v. Appetite, Desire, Passion, Pleasure
Rom 6:12 so that you obey him in his c
1Th 4:5 not in passion of c, like the Gentiles
Tit 3:3 lost, slaves of c and delights
Jam 1:14 when of his own c is drawn and
1Pe 4:2 not to live .. according to the c of the
2Pe 1:4 the corruption that is .. because of the c
2Pe 2:18 speaking .. they seduce with c of the meat
Disordered appetite for pleasures. God hates that sin, and it is the reason for our temptations: Mat 5:28, Mar 4:19, Luc 4:38, Jas 1:14, Rom 6:12, 1 Thess.4; 5, Tit 3:3.
Christian Bible Dictionary
Dr. J. Dominguez
http://bible.com/dictionary/
Source: Christian Bible Dictionary
The Greek term epithumia is translated as “desires” (Rom 13:14; Eph 2:3), but always with the idea of exaggeration in that feeling or inclination. When the Lord Jesus says: “How I have longed to eat this Passover with you before I suffer!” he is using the same word (epithumia = how much I have longed). But mostly the word is used to point out the evil inclination of our fallen nature, which produces appetites, illegitimate greed, exaggerated, recurrent, disorderly, vehement and always sinful desires. Thus, men live †œin the c. of their hearts† (Rom 1:24), but believers are not to obey c. of sin in their mortal bodies (Rom 6:14; 1Pe 4:2-3).
Source: Christian Bible Dictionary
see, An illegitimate and disorderly covetousness (Rom. 1:24; 6:12; 1 Thess. 4:5; Jas. 1:14, 15; 1 Pet. 4:2, 3; 2 Pet. 1:4; 2 :10, 18; 3:3).
Source: New Illustrated Bible Dictionary
Tendency of nature towards what pleases the senses, even if it does not conform to reason or the will of God. This concept is identified with the desire for sensory pleasure, not only sexual, but also responds to the desire to possess, to dominate, to stand out and to all the disorderly movements that escape the serene control of the will.
In Sacred Scripture there is sometimes talk of this tendency to ethical disorder through hedonic jouissance. It is not described with the Latin verb “concupiscere”, to desire, but in the Old Testament it is collected with the verb “äwä” (Ex. 20.17; Prov. 6. 25), which indicates wishing for something that is not right; and in the New Testament the Greek term “epizumia” is used (Rom. 1.24-32; Gal 5.16-26; San. 1.14; 1 Jn. 2. 15-17), which translates as desire of the flesh, inclination natural, desire for pleasure, which are ways of expressing that inclination that leads to sin.
Christian asceticism tends to relate concupiscence to original sin and the disorder introduced by alienation from God from the first infidelity to God’s plan in Paradise. On that belief is based the need to fight against one’s own inclinations.
Those passions of concupiscence are called “concupiscible” or calm, because they seek pleasure without further ado. And those that provoke aggressive reactions are called “irascible” or violent. In both, the persuasion that something (lust) in us leads us to evil is the basis of the ascetic struggle.
But it is not easy in both cases to differentiate perfectly what is the tendency of man in accordance with his animal nature: instincts of conservation, defense, reproduction, possession; and what is really a maladjustment of nature: passion of envy, avarice, lust, anger, etc. That is why it is not easy by reason to detect what is good and what is bad, although intimate experience discerns it well.
The so-called Letter I of the Apostle John condenses the evil inclinations into the three lusts (epizumia): “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride (alathoneia) of life.” (1 John 2. 15-17)
Regardless of the identity of concupiscence, the important thing in education is to cultivate right reason and the freedom of the will to act according to the Christian ideal and not according to natural inclination, as any irrational animal can act. For that there is virtue, which is a habit of doing well, and conscience, which is the ability to judge the goodness or malice of acts.
Pedro Chico González, Dictionary of Catechesis and Religious Pedagogy, Editorial Bruño, Lima, Peru 2006
Source: Dictionary of Catechesis and Religious Pedagogy
(v. chastity, sexuality, capital vices)
(ESQUERDA BIFET, Juan, Dictionary of Evangelization, BAC, Madrid, 1998)
Source: Dictionary of Evangelization
Concupiscence can be the inordinate appetite for carnal pleasures (Mt 5,28) or the ambitious and seductive desire for earthly goods (Mk 4,19). Saint John distinguishes three kinds of lust: that of the flesh, that of the eyes, and the boasting of riches (1 Jn 2:16).
MNE
FERNANDEZ RAMOS, Felipe (Dir.), Dictionary of Jesus of Nazareth, Editorial Monte Carmelo, Burbos, 2001
Source: Dictionary of Jesus of Nazareth
From the Latin concupiscere (to ardently desire, to crave), this term indicates the intense desire to achieve something pleasant or good (both real and apparent). According to Scripture, it is always present in the life of man and has an ambivalent character, although it cannot be denied that it is presented above all in its negative meaning of inclination to evil. The sacred authors do not refer concupiscence only to the sexual sphere, but to various human situations.
Throughout the history of theological thought there are two fundamental orientations in the understanding of concupiscence: the first, strongly influenced by Hellenism, traces concupiscence to the conflict between spirit and matter that is present in man ; Despite being oriented towards good and truth, the spirit of man is strongly conditioned by the tendency towards sensible things and pleasure.
In this perspective, concupiscence is configured as “a set of spontaneous and irrational inclinations” (M. Flick – Z. Alszeghv), which escapes the control of reason or can lead man to what reason itself judges to be it is not true or good. The second orientation conceives concupiscence as the deficiency or weakening of the capacity to direct oneself with balance and decision towards the good or towards just ends; should not be understood as a natural inclination to evil or limited good, but as a sign of disharmony that is “a consequence of the weakness of reason and free will, which are unable to subdue the lower forces, but they are even absorbed by them” (M. Flick – Z. Alszeghy).
On the relationship between concupiscence and original sin, while Augustine establishes a kind of equivalence between the two realities, Thomas Aquinas affirms that it is a consequence of original sin, that it is “the passion sustained by a strong desire” and although it is not Negative ego bad, in the current condition of humanity it is configured above all as an impulse towards evil and not towards good: “Concupiscence is disordered – the Angelic points out – insofar as it contrasts with reason inclining towards evil or provoking difficulties for the good.
In Lutheran thought any possible “positive” or “natural” aspect of concupiscence is denied; in the human being, whose nature has been “terribly ruined” (Luther), concupiscence is conceived as a fundamental sin that, starting with Adam, is present in all men, in whom it remains even after baptism.
The Council of Trent, contrary to the Lutheran conception, affirms that concupiscence certainly remains in redeemed men, inclining them to sin; for this reason it must be fought against, but without confusing it with sin itself, as long as man does not follow its impulses (cf. DS 1515).
When in 1567 Pius Y condemned some propositions of Miguel Bayo (.71 bayanism), he stated among other things that man could have been created by God also with concupiscence; from this it follows that concupiscence is not in itself negative.
Precisely this last affirmation of the Magisterium can constitute the basis for a balanced assessment of concupiscence. If it is understood as an imbalance or as an impulse that man experiences towards the apparent good or towards relative and not absolute values and ends, it cannot be considered as something that necessarily belongs to the human condition; neither can it be considered only in a negative sense, that is, exclusively united with sin.
Concupiscence must be considered first of all in relation to the singular condition of the incarnate subject, which the Creator wanted for man: precisely as such, he is called to exercise his own responsibility, trying first of all to painstakingly rebuild the lost balance and harmony, without renouncing a priori to those elements of his personality that could most easily be oriented towards really good ends. In the exercise of responsibility and in the effort to build oneself, one’s own “passions” can have a positive function.
As Thomas Aquinas teaches, the moral life reaches its peak when the whole man is oriented towards the good; he writes: “It enters into the very perfection of the moral good that man dedicate himself to it not only with his volitional effort, but also with his sensitive one.” But this requires balance, maturity, realism. The “passions” can really hinder the path of man’s maturation and perfection, either by preventing the right decision, or by confusing the intelligence in recognizing the truth, or by slowing down the impulse of the will towards authentic good.
GM Salvati
Bibl.: K. Rahner On the theological concept of concupiscence. in Escritos de teología, Taurus, Madrid 1961, 379-416; M. Flick–Z.
Alszeg.hy, The original sin, Barcelona 1961: 1d., The man under the sign of sin, Follow me, Salamanca 1972: J B. Metz, Concupiscence, in CFT 1, 255-264
PACOMIO, Luciano, Encyclopedic Theological Dictionary, Divine Word, Navarra, 1995
Source: Encyclopedic Theological Dictionary
the c. It is a fundamental fact of Christian anthropology. P-sta understands man as a being endowed with merely finite strength, but oriented towards the infinite, so that by constitution he carries within himself a factor of contradiction and tension (between essence and existence, between-> nature and person) . But Christian anthropology also knows that this being is under the consequences of sin (-> original sin, -> sin and guilt) and therefore lives in a profound split. The fact of this split is so accessible and familiar to the universal experience of man, that it plays its role in the most antithetical philosophies (eg, in -> Marxism and in -> existentialism), even when its explanation and rationale are completely different. However, the Christian conception of c. it must be traced starting, not from a purely metaphysical definition of man, but from the history of God’s action in humanity.
Already in the OT, within the context of the manifestations of the human conscience of sin, the idea of a power that negatively determines man in the moral order appears, a power that is…