Mortal Sin

[expectthebest]

Does the Eastern Church believe the same way as the Western Church when it comes to mortal sin and the total loss of Salvation due to one sin?

 

[Eucharisted]

Although liberal Christians in the Eastern Orthodox Church do not accept the following, there are devout Orthodox Christians who do accept the teaching about mortal sins, summarized by saint Ignatius Brianchaninov in his book “A word on death”. In this book, the chapter entitled “Mortal sin” starts with the following passage:

“It has been said earlier that mortal sin of an Orthodox Christian, not being cured by repentance, submits him to eternal suffering; it has also been said that the unbelievers, Muslims, and other non-orthodox, even here are the possession of hell, and are depraved of any hope of salvation, being depraved of Christ, the only means of salvation. Mortal sins for Christians are the next: heresy, schism, blasphemy, apostasy, witchery, despair, suicide, fornication, adultery, unnatural carnal sins*, incest, drunkenness, sacrilege, murder, theft, robbery, and every cruel and brutal injury. Only one of this sins- suicide- cannot be healed by repentance, and every one of them slays the soul and makes the soul incapable of eternal bliss, until she cleans herself with due repentance. If a man falls but once in any of this sins, he dies by soul: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. (James 2:10,11)”

• • Under “unnatural carnal sins” the next is implied: homosexuality, bestiality, masturbation, and any unnatural intercourse between married people (such as using contraceptives, oral or anal intercourse, etc.) as is explained in the book “Acetical Trials”, also written by saint Ignatius Brianchaninov.

(Source)

The Eastern Church teaches that Heaven and Hell are the same place, and that Hell is not separation from God symbolically or physically.

Thus Hell is the torment of the love of God. Besides, as St. Isaac says, the sorrow caused in the heart by sin against the love of God, "is more poignant than any fear of punishment"8. It really is a punishment when we deny and oppose anyone’s love. It is terrible when we are loved and we behave inappropriately. If we compare this to the love of God, we can understand the torment of Hell. And it is connected with what St. Isaac says again, that it would be improper for a man to think "that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God"9. So even those being punished will receive the love of God. God will love all men, both righteous and sinners, but they will not all feel this love at the same depth and in the same way. In any case it is absurd for us to maintain that Hell is the absence of God. LIFE AFTER DEATH by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos

God himself is both heaven and hell, reward and punishment. All men have been created to see God unceasingly in His uncreated glory. Whether God will be for each man heaven or hell, reward or punishment, depends on man’s response to God’s love and on man’s transformation from the state of selfish and self-centered love, to Godlike love which does not seek its own ends.

Hell is not so much a place where God imprisons man, as a place where man, by misusing his free will, chooses to imprison himself. And even in Hell the wicked are not deprived of the love of God, but by their own choice they experience as suffering what the saints experience as joy. ‘The love of God will be an intolerable torment for those who have not acquired it within themselves’ (V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 234).

(Source)

 

[expectthebest]

I have heard that the Eastern beliefe is that Hell and Purgatory are the same, implying that a damned soul may, after some time of suffering, may still have the oportunity to repent. Is this true or untrue?

 

[Eucharisted]

The Eastern Orthodox pray for the dead, and they believe that sometimes a lost soul can be saved after death through the prayers of the living.

(source)

Among the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, there is no doctrine of Purgatory, and the doctrinal teaching remains as it was in the early church, simply being “prayer for the dead” in hades. Specifically how the prayers of the Church help the departed is not elucidated; Orthodox simply believe that tradition teaches that prayers should be made for the dead.[6]

Saint Basil the Great († 379) writes in his Third Kneeling Prayer at Pentecost O Christ our God…(who) on this all-perfect and saving Feast, art graciously pleased to accept propitiatory prayers for those who are imprisoned in hades, promising unto us who are held in bondage great hope of release from the vilenes that doth hinder us and did hinder them … send down Thy consolation… and establish their souls in the mansions of the Just; and graciously vouchsafe unto them peace and pardon; for not the dead shall praise thee, O Lord, neither shall they who are in Hell make bold to offer unto thee confession. But we who are living will bless thee, and will pray, and offer unto thee propitiatory prayers and sacrifices for their souls.[7]

Saint Gregory Dialogus († 604) in his famous Dialogues (written in 593) teaches that, “The Holy Sacrifice (Eucharist) of Christ, our saving Victim, brings great benefits to souls even after death, provided their sins (are such as) can be pardoned in the life to come.” [8] However, St. Gregory goes on to say, the Church’s practice of prayer for the dead must not be an excuse for not living a godly life on earth. “The safer course, naturally, is to do for ourselves during life what we hope others will do for us after death.” [9] Father Seraphim Rose († 1982) says, “the Church’s prayer cannot save anyone who does not wish salvation, or who never offered any struggle (podvig) for it himself during his lifetime.”

(Source)

 

[Eucharisted]

The Church Fathers on hell

The Church Fathers on purgatory

 

[expectthebest]

It seems as though the Eastern view of hell/Purgatory (posibility to still be eventually saved in both) and the Roman Churches view are diametrically apposed. Am I understanding this correctly? And if so, how can the Eastern Church have the same “deposite of Faith”?

 

[Formosus]

I do not believe that there is a place outlined as “purgatory” in any eastern tradition. Those that are damned to hell can not be saved but prayers for them can help relieve some of their sufferings. Those that are saved can be helped by prayers for the dead but its not really explained how.

 

[Patrick1982]

I do not believe that there is a place outlined as “purgatory” in any eastern tradition. Those that are damned to hell can not be saved but prayers for them can help relieve some of their sufferings. Those that are saved can be helped by prayers for the dead but its not really explained how.

After the departure of a soul from its body it experiences a foretaste either of blessedness or anguish according to how the person lived their life. Those experiencing a foretaste of blessedness are saved, those experiencing a foretaste of hell are helped by the prayers of the living, almsgiving in their names and especially commemoration in the Liturgy where the Unbloody Sacrifice is offered. At the Final Judgement when our souls will be reunited with our bodies the state of those in anguish will be set, until which time those souls which are suffering may be saved by the mercy of God through the prayers of the Church, although that’s not to say that one can repent after death. So a soul may possibly literaly be prayed out of hell until that point. There is no concept of a third place called purgatory or temporal punishment or indulgences. That’s the basics of it although I don’t feel like I’ve expressed it as eloquently as I maybe could have.

 

[Patrick1982]

There is no concept of ‘mortal sin’. As saint Paul says, " there is sin which leads to death". That’s as far as we take it. Sin is sin. It doesn’t matter whether you drown under an inch of water or a foot; you still drown. Sin is approached more as an illness to be cured, “missing the mark” as the word sin literally means. It’s less of a" you do this, you get this punishment" legalistic understanding we have. Christ is the “physician of our souls”. The Holy Mysteries are the medicine for our souls.

 

[stivvy]

There is no concept of ‘mortal sin’. As saint Paul says, " there is sin which leads to death". That’s as far as we take it. Sin is sin. It doesn’t matter whether you drown under an inch of water or a foot; you still drown. Sin is approached more as an illness to be cured, “missing the mark” as the word sin literally means. It’s less of a" you do this, you get this punishment" legalistic understanding we have. Christ is the “physician of our souls”. The Holy Mysteries are the medicine for our souls.

I agree with this. I do not believe in defining sin into levels. However, in John’s Gospel Jesus tells Pilot that “the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin” John 19:11

 

[TheWhim]

There’s also the notion in Orthodoxy that a mortal sin, that is, a dreadful sin condemnding to hell, will not always be reducible to an explicit deed that could be classified.

People are attached to different social roles and behavioural attitudes, they display a different attunement of character - they have received a different education, assume different offices and the world and God expect different things from them.

It follows that a certain deed may be a mortal sin for one person - say, a monk, who aspires complete holiness and has already advanced far in the process of sanctification respective theosis - but not quite so for another person - say, a petty criminal who is about to leave his deviant ways and become honest again.

Much will be expected of those to whom much has been given, says the Lord. And the unhappy and unlucky ones, to whom only very little has been given, may dwell on God’s mercy to a greater extent.

Okay, this is the one point I wanted to make - that, if the conception of mortal sin is introduced into the thought patterns of Orthodoxy, one cannot presuppose that a list of deeds could be drawn up, like is done in Catholicism, to differentiate between mortal and venial sins.

However, an Orthodox will rather hold the view that such a differentiation cannot be made. A sin always is a dreadful thing, an ignominable insult of God that has to be confessed to the priest. The priest will consider the gravity of the sin committed and then proceed to declare the terms for penance. - Of course, this is hardly another view, because in the standpoint delineated above, which embraces the conception of mortal sin, it also is the priest who has to decide if indeed a mortal sin has been committed.

In general, Orthodoxy puts far greater stress on the priest’s discernment. This ensures a less legal and close-knitted, a more spiritual and individual air about the teaching of Orthodoxy regarding this matter, but, in truth, also has decisive shortcomings because the faithful is still more bound to the priest who now even judges about the sinful value of his acts(since acts don’t have anymore a sinful nature like in Catholicism, where venial and mortal sins can be easily divided and classified).
At first sight, Orthodoxy appears more liberal here but a closer view also betrays that Catholicism offers greater freedom to the individual faithful in relation to the institutional church. A certain freedom in this matter is far from being unimportant because certain verses of scripture, which are abundantly cited by Protestants, make quite clear that the forgiveness of sins is often conceived as an issue pertaining to God and the individual faithful in an extremely direct way, without interference from external agents.

But, of course, it is always dreadfully difficult to draw a line between Catholicism and Orthodoxy at all. In Catholicism extenuating circumstances are often recognized(for example, if a person who committed suicide is suspected to have been mentally ill and therefore not utterly responsible for the deed that has been done) and there is a wide span of discernment allotted to the priest when it comes to fix proper terms of penance.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Does the Eastern Church believe the same way as the Western Church when it comes to mortal sin and the total loss of Salvation due to one sin?

Mortal sin would be the reason of your salvation loss if you die with it on your soul; it doesn’t matter which Church you are a part of.

 

[expectthebest]

There’s also the notion in Orthodoxy that a mortal sin, that is, a dreadful sin condemnding to hell, will not always be reducible to an explicit deed that could be classified.

People are attached to different social roles and behavioural attitudes, they display a different attunement of character - they have received a different education, assume different offices and the world and God expect different things from them.

It follows that a certain deed may be a mortal sin for one person - say, a monk, who aspires complete holiness and has already advanced far in the process of sanctification respective theosis - but not quite so for another person - say, a petty criminal who is about to leave his deviant ways and become honest again.

Much will be expected of those to whom much has been given, says the Lord. And the unhappy and unlucky ones, to whom only very little has been given, may dwell on God’s mercy to a greater extent.

Okay, this is the one point I wanted to make - that, if the conception of mortal sin is introduced into the thought patterns of Orthodoxy, one cannot presuppose that a list of deeds could be drawn up, like is done in Catholicism, to differentiate between mortal and venial sins.

However, an Orthodox will rather hold the view that such a differentiation cannot be made. A sin always is a dreadful thing, an ignominable insult of God that has to be confessed to the priest. The priest will consider the gravity of the sin committed and then proceed to declare the terms for penance. - Of course, this is hardly another view, because in the standpoint delineated above, which embraces the conception of mortal sin, it also is the priest who has to decide if indeed a mortal sin has been committed.

In general, Orthodoxy puts far greater stress on the priest’s discernment. This ensures a less legal and close-knitted, a more spiritual and individual air about the teaching of Orthodoxy regarding this matter, but, in truth, also has decisive shortcomings because the faithful is still more bound to the priest who now even judges about the sinful value of his acts(since acts don’t have anymore a sinful nature like in Catholicism, where venial and mortal sins can be easily divided and classified).
At first sight, Orthodoxy appears more liberal here but a closer view also betrays that Catholicism offers greater freedom to the individual faithful in relation to the institutional church. A certain freedom in this matter is far from being unimportant because certain verses of scripture, which are abundantly cited by Protestants, make quite clear that the forgiveness of sins is often conceived as an issue pertaining to God and the individual faithful in an extremely direct way, without interference from external agents.

But, of course, it is always dreadfully difficult to draw a line between Catholicism and Orthodoxy at all. In Catholicism extenuating circumstances are often recognized(for example, if a person who committed suicide is suspected to have been mentally ill and therefore not utterly responsible for the deed that has been done) and there is a wide span of discernment allotted to the priest when it comes to fix proper terms of penance.

So, must someone in the Eastern Tradition try to confess each and every sin to find out which are mortal and which are not? This must be difficult.

 

[stivvy]

So, must someone in the Eastern Tradition try to confess each and every sin to find out which are mortal and which are not? This must be difficult.

When one confesses sins, they are confessing from their heart and they also ask for forgiveness to sins that they may have omitted due to human nature.

You cannot take the eastern way of faith and try and capture it in a box and define it. That is impossible. Much of what we practice is of the Holy Ghost. Not hard at all. “For my Yoke is easy” says the Lord.

 

[rah2009]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

The Eastern Catholic Churches teach there is a difference between grave or mortal sin and venial sin. Murdering someone is quite a different matter than stealing a candy bar. The Church teaches God is a Physician, yes, but He is also our Judge. A part of the healing process is being judged by God in the Mystery of Reconciliation and Repentance thereby being healed and restored to the original ikon of God, which we are.

All sins are not equal. I have heard some Eastern priests advocating this view, that all sins and transgressions are the same before God, but it is not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox teaching, but a misunderstanding of the character of God. It seems to be a common characteristic of some Eastern priests to make their private theological opinions the Orthodox Catholic teaching of the Church–this is far from the case. This notion of “a sin is a sin” is one of them.

If a human judge could not send the man who stole the candybar to death row, along with the murderer, how much more would God meet out Justice according to the kinds and types of transgressions, giving each one “their proper due”, which is the definition of justice. And likewise with the doctor: would he treat a skin rash with an amputation, certainly no. The treatment for one illness is not universal.

The Orthodox and Catholic perspective is not Medicinal versus the Juridical models of Repentance, but both. Mortal sin seperates us from communion with the Church and Christ, venial sin does not seperate us from the Church and Christ–it only weakens us to further commit greater sins leading to mortal or grave sins. Some Eastern Catholics think that it is a latinization to use these terms “mortal” and “venial.” The theological reality of grevious and lesser sins is demonstrated in the Hebrew Scriptures as God revealed the types of sacrifices which determined the measure of atonement for specific sins, whether greater or lesser–obviously God saw there were catagories of sins, as revealed in the Book of Leviticus.

In the New Testament Christ “becomes man so that men may become gods” by Grace. He raises us up to Himself, so that we being raised up may be transformed by His Uncreated Divine Energies. This act of divinization is preceeded by the necessary act of Sacrifice on the Cross, which was necessary before the glorification of the Cosmos and humankind could be in order. After this salvific act on the part of God the Son and His Glorious Resurrection we can participate in this life in the cooperative act of transformation the Trinity offers us through the Divine Sacramental Mysteries.

The Church also offers to Her children the opportunity to “be perfect as their Father in Heaven is perfect” through canonical indulgences and good works, which while not meriting an already manifested Redemption, reveal the Uncreated Light of God in and through the body and soul of the person, thereby manifesting the Kingdom of God, which on the Earth is in its fulness demonstrated in the Divine Liturgy and removes the punishment our sins have caused us in the temporal order as we meet the conditions requisite to receive them. The Church is a multi-faceted ikon which reveals the many offices of Christ, who is Judge, Physician, Teacher, High Priest amongst others. The Church is immenently too complex to be reductionistic in making either/or propositions pitting Eastern and Latin Churches against each other, especially in the matter of moral theology. To summarize: the Catholic and Orthodox Churches teach that both the Juridical and Medicinal models are necessary in order to restore a person to God and the Church, the terms mortal and venial are not latizations, but helpful ways to determine gravity of sins of omission and commission.

In Christ,

Robert

 

[chrisb]

I have heard that the Eastern beliefe is that Hell and Purgatory are the same, implying that a damned soul may, after some time of suffering, may still have the oportunity to repent. Is this true or untrue?

Even in Latin Theology… the fires of Purgatory are the fires of Hell.

Please note we are not talking about ‘literal’ fire but the refining of the individual soul so to speak.

 

[expectthebest]

Even in Latin Theology… the fires of Purgatory are the fires of Hell.

Please note we are not talking about ‘literal’ fire but the refining of the individual soul so to speak.

How can they be the same if one is for eternal punishment while the other is for the refining of the soul. Certainly those in hell are not having their souls refined, or are they?

 

[Patrick1982]

How can they be the same if one is for eternal punishment while the other is for the refining of the soul. Certainly those in hell are not having their souls refined, or are they?

Apparently only some of them are.

 

[expectthebest]

Apparently only some of them are.

Now I’m confused.

 

[chrisb]

How can they be the same if one is for eternal punishment while the other is for the refining of the soul. Certainly those in hell are not having their souls refined, or are they?

Good question… I’ll leave it at that.

But the Fire in both are attributed to the same ‘source’ even if they are ultimately used for differing purposes… or are they?