Do Eastern Catholics Believe in Mortal and Venial Sin?

[TrueLight]

From the second link that was posted:

And even with respect to the papacy, they have their own (Eastern) theological viewpoint that qualifies their relationship with the Pope in Rome. Some maintain they recognize him only as a “first among equals.” Others say he is only the court of last resort and when the primates of the Eastern Catholic churches ask him to step in. As in other respects, what Rome expects of Eastern Catholics is at variance with what some of their bishops and laity feel is actually the case.

Of course, one would find that the majority of Eastern Catholics, the people in the pews (oh my, now let’s not get started on the issue of PEWS!) are oblivious to any of this. They truly do see themselves as “Catholics” rather than as “Orthodox in communion with Rome” – in fact, the very idea of calling themselves “Orthodox” would suggest, to them, that they aren’t fully under Rome or fully “Catholic.”

Within the Eastern Catholics Churches, especially the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Churches, there are parishes which are truly very Eastern. In some cases, they are “more Orthodox than the Orthodox” in terms of their liturgical practices. Apart from the commemoration of the Pope of Rome, there is no other apparent distinguishing feature about them that would make a visitor to them suggest they are anything other than “Orthodox.”

And yet, this particular Eastern Catholic movement is not without its own pitfalls.

One of these is that the more “Eastern” they seem to become, the more likely that members of such parishes will eventually become formal members of Orthodox Churches (“definitely NOT in communion with Rome”).

It is, in a sense, inevitable that this would occur. Such Eastern Catholics would tend to have close relations with Orthodox priests and parishes (and monasteries, such as that of Jordanville, New York).

Soon, most of their spiritual “significant others” are, in fact, traditional Orthodox Christians. The beauty and detail of the Orthodox liturgical services draws them toward the Orthodox Church in a way that Eastern Catholic services, for all their efforts, simply do not. In fact, most Eastern Catholic parishes do not invest nearly as much time and effort in their liturgical lives while tolerating varying degrees of Westernization and Latinization.

The only thing that keeps them “Eastern Catholic” is a murky idea about a relationship with the Pope of Rome. And, in time, it becomes increasingly more difficult to “tune out” of the Orthodox charges of heresy against the Roman Catholic Church with the prime issue of the “Filioque” addition to the Creed taking front and centre stage

The bold is mine. Quite interesting.

I can see on the thread that the idea of the relationship with the Pope is murky for sure. Again, what does it mean to be in communion?

 

[steve_b]

From the second link that was posted:

The bold is mine. Quite interesting.

I can see on the thread that *the idea of the relationship with the Pope is murky *for sure. Again, what does it mean to be in communion?

Good question

 

[jmj1984]

The burden of proof is on you, since Rome hasn’t even attempted to censure the eastern Catholic churches on theological matters. That is a fact.

jmj1984, won’t you please consider that - especially in light of the above fact - perhaps you in your personal understanding don’t quite know how to distinguish between what is universally binding and what is the western expression(s) of universally binding teachings? I know I sometimes don’t! And won’t you please consider that the rightful place of mystery and paradox in understanding the mysteries of God, salvation, and His Church may in fact enable more legitimate diversity than might seem possible from a purely intellectual perspective?

No I don’t because you and everyone else who holds to your opinion on this thread has yet to provide one shred of evidence whereas I have provided plenty. So all the polemics and ad naseaum argument isn’t going to prove anything or convince anyone.

 

[jmj1984]

What we have here is a failure to communicate. I am not sure I understand you. It is fairly evident that you have not defined for me specifically as I asked. I am not sure why you cannot answer a simple question with a simple answer. Your answer is argumentative and all I did was ask a question. Are you capable of answering a simple question?

Eastern Catholic
Eastern Orthodox that consider themselves Catholic

What is not obvious to me is who are you referring to when you speak of Eastern Catholics. There are 22 Catholic Churches East and West united under Rome named by Rites. These are the Catholic Churches East and West. When I speak of Eastern Catholic I am speaking of Byzantine, Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean etc.

When you speak of Eastern Catholics are you including Eastern Orthodox or are you referring to the 21 Eastern rite Churches united in Rome? Answer this question please.

:tsktsk: Now now we don’t need the usual ad hominem nonsense thats been passing for debate on this thread.

I refer to the sui iuris churche’s, churches with a small c, within The Catholic Church not the eastern orthodox who are outside The Catholic Church.

 

[Bluegoat]

If I’m honest, I’ll have to say this approach makes more sense to me theologically, but that is not what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. I wish it was.

The Roman Catholic church teaches that if you die with an unconfessed mortal sin on your soul, or have not had a chance to at least make a perfect contrition, you are doomed. This is very important dogma.

If the Eastern Catholics say it’s not so cut and dry, then that is completely different.

Either the first approach is truth or it is not. I cannot be told that as a Latin Catholic I have one truth and as an Eastern Catholic in communion with Rome, I have another truth.

So if the approaches reach the same conclusion supposedly, mortal sin vs venial sin cannot be dogma.

Well, what I would say is that it can’t be dogma in the way that many people think it is. I’ll suggest that more, let’s say mature, teachers in the Roman Church tend to explain mortal and venial sins in a way that is, IMO, closer to the Eastern explanation.

But the dogma, the Faith, is that our sins impact our relationship with God, and not always to the same degree. How precisely that works is just a theological explanation, a kind of metaphor almost.

If you find yourself more sympathetic to the Eastern view, why not look into Eastern Catholicism?

 

[TrueLight]

Well, what I would say is that it can’t be dogma in the way that many people think it is. I’ll suggest that more, let’s say mature, teachers in the Roman Church tend to explain mortal and venial sins in a way that is, IMO, closer to the Eastern explanation.

But the dogma, the Faith, is that our sins impact our relationship with God, and not always to the same degree. How precisely that works is just a theological explanation, a kind of metaphor almost.

If you find yourself more sympathetic to the Eastern view, why not look into Eastern Catholicism?

I may find some of the theology interesting or some of it may make more sense to me, but that doesn’t mean everything does.

And besides, the traditional Latin mass really speaks to me spiritually.

I’m a bit confused by you though. Are you not an Anglican?

 

[jmj1984]

Well, what I would say is that it can’t be dogma in the way that many people think it is. I’ll suggest that more, let’s say mature, teachers in the Roman Church tend to explain mortal and venial sins in a way that is, IMO, closer to the Eastern explanation.

But the dogma, the Faith, is that our sins impact our relationship with God, and not always to the same degree. How precisely that works is just a theological explanation, a kind of metaphor almost.

If you find yourself more sympathetic to the Eastern view, why not look into Eastern Catholicism?

More mature? what does that mean?

Sorry but all orthodox theologians see that way as do numerous catechisms, councils etc… so a rather bizzare statement all in all.

 

[Bluegoat]

Very good explanation. It makes perfect sense.

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

Nevertheless, that is not what we as Roman Catholics are taught. 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! Of course only God knows, but generally the consensus is if you die with an un-confessed mortal sin, you go to hell.

I think you should consider that a lot of the Catholics here are giving you incorrect answers. People don’t always have a good understanding. Think carefully about what is required for a sin to be mortal - not the lists that you see, but the actual requirements. How often do people who sin really understand how it separates them from God? How often do they do it with full consent? Masturbation is an interesting example because it can be habitual, and it can relate to very strong physical urges.

And very often people do things with a really divided will, which isn’t really the full consent and knowledge required for mortal sin.

I think it can be pretty difficult to actually p(name removed by moderator)oint a mortal and venial sin, which is one reasonwhy I am not crazy about the Roman model. But I think it is still more complex than many people give it credit for.

 

[Bluegoat]

More mature? what does that mean?

Sorry but all orthodox theologians see that way as do numerous catechisms, councils etc… so a rather bizzare statement all in all.

Not at all. If you look at what is required, according to the CC, for a sin to be mortal, it isn’t as simple as a list of sins that can be applied in every circumstance.

 

[jmj1984]

Not at all. If you look at what is required, according to the CC, for a sin to be mortal, it isn’t as simple as a list of sins that can be applied in every circumstance.

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

 

[CopticChristian]

:tsktsk: Now now we don’t need the usual ad hominem nonsense thats been passing for debate on this thread.

I refer to the sui iuris churche’s, churches with a small c, within The Catholic Church not the eastern orthodox who are outside The Catholic Church.

I believe that you are rude with your pointing finger and less than direct approach. Thank you.

 

[jmj1984]

I believe that you are rude with your pointing finger and less than direct approach. Thank you.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

Here are some threads, one from Catholic Answers, one from a Byzantine dialogue and for completion the Orthodox view.

catholic.com/library/Mortal_Sin.asp

Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals—all acknowledge the possibility of mortal sin at least in some form. Only Presbyterians, Baptists, and those who have been influenced by these two sects reject the reality of mortal sin.

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/350083/Re:%20East%20have%20mortal%20and%20venia

The East has not bothered to categorize sins in this manner, though it acknowledges that some sins are more grave than others. 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.

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/mortal_serious_sin.htm

What is the difference between “Mortal Sin” in the Catholic Church and “Serious Sin” in the Orthodox Church

Amen:thumbsup:

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

In authentic Eastern/Byzantine theology (I do not speak here of the other Eastern and Oriental traditions) there is NO distinction between mortal and venial sin. The new prayer book put out by the Melkite Greek Catholic Eparchy of Newton also mentions this and affirms that we, as Eastern/Byzantine Catholics (in communion with Rome while at the same time maintaining our Orthodox heritage), do not make the mortal/venial sin distinction.

This being said, however, it does not mean that we do not take sin seriously. In fact, in my experience, there is more of a tendency to take even “venial” sins much more seriously in the Byzantine East than in the West. Many Eastern Catholics and Orthodox will go to confession every week before they receive Communion because all sin is seen as separating us from God. For us there really is no clear cut off point that tells us we cannot receive the Eucharist. But the extensive prayers of preparation that are to be prayed in every household prior to the reception of Communion speak often of our own unworthiness, of partaking with discernment, of not partaking in an unworthy manner, etc. So although Byzantine Christians may not make the distinction of mortal and venial sin, the reality of sin itself is very much in our conciousness.

With regards to mortal sin and the condemnation to Hell, I agree with the above poster who has pointed out that things are always as cut-and-dry as people make them out to be. Our psyche’s are so complex, our knowledge of God and His relationship to us, and even our knowledge of ourselves, is so limited that committing a “mortal” sin doesn’t really seem to be as easy as some people would like to think. What good Christian who is actively trying to live a life of faith, hope and love would really deliberately commit a serious offense? But the more serious question, who are we to judge? Doesn’t the judgment ultimately belong to God alone?

 

[jmj1984]

I

This being said, however, it does not mean that we do not take sin seriously. In fact, in my experience, there is more of a tendency to take even “venial” sins much more seriously in the Byzantine East than in the West. Many Eastern Catholics and Orthodox will go to confession every week before they receive Communion because all sin is seen as separating us from God. For us there really is no clear cut off point that tells us we cannot receive the Eucharist. But the extensive prayers of preparation that are to be prayed in every household prior to the reception of Communion speak often of our own unworthiness, of partaking with discernment, of not partaking in an unworthy manner, etc. So although Byzantine Christians may not make the distinction of mortal and venial sin, the reality of sin itself is very much in our conciousness.

Weekly confession also happens for many traditional catholics I know. Of course venial sins can however be forgiven by simple prayers of repentance, the use of sacramentals and of course in the mass itself.

With regards to mortal sin and the condemnation to Hell, I agree with the above poster who has pointed out that things are always as cut-and-dry as people make them out to be. Our psyche’s are so complex, our knowledge of God and His relationship to us, and even our knowledge of ourselves, is so limited that committing a “mortal” sin doesn’t really seem to be as easy as some people would like to think. What good Christian who is actively trying to live a life of faith, hope and love would really deliberately commit a serious offense? But the more serious question, who are we to judge? Doesn’t the judgment ultimately belong to God alone?

But it is not use making the judgement it is the church.

 

[CopticChristian]

JMJ chooses to argue with Guanophore as shown below.

It sounds like you don’t believe that the Pentecostal gifts are “based” on the Holy Spirit, but are an invention of man. This would also mean that you don’t believe what the Popes and prayed and taught with regard to them.

I can see being suspicious of something that originated in an heretical source, but rejecting your own Magesterial Teaching seems like overkill.

And your opinion should be of more value to us than the Popes because…?

Your theology on Church teaching and Magesterium is getting a little fuzzy and contradictory here. I don’t see how you can simply discount 20+ statements from the last 3 Popes as mere “personal opinions”.

This sounds very much like “cafeteria Catholicism”. As Catholics we believe in an objective truth, THE Truth of Christ. There isn’t room for picking and choosing which pieces of Catholicism you will agree with and which you won’t.

What exactly do you want here?

You have not swayed Guanophore to your thinking. Me thinks you should sit, pray and not be so absolute, argumentative and recall Faith, Hope and Charity. I shall pray for you.

Sometimes being humiliated does not create humility. Sometimes standing on a mountain causes oxygen deprivation. Sometimes taking a few days off and rethinking may be in order. I knew if I researched your past views I would see a trend. You and others should see the trend of thoughts as you post.

youtube.com/watch?v=SnO9Jyz82Ps

Some men you just can’t reach .

 

[jmj1984]

JMJ chooses to argue with Guanophore as shown below.

You have not swayed Guanophore to your thinking. Me thinks you should sit, pray and not be so absolute, argumentative and recall Faith, Hope and Charity. I shall pray for you.

Sometimes being humiliated does not create humility. Sometimes standing on a mountain causes oxygen deprivation. Sometimes taking a few days off and rethinking may be in order. I knew if I researched your past views I would see a trend. You and others should see the trend of thoughts as you post.

youtube.com/watch?v=SnO9Jyz82Ps

Some men you just can’t reach .

Not sure anyone sees the relevance of this to the discussion. Unless, oh it is ANOTHER ad hominem attack, boy that makes 501 ad hominem attacks and oh wait… 0 arguments with evidence.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Weekly confession also happens for many traditional catholics I know. Of course venial sins can however be forgiven by simple prayers of repentance, the use of sacramentals and of course in the mass itself.

But it is not use making the judgement it is the church.

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.

 

[jmj1984]

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.

Fair enough

 

[CopticChristian]

Not sure anyone sees the relevance of this to the discussion. Unless, oh it is ANOTHER ad hominem attack, boy that makes 501 ad hominem attacks and oh wait… 0 arguments with evidence.

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.