin."

Aquinas himself confirms that all sin, original sin included, is forgiven:

“As the Apostle says (Romans 5:15-16), the sin of Adam was not so far-reaching as the gift of Christ, which is bestowed in Baptism: “for judgment was by one unto condemnation; but grace is of many offenses, unto justification.” Wherefore Augustine says in his book on Infant Baptism (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i), that “in carnal generation, original sin alone is contracted; but when we are born again of the Spirit, not only original sin but also wilful sin is forgiven.””

 

[bzkoss236]

Hello everyone its me Vinny again and i have a few questions about the following two qoutes from Aquinas;

“The sacraments are applied to persons: therefore baptism takes away from man that which , through the corruption of his nature, involved his person; and on account of this, that infection of fault, so far as it reflects the person, and that penalty which deprived him of personal act, namely the deprivation of divine vision, baptism removes, but does not take away the infection of reality as it affects the nature.”

Although a man says Aquinas be so cleansed from Original Sin by the Sacraments of grace that this is not imputed to him for a fault which is to be personally freed from Original Sin yet he is not totally healed In man therefore as continuing his kind as far as he is an individual Original Sin does not exist but so far as the man who continues his kind is a natural principle or source of generation according to the course of nature the taint of Original Sin which has reference to nature remains in him f CHAP XIX OR HABITUAL RIGHTEOUSNESS 133

These two quotes seem to contradict Trent which say that original sin is taken completely away in baptism. Am i misunderstanding something by any chance?

They both read the same to me. Which parts specifically in these quotes do you think contradict? And which part do you feel Aquinas is saying that Original Sin isn’t completely removed?

 

[Vinny213]

Aquinas says in both quotes that original sin remains in the nature of the person and is therefore not completely removed. This contradicts the following from Trent:
If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema.

 

[R_C]

Ok, let’s wrap up the three statements of Aquinas:

baptism … does not take away the infection of reality as it affects the nature

Although a man be so cleansed from Original Sin by the Sacraments of grace… yet he is not totally healed

So far so good: if the “infection of reality” was taken away by Baptism, and a man be “totally healed”, then we would neither be inclined to sin, nor suffer, nor die. Given that this is obviously not happening, then either Baptism doesn’t remove Original Sin (heresy!) or Baptism removes Original Sin but (1) does not take away the infection of reality and (2) man is not totally healed.

Trent clearly states:

this holy council perceives and confesses that in the one baptized there remains concupiscence or an inclination to sin

This concupiscence … is of sin and inclines to sin

The Catechism also underscores this:

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)

As you can see, both Aquinas, Trent, and the Catechism are stating the very same fact.

Now however you think Aquinas (who, just for the sake of clarity, lived 3 centuries before Trent) would have fallen short of the following anathema:

If any one denies, that … in baptism … the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away…let him be anathema

What is the Council stating as the conditions for the condemnation? The following:

• that Baptism does not remit the guilt of original sin
• that original sin (as in “the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin”) is not taken away.

What did Aquinas say?

baptism takes away from man that which, through the corruption of his nature, involved his person; and on account of this, that infection of fault, so far as it reflects the person, and that penalty which deprived him of personal act, namely the deprivation of divine vision, baptism removes

a man be so cleansed from Original Sin by the Sacraments of grace that this is not imputed to him for a fault which is to be personally freed from Original Sin

Clearly Aquinas states that Baptism truly remits the guilt of original sin (condition 1 of the anathema not met) and that Baptism truly takes away the sin of original sin (condition 2 of the anathema).

Aquinas does not err when he says that the corruption caused by original sin remains…this is the concupiscence that “is of sin and inclines to sin” although in itself it is not sin.

The one statement of Aquinas that is harder to comprehend is this one:

so far as the man who continues his kind is a natural principle or source of generation according to the course of nature, the taint of Original Sin, which has reference to nature, remains in him

Now this is actually (I believe) quite straightforward: what Aquinas seems to be saying is that if I have an offspring, they will all be born with the stain of original sin (there’s no doubt about it!). But why? Was the stain of original sin not wiped away from me in Baptism? If yes, why will my children be conceived with the stain of original sin?

Aquinas argues that man, who continues his kind, is a natural principle or source of generation according to the course of nature. I don’t quite know what that means, but definitely this is how Aquinas explains why a man is definitely cleansed of original sin and of its guilt in Baptism, and yet he will still “transmit” by generation the stain to his offspring.

 

[Vinny213]

I appreciate the response but Trent says that original sin is taken away when it comes to that persons nature not just his person. The person and nature must be distinguished but Trent says original sin is taken away when it comes to the nature aswell.

 

[Vinny213]

Aquinas says that baptism removes but does not entirely take away the infection in reality as it affects the nature. The meaning is the infection of Original Sin affects the person inasmuch as it involves it in deadly guilt and so far it is taken away in baptism but the same infection affects the nature.

 

[bzkoss236]

Aquinas says that baptism removes but does not entirely take away the infection in reality as it affects the nature. The meaning is the infection of Original Sin affects the person inasmuch as it involves it in deadly guilt and so far it is taken away in baptism but the same infection affects the nature.

The infection is the tendency to sin, not Original Sin. I think this is where you are getting tripped up. Baptism removes Original Sin (applying sanctifying grace), but does not remove the tendency for one to sin. Original Sin is the lack of sanctifying grace before baptism of all people by result of the first sin. The tendency to sin is another result of the first sin, but is not what the Church means by Original Sin.

 

[Vinny213]

Aquinas sees original sin as an infection.

 

[R_C]

Trent says that original sin is taken away when it comes to that persons nature

I don’t think so. Where do you read that?

 

[bzkoss236]

Aquinas sees original sin as an infection.

No he doesn’t. If you look in your first quote, he calls it “deprivation of divine vision”, or in modern Catholic speak, loss of sanctifying grace.

 

[Nita]

Your post is a little confusing to me. You speak of 2 quotes from Aquinas, but I see only one – this one.

“The sacraments are applied to persons: therefore baptism takes away from man that which , through the corruption of his nature, involved his person; and on account of this, that infection of fault, so far as it reflects the person, and that penalty which deprived him of personal act, namely the deprivation of divine vision, baptism removes, but does not take away the infection of reality as it affects the nature.”

Is this from a writing of Aquinas’ titled "On (or Of??) Habitual Righteousness? If so, do you have a link to it? (I googled and couldn’t find anything by that title.) If it’s from another work, could you give the title and a link if possible.
My initial reaction is that the way the word “person” is used doesn’t seem quite right - like Aquinas. Also, the expression “penalty which deprived him of personal act”. ??? I would just find it very helpful to read more of the particular section.

Although a man says Aquinas be so cleansed from Original Sin by the Sacraments of grace that this is not imputed to him for a fault which is to be personally freed from Original Sin yet he is not totally healed In man therefore as continuing his kind as far as he is an individual Original Sin does not exist but so far as the man who continues his kind is a natural principle or source of generation according to the course of nature the taint of Original Sin which has reference to nature remains in him f CHAP XIX OR HABITUAL RIGHTEOUSNESS 133

In this paragraph, I’m not sure how much of what the author attributes to Aquinas (“says Aquinas”) are meant to be an quote of Aquinas’ actual words – or if they are the words of the author summarizing Aquinas’ teaching. The translation is VERY poor. Near as I can tell, what the paragraph is saying is that although a man is personally cleansed of Original sin in the sacrament of Baptism, yet, when he later father’s a child, Original Sin is still passed on to the child generated by him. This, or course is consistent with Catholic teaching.

 

[Vinny213]

The work is from John Davenant’s Treatise on Justification. He discusses Aquinas view of free will from pages 138-146. Here is the link:
books.google.com/books/about/A_Treatise_on_Justification.html?id=ur0MAAAAIAAJ

 

[Nita]

The work is from John Davenant’s Treatise on Justification. He discusses Aquinas view of free will from pages 138-146. Here is the link:
books.google.com/books/about/A_Treatise_on_Justification.html?id=ur0MAAAAIAAJ

Thanks.
I didn’t find the first Aquinas quote/paragraph of your opening post on page 133. But here is how your 2nd paragraph reads in the link you provided. (Much easier to understand with the punctuation.)

**Although a man, **says Aquinas, be so cleansed from Original Sin, by the Sacraments of grace, that this is not imputed to him for a fault – which is to be personally freed from Original Sin,-- yet he is not totally healed. – – – In man, therefore, as continuing his kind, as far as he is an individual, Original Sin does not exist; but so far as the man who continues his kind, it is a natural principle (or source) of generation according to the course of nature, the taint of Original Sin, which has reference to nature, remains in him.

He references Aquinas’ Contra Gentiles, lib. 4. Cap. 52 for the quote.

It’s late here in the midwest, and I’m too tired to track down “Contra Gentiles” and see if that’s an actual quote of Aquinas or the author’s paraphrase.

Since the author refers to Catholics as Papists, I rather doubt he’s Catholic. So it’s very likely you will come across things that either outright contradict Catholic teaching, or are partly different.

 

[thenobes]

Hi Vinny,

my 2 cents.

The work is from John Davenant’s Treatise on Justification. He discusses Aquinas view of free will from pages 138-146. Here is the link:
books.google.com/books/about/A_Treatise_on_Justification.html?id=ur0MAAAAIAAJ

So this is the source of your question in the Original Post? If so, I will have a closer look. It seems some of the book is online. It also seems to be somewhat anti the Catholic Faith.

But be that as it may, I, like the other posters, see no conflict between Aquinas and Trent.

Aquinas said:

…that infection of fault, so far as it reflects the person, and that penalty which deprived him of personal act, namely the deprivation of divine vision, baptism removes, but does not take away the infection of reality as it affects the nature.

Lets rearrange this so:

baptism removes

A. that infection of fault, so far as it reflects the person, and,

(worthiness of punishment from previous sin)

B .that penalty which deprived him of personal act, namely the deprivation of divine vision

(slavery to sin in the future)

BUT

does not take away the infection of reality as it affects the nature.

(concupiscence)

Does that seems to make sense?

peace
steve

 

[Nita]

It’s late here in the midwest, and I’m too tired to track down “Contra Gentiles” and see if that’s an actual quote of Aquinas or the author’s paraphrase.

I knew it would interfere with falling asleep, so decided to see if I could get lucky and find it right away!

It’s Aquinas’ response to Objection 11 in Chapter 51, Objections Against Original Sin
dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles4.htm#52

Chapter 52
SOLUTION OF THE OBJECTIONS PROPOSED

[16] This, too, must be considered: Let one by the sacraments of grace be cleansed from original sin so that it is not imputed a fault in him (and for him personally this is to be freed from original sin); for all that~ the nature is not entirely healed; therefore, in an act of the nature the original sin is transmitted to his descendants. Thus, then, in a man who generates there is no original sin in so far as he is a given person; and it also happens that in the act of generation there is no actual sin, which the eleventh argument was proposing. But so far as the man who generates is the natural principle of generation, the infection of the original sin which bears on nature remains in him and in his act of generation.

 

[bzkoss236]

So this is the source of your question in the Original Post? If so, I will have a closer look. It seems some of the book is online. It also seems to be somewhat anti the Catholic Faith.

It was written by a Church of England bishop… Just saying…

 

[Vinny213]

Nina which of my 2 quotes does that Chp 52 objection from Aquinas refer to? Is it my first or second quote?