EASTERN ORTHODOX: Is imperfect contrition sufficient for absolution?

[BenSinner]

I asked this about a month ago but didn’t get any replies. I figured I would try it again.

Is imperfect contrition sufficient for absolution during confession according to Eastern Orthodox.

I have heard from a poster or two from other online forums that only perfect contrition would be acceptable and sufficient for absolution.

 

[Genesis315]

It seems to me it does suffice. The Catechism prescribed by the Council of Jassy provides the following fruit of the mystery of penance:

“Lastly, As Fear and Dread entered into our Con-
sciences through Sin, so now, by Repentance, we are
restored to Peace and Confidence, such as Children are
wont to have towards their Parents.”

There are also various discussions as to how meditating on the four last things helps one have a “dread of Hell torments,” which it considers a good thing.

Of course, there is also the exaltation of that love that casts out fear and dread.

 

[dochawk]

Is imperfect contrition sufficient for absolution during confession according to Eastern Orthodox.

You are not likely to get an authoritative answer, as this is a very Western question about Eastern praxis.

However, note that the venial/mortal distinction of sin does not exist in Eastern theology, and sins are remitted in the reception of the Eucharist (but there are a couple of grave sins: adultery, striking a priest, blasphemy, murder).

Also, universal reception of the Sacrament of Anointing after the Presanctified Liturgy on Wednesday during Holy Week is the norm in the East (EC and EO), and also remits sins. (and before some of you leap in again and explain to us that we’re wrong about this, or that we shouldn’t be doing it: take this up with our bishops, not me. We’ve been doing this since before we reentered Communion with Rome. If you actually convince the hierarchs of this, you will thereby institute a new schism !)

hawk

 

[Genesis315]

When did this change? From the same catechism I cited above:

What is voluntary mortal Sin ?

Answer.

Voluntary mortal Sin is that which, after having received
Baptism, and being arrived in Years of Discretion, laying
aside the Love of God and of our Neighbour, and of our
own free Will we commit against the manifest Command of
God. By which Sin we are deprived of the divine Grace
that we received in holy Baptism, and of the Kingdom of
Heaven, and become Captives to eternal Death : As saith
the Apostle {Bom. vi. 16), Know ye not, that to whom ye yield
yourselves Servants to obey., his Servants ye are to whom ye obey ;
whether of Sin unto Death, or of Obedience unto Righteousness ?
This Sin is taken away by Repentance and the Mercy of
God, through Jesus Christ our Lord, when his Priest absolveth
the Penitent at Confession from his Sins.

And then

What is venial Sin or Sin not mortal ?

Answer.

Sin not mortal, or, as it is called by some, venial Sin, is
that which no Man that is born, except Christ and the Virgin
Mary, can be without. However, this Degree of Sin doth
not deprive us of the Grace of God, nor devote us unto
eternal Death. Of this Kind of Sin the Scripture thus
teacheth us (John i. 8), If we say that we have no Sin we
deceive ourselves, and the Truth is not in us. Not any particular
Sin, indeed, can be described by this Name, but, in general,
whatever are not reckoned in the Number of mortal Sins
may be referred to this Class of venial Sins. Nevertheless
these Sins are not to be disregarded and suffered to pass
unamended ; but we ought daily, in our Beds, and in the
Night Season, to call them to Mind, and bewail and lament
before God for them, as well as for our other Offences :
According to the holy Psalmist (Psal. iv. 5), Stanid in
Awe, and sin not ; commune with your own Heart in your
Chamber, and be still. And again (Psal. vi. 6), / am weary
of my groaning ; every Night wash my Bed and water my
Couch with my Tears. For these, therefore, is Pardon also
to be sought, through the Intercession of the holy God-
bearing Virgin and the Choir of the Saints ; for how hateful
even these smaller Offences are in the Sight of God is
manifest from Scripture (Prov. xv. 26), Wicked Thoughts are
an Abomination to the Lord. And without they be cleansed
away by sincere Repentance, they open the Way to mortal
Sins, chill and weaken the Piety of Man, and render him
slothful and negligent of the Commands of God.

There’s also a whole section on sins being forgiven in the Mystery of Penance, including the need to confess them all.

(The approval of this Catechism by the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, states: "this book is in perfect accordance with the dogmas of the Church of Christ and with the sacred Canons; that it contains nothing contrary to the Church: and we declare, assembled in Synod, that every pious and orthodox Christian, who is a member of the Apostolic Church of the East, ought to read this book, and not to reject it.).

 

[dochawk]

When did this change? From the same catechism I cited above:

1. Jassay was a synod, not a council
2. This has been translated into english, and i don’t read greek.
3. The orthodox do not accept anything in the last millennia as an ecumenical council
4. You’re just plain reading too much into this one quote that uses, in translation, similar words to the theology to which you’re accustomed.

hawk

 

[Genesis315]

Those are two separate questions about two different kinds of sins–I’m not seeing how it could be misread as talking about something different. It was translated by a Russian Orthodox Christian in the 18th century. It was also received as authoritative by all the patriarchates at the time as an accurate summation of EO doctrine.

While I understand they have no ecumenical Councils since the schism (well, the EOs do differ among themselves a bit on this point), that doesn’t mean they didn’t have any authoritative synods at the time or that there doesn’t exist evidence of what they believed at various points in history after the schism.

 

[Mary888]

No as far as I’ve been told. These are the steps that must be respected in order for a sin to be forgiven:

• regret for the sin committed and a desire to receive forgiveness from God
• confession to a priest
• completing the canon received from the priest
• receiving communion
• not repeating the sin until we die

 

[Spyridon]

The Orthodox do not generally make a distinction between so called perfect and imperfect contrition like Western Christians do…

They simply view any true contrition as sufficient and effective.

 

[Mary888]

What is the difference between perfect and imperfect contrition? And how are they defined in the Catholic Church?

 

[Spyridon]

Perfect contrition means contrition done out of love of God.

Imperfect means contrition out of fear of God or punishment, and isn’t as effective as perfect contrition in its effect on the soul.

 

[Mary888]

This resonates as true to me. Why don’t we have this?
Anyway to answer the OP: imperfect contrition is sufficient in orthodoxy (out of fear of God). Fear of God is considered a good fear, like also fear of death. Lack of these good fears is considered bad. So contrition out of fear of God is good enough in EO.

 

[Spyridon]

This resonates as true to me. Why don’t we have this?

It’s a legitimate theological opinion to hold within Orthodoxy.

It’s just not a traditional Eastern or doctrinal level teaching like it is in the Roman Church.

You can believe it personally as an Orthodox as a theological opinion.

 

[Genesis315]

I don’t see how “imperfect contrition” could be completely excluded as a valid motivation for seeking forgiveness, given how much the Fathers and even Our Lord spoke about fear of Hell being a good motivator to avoid sin. Of course, the same Fathers (and, as far as I can tell, the Churches of East and West, separated or not) all see it as a first step or a beginning, not what we should strive for.

It is technically an open question in the Catholic Church whether imperfect contrition with absolute no motivation from the love of God can suffice. Personally, I don’t see how it could, since not loving God is itself a sin against the first commandment.

 

[dochawk]

It was also received as authoritative by all the patriarchates at the time as an accurate summation of EO doctrine.

Uh,no.
Aside from the fact that it wasn’t all the patriarchs, that still doesn’t make it authoritative in orthodoxy. Ad they didn’t say it was authoritative, cut consistent.

This was at a time when the Orthodox were heavily influenced by Catholic form, and trying to do trent-like things in Orthodoxy.

You can find things in Catholic books with an imprimatur that on further review . . .

You are looking at orthodoxy with a western mindset, with western temsand standards. That’s just not going to lead to any understanding.

hawk

 

[Vonsalza]

“How many apples do I need to make an orange?” would be a similar type of question.

@Spyridon and @dochawk handled the issue pretty well.

 

[Genesis315]

This doesn’t seem to be an isolated thing, however. For example. in St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite’s Exomologetarion (which from what I can tell is one of the most important Orthodox books on confession), he makes the distinction between 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.

and pardonable sins:

Pardonable sins are those voluntary sins which do not corrupt the love for God or the love for neighbor, nor do they render the person an enemy of God and liable to eternal death, to which transgressions even the Saints are susceptible, according to the words of the Brother of God: “For in many things we all sin” (Jas. 3:2), and of John: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves” (l Jn. 1:8), and according to Canons 125, 126, and 127 of Carthage.

Elsewhere in the book he cites St. Anastasios of Antioch who is about 1000 years before Trent:

St. Anastasios of Antioch confirms this:

“If we fall into some small, pardonable sins on account of our being human, either with our tongue, our ears, our eyes, and we fall as victims of deceit into vainglory, or sorrow, or anger, or some other like sin, let us condemn ourselves and confess to God. Thus let us partake of the Holy Mysteries, believing that the reception of the divine Mysteries is unto the purification of these small sins (though not the grave and evil and impure sins which we may have committed, regarding which we should seek the Mystery of Confession).”

 

[Genesis315]

Back on topic of this thread, the same book from St. Nikodemos distinguishes between perfect and imperfect contrition (or “contrition” and “affliction” as he calls them). Contrition, he says comes only to the perfect and “only proceeds from the love for God, just as a son repents simply because he disappointed his father, and not because he was deprived of his inheritance or because he will be ousted from his father’s house.”

He defines affliction as belonging to the imperfect and is “a sorrow and imperfect grief of the heart, which comes about, not because a person disappointed God by his sins, but because that person was deprived of divine grace, lost Paradise, and gained hell.”

He directs the sinner with both or either to go to confession to have his sins forgiven (or, if he doesn’t have either contrition or affliction, to try and acquire them).