가톨릭 신앙생활 Q&A 코너

질문:

창세 3,22에 보면 주 하느님께서 말씀하셨다.

“자, 사람이 선과 악을 알아 우리 가운데 하나처럼 되었으니, 이제 그가 손을 내밀어 생명 나무 열매까지 따 먹고 영원히 살게 되어서는 안 되지.”

여기서

질문 1.  "자, 사람이 선과 악을 알아 우리 가운데 하나처럼 되었으니," 라는 구절의 의미와

질문 2. "생명 나무 열매까지 따 먹고 영원히 살게 되어서는 안되지" 라는 의미가 무엇인지 알고 쉽니다..

이전 구절과 연결이 안된것 같기도 하고...암튼 전혀 감을 잡지 못하겠습니다...최대한 빨리, 조금 상세히 설명해 주시면 감사드리겠습니다....

제가 답변 주신분께 해드릴수 있는 것은 묵주기도외엔 없습니다....

----------

답변:

+ 찬미 예수님

1.
1-1. 여기를 클릭하면, 몇 년전에 전달해 드린, 질문 1 중의 "우리"에 대한 답글을 읽을 수 있습니다.

1-2. 여기를 클릭하면, 작년 7월에 이미 말씀드린 바 있는, 가톨릭 교회가 전통적으로 가르치는 "악(evil)"의 정의(definition)를 읽을 수 있습니다.

2. 질문 2에 대한 답변은, 원죄 이전에 아담과 하와가 누리고 있었던 바들이었으나 원죄의 결과로 상실하게 된 것들에 구체적으로 어떤 것들이 있는지를 그 배경으로서 좀 더 자세하게 알아야 한다는 생각입니다. 

     다들 그러하겠지만, 저 역시 요즈음 대단히 바쁜 생업 관계로, 이에 대한 답글을 마련하는 데에 좀 늦어질 것 같으며, 기다리는 동안에, 우선적으로,

여기를 클릭하면,

가해 사순 제1주일의 제1독서(창세기 2,7-7; 3,1-7), 제2독서(로마 5,12-19), 복음 말씀(마태오 4,1-11)에 대한 나바르 성경 주석서의 해설들을 읽을 수 있습니다. 이 해설들의 일부는 우리말로 번역이 되어 있습니다.  

     그리고

다음은, 질문 2에 대한 답변에 적용될 개념들에 대한 간략한 전달/안내의 글을 읽을 수 있습니다.
 
출처: 여기를 클릭십시오
[홀수 해 연중 제3주간 월요일 제1독서(히브리 9,15.24-28)에 대한 나바르 성경 주석서의 해설 중에서 제27-28절들의 해설에 주어진 "번역자 주"].

(발췌 시작)
27-28. These verses look at three basic truths of Christian belief about the last things--1) the immutable decree of death; 2) the fact that there is a judgment immediately after death; 3) the second coming of Christ, in glory.

 

27-28. 이들 절들은 다음과 같은 최후의 사물들에 관한 그리스도 사람들의 믿음
(Christian belief)에 있어서의 세 개의 기본적 진리들을 들여다 봅니다 -- 1) 죽음에  대한 불변의 천명(天命, decree), 2) 죽음 직후에 심판(즉, 사심판/개별 심판)이 있다는 사실, 3) 영광 안에서, 그리스도의 재림.

"Not to deal with sin": this phrase means that the second coming of Christ or Parousia, will not be for the purpose of redeeming men from sin but rather to bring salvation, that is, glory, to those who placed their hope in him. Christ will come into the world for a second time, but not as Redeemer, for his sacrifice has already eliminated sin once for all; rather, he will come as Judge of all. His coming "is appointed": it is as necessary as death and judgment. These three truths are closely interconnected.

 

"죄와는 상관없이": 이 구절은 그리스도의 재림(the second coming of Christ) 혹은  재림(Parousia)이 사람들을 죄로부터 구속(redeeming)할 목적으로가 아니라 그렇기는  커녕(rather) 당신께 자신들의 희망을 둔 자들에게, 구원, 즉 영광을 가져다 주기 위하여서 일 것임을 뜻합니다. 그리스도께서는 이 세상에, 당신이라는 희생 제물이 단 한 번 그리고 마지막으로(once and for all) 죄를 이미 제거하였기에(eliminate), 구속주(Redeemer)로서가 아니라, 그렇기는 커녕, 당신께서는 모두에 대한 심판관(Judge)으로서 오실 것입니다. 당신의 오심은 "정해져 있습니다": 이것은 죽음 및 심판(즉, 사심판/개별 심판) 못지않게 필연적(necessary)입니다. 이러한 세 개의 진리들은 가깝게 서로 연결되어 있습니다.

Although man is mortal, "a spiritual element survives and subsists after death, an element endowed with consciousness and will, so that the 'human self' subsists. To designate this element, the Church uses the word 'soul', the accepted term in the usage of Scripture and Tradition" (SCDF, "Letter on Certain Questions Concerning Eschatology", 17 May 1979).

 

비록 사람이 죽을 수밖에 없는 운명이나(mortal), "양심(conscience)과 의지(will)가 부여된 어떤 요소(an element)인, 어떤 영적인 요소는 잔존하고(survives) 그리고 존속하여(subsists), 그 결과로 '인간의 자아(the human self)'는 존속합니다. 바로 이 요소를 나타내기 위하여, 교회는, 성경 본문(Scripture)과 성전(Tradition, 즉 사도전승)에 있어서의 사용에 있어 받아들여진 용어인, '영혼(soul)'이라는 단어를 사용합니다" [SCDF, "Letter on Certain Questions Con cerning Eschatology", 17 May 1979].

Man, then, is made up of a spiritual and immortal soul and a corruptible body. However, when God originally endowed man with supernatural grace, he gave him additional gifts, the so-called "preternatural" gifts, which included bodily immortality. Adam's disobedience resulted in the loss of his friendship with God and the loss of this preternatural gift. From that point onwards death is "the wages of sin" (Rom 6:23), and it is to this divine decision that the text refers when it says that it "is appointed for men to die" (cf. Gen 3:19, 23; Rom 5:12). The Church has repeatedly stressed that death is a punishment; cf., for example, Pius VI, "Auctorem Fidei", prop. 1, 7: "in our present state (death) is inflicted as a just punishment for sin"; immortality was an "unmerited gift and not a natural condition". Verses 27-28 are an implicit exhortation to watchfulness (cf. also 1 Cor 7:29; Sir 14:12; and "Lumen Gentium", 48).

 

사람은, 그래서, 영적이고 불멸인 영혼과 부패하는 몸(body)으로 이루어져 있습니다. 그러나, 하느님께서 초자연적 은총(supernatural grace)을 사람에게 최초로(originally)  부여하셨을 때에, 당신께서는 그에게, 소위 말하는 "자연의 바깥에 있는(preternatural)"(**)  선물(gifts)들인, 추가적인 선물들을 주셨는데, 이 선물들은 몸의 불사(不死) 가능성(immortality)을  포함하였습니다. 아담의 불순종(Adam's disobedience)은 하느님과 그의 우의 관계(friendship)의 상실과  바로 이 자연의 바깥에 있는 선물(preternatural gift)의 상실을 초래하였습니다. 바로 그 시점 이후부터 지금까지  죽음은 "죄의 품삯(the wages of sin)"이며(로마 6,23), 그리고 이 본문이 "사람은 한 번  죽게 마련이고" 라고 말할 때에 이 본문은 바로 이러한 하느님의 결정을 말하고 있습니다(창세기 3,19.23; 로마 5,12를 참조하라). 교회는 죽음이 벌(a punishment)이라고  반복적으로 말해오고 있으며, 그리고 예를 들어, 다음과 같은 교황 비오 6세의 "Auctorem  Fidei", prop. 1, 7을 참조하십시오: "우리의 현재의 상태에 있어 [죽음은] 죄에 대한 정당한  벌(a just punishment)로서 부과되며", 그리고 불시(不死) 가능성(immortality)은 "무상으로 주어지는  선물(unmerited gift)이었지 어떤 자연적 상태"가 아니었습니다. 제27-28절들은 방심하지 않는 상태(watchfulness)로의 함축적인 권고입니다[또한 1코린토 7,29; 집회 14,12; 그리고 제2차 바티칸 공의회 문헌인 "인류의 빛(Lumen Gentium)", 제48장을 참조하라].

 

-----
(**) 번역자 주: 
(1) 신학적으로 "supernatura(초자연적인)l[즉, absolutely supernatural
(절대적으로 초자연적인), 즉, 하느님께 자연적인 더 높은 완미(完美)의 상태]" 라는 
단어의 의미와 동일한 의미를 가지지 않는, "preternatural[즉, relatively supernatural (상대적으로 초자연적인), 즉, 절대적으로 초자연적이지 않으며, 예를 들어, 천사들에게 자연적인 더 높은 완미의 상태]" 단어의 우리말 번역 용어인 "자연의 바깥에 있는" 혹은 "자연 넘어에 있는" 은,  다음에 있는 Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, Modern Catholic Dictionary,  그리고 영어 가톨릭 대사전 등에 주어진 설명들을 따른 것이다:
http://ch.catholic.or.kr/pundang/4/mw/u_d.htm
http://www.catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=35521 (perfection)
http://www.catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=35762 (preternatural)
http://www.catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=35763 (preternatural gifts)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06553a.htm (supernatural gifts)

(2) 영어로 "preternatural gifts"로 번역되는 신학 용어를 과거에 적어도 국내의  천주교측에서 "과성은혜(過性恩惠)"로 번역하였던 것으로 파악이 되고 있는데,  이 선물들은 "조력성총(조력은총)" = "actual grace" = "gratia actualis" 과는 다른  개념이다. 이에 대하여서는, 예를 들어, 굿뉴스 서버 제공의 다음의 가톨릭 대사전의 설명을 참고하라: 
http://info.catholic.or.kr/dictionary/dic_view.asp?ctxtIdNum=248 [주: 옛 주소]

https://maria.catholic.or.kr/dictionary/term/term_view.asp?ctxtIdNum=248 [주: 새 주소; 추가일자: 2022-07-27]

(3) 영어로 "supernatural gifts(초자연적 선물들)" 로 번역되는 신학 용어를 과거에 중국 및 국내 천주교측에서 "초성은혜(超性恩惠)"로 번역하였던 것으로 파악이 되고 있는데, 이에 대하여서는, 예를 들어, 굿뉴스 서버 제공의 다음의 가톨릭 대사전의 설명을 참고하라:
http://info.catholic.or.kr/dictionary/dic_view.asp?ctxtIdNum=3482 [주: 옛 주소]

https://maria.catholic.or.kr/dictionary/term/term_view.asp?ctxtIdNum=3482 [주: 새 주소; 추가일자: 2022-07-27]

 

(4) 따라서, 어떠한 경우에도, 구분되는 신학적 의미를 가지고 있는 용어들인 "supernatural" 과 "preternatural"을, 세속의 영한 사전들에서처럼, 동일한 한자어인 "초자연적"으로 번역하여서는 아니 될 것이다.

 

(5) [제안 한 개] 다른 한편으로, "supernatural gifts"를 "초자연적 선물들"로
이미 국내 천주교측에서 번역하고 있으므로, 즉 "초성(超性)" 을 "초자연(超自然)" 으로  대체하여 사용하고 있으므로, 동등하게(equally), "preternatural gifts"를, 비록  요즈음의 중국 천주교측에서는 사용하지 않는 용어로 파악되고 있기는 하지만,  "과자연적 선물들"로 번역할 것을 제안한다. 즉, "과성(過性)" 을 "과자연(過自然)"으로  대체하여 사용할 것을 제안한다.
-----
(이상, 발췌 끝)

3.
3-1, 우선 창세기 3,22에 대한 NAB 주석은 없습니다.

3-2. 그리고 여기를 클릭하면 읽을 수 있는, 연중 제5주간 토요일 제1독서(창세기 3,9-24) 에 대한 나바르 성경 주석서의 해설에도 질문 2에 대한 직접적인 언급은 없습니다.

3-3. 다음은 창세기 3,22에 대한 "주석 성경"의 주석인데, 무슨 말을 하고 있는지 바로 이해가 잘 되지 않습니다:

(발췌 시작)
하느님께서는 아담과 하와의 불순종에 대한 벌로서 이들 부부에게 새로운 생활 조건을 제시하신 다음 에덴 동산에서 내쫒으시지만, 이들이 획득한 지식만큼은 인정해 주신다. 에덴 동산에서의 추방은 하느님의 세계와 인간의 세계 사이에는 명백한 분리가 필요하다라는 반성을 전제로 하는 것 같다.
(이상, 발췌 끝)

위의 주석에서, 특히, "이들이 획득한 지식만큼은 인정해 주신다" 가 무슨 말인지 이해하기 힘듭니다.

4. (질문 1에 대한 답변)
4-1. 일부 천사들 중에서 불순종(disobedience)의 죄를 하느님께 범하여, 그 결과로 타락한 천사(fallen angels)들이 아담과 하와의 원죄 이전에 이미 나타나 존재하였으며, 그리고 이들 중의 한 명이, 하느님에 대한 질투(envy) 때문에, 자신들과는 달리, 원 은총(original grace)과 원 의로움(original justice)의 상태를 누리고 있으면서 그리하여 그 결과 하느님의 은총을 이 세상에, 특히 형이하학적 세상에, 전달함으로써 하느님에 의하여 창조된 원 질서(original order)가 이 세상에 잘 지속되도록 하고 있는, 피조물들의 지배자인, 아담과 하와에게 뱀(serpent)으로 다가가 유혹하였으며, 그리고 아담과 하와가 이 뱀의 유혹에 넘어가, 타락한 천사들처럼, 하느님께 불순종의 죄를 범하였는데, 이것이 바로 원죄(original sin)로 불리는 죄라는 생각입니다. 

4-2. 그리고

(1) 천사들 중에는 애초에 창조될 때에 자신들에게 주어졌던 완미한 선의 상태를 스스로 하느님께 불순종함으로써 상실당한 천사들이 있음을, 즉 "선이 결여된 천사들"이 있음을, 즉 "선하지 않은 천사"들이 있음을, 그리하여 "악이 이미 형이상학적 세상에 있음"을, 그리고

(2) "아담과 하와 자신들에게 선의 결여가 발생하였음"을, 즉 "자신들이 선하지 않게 되었음"을, 그리하여 "악이 이미 형이하학적 세상에 있음"을,

아담과 하와가 이제 알게 된 것을 두고서, "사람이 선과 악을 알아 우리 가운데 하나처럼 되었으니" 라고 하느님께서 말씀하셨다는 생각입니다.

5. 질문 2의 답변에 들어가면서
5-1. 창세기 3-22의 후반부를 잘 읽어 보면, 원죄 이전에는 아담과 하와가 생명 나무의 열매를 자유롭게 따먹었으며, 그리하여, 자신들의 본성에 기인하여서가 아니라, 이 생명 나무의 열매를 따먹음으로써 그 결과로 그들의 몸을 불사(不死) 가능성(immortality)의 상태로 유지하였음을 이성적으로 추론(reasoning)할 수 있습니다. [참고: 사람의 영혼(soul)은 원죄를 범한 이후에도 여전히 불멸입니다]. 그러나, 생명의 나무의 열매를 따먹지 못하게 되자 (창세기 3,24) 그들에게는 죽음(death), 즉 영혼(soul)과 육체(몸, body)의 분리가 발생하였고, 그리고 그들의 영혼과의 결합을 상실한 그들의 몸, 즉 사체(dead body)는 또한 부패하기 시작하였다는 생각입니다. 그리고 그들의 불멸의 영혼 또한 "영적으로 죽은(spiritually dead) 상태" 즉 "영적으로 살아있지 못한 상태"가 되었다는 생각입니다.

5-2. 따라서, 원죄 이전에 원 은총과 원 의로움의 상태에 있던 아담과 하와는, 자연법(natural law)적으로 그들의 영혼이 영적으로 살아 있는 상태를 유지하고 그리고 그들의 몸이 불사(不死)의 상태를 유지하였던 것이 아니라, 하느님께서 마련해 주셨던 생명의 나무의 열매를 먹음으로써, 부수적으로(accidentally) 자신들의 영혼을 영적으로 살아있는 상태로 유지하고 자신들의 몸을 불사(不死) 가능성의 상태로 유지하였음을 이해하게 되었는데, 이 이해로부터 우리는 아담과 하와가, 원죄를 범하기 이전, 즉 에덴의 동산에서 추방되기 전에, 원 은총과 원 의로움 이외에, 하느님께서 마련해 주신 어떤 추가적인 선물(gifts)들을 향유하였음을 우리는 이성적으로 추론(reasoning)할 수 있으며, 그리고 바로 이들 추가적 선물들을 영어로 "preternatural gifts"라고 부릅니다. 그리고 이 추가적 선물들을 과거에 중국을 중심으로 하는 한문 문화권에서 "과성은혜(過性恩惠)"로 불러 온 것으로 파악되고 있습니다.

5-3. 다른 한편으로, 영어로 "preternatural gift"로 번역되는 신학 용어를 과거에 적어도 국내의 천주교측에서 "과성은혜(過性恩惠)"로 번역하였던 것으로 파악이 되고 있는데, 이 선물들은 "조력성총(조력은총)" = "actual grace" = "gratia actualis" 과는 다른 개념입니다. 이에 대하여서는, 예를 들어, 굿뉴스 서버 제공의 다음의 가톨릭 대사전의 설명을 참고하십시오: 

http://info.catholic.or.kr/dictionary/dic_view.asp?ctxtIdNum=248 [주: 옛 주소]

https://maria.catholic.or.kr/dictionary/term/term_view.asp?ctxtIdNum=248 [주: 새 주소; 추가일자: 2022-07-27] <--- 필독 권유

게시자 주:

여기를 클릭하면,

아래에 발췌한, "과성은혜(過性恩惠)"에 대하여 잘못 이해하고 있는 최근의 예(example)을 볼 수 있습니다:

(발췌 시작)
37. (문) 성경에 천주 사람을 당신 모상대로 내셨다하니 이는 무슨 뜻이뇨?
(답) 이는 천주 사람에게 다만 본성에 적합한 지력과 자유와 의지를 주실 뿐 아니라, 또한 과성(過性=조력성총)은혜와 초성(超性=상존성총)은혜로 저를 아름답게 꾸미셨다는 뜻이니라.
(이상, 발췌 끝)

"상해천주교요리(詳解天主敎要理)"의 제37항에 무슨 이유로 "=조력성총" 이라는 대단히 잘못된 부연 설명이 추가되었는지 납득할 수 없습니다. 

참으로 대단히 유감스럽게도, 최근의 몇 십년 동안의  "한글 전용"에 따른 "전통 한문 문화의 단절" 때문에, 예를 들어, "선종"이라는 번역 용어의 경우에서와 마찬가지로, 중국을 통하여 전달된 한자 단어들인 일부 신학적 용어들의 의미가 요즈음의 우리들에게 제대로 올바르게 전달되지 못하고 있음을 알 수 있습니다. 
-----

5-4. 영어로 "supernatural gift(초자연적 선물)" 로 번역되는 신학 용어를 
과거에 중국 및 국내 천주교측에서 "초성은혜(超性恩惠)"로 번역하였던 것으로 
파악이 되고 있는데, 이에 대하여서는, 예를 들어, 굿뉴스 서버 제공의 다음의 
가톨릭 대사전의 설명을 참고하십시오:

http://info.catholic.or.kr/dictionary/dic_view.asp?ctxtIdNum=3482 

https://maria.catholic.or.kr/dictionary/term/term_view.asp?ctxtIdNum=3482 [주: 새 주소; 추가일자: 2022-07-27]<--- 필독 권유

게시자 주: 정확한 출처 제시도 없이 두루뭉실하게 주어지고 있는,  "초성은혜(超性恩惠)"에 대한 위의 가톨릭 대사전의 설명은 많이 부족하다는 생각입니다. 이어지는 아래의 글에서, 구체적인 예(example)들과 함께, 정확한 내용 전달을 해 드리도록 하겠습니다.

5-5. 따라서 어떠한 경우에도, 구분되는 신학적 의미를 가지고 있는 용어들인 
"supernatural" 과 "preternatural"을, 세속의 영한 사전들에서처럼, 동일한 한자어인 
"초자연적"으로 번역하여서는 아니 될 것입니다.

5-6. [제안 한 개] 다른 한편으로,  

영어로 "supernatural gift"로 번역되는 표현을 "초자연적 선물"로 이미 국내 천주교측에서 번역하고 있으므로 (예를 들어, 우리말본 가톨릭 교회 교리서 제179항)

즉 "초성(超性)" 을 "초자연(超自然)" 으로 대체하여 사용하고 있으므로,

동등하게(equally),

"preternatural gift"를, 비록 요즈음의 중국 천주교측에서는 사용하지 않는 용어로 파악되고 있기는 하지만, "과자연적 선물"로 번역할 것을 제안합니다.

즉, "과성(過性)" 을 "과자연(過自然)" 으로 대체하여 사용할 것을 제안합니다.

6. 그런데,

질문 6-1. 가톨릭 보편 교회는 이들 용어들을 전통적으로 사용해 왔을까요?

예를 들어, 최근의 교황님들의 문헌들이 이 질문에 대하여 답변할 것입니다. 이를 위하여, 다음의 자료들을 참고하십시오:

여기를 클릭하십시오(요한 바오로 2세 일반 알현 교리 교육 강론)

출처: http://ch.catholic.or.kr/pundang/4/vatican/aud19860903en.htm

In the light of the Bible, the state of man before sin appears as a condition of original perfection. Genesis expresses this in a certain way by the image of "paradise" that it offers us. We may ask what the source of this perfection was. The answer is that it was found above all in friendship with God by means of sanctifying grace, and in the other gifts that in theological language are called preternatural, which were lost through sin. Thanks to such divine gifts, man, who was joined in friendship and harmony with his principle of being, had and maintained in himself an interior equilibrium. He was not worried about the prospect of decay and death. The "dominion" over the world, which God had given man from the beginning, was realized first of all in man himself, as dominion over himself. In this self-dominion and equilibrium he had the "integrity" (integritas) of existence, in the sense that man was intact and well-ordered in all his being. [(졸번역) 이러한 자기-통제(self-dominion) 및 균형 안에서, 사람이 자신의 있음 모두에 있어 손상되지 않았으며(intact) 그리고 잘 정렬되어있었다(well-ordered)는 의미에 있어, 그는 존재의 "integrity" (integritas)를 가졌습니다]. He was free from the triple concupiscence that inclines him to the pleasures of the senses, to coveting earthly goods, and to assert himself against the dictates of reason.
-----

(요한 바오로 2세 일반 알현 교리 교육 강론)

출처: http://ch.catholic.or.kr/pundang/4/vatican/aud19860813en.htm

It is possible that in certain cases the evil spirit goes so far as to exercise his influence not only on material things, but even on the human body, so that one can speak of "diabolical possession" (cf. Mk 5:2-9). It is not always easy to discern the preternatural factor operative in these cases, and the Church does not lightly support the tendency to attribute many things to the direct action of the devil. But in principle it cannot be denied that Satan can go to this extreme manifestation of his superiority in his will to harm and lead to evil.
-----

(비오 11세 회칙)
DIVINI ILLIUS MAGISTRI
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
ON CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

출처: http://ch.catholic.or.kr/pundang/4/vatican/hf_p-xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri_en.htm

58. In fact it must never be forgotten that the subject of Christian education is man whole and entire, soul united to body in unity of nature, with all his faculties natural and supernatural, such as right reason and revelation show him to be; man, therefore, fallen from his original estate, but redeemed by Christ and restored to the supernatural condition of adopted son of God, though without the preternatural privileges of bodily immortality or perfect control of appetite. There remain therefore, in human nature the effects of original sin, the chief of which are weakness of will and disorderly inclinations.
-----

[내용 추가 일자: 2013년 1월 23일]

(Denzinger EN 2212)
출처: http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dmh.htm

[From the Encyclical, "Divini illius magistri," December 31, 1929]

2212 It should never be forgotten that in the Christian sense the entire man is to be educated, as great as he is, that is, coalescing into one nature, through spirit and body, and instructed in all parts of his soul and body, which either proceed from nature or excel it, such as we finally recognize him from right reason and divine revelation, namely, man whom, when fallen from his original estate, Christ redeemed and restored to this supernatural dignity, to be the adopted son of God, yet without the preternatural privileges by which his body had before been immortal, and his soul just and sound. Hence, it happened that the defilements which flowed into the nature of man from Adam's sin, especially the infirmity of the will and the unbridled desires of the soul, survive in man.

 

And, surely, "folly is bound up in the heart of a child and the rod of correction shall drive it away" ( Prov. Pr 22,15). Therefore, from childhood the inclination of will, if perverse, must be restrained; but if good, must be promoted, and especially the minds of children should be imbued with the teachings that come from God, and their souls strengthened by the aids of divine grace; and, if these should be lacking, no one could be restrained in his desires nor be guided to complete perfection by the training and instruction of the Church, which Christ has endowed with heavenly doctrine and divine sacraments for the purpose of being the efficacious teacher of all men.
-----

[이상, 내용 추가 끝]

그리고 또한, 다음의 자료들을 참고하십시오:

여기를 클릭하십시오
 

출처: http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/nath51.htm

244. Against the definition of miracles just explained, a difficulty may be raised from a division of miracles very common in Catholic schools, and mentioned repeatedly by St. Thomas. Miracles are divided into miracles above nature, beside nature, and against nature -- (miracula supra naturam, praeter naturam, contra naturam). Above nature are those miracles which are worked in material subjects, in which in the ordinary course of nature similar effects never occur. Thus, it never happens naturally, that a dead and decomposing body rises to life again. Therefore, the resurrection of Lazarus was a miracle above nature.^{6}

 

Beside nature are those miracles that occur in material subjects, in which through the forces of nature, either left to themselves or artificially applied, similar effects do occur. Here an effect is known to be miraculous by its occurring at a prophesied time, or simply upon the word of a thaumaturgus, and that in cases in which similar effects could not have been obtained through natural forces otherwise than gradually and with no certainty about the success. Thus, the fact that in Egypt, upon the word of Moses, all the first-born of men and beasts died in one night, whilst the Israelites were spared, was a miracle beside nature. Such a miracle also was the sudden withering of the hand of Jeroboam, when he stretched it out against the Prophet of God; and the blindness of the sorcerer Elymas, caused upon the prediction of St. Paul.^{7}

 

Against nature are the miracles which happen in material subjects that naturally tend to a contrary effect, and are not prevented from producing their effect by any natural cause. Thus, the preservation of the three companions of Daniel was a miracle against nature; also the going back of the shadow upon the sun-dial of Achaz.^{8}

 

This is the division of miracles which is substantially to be found in St. Thomas.^{9} The term "nature," which is taken as the standard of this division, means the whole of corporeal substances and their forces acting under ordinary Divine concurrence, either by themselves alone, or under some artificial direction of rational creatures. We must note that the miracles which are said to be against nature, are in no way against the essence or against the final end of natural substances, but only against the course of action these substances would take, if God had not from eternity decreed for special reasons to interfere with it.

 

But how to combine the division with the definition? The definition says, that every miracle is supernatural, or above nature. In the division, on the contrary, only one class of miracles is marked as being above nature. The solution is to be found in the fact that in the definition the miraculous effect is considered as it exists in the concrete, with all its circumstances, knowable to a diligent observer. When thus viewed, every real miracle must be pronounced to be supernatural, or a Divine effect. But a miraculous effect, though manifestly Divine when viewed adequately, may be taken into consideration inadequately and the question asked: How does this effect stand to the efficiency of mere natural forces, abstraction being made from all particular circumstances? This consideration leads to the result that some miracles are above nature, others beside nature, others against nature. Therefore, the definition is not opposed to the division; because in the definition the miraculous effect is viewed as happening under all the peculiar circumstances under which it does happen: whilst the division of miracles is made by comparing the effect with the forces of nature, abstracting from concrete circumstances. And thus far of the definition and division of miracles.
-----

출처: http://josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/DeCoelo.htm

[주: "praeternaturalem" 을 "preternatural"로 번역하였음].
-----

(성 토마스 아퀴나스의 신학 대전)

출처: http://www.logicmuseum.com/authors/aquinas/summa/Summa-III-27-34.htm

IIIª q. 34 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod liberum arbitrium non eodem modo se habet ad bonum et ad malum, nam ad bonum se habet per se et naturaliter; ad malum autem se habet per modum defectus, et praeter naturam. Sicut autem philosophus dicit, in II de caelo, posterius est quod est praeter naturam, eo quod est secundum naturam, quia id quod est praeter naturam, est quaedam excisio ab eo quod est secundum naturam. Et ideo liberum arbitrium creaturae in primo instanti creationis potest moveri ad bonum merendo, non autem ad malum peccando, si tamen natura sit integra.

Reply to Objection 1. Free-will does not bear the same relation to good as to evil: for to good it is related of itself, and naturally; whereas to evil it is related as to a defect, and beside nature. Now, as the Philosopher says (De Coelo ii, text. 18)(*): "That which is beside nature is subsequent to that which is according to nature; because that which is beside nature is an exception to nature." Therefore the free-will of a creature can be moved to good meritoriously in the first instant of its creation, but not to evil sinfully; provided, however, its nature be unimpaired.

-----
(*) 번역자 주:
(1) 위에서 "the Philosopher"는 그리스의 철학자 아리스토텔레스(Aristotle)를 말한다.

(2) 그런데 흥미로운 것은, 성 토마스 아퀴나스에 의한 위의 인용문에 의하면, "preternatural" 이라는 용어의 개념/정의(definition)를 일찌기, 즉 기원전 4세기에, 아리스토텔레스가 이미 다루었으며, 성 토마스 아퀴나스가 이것을 자신의 저술인 "신학 대전"의 본문 중에서 그대로 인용하고 있음을 알 수 있다. 

(3) 그리고 영어본 신학 대전에서는, 라틴어 "praeter naturam"을, "preternatural" 로 직역 번역하는 대신에, "beside nature(자연에서 떨어져 있는 혹은 자연 밖에 있는)" 로 번역하였음을 확인하였다.
-----

7. 이 항에서는 위의 제5항에서 사용된 용어들에 대한 가톨릭 보편 교회측의 신학적 정의(definition)를 살펴보도록 하겠습니다.

7-1. 과자연적(preternatural) 용어의 정의(definition):

다음은 Modern Catholic Dictionary에 주어진, "preternatural" 이라는 신학적 용어에 대한 설명이며 첫 번째 문장이 이 용어의 신학적 정의(definition)입니다:

출처: http://www.therealpresence.org/dictionary/p/p415.htm

PRETERNATURAL
That which is beyond the natural but is not strictly supernatural. It is preternatural either because natural forces are used by God to produce effects beyond their native capacity, or because above-human forces, angelic or demonic, are active in the world of space and time. (Etym. Latin praeter, beyond + natural, nature.)

과자연적/과성적(過自然的/過性的, PRETERNATURAL)

자연적인 것들을 넘어서나 그러나 엄밀하게 초자연적(supernatural)이 아닌 것을 말합니다. 그것은, 자연적 힘들이 그들의 자연적인 능력을 넘어서는 결과들을 산출하고자 하느님에 의하여 사용되기 때문에, 혹은 천사적 혹은 악마적, 인간 위의 힘들이 시공간으로 이루어진 이 세상 안에서 활동하고 있기 때문에, 이들 둘 중의 하나 때문에, 과성적(과자연적)입니다. [어원. Latin praeter, beyond + natural, nature.]

우리말 번역문 출처: http://ch.catholic.or.kr/pundang/4/soh/1090.htm

7-2. 과자연적 선물(preternatural gift)의 정의(definition) 및 이 선물의 예(examples)들:

다음은 Modern Catholic Dictionary에 주어진, "preternatural gifts" 이라는 용어에 대한 설명이며 첫 번째 문장이 이 용어의 신학적 정의(definition)입니다:

출처: http://www.therealpresence.org/dictionary/p/p416.htm

PRETERNATURAL GIFTS

 

Favors granted by God above and beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them but not beyond those of all created nature. Such gifts perfect nature but do not carry it beyond the limits of created nature. They include three great privileges to which human beings have no title--infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall.

과자연적 선물들/과성적 선물들(過自然的/過性的 선물들, PRETERNATURAL GIFTS)

자연의 힘들 혹은 능력들 위의 그리고 넘어서는 하느님에 의하여 허락되는 우의적 도움(favors, 즉, 은총)들을 말하는데, 자연은 창조된 자연 모두의 힘들 혹은 능력들을 넘어서지 않으면서 그들을 받아들입니다. 그러한 선물들은 자연을 완미하게 하나 그러나 그것을 창조된 자연의 한계들을 넘어서까지 운반하지 못합니다. 이 선물들은, 그들에 대하여 인간이 아무런 권리(title)도 가지지 못하는, 다음과 같은 세 개의 커다란 특권들을 포함합니다: 주입된 지식(infused knowledge), 사욕편정(私慾偏情, concupiscence)(*)의 부재, 그리고 몸의 불사(不死) 가능성(bodily immotality). 아담과 하와는 타락 이전에 이들 선물들을 소유하였습니다.

우리말 번역문 출처: http://ch.catholic.or.kr/pundang/4/soh/1090.htm

-----
[내용 추가 일자: 2012.12.17]
(*) 번역자 주: 현재까지 국내의 가톨릭계에서 사용중인, 영어로 "concupiscence"로 번역되는 라틴어 단어 "concupiscentia"의 번역 용어인 "邪慾偏情"은 대단히 심각한 번역 오류이다. 이에 대하여서는 다음의 주소를 클릭한 후에, 제2-2-4항과 제2-2-5항을 반드시 필독하라:
http://ch.catholic.or.kr/pundang/4/soh/1295.htm <----- 필독 권고
[이상, 내용 추가 끝].
[내용 추가 일자: 2023-01-26]

다음은, "Modern Catholic Dictionary"의 저자인 Hardon 신부님의 저술로부터 발췌한 바입니다:

출처: http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_015.htm 
(발췌 시작)

 

St. Thomas distinguishes four injuries that were inflicted on human nature through the fall of Adam:(#)

 

성 토마스[즉, 성 토마스 아퀴나스]는 아담의 타락을 통하여 인성(human nature)에 가해진 네 개의 상해(傷害)들을 다음과 같이 구분합니다: 

• The wound of ignorance [무지 라는 상처], in as much as reason has lost its facility for the knowledge of truth, especially in the religious and moral order. Hence revelation becomes a moral necessity to enable all men to know, with ease, firmness of certitude and without error, those moral and spiritual verities which are proportionate to the human mind.

• The wound of malice,[악의 라는 상처], through which the will is deprived of its ready, inclination to good. Hence the need for fallen man to receive grace in order to keep the moral law for any great length of time.

• The wound of weakness,[나약함 이라는 상처] which makes man weak in overcoming all the trials and difficulties incident to his pursuit of virtue. As a result he lacks the constancy and effectiveness demanded by the moral law.

• The wound of concupiscence or loss of integrity in the control of the appetitive faculties [사욕/사욕편정 혹은 욕구 기능들의 통제에 있어 integrity의 상실이라는 상처], so that pleasant things are spontaneously desired (antecedent to the dictate of reason) and the unpleasant are instinctively shunned.

-----
(#) 출처: Summa Theologiae, Ia, IIae, q85, a3: 
https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FS/FS085.html#FSQ85A3THEP1 
-----

(이상, 발췌 끝)

 

따라서, "integrity"의 의미가 사욕편정(私慾偏情)의 부재(不在)[absence of concupiscence, 즉, 사욕부재(私慾不在)]로 정의됨(defined)을 알 수 있다.

그리고 다음의 주소에 접속하면, "integrity"의 의미에 "사람의 있음(being) 모두에 있어 손상되지 않은 그리고 잘 정렬되어 있는(well-ordered) 상태"가 포함된다는 성 바오로 2세 교황님의 가르침을 추가적으로 학습할 수 있다. 제3항의 번역자 주를 읽도록 하라:
http://ch.catholic.or.kr/pundang/4/soh/1090.htm <----- 또한 필독 권고

[이상, 2023년 1월 26일자 내용 추가 끝]

-----

그리고

이 선물의 예(examples)들에는,

주입된 지식(infused knowledge),
사욕편정(私慾偏情, concupiscence)의 부재 (즉, integrity),
몸의 불사(不死) 가능성(bodily immotality), 
죄 없음(sinlessness), 
고통(pain)의 부재 가능성, 
이 땅의 주인(Lord) 

등이 포함됩니다.

추가적 출처/근거: http://ch.catholic.or.kr/pundang/4/soh/1090.htm (제3항)

7-3 초자연적(supernatural) 용어의 정의(definition)

다음은 미국 천주교 주교회의/중앙협의회 홈페이지 제공의 "가톨릭 교회 교리서(CCC) 용어집"에 주어진 "supernatural[초자연적(超自然的), 초성적(超性的)]" 라는 용어에 대한 설명이며 첫 번째 문장이 이 용어의 신학적 정의(definition)입니다:

출처: http://ch.catholic.or.kr/pundang/4/ccc_glossary.htm
(발췌 시작)
SUPERNATURAL

Surpassing the power of created beings; a result of God's gracious initiative. Our vocation to eternal life is supernatural (1998; cf. 1722).

초자연적/초성적(超自然的/超性的, SUPERNATURAL)

 

'피조물(created beings)들의 힘을 능가하는' 을 말하며, 그리고 [이것은] 하느님의 자애로우신 주도(gracious initiative)의 결과입니다. 영원한 생명(eternal life)으로의 우리의 소명(vocation, 부름을 받음)은 초자연적입니다(가톨릭 교회 교리서 제1998항; 제1722항 참조).
(이상, 발췌 및 우리말 번역 끝)

게시자 주: 피조물들, 즉 "창조된 있음(created beings)들" 중에는, 특히 하느님의 아들(sons of God)들로 불리는 천사(angels)들 등의, "영적 있음(spiritual beings)들"도 포함됨을 잊지 마십시오.

7-4. 그리고 초자연적 선물(supernatural gift)의 예(examples)들에는, 초기 은총(the initial grace)뿐만이 아니라, 일곱 성사에 의하여 베풀어지는 상존 은총(habitual grace/sanctifying grace), 조력 은총(actual grace) 등의 은총들, 그리고 특히 세례성사 시에 세례를 받는 자의 영혼에 하느님에 의하여 주입되는 다음의 것들, 등이 포함될 것입니다:

신덕/믿음(faith)(출처: 가톨릭 교회 교리서 제179항),
애덕/사랑(charity)

망덕/희망(hope)

성령칠은(the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit)

성화 은총/상존 은총(sanctifying grace).

8.
다음은 미국의 John A. Hardon 신부의 Archives 에서 제공하고 있는 유관 자료들입니다.

여기를 클릭하십시오 (구글 검색 엔진 결과)

특히

여기를 클릭하면 읽을 수 있는 <----- 영어 가능한 분들의 필독 권유

다음에 발췌한 자료를 참고하시기 바랍니다:

(발췌 시작) 

God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural
Part Two: Creation as a Divine Fact

Section Two: Supernatural Anthropology

THESIS VIII
Before the Fall, Adam Possessed Sanctifying Grace
and the Preternatural Gifts of Integrity, Immortality and Infused Knowledge.

by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

Having studied the nature of man according to his nature, his origin in soul by an immediate creation of God and in body by some special agency directed by God, we are now in a position to examine into the moral and religious phase of human kind. Our immediate concern will be with the first man, Adam, as the father of his race; and our scope of inquiry will be twofold: to establish the fact that he was possessed of original justice or sanctity, covered by the term "sanctifying grace," and of certain additional gifts that followed on this supernatural orientation, namely, in his mind, and body and relation to the external world.

The basis which we face in this matter is the naturalistic mentality, almost inbred in modern thought, which conceives of man as autonomous agent and self-sufficient "master of his own destiny." Yet faith requires us to say that man not only came from the hands of God primordially, in soul and body, but his destiny is beyond the capacities of nature and therefore a sheer gift of divine love. All that we ever say in theology about the supernatural order had its beginnings for the human race in Adam, in the possession he received from the Creator and the means he was given to retain the gift for himself and transmit the same to his progeny.

 

From the viewpoint of modern paleontology and ethnology, which posit man in ancient times as crude and undeveloped, we seem to face a contradiction to the present thesis. If primitive man was also "primitive," how square this with the dogma that the first man was superlatively gifted with powers of mind and body? 

Terminology

Adam in context means first of all the man, described in Genesis and St. Paul as distinct from Eve. This is the term also found in the documents of the Church. However we do not use the word of him alone but extend it to Eve, in fact apply it to human nature as represented in our first parents.

 

The expression "before the fall" simply states the fact that Adam possessed grace and the preternatural gifts, without committing ourselves as to when the infusion took place.

By sanctifying grace we understand that permanent gift, which is now given through Christ and by which a man becomes formally justified, a partaker of the divine nature, an adopted son of God and heir of eternal life. In the present order, sanctifying grace is associated with the uncreated gift of the Holy Spirit and such created gifts as the infused virtues of faith, hope and supernatural charity.

 

The three gifts of bodily immortality, integrity and infused knowledge are called preternatural because they are not strictly due to human nature but do not, of themselves, surpass the capacities and exigencies of created nature as such. In other words, they are not entitatively supernatural.

 

Bodily immortality is the converse of mortality, i.e., the possibility of separation of soul from body. Adam was therefore capable of not dying. Yet the gift was conditional, provided he did not sin; it was gratuitous, since Adam's nature by itself did not postulate this prerogative but came from the divine bounty; and it was participated, since only God enjoys essential immortality.

몸의 불사(不死) 가능성(bodily immortality)은 불사(不死)의 가능성(mortality), 즉, 몸으로부터 영혼의 분리 가능성(possibility)의 역(the converse)을 말합니다. 그러므로 아담(Adam)은 죽지 않을 수 있었습니다. 그러나 이 선물은, 그가 죄를 범하지 않는다는, 조건적이었고(conditional)이었고, 그리고 그것은 무상이었는데(gratuitous), 왜냐하면 아담의 본성 그 자체는 이것을 특권으로 간주하였던 것(postulate)이 아니라 하느님의 관대(the divine bounty)로부터 유래하였기 때문이며, 그리고 그것은 참여하게 된(participated) 것이었는데, 왜냐하면 오로지 하느님만이 본질적 불사(不死)의 가능성(essential immorality)을 향유하시기 때문입니다.

 

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 he did not experience within himself that division 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.

Adam's infused knowledge was not acquired, in the sense of natural cognition derived from experience and the reasoning process; nor was it intrinsically supernatural as giving a knowledge of the mysteries, such as the souls enjoy in the beatific vision. It was infused because not naturally acquired, but yet entitatively not beyond the capacity of man's faculties in his statu viae. Theologians commonly refer to three areas of special knowledge possessed by Adam: regarding God and His attributes, the moral law or man's relations to God, and the physical universe both material and spiritual.

Adversaries

Since the main object of the thesis is the supernatural order, the principal adversaries would logically be the classic opponents of supernaturalism. Historically and chronologically they are Pelagianism and Rationalism.

 

Pelagianism was named after the British lay monk, Pelagius, and now is practically synonymous for the denial of grace or of a higher order than nature in human existence.

 

Little is known about the personal career of Pelagius. Born in England about 354, he came to Rome in the time of Pope Anastasius (399-401), where he was so alarmed by the low morality of the day that he became convinced it could only be reformed by concentrating on the responsibility of men for their actions. Together with his disciple Celestius, he began teaching a doctrine of free will which left no room for grace.

 

Pelagius and Celestius went to Africa in 410, the latter staying to find himself charged with heresy by the Council of Carthage in 412, while Pelagius went on to Palestine and met the same treatment at the hands of St. Jerome. In 418 a plenary Council of Carthage protested to Pope Zozimus and Pelagius was formally condemned by Rome. Though Pelagius leaves the scene of controversy at this point, eighteen Italian bishops, led by Julian of Eclanum, refused to submit to the Pope. Condemned once more at the Council of Orange (529), Pelagianism disappeared as an organized system in the second half of the sixth century, but its influence in opposition to orthodox Christianity remains to the present day.

 

Two premises served as basis for Pelagius' theory. Arguing from the principle that “A person is free if he does what he wills and avoids what he wants to avoid," he said that heaven and the beatific vision are attainable by the use of our native powers alone, since nothing but free will is needed to practice virtue and keep out of sin. From the axiom that "Adam neither injured nor deprived us of anything," Pelagius concluded that men require no special help to repair what Adam is supposed to have lost.

 

Historians of dogma distinguish four stages of development in the Pelagian system: 1) No grace is necessary for right living, but nature and free will are enough to keep the commandments and reach eternal life. 2) Nature itself and free will are grace, because they are free gifts of God. 3) Besides nature and freedom, external graces may be admitted, in the form of preaching, miracles, revelation, and the example of Jesus Christ. 4) If, for the sake of argument, real supernatural grace were needed, it would be only as light for the mind and never internal grace in the will. "You destroy the will," it was argued, "if you say it needs any help."

 

Pelagianism was therefore in conflict with orthodoxy by claiming that grace is not gratuitous on the part of God, but comes to everyone according to his natural merits and that, in the last analysis, grace is not absolutely necessary but only a help to facilitate the operations of nature.

 

St. Augustine was the most formidable adversary of Pelagian speculation. At least five of his major treatises were directed against the innovation, which he accused of corrupting the Scriptures and denying man's elevation to the supernatural order.

Directly pertinent to our thesis, the Pelagians denied that Adam was possessed of sanctifying grace as a supernatural gift of God. Regarding Adam's integrity, the principal adversary among the Pelagians was Julianus, who identified concupiscence with the sense faculty. Immortality in the Pelagian theory was not a special gift, nor was infused knowledge in Adam.

 

Rationalism has been variously defined in different fields. But in theology it is that system of thought which postulates the absolute rights of natural reason as the only source of religious truth. Common to all rationalists is a dogmatic confidence in the powers of human inquiry and a conviction that man alone, without revelation, may comprehend whatever he needs to reach his final destiny.

 

As a trend in religious culture, rationalism is as old as Judaeo-Christianity. Among the ancient Jews, the Sadducees denied the resurrection and questioned bodily immortality. The very name Gnostics in the first century of the Christian era meant "knowers" who professed to have a special understanding that was not shared by other believers. Arius was condemned by the Council of Nicea because he insisted on a complete explanation of the hypostatic union. Pelagius "settled" the problem of original sin, grace and freedom by denying the supernatural order. The Reformers did the same by liquidating free will. In fact, the rationalist tendency has been active in every major heresy since apostolic times, challenging the Church's right to teach the mysteries of faith on the word of God and not on the strength of human speculation.

 

The same critical attitude was adopted by those who questioned the foundations of the Christian religion in England, France and Germany. Tindal, Collins and Hume, Voltaire and Rousseau, Kant, Hegel and Strauss were all rationalists in the generic meaning of the term. They found Christianity unreasonable by their own standards of rationality.

 

Since the turn of the present century, rationalism has entered a new stage that was partly the creature and partly creator of a new concept of history as an empirical science. The area of conflict has shifted from the mainly philosophical grounds that featured the rise of English and French Deism, and especially the idealism of Kant and Schleiermacher. Now the onus probandi was placed on the faithful, and those who would believe in Christianity had to defend themselves against the charge of being unhistorical.

 

In the context of our thesis, modern Rationalism does not speculatively agitate against the special gifts of nature and grace which orthodoxy claims Adam received from God. It rather centers attention on the objective historicity of the facts, and under guise of sublimating dogma by “rising above the anthropomorphisms and metaphors of Scripture,” reduces the most fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion to mere symbolism. Among such symbolic truisms, original justice and sin, bodily immortality and freedom from concupiscence in the first man - and intended for the human race - are prominent in today's rationalists.

 

Paul Tillich is a good example. By Christian standards, original sin is a contingent fact, the result of Adam's loss of original justice through a wilful transgression of God's law. For Tillich, on the other hand, "The difficult concept of ‘original sin’ denotes an original self-contradiction in human existence, coincident with human history itself" Protestant Era, pg. 165. Accordingly the Judaeo-Christian notion of a prior state of justice and holiness, from which the first man fell, by Tillichian norms is to be taken as a symbol of the built-in tension within the human frame. Man was always as he is now, and the "fall" is only an imaginative way of expressing a conflict that is descriptive of man's inevitable existence. 

Dogmatic Value

It is defined doctrine, at least implicitly in Trent, that Adam possessed sanctifying grace before the fall.

 

Regarding Adam's integrity, theologians distinguish between immunity from carnal and spiritual concupiscence. They say it is implicitly defined in Trent (DB 792) that Adam was free from sense concupiscence; or according to others it is proxima fidei. Immunity from spiritual concupiscence is said to be at least theologically certain; or the composite of integrity as such may be called proxima fidei.

 

Adam's immortality of body has been defined by the Church, and is found in a series of documents: DB 101, 174, 788.

 

The possession of infused knowledge is held to be common and certain doctrine, though some assign a higher dogmatic note. 

Theological Proof

Part One: “Adam Possessed Sanctifying Grace."

1. Ecclesiastical Documents

   Besides the Council of Orange against the Pelagians (DB 192), the most explicit documentation is in Trent which declared, “If anyone does not profess that the first man Adam immediately lost the justice and holiness in which he was constituted when he disobeyed the command of God in the Garden of Paradise…let him be anathema" DB 788.
   
   The only question is the meaning of sanctitas and justitia in the definition. But these terms either singly or at least together certainly equivalate sanctifying grace, as appears from general conciliar language and specifically in Trent, “Justification…and sanctification" are defined as taking place through the voluntary acceptance of "grace and the gifts" DB 799. And again in a canon, it issaid that "grace…justifies us" DB 821.
    

2. Sacred Scripture

   Briefly the probative argument from Scripture goes to St. Paul, not only to individual passages but to the whole tenor of his economy of salvation. The work of Christ, in Pauline terminology, was to restore what Adam had lost for the human race, since what Adam originally possessed was regained for us by the cross. Christ restored us to divine friendship through grace; therefore Adam must first have had what he later was dispossessed of through sin.
   
   Paul simply describes Christ as the "new Adam" (I Corinthians 15:21), whose work of restoration is to repair what the first Adam had inflicted by his disobedience. So that if through one man sin came into the world, and through sin death, and thus death has passed into all men because in him all have sinned, from the justice of the one (Christ) the result is unto justification of life to all men (Romans 5:12, 18).
    

3. Summarily the work of Christ, according to Paul, was one of reconciliation and redemption - in both cases repairing the damage done by Adam. Either concept singly or in combination means the restoration of sanctifying grace and of those supernatural gifts that man needs to attain the vision of God.
    

4. Patristic Evidence

   While the precise theological language of today was not yet current, the Fathers explicitly teach that the first man possessed sanctifying grace, which they called "deification" and which Adam lost by the fall. "How can we be said to be renewed," St. Augustine asked, "if we do not receive what the first man lost, in whom all of us die? Plainly we receive the one in some way, and just as plainly we do not receive the other. For we do not receive the immortality of a spiritual body (as did Adam); yet we do obtain justice, from which man had fallen by his sin” (RJ 1698).
    

   Some of the Greek Fathers, like Basil and Cyril of Alexandria, believed that the supernatural sanctification of Adam is indicated in Genesis 2:7. They took spiraculum vitae to mean the grace of the Holy Spirit as a supernatural vital principle. Others, notably Ireneus, Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine, held that imago Dei referred to Adam's nature, while similitudo Dei described him as being in the state of sanctifying grace. Apart from their interpretation of the texts, the Fathers’ common belief that Adam received both natural and supernatural life is a witness to Christian tradition. 

Part Two: "Adam Possessed the Gift of Integrity"

1. Ecclesiastical Documents

   1. The primary text is in Trent, which says, "Concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin, this council declares that the Catholic Church has never understood that it is called sin because there is, in the regenerated, sin in the true and proper sense but only because it is from sin and inclines to sin. If anyone thinks the contrary: let him be anathema” DB 792. Since the council defined that concupiscence comes from sin and leads or inclines to sin, it implicitly declared that concupiscence had not been present before sin, which in context means before the sin of Adam.

      We may further note that Trent speaks directly about concupiscence in the moral sense, namely as the appetite (mainly sense) which tends before the dictate of reason to an object which is morally sinful. However by implication the dogmatic type of concupiscence (defended in the thesis) is also understood; necessarily because the council is talking about the concupiscence which is now in us, namely the kind which may also tend to objects that are morally good or indifferent, yet antecedent to the dictates of reason and continuing in the same direction even against the dictamen rationis.
      
      

   2. Among papal documents treating of the subject, the Encyclical of Pius XI Christian Education is specially pertinent. He states the principles of faith that should guide the training of youth.
       

      "It must never be forgotten that the subject of Christian education is man whole and entire, soul united to body inunity of nature, with all his faculties natural and supernatural such as right reason and revelation show him to be; man, therefore, fallen from his original estate, but redeemed by Christ and restored to the supernatural condition of adopted sons of God, though without the preternatural privileges of bodily immortality or perfect control of appetite. There remain therefore in human nature the effects of Adam's sin, the chief of which are weakness of will and unrestrained desires of soul" DB 2212.
       

2. Sacred Scripture

   In the Book of Genesis, the sexual life of our first parents is described as radically different before and after the fall.
    

   Before the fall, their sex life appears as perfectly under control. God willed the difference between the sexes (Genesis I:27), since man cannot find a helpmate like to himself among the animal kingdom. The Lord therefore created woman to be man's companion and cooperator in the procreation of children (Genesis 2:20-24). Man and woman have no reason to be ashamed of their mutual relation. (Genesis 2:25).
    

   After the fall, things are quite different. Adam and Eve become conscious of their nakedness, which the author of Genesis has coincide with their sense of need for clothing (Genesis 3:7), and with their desire to hide (Genesis 3:10-11). Conjugal life also begins to be a burden and source of sorrow for the woman (Genesis3:16).
    

   The mode of narrative implies that the inspired text wants to show that deordination in the sexual life began only after the fall. It may further be said that the author meant to refer beyond mere sexuality, which he used to illustrate the loss of man's dominion over all his lower powers. Consequently before they sinned, Adam and Eve had perfect command of their passions, which is synonymous with integrity.
   
   

   In the New Testament, when the Pharisees pose the question of divorce, this gives Christ the opportunity to emphasize what was the original state of things, when matrimony was more strict than under the Mosaic law, because there had not been the obstacle of "hardness of heart" (Matthew 19:3-12, Mark 10:1-8). This hardness of heart can be identified with concupiscence, and the relaxation of the law makes us see what was the original condition of things, when perfect equilibrium existed in the sexual life, which mankind later evidently lacked.
    

   St. Paul in Romans 6 and 7 speaks of "sin" which cannot mean sin formally, because it is found also in the just. Rather it is an inclination to sin, or concupiscence. If we further see that this concupiscence is later called sin in that context of the epistle where Paul is speaking of the corruption introduced into the world by Adam's disobedience, we can only conclude that it had its origin in the sin of Adam. Before his disobedience, therefore, Adam was exempt from this defect, which meant that he possessed integrity.
    

3. Patristic Evidence

   From the time of Pelagianism, there is no lack of clarity and insistence among the Fathers that the special privileges of our first parents are a matter of faith. However even before Pelagius, there is evidence of a Patristic tradition on the subject.
    

   In fact some of the Fathers were so firmly persuaded of the natural integrity of our first parents that they derived marriage from original sin. Thus it seems Athanasius and John Damascene. No doubt this was going too far. Sexual propagation does not exclude natural integrity, and we may safely say that marriage would have been instituted even if Adam and Eve had remained in their first innocence. It was this attitude which later caused Augustine to retract his earlier statement that if the human race had preserved its primal innocence and grace, propagation might have been asexual.
    

   But with Pelagianism to combat, the original tradition on integrity became clearer than ever. Pelagians maintained that concupiscence was not a defect of nature but a positive vigor, which anticipated the Freudian theory of modern times. Augustine fought against this view in his De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia; and in Contra Julianum he expressly says that freedom from concupiscence was a gift of grace.
    

Part Three: "Adam Possessed the Gift of Bodily Immortality"

1. Ecclesiastical Documents

   Besides the Councils of XVI Carthage (DB 101) and orange (DB 174), the Council of Trent defined that "If anyone does not profess that the first man Adam… when he disobeyed the command of God in the Garden of Paradise…incurred the death with which God had previously threatened him…let him be anathema" (DB 788).

   Later on, when Baianism was condemned by the Church, among the rejected propositions was, the claim that "The immortality of the first man was not a gift of grace, but his natural condition" (DB 1078). This corresponds to another condemned proposition of Baius, to the effect that "The integrity found in first creation was not a gratuitous elevation of human nature, but its natural condition" (DB 1026).
    

2. Sacred Scripture

   The immortality of our first parents is seen from the sanction which God imposed on them in forbidding them to eat of the tree of knowledge, and His application of this sanction (Genesis 2:16-17, 3:3, 19, 22-24).
    

   The Lord foretold that man would die in whatsoever day he ate of the forbidden fruit. This threat did not literally mean death on the same day as the sin, since the Old Testament often refers to time in broader terms, e.g., III Kings 2:42. Rather it meant that the moment man disobeyed the precept, he would become subject to mortality. Consequently in Genesis and elsewhere (Wisdom 2:24, Ecclesiasticus 25:33) the sacred authors wished to teach that physical death was not man's original lot, but came into the world because of sin. In other words, except for sin, man would have been immortal in body.
    

   In the New Testament, St. John calls the devil “a murderer from the beginning" (John 8:44). And according to St. Paul, death entered the world as a result of Adam's fall (Romans 5:12, I Corinthians 15:21-22). The death in question is not merely spiritual death, since it is contrasted with bodily resurrection, which came to us through Christ. Logically, therefore, if Adam had not sinned by following the suggestion of the devil, he would have preserved himself in bodily immortality.
    

3. Patristic Evidence

   The Fathers unanimously taught as a matter of faith that man in his primeval condition was gifted with immortality of body and soul. Thus Theophilus of Antioch explained that God made man neither mortal nor immortal, but capable of either, depending on whether Adam would sin or not (RJ 184). Tatian describes the Word of God “making man a sharer in His own divine immortality" (RJ 156). According to St. Cyprian, with the advent of the first sin there disappeared both man's integrity of body and immortality, which were a special grace of God (RJ 566). St. Athanasius taught that men who are by nature mortal would have been immortal, had they not sinned, thus rising superior to the powers of nature by the power of the Word of God (RJ 750). St. Ambrose says that God did not make death, but imposed it upon man as a penalty for sin, so that now he must return to the earth from which he came (RJ 1325). And St. Augustine held that man was mortal because he was able to die, immortal because he was able not to die, so that he was mortal conditione naturae and immortal beneficio Dei (RJ 1699).
    

Part Four: “Adam Possessed the Gift of Infused Knowledge,”

1. Ecclesiastical Documents

   It is difficult to cite authoritative documents which treat professedly of the infused knowledge of our first parents. Generally there are only oblique references to man's superior mental and moral condition before the fall, implying some special privileges of mind. Thus Pius XII in the Allocution to the Academy of Sciences previously quoted, said "On the day when God formed man and crowned his brow with His own image and likeness…He taught him agriculture, how to care and cultivate the garden in which He had placed him; led him to all the beasts of the fields and all the birds of the air so that man might name them. And he gave to each of them its true and fitting name…Man is great, and he was greater when created…If he fell from his original greatness…if the remnants of the command once given him over the animal world are nothing more than a fading recollection of his former power…even in his ruin he looms great because of that divine image and likeness he carries in his spirit" (November 30, 1941).
    

2. Theological Reason

   Christian tradition reasoned on the datum in Scripture to conclude that if Adam was given complete dominion over the lower organisms and ability to name the animals, i.e., understand their properties enough to describe their nature; if moreover the Lord placed the first parents in a place which they were to cultivate - Adam and Eve must have been given adequate knowledge for these purposes, and the knowledge would have been infused since ex hypothesi this was the beginning of human history.
    

   Also in Ecclesiasticus (17:1-9), we are told that "Man, too, God created out of the earth, fashioning him after His own likeness…To him and to that partner of his, created like to himself and out of himself, God gave will and speech and sight and hearing. He gave them a heart to reason with, and filled them with power of discernment. Spirit itself should be within their ken, their hearts should be all sagacity. What evil was, what good, He made plain to them. He gave them His own eyes to see with, so that they should keep His marvelous acts in view, praise His holy name, boast of His wonders and tell the story of His renowned deeds." Given all these, the Fathers and theologians reasonably conclude that the first man and woman were specially gifted with knowledge infused into them by the Creator.
    

   However any attempt to describe the extent of Adam's infused knowledge would be hazardous. On the supernatural level, opinion differs from Suarez' position that Adam probably had a belief in the Trinity and the future Incarnation of the Word of God, to a minimist school which credits the first man only with the essentials necessary for salvation.
    

   St. Thomas restricted the limits of Adam's infused knowledge by setting down two rules: 1) Adam depended on phantasms for his intellectual concepts. Consequently unlike the human soul of Christ, he did not enjoy the beatific vision before the fall; he could have no intuitive but only an abstractive knowledge of the angels; and he even did not have intuitive knowledge of his own soul. 2) In the domain of nature, Adam had a perfect infused knowledge only regarding those things which were indispensable to him and his descendants to live in conformity with the laws of reason. This did not mean that he would not have had to learn and inquire, or that he was unable to progress in matters of science and culture. There is no reason to suppose that Adam knew about the Copernican system, or electronics, or nuclear fission. Yet, in its own way, Adam's knowledge was extensive; it was specially given him by God; and, according to St. Thomas, it was infallible - though subject to obscurity.
    

   A safe norm to follow with regard to Adam's infused knowledge is to attribute to the first man quite extraordinary insight in the moral and religious order, while limiting his understanding of things material and technical to the needs of his condition before the fall.
    

Kerygmatic Development

1. Original justice and Prehistory. Until recent times, theologians were only mildly concerned with the problems posed by scientific discoveries, notably anthropology and paleontology. Among the Catholic pioneers, Wilhelm Schmidt ranks as outstanding. Since then the field has become quite thoroughly explored.

   Specifically the problems revolve around the apparent contradiction between a highly endowed first man and the primitive, in the sense of crude, state of civilization so far unearthed from times past. A number of careful distinctions have to be made.
    

   The condition of man in paradise is known to us from revelation and accepted on faith. It was not a state of culture which man acquired by his native power, but the result of a special action of God at the dawn of human history. Small wonder, then, that we have no exploratory evidence of this from ethnology or one of the natural sciences.
    

   This primeval condition was not what we would call a "civilization," that existed for centuries and therefore could leave monuments or other historical vestiges for investigation. It may be described as a brief episode in the story of mankind, which science therefore can neither prove nor disprove from a study of human remains.
    

   There is no need to expand on the perfection of our first parents in the Garden of Paradise. It was certainly considerable as regards things of the spirit and their relations with God; but could also have been quite modest in everything else. And even their religious ideas were capable of development, from the instinctive to a more reflexive and demonstrative knowledge.
    

   But most important, we must keep in mind the radical change which took place after the fall. Although scientists speak of the most ancient peoples as "primitive" this is a relative term. Even the oldest civilizations, known or yet to be discovered, are really decadent from their primordial state. Bereft of the special privileges it once enjoyed, the human race had to face and try to surmount the grave difficulties that stood in its way - personally, socially, morally and religiously. So true is this, that the very necessity for a special revelation from God of naturally knowable truths is a logical corollary to man's fallen condition.

2. Basic principles and Secondary Elements. While holding no brief for the rationalism of Bultmann and the radical Form Critics, we should recognize the prejudice they seek to meet in the modern mind. In large measure this is the result of four centuries of biblicism in Protestant thought, which has affected Western thought to a degree we are slow to admit.
    

   The biblical account of Adam and Eve too often concentrates on secondary elements, which strike the fancy and have been further elaborated by imaginative literature: the picture of the Garden, the rivers which spontaneously flow water and irrigate the land, the Lord walking in the stillness of the night, rows of animals brought before Adam to be named. All the while, the essentials maybe overlooked, namely, the elevation of man to supernatural friendship with God, his disobedience and consequent loss for himself and posterity of grace, integrity and twofold immortality.
    

Study Questions

1. Of whom do we predicate the possession of sanctifying grace and the preternatural gifts? And when were these received?
    
2. Briefly distinguish natural, preternatural and supernatural.
    
3. What kind of immortality did Adam receive as a special gift of God? Explain.
    
4. Distinguish the following: concupiscence in the moral sense and in the dogmatic sense; sensitive appetite and spiritual appetite; diplomatic and despotic dominion of the appetitive faculties.
    
5. What exactly was Adam's gift of integrity, and why was it preternatural?
    
6. What was the nature and scope of Adam's infused knowledge?
    
7. Outline the basic tenets of Pelagianism, and how were the Pelagians against our thesis?
    
8. What is Rationalism in theology, and how does it oppose our position that the first man was elevated to the supernatural order and received preternatural powers?
    
9. Give the dogmatic value for the various parts of the thesis.
    
10. Prove from the documents, Scripture and especially St. Paul that Adam possessed sanctifying grace. What was the Patristic teaching on the subject?
     
11. Show from Trent, Scripture and the Fathers that Adam had the gift of integrity.
     
12. Using Trent, Genesis and St. Paul, prove that Adam was originally destined to be immortal in body. Briefly state the doctrine of. two of the Fathers on this fact.
     
13. How do we argue from theological reason, using Scripture as basis, that Adam had special infused knowledge?
     
14. How do we reconcile our thesis with the current idea of the “primitive man”?

(이상, 발췌 끝)
----------

9.
[참고 자료] 다음은 Ludwig Ott 신부의 저서 (책명: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma)에서 발췌한 것입니다. 

주의 사항 한 개: 이 저서는 가톨릭 보편 교회가 발행한 저술도 아니고 그리고, 제2차 바티칸 공의회 이전에 출판되었기에, 제2차 바티칸 공의회의 중요한 결과들을 언급하고 있지 않습니다. 그리고 이 책은 처음에 독일어로 출판되었으며, 아래에 발췌한 것은 영어 번역본입니다. 그런데, 이 영어 번역본 자체는 교회의 출판 검열을 받지 않은 것 같습니다. 다른 한편으로, 독일어 원본은 구할 수도 없으며, 이 영어 번역본이 프랑스어 번역본과 비교/검토하였을 때에 번역 오류가 상당히 있다는 강력한 지적이 있습니다. 다음의 주소를 클릭하여 읽어 보시기 바랍니다. 

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/critott.htm

게시자 주: 그리고 아래의 영어본에는, scanning 하는 과정에서 발생한 듯한, 오타들이 있습니다:

출처: http://www.catecheticsonline.com/Fundamentals-BookTwo-PartOne-II.php

(발췌 시작)
II. The Elevation of Man to the Supernatural Order

§ 16. The concept of the supernatural

1. Determination of the Concept

Natural, in opposition to supernatural, is that which is either a part of nature, or that which proceeds out of nature as its effect, or to which nature has a claim:

Naturale est, quod vel constitutive vel consecutive vel exigitive ad naturam pertinet, or more concisely: Naturale est, quod naturae debetur. The natural order is the ordination of all creatures to their ultimate end in accordance with their nature.
 

St. Augustine employs the word "natural" in accord with its etymology (natura = nascitura) frequently in the sense of "original" (originalis), and on occasion, in the sense of "according to nature" (conveniens). The "natural" endowment of man in the sense of St. Augustine includes also the super¬natural gifts of the primitive state. (Cf. D 130: "naturalis possibilitas.") Supernatural is that which is neither a part of nature, nor proceeds as effect from nature, nor can be claimed by nature, but which transcends the being, the powers and the claims of nature. The supernatural is super-added by God over the claims and endowments of nature to the natural gifts of the creature: supernaturale est donum Dei naturae indebitum et superadditum. The supernatural order is the ordination of rational creatures to a supernatural final goal.
 

2. Division

The supernatural is divided into:
a) The supernatural in substance (supernaturale secundum substantiam) and the supernatural in mode (supernaturale secundum modum). The "supernatural in substance" is that which by its intrinsic character transcends the nature of the creature, for example, our knowledge of the triune personality of God, actual grace, sanctifying grace, the immediate vision of God. "Supernatural in mode" is an effect which as to its essence is indeed natural, but which in the mode and manner of its production transcends the natural powers of the creature, for example, a miraculous healing of a sick person.

b) "The absolutely supernatural" or the supernatural pure and simple (super¬naturale simpliciter) and "the relatively supernatural," or the supernatural in a definite respect (supernaturale secundum quid). "The absolutely supernatural" connotes goods of the Divine order, which transcend the nature of creatures; for example, sanctifying grace, or the immediate vision of God. The relatively supernatural connotes goods of the created order, which though supernatural for one creature, are not supernatural for another creature, for example, infused knowledge, which is natural for the angels, and supernatural for human beings. To the relatively supernatural belong the so-called preternatural gifts of man's primitive state.
 

§ 17. Relation between nature and supernature

1. Nature's capacity to receive a supernature

A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)

Though the supernatural is beyond nature, still nature has a certain receptivity for the supernatural, the so-called potentia oboedientialis. This is the passive potentiality proper to creatures, of being elevated by the Creator to a supernatural state of being and activity. Cf. S. tho HI n, I.
 

According to the Schoolmen, the supernatural gift is educed through the power of the Creator from the potentia oboedientialis, in other words the passive potentiality which is present in the nature of the creature is actualised by the omnipotence of God. This doctrine is essentially different from the modernistic teaching of the "vital immanence," according to which everything religious develops out of the necessities of human nature in a purely natural fashion. St. Augustine teaches: Posse habere fidem sicut posse habere caritatem naturae est hominum; habere autem fidem quemadmodum habere caritatem gratia est fidelium (De praedest. sanct. 5, IO).
 

2. Organic Connection of Nature and Supernature

a) The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent. communis.)

The supernatural does not exist in itself, but in something else; it is therefore not a substance, but an accident. Thus the supernatural presupposes a created nature, which receives it and in which it operates. 

b) The Supernatural perfects Nature. (Sent. communis.)

The supernatural is not super-added merely externally to nature, but affects nature intrinsically. It permeates the being and the powers of nature, and perfects it either within the created order (e.g., the preternatural gifts) or through elevation into the divine order of being and activity (absolutely supernatural gifts). The Fathers and theologians compare the supernatural to fire which makes iron glow, or to a plant which is grafted on a tree.
 

3. The Natural and the Supernatural Aim of Man

God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)

The Vatican Council establishes the absolute necessity of Revelation by reason of man's ordination to a supernatural final end: Deus ex infmita bonitate sua ordinavit hominem ad finem supernaturalem, ad participanda scilicet bona divina, quae humanae mentis intelligentiam omnino superant. D 1786. C£ D 1808. Man's final end consists in a participation by him in God's Vision of Himself. The attainment of this end by men gives glory to God and fills men with supernatural happiness. Cf. 1 Cor. 13, 12; 1 John 3, 2 (see Doctrine of God, Par. 6).
 

The natural end of man, which consists in man's natural knowledge and love of God, and in the natural glorification of God, is subordinated and adapted to his supernatural end. The natural order is thus used as a means for the attaining of the ultimate supernatural goal. Man, by reason of his whole dependence on God, is bound to strive after the supernatural destination determined for him by God. If he neglects this, then he cannot reach the natural goal either. cf. Mk. 16, 16.
 

§ 18. The Supernatural Endowment of the First Man

1. Sanctifying Grace

Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
 

The Council of Trent, in opposition to Pelagianism and to modern Rationalism, teaches: primUl11 hominem Adam ... sanctitatem et iustitiam, in qua constitutus fuerat, amisisse. (If anyone will not confess that when the first man Adam had transgressed the mandate of God in paradise he did not immediately lose the sanctity and justice in which he had been constituted A.S.) D 788; cf. D 192.
 

Against Baius and the Jansenist Quesnel, the Church asserted the supernatural character of the gifts given to man in the primitive state. D 1021 to 1026, 1385. Cf. D 1516.
 

The elevation to the state of grace is indicated by the intimacy between God and the progenitors of the human race in Paradise. A scriptural proof is provided by St. Paul's teaching on the Redemption. The Apostle teaches that Christ, the Second Adam, restored what the first Adam had lost, the state of holiness and justice. But if he had lost it, he must previously have received it. Cf. Rom. 5, 12 et seq. ; Eph. I, 10; 4,23 et seq.; 1 Cor. 6, II ; 2 Cor. 5, 17; Gal. 6,15; Rom. 5, IO et seq.; 8,14 et seq.
 

The Fathers find the supernatural endowment with grace indicated in Gn. I, 26 (similitudo = supernatural identity of image and likeness with God) ; in Gn. 2, 7 (spiraculum vitae = supernatural life-principle), and in Eccles. 7, 30: "Only this have I found that God made man right."
 

St. Augustine declares that our renewal (Eph. 4, 23) consists in this that: "We have received justice from which man had fallen off through sin" (De Gen. ad Litt. VI 24, 35).

St. John Damascene says: "The Creator has communicated His Divine Grace to man and thereby made him a participant in His community " (De fide orth. IT 30).
 

As regards the time of man's elevation to the state of grace, most theologians, including St. Thomas and his school, are of the opinion that the first men were created in the state of sanctifying grace, Petrus Lombardus and the Franciscan school, on the other hand, teach that the first human beings on their creation received only the preternatural gifts of integrity, and were required to prepare themselves with the help of actual grace for the reception of sanctifying grace. The Council of Trent has deliberately left the question undecided (whence constitutus, not creatus: D 788). St. Thomas' teaching is that of the Fathers. Cf. D 192: St. John Damascene, De fide orth. IT 12. S. tl1. 195, I.
 

2. The Gifts of Integrity

The supernatural endowment of the first men (iustitia originalis) included, in addition to the absolute supernatural gift of Sanctifying Grace, certain preternatural gifts, the so-called "dona integritatis" :
 

a) The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
 

The Council of Trent explains that concupiscence was called a sin by St. Paul because it flows from sin and makes one inclined to sin (quia ex peccato est et ad peccatum inclinat: D 792). But if it does flow from sin, then it did not exist before sin. Cf. D 2123, 1026.
 

Holy Writ attests the perfect harmony between reason and sensuality. Gn. 2, 25: "And they were both naked ... and were not ashamed." It was only sin that gave rise to the feeling of shame (Gn. 3, 7. 10).
 

The Fathers defend the donum integritatis against the Pelagians, who regarded concupiscence, not as a defect of nature (defectus naturae), but as a power of nature (vigor naturae). St. Augustine teaches that the first man, by reason of the gift of integrity, had the possibility of easily avoiding sin (posse non pecare: De corrept. et gratia 12, 33).
 

b) The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.)
 

The Council of Trent teaches that Adam fell under the sentence of death as a punishment for sin: Si quis non confitetur, primum hominem Adam . . . incurrisse per offensam praevaricationis huiusmodi iram et indignationem Dei atque mortem, quam antea illi comminatus fuerat Deus, ••• A.S. D 788 ; cf. D IOI, 175, 1078, 2123.
 

Holy Writ records that God threatened and imposed death as punishment for the transgression of His probationary commandment. Gn. 2, 17; 3, 19. Cf. Wis. I, 13 : "For God made not death." Wis. 2, 24: “But by the envy of the devil death came into the world." Rom. 5, 12: ”By one man sin entered into the world and by sin death."
 

The gift of immortality is, as St. Augustine teaches (De Gen. ad Litt. VI 25, 36), to be conceived as posse non mori (= the possibility of not dying) not as non posse mori (= impossibility of dying). The Fathers regarded bodily immortality as being transmitted through the tree of life (Gn. 2, 9; 3,22).
 

c) The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
 

This gift is to be more closely defined as posse non pari (= the possibility of remaining free from suffering). It is associated with corporeal immortality.
 

Holy Writ represents suffering and sorrow as the consequences of sin. Gn. 3, 16 et seq. Before sin came into the world the progenitors of the human race lived in a condition of unalloyed happiness (c£ Gn. 2, IS [Vulg.] : in paradiso voluptatis). But freedom from suffering in no wise means inactivity. Our first parents immediately after their creation by God received from Him the order to till the land (Gn. 2, 15), and thus, in a limited measure, to participate in the work of the Creator.
 

d) The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
 

Since our first parents, according to Holy Writ, entered into existence in an adult state, and were the first teachers and educators of humanity, it was appropriate that they should be equipped by God with a natural knowledge suitable to their age and their tasks, and with that measure of supernatural knowledge which was necessary to enable them to achieve their supernatural destiny. In Holy Writ the deep knowledge of Adam is indicated in his naming of the animals (Gn. 2, 20) and in his immediate knowledge of the status and tasks of the woman (Gn. 2,23 et seq.). Cf. Ecclus. 17, 5 et seq.
 

In Gn. 2, 20 (nanling of the animals), St. Augustine sees "a proof of the transcendental wisdom" (indicium excellentissimac sapientiae: Op. imperf. contra Jul. V I). According to St. Cyril of Alexandria, "Adam, the head of the race, was perfect in knowledge immediately from the first moment of his emergence" (In loan. I, 9). Cf. S. tho I 94, 3.
 

3. The Gifts of the Primitive State as Hereditary Gifts

Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
 

The Council of Trent teaches that Adam lost sanctity and justice (= sanctifying grace) not merely for himself, but also for us (D 789). It follows from this, that he received these not only for himself but also for us his descendants. This, according to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers and of the theologians, applies to the preternatural gifts of integrity (with the exception of the donum scientiae); for these were bestowed for the sake of sanctifying grace. Adam received the gifts of the original state, not as an individual person, but as head of the human race, and thus for the whole human race. They were a present to human nature (donum naturae) and, according to the positive ordinance of God, were to be transmitted with nature to all the heirs of mat nature. Original justice was intended to be hereditary justice.
 

The Fathers declare that we, the posterity of Adam, received the grace of God gratuitously and lost it through sin. This manner of speaking presupposes that the original endowment with grace ought to pass from Adam to his posterity. Cf. St. Basil, Sermo asc. I: "Let us return to the original grace, of which we were deprived by sin." St. Augustine, De spiro et litt. 27, 47. S. tho I 100, I. Cf. Compo theol. 187.
 

§ 19. The Various States of Human Nature

By the state of human nature (status naturae humanae) is understood the inner constitution of human nature in relation to the final goal set for it by God. One distinguishes between historical (or real), and merely possible states.
 

1. Real States

a) The state of elevated nature (status naturae e1evatae or status iustitiae originalis), that is, the primitive state of the first human beings before the fall through sin in which they possessed both the absolute supernatural gift of sanctifying grace as well as the preternatural gifts of integrity.
 

b) The state of fallen nature (status naturae lapsae), that is, the state following immediately after the sin of Adam, in which man, as punishment for sin, possessed neither sanctifying grace nor the gifts of integrity.
 

c) The state of restored nature (status naturae glorificatae), that is, the condition of those who have achieved their supernatural destiny, i.e., the Immediate Vision of God. This state includes in its perfection sanctifying grace. After their resurrection, the bodies of those in this state will also be endowed with the preternatural gifts of integrity (non posse peccare, mori, pati).
 

Common to all real states is the possession of the Beatific Vision of God.

2. Merely Possible States

a) The state of pure nature (status naturae purae), that is, a condition in which man would possess all that, and only that, which appertains to human nature, and in which he could attain to a natural final end only.
 

The possibility of a pure state of nature, which was denied by Luther, Baius and Jansulius, is certain Church doctrine. It springs as a necessary consequence from the doctrine of the supernatural character of the gifts of the primitive state. Pope Pius V rejected the assertion of Baius: Deus non potuisset ab initio talem creare hominem, qualis nunc nascitur (D I055). The Church teaches therefore that God could have created man without supernatural or preternatural gifts, but not in a condition of sin.
 

St. Augustine and the Schoolmen expressly teach the possibility of the pure state of nature. Cf. St. Augustine, Retract. 18(9),6. St. Thomas, In Sent. II d. 31 q. a. 2 ad 3.
 

b) The state of unimpaired nature (status naturae integrae), i.e., that is a condition in which man, in addition to his nature, would possess the preternatural gifts of integrity, in order to reach his natural final goal with ease and with certainty.
 

III. Man's Lapse from the Supernatural Order

§ 20. The Personal Sin of Our First Parents or Original Sin

1. The Act of Sin

Our First Parents in Paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
 

The Council of Trent teaches that Adam lost sanctity and justice by transgressing the Divine commandment (D 788). Since the punishment is proportionate to the guilt, the sin of Adam was clearly a serious sin.
 

The biblical account of the fall through the sin of the First Parents is contained in Gn. 2, 17 and 3, I et seq. Since Adam's sin is the basis of the dogma of Original Sin and Redemption the historical accuracy of the account as regards the essential facts may not be impugned. According to a decision of the Bible Commission in 1909, the literal historical sense is not to be disputed in regard to the following facts: a) That the first man received a command from God to test his obedience; b) That through the temptation of the devil who took the form of a serpent he transgressed the Divine commandment; c) That our First Parents were deprived of their original condition of innocence. D 2123.
 

The later Books of Holy Writ confirm this literal, historical interpretation. Ecclus. 2S, 33: "From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die." Wis. 2, 24: "But by the envy of the devil death came into the world." 2 Cor. II, 3: “But I fear lest. as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted and fall away from the simplicity which is Christ." Cf. I Tim. 2, 14; Rom. S, 12. et seq ; John 8, 44. The mythological explanation, and the purely allegorical explanation (of the Alexandrines) are therefore to be rejected.

The sin of our First Parents was a sin of disobedience. Cf. Rom. 5, 19: "By the disobedience of one man many were made sinners." The root of the disobedience was pride. Tob. 4, 14: "From it (pride) all perdition took its beginning." Ecclus. 10. 15: "Pride is the beginning of all sin." The theory that Original Sin was a sexual sin (St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Ambrose) cannot be accepted. The gravity of the sin is clear when we regard its purpose and the circumstances of the Divine commandment. St. Augustine regards Adam's sin as an "inexpressibly great sin" (incffabiliter grande peccatum: Op. Imperf. c.Jul. I 105).
 

2. The Consequences of Sin

a) Through sin our First Parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
 

In Holy Writ the loss of Sanctifying Grace is indicated in the exclusion of Our First Parents from intercourse with God. (Gn. 3, 10. 23). God appears as a judge and announces the sentence of punishment (Gn. 3, 16 et seq.).
 

God's displeasure finally takes effect in the eternal rejection. Tatian believed that Adam lost eternal salvation but St. Irenacus (Adv. haer. III 23. 8), Tertullian (De poenit. 12) and St. Hippolytus (Philos. 8, 16) rejected this view. In later times, the Fathers generally, supported by Wis. 10, 2: (" She [Wisdom] brought him out of his sin"), teach that Our First Parents did atonement and "through the Blood of the Lord" were saved from eternal destruction (cf. St. Augustine, De peccat. mer. et rem. II 34,55).
 

b) Our First Parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D 788.
 

Death and the evils associated with it follow from the loss of the gifts of integrity. According to Gn. 3, 16 et seq., God imposed suffering and death as a punishment for sin. The dominion of the devil is mentioned in Gn. 3, Ij and is explicitly taught in John 12, 31; 14, 30; 2 Cor. 4, 4; Hebr. 2, 14; 2 Peter 2, 19.
 

§ 21. The Existence of Original Sin

1. The Heretical Counter-propositions

The doctrine of Original Sin was rejected by the Gnostics and Manichaeans, who believed that the moral corruption of humanity comes from an eternal principle of evil and also by the Origenists and Priscillianists, who explained humanity's inclination to evil by a pre-corporeal fall through sin.
 

Original sin was directly denied by the Pelagians, who taught: a) The sin of Adam is transmitted to posterity not by inheritance but through imitation of a bad example (imitatione, non propagatione). b) Death, suffering and concupiscence are not punishment for sin, but a natural condition of man who was created in a pure state of nature. c) The baptism of children is administered, not for the remission of sins, but as a sign of acceptance by the Church, and to enable men to reach the Kingdom of Heaven, which is distinct from vita aeterna (a higher stage of blessedness).
 

The Pelagian error was combated chiefly by St. Augustine and was condemned by the Church at the Synods of Mileve 416, Carthage 418, Orange 529 and in later times by the Council of Trent (1546) D !O2, 174 et seq ., 787 et seq.
 

The Pelagian error lives on in modern rationalism (Socianism, Rationalism of the age of the Enlightenment, Liberal Protestant Theology. modern unbelief).
 

In medieval times the Synod of Sens (1141) rejected the following thesis of Peter Abelard: Quod non contraximus culpam ex Adam, sed poenam tantum D 376.
 

The Reformers, the Baians, and the ]ansenists admitted the reality of original sin, but misunderstood its essence and its operation, since they regarded it as identical with concupiscence which corrupts completely human nature. a: St. Augustine Conf. Art. 2.
 

2. Teaching of the Church

Adam's sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
 

The dogmatic teaching on original sin is laid down in the Tridentine Decree "super peccato originali" (Sess. V; 1546), which in part follows word for word the decisions of the Synods of Carthage and of Orange. The Council of Trent rejects the doctrine that Adam's loss of the sanctity and justice received from God was merely for himself alone, and not for us also, and that he transmitted to his posterity death and suffering only, but not the guilt of sin. It positively teaches that sin, which is the death of the soul, is inherited by all his posterity by descent, not by imitation. and that it dwells in every single human being. It is removed by the merits of the Redemption of Jesus Christ, which as a rule are bestowed through the Sacrament of Baptism on adults as well as on children. Therefore children also are baptised for the forgiveness of sins (in remissionem peccatorum). D 789-791.
 

3. Proof from the Sources of Faith

a) Scriptural proof

The Old Testament contains references to original sin. Cf. especially Ps. 50, "For behold I was conceived in iniquities: and in sins did my mother conceive me." Job 14,4 (according to Vulg.): "Who can make him clean that is conceived unclean I" Both passages speak of an inborn sinfulness whether tins be understood in the sense of habitual sin or merely of the inclination to sin, but do not bring this into causal connection with the sin of Adaul. The causal connection between the death of all mankind and the sin of our First Parents (original death) is, however, clearly stated in the Old Testament. Cf. Ecclus. 25, 33 ; Wis. 2, 24.
 

The passage which contains the classical proof is Rom. 5. 12-21, in which the Apostle draws a parallel between the first Adam, from whom sin and death are transmitted to all humanity, and Christ, the second Adam, from whom justice and life are transmitted to all men, v. 12: "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death. and so sin passed upon all men. in whom all have sinned (in quo omnesraccaverunt-lcP' cP 1TaJ'7"€S 7ifloaPTOV) . . . 19. For as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just."
 

By sin (&./w.pr{a) is to be understood quite generally sin, which here appears personified. Original sin is therefore included. What is meant is the guilt of sin and not the consequences of sin. Death is expressly distinguished from sin and is represented as the consequence of sin. Concupiscence is not meant, because sin, according to v. 18 et seq. is removed by the grace of Christ's Redemption, while evil desire remains as experience shows.
 

fi) The words in quo (hI>' eP; V. 12 d) were related relatively to unum hominem by St. Augustine and during the whole middle-ages: "By one man . . . in whom all have sinned." Since the time of Erasmus the better-founded conjunctional meaning already proposed by the Fathers, especially by the Greeks, came to the fore: .

,,) The words: "Many (01 7fO'\)..o{) were made sinners" (V. 19a) do not limit the universality of original sin, since the expression "many" (in opposition to the one Adam, or Christ) is parallel to "all" (mfvrE,) in V. 12 d and 18 a.
 

b) Proof from Tradition

St. Augustine appeals to the Tradition of the Church against the Pelagian Bishop Julian of Eclanum: "It is not I who have invented original sin, which the Catholic Faith holds from of old, but thou, who deniest lt, thou art without doubt a new heretic" (De nupt. et concup. II 12, 25). St. Augustine, in his Contra Julianum (L. I and II), adduces a formal proof from Tradition, in which he quotes St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Reticius of Autun, Olympius, St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, I1mocent I, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil and St. Jerome as witnesses of the Catholic teaching. Many assertions of the Greek Fathers who insist on personal responsibility for sin and appear entirely to prescind from original sin, are to be understood as being in opposition to Gnostic-Maniehaean dualism and to Origenistic pre-existentianism. St. Augustine defended the teaching of St. John Chrysostom against its misinterpretation by the Pe1agialls : vobis nondum litigantibus securius loquebatur (Contra Jul. 16, 22).
 

Irrefutable proof of the conviction of the primitive Church as to the reality of original sin is the old Christian practice of the baptism of children "for the remission of sin" (in remissionean peccatorum). Cf. St. Cyprian, Ep. 64, 5.
 

4. Dogma and Reason

The doctrine of Original Sin cannot be proved by natural reason, nevertheless the fact of Original Sin is evidenced by many signs: peccati originalis in humano genere probabiliter quaedam signa apparent (S.c.G. IV 52). Such signs are the frightful moral aberrations of humanity, and the many lapses from belief in the True God (polytheism, atheism).
 

§ 22. The Nature of Original Sin

1. False Views

a) The view of Peter Abelard that Original Sin consists in eternal punishment ("reatns poenae aeternae) is false. According to the teaching of the Council of Trent, Original Sin is a true and proper sin, that is, a guilt of sin. Cf. D 376, 789, 792. St. Paul speaks of a real sin. Rom. 5, 12: "All have sinned." Cf. Rom. 5, 19.
 

b) Original Sin does not consist, as the Reformers, the Baians, and the Jansenists taught. in : "The habitual concupiscence, which remains, even in the baptised, a true and proper sin, but is no longer reckoned for punishment." The Council of Trent teaches that through Baptism everything is taken away which is a true and proper sin, and that the concupiscence which remains behind after Baptism for the moral proving is called sin in an improper sense only. D 792. That sin remains in man, even if it is not reckoned for punishment, is irreconcilable with the Pauline teaching of Justification as an inner transformation and renewal. The justified man is saved from the danger of rejection because the ground for the rejection, the sin, is removed. Rom. 8, I: "There is now, therefore, no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." As concupiscence, in consequence of the composition of human nature out of body and spirit would be present, as natural evil, even in the pure state of nature, it calmot be sinful in itself, for God has created everything well. D 428.
 

c) Original Sin does not consist, as, among others, Albert Pighius (t 1542) and Ambrosius Catharinus, O.P. (t 1553). taught, in a mere external imputation of the sinttJ1 deed of Adam (imputation theory). According to the teaching of the Council of Trent, Adam's sin is transferred by inheritance to all the children of Adam, and exists as his own proper sin in every single one of them: propagatione, non imitationc transfusum omnibus, inest unicuique proprium. D 790. Cf. D 795:  Propriam iniustitiam contrahunt. According to the teaching of the Council of Trent, the efficacy of baptism consists in a real eradication of sin, not in a mere non-imputation of an alien guilt. D 792. Cf. Rom. 5, 12, 19.
 

2. Positive Solution

Original sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
 

a) The Council of Trent defined Original Sin as the death of the soul (mors animae: D 789). The death of the soul is, however, the absence [not-being present] of supernatural life, that is, of sanctifying grace. In Baptism Original Sin is eradicated through the infusion of sanctifying grace (D 792). It follows from this that Original Sin is a condition of being deprived of grace. This flows from the Pauline contrast between sin proceeding from Adam and justice proceeding from Christ (Rom. 5, 19). As the justice bestowed by Christ consists formally in sanctifying grace (D 799) so the sin inherited from Adam consists formally in the lack of sanctifying grace. The lack of sanctifying grace, which, according to the will of God, should be present, establishes that the guilt of Original Sin signifies a turning away from God.
 

As the ratio voluntarii, that is the free incurring of guilt, belongs to the concept of formal sin, and as a young child cannot perform a personal voluntary act, in original sin, the actor of spontaneity must be explained from its connection with Adam's deed of sin. Adam was the representative of the whole human race. On his voluntary decision depended the preservation or the loss of the supernatural endowment, which was a gift, not to him personally but, to human nature as such. His transgression was, therefore, the transgression of the whole human race. Pope Pius V rejected the assertion of Baius, that Original Sin had the character of sin in itself without any reference to the will from which it sprung. D 1047. Cf. St. Augustine, Retract. I 12 (13), j. S. tho I II 81, I.
 

b) According to the teaching of St. Thomas, Original Sin consists formaliter in the lack of original justice, materialiter in the unregulated concupiscence. In every sin St. Thomas distinguishes between a formal and a material element the turning away from God (aversio a Deo) and the turning towards the creature (conversio ad creaturam). As the turning towards the creature manifests itself above all in evil desire, St. Thomas with St. Augustine, sees in concupiscence, which itself is a consequence of original sin, the material element of orignal sin: peccatum originale materialiter quidem est concupiscentia, formal iter vero est defectus originalis iustitiae (S. tho I II 82, 3). The doctrine of St. Thomas was influenced partially by St. Anselm of Canterbury, who sees in the nature of original sin only the lack of original justice and partially by St. Augustine, who defines original sin as: an evil concupiscence with its state of guilt (concupiscentia cum suo reatu) and explains that the state of guilt (reatus) is removed by Baptism, while the concupiscence persists for a moral test (ad agonem), but not as a sin. (Op. imperf. C. Jul. I 71). Most of the post- Tridentine theologians do not regard concupiscence as an essential constituent part of original sin, but as its consequence.
 

§ 23. The Transmission of Original Sin

Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
 

The Council of Trent says: propagatione, non imitatione transfusum omnibus. D 790. In the baptism of children that is expurgated which they have incurred through generation. D 791.
 

As original sin is a peccatum naturae, it is transmitted in the same way as human nature, through the natural act of generation. Although according to its origin, it is a single sin (D 790) that is the sin of the head of the race alone (the sin of Eve is not the cause of original sin) it is multiplied over and over again through natural generation whenever a child of Adam enters existence. In each act of generation human nature is communicated in a condition deprived of grace.
 

The chief cause (causa efficiens principalis) of original sill is the sin of Adam alone. The instrumental cause (causa efficicns instrumentalls) is the natural act of  generation, which gives rise to the connection of the individual human being with the head of the race. The actual concupiscence associated with the act of generation, the sexual pleasure (libido) is, contrary to the view of St. Augustine (De nuptiis et concup. I 23, 25 ; 24, 27), neither the cause nor the inescapable condition for the reproduction of original sin. It is only an accompanying phenomenon of the act of generation, which in itself alone is the instrumental cause of the transmission of original sin.  C( S. tho I II 82, 4 ad 3.
 

Objections.

From the Christian doctrine of the reproduction of original sin, it does not follow, as the Pelagians maintained, that God is the Originator of sin. The soul created by God is, according to its natural constitution, good. The condition of original sin signifies the want of a supernatural advantage to which the creature has no claim. God is not obliged to create the soul with the adornment of sanctifying grace. God is not to be blamed for the fact that the newly-created soul is denied the supernatural endowment. but man is who misused his freedom. Again, it does not follow from this teaching that marriage is bad. The marital act of generation is good because, objectively, that is, according to its adaptation to its end, and subjectively, that is, according to the intention of the generators, it is aimed at good, namely, the reproduction of the human nature desired by God.
 

§ 24. The Consequences of Original Sin

The consequences of original sin are, following Luke 10, 30, summansed by the scholastic theologians, in the axiom: By Adam's sin man is deprived of the supernatural gifts and wounded in his nature (spoliatus gratui.tis, vulncratus in naturalibus). The word gratuita usually means only the absolute supernatural gifts and naturalia the gifts of integrity, which were part of man's abilities and powers before the fall. Cf. S. tho r II 85, I; Sent. II d. 29 q. la.2.
 

1. Loss of the Supernatural Endowment

In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatis. D 788 et seq.)
 

The lack of the sanctifying grace has, as a turning away of man from God, the character of guilt and, as the turning of God away from man, the character of punishment. The lack of the gifts of integrity results in man's being subject to concupiscence, suffering and death. These results remain even after the extirpation of Original Sin, not as punishment, but as the so-called poenalitates, that is, as the means given to man to achieve the practice of virtue and moral integrity. The person stained by Original Sin finds himself in the imprisonment and slavery of the devil whom Jesus calls "the prince," and St. Paul "the god of this world" (2 Cor. 4, 4). Cf. Hebr. 2, 14; Peter 2, 19.
 

2. Wounding of Nature

The wounding of nature must not be conceived, with the Reformers and the ]ansellists, as the complete corruption of human nature. In the condition of Original Sin, man possesses the ability of knowing natural religious truths and of performing natural morally good actions. The Vatican Council teaches that man, with his natural power of cognition, can with certainty know the existence of God. D 1785, 1806. The Council of Trent teaches that free will was not lost or extinguished by the fall of Adam. D 815.
 

The wounding of nature extends to the body as well as to the soul. The 2nd Council of Orange (529) explained: totum, i.e., secundum corpus et animam, in deterius hominem commutatum (esse) (the whole man both in body and in soul was changed for the worse). D 174. Cf. D 181, 199, 793. Side by side with the two wounds of the body, sensibility to suffering (passibilitas) and mortality (mortalitas), theologians, with St. Thomas (5. tho I II 85, 3) enumerate four wounds of the soul, which are opposed to the four cardinal virtues: a) ignorance (ignorantia), that is, difficulty of knowing the truth (opposite to prudence), b) malice (malitia), that is the weakening of the power of the will (opposite to justice), c) weakness (infirrnitas), that is, the recoiling before difficulties in the struggle for the good (oppoiite to fortitude), d) desire (concupiscentia) in the narrower sense, that is, the desire for satisfaction of the senses against the judgment of reason (opposite to temperance). The wounds of the body are caused by the loss of the preternatural gifts of impassibility and immortality, the wounds of the soul by the loss of the preternatural gift of freedom from concupiscence.
 

There is a controversy as to whether the wounding of nature consists exclusively in the loss of the preternatural gifts, or whether human nature in addition is intrinsically weakened in an accidental manner. The former view, which is that adopted by St. Thomas and by most theologians, conceives the wounding of nature as relative only, i.e., by comparison with its primitive condition, while the latter view conceives it as absolute and visualises it as a worsening in comparison with the pure state of nature.

According to the former view, the person who is born in original sin is to the human being in the pure state of nature as one stripped of his clothes is to the unclothed (nudatus ad undum) ; according to the latter view, as the sick person is to the healthy (aegrorus ad sanum). The former view is to be preferred, as the sinful act of Adam, which occurred once only, could, neither in his own nature nor in the nature of his posterity, effect an evil habit and with it, a weakening of the natural powers. Cf. S. tho I II 85, I. However, it must be admitted that fallen human nature, in consequence of individual and social aberrations, has declined below the state of pure nature.
 

§ 25. Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)
 

The 2nd General Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438¬45) declared: illorum animas, qui in actuali mortali. peccato vel solo originali. decedunt, mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen disparibus puniendas (the souls of those who die in original sin as well as those who die in actual mortal sin go immediately into hell, but their punishment is very different). D 464, 693.
 

The dogma is supported by the words of Our Lord: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God" (John 3, 5)

The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner through baptism by blood (cf. the baptism by blood of the children of Bethehem). Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire--Cajetan), or the attaitunent of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire-H. IUee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi¬Sacrament (baptism of suffering-H. Schell), are indeed, possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation. Cf. D 712.
 

In the punishment of Hell theologians distinguish between the "poena damni," which consists in the exclusion from the Beatific Vision of God, and the "poena sensus" which is caused by external means, and which will be felt by the senses even after the resurrection of the body. While St. Augustine and many Latin Fathers are of the opinion that children dying in original sin must suffer "poena sensus" also, even if only a very mild one (mitissinla omnium poena: Enchir. 93), the Greek Fathers (for example, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 40, 23), and the majority of the Schoolmen and more recent theologians, teach that they suffer "poena damni" only. The declaration of Pope Innocent III, is in favour of this teaching: Poena originalis peccati est carentia visionis Dei (= poena damni) actualis vero poena peccati est gehennae perpetuae cruciatus (= poena sensus). D 410. A condition of natural bliss is compatible wid] "poena damni." Cf. St. Thomas, De malo, 5, 3 ; Sent. II d. 33 q. 2 a. 2.
 

Theologians usually assume that there is a special place or state for children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum (children's Limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the Synod of Pistoia. D 1526.

(이상, 발췌 끝).

---------------


작성 중입니다.


"preternatural" site:vatican.va

여기를 클릭하십시오

(요한 바오로 2세 일반 알현 교리 교육 강론)

출처: http://ch.catholic.or.kr/pundang/4/vatican/aud19860903en.htm

출처: http://ch.catholic.or.kr/pundang/4/vatican/aud19860813en.htm
-----

(비오 11세 회칙)
http://ch.catholic.or.kr/pundang/4/vatican/hf_p-xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri_en.htm

(NAB 본문 중에서 "preternatural" 이라는 단어의 용례)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/8/ZE.HTM

-----

"beside nature" ""praeter naturam"

여기를 클릭하십시오

http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/nath51.htm

http://josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/DeCoelo.htm

http://www.logicmuseum.com/authors/aquinas/summa/Summa-III-27-34.htm

-----

"preternatural" site:clerus.org

http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dmh.htm#cqg (DS 2212)

-----

http://www.peterpoon.idv.hk/Resource/Dictionary/P.htm

preternatural ：本性外的；超自然的。

supernatural ：超性；超自然；超本性；神奇的；超自然能力的；超性的：超越本性、在本性之上的。
-----

----------
작성자: 교수 소순태 마태오 (Ph.D.)
작업에 소요된 시간: 약10시간 (자료 조사 포함)