Cam42 Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 [quote]Is our nature in itself inclined to sin? You say not not totally. My response to that is, no at all. Nature per se is not inclined to sin, but our nature suffers the wound of loss of, loss of state, deprivation, of original justice.[/quote] That is opposed to CCC #405 and 418. [quote][b]It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature[/b] has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, [b]and inclined to sin[/b] - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence".[/quote] Sorry.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 All that I can say is that you are simply missing the nuance between nature in itself, and that which affects it. Grace builds on nature, when we lost that state of Original Holiness, we did not loose our nature (it was wounded I have said that), but we did loose something that was meant to be there on top of out nature. Mary's nature was pefected, but it was still a human nature as you and I have. Grace perfected it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 8 2005, 11:21 PM']Whatever....if you don't want to talk about the theological aspect, that is fine. [right][snapback]783266[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I bowed out (a bit indignant that you had carried on a couple pages of conversation without disclosing your obviously distinct interpretation of the question) after thet point because I agree with you. Both aspects are theological aspects though. grace freed her, she had the capacity to turn against it as a human being, she did not and in a sense could not have sinned (but I would more say "WOULD not have sinned" would be a more accurate description of what you're describing) but you have also admitted to agreeing with what everyone else was really saying-- that Mary had the human capacity for sin. so I bowed out of the conversation because I had no disagreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 8 2005, 10:32 PM']That is opposed to CCC #405. Sorry.... [right][snapback]783277[/snapback][/right] [/quote] And so you posit that the very essence of man is inclined to sin? God punishes sin, so he punishes that which our nature is inclined to...Is that justice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 No, the broken essence of man is inclined to sin. a completed essence would not be. His nature is not intact, his nature is defficient because of original sin, and is thus inclined to sin. it is perfectly just to punish even though the fallen nature is inclined to sin, because it is in a sense humanity as a whole's fault that nature is deficient (particularly Adam's fault, but humanity's fault nonetheless) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 [quote name='Paphnutius' date='Nov 8 2005, 10:32 PM']All that I can say is that you are simply missing the nuance between nature in itself, and that which affects it. Grace builds on nature, when we lost that state of Original Holiness, we did not loose our nature (it was wounded I have said that), but we did loose something that was meant to be there on top of out nature. Mary's nature was pefected, but it was still a human nature as you and I have. Grace perfected it. [right][snapback]783278[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I am not arguing that....never have been. What I am arguing is the fact that my understanding of nature is correct. You are asserting that it is not. You are wrong. My understanding of human nature is correct. Mary's nature, because it was perfected freed her from sin. Hence, the Immaculate Conception. She could not sin, because she was excluded from sin, by free will. She chose not to sin. When she was tempted, she chose the good. This speaks to a perfected view of CCC #1732. Mary could not sin, because if she had, she could not have bourn Christ. She would not have been the perfect vessel by which the God made Man entered the world. Mary couldn't sin, precisely, because her nature was not to sin. Her nature, as has been shown time over time, is perfected through the gratia efficax. She is what we strive to be. She participates fully in the effacious grace of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 (edited) I am headed to bed now. I would simply like to point out what I have said about the tendency to sin being an absence of something, rather than that which inhers in our nature (essence as it shapes behavior). Is human nature inclined to sin? Yes if you understand human nature is lacking something that was previously there. Is human nature in itself, meaning what it means to be human, inclined or ordered to sin? I do not think so. If you like Thomisim then you know that St. Thomas says that we all seek the good. Sin is a mistaking of something of a lesser good in place of the greatest good. Man in his nature per se is ordered to God. Man's nature deprived (meaning imperfect) of grace will sin. Not that when you speak of nature being inclined to sin, you must bring up the deprivation. That is because nature in itself is good. Edited November 9, 2005 by Paphnutius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 8 2005, 10:41 PM']Mary couldn't sin, precisely, because her nature was not to sin. Her nature, as has been shown time over time, is perfected through the gratia efficax. She is what we strive to be. She participates fully in the effacious grace of God. [right][snapback]783291[/snapback][/right] [/quote] As you have it explained here is fine. I like this. It is when we get away from speaking about that original holiness and nature do I cringe. If you speak about human nature inclined to sin, you must speak about what it is lacking as you have done here. If you speak about human nature in itself being inclined to sin, I think we have problems. Also this is the definition that I ask for you citation only because it looks like a copy and paste. I still think that there is some confusion of good of nature and nature in itself, but we continue to go in circles. [quote]na·ture (nchr)  n. -- Mankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace.[/quote] Where did you get this if you do not mind me asking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 [quote name='Paphnutius' date='Nov 8 2005, 10:37 PM']And so you posit that the very essence of man is inclined to sin? God punishes sin, so he punishes that which our nature is inclined to...Is that justice? [right][snapback]783286[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Show me where I said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 [quote]I am not arguing that....never have been. What I am arguing is the fact that my understanding of nature is correct. You are asserting that it is not. You are wrong. My understanding of human nature is correct. [/quote]I could not help but laughing to myself over this. I thought it was funny, that way you expressed it that is. I am not making fun of you, but I go this image of us being two little 6 year olds going back and forth with "Yes you are," and "No your not." So let us complete this with the sticking out of the tongue. : : : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 8 2005, 10:55 PM']Show me where I said that. [right][snapback]783301[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The part about the very essence of man was rhetorical, a poor attempt at that, but mearly rhetorical. The second part about God punishing us for what our nature is inclined to is actually quite serious. You may disregard that if you so wish for it actually presumes my definition of nature vs. yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 I don't understand how come Mary couldn't have sinned if Adam could. I think I'm missing something, unless God predestines us through grace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 earlier on the thread Cam admitted Mary had the capacity for sin. that as well as his susequent explanations have led me to believe he is more saying that "Mary wouldn't have sinned".. and that in the light of eternity it's impossible that she "could" have sinned. but she held the human capacity for sin (and that's what everyone else means when they say she could have sinned) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 So what's the argument about now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 I'm not sure... umm... who is using the correct usage of nature plus more confusion where it seems to me there is actually agreement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now