Disagree w/ or want argue Orthodox Church teaching? Please post here.

[Hesychios]

Well wait. Do Orthodox generally beleive in the concept of the division of sin into mortal sin and venial sin? I don’t think so. A venial sin is punishable by purgatory and a mortal sin is punishable by hell. That is the Catholic teaching, and what makes sense to me.

Forgive me for saying this, but I believe that you are not precisely correct here.

Someone else (preferably Latin Catholic) can correct or nuance this if I am wrong. In Latin Catholic thinking neither mortal nor venial sins will prevent one from going to heaven if forgiven in confession, but a form of restitution remains which must be made good in the next life through purging of some sort.

In Orthodox thinking, if these sins are forgiven in confession there will be no further punishment related to them.

Some sins seem very minor to us creatures of course, we can hardly imagine God making a big deal of them, but that is his call, not ours to make. We need to make good confessions, cultivate correct thinking and choices, and develop a good spiritual life.

And ultimately we need to recognize that we rely on God’s mercy (whether we want to or not), we already know that He is just, but if it is justice we demand, justice we will get.

Better to appeal to His loving kindness.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I would think that the first and foremost problem you would have with the Orthodox Church is not things like venial and mortal sins but rather the nature of authority, the papacy, and church polity? These issues are far deeper, more divisive, and important I would think?

Well, the Orthodox Church is a great Church and has a lot going for it, and Monica is doing a great job in her discussions and explanations. I don’t say that the Catholic Church is without its problems, especially as Monica has pointed out, but since this is supposed to be a thread on Orthodox teaching, one thing that I can’t agree with as far as Orthodox teaching is concerned is the denial of the difference between Mortal and Venial sins and the subsequent denial of Purgatory.
Of course I could be wrong here, but my understanding is that Orthodox do not accept the difference between mortal and venial sin. This to me is a big mistake. It is just so obvious that there are some sins which are a whole lot lesser in gravity than others.
Example 1: Suppose a man makes a bomb and sets it off in a marketplace killing and wounding hundreds of innocent people. Obviously, this is a mortal sin.
Example 2: Suppose you are walking in a park and there is a sign which says: Do not pick the flowers. There are thousands of flowers blooming about and the sight and smell of the flowers is overwhelming so you give in and you pick one flower. Now you have committed a sin of theft as well as disobeying the sign which says not to pick any flowers.
Now will you go to hell and eternal damnation for picking a flower from a bush in a park? I doubt it. But you have done something wrong in a lesser or minor sense, so you will have to endure some temporary punishment in Purgatory.
It is so obvious to me that you can have serious or grave offenses against the law of God and minor offenses so I don’t see how I could ever accept a teaching which rejects the fact of mortal and venial sins.

 

[JohnVIII]

**"*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus]
said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. ***

For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
—Origen

You are quoting Origen here. Knowing that some of Origen’s ideas and his writings were condemned in the 5th Ecumenical Council, I’m a little wearing to believe something written by him.

As of now, I’ve not been able to locate the “Commentary on Matthew” to read it in it’s entirety.

At this point I don’t know 2 things:

1. I’m not sure if it even exists or if it does if it is a forgery
2. I’m not sure if this is one of Origen’s writings that was condemned. It will require more research on my part, which I’m not sure I’m really committed to doing at this point.

Origen also said:

“And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.
But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him…he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters…And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock” (Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).

 

[dvdjs]

The mortal/venial sin distinction is not hard and fast in Orthodoxy (I don’t know when it became ‘solidified’ in the western church). Rather than say “there are two classes of sins” the Orthodox just see it more or less as a sliding scale of seriousness.
The problem idea is not the seriousness of the sin.

For crying out loud Hesychios: do you really think that the idea a scale of seriousness is absent from Catholicism and distinctive in Orthodoxy? Where do you get his stuff?
Mortal and venial one way of categorizing the seriousness of sin, but there is no claim of uniqueness in this categorization, nor is there a claim that all mortal (or venial) sins are the same in any respect other than their being mortal (or venial).

Orthodox may not use these terms, (part of their NIH syndrome). But do they believe differently?

One operative definition of mortal sin is sin which unconfessed and unforgiven would lead to eternal damnation. Orthodox believe in the possibility of eternal damnation; they reject OSAS, therefore they do believe that one can commit sins that will lead to their eternal damnation. Thus they actually do believe in mortal sin. Do they believe in venial sin? Are their sins which, unconfessed and unforgiven before death, will nevertheless no result in eternal damnation? I think so. They do pray for the remission of the sins of the dead. And from what we have been reading lately that cannot be for sins confessed, as they are completely forgiven. Thus Orthodox believe in venial sin.

Perhaps another perspective would help. Do Orthodox believe that there are sins so grave that they would not dare approach the chalice before confessing and receiving forgiveness for them? Do Orthodox believe that there are sins sufficiently less grave that they would approach the chalice before confessing them? I suppose from this perspective most contemporary American Orthodox, if honest, would have to admit to a belief in mortal and venial sins. Of course, frequent communion is a novelty in Orthodoxy. So the answer might have been different a few generations ago.

For that matter, a few generations ago one probably could have found “mortal” and “venial” categories in Orthodox catechisms in Eastern Europe.

The problem is in the compensatory theory of ‘temporal punishment’, which I think may date back to the scholastic era. Orthodox do not teach a temporal punishment for sins already forgiven in confession, regardless of the seriousness of them. (That does not mean that there is no unpleasantness or punishment after death, God can do anything He deems fit and we cannot tell Him otherwise, but we believe God forgives sin in sincere confessions through the church, and don’t believe that further punishments will be due because of something that has already been forgiven) If one makes a good confession, one is forgiven.

I have probably referred you to the Catholic catechism before on this matter, and will do so again. Given what Catholic;s actually teach on “temporal punishment” what you are saying makes no sense.

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man.”

Even the ‘penance’ prescribed for a confession is not a punishment for past sins, but a spiritual exercise (usually focusing upon one’s weaknesses and tendencies). The goal is to become a better person, not to pay a debt.

Did you ever punish your children? I was punished as a child. The goal was to make me a better person. This modernist phobia about “punishment” is amazing to me. And to anyone who went to vigil for Theophany and listened to talk of the “chastisements of God”

 

[dvdjs]

Latin Catholic thinking neither mortal nor venial sins will prevent one from going to heaven if forgiven in confession, but a form of restitution remains which must be made good in the next life through purging of some sort.

In Orthodox thinking, if these sins are forgiven in confession there will be no further punishment related to them.

I quoted above from the catechism on “temporal punishment”. A sinful act may be forgiven “completely” in confession, but that does not* ispo facto* remove our inclination to that sin. That impurity remains and must be purged through prayers, penances, ascetic acts, etc. in this life or the next. The Catholic perspective, if not misrepresented, is not dissimilar to the Orthodox one.

 

[dvdjs]

Orthodox Confession of Faith
Peter Mohila, Metropolitan of Kiev (1633-47)
Part III

Q. l 7. In how many parts is sin divided?

R. According to Sacred Scripture, one sin is unto death and another is not unto death; [26] hence, some sins are mortal, others are venial or not mortal.

Q. 18. What is mortal sin?

R.** Mortal sin** is inordinate concupiscence, which arises from one’s own mind and will, doing something expressly forbidden by God through a commandment and failing to do that which is ordered by the same commandments; love of God or neighbor is transgressed through this concupiscence, which also removes man from the grace of God and kills him, if it is total; wherefore, it is traditionally called “mortal sin”, as the Apostle teaches: “Wages of sin is death.” [27] But, consent alone wounds man.

Also in a contemporary catechism by Rev. Constas H. Demetry, D. D.

Q. What conditions cause a member to be cut off from the Church Militant, and
what is he called then?
A.
… 4. When a member falls into excommunication, namely, commits a** mortal
sin** and stubbornly clings to it, causing great scandal; then he is
excommunicated by the Ecclesiastical Authority and is called an
excommunicate.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Some comparing your quote with my quote are you seeking to prove Origen a schizophrenic?

Origen also said:

“And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.
But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him…he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters…And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock” (Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).

 

[StrawberryJam]

Wow. Why do Orthodox pray for the dead if they believe all sins confessed are forgiven?

That is blowing my mind.

 

[mardukm]

Dear strawberryjam,

Wow. Why do Orthodox pray for the dead if they believe all sins confessed are forgiven?

That is blowing my mind.

Orthodox pray for the dead for their increase in holiness. As an Oriental (who believes that penance and suffering can lead to an increase in holiness), I think the Latin teaching and the Orthodox teaching are two sides of the same coin.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[TheosisM]

Dear strawberryjam,

Orthodox pray for the dead for their increase in holiness.

Mardukm, can you please explain what this means? Thanks!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother TheosisM,

Mardukm, can you please explain what this means? Thanks!

To Eastern Orthodox, theosis is an eternal journey. Even the Saints in heaven can increase in holiness. Our prayers and suffrages can help both saints and even “unrighteous” to increase in holiness in the Hades after death.

I cannot speak for other Oriental Orthodox, but for my own Coptic Orthodox Tradition, there is a teaching very similar to theosis called theopoiesis. The shortest way I can describe it is that it is somewhere in between the EO teaching on theosis and the Latin teaching on sanctification/justification.

Does that answer your question?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[sidbrown]

Forgive me for saying this, but I believe that you are not precisely correct here.

Someone else (preferably Latin Catholic) can correct or nuance this if I am wrong. In Latin Catholic thinking neither mortal nor venial sins will prevent one from going to heaven if forgiven in confession, but a form of restitution remains which must be made good in the next life through purging of some sort.

In Orthodox thinking, if these sins are forgiven in confession there will be no further punishment related to them.

Some sins seem very minor to us creatures of course, we can hardly imagine God making a big deal of them, but that is his call, not ours to make. We need to make good confessions, cultivate correct thinking and choices, and develop a good spiritual life.

And ultimately we need to recognize that we rely on God’s mercy (whether we want to or not), we already know that He is just, but if it is justice we demand, justice we will get.

Better to appeal to His loving kindness.

Of course there is a lot to what you say, as usual.
However, I was speaking of unforgiven and unconfessed sins. I don’t think you can deny hell, since in the New Testatment we read:
Matthew 13:42: “And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
Matt 25:41: “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”
Mark 9:43-48: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched."
Matthew 25:46: " And these shall go away into everlasting punishment."
So there is a hell for unrepentant mortal sins.
But anyway, let us suppose that someone has committed a heinous crime and is unrepentant until he is dying. Then a priest comes and says that he will go to hell unless he confesses. Afraid that he will go to hell, he confesses and dies soon after. Now this person had committed heinous crimes. Do the Orthodox say that he will go straightaway into heaven? He has confessed at the last moment, so he avoids hell. But what about all the people who he has hurt ? All the lives that he has ruined? All the sorrow that he has caused. All the heartaches that have come from his criminal actions?
Well in the Catholic teaching, he will have to endure a purification in Purgatory, since his crimes were heinous. Correct me if I am wrong, but in the Orthodox Church you have only two places, heaven or hell?
This is a teaching that I would disagree with. It seems to me to make more sense to have a heaven, hell or purgatory. In this case, people who have unrepented venial sins or who are not perfectly free from the stain of previous sins, will end up in purgatory or the state of purification necessary to enter into heaven.

 

[sidbrown]

Orthodox see sin which means missing the mark in more than just 2 categories really.

When you miss the mark - imagine someone with a bow and arrow trying to hit the target - There are all kinds of various levels of “missing the mark”.

If the person was shooting the arrow in exactly the opposite direction of the target then there is no way that he will hit the target. If he aims at the target and hits a tree a few yards a way, it is different than hitting the white edging around the target itself.

**As Christians our mark is to become like God. Anything less than that is missing the mark or sin. **

The really sad thing in this world is that the majority of people in the world don’t even know what the “mark” is…they don’t know that God became Man so that man could become god. So their whole lives are spent not trying to hit the mark because they don’t know it’s even there.

I see Christians as ones who at least have picked up the bow and arrow and are at least trying to hit the mark.

I see the glorious Martyrs and Saints as those who have been lucky enough to hit that mark. May at some point in my life, I be able to do the same!

Arguing between Catholics and Orthodox…which Church is the Church Christ established is basically like arguing over which bow and arrows are the best to use…which one will be most helpful in hitting the mark - becoming like God? Even though one is better than the other, they are both bow and arrows and it is possible to hit the mark either way. With one it’s just easier.

Since I really want to hit the mark, I want to have the best possible bow and arrow and so I researched to see which Church is the one Jesus established to help us hit the mark. I believe that one to be the Orthodox Church and many here believe that one to be the Catholic Church…but may God have mercy on us and save us all!

I sincerely hope that everyone here will eventually hit that mark also!

It is great to be able to hit the mark, I don’t deny that.
But what unrepented sins will send someone to hell, and what unrepented sins will not send you to hell? And you don;t believe in purgatory, or do you?

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Mmmmm? I see no Protestants have joined the festivities yet. It’s probably true that Protestants generally view the EO and the CC as the same religion. Blessings,
Marduk

You know, when you see two people on a sinking rowboat fighting for the last piece of cheese, the last thing you want to do is join in…

Just kidding. I love things about both your churches. I don’t view the OC and RCC as the same denomination or even really that similar, although I would view them as the same religion, i.e. Christian. I think the Orthodox Church is theologically more amenable to Evangelical Protestants like me than the Roman Catholic church, as I have posted extensively elsewhere. I think the CC is more amenable to some Anglo-Catholics who are RC in all but name.

For the most part, I accept Orthodox doctrine and ecclesiology. I think it matches rather well with what the Fathers believed. If I had an Orthodox Church locally in an understandable language, I would consider joining, being chrismated and growing a beard. Seriously.

Anyway, two little questions for Single Mom Monica:

1. I don’t get Orthodox soteriology. I know you reject the Ransom and Penal Substitution theories. I understand your view is that Christ “defeated death”, as per Athanasius’ On the Incarnation. Could you please explain what Christ accomplished on the cross, supporting this with references from the Bible and Fathers. If your view is that He “defeated death”, please explain what this means and how the cross relates to this (as opposed to the resurrection).
2. Please clarify the Orthodox position on “sin nature”. I understand that Orthodox believe we inherit not the “guilt” of Adam and Eve, but rather the consequences of the Fall. Yet you believe that we do not have a sin nature. Could you please explain, particularly in light of St. Paul’s letter to the Romans where he discusses extensively our “sinful flesh”? I suspect this is rather important for the concept of theosis.

Thanks.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JesusforMadrid,

I understand that Orthodox believe we inherit not the “guilt” of Adam and Eve, but rather the consequences of the Fall.

By this question, I hope you are not implying that the Catholic Church believes we inherit the guilt of Adam and Eve.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

For crying out loud Hesychios: do you really think that the idea a scale of seriousness is absent from Catholicism and distinctive in Orthodoxy? Where do you get his stuff?

No, that is not what I said, don’t put words in my mouth.

Mortal and venial one way of categorizing the seriousness of sin,

Yes, I agree.

If you have anything else to say on the subject, direct them to sidbrown, he is the one making a point of it, yet you don’t seem to care or notice at all what he has had to say on the subject.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Dear brother JesusforMadrid,

By this question, I hope you are not implying that the Catholic Church believes we inherit the guilt of Adam and Eve.

Blessings,
Marduk

Does the Roman Catholic Church reject this part of Augustine’s teaching (if it is indeed part)?

Anyway, I don’t want to get sidetracked: my question is not for Rome but rather Constantinople. The RCC view has been discussed on other threads.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JesusforMadrid,

I hope you forgive my forthrightness, but since this is a Catholic apologetics website hosting discussions on Orthodox teaching, please do not be put off by people who will want to defend the Catholic Faith from misrepresentations.

Per your request, I will not sidetrack you with a verbose explanation. But I will say that the Catholic Church most definitely does not teach that we inherit the guilt of Adam and Eve.

I would also direct you to this blog from an EO Christian which gives a fair and accurate presentation of the Catholic teaching on the issue:
razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/ancestral-vs-original-sin-false.html

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Per your request, I will not sidetrack you with a verbose explanation. But I will say that the Catholic Church most definitely does not teach that we inherit the guilt of Adam and Eve.

I would also direct you to this blog from an EO Christian which gives a fair and accurate presentation of the Catholic teaching on the issue:
razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/ancestral-vs-original-sin-false.html

Blessings,
Marduk

OK. Fair enough.

 

[dvdjs]

No, that is not what I said, don’t put words in my mouth.
:

Excuse me. I* asked a question* about what you wrote - entirely different from putting words in your mouth. Indeed, when I am irked about others putting words in my mouth I suggest that instead they ask a question.