Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Summa I.95.1: a couple of questions

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Scuiry
    I do not know if this addresses your question but I am not sure it is correct to say that sanctifying grace existed prior to the Cross and Resurrection. It is
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 26, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I do not know if this addresses your question but I am not sure it is
      correct to say that sanctifying grace existed prior to the Cross and
      Resurrection. It is only by this grace that we participate in the
      indwelling of the Spirit. But this is technical. There has to be a
      difference between the righteous figures of the OT who were not
      redeemed until the Resurrection, and those who came later who
      received this grace.

      I think the constant motion of the will is simply an argument that we
      could not consent before we existed. Aquinas says it happening at the
      instant of our creation is consistent with that understanding, i.e.,
      the will could be oriented toward God at the instant of our creation
      just as the Virgin Mary was immaculate from the moment of her
      conception.

      Daniel
      --- In aquinas@yahoogroups.com, Richard Reinhardt <diary04042004@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > I was reading St. Thomas on the question "Whether the first man was
      created in grace," (I.95.1) and came across a couple of things that
      weren't clear to me.
      >
      > What's the difference between being gifted with the Holy Spirit
      and possessing the Holy Spirit?
      >
      > Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (QQ. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu.
      123) [*Work of an anonymous
      > author, among the supposititious works of St. Augustine]
      that "Adam did not possess the Holy
      > Ghost." But whoever possesses grace has the Holy Ghost. Therefore
      Adam was not created in grace.
      >
      > Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says in the same passage, it
      is not disputed that Adam,
      > like other just souls, was in some degree gifted with the Holy
      Ghost; but "he did not possess the
      > Holy Ghost, as the faithful possess Him now," who are admitted to
      eternal happiness directly after
      > death.
      >
      >
      > I don't understand how the fact that the motion of the will is
      not continuous has any bearing on this issue:
      >
      > Objection 5: Further, the reception of grace requires the consent
      of the recipient, since thereby
      > a kind of spiritual marriage takes place between God and the
      soul. But consent presupposes existence.
      > Therefore man did not receive grace in the first moment of his
      creation.
      > Reply to Objection 5: As the motion of the will is not continuous
      there is nothing against the first man
      > having consented to grace even in the first moment of his
      existence.
      >
      > Richard
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • John Strong
      Yes, in the state of innocence, our first parents did enjoy sanctifying grace. With the Fall they lost both sanctifying grace and the praeternatural gifts.
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 27, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes, in the state of innocence, our first parents did enjoy sanctifying
        grace. With the Fall they lost both sanctifying grace and the praeternatural
        gifts. Christ restored sanctifying grace but not the praeternatural gifts.

        Blessings in your direction,

        John Strong



        From: aquinas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:aquinas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
        Daniel Scuiry
        Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 6:29 PM
        To: aquinas@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [aquinas] Re: Summa I.95.1: a couple of questions




        I do not know if this addresses your question but I am not sure it is
        correct to say that sanctifying grace existed prior to the Cross and
        Resurrection. It is only by this grace that we participate in the
        indwelling of the Spirit. But this is technical. There has to be a
        difference between the righteous figures of the OT who were not
        redeemed until the Resurrection, and those who came later who
        received this grace.

        I think the constant motion of the will is simply an argument that we
        could not consent before we existed. Aquinas says it happening at the
        instant of our creation is consistent with that understanding, i.e.,
        the will could be oriented toward God at the instant of our creation
        just as the Virgin Mary was immaculate from the moment of her
        conception.

        Daniel
        --- In aquinas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:aquinas%40yahoogroups.com> , Richard
        Reinhardt <diary04042004@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > I was reading St. Thomas on the question "Whether the first man was
        created in grace," (I.95.1) and came across a couple of things that
        weren't clear to me.
        >
        > What's the difference between being gifted with the Holy Spirit
        and possessing the Holy Spirit?
        >
        > Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (QQ. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu.
        123) [*Work of an anonymous
        > author, among the supposititious works of St. Augustine]
        that "Adam did not possess the Holy
        > Ghost." But whoever possesses grace has the Holy Ghost. Therefore
        Adam was not created in grace.
        >
        > Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says in the same passage, it
        is not disputed that Adam,
        > like other just souls, was in some degree gifted with the Holy
        Ghost; but "he did not possess the
        > Holy Ghost, as the faithful possess Him now," who are admitted to
        eternal happiness directly after
        > death.
        >
        >
        > I don't understand how the fact that the motion of the will is
        not continuous has any bearing on this issue:
        >
        > Objection 5: Further, the reception of grace requires the consent
        of the recipient, since thereby
        > a kind of spiritual marriage takes place between God and the
        soul. But consent presupposes existence.
        > Therefore man did not receive grace in the first moment of his
        creation.
        > Reply to Objection 5: As the motion of the will is not continuous
        there is nothing against the first man
        > having consented to grace even in the first moment of his
        existence.
        >
        > Richard
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Richard Reinhardt
        I don t so how it could be otherwise. After all, sanctifying grace is a renewal of being in G-d s love, and since G-d s love is constant, the only thing that
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 28, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          I don't so how it could be otherwise. After all, sanctifying grace is a renewal of being in G-d's love, and since G-d's love is constant, the only thing that separates us from that renewal of being is sin, i.e., our turning away from it. Since Adam was sinless before the Fall, he must have dwelt in G-d's love, i.e., he must have enjoyed sanctifying grace.

          RIchard

          John Strong <pluviosilla@...> wrote:
          Yes, in the state of innocence, our first parents did enjoy sanctifying
          grace. With the Fall they lost both sanctifying grace and the praeternatural
          gifts. Christ restored sanctifying grace but not the praeternatural gifts.

          Blessings in your direction,

          John Strong

          From: aquinas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:aquinas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
          Daniel Scuiry
          Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 6:29 PM
          To: aquinas@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [aquinas] Re: Summa I.95.1: a couple of questions

          I do not know if this addresses your question but I am not sure it is
          correct to say that sanctifying grace existed prior to the Cross and
          Resurrection. It is only by this grace that we participate in the
          indwelling of the Spirit. But this is technical. There has to be a
          difference between the righteous figures of the OT who were not
          redeemed until the Resurrection, and those who came later who
          received this grace.

          I think the constant motion of the will is simply an argument that we
          could not consent before we existed. Aquinas says it happening at the
          instant of our creation is consistent with that understanding, i.e.,
          the will could be oriented toward God at the instant of our creation
          just as the Virgin Mary was immaculate from the moment of her
          conception.

          Daniel
          --- In aquinas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:aquinas%40yahoogroups.com> , Richard
          Reinhardt <diary04042004@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > I was reading St. Thomas on the question "Whether the first man was
          created in grace," (I.95.1) and came across a couple of things that
          weren't clear to me.
          >
          > What's the difference between being gifted with the Holy Spirit
          and possessing the Holy Spirit?
          >
          > Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (QQ. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu.
          123) [*Work of an anonymous
          > author, among the supposititious works of St. Augustine]
          that "Adam did not possess the Holy
          > Ghost." But whoever possesses grace has the Holy Ghost. Therefore
          Adam was not created in grace.
          >
          > Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says in the same passage, it
          is not disputed that Adam,
          > like other just souls, was in some degree gifted with the Holy
          Ghost; but "he did not possess the
          > Holy Ghost, as the faithful possess Him now," who are admitted to
          eternal happiness directly after
          > death.
          >
          >
          > I don't understand how the fact that the motion of the will is
          not continuous has any bearing on this issue:
          >
          > Objection 5: Further, the reception of grace requires the consent
          of the recipient, since thereby
          > a kind of spiritual marriage takes place between God and the
          soul. But consent presupposes existence.
          > Therefore man did not receive grace in the first moment of his
          creation.
          > Reply to Objection 5: As the motion of the will is not continuous
          there is nothing against the first man
          > having consented to grace even in the first moment of his
          existence.
          >
          > Richard
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • John Strong
          Well, yes, but as I understand it, theologians have thought up a theoretical state called the State of Pure Nature in which our first parents (Adam and Eve)
          Message 4 of 6 , Feb 28, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Well, yes, but as I understand it, theologians have thought up a theoretical
            state called the "State of Pure Nature" in which our first parents (Adam and
            Eve) would still be considered a good creation, even if they did not enjoy
            the gift of sanctifying grace and in spite of their concupiscent condition.
            Concupiscence is not the same thing as sin in Catholic theology, although I
            think maybe it is in some non-Catholic theological systems.



            From: aquinas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:aquinas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
            Richard Reinhardt
            Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:11 AM
            To: aquinas@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [aquinas] Re: Summa I.95.1: a couple of questions



            I don't so how it could be otherwise. After all, sanctifying grace is a
            renewal of being in G-d's love, and since G-d's love is constant, the only
            thing that separates us from that renewal of being is sin, i.e., our turning
            away from it. Since Adam was sinless before the Fall, he must have dwelt in
            G-d's love, i.e., he must have enjoyed sanctifying grace.

            RIchard

            John Strong <pluviosilla@... <mailto:pluviosilla%40gmail.com> > wrote:
            Yes, in the state of innocence, our first parents did enjoy sanctifying
            grace. With the Fall they lost both sanctifying grace and the praeternatural
            gifts. Christ restored sanctifying grace but not the praeternatural gifts.

            Blessings in your direction,

            John Strong

            From: aquinas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:aquinas%40yahoogroups.com>
            [mailto:aquinas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:aquinas%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
            Behalf Of
            Daniel Scuiry
            Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 6:29 PM
            To: aquinas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:aquinas%40yahoogroups.com>
            Subject: [aquinas] Re: Summa I.95.1: a couple of questions

            I do not know if this addresses your question but I am not sure it is
            correct to say that sanctifying grace existed prior to the Cross and
            Resurrection. It is only by this grace that we participate in the
            indwelling of the Spirit. But this is technical. There has to be a
            difference between the righteous figures of the OT who were not
            redeemed until the Resurrection, and those who came later who
            received this grace.

            I think the constant motion of the will is simply an argument that we
            could not consent before we existed. Aquinas says it happening at the
            instant of our creation is consistent with that understanding, i.e.,
            the will could be oriented toward God at the instant of our creation
            just as the Virgin Mary was immaculate from the moment of her
            conception.

            Daniel
            --- In aquinas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:aquinas%40yahoogroups.com>
            <mailto:aquinas%40yahoogroups.com> , Richard
            Reinhardt <diary04042004@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > I was reading St. Thomas on the question "Whether the first man was
            created in grace," (I.95.1) and came across a couple of things that
            weren't clear to me.
            >
            > What's the difference between being gifted with the Holy Spirit
            and possessing the Holy Spirit?
            >
            > Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (QQ. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu.
            123) [*Work of an anonymous
            > author, among the supposititious works of St. Augustine]
            that "Adam did not possess the Holy
            > Ghost." But whoever possesses grace has the Holy Ghost. Therefore
            Adam was not created in grace.
            >
            > Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says in the same passage, it
            is not disputed that Adam,
            > like other just souls, was in some degree gifted with the Holy
            Ghost; but "he did not possess the
            > Holy Ghost, as the faithful possess Him now," who are admitted to
            eternal happiness directly after
            > death.
            >
            >
            > I don't understand how the fact that the motion of the will is
            not continuous has any bearing on this issue:
            >
            > Objection 5: Further, the reception of grace requires the consent
            of the recipient, since thereby
            > a kind of spiritual marriage takes place between God and the
            soul. But consent presupposes existence.
            > Therefore man did not receive grace in the first moment of his
            creation.
            > Reply to Objection 5: As the motion of the will is not continuous
            there is nothing against the first man
            > having consented to grace even in the first moment of his
            existence.
            >
            > Richard
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Daniel Scuiry
            I am not trying to argue for or against Aquinas position or the Catholic teaching. I m just trying to remember what Aquinas said on this and yes, it seems
            Message 5 of 6 , Mar 4, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              I am not trying to argue for or against Aquinas' position or the
              Catholic teaching. I'm just trying to remember what Aquinas said on this
              and yes, it seems that "pure nature" is correct. It is an interesting,
              almost puzzling, concept because it is very different from how we think
              of "natural" today. "Pure Nature" was a state of natural perfection or
              quasi-superhuman existence. It did not involve all the intellectual,
              moral and sensual vulnerabilities to which we are subject now. It is
              more difficult for us to learn, to do rightly well, and to stay healthy.
              But these are all conditions of nature per se, not of grace.



              Daniel





              ________________________________

              From: aquinas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:aquinas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
              Of John Strong
              Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 4:55 AM
              To: aquinas@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [aquinas] Re: Summa I.95.1: a couple of questions



              Well, yes, but as I understand it, theologians have thought up a
              theoretical
              state called the "State of Pure Nature" in which our first parents (Adam
              and
              Eve) would still be considered a good creation, even if they did not
              enjoy
              the gift of sanctifying grace and in spite of their concupiscent
              condition.
              Concupiscence is not the same thing as sin in Catholic theology,
              although I
              think maybe it is in some non-Catholic theological systems.

              From: aquinas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:aquinas%40yahoogroups.com>
              [mailto:aquinas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:aquinas%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
              Behalf Of
              Richard Reinhardt
              Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:11 AM
              To: aquinas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:aquinas%40yahoogroups.com>
              Subject: RE: [aquinas] Re: Summa I.95.1: a couple of questions

              I don't so how it could be otherwise. After all, sanctifying grace is a
              renewal of being in G-d's love, and since G-d's love is constant, the
              only
              thing that separates us from that renewal of being is sin, i.e., our
              turning
              away from it. Since Adam was sinless before the Fall, he must have dwelt
              in
              G-d's love, i.e., he must have enjoyed sanctifying grace.

              RIchard

              John Strong <pluviosilla@... <mailto:pluviosilla%40gmail.com>
              <mailto:pluviosilla%40gmail.com> > wrote:
              Yes, in the state of innocence, our first parents did enjoy sanctifying
              grace. With the Fall they lost both sanctifying grace and the
              praeternatural
              gifts. Christ restored sanctifying grace but not the praeternatural
              gifts.

              Blessings in your direction,

              John Strong

              From: aquinas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:aquinas%40yahoogroups.com>
              <mailto:aquinas%40yahoogroups.com>
              [mailto:aquinas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:aquinas%40yahoogroups.com>
              <mailto:aquinas%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
              Behalf Of
              Daniel Scuiry
              Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 6:29 PM
              To: aquinas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:aquinas%40yahoogroups.com>
              <mailto:aquinas%40yahoogroups.com>
              Subject: [aquinas] Re: Summa I.95.1: a couple of questions

              I do not know if this addresses your question but I am not sure it is
              correct to say that sanctifying grace existed prior to the Cross and
              Resurrection. It is only by this grace that we participate in the
              indwelling of the Spirit. But this is technical. There has to be a
              difference between the righteous figures of the OT who were not
              redeemed until the Resurrection, and those who came later who
              received this grace.

              I think the constant motion of the will is simply an argument that we
              could not consent before we existed. Aquinas says it happening at the
              instant of our creation is consistent with that understanding, i.e.,
              the will could be oriented toward God at the instant of our creation
              just as the Virgin Mary was immaculate from the moment of her
              conception.

              Daniel
              --- In aquinas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:aquinas%40yahoogroups.com>
              <mailto:aquinas%40yahoogroups.com>
              <mailto:aquinas%40yahoogroups.com> , Richard
              Reinhardt <diary04042004@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > I was reading St. Thomas on the question "Whether the first man was
              created in grace," (I.95.1) and came across a couple of things that
              weren't clear to me.
              >
              > What's the difference between being gifted with the Holy Spirit
              and possessing the Holy Spirit?
              >
              > Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (QQ. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu.
              123) [*Work of an anonymous
              > author, among the supposititious works of St. Augustine]
              that "Adam did not possess the Holy
              > Ghost." But whoever possesses grace has the Holy Ghost. Therefore
              Adam was not created in grace.
              >
              > Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says in the same passage, it
              is not disputed that Adam,
              > like other just souls, was in some degree gifted with the Holy
              Ghost; but "he did not possess the
              > Holy Ghost, as the faithful possess Him now," who are admitted to
              eternal happiness directly after
              > death.
              >
              >
              > I don't understand how the fact that the motion of the will is
              not continuous has any bearing on this issue:
              >
              > Objection 5: Further, the reception of grace requires the consent
              of the recipient, since thereby
              > a kind of spiritual marriage takes place between God and the
              soul. But consent presupposes existence.
              > Therefore man did not receive grace in the first moment of his
              creation.
              > Reply to Objection 5: As the motion of the will is not continuous
              there is nothing against the first man
              > having consented to grace even in the first moment of his
              existence.
              >
              > Richard
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.