Do Eastern Catholics Believe in Mortal and Venial Sin?

[ConstantineTG]

“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?

There are 22 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Roman Catholic Church is just 1 of 23 Catholic Churches.

This is for Eastern Orthodoxy, correct?

Yes.

Good thing to know. thanks

No problem

 

[Swiss_Guy]

There are 22 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Roman Catholic Church is just 1 of 23 Catholic Churches.

That’s a new way of looking at the church. I always thought it was the Catholic Church with 23 rites. so the rites are different churches? That doesn’t seem right.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema.

This quote from the First Vatican Council doesn’t seem to line up with anything but the roman Catholic view of papal authority. Unless I’m (still) misunderstanding .

 

[RyanBlack]

That’s a new way of looking at the church. I always thought it was the Catholic Church with 23 rites. so the rites are different churches? That doesn’t seem right.

Many people believe this, but it is a misconception. The Catholic Church is a communion of Churches, not a communion of rites. Each particular Church worships according to a rite, and some of the rites (for example, the Byzantine) are used by multiple Churches.

 

[patrick457]

Many people believe this, but it is a misconception. The Catholic Church is a communion of Churches, not a communion of rites. Each particular Church worships according to a rite, and some of the rites (for example, the Byzantine) are used by multiple Churches.

Not to mention that multiple liturgical rites could exist within a single Church, as is the case with the Latin Church itself. For instance, aside from the Roman Rite, there is also the Mozarabic (Spain, presently mostly limited to Toledo) and Ambrosian (Milan and surrounding areas) rites and the rites of various orders (Carthusian, Carmelite, Dominican, Cistercian, etc.), to name a few. That’s not counting the variations that could exist within a single rite (historically termed ‘Use’)!

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s a new way of looking at the church. I always thought it was the Catholic Church with 23 rites. so the rites are different churches? That doesn’t seem right.

There’s only 6 Rites. Rites is different from Churches. The Ukrainian Church and the Melkite Church for example are two different Churches, but they both practice the Byzantine Rite. You don’t belong to a Rite, you practice it. You belong to a Church.

 

[ciero]

That’s a new way of looking at the church. I always thought it was the Catholic Church with 23 rites. so the rites are different churches? That doesn’t seem right.

It’s actually a very OLD way of looking at the church…like maybe almost 2000 years OLD!

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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

Yes, in many areas. But remember that orthodoxy does not mean uniformity, and that diversity within universally binding Church teaching is quite possible. There are plenty of theological matters in which many interpretations validly exist; if that weren’t the case, there’d be no such thing as “theology” at all but only a bunch of “right” answers and a bunch of “wrong” answers.

There are, of course, wrong answers in theological matters, but much of the time there are also multiple acceptable, orthodox interpretations.

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?

We are in communion because we share all that is necessary and universal in the Catholic Christian faith. Your Thomist vs. Jesuit comparison is a good one; just remember that since both Thomists and Jesuits are both from the western tradition, the differences between east and west will be different from those between various western theological traditions.

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.

Hi, Constantine! I disagree slightly (only a wee little bit) with your description of the different Petrine views.

My understanding is that both the High Petrine and the Absolutist Petrine view accept that the pope has full authority over the whole church and every part of it, not just in matters of faith or morals but in anything, as Vatican I teaches. I think the difference is in how and when he gets to exercise that authority, so I wouldn’t say that only the Absolutist Petrine view gives the pope full control over all the churches - the difference, I think, is that the Absolutist Petrine view relegates other bishops to a status of merely being the pope’s deputies, whereas the High Petrine view sees the entire College of Bishops (united with the pope, of course) as being the true default supreme authority in the Church, and - unlike the Absolutist view - fully acknowledges that a bishop is not a mere deputy of the pope but has true headship in his particular church, including God-ordained rights that no one - not even the pope - can ever usurp. But should the need arise, there’s nothing the pope wouldn’t have the authority to do should he be called upon to do so…

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.

Well said!

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

That’s a new way of looking at the church. I always thought it was the Catholic Church with 23 rites. so the rites are different churches? That doesn’t seem right.

Actually, that is right. Catholic teaching uses the word “church” analogously; it has several meanings:

In one sense, there is simply the Catholic Church, comprising a union of twenty-three autonomous churches, and in which the fullness of Christ’s Church subsists.

A single diocese itself is, in some sense, its own church. Every diocese is therefore called a particular church - remember when Pope Benedict declared that Protestant denominations are not, in the strict sense, “churches”? That’s because the sign of a true particular church is the headship of a valid bishop… so every Catholic diocese is its own (particular) church.

Autonomous churches or sui iuris churches are hierarchically distinct.

The clearest example of this are the patriarchal eastern churches, like the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, the Maronite Syriac Church of Antioch, or the Chaldean Catholic Church. These churches effectively run themselves: each bishop runs his own diocese, and if there are any issues that affect the whole church, their bishops meet in synod to solve them. These patriarchal churches also have patriarchs who help run things if necessary. The current Melkite patriarch is, I believe, Gregory III Laham, Patriarch of Antioch; the Coptic Catholic Church has a Patriarch of Alexandria, etc.

When a patriarch dies, the bishops of that autonomous church elect a new one. The only thing Rome gets to require is be notified of who the next patriarch is once they’re done. Unless some exceptional problem requires special intervention from above, the pope of Rome literally never does anything else in/for these eastern patriarchal churches.

All the twenty-two eastern Catholic churches (and most of them have less autonomy than the patriarchal ones, I admit), and the Latin Church, make up together the Catholic Church.

It’s important to realize that these are churches and not merely separate rites, because otherwise one fails to acknowledge that they are (at least in theory…) hierarchically distinct.

My own opinion - and the Low Petrine Orthodox will, of course, disagree with me on this - is that this system, and particularly the relationship between the pope and the patriarchal eastern churches, is actually a very patristic system, one that does justice to both the first millennium practice and the teachings of the Vatican Councils on papal authority.

Of course, uniatism - the process by which all but two or three of these churches entered the Catholic Communion - is not the ideal and has been rejected, but the combination of hierarchical autonomy in the eastern churches with a full submission to universal papal authority is indeed the Catholic ideal.

 

[ringil]

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.

Well, how could this be? If Eastern Catholics don’t believe in the Primacy of the Pope they aren’t ascribing to Catholic faith, right? I thought that all Eastern Catholics would have a similiar understanding as Roman Catholic, else they would choose to be Orthodox.

Am I missing something? I’m pretty ignorant of this matter however it is very interesting to me as I have begun to attend a Maronite Church.

 

[ciero]

Well, how could this be? If Eastern Catholics don’t believe in the Primacy of the Pope they aren’t ascribing to Catholic faith, right? I thought that all Eastern Catholics would have a similiar understanding as Roman Catholic, else they would choose to be Orthodox.

Am I missing something? I’m pretty ignorant of this matter however it is very interesting to me as I have begun to attend a Maronite Church.

As an Eastern Catholic belonging to the Romanian Catholic Church of the Byzantine Rite, I believe it is important to be in communion with the bishop of Rome, that is why I remain part of the Catholic Communion. That being said, I also believe the bishop of Rome should be a sign of unity in the church and a court of last appeal, but he should NOT be the supreme ruler of the church…he should have NO authority outside his own church, unless he is invited go settle a dispute. Call me an Absoute Low Petrinite or whatever.

 

[theistgal]

As an Eastern Catholic belonging to the Romanian Catholic Church of the Byzantine Rite, I believe it is important to be in communion with the bishop of Rome, that is why I remain part of the Catholic Communion. That being said, I also believe the bishop of Rome should be a sign of unity in the church and a court of last appeal, but he should NOT be the supreme ruler of the church…he should have NO authority outside his own church, unless he is invited go settle a dispute. Call me an Absoute Low Petrinite or whatever.

I agree with this viewpoint; to me the most appropriate role for the Pope (and the one most supported by the Church fathers and early Church history) is to serve as the tiebreaker in disputes which can’t be resolved by the Bishops, who are, after all, also the successors to the Apostles in their own jurisdictions.

And I definitely don’t think the Pope should be deciding on changes to doctrines, much less proclaiming new ones, on his own, without the support of all the Bishops.

“Absolute Low Petrinite” is a little too academic for me - how about the “Little League Referee” school of thought?

 

[ciero]

I agree with this viewpoint; to me the most appropriate role for the Pope (and the one most supported by the Church fathers and early Church history) is to serve as the tiebreaker in disputes which can’t be resolved by the Bishops, who are, after all, also the successors to the Apostles in their own jurisdictions.

“Absolute Low Petrinite” is a little too academic for me - how about the “Little League Referee” school of thought?

It’s nice to finally agree! I love the “Little League Referee”!

 

[TrueLight]

As an Eastern Catholic belonging to the Romanian Catholic Church of the Byzantine Rite, I believe it is important to be in communion with the bishop of Rome, that is why I remain part of the Catholic Communion. That being said, I also believe the bishop of Rome should be a sign of unity in the church and a court of last appeal, but he should NOT be the supreme ruler of the church…he should have NO authority outside his own church, unless he is invited go settle a dispute. Call me an Absoute Low Petrinite or whatever.

I have said this before and I do not mean to be offensive.

I cannot understand why there is one set of rules for one group and another set of rules for another.

If I, as a Latin Catholic to be, do not have the option of having a low petrine view of the Pope, then no Catholic should have it either. How can the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, only have authority on the Latin church? That view diminishes the office of the Pope.

If we have to believe in mortal and venial sins, then every Catholic should also believe in that.

If we have to believe in the Immaculate Conception, on pain of mortal sin, then all Catholics should believe that also.

Otherwise, if I don’t quite believe in everything the Latin church espouses, and find Eastern beliefs more palatable, I have the option of switching to the Eastern Church.

This makes no sense to me. But I acknowledge, I may not know what I’m talking about.


A Catholic is a Catholic is a Catholic no matter what the church or rite.

It’s one thing to have different rites and traditions, but there shouldn’t be doctrinal differences, IMHO.

Otherwise, what is the point of communion?

 

[dochawk]

Well, how could this be? If Eastern Catholics don’t believe in the Primacy of the Pope they aren’t ascribing to Catholic faith, right? I thought that all Eastern Catholics would have a similiar understanding as Roman Catholic, else they would choose to be Orthodox.

It’s not a question of “believing in” Papal primacy, but rather what that primacy means. There is an entire spectrum between “no primacy” and absolute and unlimited dictator
of all matters within all Churches.

The current role of the Pope even in the Roman Church is new. For example, prior to Vatican I, there was minimal, if any, Papal role in appointing bishops outsidenof the US and Italy. Was this a denial of his primacy?

Also, to answer the original question, asking if easterns “believe in” mortal and venial sin really doesn’t make sense–it’s like asking about a 5/8" wrench in a metric set, or which metric wrench is the right size for a 5/8 bolt.

hawk

 

[Joel_PF]

From a Latin Catholic perspective, I think the best way to understand venial and mortal sin is using an image found in St. Thomas Aquinas.

Our final destination is God. A mortal sin (which is sin properly speaking) is that which changes our direction so that we no longer have Him as our end, but a created good. A venial sin is a fault which hinders our progress, makes us go slower, but does not change our destination.

The main difference between them is internal. In some cases we do show contempt for God and go after a good with our whole being. At other times, from weakness and inconstancy we do wrong things which don’t, however, flow from a fundamentally changed internal disposition.

In the Latin Church, should the faithful confess both mortal and venial sins? YES, and every single good catechism, book or priest will tell you so. We view the Sacrament of Confession as having the same therapeutic function as in the East (besides, of course, its primordial purpose of reconciliation: uniting us to God, having Him as our destination again). The priest is expected to give advice to the penitent (though this is not strictly required, and will likely vary depending on how well the priest knows the person), and on top of that God helps us especially with those sins we confess.

 

[ciero]

Let’s get one thing straight. We do NOT belong to the same church. I think this is one of the biggest problems with Latin Catholics understanding the Eastern Catholic Churches. There are 23 churches that form the Catholic communion…not 1 church with 23 rites. Each Church has it’s own Liturgy, Traditions and Theology. If you choose to be a member of the Latin Church then you accept the teaching of the Latin Church. I as a member of the Romanian Church accept the teachings and Traditions of that Church. You follow the rules of the Latin Church & I follow the rules of the Romanian Church. Do you think that the rules of all the churches in communion should be the same? Maybe we should all adopt the rules for the Coptic Church? Do you think all the churches
should ascribe to 1 theology and just have different “masses”?I do not accept that us being in communion with the Pope but the pope of Rome not having authority over any church but his own diminishes his role. It was how the undivided church of the first 1000 years operated, and how the reunited church of the future will operate. I suggest you read JPII encyclical Et Unum Sint, for a better understanding if this.

I have said this before and I do not mean to be offensive.

I cannot understand why there is one set of rules for one group and another set of rules for another.

If I, as a Latin Catholic to be, do not have the option of having a low petrine view of the Pope, then no Catholic should have it either. How can the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, only have authority on the Latin church? That view diminishes the office of the Pope.

If I have to believe in mortal and venial sins, then every Catholic should also believe in that.

If I have to believe in the Immaculate Conception, on pain of mortal sin, then all Catholics should believe that also.

Otherwise, if I don’t quite believe in everything the Latin church espouses, and find Eastern beliefs more palatable, I have the option of switching to the Eastern Church.

This makes no sense to me. But I acknowledge, I may not know what I’m talking about.


A Catholic is a Catholic is a Catholic no matter what the church or rite.

It’s one thing to have different rites and traditions, but there shouldn’t be doctrinal differences, IMHO.

Otherwise, what is the point of communion?

 

[TrueLight]

Let’s get one thing straight. We do NOT belong to the same church.

Are you yelling at me?

I think this is one of the biggest problems with Latin Catholics understanding the Eastern Catholic Churches. There are 23 churches that form the Catholic communion…not 1 church with 23 rites…
should ascribe to 1 theology and just have different “masses”?I do not accept that us being in communion with the Pope but the pope of Rome not having authority over any church but his own diminishes his role. It was how the undivided church of the first 1000 years operated, and how the reunited church of the future will operate.
I believe Catholics should share theology. There may be minor differences, but I believe we should at a minimum, have the same viewpoint of the Pope.

What does it mean to be in communion then?

I suggest you read JPII encyclical Et Unum Sint, for a better understanding if this.

Instead of referring me to the whole document, which obviously, I cannot read it all right now, do you have a particular section you’d like to refer me to?

 

[ciero]

Are you yelling at me?

What does it mean to be in communion then?

Instead of referring me to the whole document, which obviously, I cannot read it all right now, do you have a particular section you’d like to refer me to?

As I stated in the post above the Pope is the visible sign of unity for the church. This does NOT mean that the Pope is the ruler or should be involved in the running of any other church but his own…the Latin Church. He should not be involved in the appointment of bishops in any other church then the Latin Church. His job is to see that none of the other Churches falls into heresy. If he feels one of the churches falls into heresy he is to address that point. If a synod of another church has a problem that can not be worked out among themselves to Pope is asked to intervene. That was the Popes job and in a united church that is how it will work again.

Being you are so active on the Eastern forum I recommend reading the entire document Et Unum Sint as well as the document Orientale Lumen, they will give you a much better grasp of the workings of the Eastern churches. For a greater understanding of Orthodox Theology & praxis I recommend reading The Orthodox Church by Timothy (Metropolitan Kalistos) Ware, although written by an Orthodox about Orthodoxy Byzantine Catholic can be substituted for the word Orthodox 99.9% of the time.

You did not address my questions in the earlier post…do you believe that to be “Catholic” we all must believe 100% the same and be in agreement as to how that is expressed? Must we all agree to the Latin understanding of things, but we are allowed to retain our funny “masses”?

 

[TrueLight]

Being you are so active on the Eastern forum…

I don’t know if that was meant to be sarcastic, because I am not so active on the Eastern forum. I am active mostly on the Traditional Catholicism and L&S forums. I also don’t know if you are implying that I should stick to those forums, but that couldn’t be the case since Eastern Catholics respond on those forums as well.

I recommend reading the entire document Et Unum Sint as well as the document Orientale Lumen, they will give you a much better grasp of the workings of the Eastern churches. For a greater understanding of Orthodox Theology & praxis I recommend reading The Orthodox Church by Timothy (Metropolitan Kalistos) Ware, although written by an Orthodox about Orthodoxy Byzantine Catholic can be substituted for the word Orthodox 99.9% of the time.

Thank you.

You did not address my questions in the earlier post…do you believe that to be “Catholic” we all must believe 100% the same and be in agreement as to how that is expressed? Must we all agree to the Latin understanding of things, but we are allowed to retain our funny “masses”?

The reference to “funny” masses must be coming from somewhere else, because I never said that. In fact, I find the Divine Liturgy to be awesome.

I would suggest you not bring your frustrations from other threads into this dialogue.

I didn’t respond because I’m not sure. I do not understand why a Church that is called an Eastern Catholic church does not adhere to the same dogma that the majority of Catholics are told they should adhere to. But then again, I don’t know enough to state it with certainty. But it doesn’t feel right to me.