Do Eastern Catholics Believe in Mortal and Venial Sin?

[ConstantineTG]

The church merely asks them to accept the term in the way that she has used it, even at councils where there was attendance by the Eastern Orthodox, namely the second council of Lyons and the Council of Florence.

There are two problems with this:

1)It is naive to believe that churches in schism for hundred of years have not had their traditions distorted or misinterpreted by those within their own churches in order to justify their schism. History has shown this to be true and as has the opinion of numerous western theologians including my Patron, The Angelic Doctor, St Thomas Aquinas.
2)You cannot hide behind the excuse of theoligical patrimony when you are clearly interpreting doctrines in a way that the church does not allow and in fact condemns

In sum I fully respect genuine eastern traditions but I do not believe traditions that contradict De Fide doctrines to be genuine traditions for reasons I have already outlined

Also I note you are using the term ‘Catholic Communion’ rather than Catholic Church, this is rather troubling. Let us be clear on this matter, there is NO such thing as the ‘Catholic Communion’ there is the Catholic Church which contains within it several self-governing churches, all of which have as their head and are governed by the Pope.
We are not some sort of Roman Version of the Anglican Communion and I note that the term Catholic Communion is not present in ecumenical councils, papal encyclicals or catechisms or declarations from the CDF.

I’m at work so I shouldn’t even be replying to this, but can you at least read Orientale Lumen to get a better understanding of how the traditions of the East are viewed by the Latin Catholic Church?

Also, who said that the traditions contradict De Fide doctrines? Are you confusing De Fide doctrines with dogmatic definitions recently made (by recent, I mean the last millennium or post Great Schism)? How can something believed in the first 1000 years of the Church be wrong against something that has been defined only in the more recent 1000 years?

 

[Seamus_L]

The highest pct of mass attendees I’ve ever seen in confessional lines have always been at Latin Masses.

 

[steve_b]

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.

The fullness of truth is also to maintain the fullness of truth. They aren’t in union with the chair of Peter. That’s NOT maintaining the fullness of truth.
C:

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.

I think you’ll be surprised. Mortal and venial sin is in the Ukranian Catholic catechism

This opens to p224. Scroll to p225
archive.org/stream/UkrainianCatholicCatechismOurFaith/Our_Faith_Byzantine_Catechism#page/n223/mode/1up/search/mortal+sin
use the (+) in the magnifying glass icon, to adjust the font for easiest reading

 

[ConstantineTG]

The highest pct of mass attendees I’ve ever seen in confessional lines have always been at Latin Masses.

Come to the Philippines where I will show you what a long confessional line during an OF looks like.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The fullness of truth is also to maintain the fullness of truth. They aren’t in union with the chair of Peter. That’s NOT maintaining the fullness of truth.

If you look around you, they probably are more in union with the Chair of Peter than some Roman Catholics are.

I think you’ll be surprised. Mortal and venial sin is in the Ukranian Catholic catechism

This opens to p224. Scroll to p225
archive.org/stream/UkrainianCatholicCatechismOurFaith/Our_Faith_Byzantine_Catechism#page/n223/mode/1up/search/mortal+sin
use the (+) in the magnifying glass icon, to adjust the font for easiest reading

I’m not surprised given the amount of Latinizations we have. But the fact is our authentic faith is what the Orthodox believe. Also in North America, its easier to Catechize using Latin terms because everyone understands it. I don’t agree with it but I understand why.

 

[jmj1984]

I’m at work so I shouldn’t even be replying to this, but can you at least read Orientale Lumen to get a better understanding of how the traditions of the East are viewed by the Latin Catholic Church?

Also, who said that the traditions contradict De Fide doctrines? Are you confusing De Fide doctrines with dogmatic definitions recently made (by recent, I mean the last millennium or post Great Schism)? How can something believed in the first 1000 years of the Church be wrong against something that has been defined only in the more recent 1000 years?

One cannot quote a V II document and then claim that somehow it either:

a)Trumps all previous doctrine on the issue or
b)is the be all and end all of doctrine on the Eastern Churches

Rather it must be read and interpreted in the light of tradition and in the light of explanatory notes from the CDF. And yes I have read the document more than once and it doesn’t support the false interpretations put forward by some Eastern Catholics.

 

[jmj1984]

That would be pretty much it.

In the east the distinction between sins is not so hard and fast but the idea is the similar, I suppose.

But my point would be better understood as a question: “How many venial sins can you have and still be in a state of Grace?”

If such a state exists for living people, my guess is most people are not in a state of Grace most of the time, some people (if not most) almost as soon as they step out of the confessional. Many of us can’t make it past the first five minutes of Mass.

If we really had to be in a state of Grace before receiving, the lines would be very short indeed, and most priests would not be able to serve either.

We’re only human, after all.

The amount of venial sins you can have and still be in a state of grace is if one wants to play philosophical games infinite. It is only a mortal sin that ‘drives grace out’ and means we are no longer in a state of grace.

It is a bit of a misnomer to view sins as always either mortal or venial, it is not a hard thing for a sin to go from venial to mortal or mortal to venial. For example lying is generally a venial sin but if we were to lie and our lie hurt someone else and we knew this it would be a mortal sin. On the other hand if someone did not receive communion on a sunday and did not know they had to it would be a venial not a mortal sin. Also it is important to remember that A sin is mortal only if we know that it is mortal of course this knowledge can be inferred in sexual sins or murder, rape etc… The reason for this is that the essence of mortal sin consists in 'willful rebellion against God and so it is not a case that people will come out of a confessional and already worry about having lost their state of grace. If they do not remember having committed any mortal sins they have not committed any mortal sins, if they later remember having committed one they will have regardless been forgiven of it in the confessional but should still mention that they forgot it in their next confession.

 

[ConstantineTG]

One cannot quote a V II document and then claim that somehow it either:

a)Trumps all previous doctrine on the issue or
b)is the be all and end all of doctrine on the Eastern Churches

Rather it must be read and interpreted in the light of tradition and in the light of explanatory notes from the CDF. And yes I have read the document more than once and it doesn’t support the false interpretations put forward by some Eastern Catholics.

No offense but it seems that you are the one with false interpretations of what Catholics should and do believe here. Are you sure that what you claim is the actual stance of the Church and not something that you just interpreted for yourself.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Don’t you really hate it when a Roman Catholic tells an Eastern Catholic what and how they should believe?

 

[jmj1984]

No offense but it seems that you are the one with false interpretations of what Catholics should and do believe here. Are you sure that what you claim is the actual stance of the Church and not something that you just interpreted for yourself.

Are you actually going to provide any sources or reference for your claim or are you just going to make unsubstantiated claims?

 

[jmj1984]

Don’t you really hate it when a Roman Catholic tells an Eastern Catholic what and how they should believe?

This is childish. No one is telling anyone what to believe, people are simply pointing out what The Church teaches and some Eastern Catholics are as usual rather than proving that The Church teaches otherwise complaining about it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Are you actually going to provide any sources or reference for your claim or are you just going to make unsubstantiated claims?

Providing links to things that I will just make my own personal interpretations on proves nothing. The fact that the Church hasn’t condemned the Eastern Churches at this point says a lot more than lay, non-authoritative people making their own pronouncements which carry no weight. Fact is the Eastern Catholic Churches have been told time and again to return to their traditions which of course includes all the beliefs and faith we have inherited from our Church Fathers.

 

[steve_b]

If you look around you, they probably are more in union with the Chair of Peter than some Roman Catholics are.

EO? more in union with the chair of Peter?
C:

I’m not surprised given the amount of Latinizations we have. But the fact is our authentic faith is what the Orthodox believe. Also in North America, its easier to Catechize using Latin terms because everyone understands it. I don’t agree with it but I understand why.

I show you the Ukranian catechism. Proof Eastern Catholics recognize mortal and venial sin, and they recognize it, because it’s right there in scripture. And you’re shocked about this? You call it Latinization. That Latin stuff you don’t agree with. It certainly can’t be the authentic faith because according to you the EO have the authentic faith. Not this"Latin" stuff?

Since the chair of Peter takes the view that there is mortal and venial sin, look at your opening comment. Look at your second comment. I’m not sensing you’re one who is feeling much union here with the chair of Peter, but maybe it’s just the way I’m reading you.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Actually no, ecumenical councils have always produced law, Canon law hence the canons of ecumenical councils. The legal and theological concept of jursidiction when it comes to Canon law on this matter is much the same. Threshold of the Catholic Church by Rev Bagshawe defines Jurisdiction as ‘* The power of “jurisdiction” is that authority or " commission" which was entrusted by our Lord to His apostles when he said, " As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you (S. John xx. 21.) This power is necessary for the validity of some of the sacraments, and for the lawful administration of all. The power of jurisdiction belong to the Church as a body, and is possessed in its
fulness only by the head of the Church, and partially by the bishops and priests, so long only as they are in communion with him, and act by his delegation or with
his sanction.*’ It is clear that when we are talking about the Jurisdiction of the Pope we mean the ‘commision’ given to the Pope by Jesus which he possesses not only over the church as a whole but also over each and every member of the faithful.

I agree with all that. So I think you missed my point, which is simply that the Church is not principally or ontologically a legal institution.

Legal language, therefore, when used in theology is always an example of analogous (as opposed to univocal) language. That’s why the application of papal supremacy in terms of “jurisdiction” is more flexible than some (usually Latin) Catholics realize. Many eastern Catholics wouldn’t object to papal supremacy at all if we Latins phrased it not as “universal jurisdiction” but rather as an obligation of universal service: the pope’s episcopal role as servant of the entire Church, not just the Diocese of Rome or even the Latin Church.

Defining the Pope solely as a court of final appeals does not fit in with the view of Vatican I

It depends. If that “view” explicitly states that the pope cannot intervene unless he is explicitly called upon by other bishops to do so, then I agree with you.

But the notion that the pope should, on a practical level, leave things to the bishops - the default authorities in their dioceses and autonomous churches - unless special circumstances require his intervention, is perfectly orthodox. In fact, it makes sense in light of the Church’s doctrine of collegiality.

Of course, the first millennium example is far from consistent. Head bishops - particularly the patriarch of Alexandria - often had a great deal of centralized authority. So I don’t think the current situation in our Latin Church - in which the pope exerts quite a bit of authority over the bishops - is actually problematic or un-patristic. But neither is the eastern expectation for decentralization.

The popes power is not ordinary just over matters pertaining to the whole church but is ordinary over the whole church, that is each every member of the clergy and laity.

I agree; thank you for the clarification.

But more needs to be said to complete the picture: Have you read any of Marduk’s analyses of the Church’s ecclesiology and history on this forum? If so, you’ll remember that Rome’s official, authoritative interpretation of Vatican I - the Official Relatio - explicitly clarifies that the pope does not have *proper *authority in another bishop’s diocese. He has ordinary authority over the whole Church and every part of it, but he has proper authority only in (a) the Diocese of Rome, and (b) matters that pertain to the whole Catholic Church.

That challenge isn’t particularly hard to fullfill

That quotation does not contradict a nuanced understanding of the Byzantine theological tradition’s understanding of original sin, merely a caricature of it.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

You cannot hide behind the excuse of theoligical patrimony when you are clearly interpreting doctrines in a way that the church does not allow and in fact condemns.

But by condemning some specific eastern theological view as heretical, you’re begging the question in an unacceptable way: the eastern Catholic claim is precisely that the universally binding teachings which were formulated in eras dominated by the western church do not distinguish between what is universally binding and what is the Latin interpretation.

It may make us Latins a bit uncomfortable to accept that the Magisterium wasn’t that clear sometimes in the second millennium about what is universally binding and what is the Latin understanding, but it remains demonstrably true.

Take the Immaculate Conception, for example: its definition in 1854 is certainly universally binding, but it is defined in terms that have no meaning outside a western theological framework. So I see no reason that eastern Catholics shouldn’t have a bit of leeway in how they choose to understand the Immaculate Conception.

Also I note you are using the term ‘Catholic Communion’ rather than Catholic Church, this is rather troubling. Let us be clear on this matter, there is NO such thing as the ‘Catholic Communion’ there is the Catholic Church which contains within it several self-governing churches, all of which have as their head and are governed by the Pope.

“Catholic Communion” is a perfectly valid term. As a Catholic, I of course agree and profess that the fullness of Christ’s Church subsists specifically in the Catholic Church - for which the term Catholic Communion is justly interchangeable.

In any case, it’s sometimes necessary: for instance, I once read a dialogue in which an eastern Christian acknowledged that some of the latter fourteen councils that the Latin Church generally lists as ecumenical are, in fact, more than mere general councils of the Latin Church. They were not, however, willing to call them ecumenical, so in the context of that discussion there was no terminological option available other than “general councils of the Catholic Communion.”

That would be pretty much it.

In the east the distinction between sins is not so hard and fast but the idea is the similar, I suppose.

I agree.

And with God’s grace the faithful can indeed persevere in a state of grace, Hesychios.

Don’t you really hate it when a Roman Catholic tells an Eastern Catholic what and how they should believe?

I do, for one.

This is childish. No one is telling anyone what to believe, people are simply pointing out what The Church teaches

And they claim that you’re confusing your interpretation/understanding of authoritative Church teaching with what is universally binding. By continuing to shout, “This Is What The Church Teaches!” you’re simply regurgitating your circular argument rather than seriously, respectfully, and responsibly engaging these tricky issues.

and some Eastern Catholics are as usual rather than proving that The Church teaches otherwise complaining about it.

The ball is in your court, not theirs. You were asked why our eastern brethren should believe that your criticisms stem necessarily from universally binding Church teaching rather than from your own theological understanding, which is not binding. Until you do that, it’s your move.

You have given citations in this thread, for which I at least am grateful. But while they say true and good things, they don’t actually contradict the replies you used them to argue against, so… we’re still waiting.

 

[jmj1984]

Providing links to things that I will just make my own personal interpretations on proves nothing. The fact that the Church hasn’t condemned the Eastern Churches at this point says a lot more than lay, non-authoritative people making their own pronouncements which carry no weight. Fact is the Eastern Catholic Churches have been told time and again to return to their traditions which of course includes all the beliefs and faith we have inherited from our Church Fathers.

So in other words no you are just going to make unsubstantiated claims and then claim that it doesn’t matter what lay people say anyway. How very un Vatican 2 of you!

And sorry but any logical person can see that beliefs contrary to any catechism of the church and any ecumenical council are condemned. Aside from this I’m sorry but there is no consensus on these issues amongst Eastern Catholics so there’s no point spinning that old tired argument. Aside from this anyone can see how absurd it is interpreting that as carte Blanche to contradict the church on De Fide issues.

 

[jmj1984]

Legal language, therefore, when used in theology is always an example of analogous (as opposed to univocal) language. That’s why the application of papal supremacy in terms of “jurisdiction” is more flexible than some (usually Latin) Catholics realize. Many eastern Catholics wouldn’t object to papal supremacy at all if we Latins phrased it not as “universal jurisdiction” but rather as an obligation of universal service: the pope’s episcopal role as servant of the entire Church, not just the Diocese of Rome or even the Latin Church.

These two concepts are related and are explained as much in Vatican I, the pope has universal jurisdiction in order to support the church. Some Eastern Catholics would object regardless, they just don’t like Papal supremacy full stop.

It depends. If that “view” explicitly states that the pope cannot intervene unless he is explicitly called upon by other bishops to do so, then I agree with you.

But the notion that the pope should, on a practical level, leave things to the bishops - the default authorities in their dioceses and autonomous churches - unless special circumstances require his intervention, is perfectly orthodox. In fact, it makes sense in light of the Church’s doctrine of collegiality.

Not supported by any ecumenical councils, doctors of the church or catechism.

But more needs to be said to complete the picture: Have you read any of Marduk’s analyses of the Church’s ecclesiology and history on this forum? If so, you’ll remember that Rome’s official, authoritative interpretation of Vatican I - the Official Relatio - explicitly clarifies that the pope does not have *proper *authority in another bishop’s diocese. He has ordinary authority over the whole Church and every part of it, but he has proper authority only in (a) the Diocese of Rome, and (b) matters that pertain to the whole Catholic Church.

If remember correctly his view wasn’t unopposed, especially not by Latin Catholics.

That quotation does not contradict a nuanced understanding of the Byzantine theological tradition’s understanding of original sin, merely a caricature of it.

Then so far as the definition of Original sin accepts that original sin is not a result of death nor is death the only result of Original Sin there is no problem.

 

[jmj1984]

But by condemning some specific eastern theological view as heretical, you’re begging the question in an unacceptable way: the eastern Catholic claim is precisely that the universally binding teachings which were formulated in eras dominated by the western church do not distinguish between what is universally binding and what is the Latin interpretation.

Has anyone ever considered this is because there is NO difference? And has anyone ever really said different? If someone cites Ut Unum Sint be aware:
1)Its not infallible
2)It has to be read in the light of tradition and clarifications from the CDF which explicitly state otherwise or at least do as regards certain interpretations

It may make us Latins a bit uncomfortable to accept that the Magisterium wasn’t that clear sometimes in the second millennium about what is universally binding and what is the Latin understanding, but it remains demonstrably true.

Take the Immaculate Conception, for example: its definition in 1854 is certainly universally binding, but it is defined in terms that have no meaning outside a western theological framework. So I see no reason that eastern Catholics shouldn’t have a bit of leeway in how they choose to understand the Immaculate Conception.

Lets be clear the terms in the Ex Cathedra as regards Original Sin are the same defined and put forward De Fide by the council of trent. So no, Eastern Catholics don’t get to have a different view of Original sin, the same way they don’t get to choose which councils are ecumenical or not, no matter how much they claim otherwise.

“Catholic Communion” is a perfectly valid term. As a Catholic, I of course agree and profess that the fullness of Christ’s Church subsists specifically in the Catholic Church - for which the term Catholic Communion is justly interchangeable.

No its not, no Pope, no Orthodox theologian, no Church Council, no catechism has ever used it. There is no need to use it unless people want to water down the truth and ALL councils of the church INCLUDING Vatican II have condemned this.

In any case, it’s sometimes necessary: for instance, I once read a dialogue in which an eastern Christian acknowledged that some of the latter fourteen councils that the Latin Church generally lists as ecumenical are, in fact, more than mere general councils of the Latin Church. They were not, however, willing to call them ecumenical, so in the context of that discussion there was no terminological option available other than “general councils of the Catholic Communion.”

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos ‘This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth…These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment “Love one another,” altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ’s teaching: “If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.”[18] For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful?’

And they claim that you’re confusing your interpretation/understanding of authoritative Church teaching with what is universally binding. By continuing to shout, “This Is What The Church Teaches!” you’re simply regurgitating your circular argument rather than seriously, respectfully, and responsibly engaging these tricky issues.

Then they should provide some support of evidence to support that claim. And no I am merely pointing out that faithful catholics should submit to the Catholic faith and believe it. I hardly think thats unreasonable.

The ball is in your court, not theirs. You were asked why our eastern brethren should believe that your criticisms stem necessarily from universally binding Church teaching rather than from your own theological understanding, which is not binding. Until you do that, it’s your move.

You have given citations in this thread, for which I at least am grateful. But while they say true and good things, they don’t actually contradict the replies you used them to argue against, so… we’re still waiting.

I dont remember being asked this, but regardless because the entire magisterium of the church says so. They are not going to find anything that states otherwise I’m afraid, no matter how hard they try.

 

[TrueLight]

I would love to see a document that states the basic belief that is necessary for an Eastern Church to be in union with Rome. That is the part I am having difficulty with.

By the way, regarding the argument about laity discussing things that the Pope is happy with, there are very few priests or religious that are on this forum, so all discussions are laity discussing documents, giving their opinions etc.

What little I know of Orthodoxy is beautiful. In fact, I’m waiting for my Art of Prayer book, and I’m sure I’ll be buying a prayer rope soon.

However, in my opinion, if you are Catholic, you cannot have opinions that conflict with Catholic Dogma. What if I agree more with the East’s theology about the way in which God protected Mary from sin. Can I choose to believe that? I’m told I can’t because I’m entering the Latin church.

Truth is truth.

Maybe the answer lies in the choice between being an Eastern Catholic or being Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

Maybe the answer lies in the choice between being an Eastern Catholic or being Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

But TrueLight, Eastern Catholics are Orthodox in Communion with Rome.