Did early Christians fear falling into Mortal Sin so often as many do today?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RealisticCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RealisticCatholic

Guest
Just look around these forums to see how often people worry about whether or not they committed a mortal sin, for example.

When I say “early Christians” in the title I mean the first 1,000 years, before the strict terminology of mortal sin became promoted by Aquinas’ line of thought.

Mortal Sin — that you can willingly sin and fall out of grace — is a scriptural and historical teaching. “Once Saved Always Saved” is a novelty brought on by the Protestant Reformers.

However, there seems to be a certain “modern” perspective (last few hundred years or more) on Mortal Sin that would have us worrying about being in and out of the state of grace even every other week.

Meanwhile, the early church of the 2nd and 3rd centuries wondered if Absolution of mortal sins was possible more than once!

Are we too liberal in how we think mortal sin is committed in frequency?
 
Last edited:
I think this is an interesting question, but I’m reluctant to comment very much at this point on the topic.

I do tend to think that many Catholics believe that they have committed a mortal sin when, in fact, one of the three components for mortal sin was not there. Better to err on the side of caution, I suppose, than that of presumption.
 
Last edited:
It’s my understanding that in the very early centuries, absolution was given during the liturgy, in a general manner, itself for most sins. Absolution was given individually for particularly grave sins which often required public and lengthy penance.
 
The distinction between mortal and venial sin is based on a verse in one of St John’s letters, but otherwise, for example in Paul’s epistles, there is no such distinction as I recall.

For Jewish converts to Christianity, they would have had the teaching of the Jewish scriptures about all kinds of do’s and don’ts (commands) – a very well-developed sense of sins of commission and sins of omission. When would their awareness of Jesus’s extension of the prior commandments to even the thought of such – for example, lust = adultery, hatred = murder. While the terminology of mortal sin may not have existed, there would have been the backdrop of the Jewish writings to guide them.

In the first chapters of Revelation, there are those admonitions to the churches about very personal and also collective sins.

It’s a classic error to project our modern understanding backwards in time. I worry more about the reverse, that I don’t take sins seriously enough, as they did.
 
RealisticCatholic said:
Are we too liberal in how we think mortal sin is committed in frequency?
Click to expand...
Good post @RealisticCatholic .

I think we are too liberal regarding “penances” relating to the Sacrament of Reconciliation .

The sacrament , as the catechism recognises , has changed considerably over the centuries .

A Christian from the early centuries would not recognise the sacrament as it is celebrated today .

The Catechism says “Over the centuries the concrete form in which the Church has exercised this power received from the Lord has varied considerably. During the first centuries the reconciliation of Christians who had committed particularly grave sins after their Baptism (for example, idolatry, murder, or adultery) was tied to a very rigorous discipline, according to which penitents had to do public penance for their sins, often for years, before receiving reconciliation. To this “order of penitents” (which concerned only certain grave sins), one was only rarely admitted and in certain regions only once in a lifetime.”

We are long overdue for a reform of the sacrament before it ceases to play a significant part in the lives of most Catholics .

Regarding mortal sin , yes there is a poor understanding of mortal sin . I cringe sometimes when on CAF some tell a poster he/she has committed a mortal sin . They are in no position to make this judgement via this forum unless by chance they know the poster personally in real life .

For a sin to be mortal , three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.

One would think that sometimes there is a god who hides around the corner just waiting to pounce on some poor creature who commits the slightest misdemeanour and drag him off to be tortured in the most gruesome place imaginable for ever and ever and ever .
 
Reconciliation in the early Church was only given once after baptism and even though only for murder, apostasy, and adultery (if memory serves correct). Many historians have put forward the theory that baptism itself wasn’t administered sometimes until late in life anyway.
 
Rob2 said:
We are long overdue for a reform of the sacrament before it ceases to play a significant part in the lives of most Catholics .
Click to expand...
Absolutely and better catechesis on what this Sacrament actually is. The late Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor was very keen on reform for this Sacrament and advocated a good confession a couple of times a year.
 
RealisticCatholic said:
how we think mortal sin is committed in frequency
Click to expand...
Not sure who’s this “we” you are talking about. Certainly this forum attracts a number of posters who think people are committing mortal sins all day long. And certainly there are many people in society, including some of us posting here, who have done things in the past that the Church considers “grave matter”.

However, whether those were mortal or not is hard to determine because for a sin to be mortal, you need to have particular intention and state of mind that is not always present. I have had priests in the confessional tell me that some of my sins were not “mortal” for one reason or another, and in one case the priest commented on how some people nowadays seem to enjoy coming up with new “mortal sins” that actually aren’t mortal sins.

So, not everybody nowadays is rushing to find a mortal sin under every bush. I’m certainly not. I don’t feel I know enough about somebody’s state of mind to tell them that they’re committing mortal sin. I get confused enough sometimes about my own past state of mind (as my life has become so boring that most “grave matter” acts now just don’t come up).
 
Last edited:
RealisticCatholic said:
…
Click to expand...
I John 5:16-18 :
If anyone sees his brother committing a sin that is not a deadly sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not deadly. There is sin which is deadly; I do not say one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not deadly. We know that anyone born of God does not sin, but He who is born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.
Click to expand...
Phillippians 2
12 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation. 13 For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I assume back then, they did not have as much in-your-face mortal sin as we do now.
 
I hear it from general teaching outside the forum just as much. Teaching or answers to questions on Catholic radio, blogs, television, etc. that suggests mortal sin is the norm.

When I say “norm” I mean that there is something about the modern perception that regards mortal sin as a typical state most Catholics fall into at some time or another. But the “solution is simple! Go to confession” (paraphrasing how the sentiment is conveyed).

Whereas, it would seem many early Christian practices considered “Mortal Sin” only for the gravest offenses, so much so that absolution was only expected once after Baptism. This was 3rd century issue, though, and there is no reason to say that they had it right and we have it wrong.

Just curious about the apparent difference in how we approach Mortal Sin and Confession. Whatever the case may be, early Christians sure didn’t avail themselves of the Sacrament as we do (private confession) as often as we do.
 
Last edited:
I expect that the lack of technical distinction between “Mortal Sin” and “Venial Sin” in the early church is one factor to consider. Of course, this teaching was always implicit even in the New Testament. But without all the technical language and doctrine, maybe early Christians were not as analytical (for lack of better word). Less legalistic? IDK.

For example, I doubt Christians were going around as often as they do today asking fellow Christians “is such and such a Mortal Sin?”
 
Last edited:
RealisticCatholic said:
I hear it from general teaching outside the forum just as much. Teaching or answers to questions on Catholic radio, blogs, television, etc. that suggests mortal sin is the norm.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of liberal/ progressive Fr. James Martin types who don’t go around saying “mortal sin”. To the extent you’re hearing about it constantly on Catholic radio, blogs and television, many of these outlets have conservatives creating the content in reaction to what they see is an alarmingly lax society in terms of morals. In other words, they see a whole world of Fr. Martins and see themselves as the bastions of morality saving the Church from modernism and progressivism.

I could go to Mass every day of the year and probably hear the words “mortal sin” from a priest once…if that.
 
RealisticCatholic said:
maybe early Christians were not as analytical (for lack of better word). Less legalistic? IDK.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that CAF in general tends to be a hyper-legalistic, hair splitting kind of place. It also has a disproportionate number of scrupulous types/OCD sufferers. That’s going to drive a lot of the obsession about “quick quick someone tell me if xyz is a mortal sin!!!”
 
I had a Priest tell me, if you question if you committed mortal sin, you by definition didn’t. If you question it you aren’t sure, so you didn’t fully consent or have full knowledge
 
Last edited:
Just wanted to put in there that it’s worth noting that in the early days of the church, “mortal sin” was very strictly defined to very few things. Primarily adultery and murder. It was BIG DEAL STUFF, not as wide as it is these days, so comparison is hard. Not that mortal sin should be glossed over these days, of course!

I’d also argue that you’d see far more devout Christians, especially in the first 400 years because of persecution. NO ONE was Christian because it was “what the family did” or was “cool” or “culturally significant”. To be a Christian was to be the object of ridicule. People really only stuck with it because they had real, fire-tested faith. So I think that has a lot to do with it as well.
 
Also keep in mind how habitual and compulsive many mortal sins are and often they are bread from ignorance and curiosity. It’s actually quite hard to mortally sin when you think about it
 
Thank you for the good post. I’ve wondered about this myself.

I once heard a homily where the priest went off on a tangent about taking a few hours to hear the confessions of all of the 3rd and 4th graders at a Catholic school. This priest has given great homilies, and I’m not criticizing him. It felt like he was pondering this type of question himself. I wasn’t raised Catholic, so this type of thing was particularly difficult for me to understand. After hearing this, I wondered…
  1. How is it possible that all of these 3rd and 4th graders at a Catholic school could have sinned so much to warrant a few hours of a priest’s time hearing confession?
  2. Shouldn’t we be teaching a more positive way to interact with priests?
  3. Are 3rd and 4th graders really going to understand the Catholic teaching well enough so that this is of value?
  4. Should we really be teaching that the Catholic church cares if I threw a piece of paper at Johnny?
  5. If there actually were a significant issues/sin (e.g. severe bullying) where the priest really needed to council the child through confession, is this the right setting? All the kids will start wondering why Billy was in confession for 10 minutes while I was only in there for 1 minute?
  6. Isn’t some of this the role of the parents?
  7. All of this led to the question of whether the idea of confession needs reformed…
Edit: I think this relates to the idea of mortal sin because I don’t think 3rd and 4th graders are really in a position to understand this and is doing such a thing (having a priest hear many short confessions from children) the right way to teach things like mortal sin.
 
Last edited:
That sorta makes sense. However, it doesn’t seem to square with the idea from Jesus that many people will be shocked by their sentence to hell.
 
I’d also argue that you’d see far more devout Christians, especially in the first 400 years because of persecution.
Click to expand...
Yes, that also makes sense as another factor. Early Christians were more intent on being holy, which is why the idea of the “Second Repentance” was such a hard question to begin with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top