Eastern Mortal Sin Question

[Neil_Anthony]

In Western Catholicism, if someone intentionally thinks about sexually impure thoughts, with full knowledge of the gravity of the sin and full consent of the will, and remains unrepentant, he will go to hell when he dies. Does the same thing happen to Eastern Catholics?

 

[Joe_5859]

Um, the moral law applies to everyone, not just Western Catholics. Mortal sin is mortal sin regardless of one’s religion.

 

[GEddie]

In Western Catholicism, if someone intentionally thinks about sexually impure thoughts, with full knowledge of the gravity of the sin and full consent of the will, and remains unrepentant, he will go to hell when he dies. Does the same thing happen to Eastern Catholics?

Well the 2 religions don’t have separate hells!

Seriously, it depends also on the state of your conscience. If you knew “the gravity of the sin,” then it’s worth the same punishment, even if the doctrines you were taught suggest otherwise.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Okay thanks, I heard that Eastern Catholics have a different notion of mortal sin and was wondering if they also believed that was a mortal sin.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Okay thanks, I heard that Eastern Catholics have a different notion of mortal sin and was wondering if they also believed that was a mortal sin.

The difference is that no formatl distinction is made between mortal and venial sin. There are sins where the matter is graver than others but no distinction is made.

All sin separates one from God. All sin is to be confessed.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

One question is about how Eastern and Western Catholics differ in practice. E.g. going to Mass on a day of obligation for Roman Catholics can only be a sin for a Roman Catholic.

But the teaching on mortal sin does not fall into this category. It is the traditional way that sin is understood in itself, in the West.

Similarly, the Eastern Christians who have their understanding (i.e. not to make such distinctions) can apply that to Western Christians as well. (E.g. an Eastern Christian would not classify a Roman Catholic’s sin as mortal vs. venial because the agent was Roman Catholic! It is simply not the understanding of the thinker, the Byzantine Christian, to think in this way).

So yes, if it’s a mortal sin for a Roman, it’s a mortal sin for a Byzantine, or an evangelical who sins after a valid baptism, and it ruptures the bond with God, and must be healed in confession or with perfect contrition, or the person will go to Hell, but hoping always in God’s Mercy which is beyond understanding.

 

[LutheranDK]

The difference is that no formatl distinction is made between mortal and venial sin. There are sins where the matter is graver than others but no distinction is made.

All sin separates one from God. All sin is to be confessed.

Not really my business, but I find this interesting!
Because the above is exactly the same viewpoint that I have - no distinction between mortal and venial sin, although “there are sins where the matter is graver than others”. And this, I have been told numerous times here, is a “protestant” viewpoint - with the yelling and name-calling following thereof.

Now…are you saying that a rite within the RC church actually also believes this?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Not really my business, but I find this interesting!
Because the above is exactly the same viewpoint that I have - no distinction between mortal and venial sin, although “there are sins where the matter is graver than others”. And this, I have been told numerous times here, is a “protestant” viewpoint - with the yelling and name-calling following thereof.

Now…are you saying that a rite within the RC church actually also believes this?

No the Latin Catholic Church defines it more rigidly and goes further to state that only mortal sin must be confessed while encouraging the confession of venial sins.

The Eastern view of sin in no way contradicts the Latin view, it is just less defined.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\Now…are you saying that a rite within the RC church actually also believes this?\

**PLEASE!

The Eastern Catholic Churches are not mere “rites” withink the Roman Catholic Church!

The Roman Church is just ONE of a COMMUNION of over 20 sui juris churches in the Catholic Church!**

 

[Mike_Dye]

In Western Catholicism, if someone intentionally thinks about sexually impure thoughts, with full knowledge of the gravity of the sin and full consent of the will, and remains unrepentant, he will go to hell when he dies. Does the same thing happen to Eastern Catholics?

First of all I would have to question what you call sin. If every time someone had a sexually impure thought there would not ever be a teenager in the world from the beginning of time that was not in a state of mortal sin. The same goes in lesser degrees for every age group. I suggest that thoughts are more properly called a near occasion of sin.Once we realize that our thoughts could lead us to sin we should try to dismiss those thoughts if we can. Having said that in order to sin you must commit a sin.
I can spend the rest of my life thinking about pulling off the perfect bank robbery but if I do not put my plans into practice I will never be charged with a crime. Do you honestly think that God is going to be less just than civil authorities?

 

[LutheranDK]

\Now…are you saying that a rite within the RC church actually also believes this?\

**PLEASE!

The Eastern Catholic Churches are not mere “rites” withink the Roman Catholic Church!

The Roman Church is just ONE of a COMMUNION of over 20 sui juris** churches in the Catholic Church!

Could you answer the question instead?

 

[LutheranDK]

No the Latin Catholic Church defines it more rigidly and goes further to state that only mortal sin must be confessed while encouraging the confession of venial sins.

The Eastern view of sin in no way contradicts the Latin view, it is just less defined.

But it seems that the Eastern has no seperation between particular sins? That the Western “mortal-venial” distinction is not found - which is the same view that “protestants” are constantly bashed for.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

But it seems that the Eastern has no seperation between particular sins? That the Western “mortal-venial” distinction is not found - which is the same view that “protestants” are constantly bashed for.

No, it is recognized that some sins are of a graver matter than others. The difference with protestants is the fact that Confession is required in the Eastern Churches and it is a Sacrament, this is not so for the protestants.

From the Rite of Holy Confession from the Publicans Prayer Book published by Sophia Press (Melkite Greek Catholic Church publishing arm) in 2008.

*In the Byzantine tradition, typically there is no categorizing of mortal or venial sins, as any sin offends against the goodness and majesty of God. Rather, all sin and weaknesses are uncovered as the manifestation of a repentant and contrite heart. St. John Climacos counsels: “Uncover and show your wounds to this Physician and putting shame underfoot say: ‘Here are my wounds, here is my sore here is the fruit of my weakness. None but I am responsible; it is indeed I who am to blame.’”

*Now I would appreciate the comparison between what Protestants believe and what the Eastern Churches Teach would stop as there is no comparison

 

[Neil_Anthony]

First of all I would have to question what you call sin. If every time someone had a sexually impure thought there would not ever be a teenager in the world from the beginning of time that was not in a state of mortal sin. The same goes in lesser degrees for every age group. I suggest that thoughts are more properly called a near occasion of sin.Once we realize that our thoughts could lead us to sin we should try to dismiss those thoughts if we can. Having said that in order to sin you must commit a sin.
I can spend the rest of my life thinking about pulling off the perfect bank robbery but if I do not put my plans into practice I will never be charged with a crime. Do you honestly think that God is going to be less just than civil authorities?

You can definitely sin through thoughts. You need to learn what the Church teaches! Do you need some references?

 

[LutheranDK]

No, it is recognized that some sins are of a graver matter than others. The difference with protestants is the fact that Confession is required in the Eastern Churches and it is a Sacrament, this is not so for the protestants.

From the Rite of Holy Confession from the Publicans Prayer Book published by Sophia Press (Melkite Greek Catholic Church publishing arm) in 2008.

*In the Byzantine tradition, typically there is no categorizing of mortal or venial sins, as any sin offends against the goodness and majesty of God. Rather, all sin and weaknesses are uncovered as the manifestation of a repentant and contrite heart. St. John Climacos counsels: “Uncover and show your wounds to this Physician and putting shame underfoot say: ‘Here are my wounds, here is my sore here is the fruit of my weakness. None but I am responsible; it is indeed I who am to blame.’”

*Now I would appreciate the comparison between what Protestants believe and what the Eastern Churches Teach would stop as there is no comparison

I’m sorry, but there is. Although there are also differences between the Eastern practice, and the low-church “protestant” views (not counting the high-church “protestants” like the Lutheran tradition, which places a great emphasis on Confession), these have to do with the circumstances surrounding how to DEAL with sin, and not the nature of sin itself.

That some sins are of graver matter than others is universally recognized. No one would dispute that rape is more abhorrent than petty theft, although both are sins.
It is the “venial-mortal” distinction that’s on the line here, and from what I’ve read here, the Eastern RC-theology does bear a striking resemblance to what “protestants” believe…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’m sorry, but there is. Although there are also differences between the Eastern practice, and the low-church “protestant” views (not counting the high-church “protestants” like the Lutheran tradition, which places a great emphasis on Confession), these have to do with the circumstances surrounding how to DEAL with sin, and not the nature of sin itself.

That some sins are of graver matter than others is universally recognized. No one would dispute that rape is more abhorrent than petty theft, although both are sins.
It is the “venial-mortal” distinction that’s on the line here, and from what I’ve read here, the Eastern RC-theology does bear a striking resemblance to what “protestants” believe…

There is no such thing as “Eastern RC-theology”. The Eastern Catholic Churches are Churches in their own right. They are not Roman Catholic. Roman Catholic is another name for the Latin Catholic Church, which, while the largest, is one of the 22 (or is it 23) Churches that make up the Catholic Church.

There is a huge difference as only the sins of grave matter would stop one from reception of the Eucharist, much as mortal sin in the Latin Church.

This is just a matter of the Latin Church defining something where the Eastern Churches do not.

What the protestants believe is not the same as the Eastern Churches as, again, Confession is required and there is a point where one must refrain from the Eucharist.

I understand you wish to find a similarity but it is not there.

 

[LutheranDK]

There is no such thing as “Eastern RC-theology”. The Eastern Catholic Churches are Churches in their own right. They are not Roman Catholic. Roman Catholic is another name for the Latin Catholic Church, which, while the largest, is one of the 22 (or is it 23) Churches that make up the Catholic Church.

There is a huge difference as only the sins of grave matter would stop one from reception of the Eucharist, much as mortal sin in the Latin Church.

But will the Eastern parts of the RC church say that the “sins of grave matter” are sins that, if death comes before confession, will send someone to hell, while the “sins of less grave matter” would send them to purgatory?
That is basically the heart of the issue. Because that is, from my understanding, the RC view of the distinction between “mortal” and “venial” sins.

What the protestants believe is not the same as the Eastern Churches as, again, Confession is required and there is a point where one must refrain from the Eucharist.

And I repeat: What you point out here has to do with how to DEAL with sin, not the nature of sin.

I understand you wish to find a similarity but it is not there.

That’s a pretty arrogant assumption?
I see a similarity, because what have been presented so far sounds very similar. I don’t “wish to find” one.

 

[SyroMalankara]

What exactly DO “protestants believe”? It really depends on the individual - you can surely find one of any variety.

Eastern Churches look at sin as grave and requiring confession and those for which confession is suggested strongly, if one is aware.

The RC “distinction”, in practice, is the same as the Eastern Churches, but the academia of it is based on Latin scholastic theology. I find no disagreement with the premise of it.

 

[Formosus]

But will the Eastern parts of the RC church say that the “sins of grave matter” are sins that, if death comes before confession, will send someone to hell, while the “sins of less grave matter” would send them to purgatory?
That is basically the heart of the issue. Because that is, from my understanding, the RC view of the distinction between “mortal” and “venial” sins.

The Greek churches, traditionally speaking, do not have a concept of Purgatory like the west does. There is a time of waiting after death and in this time of waiting one suffers punishment for sins committed without repentance, or one moves towards union with God (Theosis). After the resurrection the damned receive the fullness of damnation and the saved move ever closer to full unity with God. Disagreement between the Greeks and the Latins on issues like mortal and venial sin are mere semantics and do not affect practice significantly nor do they really effect the view of the after life. Unrepentant sinners are , presumably, damned while those who repent for their sins enter into eternal life. All go through a period of “purification” as that is in a sense what theosis is. The movement of the soul towards God. Also note, we are not “the eastern parts of the RC church”, we are Self governing (Sui Irus) Eastern Catholic Churches who share communion with the Church of Rome. We are not part of the Church of Rome, we are not rites, we are equal sister churches with the church of Rome.

 

[dvdjs]

But will the Eastern parts of the RC church say that the “sins of grave matter” are sins that, if death comes before confession, will send someone to hell, while the “sins of less grave matter” would send them to purgatory? That is basically the heart of the issue. Because that is, from my understanding, the RC view of the distinction between “mortal” and “venial” sins.

I assume that by “Eastern parts of the RC church”, you mean Eastern Catholic Churches. You should realize that your terminology seems hostile, since no ECC would refer to itself that way.

You refer to two teachings: mortal/non-mortal sins; purgatory. Let’s decouple the purgatory issue, about which there is considerable argument, and just focus on the issue of mortal sins.

The critical point is, in contrast to OSAS heresy, is the possibility of sin that is deadly and leads to hell for eternity. This belief is held, AFAIK, by all Catholic and Orthodox churches, and perhaps others. Some Easterners don’t like the Western terminology, but the essential similarity is clear. See for example:

• orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/exo_sintypes.aspx ;
• the excerpt from Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin ;
• this EO catechism christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/catechis.html , which states that “personal sins are mortal and non-mortal”;
• this dictionary of Orthodox terminology goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8049 , which includes, among many references to mortal sin, “Capital Sin (or Mortal or Deadly sin). Great offenses against God, or moral faults which, if habitual, could result in the spiritual death of the individual. The following sins are considered to be mortal: pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth. These are the “Seven Deadly Sins” of the phrase.”

I would hazard a guess that most EC’s, like RC’s, would receive Holy Communion without first going to Confession for sins that are not considered “mortal”. For EO’s the adoption of this practice is probably strongly correlated with the degree to which they have adopted the practice of frequent communion.