?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

culpa innata

Друзья, разъясните дураку, с экклесиастической латынью незнакомому, что за понятие culpa innata? Вот хорошее противопоставление с прочими разновидностями culpa делается:

Cassander De baptismo infantium p.711 apud тута

Is puer qui perfidia patris a salute et regno Christi prohibetur non excluditur a regno Dei ob culpam alienam, id est, patris impietatem, sed ob culpam propriam et innatam.

Что такое в подобном контексте culpa вообще и culpa innata в частности?

xpost: http://ru-lingualatina.livejournal.com/281409.html

Tags:

Comments

buddhistmind
Feb. 10th, 2014 08:42 pm (UTC)
ORIGINAL SIN AND GRACE.—The idea of vitium originis is closely connected with the theory of the transmission of the soul—tradux animae, tradux peccati. The sin of the first man meant that the nature transmitted to the whole race derived a sinful tendency. ‘There is then, besides the evil which supervenes on the soul from the intervention of the evil spirit, an antecedent and in a certain sense natural evil, which arises from its corrupt origin. For, as we have said before, the corruption of our nature is another nature, having a god and father of its own, namely, the author of corruption.’43 There is also the fact, according to Tertullian, that every soul has its demon, like that of Socrates.

But at the same time there is a portion of good in every soul. This qualifies the terrible doctrine of the depravity of the human race as taught by Tertullian. It must not be forgotten, he affirms, that the soul is derived from God, and that that divine original good persists in a measure. It is not extinguished, but obscured. ‘As therefore light, when intercepted by an opaque body, still remains, although it is. not apparent by reason of the intervention of so dense a body; so likewise the good in the soul, being weighed down by the evil, is, owing to the obscuring character thereof, either not seen at all, its light being wholly hidden, or else only a stray beam is there visible, where it struggles through by an accidental outlet.'44 So it transpires that some men are bad and some are good, and in the worst there is something good, while in the best there is something bad. ‘Just as no soul is without sin, so neither is any soul without seeds of good.’45

Tertullian did not emphasize the doctrine of vitium originis to the extent of making it impossible even to will what is good. That was left to Augustine. In Tertullian’s thought there was always room for the remains at least of natural goodness, a strong belief in the free will of man, and a conviction of the power of the grace of God to energize that will for good, which went a long way to counter-balance the idea of a vitium originis.

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/roberts_theology/roberts_08.htm
fregimus
Feb. 11th, 2014 05:32 am (UTC)
Большое спасибо, Вам, наверное, кажется, что я должен прочитать все, что Вы ответили, и сразу все понять. Но, к сожалению, Вы меня очень переоцениваете, я ведь в теологии ничего не понимаю. Вы не могли бы мне, если это как-то возможно, объяснить — ну, для начала: culpa innata — понятие отличное ведь от первородного греха?
buddhistmind
Feb. 11th, 2014 09:08 am (UTC)
Нет, это другая формулировка того же принципа. Грех невозможен без вины, вина невозможна без греха. Это как "утренняя звезда" и "вечерняя звезда". Оба понятия - обозначение Венеры в немецком языке. Референт у них один и тот же - планета Венера Солнечной системы, а "смыслы" различающиеся (если принять Sinn и Bedeutung за "смысл" и "значение\референт").