R
rciadan
Guest
Does the Byzantine Church teach the concept of Mortal and venial sin? At the DL, the priest said that the Eastern Church does not believe in such…
- Status
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Technically, no. Mortal vs. venial sin is not something that comes up typically in Eastern (Byzantine) theology. That being said, however, many Roman Catholics hear this and interpret it along the lines of more “liberal” theology that would downplay the seriousness of sin. This is not the case in the Christian East. If we do not speak of mortal vs. venial sin, it is not because we don’t take sin seriously, but because we take it very seriously. All sin is seen as a separation from God, and all sin needs to be confessed in order for the life of God to be fully active within us.
R
rciadan
Guest
Thank you, you are always very informative. I am quite confident that Father is in no way “liberal” in his theology! I just wanted some clarification and Father had no time to chat with me after the Liturgy today. I expected it to be more of a case of the Eastern Church having never really had the need to define sin as such.
But, scripture does say, “He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask.” This leads to the conclusion that there is a type of sin that is far more serious than the other, thus Mortal and Venial, which would seem to speak to the* degree of separation* from God…
D
dvdjs
Guest
The first few pages of this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=628252
may help you understand the actual answer to your question.
The terminology might not be used by some in the East, but is is used by others in the East. I provided this quote on the thread linked to above:
It is important to have a clear perspective on the meaning of “mortal” and “venial” sin. Sometimes the Catholic perpspective is misrepresented as a categorical list; that idea has no currency in the East, or, in reality, in the west, where awareness of the gravity, and volition are crucial elements of the seriousness of any sin.
If the idea of a “mortal” sin is that there are sins unto death, which in the absence of repentance could lead to eternal damnation, then I am confident that the East believes in mortal sin. To deny it is going way out on the limb of apocatastasis, at best, or to buy into OSAS heresy at the worst.
If the idea is that some sins are of such gravity that one should not approach the chalice without confession, then I also believe the the preponderance of opinion in the East would be in agreement - although the last time we went through this, PR said that his deacon held a contrary opinion. That opinion, however, is clearly a modern one, as, for centuries before this one, the common practice was infrequent communion and a rigorous preparation, including confession, before every communion.
It would be great to ask your priest just exactly what he meant.
R
rciadan
Guest
I will send him an email later, but thank you for your information.
R
rciadan
Guest
Thank you! I read the entire thread and it was extremely helpful! It even confirmed the way I was thinking that, many of the concepts, or Dogma, if you prefer, are the same in essence, just manifested in different forms of thought. Which makes sense since it is clear, to me at least, that Eastern and Western minds seem to work a little differently; kind of like, one is linear and the other circular, for lack of better terminology.
I recommend this thread to anyone with similar questions.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
There is no degree of separation from God. Sin and death are synonymous in Eastern Theology. Sin is death and when Christ died and conquered death, he conquered sin. Every sin needs healing. That is why in Eastern theology sin is seen as a sickness that leads to death. Like in biology, there are some sicknesses that does not lead to death immediately. But all do if you leave them alone. So whether you have a common cold or cancer, you need to treat it. So there is no concept of venial sin that can be disregarded as light.
R
rciadan
Guest
Agreed. I would never agree that any sin should be treated lightly and I have never seen any Catholic teaching that does. But what you just explained is, in essence, the Western Catholic understanding of venial and mortal sin…
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Well, in Roman Catholic theology, you do not need to do penance for venial sin, it will be removed once you attend Mass and receive Communion. To me that makes no sense. So I can keep committing it again and again as long as I go to Mass everyday or every week.
R
rciadan
Guest
No, you should confess all sins that you can when in confession. I have been to confession many times, and was never told I only need to confess mortal sins. My understanding of the Eastern Tradition is that you only need go to confession if you have committed serious sin. Is this correct? If so it is the same as the Western…in essence. Yet, I think that both encourage frequent confession whether one is aware of specific serious sins, or not. Is this correct?
And no, you cannot just keep confessing the same sin as you describe. Remember, God know the heart, and if you are confessing a sin and at the same time intending to repeat it, there is no forgiveness. Your contrition must be sincere: you must at least intend not to commit the sin again, even though, being weak, it may happen.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
It depends on which period we are talking about. But a more accepted way of looking at confession that is it part of the preparation for receiving Communion. So part of the prayers from the night before (Vespers) and the various other prayers in preparation for Communion and Fasting, Confession is part of it. So if this is followed, you confess once a week at least.
Although I’ve read somewhere that Confessions in the past were only used for those who have excommunicated themselves from the Church. The usual healing of usual sins comes from the preparation for Communion with is quite extensive in the Eastern praxis.
R
rciadan
Guest
So, are you saying that everyone who attends the DL, each and every week should be going to confession before the DL?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
If you are receiving Communion, then yes.
That is the ideal. That is probably not what is happening in most cases.
B
babochka
Guest
That’s not true. In Roman Catholic theology, we are all called to lead a life of penance, which can be defined as turning from sin and toward God. Confession is required a minimum of once a year (and encouraged more frequently), whether you have committed a “mortal” sin or not. It is a very simplistic understanding of Western theology to say that receiving communion “takes care” of the sin and you don’t need to worry about it anymore. The Eastern theological understanding is also that receiving Holy Communion is for the remission of all sins; it is explicit in the prayer before Communion.
B
babochka
Guest
And this is the way that it was commonly practiced in the Western Church until the last 50 years or so.
B
babochka
Guest
It is not fair to compare the ideal in the Eastern Church to the common practice in the Western Church. Weekly Confession prior to the reception of Communion is ideal in both traditions. I know an active, practicing Greek Orthodox woman who hasn’t been to Confession in years. She does receive Communion. When I asked her about Confession in her church, she was surprised and replied that she didn’t think they really did that much anymore. That is exactly the response that I might expect from a person of her generation at my local Roman Catholic church. In 1972 the OCA authorized the use of “General Confession Services” , which were supposed to strengthen and encourage individual Confessions. In many places, it had the opposite effect. People stopped coming to individual Confession. Does that sound familiar? Think 2x a year “Penance Services”. Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, are not immune from the same sicknesses that affect the Western Church.
B
babochka
Guest
I found this on the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website. With a few minor differences, it could easily be a Catholic description of the Sacrament.
CONFESSION
As members of the Church, we have responsibilities to one another and, of course, to God. When we sin, or relationship to God and to others distorted. Sin is ultimately alienation from God, from our fellow human beings, and from our own true self which is created in God’s image and likeness.
Confession is the Sacrament through which our sins are forgiven, and our relationship to God and to others is restored and strengthened. Through the Sacrament, Christ our Lord continues to heal those broken in spirit and restore the Father’s love those who are lost. According to Orthodox teaching, the penitent confess to God and is forgiven by God. The priest is the sacramental witness who represents both Christ and His people. The priest is viewed not as a judge, but as a physician and guide. It is an ancient Orthodox practice for every Christian to have a spiritual father to whom one turns for spiritual advice and counsel. Confession can take place on any number of occasions. The frequency is left the discretion of the individual. In the event of serious sin, however, confession is a necessary preparation for Holy Communion.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Hi rciadan
I just wanted to complete my thought from earlier. I actually had to post with my primary thought completed, but a few other thoughts not yet in the original content. I did this because I had company show up suddenly and, therefore, didn’t have time to complete my post.
With regards to your quote from Scripture my first question is, where is it in the NT? I ask because I’ve been looking for that passage for some time and, for whatever reason, have been unable to locate it. Several years ago I heard a Ukrainian Catholic (former OCA) priest quote this passage in the context of the same conversation we are having now. Ever since then I’ve been looking to find it, with no success.
The second thing I would say in regards to that passage is that I believe we ought to do further exegesis on it in order to discern what the original intent of the passage was. It is easy for us to impose our own understandings upon such passages (i.e. that the author is talking about mortal vs. venial sin), but it requires a great deal more work to understand what it was that the author was actually saying. I’m not saying that the interpretation you imply here is incorrect, only that I’d like to look into it more.
Now, with regards to my other thoughts on mortal vs. venial sin in the Eastern(Byzantine) tradition. Again, it is not language that is typically used, but our tradition certainly recognizes that some sins are more serious than others, and that we ought not to approach the Divine Mystery of the Eucharist when we are aware of being in a state of serious sin. That being said, I’ve never seen delineated a list of “serious sins” among the Byzantines in the same way that I have seen such lists in Roman Catholic examination of conscience pamphlets. The quote that dvdjs provided was good, and it pointed out what certain Byzantine spiritual Fathers from the Patristic era classified as the roots of all other sins (and presumably, therefore, the more serious of sins): i.e. gluttony, fornication, love of money, discontent(acedia), anger, despondency, vainglory, and pride. This was the list given by Evagrius of Pontus, and the East has more or less stuck to it. In the West it was adapted and became the “seven deadly sins.”
I would point out again - just because it bears repeating (perhaps not for your ears, but for those of others) - that just because the (Byzantine)East does not typically(traditionally) make the distinction between mortal and venial sin, does not mean that we don’t take sin very seriously. In the Slavic traditions there are some wonderful prayers prayed publicly prior to reception of Communion that give one pause to examine oneself to ensure that we are receiving in a state of /relative/ worthiness (for who is ever really “worthy” to receive our Lord and Savior into our very bodies!). There was also an old tradition, largely no longer practiced, of going to Confession immediately prior to receiving Communion every time one attended the Liturgy planning to receive. Whether or not this was an “ancient” (i.e. Patristic) practice, I do not know. But it was practiced nonetheless, and I believe it illustrates just how seriously the Byzantines take the reality of sin.
**
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Hi dvdjs
I’m inclined to agree with you here with regards to my deacon’s position being a more modern one. I’ve simply found no evidence of it in the writings of the great spiritual masters of the (Byzantine)East. All that I’ve ever come across in the writings and prayers is that we need to approach Communion in awe and trembling, seriously discerning beforehand the state of our soul and our /relative/ worthiness to receive our Lord and Savior. Certainly there is a strong sense of the possibility of receiving unworthily, and of that unworthy reception being unto our own condemnation.
C
Celticnovice
Guest
Hi Phillip,Hi rciadan
I just wanted to complete my thought from earlier. I actually had to post with my primary thought completed, but a few other thoughts not yet in the original content. I did this because I had company show up suddenly and, therefore, didn’t have time to complete my post.
With regards to your quote from Scripture my first question is, where is it in the NT? I ask because I’ve been looking for that passage for some time and, for whatever reason, have been unable to locate it. Several years ago I heard a Ukrainian Catholic (former OCA) priest quote this passage in the context of the same conversation we are having now. Ever since then I’ve been looking to find it, with no success.:
The verses in the NT are 1 John 5:16-17
- Status