Question about Aquinas on original sin and baptism?

[thenobes]

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?

Good advice!! Google Translate made a very credible first attempt!

To the third it should be said that such was the process that the person in original sin corrupted his nature, and the nature of the person of the corrupt, so that is considered in this sin, which pertains to the nature of a thing, something that belongs to the person. The Passion of Christ, however, are sufficiently original sin has taken away in both respects. However, since the sacraments of persons are used, the Baptism is for this reason that a man takes away from the corruption of nature in the person of this from the fundus; her to do this and because of the infection of sin, in so far as it affects the person, and the punishment of the act of that which deprived it of the person, namely, the lack of the vision of God, Baptism takes away, but it does not take away act in so far as it affects the nature of the infection, which is evident from the fact that he was baptized by an act of nature into a child passes on the original, and similarly not pay the penalty, which follow the principles of nature, destitute of the grace of the primitive state of innocence, of which kind are the rebellion of the flesh to the spirit, death, and the like penalties, which result from this and the very fact that man is composed of contrary to the soul as to the body and as much as in a certain way, namely, as to the appetite of the senses and of the intellect.But it is by the grace of baptism that remain of the punishment effect is such that these will not have dominion over the person, but rather subject to him, and shall accrue to the benefit of the same, so far as they are the matter of virtue, and the opportunity of humility and exercise.

I took 2 years of latin in high school, and I can scan the internet for help on what I am rusty at or might be beyond my ken. Here is my adjustments:

1. To the third it should be said that, in original sin, such was the process that the person corrupted his nature, and the nature of the person corrupted the person.

1. whence in this sin is considered something that pertains to nature and something that pertains to the person.

1. The Passion of Christ, however, has sufficiently taken away original sin as to both.

1. However, since the sacraments are used by persons, for this reason Baptism takes away from a man that which runs over into his person from the corruption of his nature.

1. And on account of this, Baptism takes away the infection of guilt, as it affects the person, and that punishment the act of a person demerited, namely, the lack of the Divine Vision.

1. which is evident from the fact that he who is baptized transmits by an act of nature the original sin to his posterity. but similarly not the punishments which follow on after the principles of a nature destitute of the grace of the primitive state of innocence,of which kind (of principles) are the rebellion of the flesh to the spirit, death, and the like penalties, which result from this and the very fact that man is composed of opposites both as regards the body and the soul in a certain way, namely, as regards the appetite of the senses and of the intellect.

1. But by the grace of baptism it is a consequence that these remaining punishments will not have dominion over the person, but rather be subject to him, and shall accrue to the benefit of the same, so far as they are the matter of virtue, and the opportunity for humility and exercise.

Hope this helps!

peace
steve

 

[Vinny213]

Now that we have that surrounding context of the first quote, does it contradict Catholic teaching on original sin?

 

[Nita]

I would like to hear from Nina, since she found the verse and its surrounding context.

Sorry not to have responded, but just now had a free moment and decided to check the CAF forum. Discovered your posts asking me to comment. We have a family reunion going on and we have house guests, so I won’t be able to get around to answering until after the weekend.

 

[Vinny213]

Is this quote from Aquinas consistent with Catholic teaching?
deny 9 Aquinas quaest disput de Peccat Origin art 2 resp primum writes Concupiscence by which the lustful is prone to be carried away to pleasure of the sense to the order of reasori is against the nature of man far as he is man and so pertains to Original Sin.

Also can concupiscence be called the root of original sin?

 

[Vinny213]

is the root of sin considered to be plucked out at baptism?

 

[thenobes]

Now that we have that surrounding context of the first quote, does it contradict Catholic teaching on original sin?

Vinny, I made an few errors in my translation. Unfortunately they all lie within the portion in question. I corrected it and am raedy to compare to Trent. First, me and the author:

The passage:

Sed quia sacramenta personis adhibentur, ideo Baptismus hoc ab homine tollit quod ex corruptione naturae in personam redundabat; et propter hoc ipsam infectionem culpae, prout afficit personam, et poenam illam quae actum personae privabat, scilicet carentiam visionis divinae, Baptismus aufert; sed non aufert actu infectionem prout afficit naturam:

him

“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.”

me

"However, since the sacraments are made use of by persons, for this reason Baptism takes away from a man that which runs over into his person from the corruption of his nature. And on account of this, Baptism takes away the infection of guilt, as it affects the person, and that punishment by which he [God?] deprived personal action [of any good?], namely, [the punishment of] the lack of the Divine Vision, but it does not actually take away infection in so far as it affects the nature

{which is evident from the fact that he who is baptized transmits by an act of nature the original sin to his posterity. but similarly not the punishments which follow on after the principles of a nature destitute of the grace of the primitive state of innocence,of which kind [of principles] are the rebellion of the flesh to the spirit, death, and the like penalties, which result from this [destitution] and the very fact that man is composed of opposites in respect to both the body and the soul in a certain way, namely, as regards the appetite of the senses and of the intellect.}

These were the parts I had difficulty with:
et poenam illam quae actum personae privabat and that punishment by which he [God?] deprived personal action [of any good?], but it does not actually take away infection in so far as it affects the nature,
Ok now, Trent says:

1. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

1. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.

and

1. 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. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.

I really don’t see any contradiction here between Trent and Aquinas in that passage.

Concupisence is that element of nature containing the affects of OS on our nature, but which is not of the person. And Aquinas says that that is not removed. It seems that our “person” does not apply to all of our nature. It seems our nature may possess us, rather than we possessing it.

peace
steve

 

[Vinny213]

How about the other quote of aquinas, do you have the context of that? Also did not trent say that original sin is removed from the nature of the person and not just the person? If so how does Aquinas not contradict Trent? I am still having a hard time understanding your last paragraph for me. Can you clarify for me?

 

[thenobes]

How about the other quote of aquinas, do you have the context of that? Also did not trent say that original sin is removed from the nature of the person and not just the person? If so how does Aquinas not contradict Trent? I am still having a hard time understanding your last paragraph for me. Can you clarify for me?

OK I may have misstated what concupisence is. Concupiscence is that element of our nature before baptism containing the affects of OS on that previous nature, but which is not of the person after the Divine Vision is imparted to the baptized. And Aquinas says that those affects are not removed from the flesh.

This was also misstated:
“It seems that our “person” does not apply to all of our nature. It seems our nature may possess us, rather than we possessing it.”
This was confusing to me too. I should say: “After baptism, there is a part of our former nature no longer part of our person.”

From the person, yes, OS is taken away. Or rather we are taken away from OS. OS is removed from the person, but not entirely from the not the nature, insofar as there is a part of our nature no longer part of the person.

Trent : “*** If any one denies, that…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.***”

The body is considered dead after baptism; that is, we see it as dead to us. Thus it is not part of our nature, which is to be alive in Christ. Our nature is changed in Christ.

Our flesh being dead to Christ, then, even though it that flesh retains OS, that sin is not ours, and the concupiscence is just left for us to battle against.

peace
steve

 

[thenobes]

How about the other quote of aquinas, do you have the context of that? Also did not trent say that original sin is removed from the nature of the person and not just the person? If so how does Aquinas not contradict Trent? I am still having a hard time understanding your last paragraph for me. Can you clarify for me?

Actually, examining Aquinas, I don’t believe he directly references concupiscence. Instead he tries to understand how OS can be left in the nature to be passed on to the next generation. In the other thread you cite a person who explains this in terms of our “persons” being removed from OS by grace, and in the process also being removed from part of our previous nature, which retains OS.

peace
steve

 

[Vinny213]

Do you agree with that?

 

[thenobes]

Do you agree with that?

Remember that Trent just tells us what interpretations we cannot make. Aquinas’s interpretation appears to be one of several which conform to Trent. I am presently trying to understand the idea by "iEgidius in Dionys Carthus in 2 sentent dist 32 quaest 1 " that you presented in the other thread. It also appears not to contradict Trent and seems an interesting take on how baptism takes away OS.

peace
steve

 

[Vinny213]

Nina its been weeks and I have still not heard your response. Its ok though, if you’re busy you’re busy. Also Thenobes what do you think about the two Aquinas quotes vis-a-vis Trent?

 

[thenobes]

Nina its been weeks and I have still not heard your response. Its ok though, if you’re busy you’re busy. Also Thenobes what do you think about the two Aquinas quotes vis-a-vis Trent?

Vinny,

Again looking at Aquinas and Trent, I think that Aquinas believes that the sin of Adam caused an infection of our nature, which infection then transmits to our person what we know as Original Sin. Although baptism then removes this Original Sin, it leaves the infection in the part our nature which is not part of our person after that baptism.

I think one could say that since our person resides in our soul, the soul is cleaned but the infection remains in our flesh. While Aquinas does not give a name to the remaining infection, Trent seems to call part of its influence: “concupiscense”, sort of an external pull to sin.

peace
steve

 

[Nita]

Nina its been weeks and I have still not heard your response. Its ok though, if you’re busy you’re busy. Also Thenobes what do you think about the two Aquinas quotes vis-a-vis Trent?

Sorry. Had been busy and when I did get back to check this thread it looked like thenobes was doing a good job responding to your questions. Am away from home all of this week, but if I get the chance I will try to read all of the posts to refresh my memory and also catch up on the later posts.

 

[fhansen]

Aquinas is saying that OS is removed at Baptism for the individual by the grace of God but that this same indiviudual can still pass OS on to his progeny because it’s determined by God that all humans will suffer/experience the fault of Adam and have the opportunity to wrestle against sin and turn back to Him individually,* on their own*. And I don’t believe Aquinas even had a clearly worked out opinion as to how propagation transmitted OS.

 

[Nita]

Vinny, I re-read all of the posts and I think what’s causing a problem is a failure to understand the Catholic meaning of some of the terms used by Aquinas and Trent - particularly: nature, sanctifying grace, and original sin. So I’m going to attempt a brief explanation of those three things.

1. Nature
   God created Adam & Eve with a material/physical body and an immaterial/spiritual soul. That is what “human nature” refers to – a nature that consists of a physical body and an immaterial soul united in one being (one human being). When 2 humans procreate, they pass on to their child a human nature - a body and soul in its natural state.
2. Sanctifying Grace
   At their creation, in addition to their natural state, God added a supernatural gift – He gifted Adam & Eve with a share of His Divine life in their souls. Catholics call this gift “sanctifying grace, the grace of justification”. (CCC#1266 vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P3N.HTM#76 )
   This grace is not a constituent part of human nature; it is an added gift.
   (In addition to being naturally (physically) alive, if sanctifying grace is present in a person’s soul they are also supernaturally alive.)
3. Original Sin
   When Adam and Eve sinned they lost the gift of Sanctifying Grace. They were deprived of their original holiness and justice. (cf CCC#405 vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P1C.HTM#1IH)
   Without the presence of God’s supernatural life their souls were supernaturally dead. It is this separation from God’s life (loss of Sanctifying Grace) that is what is referred to when speaking of the guilt of Original Sin that is removed in Baptism. It is removed because God infuses His supernatural life of grace into the soul and the person is no longer in the state of Original Sin. Original Sin and any personal sins the person may have committed are remitted at Baptism.

In addition to the supernatural consequence of their sin, there were also natural consequences. As the Catechism states, "…it (human nature) 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’ ". (CCC#405) In Catholic teaching this concupiscence is not considered to be sin. (I think most Protestant theology does consider it to be sin.)

It is human nature in this fallen state that will be transmitted -
a human nature without the added gift of Divine supernatural life present in the soul;
and, a human nature wounded in it’s natural powers.

Sorry it got so long. But that’s enough for now. I’ll try to get back tomorrow and use the above to hopefully clarify Aquinas and how his words do not contradict Trent. It will help a whole lot Vinny if you read the above and try to grasp it. If you do, you may find all your questions answered without any further (name removed by moderator)ut from me.
It will probably help also if you connect to the Catechism links provided and read more of the section in which the referenced paragraph occurs.

 

[Nita]

How Also did not trent say that original sin is removed from the nature of the person and not just the person?

I am going to take the first paragraph as thenobes translated it in Post #46. That one makes more sense – and sounds like Aquinas (If you recall, I commented in my first response, Post #14, that the first paragraph in your post just didn’t sound like Aquinas.)

Here is thenobes translation of the first paragraph:
Aquinas says: "However, since the sacraments are made use of by persons, for this reason Baptism takes away from a man that which runs over into his person from the corruption of his nature. And on account of this, Baptism takes away the infection of guilt, as it affects the person, and that punishment by which he [God?] deprived personal action [of any good?], namely, [the punishment of] the lack of the Divine Vision, **but it does not actually take away infection in so far as it affects the nature **
What “runs over into his person” is the loss of union with God – which consists formally in the loss of Sanctifying Grace.
Dr. Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma expresses it so well: "As the justice bestowed by Christ consists formally in sanctifying grace (D799) so the sin inherited from Adam consists formally in the lack of sanctifying grace.

As I noted in my previous post, this Grace is not and never was part of human nature. It was an added Divine supernatural gift. Our souls must have this supernatural participation in God’s life in order for us to enter heaven (that is, to experience “Divine Vision”. This Divine Vision is also referred to as the Beatific Vision.) Baptism restores this grace. But Baptism does not take away the consequences to human nature that were caused by Adam’s sin to (“does not actually take away infection in so far as it affects the nature”).

Baptism repairs the “supernatural” consequences of Original Sin,
but it does not repair/take away the “natural” consequences.

If so how does Aquinas not contradict Trent?

What Aquinas says above is what the Church still teaches today and the same thing Trent says in its Decree on Original Sin (787-792) and its Decree on Justification (792a - 800)
catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma8.php

For example,
Trent says:
…So that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy Synod confesses and perceives **that there remains in the baptized concupiscence **of an inclination, although this is left to be wrestled with, it cannot harm those who do not consent, but manfully resist by the grace of Jesus Christ. Nay, indeed, “he who shall have striven lawfully, shall be crowned” [2 Tim. 2:5]. This concupiscence, which at times the Apostle calls sin [Rom. 6:12 ff.] the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin, as truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is from sin and inclines to sin.

 

[fhansen]

I am going to take the first paragraph as thenobes translated it in Post #46. That one makes more sense – and sounds like Aquinas (If you recall, I commented in my first response, Post #14, that the first paragraph in your post just didn’t sound like Aquinas.)

Here is thenobes translation of the first paragraph:
Aquinas says: "However, since the sacraments are made use of by persons, for this reason Baptism takes away from a man that which runs over into his person from the corruption of his nature. And on account of this, Baptism takes away the infection of guilt, as it affects the person, and that punishment by which he [God?] deprived personal action [of any good?], namely, [the punishment of] the lack of the Divine Vision, **but it does not actually take away infection in so far as it affects the nature **
What “runs over into his person” is the loss of union with God – which consists formally in the loss of Sanctifying Grace.
Dr. Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma expresses it so well: "As the justice bestowed by Christ consists formally in sanctifying grace (D799) so the sin inherited from Adam consists formally in the lack of sanctifying grace.

As I noted in my previous post, this Grace is not and never was part of human nature. It was an added Divine supernatural gift. Our souls must have this supernatural participation in God’s life in order for us to enter heaven (that is, to experience “Divine Vision”. This Divine Vision is also referred to as the Beatific Vision.) Baptism restores this grace. But Baptism does not take away the consequences to human nature that were caused by Adam’s sin to (“does not actually take away infection in so far as it affects the nature”).

Baptism repairs the “supernatural” consequences of Original Sin,
but it does not repair/take away the “natural” consequences.

What Aquinas says above is what the Church still teaches today and the same thing Trent says in its Decree on Original Sin (787-792) and its Decree on Justification (792a - 800)
catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma8.php

For example,
Trent says:
…So that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy Synod confesses and perceives **that there remains in the baptized concupiscence **of an inclination, although this is left to be wrestled with, it cannot harm those who do not consent, but manfully resist by the grace of Jesus Christ. Nay, indeed, “he who shall have striven lawfully, shall be crowned” [2 Tim. 2:5]. This concupiscence, which at times the Apostle calls sin [Rom. 6:12 ff.] the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin, as truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is from sin and inclines to sin.

But doesn’t the question ask: how is OS transmitted if the believer is no longer infected with it, i.e. if the believer now possesses sanctifying grace/union with God; if righteousness isn’t merely imputed, then why would OS be transmitted to his offspring? Why would the loss of union with God run over into his offspring if the believer, himself, no longer suffers this loss?

 

[Nita]

But doesn’t the question ask: how is OS transmitted if the believer is no longer infected with it, i.e. if the believer now possesses sanctifying grace/union with God; if righteousness isn’t merely imputed, then why would OS be transmitted to his offspring? Why would the loss of union with God run over into his offspring if the believer, himself, no longer suffers this loss?

Sanctifying grace was (and is) present in a soul because God puts it there. When Adam sinned he lost that grace not only for himself but for all who would be descended from him.
(I’ve been sort of assuming that everyone realizes the role Adam had as head of the human race. If not, it would be good to read #402-406 in the Catechism. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P1C.HTM#1IH )
We transmit to our offspring a human nature as it was in Adam after he sinned - a nature deprived of grace. He is the head (father so to speak) of the human race.

It would be very strange indeed if parents were to transmit a nature according to the state of their souls at the time their child is conceived. Eg. one parent in the state of grace, the other unbaptized or in the state of mortal sin; or some children in a family conceived while parents both in the state of grace and others conceived when they were not. How would one know who needed to be baptized and who didn’t since Baptism would not be necessary for a child born in the state of sanctifying grace.

**So, to answer your question “how is OS transmitted” **-- OS is transmitted by natural generation because God, as a result of Adam’s sin, has chosen not to infuse sanctifying grace into the souls of Adam’s descendents at the time of their conception.

Perhaps that seems harsh or unjust to some. But any who know God also know that everything He does is good, loving, and **the best **possible way.

I’ll just close with a paragraph from “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” (great resource book):
From the Christian doctrine of the reproduction of original sin, it does not follow, as the Pelagians maintained, that God is the Originator of sin. The soul created by God is, according to its natural constitution, good. The condition of original sin signifies the want of a supernatural advantage to which the creature has no claim. God is not obliged to create the soul with the adornment of sanctifying grace. God is not to be blamed for the fact that the newly-created soul is denied the supernatural endowment, but man is who misused his freedom…

 

[fhansen]

**So, to answer your question “how is OS transmitted” **-- OS is transmitted by natural generation because God, as a result of Adam’s sin, has chosen not to infuse sanctifying grace into the souls of Adam’s descendents at the time of their conception.

I think this is the bottom-line, most important reason why OS, although transmitted in some manner via propagation, is in any case still transmitted regardless of the state of the parents own souls.