Eastern Orthodox and the Mortal vs. Venial sin quandry

  • Thread starter Thread starter gurneyhalleck1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry I didn’t get to this last night, once I got the kids in bed I was too tired for writing anything substantial.
Bluegoat;7904455:
In the Latin CC, I believe the individual person has the responsibility to determine this. In light of that (as I think about it) I see that the Eastern/Oriental Tradition has the possibility of being perceived as rigid.
I wouldn’t have thought rigid was the right word in any case. I mean, the least rigid would be to say, don’t bother at all unless you want to, but that is obviously a bad plan. If the person is well formed, and has some personal insight and gumption, it would probably be fine either way, because he’ll go when it is appropriate. The problem if a person is left to himself is that he may either become too lax, or to legalistic, and no one will realize it and be able to offer guidance. And how many can say they always have enough self-insight to know what they need?
I’ve spoken to several Latin Catholic priests who have told me this is the norm in the Latin CC.
This doesn’t seem to be the message people are getting. Just start a thread on hear asking if it is ok to do this and I suspect you will get a lot of the opposite answer. Of course they may be wrong, I’m not sure, but it speaks to what people understand is correct.
I’m not positive what you say cannot
happen, though I’m pretty sure the Latin Catholic position is that one should not be deprived of the Eucharist if one has the opportunity to partake of the food of immortality, as it will be your best aid in avoiding future sin.

I don’t know either. It seems rare in any case.
You have a good understanding of the Latin CC teaching on this. I’m impressed
🙂 Unfortunately I have been told of by Catholics for suggesting this several times.
About what, that he was in danger of hell if he died and hadn’t gone to confession because his priest told him to only go once a month? That’s impossible to believe. Ask any priest in the Latin Church (or ask an apologist here in CAF), and they will tell you that if a person is sincerely repentant and does not have the opportunity to go to confession before he dies, then his sins are indeed forgiven and he’s not going to Hell.
Or is it the idea that if he died in a state of mortal sin he was in danger of Hell? If so, why would you think that was an individual issue since this is what the Latin CC teaches?
I was simply saying that he had a very strict, black and while view of what was a mortal sin, and what wasn’t, and so the priest had to be wrong. And the majority agreed with him.

cont.
 
cont.
Scrupulosity? I’ve met a lot of Copts like that. I’ve met non-Copts like that. I’ve met non-Catholics like that. I’ve even met non-Christians like that. What makes you think it is the Catholic system that inspires scrupulosity, especially since scrupulosity is a recognized symptom of psychological neurosis?
I have met a variety too, but more Catholics. (I don’t know any Copts, I’m not sure there are any here.) I’ve also met more Catholics who find themselves really burdened by a kind of sin counting approach - that is, they aren’t scrupulous, but they start to see their spiritual life in terms of a kind of list. (And that was, I’d say, even part of Martin Luther’s problem, just as an example.) I just think this type of personality issue is really exaggerated by this way of teaching about mortal and venial sin.
Why would someone feel the weight of their sins any differently, any more or any less, with or without classification? Please explain.
Weight might not have been the best word. I’m not sure how to explain - you and I both know that any particular sin can have a very different connotation depending on the circumstances. There are probably circumstances when even a bad sin like murder is not that spiritually significant to an individual, whereas another person, through daily minor sins like crabbiness or possessiveness could steadily make his way to Hell.

Ideally, we have some idea of the weight of our sins in our own life, or our spiritual director can help us.

But when people have this list they think is authoritative, it seems to me they stop looking at their whole spiritual state, and sometime begin focusing in on just the list - “so many times missing Sunday obligation which is a mortal sin.” It is almost like they have abstracted the sins from the person and circumstance. And the way Latin Catholics are taught is to say the sin and how many times they did it, but not the circumstances. Given that, and that confession is often anonymous, how can the priest give good counsel?
That doesn’t make sense. What does the presence of a screen have to do with the ability to hear confession or give counsel? I’ve spoken to Latins who feel more comfortable being more open to the priest in an anonymous setting. Can you please explain your position more?
Sure, that may be true. But I do not see how you can get really excellent advice if someone does not know who you are. If you are always having this problem, or if you are a grumpy person, or if you lack insight, or if you are living in a trying situation, or if this was a very out of character thing. It would be like a psychiatrist trying to give counsel to someone he has only spoken to once for a short time, which most won’t do as it would be fruitless or possibly dangerous.
To be honest, I’ve only been to confession to a Latin Catholic priest 6 times in my life, but each time, the priest was willing to listen very attentively to me. During those times, I distinctly recall individuals other than myself taking a VERY long time in confession. From my experience, what that well-educated priest stated is not true. In fact, AFAIK, most parish priests in the LCC are required to have a psychology degree (can any knowledgeable Latin support or correct that statement)? And I don’t think its for the purpose of discovering their personal Freudian fiobles.😃
I am sure they are not required to have a psychology degree, though I expect they receive some training in it. But I realize many priests do this, however I was told that this is not really a necessary part, and that it was frowned upon by some, and this was even the more “traditional” view. I wish I could remember more details, but I may be able to find something on it if I can remember what the reference was about.
So to adhere to the Lord’s exhortation to have a clean conscience before going to the altar, and St. Paul’s exhortation to approach the Body and Blood worthily is too Protestant?
No, I meant the idea that one is either in a state of Grace, or out of it. Saved, or not, as some Protestants might say - that is the way in which it seems similar. As someone who was raised in the Lutheran tradition, that seems very much in that way of thinking. And rather different from the Eastern perspective which seems to see people on a kind of continuum, or as being all “saved” but with a different personal orientation to that fact. Not that one doesn’t find that idea within Catholicism, but it seems rarer that the other view, and more recent.
 
Gosh, Blue…some of your insights are so close to my experience as a Latin Catholic, I had to double check to make sure I hadn’t written them. 😛

Anyway, just to add a little bit about the screen versus face-to-face confession: I learned very, very early on in my time in Catholicism that the screen was very detrimental to my own ability to confess freely and openly. As with so many of these things, what is conductive is something of a different reality from what is normative. As an illustration, in the same conversation on confession with my Coptic friend (see: the giant argument I accidentally started :o), I explained to her how many Latin Catholics confess from behind a screen for the sake of anonymity, the thinking being that this lessens any inhibition they might feel about confessing their sins. She said “I wish WE did that! My priest has known me since I was a little girl…I often feel embarrassed or nervous confessing to him. This would really help!” (Copts confess face-to-face)

Meanwhile, for myself I tried confessing once or twice behind the screen but found it too impersonal and almost impossible to actually open up about anything when I felt like I was trying to confess through an intercom or something. Certainly there could be a conceivable circumstance in which confession through an intercom would be allowed, but if we’re going the “economia” route, I would just as rather the priest establish face-to-face as the rule for me. But to do that effectively (to provide effective counsel in any way, really), the priest would have to know me and know that this is what I need and would respond to. And that would never happen if I were stuck behind a screen, confessing to a disembodied voice… (yes, yes, I know there’s a priest in there, but so much of communication is visual/non-verbal)
 
No doubt! The Mass and Divine Liturgy are outside time and are the exact same Sacrifice. But regardless of time, and I happen to concur with your view of the DL being outside of time, the sacrifice has to be aimed and directed and dedicated to someone…and if the idea of Christ offering Himself to God the Father repels some Orthodox, then to whom is the sacrifice offered???
I thought that the idea was that at DL we were participating in the one, heavenly sacrifice, like all the saints and angels around the throne in Revelation? That is, we are in a sense taken out of time and are present with that one eternal sacrifice? So I am not sure what that would mean about any individual DL being directed at something different?

In fact, I rather thought the CC taught that too. I am embarrassed to find that isn’t so.😊 That is what I get for assuming I guess.
 
I understand the viewpoint that face to face is a more meaningful, powerful experience, but I think it depends on the person. One thing I’ve always been complimented on is my COMPLETE and total honesty and details at confession. My confessions are cautious, thorough, and done in earnest. I have done several face to face confessions throughout the year but I don’t think they’re really any better or deeper or significant than my ones behind the screen, which I tend to do far more of. 7 out of 10 times I’ll go anonymous. It does set me at ease a “touch” but I do have to say confession is nerve-wracking IN ANY FORM! I’ve probably confessed 400-500 times. I go frequently. I need it. I’m a sinner for sure who needs the Lord.

But I don’t like the idea, honestly, that if I do go to Orthodoxy that face to face is my ONLY option. I like the flexibility that Catholicism has in this idea and their desire to forgive sins in ways that suit the person. I have tried both and will continue to.
Gosh, Blue…some of your insights are so close to my experience as a Latin Catholic, I had to double check to make sure I hadn’t written them. 😛

Anyway, just to add a little bit about the screen versus face-to-face confession: I learned very, very early on in my time in Catholicism that the screen was very detrimental to my own ability to confess freely and openly. As with so many of these things, what is conductive is something of a different reality from what is normative. As an illustration, in the same conversation on confession with my Coptic friend (see: the giant argument I accidentally started :o), I explained to her how many Latin Catholics confess from behind a screen for the sake of anonymity, the thinking being that this lessens any inhibition they might feel about confessing their sins. She said “I wish WE did that! My priest has known me since I was a little girl…I often feel embarrassed or nervous confessing to him. This would really help!” (Copts confess face-to-face)

Meanwhile, for myself I tried confessing once or twice behind the screen but found it too impersonal and almost impossible to actually open up about anything when I felt like I was trying to confess through an intercom or something. Certainly there could be a conceivable circumstance in which confession through an intercom would be allowed, but if we’re going the “economia” route, I would just as rather the priest establish face-to-face as the rule for me. But to do that effectively (to provide effective counsel in any way, really), the priest would have to know me and know that this is what I need and would respond to. And that would never happen if I were stuck behind a screen, confessing to a disembodied voice… (yes, yes, I know there’s a priest in there, but so much of communication is visual/non-verbal)
 
I understand the viewpoint that face to face is a more meaningful, powerful experience, but I think it depends on the person. One thing I’ve always been complimented on is my COMPLETE and total honesty and details at confession. My confessions are cautious, thorough, and done in earnest. I have done several face to face confessions throughout the year but I don’t think they’re really any better or deeper or significant than my ones behind the screen, which I tend to do far more of. 7 out of 10 times I’ll go anonymous. It does set me at ease a “touch” but I do have to say confession is nerve-wracking IN ANY FORM! I’ve probably confessed 400-500 times. I go frequently. I need it. I’m a sinner for sure who needs the Lord.

But I don’t like the idea, honestly, that if I do go to Orthodoxy that face to face is my ONLY option. I like the flexibility that Catholicism has in this idea and their desire to forgive sins in ways that suit the person. I have tried both and will continue to.
I don’t think it is actually face to face though in the sense you are looking into the priest’s face. Just in the sense that it is not anonymous - I’m not sure if one or both of these things are unappealing to you.
 
I understand the viewpoint that face to face is a more meaningful, powerful experience, but I think it depends on the person.
Oh, definitely. This is what I meant when I wrote that what is conducive (not “conductive”…oops) is not necessarily what is normative. If other RCs confess with the screen and are able to do so and go in peace, then that’s great. I couldn’t.
But I don’t like the idea, honestly, that if I do go to Orthodoxy that face to face is my ONLY option. I like the flexibility that Catholicism has in this idea and their desire to forgive sins in ways that suit the person. I have tried both and will continue to.
I couldn’t tell you about confession in the EO church, but I did confess in the Byzantine Catholic church I attended, and if the EO confession is like that, you are in for quite an experience! It was while kneeling before an icon of Christ (some stand, but Father told me that they kneel at his particular church), and as such did not involve confession to the priest in the RC fashion, but to Christ Himself. The priest was present to provide the absolution (crossing me over my bowed head), but it didn’t really count as face to face in the way you’re probably thinking of. If I were you, I would ask the priest at the EO church you are attending. I’m sure that if you explain to him your concerns or reservations he will be understanding and helpful. Myself, I was a bit too awed by the whole experience to really worry about much of anything. It was a very powerful experience. I actually saw my regular Dominican FOC a week later and told him about it and he seemed like he’d like to experience it, too! 🙂
 
I’m a little confused by your wording here, Meghan. Are you saying that the face to face in Catholicism still amounts to a type of anonymity anyway?
I don’t think it is actually face to face though in the sense you are looking into the priest’s face. Just in the sense that it is not anonymous - I’m not sure if one or both of these things are unappealing to you.
 
I’m a little confused by your wording here, Meghan. Are you saying that the face to face in Catholicism still amounts to a type of anonymity anyway?
No, I was just being unclear I guess.

Any description of photos I’ve seen of Eastern Confession the head is bowed, and under the priest’s stole (I don’t know if they call it that.) So while it is not anonymous, you are not really looking into his face like a conversation.

I think sometimes in Catholicism the priest looks in a different direction? That would be similar I guess - not anonymous but not face to face.
 
I couldn’t tell you about confession in the EO church, but I did confess in the Byzantine Catholic church I attended, and if the EO confession is like that, you are in for quite an experience!
Indeed! I have experienced the screen confession in the Latin Church and it always felt cold to me. In the EOC, (and many Eastern Catholic Churches), it is a true relationship between spiritual father and spiritual child. You not only confess your sins—you also discuss spiritual issues which may be affecting your life. A true relationship is established, and your spiritual father comes to know areas where you struggle, (such as habitual sins), so that he can help administer the spiritual medicine needed to further your journey toward Christ. Oftentimes, husband and wife have the same spiritual father/confessor so that marital issues (if they should arise) can be addressed. It is truly a blessed experiece. Each confession is like another baptism! 🙂
 
Any description of photos I’ve seen of Eastern Confession the head is bowed, and under the priest’s stole (I don’t know if they call it that.) So while it is not anonymous, you are not really looking into his face like a conversation.
Sometimes you will kneel. Sometimes you will stand (usually during the 40 days after Pascha). Sometimes you will sit as if having a casual conversation. Sometimes the priest’s stole (epitrachil) will be over your head the entire time as you gaze at the Icon of Christ. It depends on the priest. Always at the end of your confession, the priest will put the epitrachil over your head and say the prayers of absolution. I love this part–I can always powerfully sense the presence of the Holy Spirit during this time. 🙂
 
Dear brother Don,

This is a wonderful essay. It is exactly what the Magisterial documents of the Catholic Church teach about the matter.

Thank you, once again. You are a prime example of what it means to be an Eastern Orthodox who has a true heart for the unity of the Church.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk
You may find this essay helpful. I’ll quote the part that pertains specifically to sacrifice, but I’d urge you to read the entire thing when you have the time:

"Together with the juridical model of explaining how we are redeemed by Christ’s death, the Holy Scriptures and Holy Fathers use the model of sacrifice. As mentioned earlier, the Old Testament sacrifices were a prefiguration, a “type” of the one true Sacrifice that would be offered for the whole world: Christ, Who was sacrificed on the Cross. In the first Epistle of St. Peter we hear Christ described as a spotless sacrificial lamb: Ye were redeemed with the precious Blood of Christ, as a lamb without blemish and without spot, Who was foreordained before the foundation of the world (I Peter 1:19-20). And in the Epistle to the Hebrews we read: Now once at the end of the world Christ hath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (Heb. 9:26).

Many of the Holy Fathers wrote on this theme of Christ as sacrifice. Origen (who is not a Holy Father) and, following him, St. Gregory of Nyssa, posited that the sacrifice was offered to the devil. But St. Gregory the Theologian and all the Fathers after him rejected this idea. They often spoke of the sacrifice as being offered to God the Father, and sometimes they spoke of it as being offered to the Holy Trinity, since the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are One God. St. Symeon the New Theologian writes: “God, Who is incomparably higher than the visible and invisible creation, accepted human nature, which is higher than the whole visible creation, and offered it as a sacrifice to His God and Father… Honoring the sacrifice, the Father could not leave it in the hands of death. Therefore, He annihilated His sentence. [18]

Why did the Son have to offer Himself in sacrifice to the Father? Why did God sacrifice Himself to God? Here we get at the crux of the mystery of Redemption. St. Gregory the Theologian urges us not to try to conform this mystery to human logic, not apply to it human conceptions that are unworthy of God. He says: “The Father accepts the sacrifice not because He demanded it or felt any need of it, but on account of economy,” [19] that is, to fulfill the Divine plan of our salvation in accordance with the Divine ordering of creation.

St. Gregory Palamas sheds more light on this question. He says that God could have found other ways of saving man from sin, mortality and servitude to the devil. But He saved man in the way He did—by coming to earth, dying and resurrecting—because this was according to justice and righteousness. [20] As the Psalmist says: God is righteous and loveth righteousness … and there is no unrighteousness in Him (Ps. 11:7, 92:15). Death was the just penalty for sin, and Christ paid that penalty. But because He was sinless, His death was unjust. Therefore, He justly destroyed death. This was God’s economy, completely in accordance with His righteousness.

The devil thought He could destroy Christ by inciting people to put Him to death. But Christ’s death proved to be the devil’s undoing because, unlike every other person who had ever lived, Christ did not deserve death. St. John Chrysostom offers us a vivid image to highlight this teaching: “It is as if, at a session of a court of justice, the devil should be addressed as follows: ‘Granted that you destroyed all men because you found them guilty of sin; but why did you destroy Christ? Is it not very evident that you did so unjustly? Well then, through Him the whole world will be vindicated.” [21]

Christ saved us in the way He did not only to manifest His justice and righteousness, but also to manifest His love. St. Isaac the Syrian writes: “God the Lord surrendered His own Son to death on the Cross for the fervent love of creation. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son to death for our sake (cf. John 3:16). This was not, however, because He could not have redeemed us in another way, but so that His surpassing love, manifested hereby, might be a teacher unto us. And by the death of His only begotten Son He made us near to Himself. Yea, if He had had anything more precious, He would have given it to us, so that by it our race might be His own.” [22]

orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/christcross.aspx
 
Dear brother Gary,
Now this I agree with whole hearted Michael 👍 😃

Still doesn’t resolve the question of Communion without Confession which at the moment is on the table, though.
AFAIK, the public confession at a Latin Mass before the Liturgy of the Word covers all venial sins not confessed privately before a priest. So I doubt your conception that “communion without confession” goes on in any way in the Latin CC is true.

I’ve been to enough Latin Masses to know that the public confession starts off something like this:

I confess to Almighty God and to you my brothers and sisters, for all my sins and faults, those in my thoughts and words, in what I have done and what I have failed to do. And I ask the Blessed Mary ever-Virgin, and all the angels and saints to pray for me, etc.

I haven’t been to enough Latin Masses to actually have memorized the whole thing, but are you familiar with that prayer?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top