Difference in theology between Eastern and Roman Catholic?

[Lapell]

Woodstock:
You have to realise that if you are in a state of mortal sin, you can’t receive the Body of Christ unless, God forbid, you don’t mind putting yourself in a state of condemnation!

 

[dessert]

In general, Eastern Theology avoids the term, but the concept of differing severity of sins does exist. The rigid hierarchy of sins espoused by some Roman theologians (and the doctrinal approach which was put forward with the doctrine of Indulgences) is alien to the continuum of sinful acts which pervades at least the Slavic traditions. Some are known to be minor, some major, but it’s not so cut and dried.

And as Father Deacon implied above, missing liturgy does nothing to help one’s relationship with God. But it is not defined in terms of Obligation in the canon law of the Eastern Catholics.

I think I undestand this better with your explanation. If one says grave sin or serious sin or situation or mortal or loss of sanctifying grace one is saying the same thing with the understanding of hellbound.

Wouldn’t this mean all sexual sins are the same as very much cutting oneself off from God as in sexual sin,(outside of marriage) , we are only gratifying ourselves? As being outside of the sacraments, man or woman implied.

 

[Lapell]

While it is certainly true that there is no “obligation” to go to Church, the East views this the same as the fact that there is no obligation to eat or to breath. Stop doing those two things and you die, stop going to church regularly and you die spiritually.

I certainly love this way of exppressing it!