I think Lucifer sinned without being tempted. All it takes to sin is to know the will of God and will the contrary. Temptation can provide us with false motives for willing the contrary of God’s will, but I don’t think temptation is absolutely necessary to do that. As a being with free will, Lucifer was capable of willing the contrary of God’s will. When he was shown the will of God, he had the opportunity to sin, and he chose to. Does that make sense?
I remember reading somewhere, though it could have been wrong, that he very likely had a problem with God’s plan for Mary as well. It wasn’t bad enough that God would become human himself, but that he would make a mere human Queen of Heaven.
It is essentially jealousy in what you describe, but where did that temptation that leads to the sin of pride and jealousy come from? It could not have come from himself since he was made perfect and possessed no fallen nature.
I don’t think presenting people with a choice is tempting them. One reason is because to tempt people is to say that one choice is better than another. Therefore there has to be a choice before there can be a temptation. Once you have a right option and a wrong option, and free will, it seems to me that you automatically have the option of choosing wrongly, even if no one tells you to and/or tempts you. Does that make sense?
I don’t agree with your understanding of temptation.
I think the only necessary order is: Two Options > Decision > Sin/Not Sin
For humans, temptation enters in between “two options” and “decision” either because the devil tells us that a lesser option is greater than the option God wants us to choose, the world tells us that, or our own concupiscence tells us that. But I don’t think it’s fundamentally necessary for temptation to precede decision. There’s nothing that would logically make it impossible to make the wrong choice even if there was no tempter, because, as long as you have free will and two options, you are free to choose either one.
**Edit :: Actually, when I just re-read my statement, it made me realize that there’s a neat argument from logic alone for this:
Given two options and a free will, an agent can choose option B.
Lucifer had two options and a free will.
Therefore, Lucifer could choose option B.
See? Logic requires that you can choose option B so long as it is available and you have free will. Therefore, it seems to me that temptation is not an absolute prerequisite to sin. The only necessary prerequisites are the presence of two options and a free agent.
I agree with that. My understanding of St. Thomas Aquinas is that he taught that the free will and the intellect are causally related. The will moves the intellect to think, and the intellect considers stuff so that the will can will them. See the Summa Theologica Part 1 Question 82 Article 4. In part based on this, it is my understanding that a free choice is a choice directed by the intellect to a particular end. Therefore, if my understanding is correct, the existence of free will presupposes the possession of intelligence, and the act of freely choosing includes the act of intelligently thinking.
Hmm. If we grant the common story that the idea of humans (or the Incarnation) had something to do with Lucifer’s choice to rebel, then there was an outside factor that could have led to his decision. Not “the world” or “the flesh” as we experience them, but related to both. Namely, that the material creation and the fleshly creatures within were the most beloved of God, and the angels – though created first and superior in every measurable way – were intended to serve God’s human children, who would become one with Him in a way available to no angel.
It would seem that from that, pure intellectual pride could develop and take Lucifer the rest of the way. (“I am magnificent, the first and greatest creation, second only to God Himself*. Yet now I am told my destiny is to be a servant to a race of barely-intelligent mudballs, whom the Creator will raise up to an unimaginable degree of glory by lowering Himself to their level first. Better to rule in Hell…”)
An infinitely distant second, of course, but still true enough in his mind.
Except Lucifer was around before Adam and Eve. How was his integrity ruptured? Pride wouldn’t seem to be the answer, as it is a human emotion. I’d think a spiritual being would not be attracted to such a thing, especially one with no original sin to weaken him.