Do Eastern Catholics Believe in Mortal and Venial Sin?

[rben20]

I ask because in the non-catholic thread “bible Christians” counter the Latin church teaching of mortal and venial from 1 John by using Eastern Catholics as an example for their defense. Thanks in advance for your information.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

“Bible” Christians don’t know much then. Eastern Catholics are Catholics because they believe in the fullness of the truth - even if they explain things differently than we do in the West. It’s possible the people were confusing Eastern Catholics with Eastern Orthodox .

 

[ConstantineTG]

“Bible” Christians don’t know much then. Eastern Catholics are Catholics because they believe in the fullness of the truth - even if they explain things differently than we do in the West. It’s possible the people were confusing Eastern Catholics with Eastern Orthodox .

Eastern Catholics are Eastern Orthodox, except that they are communion with Rome. The Eastern praxis really doesn’t distinguish mortal and venial sins. Of course because of the Latin influence you’ll find that there is a level of understanding of what those are and it may even be openly taught in certain parishes. But its not part of the Eastern praxis. But that doesn’t mean the Latin understanding is wrong.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Eastern Catholics are Eastern Orthodox, except that they are communion with Rome. The Eastern praxis really doesn’t distinguish mortal and venial sins. Of course because of the Latin influence you’ll find that there is a level of understanding of what those are and it may even be openly taught in certain parishes. But its not part of the Eastern praxis. But that doesn’t mean the Latin understanding is wrong.

That’s what I meant - Eastern Catholics are in communion with Rome, so they have the fullness of the Truth. I’m not too familiar with Eastern Christianity . So DO you believe in venial and mortal sins and just not like to make the distinction?

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s what I meant - Eastern Catholics are in communion with Rome, so they have the fullness of the Truth. I’m not too familiar with Eastern Christianity . So DO you believe in venial and mortal sins and just not like to make the distinction?

I tend to disagree with such statements. The Orthodox have the Deposit of Faith from the Apostles being True Apostolic Churches. I don’t think I can ever call one who received the Deposit of Faith that they do not have the fullness of truth because the Deposit of Faith should have contained the fullness of truth.

Being a born and raised Roman Catholic, I can say that of course I do believe and understand mortal and venial sins. But that distinction hasn’t come up yet since my move to the Ukrainian Church. Its not so much about not making distinctions but that the theology is different, thus the view on sin is different.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Maybe the question could be restated as: “In the Eastern Churches must one confess all sins or only the most serious?”

 

[ConstantineTG]

Maybe the question could be restated as: “In the Eastern Churches must one confess all sins or only the most serious?”

You must discuss all your sins with your priest. Because confession is more than just telling your offenses and getting absolution. The priest is seen as a physician and you’re the patient. Not only are you asking for healing, but also preventive measures. Even when I started attending the Ukrainian Church, I still went to an RC priest for confession because the priest knows me well. At first I was shy, afraid and hesitant. Then I finally had my first Byzantine confession (in a confessional, nonetheless ) and it was the best confession I ever had. I think I was in there for like over half an hour, and the priest listened to everything I said, and he address everything I confessed one by one and giving me wonderful advise on how to become better and avoid sin in the future.

 

[Bluegoat]

If you look at the other thread, you can see that some of the Catholics were taking a very hard line about the distinctions, and even about the objectivity of them. These were people suggesting that going to confession means looking at an objective list and understanding one’s sins through that.

I argued that a proper understanding of the idea meant realizing there is a real subjective element, and we can see this more clearly in the Eastern view. That understanding was argued, and I have to say that this absolutist, list mentality is common. I was looking at some of answers in the “ask an apologist” section, and I found that many were teaching this kind of “list” understanding.

Personally I don’t see how such an absolutist view could be compatible with the Eastern view (or with reality). And I don’t think the best Catholic theologians would subscribe to it. But it does seem like well-respected priests are teaching this stuff.

 

[ringil]

I use the “list” method but I am pretty spiritually immature. Maybe using the list method is sort of the “lowest common denominator,” as it is really what is sufficiet to receive absolution.

Perhaps as one becomes more spiritually aware we need a more “in-depth” confession.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I tend to disagree with such statements. The Orthodox have the Deposit of Faith from the Apostles being True Apostolic Churches. I don’t think I can ever call one who received the Deposit of Faith that they do not have the fullness of truth because the Deposit of Faith should have contained the fullness of truth.

.

But the Orthodox don’t believe that the pope is the vicar of Christ - at least to my understanding, which, as I mentioned earlier, isn’t very good. Therefore, that is less truth.

But once again, I could be wrong.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Being a born and raised Roman Catholic, I can say that of course I do believe and understand mortal and venial sins. But that distinction hasn’t come up yet since my move to the Ukrainian Church. Its not so much about not making distinctions but that the theology is different, thus the view on sin is different.

Wait, the theology is different between EC’s and RC’s?

Then why are they in communion with each other? Or is it sort of like the Thomists and Jesuits and how they understand the theology differently?

 

[theistgal]

But the Orthodox don’t believe that the pope is the vicar of Christ - at least to my understanding, which, as I mentioned earlier, isn’t very good. Therefore, that is less truth.

But once again, I could be wrong.

They have some good arguments about the way the papacy has developed over the centuries, and some of the things they object to have been taken seriously by our most recent popes, particularly John Paul II.

Of course the EO won’t ever be 100% in favor of the papacy but I think JPII and Benedict have helped “pave the way” towards some kind of future reconciliation by their attempts to listen to what the “other side” has to say.

 

[choliks]

Wait, the theology is different between EC’s and RC’s?

Then why are they in communion with each other? Or is it sort of like the Thomists and Jesuits and how they understand the theology differently?

The way I understand it, you can have different (but similar) theology and still arrive at the same truth.

 

[I_Thirst]

Could someone recommend a book or two that goes more deeply into this?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

You must discuss all your sins with your priest. Because confession is more than just telling your offenses and getting absolution. The priest is seen as a physician and you’re the patient. Not only are you asking for healing, but also preventive measures. Even when I started attending the Ukrainian Church, I still went to an RC priest for confession because the priest knows me well. At first I was shy, afraid and hesitant. Then I finally had my first Byzantine confession (in a confessional, nonetheless ) and it was the best confession I ever had. I think I was in there for like over half an hour, and the priest listened to everything I said, and he address everything I confessed one by one and giving me wonderful advise on how to become better and avoid sin in the future.

Thanks - Joe Kelley

 

[ConstantineTG]

But the Orthodox don’t believe that the pope is the vicar of Christ - at least to my understanding, which, as I mentioned earlier, isn’t very good. Therefore, that is less truth.

But once again, I could be wrong.

Well, some would claim they don’t. But from what I gather in a general sense, the Orthodox do believe the Pope of Rome do have a special place in the Church as the successor of St. Peter. However we do not agree on what his actual place is. There are three views, the Absolute Petrine view which claims that the Pope has full and total authority throughout the entire Church from top to bottom. Only the Roman Catholics subscribe to this idea. The next is the High Petrine view which claims that the Pope is Protos, First among the Bishops and exerts some influence over the other Bishops, but not full control of the other Churches. And the Low Petrine view which suggests that the Pope is merely a place of honor, a First among Equals. He doesn’t have any actual authority.

Wait, the theology is different between EC’s and RC’s?

Then why are they in communion with each other? Or is it sort of like the Thomists and Jesuits and how they understand the theology differently?

Communion doesn’t mean uniformity. Think of it this way, the United States is one country, but Californians are not Texans or New Yorkers. Everyone agrees to the American ideal, but they still maintain their distinctiveness. There are different subcultures in every part of the country.

Theology is just development of belief. The East developed the Deposit of Faith differently than the West. It doesn’t mean we believe in different things, but our understanding of the faith is different.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Well, some would claim they don’t. But from what I gather in a general sense, the Orthodox do believe the Pope of Rome do have a special place in the Church as the successor of St. Peter. However we do not agree on what his actual place is. There are three views, the Absolute Petrine view which claims that the Pope has full and total authority throughout the entire Church from top to bottom. Only the Roman Catholics subscribe to this idea. The next is the High Petrine view which claims that the Pope is Protos, First among the Bishops and exerts some influence over the other Bishops, but not full control of the other Churches. And the Low Petrine view which suggests that the Pope is merely a place of honor, a First among Equals. He doesn’t have any actual authority.
.

So where do Eastern Catholics fit in this spectrum? From my limited knowledge the EO’s are for the first among equals.

Communion doesn’t mean uniformity. Think of it this way, the United States is one country, but Californians are not Texans or New Yorkers. Everyone agrees to the American ideal, but they still maintain their distinctiveness. There are different subcultures in every part of the country.

Theology is just development of belief. The East developed the Deposit of Faith differently than the West. ** It doesn’t mean we believe in different things, but our understanding of the faith is different**.

That’s what I thought. We believe the same thing, but just express the Faith in different ways. But I’m still somewhat confused on the authority of the pope of Eastern Catholics.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So where do Eastern Catholics fit in this spectrum? From my limited knowledge the EO’s are for the first among equals.

Most of the lay folks you will encounter on the 'net will subscribe to the Low Petrine view. I think their bishops are split between Low and High. Eastern Catholics subscribe to the High Petrine view though there would be a few here and there that would say the subscribe to the Low. And there will also be pockets who will say they subscribe to the Absolute.

That’s what I thought. We believe the same thing, but just express the Faith in different ways. But I’m still somewhat confused on the authority of the pope of Eastern Catholics.

Just remember that theology is not the faith itself, but understanding of the faith. We see the same thing two different ways. Though it is easy for people to mistake that the East and West views are totally different. They differ enough that you can’t mix them together, but there is enough similarity that one can be used to explain the other.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

The next is the High Petrine view which claims that the Pope is Protos, First among the Bishops and exerts some influence over the other Bishops, but not full control of the other Churches.

“not full control of the other Churches” - I’m not understanding what you mean when you say this. do you mean Christian denominations, Churches in the Catholic sense of the word - e.g Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, etc, or something else?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Most of the lay folks you will encounter on the 'net will subscribe to the Low Petrine view. I think their bishops are split between Low and High.

.

This is for Eastern Orthodoxy, correct?

Eastern Catholics subscribe to the High Petrine view though there would be a few here and there that would say the subscribe to the Low. And there will also be pockets who will say they subscribe to the Absolute.
.

---

Just remember that theology is not the faith itself, but understanding of the faith. We see the same thing two different ways. Though it is easy for people to mistake that the East and West views are totally different. They differ enough that you can’t mix them together, but there is enough similarity that one can be used to explain the other.

Good thing to know. thanks