In the Eastern Catholic Church, Can One Receive Communion with a Serious Sin on One's Soul?

[dzheremi]

If anyone else (especially Dzheremi) is reading this, here is what I mean when I say I cannot understand where ConstantineTG is coming from, and that he is presenting the exception as the rule.

Is that what he is doing, though? I don’t think that’s a fair reading of the portion you’ve quoted. But I am not Constantine and I could be the one who is wrong here.

A serious sin, performed even once, does disqualify you from Communion. St. Paul’s exhortation is clear on that. Brother ConstantineTG is saying it does not (that is not the Oriental Orthodox way, btw).

Is it that we’re supposed to discuss now what makes a “serious” sin? Because otherwise, I don’t even see room for disagreement with this. I doubt very much, for instance, that Constantine (who I hope comes back to this thread, so that I can stop putting words in his mouth ) would say “You can commit murder and still commune” (to borrow Marybeloved’s example). I don’t believe that’s what anyone in this thread, Catholic or Orthodox, has written or even implied.

Rather, I think the reaction that some have is against the division of sins into mortal and venial so that we judge according to categories and not according to the whole life. “Oh, you did X…then don’t approach” or something like that (as that is the understanding of the prohibition involved when an individual has committed a “mortal” sin). Obviously, it is necessary that you confess your sins before God and your priest and be absolved so that you may receive communion. I don’t think anyone who is pointing out the use of economia in the Church is advocating that you be a psychopath and assume that you can take communion just because you want to. As Marybeloved pointed out, it is the in Latin rite that one is assumed to be in grace if communing, while in the East that cannot be the case precisely because your father knows where you are. That he may allow you to commune for the good of your own soul even though you are in sin that is as yet unconfessed for whatever reason (recognizing that this is not the normative state of affairs, but a mercy extended to you so that you may receive the healing body and blood of Christ) is all that we are talking about here. That we cannot make a rule that says “You MUST first confess before you can receive communion”. In my own experience (which I suppose I will now be told isn’t “authentic” in the Coptic Church either, right? ), what I have been told is “You will commune and then confess afterward”. That’s it. Khalas. No bigger point to make. For the millionth time, we are arguing over the ordering of the sacraments and I have observed that the Latin Church is less flexible in this regard than the OO. That’s kind of all that’s happened so far.

You are only permitted to approach the Holy Body and Blood if your spiritual confessor has determined, by oikonomia, that the spiritual benefit of receiving communion outweighs your deprivation of it.

Absolutely! Yes! Bingo! x10000

And even then, you must be in a genuine spirit of repentance, and you really had no opportunity to confess beforehand (interestingly, the Armenians have basically overcome this whole debate since IIRC they practice general confession during the Liturgy rather regularly). I mean, ask yourself why oikonomia is even being applied - that’s because the norm is indeed that serious sin does disquality you from Communion.

Yes, again! You’re really batting a thousand here, my friend. I don’t know where I have said anything else. Obviously economia is being applied because the standard is too harsh for you, as I discussed with Marybeloved earlier. I think we all know what economia is. Again, all I’ve sought to talk about in this thread is that there appears to be a flexibility among the OO (or at least the Copts; haven’t communed in other OO churches yet) that isn’t there among the Latins, and that I think that this can tell us something about the different mindset that each communion approaches the matter with. That’s all.

 

[Bookcat]

Whatever may be the case in the various Eastern Orthodox Churches and among differing Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs etc etc (various practices may prevail including I have read a general "do not receive if one committed a serious sin until confession) (Eastern Orthodox approachs are not my forte) some are even more strict…)

Whatever it may be in the various Orthodox Churches –

The Eastern Catholic Churches follow what is set down in the Eastern Code of Law Canons… (they are Catholics…)

 

[Marybeloved]

So then the categorization of “mortal” v. “venial” doesn’t come into play, then?

Nope! Sorry you assumed this all these years because you were told to say prayers a certain number of times. I’ve been told that numerous times- Say ten Our Fathers, 3 Hail Mary’s etc Thankfully I never drew a conclusion that there is a set penance for a set type of sin. I wouldn’t, I know it’s not true. They never depend on that category, they depend on a person’s attitude towards that sin- If the priest sees that he’s not appreciating the seriousness of his sin or not, the penance may differ both in magnitude and in kind. (Once my penance was to look for a woman who had moved to apologize to her for harsh words spoken to her- That’s what I needed, humility to curb the pride that gave in to temper which i would have rather done anything else even though I was sorry I had spoken that way. But it was not because my sin fell in a certain category that required this type of penance. That category comes into play when choosing to go to confession, not penance. Because mortal sin is, well- mortal- the sin that leads to death! Venial sins we can confess, but we can also just pray the confiteor at mass and make an act of contrition and wait for Saturday to go to confession.

Show me where any Early Church Father divided sins into “mortal” and “venial”.

I didn’t say that- I said they had set categories of sin for which particular penances were set- severe ones. So why don’t you apply this legalism to them? Besides, the Bible says in St. James: For there is sin which leads to death and sin that does not lead to death. That if we see our brother commit the latter we pray for him, because that can save him, but not to pray for the one that leads to death. Clearly the earliest Christians had mortal (sins that lead to death) and venial (which means they don’t lead to death) sins too- And they could even tell if you had committed that sin or not. Is that Church legalistic, or wrongly using categories of sin as the Apostle himself (Or should I say God the Holy Ghost himself) shows?

 

[ConstantineTG]

If anyone else (especially Dzheremi) is reading this, here is what I mean when I say I cannot understand where ConstantineTG is coming from, and that he is presenting the exception as the rule.

Remove your Roman goggles. The problem here is you are seeing reception of Communion as a rule, not as a Sacrament. It is a Sacrament given to us people. You know, real people with real lives, not merely people who are like robots beholden to rules. There is no “exception to the rule” if we see people as people and not merely one act.

A serious sin, performed even once, does disqualify you from Communion. St. Paul’s exhortation is clear on that.

No, it is subject to your interpretation on what he means. St. Paul never said that one sin disqualifies you. He says that we should discern the Body and Blood of Christ lest we receive unworthily. What does that mean? Your interpretation, one sin. Eastern interpretation, entire life of one person. It is not as clear and drycut as you claim it to be, unless you are blinded with bias.

Brother ConstantineTG is saying it does not (that is not the Oriental Orthodox way, btw). You are only permitted to approach the Holy Body and Blood if your spiritual confessor has determined, by oikonomia, that the spiritual benefit of receiving communion outweighs your deprivation of it. And even then, you must be in a genuine spirit of repentance, and you really had no opportunity to confess beforehand (interestingly, the Armenians have basically overcome this whole debate since IIRC they practice general confession during the Liturgy rather regularly). I mean, ask yourself why oikonomia is even being applied - that’s because the norm is indeed that serious sin does disquality you from Communion.

Blessings,
Marduk

It is not oikonomia applied to one who is allowed to approach regardless of when the Confession took place. A priest will disbar one from Communion if one is not going to confession at all, it means one is not trying to enrich one’s spiritual life by frequent confession. But again that doesn’t mean that if one sins in the morning and didn’t go to confession before Liturgy, one cannot receive Communion. That is not an exception, that is not oikonomia. That is a “way of life”. You have to understand, Orthodoxy, and therefore Byzantine Rite Catholicism, is not a set of rules, it is a way of life. Becoming holy is not determined by strict canons that say do A then B then C. The Sacraments are not an an assembly line of Grace. The only Sacraments that have absolute order to them is Baptism, which must come before all the Sacraments. And Marriage, which cannot come after Holy Orders. You can also add Chrismation prior to Communion, at least in the East that is the case. My UGCC priest asked me if my son was confirmed in the RC Church before admiting him to Communion, he was 1 year old then. Because he was given emergency baptism, the priest also confirmed him as an infant, so he was admitted to Communion.

Anyway, the Eucharist is part of the life of a Christian. As well as Confession. Frequent reception of these Sacraments is a must, but there is no order. We sin, that is a given. So if we sin in the morning and didn’t confess, we still can receive. Why? If we are comitted to the life of repentance, why not? We are expected to falter because of our iniquities. But that doesn’t mean because we sinned it means we have become unworthy by St. Paul’s teaching. That is not what St. Paul taught at all. If your Latin spirituality interprets it in a way that it fits the spirituality, then good. But don’t force that interpretation on Byzantine spirituality that has been handed to us from the Fathers of our faith.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Whatever may be the case in the various Eastern Orthodox Churches and among differing Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs etc etc (various practices may prevail including I have read a general "do not receive if one committed a serious sin until confession) (Eastern Orthodox approachs are not my forte) some are even more strict…)

Whatever it may be in the various Orthodox Churches –

The Eastern Catholic Churches follow what is set down in the Eastern Code of Law Canons… (they are Catholics…)

Eastern Spirituality is not a set of canons.

 

[dzheremi]

Nope! Sorry you assumed this all these years because you were told to say prayers a certain number of times. I’ve been told that numerous times- Say ten Our Fathers, 3 Hail Mary’s etc Thankfully I never drew a conclusion that there is a set penance for a set type of sin. I wouldn’t, I know it’s not true.

Just so we’re clear, to say that the penance is set according to the type of sin (what I am saying) is not quite the same as saying that there is a set penance according to the type of sin (what you wrote just now). I know that the penances can vary, and have no problem with that. I have a problem with the whole typological category of “mortal” and “venial”.

That category comes into play when choosing to go to confession, not penance. Because mortal sin is, well- mortal- the sin that leads to death! Venial sins we can confess, but we can also just pray the confiteor at mass and make an act of contrition and wait for Saturday to go to confession.

Ah, now I think we’re getting somewhere. So, mortal v. venial sins make a difference as far as what you confess, but not your penance? Sorry if you’re tried of explaining this, but I’m just trying to understand.

I didn’t say that

So is that “they didn’t”, then? Because I find it funny that no Early Church Father would pick up on it, if it really was there from the beginning.

So why don’t you apply this legalism to them?

Because I don’t understand how what they did is the same as what the Roman Catholic Church does in dividing sins into two separate categories for the purposes of helping people decide what to confess, as you’ve explained above.

Besides, the Bible says in St. James: For there is sin which leads to death and sin that does not lead to death.

It also says in the Gospel according to Saint James that we are to confess our sins to one another. That’s it. “Sins”. Not “only your mortal sins”, or “your venial sins, too, if you can remember them after confessing the mortal ones.”

Clearly the earliest Christians had mortal (sins that lead to death) and venial sins too- And they could even tell if you had committed that sin or not.

I just don’t see the verse you’ve alluded to in the same light as you do. Clearly not all sins are the same (e.g., there is a difference between murder and reactively swearing because you stubbed your toe), though they do all have the same effect in terms of our struggle toward union with God (they separate us from God). Indeed, aren’t we told in Romans that the wages of sin is death? I don’t recall reading the words “mortal” or “venial” in there, either.

Is that Church legalistic, or wrongly using categories of sin as the Apostle himself (Or should I say the God the Holy Ghost) shows?

No. It is the interpretation that takes these verses and creates a complicated taxonomy of mortal and venial sins out of them that is legalistic.

 

[lssanjose]

Eastern Spirituality is not a set of canons.

Spirituality in general, brother Constantine. To narrow it down, like so, is a recipe for spiritual drought.

 

[lssanjose]

Just so we’re clear, to say that the penance is set according to the type of sin (what I am saying) is not quite the same as saying that there is a set penance according to the type of sin (what you wrote just now). I know that the penances can vary, and have no problem with that. I have a problem with the whole typological category of “mortal” and “venial”.

Ah, now I think we’re getting somewhere. So, mortal v. venial sins make a difference as far as what you confess, but not your penance? Sorry if you’re tried of explaining this, but I’m just trying to understand.

So is that “they didn’t”, then? Because I find it funny that no Early Church Father would pick up on it, if it really was there from the beginning.

Because I don’t understand how what they did is the same as what the Roman Catholic Church does in dividing sins into two separate categories for the purposes of helping people decide what to confess, as you’ve explained above.

It also says in the Gospel according to Saint James that we are to confess our sins to one another. That’s it. “Sins”. Not “only your mortal sins”, or “your venial sins, too, if you can remember them after confessing the mortal ones.”

I just don’t see the verse you’ve alluded to in the same light as you do. Clearly not all sins are the same (e.g., there is a difference between murder and reactively swearing because you stubbed your toe), though they do all have the same effect in terms of our struggle toward union with God (they separate us from God). Indeed, aren’t we told in Romans that the wages of sin is death? I don’t recall reading the words “mortal” or “venial” in there, either.

No. It is the interpretation that takes these verses and creates a complicated taxonomy of mortal and venial sins out of them that is legalistic.

well said, brother.

As far as canons go, does the OO have a set of canons, like EO? I listen to ancient faith radio regularly, and would stumble upon Father Hopko’s explaining of the canons within Orthodoxy. Thanks, in advance.

 

[dzheremi]

It is not oikonomia applied to one who is allowed to approach regardless of when the Confession took place. A priest will disbar one from Communion if one is not going to confession at all, it means one is not trying to enrich one’s spiritual life by frequent confession. But again that doesn’t mean that if one sins in the morning and didn’t go to confession before Liturgy, one cannot receive Communion. That is not an exception, that is not oikonomia. That is a “way of life”

I can see where you are coming from and definitely agree, but I would say that while there is no set rule in the ordering (it seems that the OO and EO are the same in this regard), it is certainly preferable to receive without unconfessed sin, is it not? Like I said to Mardukm, we can’t make a rule that says “You cannot receive unless X, Y, Z,” (because, you are right, the Eastern and for my part Oriental Christian life is not a set of rules), but we can still say that it is good to confess before as part of our repentance in preparation to receive the sacrament. (We also have various prayers that express repentance and a desire to be made worthy to receive as part of the liturgy, and I remember similar prayers among the Ruthenians when I communed with them for a bit while still Catholic.)

Hmmm…maybe I’m in the middle between you and Mardukm. Fancy that…Oriental Orthodoxy a middle way between the stuffy legalism of the Latins and the just plain stuffiness of the Byzantines! (more smilies means more joking.)

You have to understand, Orthodoxy, and therefore Byzantine Rite Catholicism, is not a set of rules, it is a way of life. Becoming holy is not determined by strict canons that say do A then B then C. The Sacraments are not an an assembly line of Grace.

Axios! Axios! Axios!

 

[mardukm]

Makes me want this referendum for Latins to recover their tradition even more… Because, as much as I back up the institution, there are some dangers tied to certain institutional constructs, leading to unintended consequences.

That’s a good way to put it. Just the fact that something is institutionalized indeed can - albeit unintentionally - give the appearance of an overly juridical atmosphere.

I mean, take the Mass/DL, for example. We all know it is out of our love for God that we participate in the Liturgy. But because the Catholic Church has put it in her canons, people automatically perceive it as a legalistic precept. I think some people just have problems with even the appearance of being told what to do. It’s really a problem with authority IMO.

I like Cavaradossi’s approach. Look at the meaning behind the Canon. Why was it written? What is it’s holy purpose? Some people just see a canon and the “legalistic” flag just automatically goes up, with no thought of anything else other than its in a rule book. I think this latter attitude is irrational, TBH.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[lssanjose]

Awaiting…the West’s version of Light of the East… I call referendum for the Latin Catholics, to bring their traditions back, en masse. I only know of one place where I think they do Liturgy of the Hours, in my town. However, it seems the traditions have been forsaken, within mainstream Latin Rite Catholicism…don’t get me started on bad drum usage… I still think about those horrors…

 

[dzheremi]

As far as canons go, does the OO have a set of canons, like EO? I listen to ancient faith radio regularly, and would stumble upon Father Hopko’s explaining of the canons within Orthodoxy. Thanks, in advance.

Yes, we do, though honestly I don’t know a lot about them, as I’m still taking baby steps in the faith. But I know that we have things like the Canons of St. Basil which govern our Coptic Church specifically (others may have other canons, which I don’t know about). I couldn’t find a full translation of them in English (I’ve only seen them referenced to in various texts which quote individual canons), but here is a short summary of what they are from the Coptic Encyclopedia.

 

[Marybeloved]

Just so we’re clear, to say that the penance is set according to the type of sin (what I am saying) is not quite the same as saying that there is a set penance according to the type of sin (what you wrote just now). I know that the penances can vary, and have no problem with that. I have a problem with the whole typological category of “mortal” and “venial”.

It’s what you said the first time you said it- which is why I told you the same Priest has given me a single Our Father for many mortal sins, and long prayers for venial sins more recently. I guess he thinks I should know better by now.

Ah, now I think we’re getting somewhere. So, mortal v. venial sins make a difference as far as what you confess, but not your penance? Sorry if you’re tried of explaining this, but I’m just trying to understand.

But what have we discussed here in this thread- Of course it makes a difference! And not ‘‘as far as WHAT you confess’’- When you go to confession you confess all sins that you can remember, venial or mortal. But a soul in mortal sin has only two ways of getting rid or that sin, confession and perfect contrition-which requires the intention to go to confession. A soul only in venial sin has more ways than confession to rid himself of sin. We still go to confession-regularly-even though we stopped committing mortal sin a long time ago because confession not only forgives sin but also imparts grace to resist sin and propel us further in holiness.

So is that “they didn’t”, then? Because I find it funny that no Early Church Father would pick up on it, if it really was there from the beginning.

Funny- You set up your own debate, claim that someone said something they didn’t and then offer an argument- I’m sure you know what a straw man is. Let’s move on to what we wee really discussing, no? There were set categories of sin with particular penance- Adultery? This is the penance. Contraception? This is the penance. (which involved no communion for years)- Yet you miss this entirely and come to the 21st century to say that Latins are legalistic because they say mortal sins must be confessed (which is available, by the way- not like we need to climb a mountain to find a confessor!) before communion?

Because I don’t understand how what they did is the same as what the Roman Catholic Church does in dividing sins into two separate categories for the purposes of helping people decide what to confess, as you’ve explained above.

That’s not what I said. did you miss the last part about waiting to go to confession on Saturday (I wouldn’t wait if I had mortal sin)? Again- Who said anything about WHAT? At confession we confess all our sins. But mortal sins are a matter of greater urgency than being a bit late for work because you chatted a bit too much with the girlfriend, for example.

It also says in the Gospel according to Saint James that we are to confess our sins to one another. That’s it. “Sins”. Not “only your mortal sins”, or “your venial sins, too, if you can remember them after confessing the mortal ones.”

Dhzeremi, do you have to make straw men this way, really? Who said confession is ONLY for mortal sin? Show me where really. Mortal sins cannot be got rid off except by penance and perfect contrition, venial sins can through prayer and the communion at mass. Where did I say we ONLY confess mortal sins? Besides you’ve said you have a problem with this division of sins into mortal vs venial- it’s there in the Bible, sins that lead to death and can’t be saved through intercession of others and those that don’t and intercession saves. A clear division of sins-categories that the first Christians recognized in action.

I just don’t see the verse you’ve alluded to in the same light as you do. Clearly not all sins are the same (e.g., there is a difference between murder and reactively swearing because you stubbed your toe), though they do all have the same effect in terms of our struggle toward union with God (they separate us from God). Indeed, aren’t we told in Romans that the wages of sin is death? I don’t recall reading the words “mortal” or “venial” in there, either.

I thought you were American- isn’t English your first language? Mortal refers to death. And how can you say the effect is the same if one kills you and one does not? The last time I checked, life and death were not the same effects- certainly not in the Bible.

 

[lssanjose]

That’s a good way to put it. Just the fact that something is institutionalized indeed can - albeit unintentionally - give the appearance of an overly juridical atmosphere.

I mean, take the Mass/DL, for example. We all know it is out of our love for God that we participate in the Liturgy. But because the Catholic Church has put it in her canons, people automatically perceive it as a legalistic precept. I think some people just have problems with even the appearance of being told what to do. It’s really a problem with authority IMO.

I like Cavaradossi’s approach. Look at the meaning behind the Canon. Why was it written? What is it’s holy purpose? Some people just see a canon and the “legalistic” flag just automatically goes up, with no thought of anything else other than its in a rule book. I think this latter attitude is irrational, TBH.

Blessings,
Marduk

Well said, brother. I do have the CCC, I suppose I can start reading it. My Orthodox friend has read it himself, saying BJPII quoted our Eastern fathers frequently. And, besides, I got it for only 75 cents, at a thrift shop

 

[lssanjose]

Yes, we do, though honestly I don’t know a lot about them, as I’m still taking baby steps in the faith. But I know that we have things like the Canons of St. Basil which govern our Coptic Church specifically (others may have other canons, which I don’t know about). I couldn’t find a full translation of them in English (I’ve only seen them referenced to in various texts which quote individual canons), but here is a short summary of what they are from the Coptic Encyclopedia.

Many years, brother, and thanks.

Lester.

 

[lssanjose]

It’s what you said the first time you said it- which is why I told you the same Priest has given me a single Our Father for many mortal sins, and long prayers for venial sins more recently. I guess he thinks I should know better by now.
But what have we discussed here in this thread- Of course it makes a difference! And not ‘‘as far as WHAT you confess’’- When you go to confession you confess all sins that you can remember, venial or mortal. But a soul in mortal sin has only two ways of getting rid or that sin, confession and perfect contrition-which requires the intention to go to confession. A soul only in venial sin has more ways than confession to rid himself of sin. We still go to confession-regularly-even though we stopped committing mortal sin a long time ago because confession not only forgives sin but also imparts grace to resist sin and propel us further in holiness.

Funny- You set up your own debate, claim that someone said something they didn’t and then offer an argument- I’m sure you know what a straw man is. Let’s move on to what we wee really discussing, no? There were set categories of sin with particular penance- Adultery? This is the penance. Contraception? This is the penance. (which involved no communion for years)- Yet you miss this entirely and come to the 21st century to say that Latins are legalistic because they say mortal sins must be confessed (which is available, by the way- not like we need to climb a mountain to find a confessor!) before communion?
That’s not what I said. did you miss the last part about waiting to go to confession on Saturday (I wouldn’t wait if I had mortal sin)? Again- Who said anything about WHAT? At confession we confess all our sins. But mortal sins are a matter of greater urgency than being a bit late for work because you chatted a bit too much with the girlfriend, for example.
Dhzeremi, do you have to make straw men this way, really? Who said confession is ONLY for mortal sin? Show me where really. Mortal sins cannot be got rid off except by penance and perfect contrition, venial sins can through prayer and the communion at mass. Where did I say we ONLY confess mortal sins? Besides you’ve said you have a problem with this division of sins into mortal vs venial- it’s there in the Bible, sins that lead to death and can’t be saved through intercession of others and those that don’t and intercession saves. A clear division of sins-categories that the first Christians recognized in action.
I thought you were American- isn’t English your first language? Mortal refers to death. And how can you say the effect is the same if one kills you and one does not? The last time I checked, life and death were not the same effects- certainly not in the Bible.

I’m reminded of a priest who visited St. Irene’s. It was the sermon covering the Gospel featuring the swine swimming (forgot the rest of the details). Sin is sin. The eventual wage of such, is death. His sermon warned us of letting certain sins slide because, we figure, hey they’re not doing much harm. But, next thing you know, it all snowballs. The only unforgivable sin, from what I’ve heard, and read is blaspheming of the Holy Spirit. Yes, there are more serious sins, than others. But, these need to be placed in certain contexts, properly explained to a spiritual father.

I just remembered your remark about how I mentioned informal confession. I mention informal because these are pieces of guilt eating at you, no matter how small they seem. A spiritual father, may be able to quell such degrees of scrupulosity. That’s why I maintain, it’s the Spiritual Father’s call to make whether or not, one really gravely sinned, as opposed to just simply transgressed (I’m borrowing a classification from the late reverend Kucharek, who still maintained the details aren’t something to be splitting hairs over).

 

[Marybeloved]

I’m reminded of a priest who visited St. Irene’s. It was the sermon covering the Gospel featuring the swine swimming (forgot the rest of the details). Sin is sin. The eventual wage of such, is death. His sermon warned us of letting certain sins slide because, we figure, hey they’re not doing much harm. But, next thing you know, it all snowballs. The only unforgivable sin, from what I’ve heard, and read is blaspheming of the Holy Spirit. Yes, there are more serious sins, than others. But, these need to be placed in certain contexts, properly explained to a spiritual father.

I just remembered your remark about how I mentioned informal confession. I mention informal because these are pieces of guilt eating at you, no matter how small they seem. A spiritual father, may be able to quell such degrees of scrupulosity. That’s why I maintain, it’s the Spiritual Father’s call to make whether or not, one really gravely sinned, as opposed to just simply transgressed (I’m borrowing a classification from the late reverend Kucharek, who still maintained the details aren’t something to be splitting hairs over).

No Christian says sin is not sin. Like St. James said: ALL unrighteousness is sin. BUT there is seen that leads to death and sin that does not lead to death- You think maybe he was being pedantic about it? Or is legalistic the proper term?

 

[lssanjose]

No Christian says sin is not sin. Like St. James said: ALL unrighteousness is sin. BUT there is seen that leads to death and sin that does not lead to death- You think maybe he was being pedantic about it? Or is legalistic the proper term?

I may be pedantic. But, when it comes to exact classification of those sins, we consider the totality of the commission, in context. Although, there are broader statements, like Abortion is sin. However, there are contexts where abortion is necessary. I’m not refuting there are less grave sins, and ones more grave. I’m just saying, the attempt at splitting hairs, with respect to classification is unhealthy. That’s the spiritual father’s place to deal with, not ours as laity. We just know we’re guilty of sins, voluntary, and involuntary.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No Christian says sin is not sin. Like St. James said: ALL unrighteousness is sin. BUT there is seen that leads to death and sin that does not lead to death- You think maybe he was being pedantic about it? Or is legalistic the proper term?

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

This is why we do not expect people to be in the state of grace always. Again, that concept does not exist in the East. We don’t believe that after you have received absolution and then lightning hits you and you die, it is an instant ticket to heaven. Again, your entire life will be judged, not that one act. We all have fallen short regardless, it is our entire life and the way we live it is what gives us proper discernment to approach or not.

 

[lssanjose]

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

This is why we do not expect people to be in the state of grace always. Again, that concept does not exist in the East. We don’t believe that after you have received absolution and then lightning hits you and you die, it is an instant ticket to heaven. Again, your entire life will be judged, not that one act. We all have fallen short regardless, it is our entire life and the way we live it is what gives us proper discernment to approach or not.

To piggyback, I find it therapeutic how a spiritual father is the one who advises one on whether or not to embrace fasting traditions, completely. It takes into account everything, the totality of one’s life, and that’s why I think the relationship between layperson and the spiritual father is very important.