Mortal and Venial Sins

[twf]

How do Eastern Catholics understand 1 John 5:16-17? St. John clearly teaches that some sins lead to death and others do not…that is EXACTLY the definition of mortal and venial sin. Do Eastern Catholics believe that all sin is equal? In my opinion, Scripture is clear that they are not, as is the Magisterium and the constant Tradition of the Church.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

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?

Technically, no. In the Eastern Churches if one is in a state of sin one should confess before partaking of the Mysteries. All the priests I know, and all I have heard of, will be happy to hear a confession before liturgy so that this can take place.

Deacon Ed

 

[Jofantioch]

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?

 

[steve_b]

From an Eastern Catholic view, sin is sin, we don’t distinguish between “venial” and “mortal” since all sin is an offense against God.

Who made the following distinctions in sin? (emphasis mine)

If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death (venial), he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death (venial). There is a sin that leads to death (mortal). I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death (venial).

Scripture says All wrongdoing is sin, but not all sin is deadly (mortal).

Deacon:

It’s not that the East disagrees with the West, just that we do not use a juridic (legalistic) approach to sin.

Deacon Ed

Is the following a juridic and legalistic approach to sin? Obviously sins that keep you out of heaven are the most serious, the deadly ones, i.e. mortal. (some emphasis mine)

• Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that nomurderer has eternal life
• Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God
• sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and 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
• For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them.
• Let us not give up meeting together, (attending Mass) as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day (Sunday)approaching. If we deliberately keep on sinning (missing Mass) after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God
  If someone asked you for a list of mortal sins in scripture, IMO that’s a pretty good start.

 

[steve_b]

ALL SIN IS MORTAL

This is not scriptural.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3418355&postcount=23
Jo:

I think that the distinction is actually detrimental to true spiritual understanding and I would urge Romans to dispense with this distinction.

We can’t. It would be anti scriptural.
Jo:

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?

It’s not eather/or but both. The only reason we have fear is because hell is real.

 

[jimmy]

This is not scriptural.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3418355&postcount=23

We can’t. It would be anti scriptural.

It’s not eather/or but both. The only reason we have fear is because hell is real.

And it is James who makes the great point that all sin is a violation of the law.

Who made the following distinctions in sin? (emphasis mine)

If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death (venial), he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death (venial). There is a sin that leads to death (mortal). I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death (venial).

Scripture says All wrongdoing is sin, but not all sin is deadly (mortal).

And the scriptures say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, not from the Father and the Son. So we could all make our scriptural references why the other is wrong.

 

[jimmy]

Is the following a juridic and legalistic approach to sin? Obviously sins that keep you out of heaven are the most serious, the deadly ones, i.e. mortal. (some emphasis mine)

• Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that nomurderer has eternal life
• Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God
• sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and 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
• For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them.
• Let us not give up meeting together, (attending Mass) as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day (Sunday)approaching. If we deliberately keep on sinning (missing Mass) after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God
  If someone asked you for a list of mortal sins in scripture, IMO that’s a pretty good start.

And the east would read those verses differently than you. When they read them they don’t come up with a distinction between mortal and venial sin or some juridical approach as you do.

 

[steve_b]

And it is James who makes the great point that all sin is a violation of the law.

True, which corresponds with John who says all wrongdoing is sin, but John adds, not all wrongdoing is mortal sin

jimmy:

And the scriptures say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, not from the Father and the Son. So we could all make our scriptural references why the other is wrong.

There are entire threads on the filioque. That however is not the topic here.

 

[steve_b]

And the east would read those verses differently than you. When they read them they don’t come up with a distinction between mortal and venial sin or some juridical approach as you do.

• How does your interpretation match up with those passages quoted
• And what juridical approach did I come up with?

 

[Jofantioch]

Scripture discusses that we all deserve to be sent down to the pit. We are all sinners. Scripture tells us that none of us is worthy but that we are saved by the blood of Christ. I think that saying that some sins “aren’t too bad” is anti-scriptural and definitely against the tradition of the church

 

[jimmy]

True, which corresponds with John who says all wrongdoing is sin, but John adds, not all wrongdoing is mortal sin

I think the west misunderstands Johns statement.

There are entire threads on the filioque. That however is not the topic here.

And you missed the point of the statement. The point is that the east can point to places where the west is anti-scriptural just as much as the west can.

How does your interpretation match up with those passages quoted
And what juridical approach did I come up with?

They match up perfectly fine. Those who sin will not recieve salvation. You must be perfect to enter heaven. As Revelation says, nothing impure shall enter heaven. It has nothing to do wtih a distinction between mortal and venial sin.

You come up with the idea that if you commit one of these sins you are eternally damned to hell fire unless you confess it to a priest. Whereas you could commit another sin as many times as you want without losing your salvation. It is kind of like the philosophy of JS Mills where everything in life has a value that can be mathematically calculated. It is about weighing each sin. Each sin has a certain value. Some are below the mortal line others are above it. If you commit one that is below the line you are perfectly fine but if you commit one that is above it then you are damned to hell.

 

[jimmy]

Scripture discusses that we all deserve to be sent down to the pit. We are all sinners. Scripture tells us that none of us is worthy but that we are saved by the blood of Christ. I think that saying that some sins “aren’t too bad” is anti-scriptural and definitely against the tradition of the church

And that is what the east says. Every sin is vile. It is all worthy to condemn you but God will have mercy on those who are repentant.

 

[steve_b]

Scripture discusses that we all deserve to be sent down to the pit. We are all sinners. Scripture tells us that none of us is worthy but that we are saved by the blood of Christ. I think that saying that some sins “aren’t too bad” is anti-scriptural and definitely against the tradition of the church

What you think is duely noted. But scripture is clear, and I’ll quote it again for you. This was written AFTER the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. And it was written under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

• Scripture says All wrongdoing is sin, but not all sin is deadly. That’s absolutely clear.
• The non deadly variety one can pray about for forgiveness and God will give them life.
• Deadly sins John says one shouldn’t pray about. Those are disposed of in the sacrament of penence.
  Here is a fuller explanation
  catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9505fea4.asp

 

[Formosus]

Some are below the mortal line others are above it. If you commit one that is below the line you are perfectly fine but if you commit one that is above it then you are damned to hell.

Well I don’t think any Latin theologian would agree with that statement. Individual venial sins are not damning in Latin Theology, but if one had a mindset of constant disregard for venial sin , that would be leading down the path towards serious sin if the invidual wasn’t in a mortally sinful state already. The judicial concept of mortal and venial sin get over emphasized a lot. Its really far more complex then Mortal sins send you to hell and venial sins are ok. I think the west and east might be closer here then what this topic seems to imply, the west just has a specific terminology while the east has not decided that a definition is needed. I think both reponses are valid representations of the same theological Truth that sin is harmful to our relationship with God. The unrepentant sinner ,in both the east and the west, gains damnation.

As a side note, the first time Mortal sin was ever used (outside of John’s letter) was by Tertullian. His view on Mortal sin was that mortal sins were those sins that the Church could not forgive but one time. Obviously the Eastern tradition can not be held wrong for refusing to follow a terminology that was not used until Tertullian, but likewise the East can not hold the westerners wrong in their view just because they chose to better to define it. Both Lungs of the Church had to deal with different heresies and different challenges which shaped the theological terminology and definitions within those Traditions.

 

[Nicholas82]

What you think is duely noted. But scripture is clear, and I’ll quote it again for you. This was written AFTER the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. And it was written under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

• Scripture says All wrongdoing is sin, but not all sin is deadly. That’s absolutely clear.
• The non deadly variety one can pray about for forgiveness and God will give them life.
• Deadly sins John says one shouldn’t pray about. Those are disposed of in the sacrament of penence.
  Here is a fuller explanation
  catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9505fea4.asp

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…

 

[Aramis]

They match up perfectly fine. Those who sin will not recieve salvation. You must be perfect to enter heaven. As Revelation says, nothing impure shall enter heaven. It has nothing to do wtih a distinction between mortal and venial sin.

In Eastern (Aka Byzantine) theology, Theosis, the process of becomeing more like Christ, is ongoing, and does not end at death. Purification continues. The question is whether one will be pure enough before time ends and the judgment occurs.

 

[jimmy]

In Eastern (Aka Byzantine) theology, Theosis, the process of becomeing more like Christ, is ongoing, and does not end at death. Purification continues. The question is whether one will be pure enough before time ends and the judgment occurs.

Yes, that is very true.

 

[twf]

Jimmy: With all due respect, you clearly do not understand the Latin teaching on mortal and venial sin. According to you, 98% of the Catholic Church is just plain wrong. Am I right?
Venial sins are NOT fine. Venial sins would be damning if not for the precious blood of Christ which has set us free. Venial sins harm the soul. It’s just that a venial sin does not involve a total rejection of God’s grace while mortal sin does. How does the East understand St. John’s teaching on sin that leads to death and sin that does not lead to death?

It’s interesting that in the Assyrian Church of the East it is understood that smaller sins are forgiven by simply receiving the Eucharist while more serious sins must be confessed. This is the Latin teaching! Yet the Assyrian Church is hardly Western and has been in schism for 15 CENTURIES! Just an interesting sidenote…I would be interested to know what the Oriental (Coptic, Armenian, etc) teaching is.

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy: With all due respect, you clearly do not understand the Latin teaching on mortal and venial sin. According to you, 98% of the Catholic Church is just plain wrong. Am I right?
Venial sins are NOT fine. Venial sins would be damning if not for the precious blood of Christ which has set us free. Venial sins harm the soul. It’s just that a venial sin does not involve a total rejection of God’s grace while mortal sin does. How does the East understand St. John’s teaching on sin that leads to death and sin that does not lead to death?

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.

Venial sins do not damn you. As the distinction points out, it is not a sin unto death. The blood of Christ saves us from the mortal sins as well.

I don’t know how the east would take that verse.

It’s interesting that in the Assyrian Church of the East it is understood that smaller sins are forgiven by simply receiving the Eucharist while more serious sins must be confessed. This is the Latin teaching! Yet the Assyrian Church is hardly Western and has been in schism for 15 CENTURIES! Just an interesting sidenote…I would be interested to know what the Oriental (Coptic, Armenian, etc) teaching is.

I don’t know what the Church of the East’s view is. Could you give me a link that gives a more thorough view of the Church of the East’s perspective?

 

[twf]

Venial sins do not damn you. As the distinction points out, it is not a sin unto death. The blood of Christ saves us from the mortal sins as well.

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.
The John passage is quite clear to me. I would like to see an Eastern understanding.

As for the Assyrian view, the following is from the official site of the Assyrian Church of the East (cired.org/aceov.html):

…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.

This seems to be more or less in accordance with the Latin practice. It was also the practice of the ancient Church to reserve formal absolution and penance to serious sin (fornication, adultery, apostasy, abortion, etc).

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:

Baptism is administered to infants of Christian families and to new converts. It is not given to those who, for whatever reasons, enter the Church from other Christian bodies and have already been baptized with a Trinitarian formula.

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…