Eastern Catholic View on Mortal/Venial Sin

[ChristianDude]

I’m sorry if maybe this question has been asked several times before, but while I have seen other threads on this topic in the past before, they don’t quite fully answer my question. My question concerns a quote by Father Allyne Smith, who says that in the Orthodox tradition, “we see that only a sin for which we don’t repent is mortal”. Is this in anyway similar to how Eastern Catholics view on sin? I guess what I’m wonder about is whether Eastern Catholic is simply Orthodox theology but with adherence to the authority of Rome, as opposed to maybe a combination of Eastern/Oriental and Latin theology. I’m sorry if I sound ignorant in the way I pose my question, I’m genuine interested in learning, as I do hold some interest in Eastern Christian theology.

 

[Bookcat]

What the Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses about Mortal and Venial sin is going to apply those of the Eastern Catholic Churches as it is for all the Churches within the Catholic Church. Eastern writers might use various ways to discuss sin - but so have those of west over the centuries when discussing mortal sin and venial sin.

 

[SyroMalankara]

What the Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses about Mortal and Venial sin is going to apply those of the Eastern Catholic Churches as it is for all the Churches within the Catholic Church. Eastern writers might use various ways to discuss sin - but so have those of west over the centuries when discussing mortal sin and venial sin.

There isn’t a blanket Eastern Catholic explanation. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has its own catechism, but so far only available in Ukrainian. Each particular Church is supposed to have it’s own catechism without being latinized, and incorporating the appropriate Patristic Traditions, customs, etc. How far that goes is

 

[Bookcat]

There isn’t a blanket Eastern Catholic explanation. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has its own catechism, but so far only available in Ukrainian. Each particular Church is supposed to have it’s own catechism without being latinized, and incorporating the appropriate Patristic Traditions, customs, etc.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church* is the Universal Catechism for the entire Catholic Church. But yes Particular Churches have or can have their own Catechism which is in harmony with it - and such can bring in the various ways of expression …customs etc.

 

[dmar198]

My question concerns a quote by Father Allyne Smith, who says that in the Orthodox tradition, “we see that only a sin for which we don’t repent is mortal”. Is this in anyway similar to how Eastern Catholics view on sin?

Not only eastern Catholics, but western Catholics too could probably interpret that in a way that is compatible with Church dogma. It may be poetic, but if it is meant as poetry it doesn’t seem too far different from this quote: “The only real sadness, the only real failure, the only great tragedy in life, is not to become a saint.”

That is a famous western quote which I’ve seen attributed to various authors including Leon Bloy, Charles Peguy, and Paul Claudel – none of whom I’ve heard of outside of this quote. Anyway, the western quote and the eastern quote both sound to me like they are trying to say that not going to heaven is ultimately the only “mortal sin.” Because if you repent, you’ll go to heaven, so what does it matter what other sins you have? Repent and they are All gone! Only nonrepentance in our last hour lasts forever.

(That doesn’t mean we can go ahead and sin until it’s time to die and then just be sure to repent at that point. I’m just trying to point out that the view mentioned by that eastern guy has a famous western counterpart and can be interpreted in a Catholic way if it’s given a bit of poetic license.)

 

[adamhovey1988]

I’m sorry if maybe this question has been asked several times before, but while I have seen other threads on this topic in the past before, they don’t quite fully answer my question. My question concerns a quote by Father Allyne Smith, who says that in the Orthodox tradition, “we see that only a sin for which we don’t repent is mortal”. Is this in anyway similar to how Eastern Catholics view on sin? I guess what I’m wonder about is whether Eastern Catholic is simply Orthodox theology but with adherence to the authority of Rome, as opposed to maybe a combination of Eastern/Oriental and Latin theology. I’m sorry if I sound ignorant in the way I pose my question, I’m genuine interested in learning, as I do hold some interest in Eastern Christian theology.

I know a Melkite priest (biritual though) that uses the phrase “mortal sin” but that may just be a preference. I think the distinction is there, but the terminology may not be. Thanks for asking.

 

[Vico]

I’m sorry if maybe this question has been asked several times before, but while I have seen other threads on this topic in the past before, they don’t quite fully answer my question. My question concerns a quote by Father Allyne Smith, who says that in the Orthodox tradition, “we see that only a sin for which we don’t repent is mortal”. Is this in anyway similar to how Eastern Catholics view on sin? I guess what I’m wonder about is whether Eastern Catholic is simply Orthodox theology but with adherence to the authority of Rome, as opposed to maybe a combination of Eastern/Oriental and Latin theology. I’m sorry if I sound ignorant in the way I pose my question, I’m genuine interested in learning, as I do hold some interest in Eastern Christian theology.

Eastern canon law uses the term serious sin. All of the 24 Catholic churches sui iuris have the same sacraments, although with different sacramental disciplines.

**
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.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Perhaps another way of asking the question, or at least a similar approach to the same issue, would be: Is scrupulosity a problem in the Eastern churches to the same degree that it seems to occur in the Latin rite (as evidenced in part by postings here)? Certainly many of us were raised in a parochial environment where a whole lot of time was spent focusing where “the line” was between venial and mortal, lots of legalistic approaches to actions, etc. To the degree that such approaches tend to foster scrupulous thoughts, I just wonder whether a relative absence of scrupulosity in the East would shed light on the Eastern approach to “Mortal / Venial.”

 

[newlywed8]

We do not really use those terms (traditionally) at least in the Byzantine tradition. Our approach to sin is a bit different.

We view sin as all things-- voluntary and involuntary-- that take us further from God. The gravity of the sin really depends upon how far the person has progressed along the spiritual path. For example, a prostitute who manages to commit to monogamy, despite not being married, would not be sinning as gravely as a priest who is more spiritually mature and has a relationship outside of marriage.

Confession is viewed as a time to root out passions, to focus on the sins that are dragging us down-- drowning us, if you will. It is a spiritual balm and a chance to speak with your spiritual director about how to improve on your path and receive forgiveness for the times that you have turned from God. There are many parishes and priests that even encourage confession weekly before liturgy. In practice, there is much less of a numerical system (I did X,Y and Z, which means I definitely need to confess before approaching the Eucharist) and more of spiritual growth emphasis. People would discuss their struggles with their priest and he will help them determine the right course of action (ie definitely confess this sin if you commit again before approaching communion, you are strugging in this way so follow this prayer rule for two weeks and return to me, etc)

I hope that makes sense.

 

[ChristianDude]

We do not really use those terms (traditionally) at least in the Byzantine tradition. Our approach to sin is a bit different.

We view sin as all things-- voluntary and involuntary-- that take us further from God. The gravity of the sin really depends upon how far the person has progressed along the spiritual path. For example, a prostitute who manages to commit to monogamy, despite not being married, would not be sinning as gravely as a priest who is more spiritually mature and has a relationship outside of marriage.

Confession is viewed as a time to root out passions, to focus on the sins that are dragging us down-- drowning us, if you will. It is a spiritual balm and a chance to speak with your spiritual director about how to improve on your path and receive forgiveness for the times that you have turned from God. There are many parishes and priests that even encourage confession weekly before liturgy. In practice, there is much less of a numerical system (I did X,Y and Z, which means I definitely need to confess before approaching the Eucharist) and more of spiritual growth emphasis. People would discuss their struggles with their priest and he will help them determine the right course of action (ie definitely confess this sin if you commit again before approaching communion, you are strugging in this way so follow this prayer rule for two weeks and return to me, etc)

I hope that makes sense.

Thanks, this helped me me gain a very good understanding.

 

[Bookcat]

Eastern canon law uses the term serious sin. All of the 24 Catholic churches sui iuris have the same sacraments, although with different sacramental disciplines.]

Right and the The Code of Canon Law (Roman) uses the term “grave sin”.

Grave sin, serious sin, grievous sin, deadly sin - all refer to the same mortal sin.

 

[Vico]

Right and the The Code of Canon Law (Roman) uses the term “grave sin”.

Grave sin, serious sin, grievous sin, deadly sin - all refer to the same mortal sin.

And so in the book Comparative Sacramental Discipline in the CCEO and CIC CLSA, 2003, p. 94 has in the chapter written by The Very Reverend Francis J. Marini, J.D., J.C.O.D.:

The points of similarity and the differences between the Eastern and Latin provisions are obvious, Firstly , the grace or mortal sin/venial sin distinction is not explicit in the CCEO, and there is no equivalent in the CCEO to CIC c. 988, s2. Of course this distinction is not denied in the CCEO since it is implicit in the reference to “grave sin”, which implies the existence of “less than grace” sin.

 

[Louman127]

I’m sorry if maybe this question has been asked several times before, but while I have seen other threads on this topic in the past before, they don’t quite fully answer my question. My question concerns a quote by Father Allyne Smith, who says that in the Orthodox tradition, “we see that only a sin for which we don’t repent is mortal”. Is this in anyway similar to how Eastern Catholics view on sin? I guess what I’m wonder about is whether Eastern Catholic is simply Orthodox theology but with adherence to the authority of Rome, as opposed to maybe a combination of Eastern/Oriental and Latin theology. I’m sorry if I sound ignorant in the way I pose my question, I’m genuine interested in learning, as I do hold some interest in Eastern Christian theology.

As far as I know the Orthodox Church just says sin is sin. Kind of how Protestants don’t recognize the difference between mortal and venial sin. The definitive theological development between mortal and venial sin doesn’t exist in the Orthodox Church because they went into schism in the 11th century thus, cutting themselves off from further dogma and doctrine developments that will develop in the Catholic Church as time continues on earth and our level of understanding grows.

So, to them I suppose sin is sin and we are saved by God so basically sins are venial all the time unless we aren’t sorry for them before we die. Then we can be damned if we dont repent of them. But this seems harsh and contradictory because also with this statement it also would appear that if someone commits a venial sin without repenting before they die then it is mortal since they didn’t repent and they will be damned. Kind of scary if you accidentally use profanity when you’re in a car accident and then you die. The profanity at most could be a venial offense but if sin is sin and you didn’t repent of it then by that statement it would be mortal.

So as a Catholic we believe that the Orthodox Church is not properly guided because they are not in union with the Pope. So me as a Catholic, I believe Orthodoxy may have trouble in discernment of such things like the differences of mortal and venial sin. The Catholic view is very very clear though on mortal and venial sin. And all churches that declare themselves Catholic such as the Byzantine rite believe what the Latin rite does. Because they are Catholic. They have the same view on mortal and venial sin. However, Eastern Orthodoxy has their own view on sin and do not have a clear outline of mortal and venial sin such as we do. Because the term mortal and venial sin is a Catholic distinction.

 

[SyroMalankara]

As far as I know the Orthodox Church just says sin is sin. Kind of how Protestants don’t recognize the difference between mortal and venial sin. The definitive theological development between mortal and venial sin doesn’t exist in the Orthodox Church because they went into schism in the 11th century thus, cutting themselves off from further dogma and doctrine developments that will develop in the Catholic Church as time continues on earth and our level of understanding grows.

So, to them I suppose sin is sin and we are saved by God so basically sins are venial all the time unless we aren’t sorry for them before we die. Then we can be damned if we dont repent of them. But this seems harsh and contradictory because also with this statement it also would appear that if someone commits a venial sin without repenting before they die then it is mortal since they didn’t repent and they will be damned. Kind of scary if you accidentally use profanity when you’re in a car accident and then you die. The profanity at most could be a venial offense but if sin is sin and you didn’t repent of it then by that statement it would be mortal.

So as a Catholic we believe that the Orthodox Church is not properly guided because they are not in union with the Pope. So me as a Catholic, I believe Orthodoxy may have trouble in discernment of such things like the differences of mortal and venial sin. The Catholic view is very very clear though on mortal and venial sin. And all churches that declare themselves Catholic such as the Byzantine rite believe what the Latin rite does. Because they are Catholic. They have the same view on mortal and venial sin. However, Eastern Orthodoxy has their own view on sin and do not have a clear outline of mortal and venial sin such as we do. Because the term mortal and venial sin is a Catholic distinction.

The Eastern Catholic (Byzantine) view of sin is the same as the Eastern Orthodox, so calling it unclear or without discernment is harsh and not appropriate.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The Eastern Catholic (Byzantine) view of sin is the same as the Eastern Orthodox, so calling it unclear or without discernment is harsh and not appropriate.

So does this mean that the mortal/venial sin teaching is a theological concept that not all Catholics have to accept?

 

[Bookcat]

What the Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses about Mortal and Venial sin is going to apply those of the Eastern Catholic Churches as it is for all the Churches within the Catholic Church. Eastern writers might use various ways to discuss sin - but so have those of west over the centuries when discussing mortal sin and venial sin.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Just as a point of clarification, there are references to “mortal sin” in the writings of the Eastern Fathers. St. Theophan the Recluse mentions it (can’t remember which treatise), and it is mentioned in the Evergetinos. Indeed, even the writings of St. John the Apostle contain references to “a sin that is mortal.”

However, the question is whether the East means the same as the West when it says “mortal sin.” The only clear definition of what constitutes “mortal sin” that I’ve found in Eastern sources is, “that sin for which a person does not repent.”

 

[Bookcat]

So does this mean that the mortal/venial sin teaching is a theological concept that not all Catholics have to accept?

Yes such is part of the Catholic Faith - no matter which Church within the Catholic Church. Terms can differ but they refer to the same reality.

 

[Louman127]

The Eastern Catholic (Byzantine) view of sin is the same as the Eastern Orthodox, so calling it unclear or without discernment is harsh and not appropriate.

As a Catholic we believe we have the fullness of Christianity. We are members of the one Catholic Church that has declared it has a treasury of graces that we have access too. Having the fullness of Christianity with access to unlimited graces and being in full union with the head of the Church in the physical realm (the Pope) gives us an ability to discern things, very complex theological things. Such as the terms of mortal and venial sin which has developed over the centuries and was not always known within early Christianity. The Eastern Catholic churches believe in mortal and venial sin. Orthodoxy does not distinguish fully in “black and white” mortal and venial sin. Many say simply “sin is sin”. The language used in the Eastern rite may vary. However if they are in full union with us they accept all the Catholic teachings. Again their language they use can be different but they do express the same reality that some sins will immediately sever your relationship with God and some sins will not.

As a Catholic we believe that the Catholic Church is the fullness of Christianity and therefore we have the ability to discern a high level of things. Please clarify to me how I have been insulting or inappropriate.

 

[SyroMalankara]

As a Catholic we believe we have the fullness of Christianity. We are members of the one Catholic Church that has declared it has a treasury of graces that we have access too. Having the fullness of Christianity with access to unlimited graces and being in full union with the head of the Church in the physical realm (the Pope) gives us an ability to discern things, very complex theological things. Such as the terms of mortal and venial sin which has developed over the centuries and was not always known within early Christianity. The Eastern Catholic churches believe in mortal and venial sin. Orthodoxy does not distinguish fully in “black and white” mortal and venial sin. Many say simply “sin is sin”. The language used in the Eastern rite may vary. However if they are in full union with us they accept all the Catholic teachings. Again their language they use can be different but they do express the same reality that some sins will immediately sever your relationship with God and some sins will not.

As a Catholic we believe that the Catholic Church is the fullness of Christianity and therefore we have the ability to discern a high level of things. Please clarify to me how I have been insulting or inappropriate.

This keeps happening around various fora, Latins keeps stating how un-whatever the East is because of whatever perceived lack they think they have remedied and the East doesnt. In fact, this fillintheblank problem doesn’t exist and therefore a need for whoever to remedy it doesn’t exist either.