Byzantine Catholic and sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter LNL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Keep in mind that one is not more or less Catholic than another. These Latin and Eastern are equally Catholic.

What is recognized as a sin is mostly the exact same, though the customs may vary. For instance, during Lent, it may be seen as a requirement in the Eastern rite to avoid all animal products where as in the Latin rite, it is just meat.
 
Let’s take a hypothetical sin for an example… A guy fairly regularly - every week or so, gets mad at his wife and calls her names, often shoves her around, threatens her, and sometimes slaps her… So he goes to his priest and confesses this sin, especially because he feels bad that this last time he did slap her - not too hard, but even so he feels bad about having done so.

Should he be given Communion?
Is withholding Communion a penance?
Is this a mortal sin?
A venial sin?
What should be done?

10 Hail Mary’s, Absolution, Communion, and try harder not to do it next time??

Would it matter if he was provoked?

Or just not worry about it?

geo
 
Last edited:
It matters in discussions with non-Latin Catholics in order that there can be a discussion…

Additionally, the point was made that post-Schism Western Councils are not Ecumenical, and I think you were referring to these for definitions without addressing their lack of Ecumenisity… One help might be to cite material taken from the first 7 Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church whose rulings are accepted both east and west…

The Council at Florence was repudiated by the Eastern Church…

One might want to hope so… But the understanding of doctrine and of the articles of faith are much at variance between east and west, and the very definitions being used are being called into question as a matter of difference… Indeed, beginning with definitions is itself (I think) being called into question, because of the technical nature of Scholastic definitions, which makes for difficulty in common-sense discussions…

I remember stumbling for years with the term “concupiscence”… Then finally figured out it was simply “lust”… But I am a slow study…

geo
 
So in other words, you really know nothing about Eastern Catholicism, our traditions, or theology?
 
Last edited:
Quite the contrary, calling into question what you know about Eastern Catholicism is very relevant since you are making statements about teachings that Eastern Catholics in this thread have already explained.

And I think a huge difference between you and me is that you may have arguments on the board, whereas I look to have discussions.

Have a wonderful Great Fast and joyous forthcoming season of Pascha.
 
Last edited:
Pope St. Paul VI referred to the 14 post-Schism councils as “general synods of the West.”

Is there a dogmatic or official (Vatican endorsed) list of ecumenical councils?
 
The Church herself has denied Roman primacy. What hasn’t been denied is Papal primacy. Those are two very different things.
 
The quote comes from a collection of letters written by Pope Paul VI and published by Paulist Press. I don’t have access to them right now. But you seem like an intelligent person. I have confidence that you can find the source. suffice it to say that the source is public. Do a search on the Vatican’s website.

Where is your source for this assertion?

Did you read the entirety of Orientalium Ecclesiarum? It explicitly states that the Roman Church doesn’t have primacy over any of the Eastern Churches. Again, this doesn’t mean that the Roman Pontiff doesn’t have primacy, only that the Roman Church doesn’t.
 
Catholic Answers is not an official source. And I’ve known many ecclesiastical authorities and theologians more than worthy of the name who have called into question the Roman notion that the 14 post-Schism “general synods of the West” are, indeed, ecumenical councils.
 
I think that you are misinterpreting those sources you are citing. But by all means mute away.
 
dvdjs said:
I had thought that at the time of the fathers, a period of excommunication was applied as a canonical penance for many sins. Certainly in the case of remarriage after divorce, killing - even in war,
Click to expand...
You are correct. I must’ve misunderstood. Perhaps apostasy was considered the “sin against the Spirit which shall not be forgiven…”?
 
Would you care to show how Rose is misinterpreting the sources she is citing?
 
Since she declared that she is muting, no I would not. What point in discussing with someone who isn’t listening?
 
Sorry, perhaps I should have been more clear:

Would you be willing to explain for my sake? I’m genuinely curious.
 
I am not sure enough of my knowledge (hence the preliminary “I think” rather than just “you are”) in this area. I also believe there were several others with tons of background that responded in the thread already, so my amateur efforts are not, I believe, needed here.
 
The scriptural language of sins that lead to death would be acceptable…of course.
My understanding is that Eastern Catholics can’t reject a dogma, but they don’t have to embrace / use the Latin theological language that the various post-schism dogmas are framed in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top