Original Guilt??

[kevjminn]

Are there any EO on this board that can explain to me why the Eastern Orthodox Church says the RCC teaches a doctrine of original guilt? I was taught by an orthodox priest (and on various orthodox websites) that “original guilt” is a reason they can’t accept the Immaculate Conception. But it clearly states in the catechism of the Catholic Church that there is no inherited guilt. What gives ???

 

[Kook]

In my personal experience, many Orthodox claim Catholicism teaches a "hard"Augustinian view on this, which would be inherited guilt. Augustine himself disavowed this view in his Retractations. It is not Catholic teaching, but it makes for a good straw man.

 

[Krakatoa]

I am not an Eastern Orthodox, but I can offer this: I remember in one of Bishop Fulton Sheen’s presentations he said that original sin is not a moral guilt for us. I have always tended to disagree with that, however, since when God kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden, he really kicked us all out.

 

[Vico]

Are there any EO on this board that can explain to me why the Eastern Orthodox Church says the RCC teaches a doctrine of original guilt? I was taught by an orthodox priest (and on various orthodox websites) that “original guilt” is a reason they can’t accept the Immaculate Conception. But it clearly states in the catechism of the Catholic Church that there is no inherited guilt. What gives ???

I believe it comes from a misunderstanding of the terminology.

Roman law reatus means liable to or indicted or a sentence.
Culpa means actual act of wrongdoing.
Reatus means state that accrues as a consequence of a culpa.

In Roman law there are the concepts of guilt that is a personal fault and guilt that is inherited. There are two different terms for this:
Latin culpa, guilt in the moral sense, i.e. blameworthiness or ill desert, ailpa.

Latin reatus, guilt in the legal sense, i.e. liability or obligation to punishment.
Latin reus (from res) originally meant a party in a cause, but changed later in history to defendant or accused, then even later in history it meant one condemned, liable to suffer the penalty of the law. So reatus means liability to punishment on account of sin.

Imputation of guilt to others than the sinner himself, does not use culpa (the moral sense) but reatus (the legal sense).

Ref: See The Biblican Doctrine of Sin by James S. Candlish, D.D., 1893.

Related Latin nouns:

reus (genitive reī); m, second declension

1. 
   *]defendant, accused
   *](archaic) plaintiff
   
   reātum
   1. 
      *]*accusative singular of *reātus
      
      reātus (genitive reātūs); m, *fourth declension
      1. 
         *]accusation, charge
         
         *rea (genitive reae); f, first declension
         1. 
            *]defendant, accused
            *](archaic) plaintiff
            *]*vocative singular of *rea
            
            reā f.
            1. 
               *]*ablative singular of *rea

 

[dvdjs]

Are there any EO on this board that can explain to me why the Eastern Orthodox Church says the RCC teaches a doctrine of original guilt? I was taught by an orthodox priest (and on various orthodox websites) that “original guilt” is a reason they can’t accept the Immaculate Conception. But it clearly states in the catechism of the Catholic Church that there is no inherited guilt. What gives ???

You might want to wade through this recent thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=577826

In fairness, some Orthodox writers are talking about the West in a very inclusive manner, i.e. to include Protestant Calvinism.

And one can come up with English translations of documents from Trent that use the word “guilt” to translate the Latin “reatum” That translation is not incorrect, but is follows a less common use of “guilt” as liable for a sentence for some action, rather than having specifically committed the action. “Reatus” goes into most languages as “debt” on google translator. The latter, more common sense of “guilt” is differentiated (poorly, perhaps) as “personal guilt”. There are a number of threads on the issue of translations of the Trent documents (search reatus or reatum ) on CAF. I think that the current CCC does a good job of rendering the Latin of Trent into contemporary English usage. In the linked thread, I had suggested also going to the OED to see how the use of “guilt” has developed over time. It was once used for “debts” in the Lord’s prayer.

I am intrigued by the aversion to “guilt”. We are born missing the mark and thus, in the Eastern sense, in sin. We should not be presumptuous regarding God’s mercy. And we are in fact subject to ontological loss of our first parents. This is what has been ordained by God whose judgments are just. Orthodox catechisms (see end of linked thread) dove tail better with Catholic thinking on these matters than some of the on-line, grass-roots discussions.

 

[Mickey]

Some Catholics teach that an alternative meaning of the word “guilt” is being used by the RCC. This is rather odd.

 

[milidrag]

I believe it comes from a misunderstanding of the terminology.

No, it is either your or your sources that is misunderstanding and misrepresenting the terminology. Or both.

Roman law reatus means liable to or indicted or a sentence.
Culpa means actual act of wrongdoing.

This is utter nonsense and rubbish and is disgustingly stupid.

I challenge you to back up your fantasy about legal meaning of culpa by an authority in legal science. I am saying it right now that you won’t be able to do it, because you’ve given a wrong definition of culpa.

Reatus means state that accrues as a consequence of a culpa.

Perhaps it does, but from vague references you have provided, it is obvious it refers to procedural position of a party in litigation/other civil case, or a procedural position in a specific criminal case.

In Roman law there are the concepts of guilt that is a personal fault and guilt that is inherited.

Utter nonsense, rubbish and is so stupid that is disgusting. Back it up (you can’t) by a legal source competent in Roman Law.

Even if you would be able to back these fantasies up (and you will not), that would make the theology behind it even worse - you would have proven that western theology behind the original sin refers to a litigation between man and God. That would be horrible.

 

[Ahimsa]

Are there any EO on this board that can explain to me why the Eastern Orthodox Church says the RCC teaches a doctrine of original guilt? I was taught by an orthodox priest (and on various orthodox websites) that “original guilt” is a reason they can’t accept the Immaculate Conception. But it clearly states in the catechism of the Catholic Church that there is no inherited guilt. What gives ???

From the Baltimore Catechism:

1. Q. Why is this sin called original? A. This sin is called original because it comes down to us from our first parents, and we are brought into the world with its guilt on our soul.
   …
   Q. Was any one ever preserved from original sin? A. The Blessed Virgin Mary, through the merits of her Divine Son, was preserved free from the guilt of original sin, and this privilege is called her Immaculate Conception.