This is all from a quote found here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/07/a-reply-to-r-c-sproul-regarding-the-catholic-doctrines-of-original-sin-and-free-will/ comment 41
Before the fall, did Adam and Eve have concupiscence (lust of the fleash, lust of the eyes, pride of life) as part of human nature?
Before the fall, Adam and Eve did not have concupiscence, because they had the preternatural gifts. But they had in their human nature a ‘potency’ to concupiscence through sin and the loss of the preternatural gifts. This potency was actualized when they sinned, and lost the preternatural gifts.
how would you explain Trent’s teaching that concupiscence is “of sin”, that is, is an effect of sin? How can there be an effect if the cause doesn’t exist?
The cause was their sin, by which they forfeited the preternatural gifts, and thereby reduced themselves to a condition of concupiscence.
how would you explain Feingold’s definition of original sin as the removal of gifts?
Original sin in its essence is the absence of sanctifying grace, which is a supernatural gift (not a preternatural gift). Original sin is not the same thing as concupiscence.
Yet, if Adam and Eve contracted something, namely concupiscence, after the fall that they didn’t have before it, then original sin is, partly, some corruption (I realize concupiscence is not sin in itself) that is in human nature;.
You’re interchanging the terms ‘concupiscence’ and ‘original sin.’ Those two are not the same. By their sin Adam and Eve came into a condition of original sin and concupiscence. But it does not follow that either original sin or concupiscence is a corruption that is in human nature. A corruption is a corruption of something, from a good or better state to a bad or worse state. There was no corruption in man prior to the fall. Even when Adam and Eve sinned, human nature itself remained intact. They didn’t go from 100% human to 60% human. They remained 100% human. The loss of sanctifying grace and the preternatural gifts exposed the weakness of human nature without those gifts. But that weakness is not a corruption of human nature. Sanctifying grace and the preternatural gifts are not intrinsic to human nature, because we are neither God nor angels.
If, after the fall, Adam and Eve were left with human nature minus the gifts, then concupiscence would have been part of human nature before the fall because it certainly is part of human nature after the fall.
The potency to concupiscence was present before the fall, but not concupiscence itself.
All this is explained in more detail in “Lawrence Feingold on Original Justice and Original Sin,” especially the Q&A session following that lecture. If you want to ask a follow-up question on this subject, I suggest that you do so in the combox there.
more on concupiscence
quotes from: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/07/a-reply-to-r-c-sproul-regarding-the-catholic-doctrines-of-original-sin-and-free-will/Would you please explain the difference between the concupiscible nature (which I believe Adam and Eve had before the fall as part of human nature) and concupiscence, which they had after the fall? (from comment42)
answer from comment 43
I wouldn’t use the term ‘concuspiscible nature,’ because concupiscence is not essential to human nature, and there wasn’t a second nature (i.e. ‘concupiscible nature’) our first parents had (either before or after the fall) in addition to human nature. Before the fall they had human nature, as well as the preternatural gifts and the supernatural gifts. Human nature contains formally four powers, among which are the rational appetite, and the concupiscible appetite (each of which are in themselves good). (SeeAquinas and Trent: Part 3.) The rational appetite is intrinsically ordered to the good as such, but the concupiscible appetite is not intrinsically ordered tothegood as such, but to the good under a limited aspect, namely to concupiscible goods. Otherwise nothing would differentiate the concupiscible appetite from the rational appetite.The preternatural gift of integrity by which the concupiscible appetite was ordered to the rational appetite, and thus extrinsically ordered to the good, was part of the divinely established order. Without that preternatural gift of integrity, the concupiscible appetite is not inherently ordered to the good, but must be mastered and trained so that the virtue of temperance develops in it. As I wrote in “Michael Horton on Terrence Malick’s “Tree of Life,””Why is integrity not intrinsic to human nature? Because man is both body and soul, and matter by its nature cannot be intrinsically ordered to the good as such, as reason is. That inability is not a defect in matter; it is merely a natural limitation of matter. For example, arrows are not naturally ordered to their target, but this is not a defect or imperfection in arrows. Similarly, not being the Creator is not a defect or imperfection in creatures; it is a limitation that necessarily accompanies being a creature. So likewise, not being intrinsically ordered to the good as such is not a defect or imperfection in matter; it is merely an intrinsic limitation of matter. And therefore the need for the preternatural gift of integrity in order for there to be no concupiscence, is not an indication that human nature is imperfect or flawed.So the difference between human nature (which they had before the fall) and concupiscence (which they had only after the fall) is that human nature is that by which they were human [both before and after the fall] whereas concupiscence is the disorder between the powers of the soul, resulting from the loss of the preternatural gift of integrity through sin. Prior to the fall, this disorder [i.e. concupiscence] was not present, because of the presence of the preternatural gift of integrity. But the potential for this disorder was present, both on account of human nature, and on account of their capacity by the power of free choice to lose through sin the preternatural gift of integrity. After the fall, this disorder was present, because the preternatural gift of integrity by which the concupiscible appetite had been extrinsically ordered to the rational appetite, was lost.
and here in comment 19 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/03/aquinas-and-trent-part-7/#comment-48437
The term ‘concupiscence’ has been used by some earlier writers in a broader, looser sense, to refer to the condition of original sin. When speaking more precisely we see that there are two aspects of the condition of original sin. One aspect is the absence of sanctifying grace and agape. The other aspect is the presence of disordered lower appetites, which draw us away from the good proposed by reason, and entice us to choose some evil. The latter [i.e. the disordered lower appetites] is concupiscence proper, but sometimes earlier writers used the term ‘concupiscence’ loosely to refer to both aspects, without distinguishing them, especially when they are present together in the unbaptized infant. By itself concupiscence proper is guiltless. But the absence of sanctifying grace in an infant is not guiltless, not because the infant lacking sanctifying grace committed an actual sin, but because no one can enter into eternal life without sanctifying grace and agape. Moreover, for all those who have attained the age of reason, and who do not have sanctifying grace and agape, concupiscence is damnable though not in itself, but inasmuch as (according to St. Augustine) without such grace the temptations arising from concupiscence and leading to mortal sin are not ultimately resistible. As St. Augustine argued against the Pelagians, without sanctifying grace, the man with concupiscence will commit mortal sin. And in that sense, concupiscence is damnable, not in itself, but on account of its inevitable fruit in the man lacking sanctifying grace and agape.
So when St. Augustine says that “the old guiltiness of concupiscence is put away by the washing of baptism,” he is speaking of concupiscence in this broader sense, as it is present [accompanied by original sin] in the unbaptized person, and particularly the unbaptized infant. The “guiltiness” of concupiscence (in this broader sense of the term ‘concupiscence’) is not the disordered lower appetites, but the absence of sanctifying grace and agape. Now consider Davenant’s statement:
He who says that the guilt of original indwelling concupiscence, and all its fruits of actual concupiscence are put away from the regenerate, confesses that the nature of them is damnable in itself. For nothing needs remission but what is deserving of condemnation.
Here is Davenant’s argument:
(1) Nothing needs remission but what is deserving of condemnation.
(2) The guilt of original indwelling concupiscence is put away from the regenerate through baptism
(3) God does nothing superfluous.
Therefore:
(4) The guilt of original indwelling concupiscence needs remission. [from (2), (3)]
Therefore:
(5) Concupiscence is in itself damnable. [from (1), (4)]
(2) The guilt of original indwelling concupiscence is put away from the regenerate through baptism
(3) God does nothing superfluous.
Therefore:
(4) The guilt of original indwelling concupiscence needs remission. [from (2), (3)]
Therefore:
(5) Concupiscence is in itself damnable. [from (1), (4)]
The argument is sound. The problem is that the term ‘concupiscence’ is being used here in its looser sense, not in its more precise sense. So the guilt being referred to is that of original sin (i.e. the absence of sanctifying grace and agape). The doctrine as defined by Trent (Session 5), however, is using the term ‘concupiscence’ in its more precise sense, to refer only to disordered lower appetites. So to infer from this argument (presented by Davenant) that Trent contradicts St. Augustine is to commit the fallacy of equivocation. As we are examining the texts we have to keep in mind that the term has both a broader and more precise sense, and ask ourselves in each case which sense of the term is being used. As I showed in comment #5 above, St. Augustine himself shows in a number of other places that concupiscence proper is not sin, and in this way shows the basis for the distinction between the more precise sense of the term and its looser sense as he applies it to the unbaptized.
from an article here: http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2009/02/aquinas-on-instant-and-progressive.html
By grace our will is turned back to God and away from sin, and so rectitude of order is restored between the highest power of our soul and God. (ST I-II Q.113 a.8) But the rectitude of order between reason and the inferior powers of the soul is not restored instantly by grace. This remaining disorder is calledconcupiscence, and it remains after our baptism, for the sake of our participation in overcoming it, for our humility and so to remind us that our true home lies in the life to come. (ST III Q.69 a.3) Likewise, the rectitude of order between the soul and the body is not restored instantly by grace. This is why our bodies are subject to sickness, and why bodily death remains. (For the sake of simplicity I am not here addressing the topic of infused moral virtues -- cf. ST I-II Q.63 a.3.)
and from part of comment 6 here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/10/protestant-objections-to-the-catholic-doctrines-of-original-justice-and-original-sin/
Concupiscence is the result of the loss of the preternatural gift of integrity. So concupiscence is a natural condition of man in a state of pure (i.e. mere) nature, just as mortality and passibility are the natural condition of man in a state of pure nature. Man is not by nature incapable of suffering, or incapable of dying. And man by his nature alone does not have the integrity by which concupiscence is absent. I explained why this is, in the body of the post above; see the section in which I respond to Charles Hodge’s arguments.
and from comment 7 of the same link:
from comment 19 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/10/protestant-objections-to-the-catholic-doctrines-of-original-justice-and-original-sin/
As explained in “Nature, Grace, and Man’s Supernatural End: Feingold, Kline, and Clark” and “Lawrence Feingold on Original Justice and Original Sin,” according to a Catholic anthropology, human nature is distinguished from the four preternatural gifts (i.e. integrity, infused knowledge, impassibility, and immortality), and from the supernatural gifts of faith, hope, agape and sanctifying grace. When Adam sinned, he retained human nature intact, but he lost all four preternatural gifts, and he lost all the supernatural gifts. Because he lost the supernatural gifts, he was without the life of God, and dead in sin, living for himself in the curved-inwardness of Godless narcissism. Because he lost the preternatural gift of integrity, he acquired the disorder of concupiscence. Because he lost the preternatural gift of infused knowledge, he acquired the condition of ignorance. Because he lost the preternatural gift of impassibility, he became subject to suffering. And because he lost the preternatural gift of immortality he became subject to death. All his offspring likewise were born in this condition, i.e. with human nature intact, but without these preternatural and supernatural gifts. To be conceived and born without the supernatural gifts is to be conceived and born in what is called “original sin.”
Protestant anthropology does not distinguish between human nature, preternatural gifts, and supernatural gifts. Protestant anthropology distinguishes only between original human nature (which is righteous), and fallen human nature which is disposed to sin. According to Protestant anthropology, Adam and Eve were created with original human nature, but when they freely sinned, their nature fell. So all their children are born with fallen human nature, which is intrinsically subject to disordered desires, to ignorance, suffering and death. Because Adam and Eve lost their created nature, they were a different kind of creature before their fall, than they were after their fall. When they sinned, they changed species, not necessarily by a change in their DNA, but because of the change in their nature, i.e. the kind of being they were. What we call ‘human’ is what Adam and Eve became only after the fall; before the fall they were a higher kind of being, because they had a higher nature than the nature we now have.
from an article here: http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2009/02/aquinas-on-instant-and-progressive.html
and from part of comment 6 here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/10/protestant-objections-to-the-catholic-doctrines-of-original-justice-and-original-sin/
Concupiscence is the result of the loss of the preternatural gift of integrity. So concupiscence is a natural condition of man in a state of pure (i.e. mere) nature, just as mortality and passibility are the natural condition of man in a state of pure nature. Man is not by nature incapable of suffering, or incapable of dying. And man by his nature alone does not have the integrity by which concupiscence is absent. I explained why this is, in the body of the post above; see the section in which I respond to Charles Hodge’s arguments.
and from comment 7 of the same link:
Natalia writes: … if all we lost in the Fall was supernatural grace and the gift of integrity (right?), leaving our natures intact, then where did concupiscence come from?
Natalia, that is a really good question. Bryan Cross gave an answer to that question in his personal blogPrincipium Unitatis that really helped me:
Why Did Adam Originally Need Grace?Aquinas … explains that man was made by God in such a way that man’s reason was subject to God, his lower powers were perfectly subject to his reason, and his body also was perfectly subject to his soul. But the first subjection was the cause of the latter two subjections … Aquinas says,“Now it is clear that such a subjection of the body to the soul and of the lower powers to reason, was not from nature; otherwise it would have remained after sin. … Hence it is clear that also the primitive subjection by virtue of which reason was subject to God, was not a merely natural gift, but a supernatural endowment of grace; for it is not possible that the effect should be of greater efficiency than the cause. …”Here is Aquinas’s argument. The subjection of Adam’s body to his soul and of the lower powers to his reason was an effect of the subjection of his reason to God. But it is not possible that the effect should exceed the cause. And since the subjection of the body to the soul and of the lower powers to reason was not from nature [for otherwise these two subjections would have remained after Adam's sin], it follows that the subjection of Adam’s reason to God was also not a merely natural gift but was a supernatural endowment of grace. … Aquinas concludes that if the loss of grace dissolved the obedience of the flesh to the soul, the inferior powers must have been subject to the soul through grace existing in them.
Bryan writes “the subjection of the body to the soul and of the lower powers to reason was not from nature” – that is, without supernatural grace, man’s sensual appetites are not subject to man’s natural reason. To be free from concupiscence, it would follow from the above that man needs supernatural grace. Which is true, but it is not that simple because the man or woman that is baptized receives supernatural grace, and yet he or she is not set free from their struggle with concupiscence:
Catechism of the Catholic Church2515 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.” 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.2516 Because man is a composite being, spirit and body, there already exists a certain tension in him; a certain struggle of tendencies between “spirit” and “flesh” develops. But in fact this struggle belongs to the heritage of sin. It is a consequence of sin and at the same time a confirmation of it.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 …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.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 callsconcupiscence …
Adam’s personal sin has temporal consequences for his progeny. Because of Adam’s personal sin, his descendents are not born into a state of original justice, instead, we have been born into a fallen state of being where we have inherited the temporal consequences of Adam’s personal sin – “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”, the loss of perfect holy innocence, the loss of the preternatural gifts, and above all, the loss of sanctifying grace.
So why doesn’t the supernatural grace received by the Sacrament of Baptism free us from concupiscence? It does not do that because the grace of Baptism brings us to a state of initial justification, which is a different state of being than that which Adam enjoyed in the state of original justice. To be brought back to a state of holy innocence where one is free from concupiscence, the baptized man or woman needs an increase in sanctifying grace to bring about the final fruits of the first and second conversion:
Catechism of the Catholic ChurchTHE CONVERSION OF THE BAPTIZED1427 Jesus calls to conversion. This call is an essential part of the proclamation of the kingdom: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel.” In the Church’s preaching this call is addressed first to those who do not yet know Christ and his Gospel. Also, Baptism is the principal place for the first and fundamental conversion. It is by faith in the Gospel and by Baptism that one renounces evil and gains salvation, that is, the forgiveness of all sins and the gift of new life.1428 Christ’s call to conversion continues to resound in the lives of Christians. Thissecond conversion is an uninterrupted task for the whole Church who, “clasping sinners to her bosom, [is] at once holy and always in need of purification, [and] follows constantly the path of penance and renewal.” This endeavor of conversion is not just a human work. It is the movement of a “contrite heart,” drawn and moved by grace to respond to the merciful love of God who loved us first.
from comment 19 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/10/protestant-objections-to-the-catholic-doctrines-of-original-justice-and-original-sin/
As explained in “Nature, Grace, and Man’s Supernatural End: Feingold, Kline, and Clark” and “Lawrence Feingold on Original Justice and Original Sin,” according to a Catholic anthropology, human nature is distinguished from the four preternatural gifts (i.e. integrity, infused knowledge, impassibility, and immortality), and from the supernatural gifts of faith, hope, agape and sanctifying grace. When Adam sinned, he retained human nature intact, but he lost all four preternatural gifts, and he lost all the supernatural gifts. Because he lost the supernatural gifts, he was without the life of God, and dead in sin, living for himself in the curved-inwardness of Godless narcissism. Because he lost the preternatural gift of integrity, he acquired the disorder of concupiscence. Because he lost the preternatural gift of infused knowledge, he acquired the condition of ignorance. Because he lost the preternatural gift of impassibility, he became subject to suffering. And because he lost the preternatural gift of immortality he became subject to death. All his offspring likewise were born in this condition, i.e. with human nature intact, but without these preternatural and supernatural gifts. To be conceived and born without the supernatural gifts is to be conceived and born in what is called “original sin.”
Protestant anthropology does not distinguish between human nature, preternatural gifts, and supernatural gifts. Protestant anthropology distinguishes only between original human nature (which is righteous), and fallen human nature which is disposed to sin. According to Protestant anthropology, Adam and Eve were created with original human nature, but when they freely sinned, their nature fell. So all their children are born with fallen human nature, which is intrinsically subject to disordered desires, to ignorance, suffering and death. Because Adam and Eve lost their created nature, they were a different kind of creature before their fall, than they were after their fall. When they sinned, they changed species, not necessarily by a change in their DNA, but because of the change in their nature, i.e. the kind of being they were. What we call ‘human’ is what Adam and Eve became only after the fall; before the fall they were a higher kind of being, because they had a higher nature than the nature we now have.
Given Protestant anthropology, and given the patristic principle that what is not assumed is not redeemed, it is not difficult to see the motivation for claiming that Jesus must have assumed a fallen human nature, for if He assumed only an original human nature, he would have not have assumed ourfallen nature, but only that of the original pre-fall couple who, while they had that pristine nature did not [according to Protestant theology] need saving. (See “Pelagian Westminster?“) Moreover, if one does not distinguish between human nature and the preternatural gifts, then since we see clearly in Scripture that Jesus suffered and died, then it will seem that Jesus must have possessed a fallen human nature. At His resurrection He changed species, back to the original human nature of Adam. Salvation for us also will, at our glorification/resurrection, involve a species change, back to Adam’s original nature. If Jesus came “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” and suffered the curse from Genesis 3, and our only two options to choose from are Adam’s “original human nature” or Adam’s “fallen human nature,” then Jesus must have had Adam’s “fallen human nature.” And if Jesus received His humanity from Mary, then it is difficult to see how He could have received “original human nature” from Mary, unless she was immaculately conceived and never sinned (at least did not sin until after Jesus was conceived); that’s not really an option for Protestants. Either she was immaculately conceived or at the moment of Jesus’s conception, God took Mary’s [fallen] human nature and transformed it to a different nature, namely, Adam’s original human nature. But then Jesus’s human nature would have been a different created species than was Mary’s. And that runs against the meaning of Theotokos, which is not that Jesus merely used the womb of the Virgin, but that He took His flesh from her, and was truly her Son, bone of her bones, and flesh of her flesh, homousious with her according to His humanity, and homousious with God the Father according to His divinity. (See the Athanasian Creed, which says that as man He was born of the substance of His mother (et homo est ex substantia matris in saeculo natus.)
In the Catholic understanding there is no ‘fallen human nature.’ God did not make two species of human. There is either human nature accompanied by preternatural and/or supernatural gifts, and human nature unaccompanied by preternatural and/or supernatural gifts. Every human being who has ever lived has had the same human nature possessed by Adam before Adam’s fall. Otherwise we wouldn’t all be human, because either the pre-fall Adam wouldn’t be human, or the post-fall Adam wouldn’t be human. Jesus was conceived having two of the preternatural gifts (i.e. integrity and infused knowledge), but He purposefully gave up the other two preternatural gifts (i.e. impassibility and immortality), because He came into the world to suffer and die, as I explained in comment #12 above. This is the meaning of the verse teaching that Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh. By forgoing the preternatural gifts of impassibility and immortality, He made Himself subject to the suffering and death that was the result of the curse of Genesis 3, yet without sinning or being subject to the concupiscence resulting from original sin. He was conceived with the supernatural gifts (excepting faith and hope, because already He possessed the beatific vision), and thus without original sin. So the Catholic answer to the question “Did Jesus Assume a Fallen Human Nature?” is “It depends on what one means by “fallen human nature.” If one means a lower nature than that possessed by the pre-fall Adam, then no, because there is no such thing. And if one means “a human nature having concupiscence,” then no. Jesus did not have concupiscence, because he never had original sin. But if one means “a human nature subject to suffering and death,” then yes, not because He received a different human nature than that had by the pre-fall Adam and Eve, but because He chose not to receive the preternatural gifts of impassibility and immortality, so that He could fulfill the mission for which He came into the world, to suffer and die for our salvation.
This position does not suffer from the problems I described above. Everything we are in our human nature, Christ assumed. For example, He did not have to forgo the preternatural gift of integrity in order to become fully human. Adam prior to his fall was not less human than Adam after his fall. Moreover, on this anthropology, Christ’s passibility and mortality do not entail that He also possessed concupiscence, since these are each conditions due to the absence of preternatural gifts, not essential properties of a singular fallen human nature. Nor do His passibility and mortality indicate that He was internally at enmity with God, since the latter is the result of the absence of the supernatural gift ofagape, not something intrinsic to a particular kind of human nature that Christ would have had to assume in order to redeem us. And given Catholic anthropology, Jesus could receive from Mary the same human nature she had received from Adam, since there is only one human nature. What is known as “the sinful nature” is not a second human nature, but rather concupiscience, i.e. the absence of the preternatural gift of integrity. This “sin nature” is not redeemed and retained in the saints in heaven; it is removed, by the restoration of the preternatural gift of integrity. Salvation does not involve becoming a different species of human, but becoming a partaker of the divine nature, through the infusion of the supernatural gifts of sanctifying grace and agape, and at Christ’s return, the restoration of all the preternatural gifts.
and from Father John Harden http://www.readability.com/read?url=http%3A//www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_013.htm :
and from Father John Harden http://www.readability.com/read?url=http%3A//www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_013.htm :
The gift of integrity is equivalent to exemption from concupiscence. It is called "integrity" because it effected a harmonious relation between flesh and spirit by completely subordinating man's lower passions to his reason.
This integrity, it should be noted, did not consist in lacking the natural power to desire for sensible or spiritual bona, nor was it a lack of activity of this power, since all of these belong to the perfection of human nature. Rather it was the absence of certain kinds of acts of the appetitive faculty, namely those which anticipate or go before (praevertunt) the operations of reason and will and tend to continue in opposition to the same.
Stated positively, integrity consisted in the perfect subjection of the concupiscible and irascible appetitive powers to the dictates of reason and free will. As a consequence the will had not only indirect (diplomatic) but also direct (despotic) dominion over the appetite.
Two kinds of concupiscence should be distinguished, the one dogmatic and the other moral. In a dogmatic sense, concupiscence is the appetite - primarily sensitive and actual, and secondarily spiritual and habitual - in so far as its movement precedes the deliberation and dictate of reason and tends to endure in spite of the command of the will. In a moral sense, concupiscence is the appetite - again primarily sensitive and actual, and secondarily spiritual and habitual - in so far as 1) its acts not only precede reason and perdure in spite of the will, but 2) they tend to moral evil. Another name for the latter is inordinate or prava concupiscence.
Our concern in the thesis is with concupiscence in the dogmatic sense, and integrity as immunity from this kind of appetitive drive.
In order, further to clarify Adam's gift of integrity, we may say that he was perfectly sound, entire and integral, in the sense that hedid not experience within himself thatdivision which mankind now understands so well. Our own indeliberate tendencies, we know, often oppose themselves to what we decide or want to do. The life of a man who wants to do well and avoid evil is literally a conflict, more or less violent, between reason which sees and approves the good and wants fewer tendencies. This conflict is variously described as a tension between spirit and flesh, between the interior and exterior man, or simply between soul and body. But in our first parents there was no such internal discord. Their integrity was "the absence of any resistance from their spontaneous tendencies, notably the sense appetite, in the performance of good or avoidance of evil." In a word it was a perfect dominion of animal and spiritual passion."
and here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/03/aquinas-and-trent-part-7/ :
Concupiscence comes from sin, and it inclines to sin. But it itself is not sin, because sin requires the use of the will, and the motions of concupiscence are not willed.45 We discussed this in Aquinas and Trent: Part 2. Nor is concupiscence original sin. Baptism removes original sin, by giving the person sanctifying grace. But baptism does not remove concupiscence. Christ leaves us with concupiscence so that we, by manfully resisting it, may merit a greater reward. The early Protestants, however, believed that concupiscence was itself sin. And therefore, finding concupiscence in themselves daily, even after baptism, and not recognizing the mortal-venial distinction, they concluded that justification does not depend upon the internal condition of the sinner, but upon a forensic declaration. Because they [wrongly] believed that concupiscence was sin, and because they [rightly] believed that concupiscence remained after baptism, they concluded that after baptism there remains in us something that God hates, and for that reason were drawn toward to the notion of simul iustus et peccator.
end of quote
but it gets a bit tricky! here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/03/aquinas-and-trent-part-2/
and here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/03/aquinas-and-trent-part-7/ :
Concupiscence comes from sin, and it inclines to sin. But it itself is not sin, because sin requires the use of the will, and the motions of concupiscence are not willed.45 We discussed this in Aquinas and Trent: Part 2. Nor is concupiscence original sin. Baptism removes original sin, by giving the person sanctifying grace. But baptism does not remove concupiscence. Christ leaves us with concupiscence so that we, by manfully resisting it, may merit a greater reward. The early Protestants, however, believed that concupiscence was itself sin. And therefore, finding concupiscence in themselves daily, even after baptism, and not recognizing the mortal-venial distinction, they concluded that justification does not depend upon the internal condition of the sinner, but upon a forensic declaration. Because they [wrongly] believed that concupiscence was sin, and because they [rightly] believed that concupiscence remained after baptism, they concluded that after baptism there remains in us something that God hates, and for that reason were drawn toward to the notion of simul iustus et peccator.
end of quote
but it gets a bit tricky! here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/03/aquinas-and-trent-part-2/
Accordingly the privation of original justice, whereby the will was made subject to God, is the formal element in original sin; while every other disorder of the soul’s powers, is a kind of material element in respect of original sin. Now the inordinateness of the other powers of the soul consists chiefly in their turning inordinately to mutable good; which inordinateness may be called by the general name of concupiscence. Hence original sin is concupiscence, materially, but privation of original justice, formally.
Here Aquinas draws his conclusions. The form of original sin is the privation of original justice, whereby the will was made subject to God. The matter of original sin is the other disorders of the souls’ powers, namely, the disordered inclinations of the soul’s lower powers. But the name given to the inordinateness of the lower powers of the soul is concupiscence. Therefore, formally original sin is the privation of original justice, but materially original sin is concupiscence. The importance of this conclusion will be seen in Calvin’s response to the fifth paragraph of the Fifth Session of the Council of Trent.
from the Catholic/Lutheran Joint Declaration http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html :
30.Catholics hold that the grace of Jesus Christ imparted in baptism takes away all that is sin "in the proper sense" and that is "worthy of damnation" (Rom 8:1).[16] There does, however, remain in the person an inclination (concupiscence) which comes from sin and presses toward sin. Since, according to Catholic conviction, human sins always involve a personal element and since this element is lacking in this inclination, Catholics do not see this inclination as sin in an authentic sense. They do not thereby deny that this inclination does not correspond to God's original design for humanity and that it is objectively in contradiction to God and remains one's enemy in lifelong struggle. Grateful for deliverance by Christ, they underscore that this inclination in contradiction to God does not merit the punishment of eternal death[17] and does not separate the justified person from God. But when individuals voluntarily separate themselves from God, it is not enough to return to observing the commandments, for they must receive pardon and peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation through the word of forgiveness imparted to them in virtue of God's reconciling work in Christ. [See Sources for section 4.4].
see also comment 54 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/03/aquinas-and-trent-part-7/#comment-61329
from the Catholic/Lutheran Joint Declaration http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html :
30.Catholics hold that the grace of Jesus Christ imparted in baptism takes away all that is sin "in the proper sense" and that is "worthy of damnation" (Rom 8:1).[16] There does, however, remain in the person an inclination (concupiscence) which comes from sin and presses toward sin. Since, according to Catholic conviction, human sins always involve a personal element and since this element is lacking in this inclination, Catholics do not see this inclination as sin in an authentic sense. They do not thereby deny that this inclination does not correspond to God's original design for humanity and that it is objectively in contradiction to God and remains one's enemy in lifelong struggle. Grateful for deliverance by Christ, they underscore that this inclination in contradiction to God does not merit the punishment of eternal death[17] and does not separate the justified person from God. But when individuals voluntarily separate themselves from God, it is not enough to return to observing the commandments, for they must receive pardon and peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation through the word of forgiveness imparted to them in virtue of God's reconciling work in Christ. [See Sources for section 4.4].
see also comment 54 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/03/aquinas-and-trent-part-7/#comment-61329
No comments:
Post a Comment