Question about Aquinas on original sin and baptism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vinny213
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Man cannot be righteous, cannot be who he was created to be, cannot be just, apart from God. Jesus came to reconcile man with God so man and God may commune, as was always intended, restoring justice to man. Once this justice is restored, once man is justified, he must keep walking in that justice, by remaining in Christ, and His grace will help us, without forcing us, to do that. To the extent that we freely follow Him, responding to His grace, we actually grow in justice. This justice is perfected to the degree that we love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves.
 
So how exactly do people who are in a state of grace transmit original sin to their offspring? The response has not been very clear.
 
So how exactly do people who are in a state of grace transmit original sin to their offspring? The response has not been very clear.
We don’t even know how exactly OS is transmitted by parents who are not in a state of grace.
 
Oops! My last post above was intended for a different thread. 😊
I’m glad for that “Oops” — It was such a good post and I probably would not have read it if it hadn’t gotten posted here.
 
So how exactly do people who are in a state of grace transmit original sin to their offspring? The response has not been very clear.
They transmit it because their offspring are born without sanctifying grace in their soul. Sanctifying grace is not theirs to generate; only God can generate it. Being born without sanctifying grace in the soul is being born in the state of original sin.
Nevertheless, we say they transmit it because the physical union of the parents is the initial action required to bring a new human being into existance.

All the parents transmit is the physical part of their human nature – they don’t even transmit a human soul. The human soul is immediately created by God and infused into a fertilized ovum. If God does not infuse a soul into a fertilized ovum, it never becomes alive, never becomes a human being. (The soul is what gives physical life to our bodies. When one’s soul departs the body, the body dies.)

No humans come into existence through the actions of human parents only; God participates in the crucial part of creating the soul and infusing it. But, He does not infuse supernatural life (sanctifying grace) into the new soul (except for Mary).
In the Garden, God told Adam that if he ate of the fruit he would die. (The word “die” is actually in the original Hebrew twice. It says “you will die die”. The Douay translates it “die the death”.) I find that interesting since with his sin, Adam brought not only physical death to the human race, but also spiritual death - death to our spirit/soul (absence of sanctifying grace). God told Adam that is what would happen, and God keeps His word.
 
Vinny, maybe this comparison to our physical bodies will help.

Consider 2 parents who have been immunized for polio. They now have the antibodies present in their bodies that prevent them from contracting the disease. However, when they produce a child, in cooperation with God, that immunity is not transmitted to the child. The child has to acquire it for himself.

Compare that to 2 parents who have received sanctifying grace into their souls. When they produce a child, in cooperation with God, that divine life of grace is not transmitted to the child. The child has to acquire it for himself through the means God has provided - namely, Baptism.

Hope this will help.
 
Think the Catechism says it best of all:
**404 **How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. and that is why **original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it **is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

405
Although it is proper to each individual, 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.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1C.HTM
 
Does anyone know if concupiscence without consent is a sin? I found this
following Aquinas quote that seem to suggest so:
Aquinas quaest disput de Peccat Origin art 2 resp ad primum writes:
Concupiscence by which the lustful power is prone to be carried away to
pleasure of the sense contrary to the order of reason is against the nature
of man so far as he is man and so pertains to Original Sin.
 
Does anyone know if concupiscence without consent is a sin? I found this
following Aquinas quote that seem to suggest so:
Aquinas quaest disput de Peccat Origin art 2 resp ad primum writes:
Concupiscence by which the lustful power is prone to be carried away to
pleasure of the sense contrary to the order of reason is against the nature
of man so far as he is man and so pertains to Original Sin.
Concupiscence is against the nature of man (since God certainly didn’t create man to sin) and so pertains to original sin rather than to the created order of God. IOW, concupiscence is a consequence of OS, because the loss of self-control, where reason would otherwise reign over the passions and appetites, was simultaneous with man spurning God’s authority over himself. Without God’s spirit indwelling, man cannot maintain moral integrity; he becomes open to any and all alternative moralities. “Apart from Me you can do nothing”. John 15:5
 
Do you have the context of that Aquinas quote? Do you know what he is trying to say in that quote?
 
Do you have the context of that Aquinas quote? Do you know what he is trying to say in that quote?
Here is what the Catechism says about concupiscence. You can clearly see the Church teaches that it is not intself a sin, but it inclines us to sin.
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.

978 "When we made our first profession of faith while receiving the holy Baptism that cleansed us, the forgiveness we received then was so full and complete that there remained in us absolutely nothing left to efface, neither original sin nor offenses committed by our own will, nor was there left any penalty to suffer in order to expiate them… Yet the grace of Baptism delivers no one from all the weakness of nature. On the contrary, we must still combat the movements of concupiscence that never cease leading us into evil "521

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.65 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."66 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."67

2515 Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. the apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the "spirit."301 Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.302

Here is the CCC alphabetical search that shows every sentence in the Catechism that shows the word “concupiscence”. I believe there are 16 refereces. Just click on the paragraph # to the left of the short line quotes.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/1/3S.HTM
 
Does anyone know if concupiscence without consent is a sin? I found this
following Aquinas quote that seem to suggest so:
Aquinas quaest disput de Peccat Origin art 2 resp ad primum writes:
Concupiscence by which the lustful power is prone to be carried away to
pleasure of the sense contrary to the order of reason is against the nature
of man so far as he is man and so pertains to Original Sin.
Do you have the context of that Aquinas quote? Do you know what he is trying to say in that quote?
I cannot find the quote. Was it perhaps someone summarizing Aquinas’ view?

Here are a couple of sections from the Summa that touch on Concupiscence and Original Sin.

Original Sin: newadvent.org/summa/2082.htm#article1
Concupiscence: newadvent.org/summa/2030.htm
 
Does the Catholic church teach that concupiscence is against the nature of man? What is Aquinas implying?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top