Do Eastern Catholics believe in Mortal/Venial sin?

[whoisdiss]

I saw that Eastern Catholics don’t believe in mortal or venial sin… how? The doctrine of mortal sin and venial sin are dogma of the Catholic Church, that means all Catholics east and west have to believe in it… how come they don’t believe in it? Also, how do they view confession then if they don’t have mortal sin and venial sin? Do they just confess all of their sins? Are they allowed to take communion without confession? Do they believe anyone with any un confessed sin (Mortal and Venial in the west’s eyes) will go to hell??? This doesn’t make any sense to me!?

 

[praestat_fides]

I saw that Eastern Catholics don’t believe in mortal or venial sin… how? The doctrine of mortal sin and venial sin are dogma of the Catholic Church, that means all Catholics east and west have to believe in it… how come they don’t believe in it? Also, how do they view confession then if they don’t have mortal sin and venial sin? Do they just confess all of their sins? Are they allowed to take communion without confession? Do they believe anyone with any un confessed sin (Mortal and Venial in the west’s eyes) will go to hell??? This doesn’t make any sense to me!?

The following is a quote that I found elsewhere on our forum:

***I am Byzantine Catholic as well as my family and, yes, we do believe in mortal and venial sins. And yes, we go to confession and are not able te receive the Eucharist if we are in the state of mortal sin. We are under the Pope and therefore follow all the rules that Latin Rite Catholics do! We do have more fasting and abstinence rules and more Holy days and a difference in the Divine Liturgy but other than that we are observant of all the laws of the Catholic Church.

Answers to this question are found in the Catechism For Byzantine Catholics on page 21 This book is published by Prow books, 8000- 39th Avenus,Kenosha, WI 53141 ***

 

[RyanBlack]

We tend not to think in terms of sins that must be confessed vs. sins that don’t have to be confessed, and we tend not to use the terminology of venial and mortal sin, but we do believe the basic teaching. There are grave sins that should be confessed prior to receiving communion.

 

[howirenic]

Like many doctrines alien to the East, the discrepancy between mortal/venial sins is not required doctrine for Eastern Catholics, to my knowledge. That doesn’t mean Eastern Catholics don’t take sin just as seriously, they just don’t categorize it like the West does.

My EC brothers and sisters, please correct me if I am mistaken.

EDIT: Speaking as an Orthodox Christian, I go to Confession as prescribed by my spiritual father. I meet with him at least every other week and he performs the sacrament when it is appropriate.

 

[kotim]

The difference is nuance, both east and west believe in some sins being more serious etc, like so many other supposed differences, they really are just nuances of the same theme many times.

 

[Vico]

I saw that Eastern Catholics don’t believe in mortal or venial sin… how? The doctrine of mortal sin and venial sin are dogma of the Catholic Church, that means all Catholics east and west have to believe in it… how come they don’t believe in it? Also, how do they view confession then if they don’t have mortal sin and venial sin? Do they just confess all of their sins? Are they allowed to take communion without confession? Do they believe anyone with any un confessed sin (Mortal and Venial in the west’s eyes) will go to hell??? This doesn’t make any sense to me!?

You can see the eastern Catholic canon law for it (CCEO):**Canon 718
In the sacrament of penance, the Christian faithful who committed sins after baptism, internally led by the Holy Spirit, turn back to God, moved by the pain of sin, intent on entering a new life through the ministry of the priest, having themselves made a confession and accepted an appropriate penance, obtain forgiveness from God and at the same time are reconciled with the Church which they injured by sinning; by this sacrament they are brought to a greater fostering of the Christian life and are thus disposed for receiving the Divine Eucharist.

Canon 719**
Anyone who is aware of serious sin is to receive the sacrament of penance as soon as possible; it is strongly recommended to all the Christian faithful that they receive this sacrament frequently especially during the times of fasts and penance observed in their own Church sui iuris.

Canon 720

1. Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the ordinary way by which the Christian faithful who is aware of a serious sin is reconciled with God and the Church; only physical or moral possibility excuses one from confession of this type, in which case reconciliation can take place in other ways.

 

[steve_b]

We tend not to think in terms of sins that must be confessed vs. sins that don’t have to be confessed, and we tend not to use the terminology of venial and mortal sin, but we do believe the basic teaching. There are grave sins that should be confessed prior to receiving communion.

Like many doctrines alien to the East, the discrepancy between mortal/venial sins is not required doctrine for Eastern Catholics, to my knowledge. That doesn’t mean Eastern Catholics don’t take sin just as seriously, they just don’t categorize it like the West does.

The difference is nuance, both east and west believe in some sins being more serious etc, like so many other supposed differences, they really are just nuances of the same theme many times.

Re: mortal sin, from the Ukrainian Catholic Catechism
archive.org/stream/UkrainianCatholicCatechismOurFaith/Our_Faith_Byzantine_Catechism#page/n0/mode/2up

A word search (terms must be in quotes)

• “Mortal sin” appears on pp 277, 282
• “Venial sin” pp 224, 282

as well as it says mortal sin must be confessed before receiving the Eucharist

 

[RyanBlack]

Re: mortal sin, from the Ukrainian Catholic Catechism
archive.org/stream/UkrainianCatholicCatechismOurFaith/Our_Faith_Byzantine_Catechism#page/n0/mode/2up

A word search (terms must be in quotes)

• “Mortal sin” appears on pp 277, 282
• “Venial sin” pp 224, 282

as well as it says mortal sin must be confessed before receiving the Eucharist

This is not the official Ukrainian Catholic Catechism. This is a catechism that was written by Fr. Casimir Kucharek, intended for Ukrainian Catholics in Canada and the U.S. It was written more than 30 years ago, and is considered by many to be somewhat Latinized.

As I pointed out before, we Eastern Catholics tend not to use the terminology of mortal sins vs. venial sins, and we tend not to think in terms of sins that must be confessed vs. sins that can be forgiven apart from confession. Our tradition encourages us to confess all sins. Having said that, we don’t reject the teaching, and we wouldn’t say something along the lines of “Well, you don’t really need to go to confession, even though you committed adultery, because we don’t really talk about mortal and venial sin.” We believe serious sins (or if you prefer, sins of grave matter) are to be confessed prior to receiving the Eucharist.

 

[steve_b]

This is not the official Ukrainian Catholic Catechism. This is a catechism that was written by Fr. Casimir Kucharek, intended for Ukrainian Catholics in Canada and the U.S. It was written more than 30 years ago, and is considered by many to be somewhat Latinized.

It states

“This is a Ukrainian Catholic Catechism, bearing the imprimatur of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, one of the Eastern Catholic Churches in union with the Pope of Rome”

Are you saying this catechism isn’t authentic and doesn’t accurately convey the faith of the Ukrainian Catholic Church?
R:

As I pointed out before, we Eastern Catholics tend not to use the terminology of mortal sins vs. venial sins, and we tend not to think in terms of sins that must be confessed vs. sins that can be forgiven apart from confession.

That catechism, obviously approved by the Ukrainian Catholic Church, disagrees with your statement.

Now if you want to quote from another catechism, that contradicts what that Ukrainian Catholic Catechism says, this would be a good place to do it.
R:

Our tradition encourages us to confess all sins. Having said that, we don’t reject the teaching, and we wouldn’t say something along the lines of “Well, you don’t really need to go to confession, even though you committed adultery, because we don’t really talk about mortal and venial sin.” We believe serious sins (or if you prefer, sins of grave matter) are to be confessed prior to receiving the Eucharist.

Ryan,

the catechism I quoted from Does talk about mortal and venial sin. And specifics ARE made regarding the difference, and I gave page numbers so anyone could go right to it…

 

[RyanBlack]

It states

“This is a Ukrainian Catholic Catechism, bearing the imprimatur of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, one of the Eastern Catholic Churches in union with the Pope of Rome”

Are you saying this catechism isn’t authentic and doesn’t accurately convey the faith of the Ukrainian Catholic Church?

That catechism, obviously approved by the Ukrainian Catholic Church, disagrees with your statement.

Now if you want to quote from another catechism, that contradicts what that Ukrainian Catholic Catechism says, this would be a good place to do it.

Ryan,

the catechism I quoted from Does talk about mortal and venial sin. And specifics ARE made regarding the difference, and I gave page numbers so anyone could go right to it…

This is NOT the official catechism of the UGCC. Having an imprimatur does not make it so. This catechism was written by a UGCC priest from Canada, in the English language, for Ukrainian Catholics in Canada and the U.S. It was published more than 30 years ago. The UGCC published its official catechism just in the last few years.

No, I am not saying that it does not accurately convey the faith of the UGCC. However, I stand by what I said, Eastern Catholics tend **not **to use the terminology of mortal vs. venial sin. The use of such terminology in this catechism does not disprove my assertion. After all, the UGCC is only one of 21-22 Eastern Catholic churches, and as I’ve said, this catechism by Fr. Casimir, published in 1983 (a time when Eastern Catholicism still tended to be highly Latinized), is not an official church catechism. Even if it were an official catechism of the UGCC, that would say nothing about the other other 20-21 Eastern Catholic churches.

The teaching of mortal sin vs. venial sin is universal Catholic teaching. The terminology itself is not universal. I, unlike you, actually am Eastern Catholic. I don’t think I’ve ever actually heard any Eastern Catholic actually say “mortal sin” or "venial “sin,” and I’m sure I’ve never heard an Eastern Catholic priest use the terminology. It’s simply not part of our Eastern patrimony.

We believe that all sins should be confessed. We believe that some sins are more serious than others. We believe that some sins (sins of grave matter, to use Latin terminology) are so serious that one must confess them and receive absolution prior to receiving the Holy Eucharist. This is believed by the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, and Western Catholics. It is not necessary for Eastern Catholics to use the same theological terminology Latin Catholics use.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Canon 719
Anyone who is aware of serious sin is to receive the sacrament of penance as soon as possible; it is strongly recommended to all the Christian faithful that they receive this sacrament frequently especially during the times of fasts and penance observed in their own Church sui iuris.

You’ll note the use of the word “serious” (lower case - underlined to add emphasis here).

Again, rather than focusing on firm definitions (capitalized terms) and distinctions to guide an examination of conscience, we tend to focus on actions (or inactions) that separate us from God, especially those which may lead to enduring separation.

We refer to “confession” or “penance” formally as the Sacrament of Reconciliation, which reinforces this point.

 

[JayNektarios]

[W]e Eastern Catholics tend not to use the terminology of mortal sins vs. venial sins, and we tend not to think in terms of sins that must be confessed vs. sins that can be forgiven apart from confession. Our tradition encourages us to confess all sins.

To reiterate what RyanBlack wrote, Eastern Catholics (though not all, to be sure) tend to retain an Orthodox-like reticence to categorizations, explicit definitions, etc. This includes categorizing sins, generally speaking. Eastern Catholics obviously don’t outright reject the Roman Catholic categorizations of “venial” and “mortal” sin. But our take, similarly as Orthodox Christians, is that no matter the gravity of one’s sins, we should never forsake confession.

 

[steve_b]

This is NOT the official catechism of the UGCC.

Ya can’t say that Ryan. It’s been approved otherwise it would NOT have an imprimatur on it. That makes it an official catechism.
R:

Having an imprimatur does not make it so. This catechism was written by a UGCC priest from Canada, in the English language, for Ukrainian Catholics in Canada and the U.S. It was published more than 30 years ago. The UGCC published its official catechism just in the last few years.

No, I am not saying that it does not accurately convey the faith of the UGCC. However, I stand by what I said, Eastern Catholics tend **not **to use the terminology of mortal vs. venial sin. The use of such terminology in this catechism does not disprove my assertion. After all, the UGCC is only one of 21-22 Eastern Catholic churches, and as I’ve said, this catechism by Fr. Casimir, published in 1983 (a time when Eastern Catholicism still tended to be highly Latinized), is not an official church catechism. Even if it were an official catechism of the UGCC, that would say nothing about the other other 20-21 Eastern Catholic churches.

The teaching of mortal sin vs. venial sin is universal Catholic teaching. The terminology itself is not universal. I, unlike you, actually am Eastern Catholic. I don’t think I’ve ever actually heard any Eastern Catholic actually say “mortal sin” or "venial “sin,” and I’m sure I’ve never heard an Eastern Catholic priest use the terminology. It’s simply not part of our Eastern patrimony.

We believe that all sins should be confessed. We believe that some sins are more serious than others. We believe that some sins (sins of grave matter, to use Latin terminology) are so serious that one must confess them and receive absolution prior to receiving the Holy Eucharist. This is believed by the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, and Western Catholics. It is not necessary for Eastern Catholics to use the same theological terminology Latin Catholics use.

Do you have a link to your catechism? I’d like to read it.

 

[chimo]

I agree with Ryan that is was not the custom of the Eastern Churches to label sins within a mortal/venial concept as it is taught in the Catholic Church. It seems to work for the Eastern Churches since to them every sin can be considered serious. I tend to think because of the differences within the mortal/venial distinction that Eastern Christians might confess more sins in Confession then do the Catholic Christians. As an Eastern Christian of the Orthodox Church I believe in the category of sins as what the Church of Rome teaches. However I sense in the Orthodox Church at least at my Church there is this tendency to stay at Confession for longer periods because there is no classification of sin taught. Since every sin seems to be serious enough than people would confess much more. I tend to be more sympathetic towards the teaching of Rome but I am not sure when a sin is considered mortal or not. Perhaps by confessing most of our sins we can get to those which are classified mortal. I sense though that for a sin to be mortal it must have within itself a nature which the Lord Jesus cannot be part of. I am not sure if the classification of sins would help the Eastern Christian any better than if the classification was not taught since it is the view within the Eastern Church to treat all sin as serious.

 

[steve_b]

I sense in the Orthodox Church at least at my Church there is this tendency to stay at Confession for longer periods because there is no classification of sin taught. Since every sin seems to be serious enough than people would confess much more. I tend to be more sympathetic towards the teaching of Rome but I am not sure when a sin is considered mortal or not.

here is where this distinction occurs between sin

1 Jn 5:16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal ( θάνατον ) sin, he will ask, and God**(“1 Jn 5 RSVCE - Faith Conquers the World - Every one - Bible Gateway”)] will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal ( θάνατον ). There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal (θάνατον ).

As far as determining when / what sin is mortal, look at the consequences scripture uses . If one dies in a sin whose consequence keeps one from inheriting heaven, then it’s a mortal (deadly) sin.

For example

• Titus 3:10-11 Reject a heretical (αἱρετικὸν )man after a first and second warning, 11knowing that such a man is )perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
• Ephesians 5:3-5 fornication, covetousness……5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
• Hebrews 10:23-27 missing Eucharist deliberately on Sunday, no sacrifice for sin for THEM but a fiery judgement that consumes the adversaries of God.
• Hebrews 12:16-17 immoraliy,(πόρνος ) is selling your inheritance
• Galatians 5: 19 - 21 sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions (διχοστασίαι ), factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, will not inherit heaven
• Romans 16:17… dividers ( διχοστασίαι )don’t serve our Lord but themselves. Stay away from them. Satan will soon be crushed under your feet
• Colossians 3: 5-6 immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry, …rath of God is coming
• 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 no sexually immoral (πόρνοι ), nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders ( ἀρσενοκοῖται ), 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
• Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
• 2 Peter 2:4-22
• 2 Thes 1: 6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

c:

I sense though that for a sin to be mortal it must have within itself a nature which the Lord Jesus cannot be part of.

All sin is wrong, but as John teaches, not all sin is mortal (grave / deadly)

 

[SyroMalankara]

Ya can’t say that Ryan. It’s been approved otherwise it would NOT have an imprimatur on it. That makes it an official catechism.

nonsense, from the Latin teaching and the practice itself:

An imprimatur is not an endorsement by the bishop of the contents of a book, not even of the religious opinions expressed in it, being merely a declaration about what is not in the book.[8] In the published work, the imprimatur is sometimes accompanied by a declaration of the following tenor:

The nihil obstat and imprimatur are declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the nihil obstat or imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed.[9]

The person empowered to issue the imprimatur is the local ordinary of the author or of the place of publication.

 

[SyroMalankara]

It’s not an ‘official’ Catechism until its approved by the Holy Synod headed by the Patriarch/Catholicos/Metropolitan head of the Church. Even in this case, while the Catechism may be ‘official’, it may not necessarily be Traditional and could need further revision to conform to the authentic Patristic teaching of whichever self-governing Church is being discussed.

 

[RyanBlack]

Ya can’t say that Ryan. It’s been approved otherwise it would NOT have an imprimatur on it. That makes it an official catechism.

Do you have a link to your catechism? I’d like to read it.

An imprimatur on a local catechism doesn’t make it a particular church’s official catechism. Furthermore, the imprimatur for Fr. Casimir’s catechism was granted by the Bishop of Saskatoon. Even if an imprimatur implied an endorsement of the catechism as “official,” then it would make it official only for the eparchy of Saskatoon, not for the entire Ukrainian Catholic Church. The Ukrainian Catholic Church’s official catechism, written in Ukrainian and not English, was published in 2011. My own church, the Ruthenian Catholic Church, does not have a catechism.

 

[steve_b]

nonsense, from the Latin teaching and the practice itself:

An imprimatur is not an endorsement by the bishop of the contents of a book, not even of the religious opinions expressed in it, being merely a declaration about what is not in the book.[8] In the published work, the imprimatur is sometimes accompanied by a declaration of the following tenor:

I never said it was an endorsement.

Imprimatur - Literally, “let it be printed”. The judgment by a bishop that a written work may be published.
Syro:

The person empowered to issue the imprimatur is the local ordinary of the author or of the place of publication.

IOW it’s approved for publishing by the bishop because he has that authority.

 

[RyanBlack]

While the Ruthenian Church does not have an official catechism, we do use catechetical material published by God With Us Publications. Shown to be Holy: An Introduction to Eastern Christian Moral Thought states, "In distinguishing these kinds of sins, the Western Church has favored the distinction of mortal and venial sins…The Eastern Churches have employed another kind of distinction: between sins and transgressions.