www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Mortal, venial sin & theosis in the Byz Cath churches

It is my understanding that the Roman Catholic understanding of mortal and venial sins is exactly that - Roman Catholic. My question is how the Byzantine tradition understands these concepts, specifically in regards to the concept of theosis.

I ask this because it has been presented to me that mortal and venial sins are understood the same way in the Byzantine faith as in the Roman faith. If one dies with an unconfessed mortal sin, for example, one is hell bound. This does not seem Byzantine to me at all. It was further explained to me that mortal sins in this context are known as "grave" sins in the Byzantine faith, and that the same teachings apply.

I'd love to hear thoughts on this.

Not necessarily - act of perfect contrition is enough for sins to be pardoned.

Okay, if one dies before a mortal sin is confessed or an act of perfect contrition can be completed...

My question still remains.

EDIT: It seems this topic was begun last year, but not really explored in much detail.

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/350134/

I have always struggled with the idea, well, nay, the immutable logical conclusion of de fide Catholic dogma, that after attending Mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation of the year, missing Mass one Sunday if you could have reasonably gotten to it and then dying two days later - without an act of perfect contrition having been made - lands you squarely in Hell for eternity.

I try not to give that too much thought, but it's still perplexing.

Alexis

Well maybe it's perplexing precisely because I haven't wanted to give it too much thought, so therefore others' opinions are welcome.

Alexis

Just to re-emphasize:

I do not want to debate the merit of this Roman Catholic teaching of mortal/venial sins and the repercussions thereof so much as explore its place in the Byzantine tradition, specifically the claim made to me that it is a Byzantine Catholic understanding of sin as well as Roman Catholic one.

I don't see how you could discuss the issue without debating that.

If two traditions believe such radically different things, then at least one of them must, either partially or in their entirety, be wrong.

Did you read what I said?

I am wondering if the Roman Catholic understanding of mortal and venial sin is also a part of the Byzantine tradition.

I do not believe that it is, but it was presented to me as such. I am coming on this forum to submit the topic to discussion.

There is no consideration of what is "right or wrong" only what is Byzantine or not - regardless of merit.

One can "reason" along these lines, that a LOT of Catholics went to hell for eating meat on Friday without a dispensation.

Since the rules changed or "underwent adjustment" on that issue, maybe they're eligible for some kind of amnesty?

Sielos,

They'd have to knowingly do so. I think most people don't know the rules of their respective bishops' conferences. In the U.S., it's no meat on Fridays during Lent no matter what (with exceptions for certain holy days, like the Annunciation this year), and no meat on Fridays throughout the year in general unless a good work is done in lieu. Most people just simply know about the Lenten rule, however.

Perhaps, as shocking as the idea may seem to some, the bishops' conferences might do a better job of informing the faithful of their abstinence (and fast) obligations.

Alexis

I find it unfortunate that sometimes Catholics (and Orthodox, too, I guess) KNOW the fast/abstinence guidelines/rules of their respective Churches but simply DON'T CARE. And that's understandable: the rules are regarded as arbitrary, irritating incoveniences imposed by a bunch of irrelevant men got up in ecclesiastical drag who, for the most part, are dismissed as having lost all credibility. (on acc't of the priestly misconduct scandals, and other such unappetizing events). So perhaps it's symptomatic of a general malaise weighing down on all Churches today.

Seems to me catechesis nowadays ain't none too good, either. Of course, that depends on a lot of factors.

Anyway, here at the middle of Lent, my thoughts turn to Romans 14:17; the passage re-orients me. I don't propose it as the last word on the subject but like I said, it re-directs me. Maybe it'll help other people re-focus, too.

Please re-read the first paragraph of my post.

I am not asking about fasting, timely though it may be.

I don't think anyone's answered the question so I'll jump in.

The answer is that there is no answer. There's no "official teaching" and it depends entirely on who you talk to. If you find that a bit disconcerting then you can join the club (of which I'm the founding member).

Most Orthodox will tell you that the mortal/venial sin distinction is nonsense and that sin is just sin. When pushed harder however they also kind of break sin into tiers. I mean if you shoot somebody Sunday morning you're not going to be able to receive communion. Whereas if you just lose your temper and yell at some innocent kid you're probably still good to go. Also, I have seen the term 'mortal sin' used in Orthodox literature before, but contemporary Orthodox tend to write that sort of thing off as latin captivity or influence; whether you buy that line is up to you - I'm not entirely there yet.

Contemporary Orthodox also tend to spin 'sin' in a more 'positive' direction. That is you should focus on growing closer to God and not on avoiding sin. I'm a softie so I tend to like such spins even if I'm not sure it makes complete sense.

For what it's worth, I'm Melkite and we are known as generally being the most Orthodox of the Eastern Catholics. My priest still uses the term 'mortal sin' and it does make me unconfortable because my own position on it is in flux.

What freaks people out the most I think about mortal sin is not even the idea of it per se but all the queer things the Latins have seen fit to apply it to: breaking fasting discipline, missing your Sunday "obligation", etc. It used to be even worse before Vatican I if you can believe it. One Roman priest I talked to said it was basically impossible for a priest to make it through the Trad. Mass without committing a mortal sin. Pretty wild.

You also have a state in Roman Catholicism where much of the laity is receiving communion in a state of mortal sin. Either though some violation like the above or the use of contraception, or pre-marital sex, or who knows what else. The most common Roman defense is ignorance: it's not really mortal sin because they don't understand the teaching. I don't buy it. People often know the teaching on these things and they just ignore it. Also, the clergy don't make much of an effort to deal with this issue. They have justification for inaction; I don't know whether I buy it.

Anyway, that may have been more than you wanted to hear. Good question though I think.

Byzantines don't think about things the same way as do Latins. There is certainly an acknowledgement of greater and lesser sins (call them mortal and veniel if you like). But beyond that Byzantines don't see a lot of value in spending time developing lists of sins, ranking them from worst to least. That's why the whole Lain theology of indulgences makes no sense to us. "Pray this prayer and you'll get a 15 minute indulgence." Byzantines would acknowledge that the sin is bad, that it falls into a cagegory of lesser or greater, that if unrepented it will have a bad effect upon body and soul, and that one must repent of the sin, do reparation for the sin, and address the root cause of the sin. Putting the extra emphasis on addressing the root cause helps prevent the re-occurance of sin.

Note a difference between "unconfessed mortal sin" and "unrepented mortal sin". The issue here is that Byzantines are always leery of absolutes. Is it not possible for a man who repents of a mortal sin but who has not repented it prior to physical death to find forgiveness from the Lord? Latins might find lots of ways to (at the end) declare that the man just might not have committed a mortal sin (given the circumstances, lack of intent, etc.). Byzantines, not having such exacting classifications, don't worry about what box to put him in, and attempt to concentrate on simply praying for the man, that the Lord in His abundant mercy forgive him. There is almost a tendency to conclude that until the Final Judgment it is possible to repent and be saved.

This is severely simplified, but might help the discussion along.

Thank you Matt and John for your excellent answers, and for confirming my understanding.

I brought this up because it was taught as part of our Intro to the Faith class at our church (Ruthenian). I raised an objection but was told that Byzantines understand mortal and venial sins the same as Roman Catholics, with the exception that it is called "grave" rather than "mortal." I didn't press the point, because I didn't feel like arguing with our deacon-in-waiting who leads the class (a convert from the Roman church after V2). We also use the Roman Catholic catechism book in our classes 2-3 times as much as the "Light for Life" ByzCath book, so it's not really surprising.

*sigh*

It's a shame that I love this church and the people there, because I think I would be much better suited as a Melkite.