Do Eastern Catholics Believe in Mortal and Venial Sin?

[TrueLight]

Does anyone want to respond to the then Cardinal Ratzinger quote?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Very good explanation. It makes perfect sense.

Yay!

As I said, I would tend to go along with the Eastern theology.

I often do, too. It only solidified my belief that the fullness of Christ’s Church subsists in the Catholic Church when I discovered that the nuance, mysticism, and subtlety that I love about eastern Christianity coexists in the Catholic Church with the laudably philosophical, rationally-focused theological tradition of western Christianity.

Nevertheless, that is not what we as Roman Catholics are taught.

Very true. I fully admit that.

I have seen people start threads asking if they for example, masturbate one time and fall asleep and die, will they go to hell? The answer has been a resounding yes!

Actually, I think that “resounding yes” is a mistake even from the perspective of western theology. We’re taught that if you die with an un-repented mortal sin on your soul, you go to hell. But the hypothetical you mention in those threads doesn’t give us enough information to make that call. Remember that we actually can’t judge if someone is spiritually culpable for a grave sin: it’s only mortal if they also committed the sin with full knowledge and full consent (I’m sure you know this).

So I think the best answer to that hypothetical - even from a western viewpoint - would be, “It depends.”

I think that’s one error people make about western theology: while it is very specific and precise in its definitions, teachings, etc., sometimes people attempt to extract even more certainty than it actually provides. Western theology too has its share of nuance and mystery; it’s just expressed in a more syllogistic style.

I think, to be honest, that the ones most guilty of not giving western theology credit for that are most often some eastern Orthodox. I’ve read an article by an Orthodox priest who elaborated on a beautiful and nuanced explanation of the Atonement (one that I fully agreed with), identified that as the Orthodox position, then went on to describe what he said was the “Roman Catholic” position, only it was a grossly simplistic, legalistic, and literalist take on it. He had no appreciation for the fact that the western tradition is fully aware that its legal language applies analogously, not univocally.

I feel like I’m repeating myself over and over. But I hope you see my point that the definition of mortal sin and what happens to you if you die with a mortal sin is pretty much set in stone for the Roman church, (no if’s or buts) and we are expected to assent to that.

Very true, but for the reason I explained above, it’s not quite as set-in-stone even from the western perspective as those threads sometimes made it out to be.

Now, I know what you might be thinking, and if so, you’re right: we often fear to admit that - and thus forget it ourselves - because what if someone then gets lazy, commits sins all the time, and doesn’t worry about it because they justify it to themselves by saying that they’re just not culpable or something.

That can be a danger. But I’m sure the East would be no less passionate than the West - despite the theoretical difference on this matter - in telling such a person that they are endangering their very soul with their reckless presumption.

And that’s the point for me: neither theology lets someone justify sin by belittling the moral character of certain acts’ objects. Neither side is truly guilty of, say, fundamental option theory. On this matter they simply emphasize different aspects of our moral freedom and moral choices. Our finite human minds predictably have trouble simultaneously digesting both perspectives, but that doesn’t strike me as a surprise.

If the Eastern church is in full communion, it cannot be teaching something contrary, or “slightly different” if you’d rather use that term. . No matter how you explain it, it is still a different understanding.

In many ways, yes, it is different. But is it heterodox? Remember that once you’re inside orthodoxy, its bounds are astonishingly broader than it looks like from the outside. You know, of course, that the Church doesn’t define anything unless some issue or dispute makes it necessary. Within the bounds set by the Church, speculation ought to be encouraged, and if one is doing theology well - and not as a shameless rationalist would do it - then I think (s)he will find that eastern and oriental theology do not necessarily conflict with the dogmatic definitions formulated by mostly western bishops.

Perhaps some will. I’m no expert on the Orthodox Church and divorce, for instance, but it is possible that the Catholic Church today would condemn part of the way Orthodox churches sometimes handle it. But on the issues that actually come up in today’s ecumenical dialogue, I don’t believe I’ve seen heterodoxy from the East.

One final note: I know that sometimes Orthodox apologists make it hard. For instance, I’ve read Orthodox apologists denounce the Immaculate Conception. But when they do things like that, I don’t think they really know what they’re talking about precisely because they’re attempting to deny something outside the bounds of the theological tradition they’re a part of. If by “original sin” they meant what the Latin Church means - and they don’t, to be sure - then they would definitely agree with us that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without it. The only thing that muddies the matter is that the 1854 dogmatic definition was couched in very western terms.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

By the way, do you mostly attend an Eastern Catholic church? You seem very pro Eastern theology.

You know, I actually do not. I’ve been a Latin Catholic all my life. The reason I seem very pro-Eastern theology is twofold: first, like you, I often relate more to and agree more with the eastern take on things. Second, it’s eastern Catholics - and particularly the few I’ve encountered online from the Oriental/Miaphysite tradition - who have most adeptly helped me understand not only theology more clearly, but even the theology of my western tradition.

For instance, the things Mardukm on this forum has taught me about the papacy have given me an almost infinitely clearer understanding of just what papal supremacy and infallibility mean - to the extent that I now find both absolutist distortions and Low Petrine innovations equally in-credible and un-patristic.

I wouldn’t understand the matter as clearly as I now do, however, if I had never encountered eastern and oriental Catholics whose different perspective helped refine my vision - just as all humans have depth perception only because the views provided by each eye overlap with each other.

To be honest, I think I’ve only gone to the Divine Liturgy at an eastern Catholic church twice - once to the Melkite parish in my old hometown, once at a Romanian Catholic parish when I was in Romania. The city I live in now has no eastern Christian presence at all - no Orthodox, no eastern Catholics. In any case, there are plenty of western traditions that I quite love, like the Rosary.

Then you are discussing it would appear controversy that has yet to be settled.

saintjamesprayforme.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/something-to-think-about/

ukrainian-orthodoxy.org/articles/catholic/communionWithRome.htm

Brief nitpicky - but important - point: I actually disagree with the second link that eastern Catholics are “Eastern by ritual, Western by ecclesial jurisdiction.” The eastern Catholic churches are (at least some of them, and at least in theory) hierarchically distinct - truly autonomous (sui iuris). The Coptic Catholic Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Maronite Syriac Church of Antioch, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, etc. can in no sense be accurately described as “western by ecclesial jurisdiction.”

I’m going to repost the first one which I think someone had already posted. Eastern Catholics in this thread, plus a very vocal Roman Catholic have been saying why do Roman Catholics have a problem if the Pope/Rome, does not?

I would like to hear a response to this quote from then Cardinal Ratzinger. Is there a more updated post 1988 document that shows that Rome does not have a problem with some of these things?

Oh, I agree with then-Cardinal Ratzinger. I just think that many eastern Christians misunderstood the conditions of his proposal.

Remember that the obligation from the Orthodox side is to cease to condemn as heretical the developments in the west.

There’s a difference between saying, “We eastern Christians get to define for ourselves what we believe about the doctrine under discussion and reject whatever we believe to be western rather than universal” - of which I approve - and of saying, “We eastern Christians reject the doctrine itself that this council taught.”

The latter actually fails to meet the obligation Ratzinger suggested above, because if the doctrine itself is in error, then that means the West has unwittingly attempted to add to the deposit of faith. Thus, the West would still be in heresy.

To take a specific example:

The Immaculate Conception
What if an eastern Christian said, “I deny this dogma. It is false.” That would fail to meet the obligation Ratzinger suggested for the eastern side of the divide.

What if an eastern Christian said, “I believe in this dogma. It is true.” That would probably be a Latinization that no eastern Christian should have to profess.

What if an eastern Christian said, “This dogma was defined in terms only relevant to the western concept of the Fall. It therefore has no meaning for me. I will simply be satisfied with honoring the sinlessness of the All-Holy Theotokos.” That, I think, is entirely appropriate and in line with both sides of the Ratzinger Proposal.

The East tends to look more at the matter of intention, and divides sins into sin proper, which is intentional, and transgressions, which are not. Since both sins and transgressions mar the image and likeness of God within, both require healing and reconciliation to reintegrate the fallen with the Body of Christ, and to advance the person along the path of theosis.

Thank you; that’s very interesting and it makes sense to me! I can see how it is different from the western understanding yet how both can legitimately coexist.

 

[jmj1984]

There is a difference in pointing out a negative belief as a point of an attack for an argument and another to pointing out that someone is negative. The first is an attempt to deconstruct an argument. The second is to admonish. The relevance of this is in reference to me and to you. Do you see us as irrelevant. I am getting ready to dust my sandles with you and I speak for no others but myself.

Frankly I don’t understand a word you’ve written, I have only expressed orthodox catholic doctrines on here, asked for evidence and in return have received endless ad hominem attacks and not a single bit of evidence.

 

[TrueLight]

Yay!

I often do, too. It only solidified my belief that the fullness of Christ’s Church subsists in the Catholic Church when I discovered that the nuance, mysticism, and subtlety that I love about eastern Christianity coexists in the Catholic Church with the laudably philosophical, rationally-focused theological tradition of western Christianity.

Very true. I fully admit that.

Actually, I think that “resounding yes” is a mistake even from the perspective of western theology. We’re taught that if you die with an un-repented mortal sin on your soul, you go to hell. But the hypothetical you mention in those threads doesn’t give us enough information to make that call. Remember that we actually can’t judge if someone is spiritually culpable for a grave sin: it’s only mortal if they also committed the sin with full knowledge and full consent (I’m sure you know this).

So I think the best answer to that hypothetical - even from a western viewpoint - would be, “It depends.”

I think that’s one error people make about western theology: while it is very specific and precise in its definitions, teachings, etc., sometimes people attempt to extract even more certainty than it actually provides. Western theology too has its share of nuance and mystery; it’s just expressed in a more syllogistic style.

I think, to be honest, that the ones most guilty of not giving western theology credit for that are most often some eastern Orthodox. I’ve read an article by an Orthodox priest who elaborated on a beautiful and nuanced explanation of the Atonement (one that I fully agreed with), identified that as the Orthodox position, then went on to describe what he said was the “Roman Catholic” position, only it was a grossly simplistic, legalistic, and literalist take on it. He had no appreciation for the fact that the western tradition is fully aware that its legal language applies analogously, not univocally.

Very true, but for the reason I explained above, it’s not quite as set-in-stone even from the western perspective as those threads sometimes made it out to be.

Now, I know what you might be thinking, and if so, you’re right: we often fear to admit that - and thus forget it ourselves - because what if someone then gets lazy, commits sins all the time, and doesn’t worry about it because they justify it to themselves by saying that they’re just not culpable or something.

That can be a danger. But I’m sure the East would be no less passionate than the West - despite the theoretical difference on this matter - in telling such a person that they are endangering their very soul with their reckless presumption.

And that’s the point for me: neither theology lets someone justify sin by belittling the moral character of certain acts’ objects. Neither side is truly guilty of, say, fundamental option theory. On this matter they simply emphasize different aspects of our moral freedom and moral choices. Our finite human minds predictably have trouble simultaneously digesting both perspectives, but that doesn’t strike me as a surprise.

In many ways, yes, it is different. But is it heterodox? Remember that once you’re inside orthodoxy, its bounds are astonishingly broader than it looks like from the outside. You know, of course, that the Church doesn’t define anything unless some issue or dispute makes it necessary. Within the bounds set by the Church, speculation ought to be encouraged, and if one is doing theology well - and not as a shameless rationalist would do it - then I think (s)he will find that eastern and oriental theology do not necessarily conflict with the dogmatic definitions formulated by mostly western bishops.

Perhaps some will. I’m no expert on the Orthodox Church and divorce, for instance, but it is possible that the Catholic Church today would condemn part of the way Orthodox churches sometimes handle it. But on the issues that actually come up in today’s ecumenical dialogue, I don’t believe I’ve seen heterodoxy from the East.

One final note: I know that sometimes Orthodox apologists make it hard. For instance, I’ve read Orthodox apologists denounce the Immaculate Conception. But when they do things like that, I don’t think they really know what they’re talking about precisely because they’re attempting to deny something outside the bounds of the theological tradition they’re a part of. If by “original sin” they meant what the Latin Church means - and they don’t, to be sure - then they would definitely agree with us that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without it. The only thing that muddies the matter is that the 1854 dogmatic definition was couched in very western terms.

Awesome response.

Very helpful.

However, that is your understanding. No Eastern Catholic in this thread laid it out as clearly as you did and as confidently. Could it be you are extremely benevolent and is giving the benefit doubt where none should be given?

Is this what you wish were the Eastern Catholic viewpoint?

 

[TrueLight]

Remember that the obligation from the Orthodox side is to cease to condemn as heretical the developments in the west.

Is that really the only obligation?

There’s a difference between saying, “We eastern Christians get to define for ourselves what we believe about the doctrine under discussion and reject whatever we believe to be western rather than universal” - of which I approve …

Really?

To take a specific example:

The Immaculate Conception
What if an eastern Christian said, “I deny this dogma. It is false.” That would fail to meet the obligation Ratzinger suggested for the eastern side of the divide.

What if an eastern Christian said, “I believe in this dogma. It is true.” That would probably be a Latinization that no eastern Christian should have to profess.

What if an eastern Christian said, “This dogma was defined in terms only relevant to the western concept of the Fall. It therefore has no meaning for me. I will simply be satisfied with honoring the sinlessness of the All-Holy Theotokos.” That, I think, is entirely appropriate and in line with both sides of the Ratzinger Proposal.

Wow, I totally disagree with the above.

 

[CopticChristian]

You know, I actually do not. I’ve been a Latin Catholic all my life. The reason I seem very pro-Eastern theology is twofold: first, like you, I often relate more to and agree more with the eastern take on things. Second, it’s eastern Catholics - and particularly the few I’ve encountered online from the Oriental/Miaphysite tradition - who have most adeptly helped me understand not only theology more clearly, but even the theology of my western tradition.

For instance, the things Mardukm on this forum has taught me about the papacy have given me an almost infinitely clearer understanding of just what papal supremacy and infallibility mean - to the extent that I now find both absolutist distortions and Low Petrine innovations equally in-credible and un-patristic.

I wouldn’t understand the matter as clearly as I now do, however, if I had never encountered eastern and oriental Catholics whose different perspective helped refine my vision - just as all humans have depth perception only because the views provided by each eye overlap with each other.

To be honest, I think I’ve only gone to the Divine Liturgy at an eastern Catholic church twice - once to the Melkite parish in my old hometown, once at a Romanian Catholic parish when I was in Romania. The city I live in now has no eastern Christian presence at all - no Orthodox, no eastern Catholics. In any case, there are plenty of western traditions that I quite love, like the Rosary.

Brief nitpicky - but important - point: I actually disagree with the second link that eastern Catholics are “Eastern by ritual, Western by ecclesial jurisdiction.” The eastern Catholic churches are (at least some of them, and at least in theory) hierarchically distinct - truly autonomous (sui iuris). The Coptic Catholic Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Maronite Syriac Church of Antioch, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, etc. can in no sense be accurately described as “western by ecclesial jurisdiction.”

Oh, I agree with then-Cardinal Ratzinger. I just think that many eastern Christians misunderstood the conditions of his proposal.

Remember that the obligation from the Orthodox side is to cease to condemn as heretical the developments in the west.

There’s a difference between saying, “We eastern Christians get to define for ourselves what we believe about the doctrine under discussion and reject whatever we believe to be western rather than universal” - of which I approve - and of saying, “We eastern Christians reject the doctrine itself that this council taught.”

The latter actually fails to meet the obligation Ratzinger suggested above, because if the doctrine itself is in error, then that means the West has unwittingly attempted to add to the deposit of faith. Thus, the West would still be in heresy.

To take a specific example:

The Immaculate Conception
What if an eastern Christian said, “I deny this dogma. It is false.” That would fail to meet the obligation Ratzinger suggested for the eastern side of the divide.

What if an eastern Christian said, “I believe in this dogma. It is true.” That would probably be a Latinization that no eastern Christian should have to profess.

What if an eastern Christian said, “This dogma was defined in terms only relevant to the western concept of the Fall. It therefore has no meaning for me. I will simply be satisfied with honoring the sinlessness of the All-Holy Theotokos.” That, I think, is entirely appropriate and in line with both sides of the Ratzinger Proposal.

Thank you; that’s very interesting and it makes sense to me! I can see how it is different from the western understanding yet how both can legitimately coexist.

I believe that the Orthodox/Catholic dialogue is going to be available for reading in November. Speculating on what Ratzinger said and Pope Benedict said may have to be viewed in light of Ratzinger as not the Pope and the Pope speaking. It may well be that the November dialogue may clear the air or not?

 

[TrueLight]

I believe that the Orthodox/Catholic dialogue is going to be available for reading in November. Speculating on what Ratzinger said and Pope Benedict said may have to be viewed in light of Ratzinger as not the Pope and the Pope speaking. It may well be that the November dialogue may clear the air or not?

Which Nov dialogue is this?

 

[ConstantineTG]

True but the fact remains, mortal sins condemn one to hell. And of course some sins imply the consent to be mortal because they are self-evidently against natural law, sins such as:

1)Sodomy
2)Murder
3)Rape
4)Abortion
5)Lust

and that list is by no means exhaustive

Yet the Catholic Church says that if you are unaware of the seriousness of your actions, its not a mortal sin. Say there were these child warriors in Cambodia I think a while back. They were trained to fight from the time they learned to walk and wouldn’t know anything better. Their actions wouldn’t be considered mortal sins because they wouldn’t have known any better.

 

[TrueLight]

Yet the Catholic Church says that if you are unaware of the seriousness of your actions, its not a mortal sin. Say there were these child warriors in Cambodia I think a while back. They were trained to fight from the time they learned to walk and wouldn’t know anything better. Their actions wouldn’t be considered mortal sins because they wouldn’t have known any better.

But anyone who is a Catholic knows that lust is wrong, right? So if I’m a God-fearing Catholic and I am walking down the street and happen to be admiring a fine looking man and have a moment of weakness and start lusting (knowing that I shouldn’t be lusting, but enjoying the moment anyway) and I get hit by a car while looking and die, then what?

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is not a conversation/thread that I really want to be involved in. I suspected as much from the beginning and ought to have just kept my trap shut. I shall do so, and also continue to follow the leaders of my Church sui iuris by holding to the Byzantine tradition in full, including the lack of distinction between mortal and venial sin. Rome has not seen fit to excommunicate any of the Eastern leaders who hold to this same view.

God bless.

My priest told me as much about discussing the faith on the internet. There are those who genuinely seek knowledge, and there are those who discuss just to debate and argue. Then he gave an example of how Jesus would refrain from answering questions from those he knew were not interested in the truth, but rather just want to argue. I think its clear here that someone is not interested in learning about the Byzantine praxis, but rather would not accept anything that doesn’t fit his own version of truth. Best that like Christ, we avoid fruitless discussion when it gives no spiritual advantage to anyone.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But anyone who is a Catholic knows that lust is wrong, right? So if I’m a God-fearing Catholic and I am walking down the street and happen to be admiring a fine looking man and have a moment of weakness and start lusting (knowing that I shouldn’t be lusting, but enjoying the moment anyway) and I get hit by a car while looking and die, then what?

Still its inconclusive. Most Catholics I know don’t know that IVF is a sin. Even I do not know that until like 1.5 years ago. Because we think abortion is a sin because its killing a baby, then a medical process that gives life cannot be a sin. But it is.

In this day and age, if no one will tell someone that lust is a sin, many will fall into the trap of the liberal media that lustful actions are okay and ordinary.

And your question, “and then what?” I shudder to think if any human being will be able to answer that because there is only one judge. We are asked not to judge. I do not know, I cannot quantify the state of your soul.

 

[jmj1984]

My priest told me as much about discussing the faith on the internet. There are those who genuinely seek knowledge, and there are those who discuss just to debate and argue. Then he gave an example of how Jesus would refrain from answering questions from those he knew were not interested in the truth, but rather just want to argue. I think its clear here that someone is not interested in learning about the Byzantine praxis, but rather would not accept anything that doesn’t fit his own version of truth. Best that like Christ, we avoid fruitless discussion when it gives no spiritual advantage to anyone.

several days later and J, is still waiting for any evidence

 

[CopticChristian]

Which Nov dialogue is this?

Cannot recall the name. I will look. It was the most recent dialogue.

 

[jmj1984]

Yet the Catholic Church says that if you are unaware of the seriousness of your actions, its not a mortal sin. Say there were these child warriors in Cambodia I think a while back. They were trained to fight from the time they learned to walk and wouldn’t know anything better. Their actions wouldn’t be considered mortal sins because they wouldn’t have known any better.

This is the favourite weapon of those who want to disprove something but can’t do it with any actual evidence, give the most extreme example possible. Brainwashing = not culpable, not catholc but sinning against natural law = almost certainly guilty, why? Because natural law is self-evident, hence the ‘natural law’.
Evidence for argument that The Church allows people not to believe in mortal sins = non-existent

 

[CopticChristian]

several days later and J, is still waiting for any evidence

For What. SSPX denied the Holy Spirit and Vatican II? Or for what?

 

[jmj1984]

For What. SSPX denied the Holy Spirit and Vatican II? Or for what?

And this of relevance to the discussion how?

Just the minor matter of evidence that the church approves dissent from De-Fide issues

 

[ConstantineTG]

several days later and J, is still waiting for any evidence

Evidence of what? You will only accept that the East has taken the position of the West, which is not the reality. Anyway, I’ve said what I said in that post and this will be the last time I will address you. Its a waste of time really.

shakes off the dust from my sandals and walks away

 

[jmj1984]

Evidence of what? You will only accept that the East has taken the position of the West, which is not the reality. Anyway, I’ve said what I said in that post and this will be the last time I will address you. Its a waste of time really.

shakes off the dust from my sandals and walks away

I did say this above and oh dear I’m getting sandalised over the internet This wouldnt happen to be what the papal legates did to the patriarch of constantinope that started the whole schism in the first place would it?

Maybe if you actually bothered to provide some evidence for your statements rather than make ad hominem attacks and argue ab absurdam we’d get somewhere but you haven’t or can’t.

And as for doing what Jesus told the apostles to do in a town where they were not received, all I can say is how childish can you get? Doing that on an internet forum to someone who has only ever asked for evidence and has not insulted your faith at all (and don’t say otherwise that would be an untruth) is well just wow.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

But anyone who is a Catholic knows that lust is wrong, right? So if I’m a God-fearing Catholic and I am walking down the street and happen to be admiring a fine looking man and have a moment of weakness and start lusting (knowing that I shouldn’t be lusting, but enjoying the moment anyway) and I get hit by a car while looking and die, then what?

Then what? That is up for God to decide.