Mortal and Venial Sins

[jimmy]

…and Absolution is a benefit of the Eucharist, though Absolution is also administered separately during a common service of Absolution, and is also administered to individuals, with penance, in the case of serious sin.

You should be careful with your assumption here that this means that the Assyrians believe the same thing as the west does regarding sin. The Byzantines have confession for serious sins as well and you aren’t supposed to recieve communion until you have confessed those sins. That is not the same as a distinction between mortal and venial sin.

On a side note, the Assyrians also seem to have an understanding of the validity of baptism outside of the Church in line with the Latin understanding

I suppose Eastern Catholics, unlike many Eastern Orthodox, WOULD also recognize baptisms performed outside of the canonical Church as Eastern Orthodox converts to Eastern Catholicism would never be re-baptized…

I am sure there are EC’s that take both views.

 

[steve_b]

You should write to the pope to let him know how adamently you disagree with his allowance for the Eastern Churches to hold this position. Let everyone know how that goes…

And what exactly are you talking about?

 

[steve_b]

If the western Catholics wouldn’t say that we are anti scriptural or wrong then I would be fine with their difference but they insist on telling us that we must hold to the western definition, which by the way has never been used in the Greek or the Syriac languages.

With regards to the anti scriptural remark, and how Catholics define mortal and venial sin and why, here is the context. I was responding to jofantioch’s critique of Catholicism.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3418378&postcount=24

jimmy:

Venial sins do not damn you. As the distinction points out,
it is not a sin unto death.

Yes, that is scriptural. But as you can see also, John says there IS sin that IS deadly.

jimmy:

The blood of Christ saves us from the mortal sins as well.

True.

But notice John says one can pray about the venial types( non deadly sin) and God will give that person life. But he says one shouldn’t pray about the deadly (mortal) variety. We know from Jesus that sacramental confession forgives ALL sin even the mortal variety.

 

[IamRoman]

*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.
*

<> says “remember our Catholic communion requires that the Roman Church must also accept the theological views…”

This statement borders on arrogance and does not reflect history. It was the Eastern Churches that lamentably went into Schism from the Holy See in 1056 and part of them returned to Communion with the Holy See in 1595 after the Union of Brest.
Since the theological constructs and views of these Eastern Churches were not, in any way, in error, these Eastern Churches were accepted into Communion with the Holy See after the representative of these Eastern Churches read the formula of abjuration of the Eastern (or Greek) Schism of 1056. (see Catholic Encyclopaedia, newadvent.org/cathen/15130a.htm)

For the particular issue of mortal and venial sin, what others said is correct: we (Romans and Eastern) believe the same thing, we just express it differently; the Roman expression being more “juridic” and “legalistic”.

Let me say that I love the Eastern Chuches, their Divine Liturgy and their traditions, but I cannot accept the putting into question the Primacy of the Pope of Rome in any way.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I really have to disagree with the assertion that Latin theology views sin legalistically, at least if one argues that it views sin purely legalistically. All of the technical language regarding sin exists in order to help explain the concept of rejecting God’s Grace or rejecting a relationship with God.

To say that a mortal sin requires knowledge and consent has nothing to do with the legalistic notion that a person ought not be held accountable for breaking a law he wasn’t aware of. It’s got to do with the person’s relationship with God. If a person knows something is gravely sinful, then for that person to do it anyways requires the person to make the choice for that sin over God. In other words, if I know that X will really, really offend God, and I do it anyways, I’m choosing to reject my relationship with Him. That’s what all the technical langauge is about. It’s not some juridical checklist of when a person can be held accountable for something. It’s merely that a person can’t sever his relationship with God accidentally; it requires a voluntary choice.

The same goes for terminology like “guilt.” To say someone has guilt does not mean the same thing as to say that he is guilty. It’s closer to the way we use the word when we speak about being ashamed and say things like, “I feel guilty for having been mean to Frank.” Guilt refers to the subjective state of a person’s conscience. When a person has knowingly done something so severe as to break off his relationship with God, that person’s conscience will be said to have guilt upon it because of its recognition of the way the person has turned from God.

Certainly, guilt can be understood juridically, and in many cases it may be helpful to do view it as such. The same goes for sin in general. However, I think it’s rather unfair to say that a juridical understanding is the only, or perhaps even the primary sense in which these things are understood.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I meant that if NOT for Christ’s saving sacrifice all sin, venial or not, would damn every one of us…it’s just that now that we have been redeemed and given a share in the divine life we lose this life only through a deliberate rejection of grace (mortal sin) and not the multitude of lesser sins we fall into on a daily basis.

I do not believe that this is consistent with traditional Latin theology. For example, the Catholic Encyclopedia states,

Venial sin is essentially different from mortal sin. It does not avert us from our true last end, it does not destroy charity, the principle of union with God, nor deprive the soul of sanctifying grace, and it is intrinsically reparable. It is called venial precisely because, **considered in its own proper nature, it is pardonable; in itself **meriting, not eternal, but temporal punishment.

This is consistent with the Latin understanding of sin as relational, rather than strictly juridical.

 

[twf]

Lazer: I think you have to realize that the Catholic Encyclopedia is writing from the perspective of baptized persons. If Christ had never come we would all be damned…even if our sins were only “venial”. I believe that all sin, if not for sanctifying grace, would incur the wrath of God. The distinction between mortal and venial sin has no meaning outside the context of sanctifying grace. A person who has never been baptized can not lose sanctifying grace (as he does not have it to begin with) and thus can not fall into mortal sin. If such a person only committed what we would consider “venial” sins, he would still be damned.

Jimmy: I am not suggesting that the Assyrian and Latin understanding is exactly the same. My point is that both churches make a distinction between those sins that receiving the Eucharist alone absolves and those more serious sins which require sacramental confession.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Lazer: I think you have to realize that the Catholic Encyclopedia is writing from the perspective of baptized persons. If Christ had never come we would all be damned…even if our sins were only “venial”. I believe that all sin, if not for sanctifying grace, would incur the wrath of God. The distinction between mortal and venial sin has no meaning outside the context of sanctifying grace. A person who has never been baptized can not lose sanctifying grace (as he does not have it to begin with) and thus can not fall into mortal sin. If such a person only committed what we would consider “venial” sins, he would still be damned.

Jimmy: I am not suggesting that the Assyrian and Latin understanding is exactly the same. My point is that both churches make a distinction between those sins that receiving the Eucharist alone absolves and those more serious sins which require sacramental confession.

If you read, I-II, 89, 3Summa Theogica, you will see that - at least according to Aquinas - this is not so. In question 3, St. Thomas asserts that it would have been impossible for original man to have committed a venial sin, however he explains that this is because venial sin springs from the failure of the lower powers of the soul to be subject to the higher. He rejects the notion that the reason for this is because what would be a mortal sin for us would be a venial sin for original man, because the species of a sin cannot be changed by circumstances. He takes it for granted, and implies that it is generally understood, that an act which to us is venial would not damn original man, because it does not have in and of itself the quality of being entirely contrary to charity.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

ALL SIN IS MORTAL

We all deserve Hell.
Heaven is a gift.

“Keep one foot in Hell but despair not.” This is a proverb by an Orthodox Saint (forget which). It means that we all deserve Hell and need to know that. Even if we had all committed “venial” sins, Christ would still have to die. That’s “mortal” enough for me.

I think that the distinction is actually detrimental to true spiritual understanding and I would urge Romans to dispense with this distinction. Maybe at least in their own minds. Confession is an act of a repentant child running into the arms of Daddy for forgiveness. We should do this out of Love, not fear. I think that the Eastern perspective on this is more soulful and less punitive.

Don’t you think that viewing sin and confession through Love would be better than through fear?

I know “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” and we could bandy about these things all day. Just think practically. Isn’t it better to admit that some of our biggest whoppers are unknown?

-We ignore one of our children who is hurting. We don’t realize this, sometimes for years!
-We say something flippant to a stranger and it stings them and leads them down the path to despair
-We begin to eat poorly, drink, etc. and slowly march down a road that seriously hurts our bodies

• We take sides with someone we are sure is right, only to find out that we were very wrong about them after it is too late

These are HUGE sins. As a teacher, I am committing these each day. I don’t give equal turns to children. I favor one gender, ethnicity, age, etc. over another. I see one child’s need but not another’s. I constantly try to guard against this, but it’s impossible to teach a perfect day. I’m sure parenting is like this x100!

Your thoughts on this?

How would you answer this simple question:
If all sin is mortal then why are Orthodox not in line to confess after every sin, for example after every cuss word? Should you receive Communion before Confessing your cuss word?

You dont have to be in line to confess out of fear, but just out of love, if you think all sins are mortal then out of love you should be in the confession line after each cuss word.

Actually I have a second question:
Does a Christian who commits murder have to go to Confession before receiving Communion, or is the Sacrament of Confession optional?

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

How would you answer this simple question:
If all sin is mortal then why are Orthodox not in line to confess after every sin, for example after every cuss word? Should you receive Communion before Confessing your cuss word?

Because all sin is symptomatic of a disease of the soul. By each commission, a sinner demonstrates that he is not yet fully oriented towards God; remember, the actual commission of sin itself is merely the last step in a long process of temptation, tempering, habit &c.

You dont have to be in line to confess out of fear, but just out of love, if you think all sins are mortal then out of love you should be in the confession line after each cuss word.

They do not fear God’s condemning - they fear self-condemnation. The Orthodox view of sin is, I think, most eloquently stated in Dr. Alexandre Kalomiros’ essay The River of Fire.

To understand their view of sin in context of the prevailing modern view, you cannot overlook this paper.

Actually I have a second question:
Does a Christian who commits murder have to go to Confession before receiving Communion, or is the Sacrament of Confession optional?

Read the canons of the Fathers, and what do you find?

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy: I am not suggesting that the Assyrian and Latin understanding is exactly the same. My point is that both churches make a distinction between those sins that receiving the Eucharist alone absolves and those more serious sins which require sacramental confession.

So do many other Eastern Churches. That is not the same distinction though. The effect of mortal sin is condemnation to hell. The distinction you point out in the Assyrians does not say this. It says you are not to recieve the Eucharist.

But notice John says one can pray about the venial types( non deadly sin) and God will give that person life. But he says one shouldn’t pray about the deadly (mortal) variety. We know from Jesus that sacramental confession forgives ALL sin even the mortal variety.

And this is the way the west reads the scriptures. That is fine but it is not how the east does.

In the east the only sin that can totally destroy our relationship with Christ as you say mortal sin does is apostacy. A loss of faith is all. This is what Philoxenus of Mabbug says. It is what Christ Himself says too. The only unforgiveable sin is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

The fact is that the whole difference is based on a different approach to salvation. The idea of mortal vs. venial sin is based on the idea that you are either in a state of grace or you are not. The east does not approach it in this way. In the east, especially in Byzantium and to a lesser extent in Syria, the emphasis is on Theosis. It is about becoming more and more united with Christ’s divinity.

 

[Ghosty]

In the east, especially in Byzantium and to a lesser extent in Syria, the emphasis is on Theosis. It is about becoming more and more united with Christ’s divinity.

This is the same in the West too, remember. The question of “mortal sin” is a bit of a different issue.

The only unforgiveable sin is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

It’s not a question of unforgivable sins, though, but rather sins that are more grievous than others.

It’s true that in the East we don’t delineate sins as much as in the West, but it’s also true that there is a distinction made between, say, using curse words and heresy, or rudeness and murder. In the East one goes to Confession a ) if you haven’t in awhile, or b ) if you’ve done something grievous (such as on St. Paul’s list).

Nobody in the East would counsel someone who has murdered to simply receive the Eucharist without Confession first, while they might for someone who has been using curse words or who has been rude lately. The question of what exactly the difference is between these things may not be raised, and distinctions are not categorized as they are in the West, but that doesn’t mean there is not a major difference between these things. The other difference is that in the East there is less talk given to dying without Confession, though again there would certainly be more concern about an unrepentant murderer than someone who was rude most of the time.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jimmy]

Just to beat Ghosty to the punch. I reallize that Theosis is present in the west as well, but it doesn’t hold the same place as it does in the east.

 

[Ghosty]

Just to beat Ghosty to the punch. I reallize that Theosis is present in the west as well, but it doesn’t hold the same place as it does in the east.

You didn’t beat me!

God bless!

 

[jimmy]

This is the same in the West too, remember. The question of “mortal sin” is a bit of a different issue.

Ahh you beat me to it. I was trying to ammend my post to show that I realized that Theosis is present in the west.

Mortal sin is not a completely different question though. I think the main difference is the idea of ‘being in a state of Grace’ as in western theology. The east does not have this concept.

It’s not a question of unforgivable sins, though, but rather sins that are more grievous than others.

It’s true that in the East we don’t delineate sins as much as in the West, but it’s also true that there is a distinction made between, say, using curse words and heresy, or rudeness and murder. In the East one goes to Confession a ) if you haven’t in awhile, or b ) if you’ve done something grievous (such as on St. Paul’s list).

Nobody in the East would counsel someone who has murdered to simply receive the Eucharist without Confession first, while they might for someone who has been using curse words or who has been rude lately. The question of what exactly the difference is between these things may not be raised, and distinctions are not categorized as they are in the West, but that doesn’t mean there is not a major difference between these things. The other difference is that in the East there is less talk given to dying without Confession, though again there would certainly be more concern about an unrepentant murderer than someone who was rude most of the time.

Peace and God bless!

I do not deny that the Churches of the east have this distinction but this is not quite the same as the distinction between mortal and venial sin.

In the east they might have great reservation about the salvation of a man who commited a serious sin like murder and died without a pubic(at least to a priest) repentance but in the west it is like that person is automatically damned unless God somehow granted him perfect contrition immediately before his death.

 

[Lazerlike42]

The Church has infallibly defined that a person dying in a state of unrepentant mortal sin descends immediately to Hell. How is it that Eastern Churches in communion with Rome can deny such a truth? In other words, it seems to me that either the infallibility of the Church is in question or the orthodoxy of Eastern Churches if they would even question that such a person would “automatically damned unless God somehow granted him perfect contrition immediately before his death.”

 

[Ghosty]

Mortal sin is not a completely different question though. I think the main difference is the idea of ‘being in a state of Grace’ as in western theology. The east does not have this concept.

The concept of “being in a state of Grace” may not be emphasized in the East, but there is more to the concept of mortal vs. venial sin than the “state of Grace”, so I don’t think they’re really the same issue. They’re definitely related, as mortal sin kills the “state of Grace”, but the definitions don’t end with that connection.

I do not deny that the Churches of the east have this distinction but this is not quite the same as the distinction between mortal and venial sin.

They don’t bear all the implications in the East that they do in the West, but the distinction remains the same. The West has just gone a lot further into the question of sin, and done a lot more categorization and explaining of its nature. What in the East is a general tendency to distinguish in a vague, almost unconscious way is, in the West, a set of classifications and clear theological definitions. Both approaches are valid in their own ways, IMO.

In the east they might have great reservation about the salvation of a man who commited a serious sin like murder and died without a pubic(at least to a priest) repentance but in the west it is like that person is automatically damned unless God somehow granted him perfect contrition immediately before his death.

Yes, because the West takes the words of St. Paul and has given them much thought. They don’t say that this person is certainly damned, however, because they leave the power to God and the unseen relationship between Him and the sinner in question.

In the end it’s not really much of a fundamental difference; murder is a damnable offense in both East and West, it’s just that the West is more specific about the process and definitions of sin. Both East and West would pray for the Heavenly repose of a sinner, and for forgiveness for them; the West just gives a detailed account of what is believed to occur, where the East tends to leave the matter open, at least in terms of theological speculation and definition.

There’s no need to translate the Western categorizations into Eastern thought, IMO, and the Eastern traditions should remain as they are. I just want to clarify for those who may not be intimately familiar with both that just because the categories and distinctions aren’t made doesn’t mean that all sins are precisely equal in the East; if they were then the praxis of the East would be entirely different.

Peace and God bless!

 

[steve_b]

I think the main difference is the idea of ‘being in a state of Grace’ as in western theology. The east does not have this concept.