Eastern Catholics and Church teachings of morality

[RyanBlack]

No. The Eastern tradition of not seeing sin in terms of mortal vs. venial predates Protestantism.

I should clarify a few things. For one, I’m speaking specifically about the Byzantine tradition. I’m not familiar with the approaches of the various Oriental traditions. Also, to say that the Byzantine tradition does not categorize sins as either mortal or venial does not mean that we do not recognize some sins as being more serious than others, but all sins are taken seriously and are seen as damaging to the soul.

 

[mardukm]

Some of you posters seem to be saying that Eastern Catholics ignore a teaching of Catholic theology which defines both mortal and venial sins. If its true the Eastern Church doesn’t believe this, then won’t it mean it’s holding the Protestant belief of no classifications of sin?
Correct me if I’m wrong guys.

Just as Easterns need to be more discerning between Western Catholic and Western Protestant teachings, Latins also need to be more discerning between Eastern and Protestant teachings.

The error of the Protestants considered by Trent was NOT that there were no classifications of sin. It was the fact that Protestants (particularly Luther and Calvin) taught that Man was utterly incapable of doing any inherent good - anything that Man did was evil and there was no use trying to distinguish between “mortal” and “venial.” THAT is the basis of the Catholic condemnation of the Protestant claim that there are no classifications of sin.

The Eastern claim that there are no classifications of sin has a very different premise than the Protestant one. I will let my Eastern brethren explain it for themselves.

In short, the Catholic Church has NEVER condemned the idea that “there are no classifications of sin.” What she has condemned is one particular premise that leads to that idea - a twisted anthropology that claims an inherent evil in human nature utterly incapable of doing good. But there are other premises that lead to the same idea, and the Catholic Church has never condemned those other, different premises.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

We’re building a library for our eparchy and over half of the books we’re ordering are from Orthodox sources. I haven’t heard of a plan on posting a warning sign on our library.

Your library and posting here are different things. Also I am sure that the books you do include do not contradict Catholic Teachings.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Some of you posters seem to be saying that Eastern Catholics ignore a teaching of Catholic theology which defines both mortal and venial sins. If its true the Eastern Church doesn’t believe this, then won’t it mean it’s holding the Protestant belief of no classifications of sin?
Correct me if I’m wrong guys.

In the Byzantine Catholic Churches we do not (typically) use the terms “mortal” and “venial” to describe sins.

What we do use are terms such as “grave” or “serious” to describe sins that are of a graver natural than others. We do believe that some sins are so grave that they destroy our relationship with God.

In confession we confess all sins regardless of degree.

So, simply speaking, the belief is the same though we do not use the same terms.

 

[mardukm]

Your library and posting here are different things. Also I am sure that the books you do include do not contradict Catholic Teachings.

I believe you are correct, and I made the mistake of assuming that the link brother ConstantineTG gave was part of the library of his local parish or Church.

I had a hard time believing that such an article (the link brother ConstantineTG gave) could make it into a library of the UGCC Church. The UGCC has been so faithful to the Catholic communion, giving the Catholic Church so many martyrs, that I was taken aback that such an article with such wrong premises about Latin Catholic belief could be accepted as part of Eastern CATHOLIC catechesis. I am sure there are more worthy EO sources that simply focus on Eastern theology and praxis without the “benefit” of making uninformed contrasts between Eastern and Western Catholic doctrine.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Can you please provide for us the document where the Catholic Church has dogmatically defined the distinction between mortal and venial sin?

I propose you will not find any. What you will find are sources quoting individual sayings of Saints such as St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas. What you will not find is a solid definition. In fact, the notion that some sins considered “venial” can indeed become “mortal” demonstrates that the distinction is not at all capable of definition.

At best, what we have is a dogmatic statement from Trent of the necessity of confessing mortal sins.

Thus, I seriously doubt anyone can say with confidence that the distinction itself is a universal teaching.

Blessings,
Marduk

That existence of two classes of mortal and venial sins is given by the Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 11, also canons 23-25; session 14, chapter 5).

Session 6, 11:

“From which it is plain, that those are opposed to the orthodox doctrine of religion, who assert that the just man sins, venially at least, in every good work…”

CANON XXIII.-lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.
CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
CANON XXV.-If any one saith, that, in every good work, the just sins venially at least, or-which is more intolerable still-mortally, and consequently deserves eternal punishments; and that for this cause only he is not damned, that God does not impute those works unto damnation; let him be anathema.

Session 14, 5:
…
But, whereas all mortal sins, even those of thought, render men children of wrath, (b) and enemies of God, it is necessary to seek also for the pardon of them all from God, with an open and modest confession.
…

thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

What you gave is not a definition - just mentioning two different words no way amounts to a definition. The best one can get from what is stated at Trent is that venial sin is sin which is not mortal. That’s about as vague as one can get. We also know that Latins teach that venial sin can become mortal sin at some point. That concept is more similar to the Eastern concept of gradation as opposed to a hard-line black and white definition of venial versus mortal sin.

Blessings,
Marduk

That existence of two classes of mortal and venial sins is given by the Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 11, also canons 23-25; session 14, chapter 5).

Session 6, 11:

“From which it is plain, that those are opposed to the orthodox doctrine of religion, who assert that the just man sins, venially at least, in every good work…”

CANON XXIII.-lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.
CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
CANON XXV.-If any one saith, that, in every good work, the just sins venially at least, or-which is more intolerable still-mortally, and consequently deserves eternal punishments; and that for this cause only he is not damned, that God does not impute those works unto damnation; let him be anathema.

Session 14, 5:
…
But, whereas all mortal sins, even those of thought, render men children of wrath, (b) and enemies of God, it is necessary to seek also for the pardon of them all from God, with an open and modest confession.
…

thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm

 

[TrueLight]

I was having a discussion with a CAF member about exactly what is being discussed here.

I understand that essentially the teachings on levels of sin amount to the same thing. If grave sin destroys your relationship with God, that equates to mortal sin, which destroys your relationship with God.

As an aside, I would like to understand what Eastern Catholics believe happens to a soul if they die while in “grave sin”. Even though God ultimately makes the decision, is the teaching that one goes to hell?

Back to what I was saying. What concerns me about Eastern versus Western theology is this:

If the truth is universal, and if Eastern Catholics and Latin Catholics are all part of the One, Holy, Apostolic Church, then it shouldn’t matter if I choose to follow the Eastern way of thinking about sin, while maybe following the Latin way of thinking about another doctrine?

I should not be chastised if someone in the Latin church for example discusses confessing mortal sin and I say “all sin should be confessed.”

Why do we have parallel theology?

Another example, is how can a dogmatic declaration of the Immaculate Conception be mandatory for Latin Catholics, while a similar but somewhat different understanding be allowed for Eastern Catholics.

I don’t know if I’m being clear.

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

What you gave is not a definition - just mentioning two different words no way amounts to a definition. The best one can get from what is stated at Trent is that venial sin is sin which is not mortal. That’s about as vague as one can get. We also know that Latins teach that venial sin can become mortal sin at some point. That concept is more similar to the Eastern concept of gradation as opposed to a hard-line black and white definition of venial versus mortal sin.

Blessings,
Marduk

East and west are compatible on this. Yes, vague is intentional, yet there is a distinction made, in the Patristic era:
***Mortal and Venial ***

1. But here we come to a further dimension in the mystery of sin, one on which the human mind has never ceased to ponder: the question of its gravity. It is a question which cannot be overlooked and one which the Christian conscience has never refused to answer. Why and to what degree is sin a serious matter in the offense it commits against God and in its effects on man? The church has a teaching on this matter which she reaffirms in its essential elements, while recognizing that it is not always easy in concrete situations to define clear and exact limits.

Already in the Old Testament, individuals guilty of several kinds of sins - sins committed deliberately,(75) the various forms of impurity,(76) idolatry,(77) the worship of false gods (78) - were ordered to be “taken away from the people,” which could also mean to be condemned to death.(79) Contrasted with these were other sins especially sins committed through ignorance, that were forgiven by means of a sacrificial offering.(80)

In reference also to these texts, the church has for centuries spoken of mortal sin and venial sin. But it is above all the New Testament that sheds light on this distinction and these terms. Here there are many passages which enumerate and strongly reprove sins that are particularly deserving of condemnation.(81) There is also the confirmation of the Decalogue by Jesus himself.(82) Here I wish to give special attention to two passages that are significant and impressive. …

In the light of these and other passages of sacred Scripture, doctors and theologians, spiritual teachers and pastors have divided sins into mortal and venial. St. Augustine, among others, speaks of letalia or mortifera crimina, contrasting them with venialia, levia or quotidiana.(93) The meaning which he gives to these adjectives was to influence the successive magisterium of the church.
…
See:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia_en.html

The statements of Trent are to be understood in context of the other teachings of the Magisterium at the same time. It has to do with both objective gravity and subjective intention. The objectively grave sins comitted willingly and with with knowledge are uncharitible and so immediately exclude the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, whereas other non-grave matters do not immediately endanger the soul, but are still imperfections.

 

[Ghosty]

I think the obvious answer here is we don’t get Orthodox books to learn about Western theology or spirituality.

But there is serious danger of distorting one’s understanding of Catholic teaching when Western theology is distorted, as it typically is in Orthodox works comparing the two. This distortion bleeds over into all understanding of the Faith.

We don’t buy science books to learn about religion, but we would be wary of science books that casually mentioned the opposition between science and religion. Likewise we must be very careful about Orthodox works that distort Western theological teaching.

I don’t know that any of the books your library bought have any of these problems, I’m just pointing out the importance of discernment on this matter.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dvdjs]

Eastern Christians do adhere to the concept of mortal sins.

1. Concerning Mortal Sins

According to Gennadios Scholarios, George Koressios, the Orthodox Confession, and Chrysanthos of Jerusalem, mortal sins are those voluntary sins which either corrupt the love for God alone, or the love for neighbor and for God, and which render again the one committing them an enemy of God and liable to the eternal death of hell. [11] Generally speaking, they are: pride, love of money, sexual immorality, envy, gluttony, anger, and despondency, or indifference. [12]

orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/exo_sintypes.aspx

Indeed to assert other wise is to fall into OSAS heresy.

So, please, what on earth are those who are trying deny it on this thread really trying to say?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Eastern Christians do adhere to the concept of mortal sins.

orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/exo_sintypes.aspx

Indeed to assert other wise is to fall into OSAS heresy.

So, please, what on earth are those who are trying deny it on this thread really trying to say?

All I know is what my Melkite prayer book tells me.

 

[dvdjs]

All I know is what my Melkite prayer book tells me.

What does it say? No sins unto death? No possibility of damnation? All sins unto death?

What does it say about confession before communion: in this era of frequent communion are there sine of sufficient gravity that one must confess before approaching the chalice?

BTW quote I gave from Scholarios is recapitualed on the current GOARCH website, and in contemporary EP cathechisms - not to mention the Moglia catechisms.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

I was having a discussion with a CAF member about exactly what is being discussed here.

I understand that essentially the teachings on levels of sin amount to the same thing. If grave sin destroys your relationship with God, that equates to mortal sin, which destroys your relationship with God.

As an aside, I would like to understand what Eastern Catholics believe happens to a soul if they die while in “grave sin”. Even though God ultimately makes the decision, is the teaching that one goes to hell?

Back to what I was saying. What concerns me about Eastern versus Western theology is this:

If the truth is universal, and if Eastern Catholics and Latin Catholics are all part of the One, Holy, Apostolic Church, then it shouldn’t matter if I choose to follow the Eastern way of thinking about sin, while maybe following the Latin way of thinking about another doctrine?

I should not be chastised if someone in the Latin church for example discusses confessing mortal sin and I say “all sin should be confessed.”

Why do we have parallel theology?

Another example, is how can a dogmatic declaration of the Immaculate Conception be mandatory for Latin Catholics, while a similar but somewhat different understanding be allowed for Eastern Catholics.

I don’t know if I’m being clear.

I too would like to know the answers to these questions. You raise some good points I hope some of our more knowledgeable members might be able to answer

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

What does it say? No sins unto death? No possibility of damnation? All sins unto death?

What does it say about confession before communion: in this era of frequent communion are there sine of sufficient gravity that one must confess before approaching the chalice?

BTW quote I gave from Scholarios is recapitualed on the current GOARCH website, and in contemporary EP cathechisms - not to mention the Moglia catechisms.

“In the Byzantine tradition, typically there is no categorization of mortal and venial sins, as any sin offends against the goodness and majesty of God. Rather, all sins and weaknesses are uncovered as the manifestation of a repentant and contrite heart.”

According to one of the deacons in my parish, no sin should keep us from Communion. In the Byzantine tradition Communion is “unto the remission of sins and life everlasting.” Christ purifies all that he comes into contact with. To say there are certain sins that the reception of Communion cannot remit is to admit weakness on the part of Christ: i.e. the sin is more powerful than Christ. My question for my deacon would then be, well what’s the purpose of Confession? I haven’t yet gotten to ask him that.

I have not come to any personal conclusions on the matter. I can say with utmost confidence that just because the Byzantine tradition doesn’t typically categorize sins as either venial or mortal, that does not mean that the it does not take the reality of sin very seriously.

 

[Vico]

There is a canonical use of serious sin for the eastern Catholic churches. Of course these Holy Mysteries are shared across all the ritual Catholic churches.

CCEO Canon 711
A person who is conscious of serious sin is not to celebrate the Divine Liturgy nor receive the Divine Eucharist unless a serious reason is present and there is no opportunity of receiving the sacrament of penance; in this case the person should make an act of perfect condition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

FYI - if it is clear that we have many guests in church (as will likely be the case tonight and tomorrow) our parish priest will normally make an announcement before the distribution of Holy Eucharist, indicating that all faithful Catholics [and Orthodox] who are not bound by grave error (sin) are welcome to receive.

The Eastern Catholic understanding of grave sin is analogous to the Catholic catechetical definition of mortal sin. There is no significant difference in the definition between Catholics of different Rites - just the usual difference in perspective which is encouraged within the Universal Catholic Church.

The canon law section cited by Vico in a previous post on this thread is consistent with this understanding. You will note, however, a caveat in this section of the canon that allows for reception of the Holy Eucharist (and in the case of a priest, celebration of the Divine Liturgy) under exceptional circumstances, given a contrite heart, rendering of an act of perfect condition [contrition] and a commitment to confess as soon as possible. This is also consistent with the information shared in this and other threads regarding the Eastern Catholic notion that the Holy Eucharist should not be kept from the faithful, as it is the very essence of redemption that cleanses our souls as does no other Mystery. But as now shown, that does NOT mean that we can receive the Holy Eucharist in good conscience if we are unrepentant of grave sin.

This is good dialog for this season of the Nativity, when we are reminded most clearly of God’s abundant love and mercy. His only begotten Son became flesh for our salvation. He was born not as a noble or king, but in all humility in a stable. I pray that we all can humble ourselves before the Lord and our fellow man at this time. We Byzantine Ruthenian Rite Catholics are bound to make at least one confession per year. While Great Lent is typically the time most think of making the annual confession, I prefer to think of it during Advent (St. Philip’s Fast, in our tradition) so that we may welcome and receive the newborn Savior with purity of heart and soul.

Blessings to all!

 

[dvdjs]

“In the Byzantine tradition, typically there is no categorization of mortal and venial sins, as any sin offends against the goodness and majesty of God. Rather, all sins and weaknesses are uncovered as the manifestation of a repentant and contrite heart.”

I am not sure what the qualifier “typically” means. But I suspect that it can assume a connotation that makes the sentence true.

According to one of the deacons in my parish, no sin should keep us from Communion. In the Byzantine tradition Communion is “unto the remission of sins and life everlasting.” Christ purifies all that he comes into contact with. To say there are certain sins that the reception of Communion cannot remit is to admit weakness on the part of Christ: i.e. the sin is more powerful than Christ. My question for my deacon would then be, well what’s the purpose of Confession? I haven’t yet gotten to ask him that.

While I sure that the Deacon has a point, he is way out on a limb. It is far more accurate to note that the traditional practice had been that laity, beyond a certain age, never received communion without preparing by first going to confession. (And before that, one received a sanction of temporary excommunication for many sins - like missing the litrugy on three consecutive Sundays). Modern practice is different, but still I have heard even in the OCA that admonition not to approach the chalice with serious unconfessed sin, or if you had not been to confession for over four weeks.

 

[divinefaith]

I was having a discussion with a CAF member about exactly what is being discussed here.

I understand that essentially the teachings on levels of sin amount to the same thing. If grave sin destroys your relationship with God, that equates to mortal sin, which destroys your relationship with God.

As an aside, I would like to understand what Eastern Catholics believe happens to a soul if they die while in “grave sin”. Even though God ultimately makes the decision, is the teaching that one goes to hell?

Back to what I was saying. What concerns me about Eastern versus Western theology is this:

If the truth is universal, and if Eastern Catholics and Latin Catholics are all part of the One, Holy, Apostolic Church, then it shouldn’t matter if I choose to follow the Eastern way of thinking about sin, while maybe following the Latin way of thinking about another doctrine?

I should not be chastised if someone in the Latin church for example discusses confessing mortal sin and I say “all sin should be confessed.”

Why do we have parallel theology?

Another example, is how can a dogmatic declaration of the Immaculate Conception be mandatory for Latin Catholics, while a similar but somewhat different understanding be allowed for Eastern Catholics.

I don’t know if I’m being clear.

Isn’t the Immaculate Conception teaching an infallible one? How can the Eastern Church have similarities but not be exactly the same?

I’m also trying to understand if an Eastern Rite Catholic can hold the Latin Rite thinking and vice versa.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Phillip,

According to one of the deacons in my parish, no sin should keep us from Communion. In the Byzantine tradition Communion is “unto the remission of sins and life everlasting.” Christ purifies all that he comes into contact with. To say there are certain sins that the reception of Communion cannot remit is to admit weakness on the part of Christ: i.e. the sin is more powerful than Christ. My question for my deacon would then be, well what’s the purpose of Confession? I haven’t yet gotten to ask him that.

Can you please explain this some more?

I don’t see a problem with your deacon saying that “no sin should keep us from Communion.” I suspect the concluding statement would be “that is why we should go to confession often so we can receive communion.”

The “unto the remission of sins and life everlasting” sounds very similar to the Latin teaching that venial sins can be remitted by reception of the Eucharist.

I disagree with the statement “To say there are certain sins that the reception of Communion cannot remit is to admit weakness on the part of Christ: i.e. the sin is more powerful than Christ.” The purpose of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not supposed to be for the remission of sins (that it happens to be able to remit venial sins would seem to be a side-effect, not its purpose). Remission of sins is obtained, rather, through the Sacrament of Penance. The power of the Sacrament of Penance is the Sacrifice of Christ Himself, so that is why I disagree with your statement above.

That is why all the apostolic Churches teach that confession is necessary before the reception of the Eucharist. It is part of our preparation as creatures in order to be able to receive the divine Body and Blood – recall that in the foreshadowing of the Eucharist by the OT sacrifices, everything needed to be purified FIRST before entrance into the Holy of Holies. The Sacrament of Confession is perfectly analogous to that OT purification. It is in the Sacrament of Confession whereby the Blood of the Sacrifice washes us clean in order to be able to enter the Holy of Holies - the Eucharistic banquet.

I think if you approach your deacon and ask him what the purpose of the Sacrament of Confession is, he will tell you the same thing.

Blessings,
Marduk