www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Mortal and venial sin - curious about Eastern outlook

Okay, this should be a nice non-controversial question! (hee hee!)

I was just wondering - is it true that Eastern theology does not differentiate between "mortal" and "venial" sins in the way the Western church does?

I'm curious about how you would determine whether or not it's okay to receive Communion. In the West, if you know you are guilty of a mortal sin, you are supposed to go to Confession before you can receive the Eucharist, but not if it's a venial sin.

If you don't differentiate between them in the East (and I could be totally wrong about the premise so please correct me!), would there be a point at which you would know that you shouldn't receive the Eucharist till you'd been to Confession?

Just something I was mulling over -- will be interested in the responses! Thanks!

Dear Theist Gal,

Mortal sin is mortal sin, East or West. The only difference is that we call it 'grave' sin.

When one goes to a confessor for the first time, it is usually those sins which are universally considered 'grave' that are asked by him. In more traditional venues (such as monasteries) penances such as abstention from the Holy Eucharist for certain periods of time (as deemed appropriate by Early Canon law), and certain prayers, prostrations, etc. are given.

Your sister in Christ,
Alice

Slava Isusu Christu!

My training in our Ruthenian Church, about sin, did not utilize a Latin system of classification; although that was addressed. That does not mean, however, that some of our priests or catechists have not used that model.

I can see the helpfulness of using the mortal vs. venial sin way of dealing with issues of God's justice, penance, and restitution. However, in the East since sin is viewed primarily as illness, a systematic modality in this matter is not necessary. All sins have in their ontology the DNA of evil and this evil is equal in every sin regardless of the sin, or typologies of sins.
Christ as cure mediates the cure through the Holy and Divine Mysteries.

The Mystery of Repentance and Healing or Confession is the primary manner of receiving the cure or Christ. The other Mysteries, particularly the Eucharist, seal this cure and build up our resistance to the disease of sin. Through the way of life, which is the Orthodox Catholic faith, we build up our spiritual immune system to not only resist sin, but also to reveal the Christ, through deification, who is the Divine Physician.

Latin mystical theology also reveals this medical view of curing sin, and as per Vatican II this theology has been incorporated more fully. But you can see the mortal/venial sin construct still is extant in modern Latin thought as evidenced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And that is ok:), because that is their tradition. It really is a matter of emphasis and I think a balance of a juridical/medical view of the Mystery of Reconciliation is key, without the use of sin classifications, of course.

In Christ,


Robert Horvath

Dear Robert,

I like your analogies with illness.

I suppose that I should have said that 'abstention from the Eucharist' is a medicine prescribed, rather than a penance?

What do you think?

In Christ our Lord,
Alice

Slava Isusu Christu!

Dear Alice:

Some traditional, or even some mainline, Orthodox presbyters will restrict some penitents from the Eucharist based upon the sin, which has been committed, as a "penance." Examples of such sins are adultery, fornication, heresy, apostasy, homosexual practice, et al. Byzantine Catholic presbyters would not tend to use this form of discipline, unless the penitent was un-repentant; again generalizations are dangerous.

It seems, however, that the aim of the Eastern view of the Mystery of Reconciliation is not to punish the "offender," but rather to apply the cure. Some of these Eastern priests, that exclude penitents from Communion, may unconsciously be very latinized, i.e. using the juridical (vs. medicinal) principle, in their application of the canons that provide principles for discipline. True Eastern practice is to get the penitent back, as soon as possible, to the full reception of the Eucharistic Mysteries. Because the Eucharist is the SEAL of the Mystery of Repentance; without the Eucharist the Mystery is incomplete. Therefore, refusing the Eucharist to a true repentant sinner, as a discipline, is CLEARLY an abuse and a fundamental mis-understanding of the Eastern concept of the Mystery, regardless of whether or not that pastor is super-Orthodox or whatever:) Some high Church Eastern Catholics and Orthodox have alot of typikon and rudder, but no understanding and awareness of their religion. That is why I have chosen no longer to dialogue with the super-Orthodox and their neophytes

In Christ,


Robert Horvath

Not only that but is not the Eucharist the best Medicine for the healing of the soul? What good would it do the struggling sinner to abstain from the best Medicine?
As a recent Byzantine Catholic with a Roman formation I still don't understand how one determines one may not approach Communion without sacramental confession in the Eastern Way. I have always found the traditional western criteria [sufficient reflection, serious matter, full consent of the will] to be extremely helpful in determining the seriousness of a sin [while acknowledgeing that all sin falls short of the glory of God].This is particularily helpful to the scrupulous...

Slava Isusu Christu!

In Eastern Church, Catholic and Orthodox, you have various practices in regard to the frequency of the reception of the Mystery of Repentance. The Slavs were influenced, particularly in the 17th Century, by the Latin Church, which had daily Mass and weekly confession. This is known as the Slavic Baroque period.

There was a use of the classification of sins such as mortal and venial. And whenever you had a mortal sin you went to confession, which was often. Churches, particularly the Greek Catholic Church, started having daily Liturgy, which was rare in common Orthodox parish life not only because it wasn't the traditional Slavic praxis, but also because of Pani or Matushka (the priest's wife) and the kids:)

The Slavic Orthodox and Greek Catholics started to slowly acrue these practices and mentality and other latinizations; because remember, at that time to be Western was to be modern and advanced: Czar Peter being a great example of this. So you will have many of our priests who still think this way and many Orthodox as well.

You will find in many Greek parishes that Confession is done maybe one or twice a year amongst the faithful, and this is not seen as an abuse; because the Eastern concept of forgiveness is focused upon Christ as Philanthropos, or Lover of Mankind, and although the ordinary means of forgiveness is through the Mystery of Confession, you may also receive plenary forgiveness through the aescetic life; for many saints did not have ready access to the Mystery of Repentance (i.e. St. Mary of Egypt), but yet found the Grace of the Philathropos and His Mantling Epitrachelion and Absolving Hand directly.

To the Latin reader this sounds Protestant, but it is most Apostolic. The Latin Church even teaches that through a perfect Act of Contrition one can receive Absolution directly from Christ the Priest of venial and MORTAL sin; the proviso being that once one has access to a priest confessor he or she is obligated to re-confess those sins and other sins that one has confessed to Christ, and be reconciled to the Church. The Eastern Church never went that far. The Eastern Church does not teach that the Trinity can only work through Seven Mysteries, but there are rather countless Sacraments or Mysteries not only in the Church, but also in Creation and in the unseen worlds. We know God works through the Mystery of Repentance to heal the soul of man, but it is innappropriate for Eastern Christians to say that He CANNOT forgive outside of Confession, because the Eastern Church knows through the life of the Saints that He can.

In Orthodoxy not every priest is a Father Confessor like in the Roman Church or our Byzantine Catholic Church. In Orthodoxy confession can be done to a non-ordained elder or spiritual Father/Director and then you just go to a Father Confessor and receive Absolution. Because the ancient Father's taught that not every priest is a surgeon. You would not give a nurse a surgeon's scalpel, so you would not give your soul to a priest that is not a good healer, a true ikon of Christ the Healer.

Not every priest is aware of his calling as spiritual Physician; not every priest can apply the right medicine to the soul of the penitent. That is why in the East one may confess to a spiritual father or elder, because that father or elder can apply the right medicine; after you confess to your spiritual father or an elder, that has the charism as healer, then go to the priest and receive Absolution for you have already confessed to Christ while your father confessor or the elder witnessed; you must make arrangements with the parish priest for this ancient practive. Going to the priest then for the Absolution and Eucharist seals that cure or forgivness and one is filled with the uncreated Divine Energy of God. Current, praxis in America however is to just go to the parish presbyter for this Mystery.

The Eastern theology of sin is that it is illness or disease. There is no original sin and man is good by nature. So when a properly catechised Eastern Christian approaches sin he sees again the Christ-image of Philanthropos. Christ who sees his creation sick somes to heal them and does this through His Death and Resurrection, the Grace thereof being mediated through his Body, the Church. As Divine Physician, Christ, does not judge his diseased children for being sick, because a sick person cannot be accountable for their sickness, but comes to cure them and heal. That is why the juridical model doesn't fit in the Eastern Church, because our theology can't support it. A hybridized theology is a self-consuming serpent or like a dog biting it's tail.
It can be believed on a superficial level, but when thought out, this theology is shown to be a hollow shell without substance. So the Latin would posit: how does a Eastern Christian know if he has a mortal sin? Easy, when you are sick how do you feel? What does one do when one is sick? They go to the doctor. That is how we know. I know when I am spiritually diseased; people know when their lives are cancerous and necrotic; even the most eroded, morally, recognize their diseased state. Eastern Christians see an image of a Christ who cannot judge His sick Children; that is why some Church Fathers taught universal salvation. The Eastern Church does not officially teach universal salvation, but rather that people who are sick may choose to not see the Divine Physician and die. It is that simple. Hell is living in an eternal diseased condition seperate from any balm of healing, the soothing caress from our Heavenly Father, and the constant taunts of the demons who torment us according to the nature of our passions.

Therefore, The Mystery of Confession in the East is not practiced often in Jurisdictions that were historically not affected significantly by the theology and praxis of the Latin Church. Of, course the Slavic Churches were latinized theologically, with a great loss of our native insights and great enchiridion of understanding, and more or less liturgically; and so Confession is a requirement before Communion or at least if one has committed a "mortal sin." This is a plain example of hybridization. Instead of learning about our unique tradition we prefer western understandings which are more familiar and more convienent.

We would rather have fast-food Catholicism and drive through confessions than implementing the great aescetic tradition that belongs to the laypeople in our Tradition. This is not a criticism of the Latin Church, but rather a call for us as a Byzantine Catholic Church to have a revival of our great patrimony. And also a call to our Orthodox brothers and sisters to begin restoration as well. Being scrupulous is not a part of the Eastern mentality; Remember the story of St. Augustine when he would step on two sticks in the form of the Holy Cross he would feel such guilt; I don't need to comment about that:) In the Eastern Church we have a real pastoral and pragmantic sense. Being scrupulous is actually a form of self-deception that is a test from the Evil One. The Fathers taught that a person could even be translated into the supernatural world and be deceived of the devil. There is a story of a Russian woman who prayed all day, and experienced the divine fire when she prayed the Jesus Prayer; she always attended services and always asked her spiritual Father for more and more prayers and more good works to add to her rule. But she was full of pride and full of arrogance, because she even experienced the divine energy. One day her Father Confessor came to her and rebuked her after the Divine Liturgy. She loved to stand in the front of the Church to be seen by all the people, who thought she was very pious. He told her that from now on she was to stand in the back next to the babushkas who were frail; she was filled with rage and anger and stormed out of the Church. The next Sunday she was again in front for the pre-Communion prayers. And Father came to her and again told her to stand in the back. The priest made the sign of the Cross and dry spit on her three times and said: "Satan, I rebuke you!" Taken aback by this she started crying. "Father, I beg your forgiveness; I am sorry for my pride." "My child, I knew the devil had filled you with such deception, that in order for you to see what he had done, I had to show you what humilty was."
This was a story told me by a very old Greek woman named Mary, who I knew for many years. She has since gone on to be with Christ. Being scrupulous along with pride and false-piety is a veil which the Enemy uses to keep us from seeing the true diseased state of our souls.

In Christ,

Robert Horvath

Dear Robert, thank you for another eloquent post! I am not defending scrupulosity, merely defending a tool for dealing with it. I am well aware that forgiveness of sins is not limited to the Sacraments of the Church -else how could our Protestant brethren experience grace?- but that confession of sins and absolution by a priest is the normative means for forgiveness. As I have mentioned, my formation was Latin and I am but a baby Byzantine. I am learning all the time.

Slava Isusu Christu!

Beloved in the Lord Iconophile:

I am overjoyed that you have found your home with us. Many Years to you!

You are in my prayers and thoughts before the Ikon Corner this evening!

In Christ our God,


Robert Horvath

Sin is Sin

In Christ
Daniel

"There is sin which is mortal...All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal." -1 John, 15:16-17, RSV

I have sometimes regarded the western insistence on "cubbyholing" sins as a McDonald's or Chinese menu approach to confession: "I did the small one in column A, and the large one in Column B." For a long time the perceived nitpicking made me skeptical about the value of confession. After all, God knows my sins, and I am ever reminded of them, regardless of their seriousness. But, the eastern approach even suggests that perfect sinlessness is not a human condition, but the goal of our efforts toward deification. We are a work in progress, and need not be perfect in order to approach the Cup. Our sins should not interfere in our surrender to God's Grace. The particulars of sins are not as important as the confrontation with them. One need not humiliate oneself in order to obtain absolution. It is the core of sin that one must humbly confess without the details. God already knows the details. It is yet another example of how the east looks toward the big picture instead of small details most of the time. This macro approach is not easy for RCs to understand. It also extends to holy day observances, with the east saying all days are important and the faithful should come every chance they get, while the west seperates holy days of obligation versus others, which is regarded as unnecessary in the east. (I think Robert makes a far better mainline eastern explanation above, but I thought I would put it in my own words. I don't disagree with his messages.)

It's funny, I went to Roman Catholic CCD for years as a kid and no one ever brought up that there was any sort of hierarchy of "mortal" versus "venial." My husband explained the mortal/venial concept to me just a couple years ago. He couldn't believe I never knew about 'em.

But I really don't think now knowing there is a two-tiered classification of sins out there affected my personal need and desire to Confess - in my simplistic way, I figure that a sin I know about or that I remember is a sin that I Confess before I go to Communion.

In the Latin Rite, sins are divided into two categories, venial which , if you die with on your soul, you go to purgatory. And mortal, if you die with it on your soul, you go to hell.

Is this the general outlook of the Eastern Catholic Rite?

BTW, in the CCC the word mortal is interchangeable with grave.