Mortal and Venial Sins

[Antonius_Lupus]

I read this on Wikipedia:

The Eastern Catholic Churches, which derive their theology and spirituality from same sources as the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, do not use the Latin Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sin. However, like the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Catholic Churches do make a distinction between sins that are serious enough to bar one from receiving Communion (and must be confessed before receiving once again) and those which are not sufficiently serious to do so. The Eastern Churches do not consider death in such a spiritual state to mean automatic damnation.

1. How do the Eastern Catholic Churches understand the difference between mortal and venial sins? I have been looking but I can’t find a satifying answer.
2. This article seems to suggest that for Eastern Catholics, dying in mortal sin is not considered automatic damnation, something that I have been taught in my Roman Church.

How can the ECCs claim to hold the same Catholic Faith of the Roman Church if they differ on this.

Grrrrrr, very confused. Please help me to understand this.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Sorry, this is all put me in a tailspin: the Eastern Catholics are supposed to be Catholic, right?

Why then can they claim to not believe something that has been defined as such by the Western Church?

This is starting to put cracks in my view that the Church is really Catholic.

Maybe the Church is ROMAN?!?!??!

GRRRRR, for someone in RCIA with only a month or so before Confirmation THIS is HIGHLY frustrating!!!

Curse my inquisitiveness!

Perhaps ignorance really is bliss…

 

[bpbasilphx]

**
Maybe the Church is ROMAN?!?!??!**

This goes directly against one of the recent popes (Pius XII, I think) who said, "The Church of Christ is not Latin, Greek, or Slav, but Catholic."

 

[John_Higgins]

AL,

First, Wikipedia is hardly authoritiative. So, be not afraid. You need to be looking at the Catechism of the Catholic Church instead.

Second, the Eastern Churches have a different way to express the same thing. They don’t hold different beliefs. One Peter, One Church.

John

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I read this on Wikipedia:

1. How do the Eastern Catholic Churches understand the difference between mortal and venial sins? I have been looking but I can’t find a satifying answer.
2. This article seems to suggest that for Eastern Catholics, dying in mortal sin is not considered automatic damnation, something that I have been taught in my Roman Church.

How can the ECCs claim to hold the same Catholic Faith of the Roman Church if they differ on this.

Grrrrrr, very confused. Please help me to understand this.

Thanks in advance!

The Eastern Rites might have a different way of looking at sin, but they believe in the concept of sins grave enough to cause spiritual death. And they believe dying in a state of mortal sin means damnation. The Catholic Church infallibly defined these concepts, even if the same words are not used the concepts are and must be adhered to.

The real question I have is from the Eastern Orthodox side. I have seen some EO resources say there is mortal sin that leads to damnation and other resources that say those who die in mortal sin can still be rescued.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

From an Eastern Catholic view, sin is sin, we don’t distinguish between “venial” and “mortal” since all sin is an offense against God. It’s not that the East disagrees with the West, just that we do not use a juridic (legalistic) approach to sin.

Deacon Ed

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

The Catholic Church infallibly defined these concepts, even if the same words are not used the concepts are and must be adhered to.

Yes, but didn’t the Catholic Church generally define these according through a Roman lense?

How then can we expect the Eastern Catholics to follow these definitions?

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

From an Eastern Catholic view, sin is sin, we don’t distinguish between “venial” and “mortal” since all sin is an offense against God. It’s not that the East disagrees with the West, just that we do not use a juridic (legalistic) approach to sin.

Deacon Ed

Not following you…

Could you explain this a bit more for me?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Not following you…

Could you explain this a bit more for me?

The Latin Rite Church has a legalistic view of sin: this is why it’s possible to make up a list of sins, to deal with the question of subjective versus objective morality. Simple example: if you are doing something that is sinful but you don’t know it, no “guilt” is attributed to you and, from a Latin perspective, you haven’t sinned. From an Eastern perspective this is best understood by a prayer used in the Byzantine tradition before communion:

I BELIEVE, LORD, and profess that You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God, come to this world to save sinners, of whom I am the greatest. I believe also that this is really your spotless body and that this is really your precious blood Wherefore I pray to You: have mercy on me and pardon my offenses, the deliberate and the indeliberate, those committed in word and in deed whether knowingly or inadvertently; and count me worthy to share without condemnation your spotless mysteries, for the remission of sins and for eternal life. Amen.Note that we ask for sins committed whether we know them or not!

It is this concept that sin is sin. All sin offends God and is, therefore, terrible to behold. This is why the most common prayer in the Divine Liturgy is “Lord have mercy!” We must say this 100 times or more between Orthros (Morning Prayer, matins and lauds) and the Divine Liturgy.

The legalistic view of sin is designed to provide a rational understanding of the seriousness of a particular sin. Suppose you steal a penny from Warren Buffet (I used to use Bill Gates as an example, but he’s down to number three this year so…). Is that sinful? If so, to what degree? How does that differ from stealing a penny from someone who only has a dime? Are you permitted to steal a loaf of bread if you are starving and need to feed your family? How is that different from stealing money to buy food or a car to go get food?

The legalistic approach allows one to categorize and to define. The Eastern approach is, like many aspects of theology, quite different from the Latin approach in that we don’t define categories of sin. Without categories we don’t need to go into details about how to classify sin.

I don’t know if this makes sense to you, but it’s about the best I can do without a detailed theological explanation that is beyond the scope of a forum such as this.

Deacon Ed

 

[DanteAlighieri]

The Latin Rite Church has a legalistic view of sin: this is why it’s possible to make up a list of sins, to deal with the question of subjective versus objective morality. Simple example: if you are doing something that is sinful but you don’t know it, no “guilt” is attributed to you and, from a Latin perspective, you haven’t sinned. From an Eastern perspective this is best understood by a prayer used in the Byzantine tradition before communion:Note that we ask for sins committed whether we know them or not!

I disagree with your characterization of the Latin Rite. We believe that evil act X is sinful whether or not one is aware of its sinfulness. Lack of knowledge may mitigate one’s culpability to the point that there is none, but one has still sinned.

Fellow Latinites – am I wrong?

Peace,
Dante

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

The Latin Rite Church has a legalistic view of sin: this is why it’s possible to make up a list of sins, to deal with the question of subjective versus objective morality. Simple example: if you are doing something that is sinful but you don’t know it, no “guilt” is attributed to you and, from a Latin perspective, you haven’t sinned. From an Eastern perspective this is best understood by a prayer used in the Byzantine tradition before communion:Note that we ask for sins committed whether we know them or not!

It is this concept that sin is sin. All sin offends God and is, therefore, terrible to behold. This is why the most common prayer in the Divine Liturgy is “Lord have mercy!” We must say this 100 times or more between Orthros (Morning Prayer, matins and lauds) and the Divine Liturgy.

The legalistic view of sin is designed to provide a rational understanding of the seriousness of a particular sin. Suppose you steal a penny from Warren Buffet (I used to use Bill Gates as an example, but he’s down to number three this year so…). Is that sinful? If so, to what degree? How does that differ from stealing a penny from someone who only has a dime? Are you permitted to steal a loaf of bread if you are starving and need to feed your family? How is that different from stealing money to buy food or a car to go get food?

The legalistic approach allows one to categorize and to define. The Eastern approach is, like many aspects of theology, quite different from the Latin approach in that we don’t define categories of sin. Without categories we don’t need to go into details about how to classify sin.

I don’t know if this makes sense to you, but it’s about the best I can do without a detailed theological explanation that is beyond the scope of a forum such as this.

Deacon Ed

THANK YOU!

That really does help me out.

But I want to know something else:

In the eyes of the Magesterium both views the legalistic view and the non-legalistic view, are they both considered 100% Catholic by the Magesterium?

I guess that is what my questions all boils down to, that is, whether one view is “more Catholic” than the other.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I guess that is what my questions all boils down to, that is, whether one view is “more Catholic” than the other.

Why don’t you look at what Christ has to say about it?
Luke 6:42*~* Or how canst thou say to thy brother: Brother, let me pull the mote out of thy eye, when thou thyself seest not the beam in thy own eye? Hypocrite, cast first the beam out of thy own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to take out the mote from thy brother’s eye

(from dictionary.com)
mote = a small particle or speck, esp. of dust.
beam = any of various relatively **long **pieces of metal, wood, stone, etc., manufactured or shaped esp. for use as rigid members or parts of structures or machines.

You don’t need to be a theologian, or priest, or deacon, or bishop to see that Christ cleary makes a distinction between the severity of some sins to others.

 

[a_pilgrim]

Hi, Antonius Lupis!

How can the ECCs claim to hold the same Catholic Faith of the Roman Church if they differ on this.

How about the reciprocal of this?? Please remember that our Catholic communion requires that the Roman Church must also accept the theological views and constructs of the Eastern Catholic Churches as being just as valid as their own. That’s what it means to be in full communion with each other.

Sorry, this is all put me in a tailspin: the Eastern Catholics are supposed to be Catholic, right?

Supposed to be Catholic?? We ARE Catholic, my friend! We are in full communion with the See of Peter. Benedict XVI is my pope just as much as he is yours.

Why then can they claim to not believe something that has been defined as such by the Western Church?

Despite popular opinion to the contrary, the Western Church is not the yardstick by which Catholicism is to be measured. It’s not a case of “Let’s-see-if-you-Easterners-can-come-close-enough-to-what-we-Westerners-believe-in-order-that-you-may-call-yourselves-Catholics!” Our theology, spiritual constructs and liturgical praxes stand on their own merit. It is not required that they be viewed through the lens of the Latin Church to see how well they “measure up.” The Western Church had already agreed to this when they decided to enter into communion with us.

This is starting to put cracks in my view that the Church is really Catholic.

Please remember what our Catholic communion really means - unity, not uniformity.

Maybe the Church is ROMAN?!?!??!

Yours is… mine is not! Nonetheless, we are both Catholics. You and your fellow Latin (Roman) Catholics are in communion with my Church (the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church in America) every bit as much as I am in communion with yours!

Many blessings on your upcoming Confirmation, my Western brother!

“Mnohaja i blahaja l’ita”
“Many and blessed years!”

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Hi, Antonius Lupis!

How about the reciprocal of this?? Please remember that our Catholic communion requires that the Roman Church must also accept the theological views and constructs of the Eastern Catholic Churches as being just as valid as their own. That’s what it means to be in full communion with each other.

Supposed to be Catholic?? We ARE Catholic, my friend! We are in full communion with the See of Peter. Benedict XVI is my pope just as much as he is yours.

Despite popular opinion to the contrary, the Western Church is not the yardstick by which Catholicism is to be measured. It’s not a case of “Let’s-see-if-you-Easterners-can-come-close-enough-to-what-we-Westerners-believe-in-order-that-you-may-call-yourselves-Catholics!” Our theology, spiritual constructs and liturgical praxes stand on their own merit. It is not required that they be viewed through the lens of the Latin Church to see how well they “measure up.” The Western Church had already agreed to this when they decided to enter into communion with us.

Please remember what our Catholic communion really means - unity, not uniformity.

Yours is… mine is not! Nonetheless, we are both Catholics. You and your fellow Latin (Roman) Catholics are in communion with my Church (the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church in America) every bit as much as I am in communion with yours!

Many blessings on your upcoming Confirmation, my Western brother!

“Mnohaja i blahaja l’ita”
“Many and blessed years!”

Ah, this has been of GREAT help to me!

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

I needed this, again thanks.

And thanks to all who have responded so far! Your comments were also quite helpful.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

I disagree with your characterization of the Latin Rite. We believe that evil act X is sinful whether or not one is aware of its sinfulness. Lack of knowledge may mitigate one’s culpability to the point that there is none, but one has still sinned.

Fellow Latinites – am I wrong?

Peace,
Dante

Within the Latin theology the issue of primary importance is “guilt” – this is what condemns one and the absence of guilt is what allows one to be saved. If one looks at the requirement for sin one finds knowledge must be present (see CCC 1857, 1862). Within the Latin structure unintentional ignorance (CCC 1860) mitigates guilt (which I mentioned in earlier post and which you also noted). Does one confess a sin one does not know one has committed in the Latin Church? Generally, no. If something is brought to one’s attention it may be mentioned in confession. “I did such-and-such, was it a sin?” to which the priest will answer “It all depends.” and get into questions of the circumstances. This is a juridic approach to understanding sin. While it is certainly true that a sin is a sin is a sin (objective morality) the issue of culpability (subjective morality) forms an important part of the theological formation of Latin Rite clergy.

Does that help to clarify my statements?

Deacon Ed

 

[jimmy]

Why don’t you look at what Christ has to say about it?
Luke 6:42*~* Or how canst thou say to thy brother: Brother, let me pull the mote out of thy eye, when thou thyself seest not the beam in thy own eye? Hypocrite, cast first the beam out of thy own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to take out the mote from thy brother’s eye

(from dictionary.com)
mote = a small particle or speck, esp. of dust.
beam = any of various relatively **long **pieces of metal, wood, stone, etc., manufactured or shaped esp. for use as rigid members or parts of structures or machines.

You don’t need to be a theologian, or priest, or deacon, or bishop to see that Christ cleary makes a distinction between the severity of some sins to others.

That is not the same distinction as mortal vs. venial.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Within the Latin theology the issue of primary importance is “guilt” – this is what condemns one and the absence of guilt is what allows one to be saved. If one looks at the requirement for sin one finds knowledge must be present (see CCC 1857, 1862). Within the Latin structure unintentional ignorance (CCC 1860) mitigates guilt (which I mentioned in earlier post and which you also noted). Does one confess a sin one does not know one has committed in the Latin Church? Generally, no. If something is brought to one’s attention it may be mentioned in confession. “I did such-and-such, was it a sin?” to which the priest will answer “It all depends.” and get into questions of the circumstances. This is a juridic approach to understanding sin. While it is certainly true that a sin is a sin is a sin (objective morality) the issue of culpability (subjective morality) forms an important part of the theological formation of Latin Rite clergy.

Does that help to clarify my statements?

Deacon Ed

Indeed. As long as we realize that, in the Latin Rite, the absence of guilt does not mean the absence of sin.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Harrison]

Is it then pretty much up to the individual to decide what level of sin would keep them from receiving Communion in the Easter Churches?

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Hi, Antonius Lupis!

How about the reciprocal of this?? Please remember that our Catholic communion requires that the Roman Church must also accept the theological views and constructs of the Eastern Catholic Churches as being just as valid as their own. That’s what it means to be in full communion with each other.

Supposed to be Catholic?? We ARE Catholic, my friend! We are in full communion with the See of Peter. Benedict XVI is my pope just as much as he is yours.

Despite popular opinion to the contrary, the Western Church is not the yardstick by which Catholicism is to be measured. It’s not a case of “Let’s-see-if-you-Easterners-can-come-close-enough-to-what-we-Westerners-believe-in-order-that-you-may-call-yourselves-Catholics!” Our theology, spiritual constructs and liturgical praxes stand on their own merit. It is not required that they be viewed through the lens of the Latin Church to see how well they “measure up.” The Western Church had already agreed to this when they decided to enter into communion with us.

Please remember what our Catholic communion really means - unity, not uniformity.

Yours is… mine is not! Nonetheless, we are both Catholics. You and your fellow Latin (Roman) Catholics are in communion with my Church (the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church in America) every bit as much as I am in communion with yours!

Many blessings on your upcoming Confirmation, my Western brother!

“Mnohaja i blahaja l’ita”
“Many and blessed years!”

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Yes, but didn’t the Catholic Church generally define these according through a Roman lense?

How then can we expect the Eastern Catholics to follow these definitions?

Well at some level you have to recognize the idea of “grave sin” and “venial sin”, for example:
Galatians 5: 19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
This would be the general “lens” from which Latin Rite Catholics understand “mortal sin”, things like murder, fornication, idolatry, rage, drunkenness, etc. These are grave enough that they sever your relationship with God (as if the prodigal son abandoned the father to go live on his own).

The Latin Rite doesnt go around with a catalogue listing each and every sin and placing it in one category or another. There are general guidelines.

It is not good nor correct (and Im not saying you did this) to categorize Latin Rite as “legalist” and Eastern Rites as “spiritual” in situations like these.