Sin and sanctifying grace

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vinny213
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vinny213 said:
Is the root of sin considered to be plucked out at baptism? I heard Peligius affirmed that the regenerate are given perfect righteousness at baptism.
Click to expand...
The root of sin has to do with our wills. Concupiscence is not considered to be part of our unrighteousness. It’s simply a tendency to sin, a result of our not having the gift of integrity/self-control, but are rather asked to struggle and learn the value of those virtues for ourselves, presumably so we’ll come to recognize the power-and the futility-of sin in order to be able to make the right choices instead of our ancestor’s wrong one-so that we’ll come to will rightly IOW. And the ultimate right choice is to let God truly be our God, Who’s Spirit can accomplish in us what we cannot accomplish on our own. Here’s the catechism on baptism and it’s effects:

**2520 Baptism confers on its recipient the grace of purification from all sins. But the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires. With God’s grace he will prevail
  • by the virtue and gift of chastity, for chastity lets us love with upright and undivided heart;
  • by purity of intention which consists in seeking the true end of man: with simplicity of vision, the baptized person seeks to find and to fulfill God’s will in everything;
  • by purity of vision, external and internal; by discipline of feelings and imagination; by refusing all complicity in impure thoughts that incline us to turn aside from the path of God’s commandments: “Appearance arouses yearning in fools”;
  • by prayer:
I thought that continence arose from one’s own powers, which I did not recognize in myself. I was foolish enough not to know . . . that no one can be continent unless you grant it. For you would surely have granted it if my inner groaning had reached your ears and I with firm faith had cast my cares on you.

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. 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.
**
 
fhansen said:
The root of sin has to do with our wills. Concupiscence is not considered, by Catholicism, at least, to be part of our unrighteousness. It’s simply a tendency to sin, a result of our not having the gift of integrity/self-control, but are rather asked to struggle and learn the value of those virtues for ourselves, presumably so we’ll come to recognize the power-and the futility-of sin in order to be able to make the right choices instead of our ancestor’s wrong one-so that we’ll come to will rightly IOW. And the ultimate right choice is to let God truly be our God, Who’s Spirit can accomplish in us what we cannot accomplish on our own. Here’s the catechism on baptism and it’s effects:

**2520 Baptism confers on its recipient the grace of purification from all sins. But the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires. With God’s grace he will prevail
  • by the virtue and gift of chastity, for chastity lets us love with upright and undivided heart;
  • by purity of intention which consists in seeking the true end of man: with simplicity of vision, the baptized person seeks to find and to fulfill God’s will in everything;
  • by purity of vision, external and internal; by discipline of feelings and imagination; by refusing all complicity in impure thoughts that incline us to turn aside from the path of God’s commandments: “Appearance arouses yearning in fools”;
  • by prayer:
I thought that continence arose from one’s own powers, which I did not recognize in myself. I was foolish enough not to know . . . that no one can be continent unless you grant it. For you would surely have granted it if my inner groaning had reached your ears and I with firm faith had cast my cares on you.

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. 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.
**
Click to expand...
 
Is this quote consistent with Catholic tecahing?
4 William of Paris says Original Sin lies prostrate in who are regenerated in the saving laver conquered as it and slain lent it should rise again to its former vigour lest it should reign and rule. For which cause the says advisedly Let not sin reign in your mortal body has not said Let it not be in you for it remains in the after the cleansing of the saving laver. A little he says Observe diligently how great a difference there between the taking away of Original Sin and the taking of the foreskin. The latter does not return after being not even a vestige of it remains but the plague of Sin both easily returns and its great seedplot is lefl after baptismal washing.

And there is this quote:
Richard Middleton f lib 2 dist 32 art 1 queest 1 says Although a child lack original righteousness after baptism yet he is not blamed for the want of it because not every loss of righteousness is a fault but the want of that righteousness to the possession of which he who lacks it is bound. A little after in resp ad 3 he says Although original righteousness is not restored in baptism yet the necessity of possessing it is remitted and thus after baptism the want of original righteousness is not a fault when before baptism it was.

s 9 Richard Middleton f lib 2 dist 32 art 1 queest 1 says Although a child lack original righteousness after baptism yet he is not blamed for the want of it because not every loss of righteousness is a fault but the want of that righteousness to the possession of which he who lacks it is bound. Although original righteousness is not restored in baptism yet the necessity of possessing it is remitted and thus after baptism the want of original righteousness is not a fault when before baptism it was.

I thought that the catholic church teaches that original righteousness is not restored at baptism because we do not have all the divine gifts like integrity given to us.Therefore we do not have that original primitive righteousness, beavsue we still have concupiscence and not the gift of intergrity?
 
But concpiunse is considered the root of sin right? It is the origin and source of sin. So is the root of sin taken away at baptism then?
 
Is concupiscence considered to be in the will? I would appreciate if someone can give me an Aquinas quote on this.
 
Texas Longhorn the source of that quote is this:
11 iEgidius in Dionys Carthus in 2 sentent dist 32 quaest 1
 
A Priest said the following to me. Is he correct?
3. Your information on the RCC’s position on Original Sin is flawed. They affirm the continuance after baptism of “concupiscence”, which is admitted to be called “sin” in the NT, because it is the inclination to sin remaining in us. It is said to be “of sin” but not “truly and properly sin”. In other words, justification takes away the guilt of Original Sin and the fundamental orientation of the person’s will away from God, due to the creation of the “New Man” within. But justification does not take away the flaws of fallen humanity, the internal temptations. Read Trent’s Fifth Session, section 5.
 
Vinny213 said:
But concpiunse is considered the root of sin right? It is the origin and source of sin. So is the root of sin taken away at baptism then?
Click to expand...
Concupiscence is one result or consequence of OS. Man needs communion with God in order to maintain moral integrity. The essence of OS in Adam’s descendants is separation from God, resulting from Adam’s spurning of Him via disobedience, the original act of sin.
 
Vinny213 said:
But concpiunse is considered the root of sin right? It is the origin and source of sin. So is the root of sin taken away at baptism then?
Click to expand...
The Reformers considered concupiscence to be OS. Catholicism rejects this teaching.
 
Vinny213 said:
But concipsunce is the root or source of original sin right?
Click to expand...
No, a consequence. Man lost the gift of self-control when he sinned and lost original justice. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia concupiscence does not have the nature of sin; it’s simply desire, albeit inordinate desire that we have to struggle to resist.Sin, itself, is a matter of the will. If we give into concupiscence, losing the struggle at that point, then the will has acquiesced.
 
If it is a mortal sin, no. If it’s a venial sin, yes. Sanctifying grace is the life of God dwelling in us. God does not dwell in a soul that is in a state of mortal sin.
 
Did not Aquinas and the scholastic say that conpecues itself has the nature of original sin? Any church history majors?
 
Vinny213 said:
Did not Aquinas and the scholastic say that conpecues itself has the nature of original sin? Any church history majors?
Click to expand...
Here’s how Trent put it, session 5:

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.
 
Vinny213 said:
Is original righteousness restored to us at baptism? If so what do people make of the following quote:

11 iEgidius in Dionys Carthus in 2 sentent dist 32 quaest 1 says That Original Sin is the want of original righteousness with the obligation of having it. This Original Sin is put away in baptism not because original righteousness is restored to us but because the obligation of having it is remitted from us. Whereas in the state of corrupt nature we are bound to have it yet when we are made members of Christ by baptism we are absolved from the obligation of having that righteousness. For by baptism we are constituted in another state and order of nature so as not to be now called after the order of the earthly Adam but after the order of the heavenly that is of Christ our Saviour. Original Sin then is said to be taken away in the regenerate not because the thing itself is taken.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. Baptism brings our person to the Divine Vision by faith, and OS is removed from the person, but remains in the part of the body that is no longer considered part of the person, the flesh being considered dead to sin. We have no obligation to remove the sin from that dead flesh, nor the concupiscence it holds.

We are however required to form our person according to the Divine Vision, and build our faith and clean our soul of any further defilements.

The passage you adduce above seems to me to end:
…but because the person is removed from the sin, leaving the OS in the part of the nature not so removed from the sin.
Click to expand...
peace
steve
 
Vinny213 said:
The following quotes from Gabriel Vasquez seems to say grace cannot co-exsist with sin.

And disp 207 cap 3 remains that grace and inherent habitual righteousness is of itself and without any previous disposition bestowed of such a nature and virtue that it is utterly inconsistent with the defilement of sin and cannot co exist with it even by the absolute power of God We CHAP XXVI J OR HABITUAL RIGHTEOUSNESS 219

1 2 disp 201 cap 4 If inherent righteousness could exist together with sin even by the absolute power of God it would follow that whatever of this kind inheres in us is not true righteousness nor does it deserve such a name
Click to expand...
In a sense he is right. As sin (venial) increases, it forces righteousness from that portion of the soul the sin infected, that is, from the faculties of the soul that apprehend faith. Thus faith in the soul is weakened and so is the ability to apprehend grace.

peace
steve
 
Vinny213 said:
The following quotes from Gabriel Vasquez seems to say grace cannot co-exsist with sin.

And disp 207 cap 3 remains that grace and inherent habitual righteousness is of itself and without any previous disposition bestowed of such a nature and virtue that it is utterly inconsistent with the defilement of sin and cannot co exist with it even by the absolute power of God We CHAP XXVI J OR HABITUAL RIGHTEOUSNESS 219

1 2 disp 201 cap 4 If inherent righteousness could exist together with sin even by the absolute power of God it would follow that whatever of this kind inheres in us is not true righteousness nor does it deserve such a name
Click to expand...
For venial sin, maybe that which is sin is transferred from our person to our dead flesh. Thus no longer part of the person having sanctifying grace.

peace
steve
 
Is this Priest correct about what the catholic church teaches? Here is what he says:
  1. Your information on the RCC’s position on Original Sin is flawed. They affirm the continuance after baptism of “concupiscence”, which is admitted to be called “sin” in the NT, because it is the inclination to sin remaining in us. It is said to be “of sin” but not “truly and properly sin”. In other words, justification takes away the guilt of Original Sin and the fundamental orientation of the person’s will away from God, due to the creation of the “New Man” within. But justification does not take away the flaws of fallen humanity, the internal temptations. Read Trent’s Fifth Session, section 5.
 
Vinny213 said:
Is this Priest correct about what the catholic church teaches? Here is what he says:
  1. Your information on the RCC’s position on Original Sin is flawed. They affirm the continuance after baptism of “concupiscence”, which is admitted to be called “sin” in the NT, because it is the inclination to sin remaining in us. It is said to be “of sin” but not “truly and properly sin”. In other words, justification takes away the guilt of Original Sin and the fundamental orientation of the person’s will away from God, due to the creation of the “New Man” within. But justification does not take away the flaws of fallen humanity, the internal temptations. Read Trent’s Fifth Session, section 5.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s correct. And concupiscence is “admitted to be sin” in the sense that it’s called sin by St Paul while not being sin, only related to it. Read Trent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top