Prima Secundae
Lecture 207: The Transmission of Original Sin and Nature

Transcript
================================================================================

the Son, the Holy Spirit. Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, guardian angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds. Lord, illumine our images. Can't be as bad as he is. No matter how you try, he's got the first place there in that. Moreover, whoever sins mortally becomes a slave, huh, of the devil. According to that of John, chapter 8, verse 34, who does sin, becomes a slave of sin. And to that, someone is, what? Addicted to servitude by whom he has been, what? Overcome. As is said in the second epistle of Peter, chapter 2. Therefore, whoever does sin has been overcome by the, what? Devil. The premises don't seem to be leading to that conclusion, do they? Anyway. Moreover, Gregory says that the sin of the devil is irreparable, because he fell with no one, what? Suggesting, huh? If, therefore, some men sin through free will, with no one's suggestion, their sin would be irremediable, which is clearly false. Therefore, all human sins are suggested by the devil. It is an argument. Again, this is what is said in the book on ecclesiastical dogmas, huh? For not all of our thoughts, our bad thoughts, are excited by the devil. But sometimes they emerge, huh? From the motion of our own, what? Free will, huh? Judgment. So you had some kind of a denziger there. Thomas refers to this book on the ecclesiastical dogmas. I'd never seen the work itself, though. My footnote here, it has a reference to Genevieve's song, the silenus, the sila, check of 494. So let's go back a long way. Answer, it should be said that occasionality, I write, that's like Pratchett in a sense, and indirectly, the devil is the cause of all our sins, insofar as he induced the first man to sinning, from whose sin so much has vitiated human nature that all of us, I, are, what? Clined, huh? To sinning, huh? Just as he is said to be the cause of the combustion of the wood, huh? Who dries out the wood, huh? From which it follows that it is easily sent and kindled, yeah. But directly, he is not the cause of all human sins, in the sense that he, what, persuades each sin, Which origin proves from this that even if the devil were not, man would have the desire of food and venereal things and such things, which could be disordered unless they were, what, ordered by reason, to which, what, which is subject to free will, huh? That he, reason, ordered these things. Look before and after, right, huh? So the first, it should be said then that the multitude of demons, as far as Dionysius is talking, is a cause of all our evils according to their first, what, origin, huh? That's where all the trouble began, huh? The second should be said that not only does one become the servant as the one, yeah, but also the one that he voluntarily subjects himself to, huh? That should become a servant to save the woman, right? And in this way, he becomes a servant of the devil who sins from his own, what, motion, huh? To third, it should be said that the sin of the devil was irremediable because he sinned no one suggesting, right, huh? Nor did he have any proneness to sinning caused by some, what, receding suggestion, which cannot be said of any, what, cannot be said, yeah, can be said of any sin of man, right? Let the devil off a little bit there. I'm just a little bit off. Now we turn to question 81. Then we're not to consider about the cause of sin on the side of man, right? Since man is a cause of sin to another man by suggesting in an outward way, just as the devil, right, since he's like the devil. I was noticing a deletical place there, and not the last one, the one before that, the little newsletter you send out. Well, the man argued was that if the devil tempted even Christ, then he would tempt us, right? And the way I understood that was that the devil doesn't like to tempt someone who doesn't follow his suggestion, right? Doesn't like to be overcome in that sense, right? So if he would try to, what, seduce Christ or to tempt Christ, to turn the stones into bread and come down from the cross and so on, right? And he would say, we were probably more susceptible to his suggestions, right? He would do that, right? Well, that's kind of like, what's the deletical place there? But the predicate is more apt to belong to one subject than another, and in fact, it belonged to the lesser one than more so to the, what? Other one, right? So if the devil is more apt to tempt us than Christ, but in fact he does tempt Christ, right? Then it's probable that he would tempt us, right? So using a deletical place there, right? I don't know who thought that deletical place up, but I've used to it, but it's a good one, huh? Okay. Since then man is the cause of sin to another man by outwardly suggesting, huh? Or Shakespeare says, sweet, suggesting love. Just as a devil, huh? Has a special way of causing sin. Oh, oh, oh, okay. As a devil, by suggesting certainly. He has a special way of causing sin to another by what? Origin, huh? Whence will not to speak about original sin, right? So why is it called original sin? Because it's original sin? The first sin? Or is it because it's a sin that we contract by our origin from Adam? Huh? Maybe both? I think both. About which three things occur to be considered. First, about its being carried over, right? It's transmission. Secondly, about its very nature or essence. And third, about the subject of it and what it is. So this first question is about the transfer of it. About the first, one asks five things. First, whether the first sin of man is derived by origin in his posterity, right? Second, whether all the other sins of the first parent are also of our other parents, huh? Are derived by origin and posterity, huh? In which case, the human race will be getting progressively worse as we go on, huh? Third, whether original sin is derived to all who are generated from Adam by way of his seed, right? Fourth, whether it would be derived to those who were formed miraculously from some part of the human body, if God should do like what he did with Eve, right? And then fifth, whether if the woman had what sinned, but the man not sinning, huh? Would the original sin be to do this? When I was young there, there, Nativity Parish there in St. Paul, Minnesota, we were a big shot parish there, you know, big impressive parish, so we had the auxiliary bishop there, huh? And he resided in there. But the lady's asking him one time, putting him down on this question, right? If Adam had not agreed to eat the apple and so on with Eve, would we have attracted the original sin? He'd say, no, we have none of it, you know? This is what Thomas Christ will say in this article, by the bishop, you know, and she gets there, you know, because kind of, you know, the old men and women who fight, you know, huh? So it's really, man is responsible for this in some sense, you know, even though a woman, you know, tempted him, right? I mean, she, he blames her and she blames the seed, the serpent, and so on. Yeah, yeah. Very saintly man, that bishop, and sort of funny, you know, and he was giving out communion, and there'd be another priest giving out communion, and all the ladies are rushing over to receive communion from the bishop, like it's better than waiting to receive the bishop than just a mere priest over there, you know, because of how he's so holy, you know, and so on. I remember when we had six months in just, hey, go fishing during the day. Came back to the New Year's Eve, got a new preacher, got a show on the priest, and he was blessed, I was a little guy, he was blessed by Rosie, would you want the bishop to bless him? Is it any better? Isn't it better that way? He said, well, yeah, it's all good. Other time, we used to get, usually in a week or so in July, there would get some really atrocious weather, right? It would get really hot, you know, and then Minnesota was kind of sticky, you know, it wasn't just hot, like, you know, hot, dry hot, but it was wet, hot. It really, really was, people were really uncomfortable, you know. The bishop was saying, that's because of our sins that we're getting this weather. The same bishop was saying that to us in the pulpit. The first one goes forward thus, it seems that the first sin of the first parent are not, what, transferred to others by origin, right? For it says in the prophet Ezekiel, chapter 18, the son does not carry the, what, iniquity of the father, huh? But he would carry it if he contracted it from his, what? If he contracted it from him, right? Therefore, no one draws from any of his parents by origin some, what, sin. That's a pretty interesting argument, huh? Moreover, an accident, huh, is distinguished from a substance, is not, what, transferred by origin, right? Unless the subject is transferred. And an accident does not go from one subject to another subject. But the rational soul, which is a subject of guilt, is not, what? Or, yeah, even Aristotle saw this, right, in the book on the generation of animals, right? Therefore, neither is, what, any guilt, huh? Able to be carried over through origin, huh? Moreover, everything that is carried over through human origin is caused from the seed, huh? But the seed is not able to cause sin in that it lacks the rational part of the soul, which alone can be the cause of sin. And therefore, no sin can be, what, passed on through origin, huh? Moreover, what is more perfect in nature is more, what, powerful to acting. But perfect flesh cannot, what, infect the soul united to it. Otherwise, the soul could not be, what? Yeah, original sin, well, it is united to flesh, right? Therefore, much less can seed infect the, what, soul, huh? More of the philosopher himself says in the third book of the Ethics that an account of nature, right, huh? That an account of nature, right, huh? That an account of nature, right, huh? That an account of nature, right, huh? That an account of nature, right, huh? That an account of nature, right, huh? Ugly or filthy or something? Yeah, it's criticized for being that way, huh? But to those who are so on account of negligence and neglect or something, huh? Laziness. Those are, however, said to be by nature, what? Evil, ugly, who have, what? Turpitude from their origin. Therefore, nothing that is by origin is, what? To be criticized, huh? In order to be a sin, huh? Yeah, so can you be criticized for having leprosy from your parents or something? For Ebola or something else from your parents? Yeah. Against this is what the apostle says, huh? In Romans chapter 5. That to one man, huh? Sin came into this world, huh? He's going to get a lot of ribbing next to the world, I think, Adam, right? What do you think? Billions and billions of people could have been like, thanks. It's got to be more embarrassing than Peter's denial, right? Which could not be understood to be by way of imitation, right, huh? On account of what is said in chapter 2 of the Book of Wisdom, that by the envy of the devil, death came into the, what, world, huh? It means, therefore, that the origin of the first man, sin, came into the world, huh? Thomas answers this by way of faith here, huh? I answer, it should be said that according to the Catholic faith, huh? It should be held, huh? That the first sin of the first, what, man is transferred by origin to his, what, austerity, huh? It was come after. On account of which also boys, right, soon, as soon as born, right, huh? Are carried to, what, baptism, right, huh? As a word to be washed away from some infection of, what, guilt, huh? And the contrary is of the heresy of the Pelagians, huh? Do you think the Protestants follow that? I wonder or not. But he said, contrary to this is the heresy of the Pelagians, as is clear to Augustine in his many books written against them, huh? My cousin down used to have their volumen of Augustine's works there, you know, and I'd go to the house there, and I'd always be reading these things on Pelagians, and on the grace in general, and Cessna Grace, the good works, too. Augustine had a lot of little works on that, huh? But to investigate in what way the sin of the first parent was, is able to be, what, passed on to posterity, the origin, huh? They proceeded in, what, diverse people proceeded in diverse ways, huh? For some, considering that the subject of sin is the rational soul, right, huh? They laid down that with the seed, the rational soul is, what, passed on, huh? So that from the, what, infected soul, right, huh? There seemed to be infected, what, souls derived, huh? Others, repudiating this as erroneous, right, as being mistaken, attempted to show in what way the guilt of the first parents was, what, passed on to the offspring, even if the soul was not, what, passed on. So I didn't get, see, the dog gets his soul from his parents, right? I don't get my soul from my parents, huh? So I thank my God for creating my soul, right? I thank God for giving me my body to my parents, but not for giving me my soul through my parents, huh? Give me the body that he put the soul in. So some repuding this as erroneous, huh? Attempt to show in what way the guilt of the soul of the parents is carried over to the children, offspring, even if the soul is not, what, passed on, huh? Through this that the defects of the body are passed over by the parents to the, what, offspring, just as if a leper generates a, what, leper, right, huh? And a, what, what's that, guys? A gouty, a gouty, a gouty, and... Yeah, it comes from poda, I guess, means foot, right, huh? You know, we're pedestrian, huh? Must be from the Greek, huh? On account of some corruption of the seed, huh? Although such corruption is not called, what, leprosy or gout. Since, however, the body is proportioned to the soul and the defect of the soul, redoubts, passes over into the body in the equinverso, in a similar way they say that the guilty defect of the soul is derived by, what, being passed over, by passing over the seed to the, what, child. Although the seed is not actually the subject of, what, guilt. What's he going to say here? But all these ways are insufficient, right, huh? Because given that some bodily defects are transferred from the parent, right, to the offspring by origin, and also some defects of the soul, right, consequently, right, huh, on account of the body being indisposed, right, to serve the soul, just as sometimes from the foolish, the foolish are, what, generated, huh? I won't give any examples of that. Nevertheless, this very thing that from, what, origin, when it's some defect, would seem to, what, exclude the notion of, what, guilt. A reason of which, or the definition of which, is that it'd be something, what, voluntary, huh? Whence also, it being posited, huh, that the rational soul was passed on, right, huh? From this, that the infection of the soul of the offspring was not in his will, it would lose the notion of guilt, obligating one to some kind of, what, punishment, huh? Because, as the philosopher says in the third book of the ethics, no one is criticized for being born blind, right? But more, one feels mercy and sorrow for him, right? I've got to proceed here. And, you know, what's the thing we say, huh? More correcting to the angel? Rouse us to consider more correctly? So, Thomas' great angel there is, you know, rousing him to consider more correctly, right, huh? And therefore, by another way, one ought to proceed, saying that all men who are born from Adam, right, can be considered as, what? One man. Insofar as they agree in, what? Nature. Which they get from their first parent. According as in civil things, all who are one community are regarded as were one body. And the hope And the hope community as one what man porphyry says that he said he often quotes this by the participation of species many men are what one man thus therefore many men derive from adam are as it were many members of what one body now the act of one member of the body for example of the hand is not voluntary by the will of the what and itself but by the will of the soul which first moves the what members whence the homicide that the hand commits is not imputed to the hand for as a sin if one considers the hand by itself is divided from the what body but it's imputed to it insofar as as something of the man who is moved by the first moving principle of man's will thus therefore the disorder which is in this man generated from adam is not voluntary by the will of himself but by the will of his first what parent who moves by the motion of generation all who are derived from his origin just as the will of the soul moves all the members to act we come back to this and he said you know because the in aristotle of course the man is supposed to be the active principle of the white woman just the the passive right that's coming again whence the sin which is thus what derived from the first parent in his first parent in his posterity is said to be original just as a sin and that is from the souls derived to the members of the body is called what actual right and just as the actual sin which is committed through the what member or part of the body is not a sin of that member except insofar as that of the what man himself on account of which it is called a human what sin so the original sin is not the sin of this person except insofar as this person receives nature from his first what parent whence it is called a sin of what nature according to that of ephesians chapter 2 we were by nature the sons of anger this is a tough doctor who can accept this right but that's the way thomas explains it and agrees with what the way the way scripture speaks of it certain what what's the proportion there right now he's saying that adam is to us a little bit like what my will is to my hand right so when i strike you in anger right i shouldn't you know or try to kill you or something you know let's see my hand is committing a sin there right insofar as it's moved by my what will right in the case original sin it's insofar as i'm moved by what adam right i was thinking of this um just the other day somebody asked me about it and one way i was trying to think about it when i read of course yeah yeah yeah but i thought it's kind of like maybe in comparison maybe not is when your elected official does something yeah i'd say he's representing all of us so what he does you could say well they elected him we didn't elect adam but yeah what he does is he's acting in our name yeah when the president declares war in some country yeah you know say don't say the president declared war the united states declares war right that's the headlines so let's say right so that he's acting in the in the name that he's representing all of the people that we didn't elect adam as the other way around representative he's theoretically acting in our name yeah he's just not the first in the series or something he's more than the first in the series yeah he's like an older man represents the whole nation and that's what as far as i understand that's what theologians will say too that he had knowledge that he was acting that way he didn't just oh you mean oh my kids oh no i didn't know that i wouldn't have done it you know nevertheless original sin is a sin in a different sense than the mortal or venial sin these actual sins right now it's not a nivocal over sin right now i'm sorry people have a hard time understanding this though right now to the first therefore it should be said and that the first objection that was interesting from ezekiel to the first therefore it should be said that the son is said to not carry the sin of the father because he is not punished for the sin of the father unless he be partaking of the what the guilt and thus it is in the thing proposed done for is derived by origin guilt from the father to the son just as actual sin is derived by what imitation right it's not imitation this is by origin so you partake of the guilt of him but by nature to second it should be said that although the soul is not what passed on right because the power of the seed is not able to cause the rational soul but it moves nevertheless to what the disposition huh for it whence through the power of the seed is what passed over human nature from the parent to the offspring and together with the nature the infection of the what nature so human nature with this you know original justice as a gift right free gift of god was given to adam to be passed over with the nature to all his offspring right and so when he lost that right and then he passed over the nature without that gift of original justice huh and that's why i'm so disordered right you too well human nature though involves the body as well as the soul right huh yeah a privation that you locate in the rational part of man a rational soul then it'll seem that privation is not coming from well we'll see if we get into the other question what the subject of original sin is right but you can say that our nature is only passed on through what our parents right because god doesn't create the soul unless our body is there right body is part of our nature right so our nature is receiving our nature without that original gift huh yeah but you know you get this you get the appearance of how how much human nature is united you know we are united by having the same nature i've made all these you know kind of marches and riots now you know and it's kind of funny today you know they're hearing signs saying uh i've seen them on tv and so on uh black lives matter that's the slogan they have right black lives matter right see okay and uh so anyway um the president was at smith college i guess i guess right she was writing some kind of public letter to her students now kind of thing and she happened to say in there that all lives matter right well she got all kinds of revolt because it's a revolt because it's a saying all lives matter right you Because this was detracting from, you know, the slogan that black lives matter, right? And you want to even sense the fact that black lives matter, you know? And so when you say all lives matter, you're kind of diminishing the fact that black matters. So she had to write, she had to apologize to her students for writing that all lives matter. I'm sorry, some of you matter, some of you don't. I'm surprised that she would say that anyway, because then you would have to say the end. Yeah, I mean, she should say at least, all lives matter, but especially black lives matter. All lives matter, but some lives matter more than others. Yeah. We're all equal, but some are equal, yeah. This goes back to what you said that foolish men generate foolish children. Yeah. Foolish teachers generate foolish students. Amen. Quince, to the power of the seed, going on sequinum there, human nature is what? Passed over from the parent to the child, and together with nature, the what? Infection of nature, right? From which it comes about that the one who is born, right? Is a consort, right? Of the guilt of the first parent, that nature, right? From him, because of the fact that it gets his nature from him, right? Through the generative motion, right? In the same way, you know, by this analogy, right? That the hand partakes of the, what? Act of the will, right? But here it's not the will, but nature, right? It's called a pecatum nature. We were by nature, we were by nature, the sons of anger, as St. Paul says. It's called a pecatum nature. To the third, it should be said that though guilt is not an act in the seed, huh? It is nevertheless there by virtue, what? In virtue, by human nature, which such guilt, what? That follows, huh? To the fourth, it should be said that the seed is a beginning, source of generation, right? Which is a proper act of nature, serving for its, what? Propagation. And therefore, the soul is more infected by seed than by flesh already, what? Perfected, which is now already determined to, what? One person, huh? To the fifth, it should be said, huh? You can see our style here now. That that which is by origin is not, what? If it be considered, who is, what? The one who is born as such or by himself, right? But if it is considered insofar as it refers to some beginning, then it is able to be, what? Yeah. Just as someone who is born, right? Suffers the ignominy of the genus from the guilt of who's, what? He's caused, right? He's caused, right? He's caused, right? He's caused, right?