Byzantine Catholic and sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter LNL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, that was my understanding as well. I’m not demanding that Eastern Catholics start using Latin theological terminology.

What’s happening on this thread, though, seems to be going beyond a mere issue of terminology to a rejection of the substance of various Catholic dogmas based on the idea that they never developed in the East.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
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.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, which ones in particular?
 
Bishop Nicholas Samra (and pretty much the entire Synod of Melkite bishops), Fr. Robert Taft, Fr. Peter Galadza, and Archbishop Elias Zoghby, to name a few.
 
Interestingly, the Melkites were both very active and influential at Vatican II.
 
What is the history of Eastern Catholics not making the venial/mortal distinction? The separated EOs did make the distinction around the time of the unia and for a long time afterward (see below for a couple examples). An EO person told me the “sin is sin” thing is new, and in the slavic countries and on Mt. Athos they still make the distinctions. Again, not sure if there has been a parallel path among Eastern Catholics, but here is some EO texts:

From an EO Catechism (approved by the big four patriarchates in synod to be used everywhere):
Question 18.

What is mortal Sin ?

Answer.

Mortal Sin is, when the perverse Will of Man doeth a thing manifestly forbidden by the divine Law ; or, on the other hand, omitted to do, with the whole Heart and Desire, that which is commanded of God, whereby Charity towards God and our Neighbour is broken.

This Will of Man excludeth from the Grace of God, and killeth him who fulfilleth it in his Works. For which Reason their Degree of Sin is said to be mortal ; according to the Apostle {Rom. vi. 23), The Wages of Sin is Death.
Click to expand...
after discussing original sin, it continues:
Question 21.
What is voluntary mortal Sin ?

Answer.

Voluntary mortal Sin is that which, after having received Baptism, and being arrived in Years of Discretion, laying aside the Love of God and of our Neighbour, and of our own free Will we commit against the manifest Command of God. By which Sin we are deprived of the divine Grace that we received in holy Baptism, and of the Kingdom of Heaven, and become Captives to eternal Death : As saith the Apostle {Rom. vi. 16), Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves Servants to obey., his Servants ye are to whom ye obey ; whether of Sin unto Death, or of Obedience unto Righteousness ? This Sin is taken away by Repentance and the Mercy of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord, when his Priest absolveth the Penitent at Confession from his Sins.
Click to expand...
continued…
 
Last edited:
continued from above…

In St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite’s Exomologetarion (one of the most important Orthodox books on confession), he defines mortal sins as “those voluntary sins which either corrupt the love for God alone, or the love for neighbor and for God, and which render again the one committing them an enemy of God and liable to the eternal death of hell.”

He even shows how they often describe more degrees and categories than just mortal and venial (aka “pardonable”) with an example:
The initial movement of anger is pardonable; near to the pardonable is for someone to say harsh words and get hot-tempered. A non-mortal sin is to swear; near the non-mortal is for someone to strike with the hand. Between the non-mortal and the mortal is to strike with a small stick; near the mortal is to strike with a large stick, or with a knife, but not in the area of the head. A mortal sin is to murder. A similar pattern applies to the other sins.
Click to expand...
He cites an Eastern saint from the 6th century:
St. Anastasios of Antioch confirms this:

“If we fall into some small, pardonable sins on account of our being human, either with our tongue, our ears, our eyes, and we fall as victims of deceit into vainglory, or sorrow, or anger, or some other like sin, let us condemn ourselves and confess to God. Thus let us partake of the Holy Mysteries, believing that the reception of the divine Mysteries is unto the purification of these small sins (though not the grave and evil and impure sins which we may have committed, regarding which we should seek the Mystery of Confession).”
Click to expand...
Again, not sure if Eastern Catholics have followed a similar path with adopting or reverting to–as the case may be–a less defined approach. It seems in practice some sort of distinction is still important.
 
Last edited:
Are the quotes from Peter Mojila’s Catechism? The link isn’t working for me.
 
George720 said:
the point was made that post-Schism Western Councils are not Ecumenical
Click to expand...
They do not include the EOC…
George720 said:
The Council at Florence was repudiated by the Eastern Church…
Click to expand...
They were right to repudiate it…
I repudiate it myself…

Well, so much for my theory… Thanks for the update.

Is Lent a Season of Penitence in your Church?

geo
 
George720 said:
Well, so much for my theory… Thanks for the update.

Is Lent a Season of Penitence in your Church?
Click to expand...
Keep your theory. The Baltimore Catechism only reflects the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in the U.S. at a very specific period of history (it was promulgated by what was, in its day, the equivalent to the USCCB). I’ll have to look up what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about concupiscence when I get home from work tonight. Might take a look at Christ Our Pascha as well.

In the Roman Church Lent is a season of penitence, yes. That’s why the “Gloria” and the “Alleluia” are removed from the Mass during this time.

Frankly, I’ve always found Lent to be a joyful season. Perhaps that’s why the Eastern approach to Lent appeals to me.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
Keep your theory.
Click to expand...
I am not all that married to my theories - Evolving official catechisms for all times is problematic all by itself - The EOC has never tried to have an “Official Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church”… For us it would seem pretentious… We have a lot of catechisms, a lot of them oral… One Priest I know simply takes the Symbol of the Faith line by line and term by term… I see Fr. Michael Shambour has just done one for enquirers…

The key difference in phronema can be seen in the proffering of an “Official Catechism” by the one “lung” and its absence by the other… We understand the Faith as a Mystery entered in repentance by Baptism, and not a systematic explication of true statements about the Church and Christ etc…

geo
 
Last edited:
Phillip_Rolfes said:
Pope St. Paul VI referred to the 14 post-Schism councils as “general synods of the West.”
Click to expand...
He did?!? I always thought that the Eastern Catholic Churches accepted all 21 councils.

If you have a link, that would be great.
 
I didn’t know that the EOC distinguished between mortal and venial sins. Yet the terms “mortal” and “venial” are technically not part of Eastern theology. /facepalm
 
Does no one here wish to take on a practical hypothetical?

For 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 should we just not worry about it?

On the premise that women get yelled at and slapped all the time anyway??

geo
 
Last edited:
David_Catholic said:
We have the same basic idea, but the nuances of the doctrine are foreign to us. Why? Because there are no nuances. We don’t accept the legalistic nature of the Roman doctrine. Sin is a personal thing. What is a “mortal” sin for one person might not be for someone else. In our theology, it is a definite possibility for a “venial” sin to become “mortal”. If someone never commits “mortal” sin but spends every day of their life committing “venial” sins because they simply don’t care, will that person be saved? Our answer is no. In our theology, the gravity of the sin isn’t what damns a person. What damns a person is making a conscious decision to turn away from God. Not every sin does that. Someone can commit a “mortal” sin and still be right with God in their heart (although they still have to repent of their error), but a “venial” sin could yank them right out of the loving arms of God and throw them into the fire.
Click to expand...
That is also what the Latin Church teaches.
Catechism
1863 … Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. …

1792-3 Ignorance … can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct … if … the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top