Eastern View of Sin for a Roman Catholic

[TimothyH]

Am I correct in understanding that the Eastern Catholic Churchs do not view sin as mortal vs. venial?

Can someone explain to this Roman Catholic when someone would feel the need to go to confession? Right before communion? All the time? When is sin serious enough to that one would desire confession?

Is there a difference between sins of omission or mistakes, and those of deliberate disobedience?

I am interested in the theology and spirituality of the subject and ask in all seriousness. Thanks!

-Tim-

 

[CDB1718]

These links answer those questions.
About Confessing
Frequency of Confession
Examination of Conscience
A Proper Confession
How to Confess in the East

 

[capablanca911]

Does anyone know of any quotes from any Eastern Fathers on this subject, or Eastern works? I remember in Metropolitan Kallisto’s commentary on Vol 1 of the Philokalia that he mentions in a footnote that the East views any sin not repented as a ‘mortal sin.’ But doesn’t really elaborate.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Am I correct in understanding that the Eastern Catholic Churchs do not view sin as mortal vs. venial?

In general, the Eastern tradition has it so that some sins are unto death, and others are not unto death, so no, the Eastern tradition also has this distinction. The trick in the Eastern tradition is in discerning when a sin is mortal. There are guidelines as to what sins are more serious (in general sins which have a component of sexuality or violence), but these guidelines are just that, guidelines. The confessor needs to take into account the life and condition of the sinner, as well as the conditions under which the sin was committed in order to discern whether such a sin was a sin unto death, and what the appropriate remedy for such a sin should be.

Can someone explain to this Roman Catholic when someone would feel the need to go to confession? Right before communion? All the time? When is sin serious enough to that one would desire confession?

It differs from person to person, but in general, one should confess regularly, perhaps once a month, or eight times a year (or more perhaps; monks for example, confess more frequently). There is a tradition among some that one ought to confess each time he communes, the evening before communion, but this is not genuine to the tradition, being a later accretion.

Is there a difference between sins of omission or mistakes, and those of deliberate disobedience?

Yes, because the circumstances of a sin show to the confessor how ill the soul is, and how the sickness of the soul should thereby be remedied through the giving of an epitimia (called in the West a penance or satisfaction).

 

[Aramis]

Byzantine theology does distinguish the gravity of sins… but not as cleanly as Roman theology does. A spectrum of culpability and inherent sinfulness that isn’t cleanly delineated, but whose extremes are the same as the Roman…

Fewer listings and more “analyze the sin in the context of the life of the penitent.”

 

[ealfred]

I know that what I’m writting is not exactly an answer to your question, but I think it is important to know. EC are not identical to each other. Antiochian tradition is different from Byzantine tradition as these 2 a different from the rest. So I would say the categorization of sins will be different as well.

 

[Miserissima]

more "analyze the sin in the context of the life of the penitent."

(Emphasis mine.)

I read this somewhere else…I think it was Light of the East, and what made me finally fall completely and totally in love with the Byzantine Church. This notion is what gives me confidence that as long as I’m doing the best I can to cooperate with God’s grace, I can have a true and peaceful hope for Salvation.

 

[Zekariya]

Here is a link to Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky’s section on the Sacrament of Repentance from his book Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (he also contrasts the Orthodox view with the Roman Catholic view):

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/__P23.HTM

You can read other chapters and sections here: intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_INDEX.HTM

This is a wonderful book. Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky graduated from a Russion seminary before Russia became the USSR of the Soviet Union.

 

[babochka]

. The trick in the Eastern tradition is in discerning when a sin is mortal. There are guidelines as to what sins are more serious (in general sins which have a component of sexuality or violence), but these guidelines are just that, guidelines. The confessor needs to take into account the life and condition of the sinner, as well as the conditions under which the sin was committed in order to discern whether such a sin was a sin unto death.

Really, this does not differ significantly from the Latin understanding. For a sin to be mortal (“unto death”), it must meet three conditions: be objectively grave matter, it must be committed with full knowledge, and deliberate consent must be given. If any of these conditions are not met, it is not considered to be a sin unto death. The confessor takes into account the life and condition of the sinner, as well as the conditions under which the sin was committed in order to determine whether a sin is mortal. How well formed is the person’s conscience? Was there extreme outside pressure? For example, a 15 year old girl has an abortion because the doctor assures her that it is not really a baby, and her boyfriend, boyfriend’s parents, and her own parents told her that it is her only chance for a decent future. While her sin was grave, the circumstances of her life (immaturity, outside pressure from authority figures,etc.) generally indicate that for her, the sin would be less grave. The approach to determine this can be different, but the principle is the same.