V
Vinny213
Guest
I would appreciate if someone can tell me what quote of mine Nina is referencing in her quotation of Aquinas.
- Status
T
thenobes
Guest
V
Vinny213
Guest
How about the first quote? Where in Aquinas works does that come from?
T
thenobes
Guest
V
Vinny213
Guest
The footnote of the first quote is the following: Aquinas in 4 sentent distinct 4 qu 2 art 1
S
sirach2v4
Guest
I’m not really on top of the specific issue with Aquinas here.
I’m into reading Yaroslav Pelikan’s second volume of his History of Doctrine.
And, before I started reading this series, I read the two-volume history of development of Marian theology by Fr. Luigi Gambero.
The history of the development of doctrine shows that there are contrary, contradicting opinions in the Church, before the issue is settled by a council, let’s say. So, I’m not surprised that even somebody like Aquinas is on the wrong side of the issue, before it is formally promulgated in the Church.
If memory serves me, Augustine, Aquinas, and Bonaventure were all opposed to the idea of Mary’s immaculate conception.
We all like to watch tv programs where the crime is solved within a 60-minute program, or even much less if you consider all the commercials. Cold cases are often solved in 30-minute programs.
When it comes to Church doctrine, it takes more like centuries to solve the problem. You mean, at Trent, they were STILL debating original sin and baptism? Proves my point.
In Pelikan’s second volume on the History of the Development of Christian Doctrine, he is pointing out the perspective of the Greek church on a procedural matter: opponents should not let terminology – the words – obscure what is the reality beyond the words. Avoid “logomachy” - dithering about words.
Well, this issue may be conspicuously more than just words, or maybe not.
I’m into reading Yaroslav Pelikan’s second volume of his History of Doctrine.
And, before I started reading this series, I read the two-volume history of development of Marian theology by Fr. Luigi Gambero.
The history of the development of doctrine shows that there are contrary, contradicting opinions in the Church, before the issue is settled by a council, let’s say. So, I’m not surprised that even somebody like Aquinas is on the wrong side of the issue, before it is formally promulgated in the Church.
If memory serves me, Augustine, Aquinas, and Bonaventure were all opposed to the idea of Mary’s immaculate conception.
We all like to watch tv programs where the crime is solved within a 60-minute program, or even much less if you consider all the commercials. Cold cases are often solved in 30-minute programs.
When it comes to Church doctrine, it takes more like centuries to solve the problem. You mean, at Trent, they were STILL debating original sin and baptism? Proves my point.
In Pelikan’s second volume on the History of the Development of Christian Doctrine, he is pointing out the perspective of the Greek church on a procedural matter: opponents should not let terminology – the words – obscure what is the reality beyond the words. Avoid “logomachy” - dithering about words.
Well, this issue may be conspicuously more than just words, or maybe not.
V
Vinny213
Guest
Can someone find the source of the first quote? I provided the footnotes. I am thankful that the context of the second quote was provided here.
T
thenobes
Guest
It is…tum da dum!
Thomas Aquinas: Commentary on the 4th Book of the Sentences of Master Peter Lombard, Distinction 4 Question 2 Article 1.
Not available freely on-line. Apparently one must be either a scholar or willing to pay the cost of someone else’s scholarship and diligence in the field of medieval Latin Translation.
From what I read, Peter Lombard appears to have done a great deal of work in gathering previous works concenring theological subjects which were to be a source for Canon jurists and subsequent theologians
peace
steve
T
thenobes
Guest
And…For the Latin Lovers among us (with the latin passage in question highlighted):
peace
steve
V
Vinny213
Guest
Can someone translate the above latin quotation? I think Google translator might work. You think you are able steve?
V
Vinny213
Guest
Are there any latin experts on catholic answers or on this blog, that can read and translate it? I would be greatly be at ease if i know the context of the first quote. Does the second quote, when taken as a whole with the context, does it contradict Trent? What do you think Nina?
V
Vinny213
Guest
I found the follwoing from Lombard:
Original sin he says is “the corruption of concupiscence concerning which we have now to examine how it is put away in baptism since even after baptism llie concupiscence which was existing before still remains” He soon afterwards he explains it in this manner “Original Sin is said to be put away in baptism on a twofold account because by the grace of baptism the corruption of concupiscence is weakened and lessened and because its guiltiness itself is remitted” Here we read of the weakening of Original Sin of its extenuation and even the removal of its guiltiness but of that eradication of it which the Papists urge we do not read 2 Gratian and his Glossators follow close Lombard
Original sin he says is “the corruption of concupiscence concerning which we have now to examine how it is put away in baptism since even after baptism llie concupiscence which was existing before still remains” He soon afterwards he explains it in this manner “Original Sin is said to be put away in baptism on a twofold account because by the grace of baptism the corruption of concupiscence is weakened and lessened and because its guiltiness itself is remitted” Here we read of the weakening of Original Sin of its extenuation and even the removal of its guiltiness but of that eradication of it which the Papists urge we do not read 2 Gratian and his Glossators follow close Lombard
B
bzkoss236
Guest
He doesn’t say that Original Sin is weakened, he says concupiscence. They are different (Original Sin ≠ concupiscence).
V
Vinny213
Guest
This following objection was presented against the idea that our infused grace expels sin because of its nature. Tell me if this objection is compatible with what the catholic church teaches:
But to this opinion are opposed first all those of the Schoolmen themselves who teach that this inherent righteousness is expelled by sin not formally however but demeritoriously not physically and by the nature of the thing but by the voluntary act of God owing to the demerit of the sinner restraining the influx of grace If therefore God will not treat with any one on account of his demerits inherent grace may exist in him together with the defilements of sin And this we say is the condition of all the regenerate from whom this inchoate righteousness is not withdrawn although they may at intervals be stained with the defilements of many sins That therefore is not the form of justification which by its own nature neither takes away the infection nor the guilt of sin Secondly they still more plainly agree with us who expressly teach f that the quality of righteousness or inherent grace is not of its own nature incompatible with sin but can consist with it in one and the same man.
But to this opinion are opposed first all those of the Schoolmen themselves who teach that this inherent righteousness is expelled by sin not formally however but demeritoriously not physically and by the nature of the thing but by the voluntary act of God owing to the demerit of the sinner restraining the influx of grace If therefore God will not treat with any one on account of his demerits inherent grace may exist in him together with the defilements of sin And this we say is the condition of all the regenerate from whom this inchoate righteousness is not withdrawn although they may at intervals be stained with the defilements of many sins That therefore is not the form of justification which by its own nature neither takes away the infection nor the guilt of sin Secondly they still more plainly agree with us who expressly teach f that the quality of righteousness or inherent grace is not of its own nature incompatible with sin but can consist with it in one and the same man.
B
bzkoss236
Guest
Could you maybe add more punctuation?.. it seems to be lacking it which makes it hard to read and understand in context.
V
Vinny213
Guest
This following objection was presented against the idea that our infused grace expels sin because of its nature. Tell me if this objection is compatible with what the catholic church teaches:
But to this opinion are opposed first all those of the Schoolmen themselves who teach that this inherent righteousness is expelled by sin not formally however but demeritoriously, not physically and by the nature of the thing, but by the voluntary act of God owing to the demerit of the sinner restraining the influx of grace. If therefore God will not treat with any one on account of his demerits inherent grace may exist in him together with the defilements of sin. And this we say is the condition of all the regenerate from whom this inchoate righteousness is not withdrawn although they may at intervals be stained with the defilements of many sins. That therefore is not the form of justification which by its own nature neither takes away the infection nor the guilt of sin. Secondly they still more plainly agree with us who expressly teach f that the quality of righteousness or inherent grace is not of its own nature incompatible with sin but can consist with it in one and the same man.
But to this opinion are opposed first all those of the Schoolmen themselves who teach that this inherent righteousness is expelled by sin not formally however but demeritoriously, not physically and by the nature of the thing, but by the voluntary act of God owing to the demerit of the sinner restraining the influx of grace. If therefore God will not treat with any one on account of his demerits inherent grace may exist in him together with the defilements of sin. And this we say is the condition of all the regenerate from whom this inchoate righteousness is not withdrawn although they may at intervals be stained with the defilements of many sins. That therefore is not the form of justification which by its own nature neither takes away the infection nor the guilt of sin. Secondly they still more plainly agree with us who expressly teach f that the quality of righteousness or inherent grace is not of its own nature incompatible with sin but can consist with it in one and the same man.
V
Vinny213
Guest
And this opinion is very agreeable to right reason for although the quality of righteousness in itself in its fullest exercise and perfection excludes the contrary quality of sin yet since it is only begun in us and in its outline as it were it may co exist with some defilement and deformity of sin. For as the habit of love or of grace does not hinder the contrary habit of inordinate concupiscence from existing in the same man and as any act whatever flowing from this grace does not forthwith altogether banish indwelling evil concupiscence so neither does the habit of concupiscence nor any inordinate act of sin whatever flowing from the same altogether extinguish grace.
V
Vinny213
Guest
Nina so does the second quotation of Aquinas (when taken in context) contradict RC teaching?
R
R_C
Guest
The writings of s. Thomas Aquinas are Roman Catholic teaching
If there seems to be a contradiction between something he writes and another aspect of sacred tradition, then clearly the issue is solely on our understanding of either (or both). After all, people do spend years in order to properly understand the writings of Aquinas, and often decades in order to get a solid grasp of Catholic teaching.
I, who haven’t been through either, can tell you this much: if you pursue the road that Aquinas contradicts successive Catholic doctrines (or vice versa), you won’t get too far. Do keep in mind the last words he spoke when the Viaticum - the Holy Eucharist, in which dwells the Real Presence of Christ - was brought to him on deathbed:
V
Vinny213
Guest
I would like to hear from Nina, since she found the verse and its surrounding context. 
- Status