Are all sins equally bad in the eyes of God?

JohnB445

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2018
1,367
916
Illinois
✟173,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Is one like Hitler who orchestrates a massacre as equally bad, as one who made a white lie?

I remember being in school and a teacher saying all sins are equally bad.

Well, we do know that no matter how small the sin may seem to anybody, that just one transgression is deserving of hell. I have heard some pastors claim that hell isn't going to be experienced the same compared to one of another. That there are "lesser hells" So someone's torment may be more severe than the other in other words hell won't be the same for everybody in it.

I am not always right about things, my natural response is that doesn't seem right, of course some sins are worse than others. For example, in society each crime is seen with different severity and different lengths of punishment depending on what the crime is, with some crimes so heinous that they either get life or death penalty.

My natural inclinations are not as sound as the word of God. So, what does the Bible seem to suggest for this matter?

As I have learned, what we may naturally think "ought to be the way or right" is not always what God thinks, for God's ways are not our ways.
 

Mr. M

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2020
8,129
3,211
Prescott, Az
✟36,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Is one like Hitler who orchestrates a massacre as equally bad, as one who made a white lie?

I remember being in school and a teacher saying all sins are equally bad.

Well, we do know that no matter how small the sin may seem to anybody, that just one transgression is deserving of hell. I have heard some pastors claim that hell isn't going to be experienced the same compared to one of another. That there are "lesser hells" So someone's torment may be more severe than the other in other words hell won't be the same for everybody in it.

I am not always right about things, my natural response is that doesn't seem right, of course some sins are worse than others. For example, in society each crime is seen with different severity and different lengths of punishment depending on what the crime is, with some crimes so heinous that they either get life or death penalty.

My natural inclinations are not as sound as the word of God. So, what does the Bible seem to suggest for this matter?

As I have learned, what we may naturally think "ought to be the way or right" is not always what God thinks, for God's ways are not our ways.
1 John 5:
16
If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask,
and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death.
There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that.
17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Justin BT
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,576
7,775
63
Martinez
✟893,955.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Is one like Hitler who orchestrates a massacre as equally bad, as one who made a white lie?

I remember being in school and a teacher saying all sins are equally bad.

Well, we do know that no matter how small the sin may seem to anybody, that just one transgression is deserving of hell. I have heard some pastors claim that hell isn't going to be experienced the same compared to one of another. That there are "lesser hells" So someone's torment may be more severe than the other in other words hell won't be the same for everybody in it.

I am not always right about things, my natural response is that doesn't seem right, of course some sins are worse than others. For example, in society each crime is seen with different severity and different lengths of punishment depending on what the crime is, with some crimes so heinous that they either get life or death penalty.

My natural inclinations are not as sound as the word of God. So, what does the Bible seem to suggest for this matter?

As I have learned, what we may naturally think "ought to be the way or right" is not always what God thinks, for God's ways are not our ways.
Any sin that separates us from the Father is bad for us.
Blessings
 
Upvote 0

eleos1954

God is Love
Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
9,696
5,613
Utah
✟713,367.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Is one like Hitler who orchestrates a massacre as equally bad, as one who made a white lie?

I remember being in school and a teacher saying all sins are equally bad.

Well, we do know that no matter how small the sin may seem to anybody, that just one transgression is deserving of hell. I have heard some pastors claim that hell isn't going to be experienced the same compared to one of another. That there are "lesser hells" So someone's torment may be more severe than the other in other words hell won't be the same for everybody in it.

I am not always right about things, my natural response is that doesn't seem right, of course some sins are worse than others. For example, in society each crime is seen with different severity and different lengths of punishment depending on what the crime is, with some crimes so heinous that they either get life or death penalty.

My natural inclinations are not as sound as the word of God. So, what does the Bible seem to suggest for this matter?

As I have learned, what we may naturally think "ought to be the way or right" is not always what God thinks, for God's ways are not our ways.

The sin that does not lead to death and damnation is any sin that we commit that, by God’s grace, we confess and repent from.

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). First John 1:9 is a very, very precious promise.

Sin that does not lead to death are the ones confessed, repented from and forgiven for.

Hell is the grave .... not a place of torment ... God don't torture people.

He who hath seen me has seen the Father .... Jesus did not torture anyone.
 
Upvote 0

Vesper_Jaye✝️

Truth-Seeker
Dec 29, 2021
573
598
the Kingdom of God
✟19,137.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Different denominations think different things. In my baptist church, I was taught that all sins were the same to God.
The Catholic Church teaches that some sins are mortal and others are not, so some sins are worse than others.
I encourage you to research it!
Are all sins equally offensive to God?
 
Upvote 0

Basil the Great

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 9, 2009
4,766
4,085
✟721,243.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Green
The teaching that all sins are the same before God is most definitely not what the Early Church believed. I recall that taking a human life was considered to be a grave sin, even if done unintentionally in a fight. Penance in one jurisdiction for this was being barred from the Eucharist for like 10 years and having to kneel in the back of the church sanctuary for a long time besides.
 
Upvote 0

dqhall

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 21, 2015
7,547
4,171
Florida
Visit site
✟766,603.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Is one like Hitler who orchestrates a massacre as equally bad, as one who made a white lie?

I remember being in school and a teacher saying all sins are equally bad.

Well, we do know that no matter how small the sin may seem to anybody, that just one transgression is deserving of hell. I have heard some pastors claim that hell isn't going to be experienced the same compared to one of another. That there are "lesser hells" So someone's torment may be more severe than the other in other words hell won't be the same for everybody in it.

I am not always right about things, my natural response is that doesn't seem right, of course some sins are worse than others. For example, in society each crime is seen with different severity and different lengths of punishment depending on what the crime is, with some crimes so heinous that they either get life or death penalty.

My natural inclinations are not as sound as the word of God. So, what does the Bible seem to suggest for this matter?

As I have learned, what we may naturally think "ought to be the way or right" is not always what God thinks, for God's ways are not our ways.
Paul wrote about a horrible sin that should have required the excommunication of the sinner from the Corinthians’ fellowship.

Dealing With a Case of Incest (NIV)

1 Corinthians 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I remember being in school and a teacher saying all sins are equally bad.
ImCo:
There is one disvalue to sin....if it is a sin, little or big, it has the ultimate disvalue to GOD. The sin by an elect puts Christ on the cross and the sin by the non-elect puts them in hell forever. Only from a worldly pov are sins little or big.

The disvalue of the sins of the non-elect, the unforgivable sin, is that it postpones HIS fulfillment of the purpose of our creation, the heavenly marriage that is to be the culmination of the earthly story. This marriage had to be postponed until the judgement can eradicate evil from this reality so their sinfulness cannot leaven the heavenly marriage and destroy it.

The disvalue of the sins of the elect, ie, the forgivable ones, is that until they are made holy and thereby free of any effect of the judgement upon them, the judgement had to be postponed while weeds and sinful good seed live together for the redemption and sanctification of the sinful good seed: Matt 13:27 The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

28 ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
[A reference to verses...38-39]

So the servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ [that is, bring the judgement upon them?]

29 ‘NO!’ he said, [postpone the judgement because]...‘if you pull the weeds now, you might uproot the good seed with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the good seed into my barn.’ ” The time of the harvest is the time of the maturity of the good seed and the only maturity that saves a sinner from the judgement is the maturity of a fully sanctified holiness.
 
Upvote 0

RaymondG

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2016
8,545
3,816
USA
✟268,974.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I find little value in judging severity of different sins. This behavior can only lead one to feel OK about their sin, by simply looking at another who have completed a "worse" sin....."Well at least I didnt do that.....so im better off than him!"

Yet we all do it....everytime I see a thread about someone feeling bad for a sin....many chime in with what David did or Saul...aoster fes a way to make the pel better about theirs.

This is unwise.

We should do what Jesus said and leave it at that: "Go and sin no more."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SuperCow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 14, 2018
587
275
57
Leonardtown, MD
✟197,175.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If all sins were equal, then there would not be a complex law code by Moses. But since Christ died for us, we are no longer judged based on the severity of our sin, but by the sincerity of our repentance from them. Only God knows the answer to that.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: TedT
Upvote 0

honestal

Active Member
Mar 27, 2021
111
167
67
Midwest
✟31,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
All sin is bad, but all sins are not equal.

I don't like being lied to, but I'd rather you lie to me than kill me.

And I'd rather you lie to my wife than rape her.

Surely, stealing a paper-clip from work doesn't compare with raping and murdering a three year old.
 
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
All sin is bad, but all sins are not equal.

I don't like being lied to, but I'd rather you lie to me than kill me.

And I'd rather you lie to my wife than rape her.

Surely, stealing a paper-clip from work doesn't compare with raping and murdering a three year old.

Is there a paper-clip thief in heaven?

NO! 1 Cor 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

So his thievery is either forgiven in Christ or he is damned...just like every other sin of any proportion...no matter how you feel about it!
 
Upvote 0

zoidar

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️
Supporter
Sep 18, 2010
7,163
2,606
✟877,129.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Is one like Hitler who orchestrates a massacre as equally bad, as one who made a white lie?

I remember being in school and a teacher saying all sins are equally bad.

Well, we do know that no matter how small the sin may seem to anybody, that just one transgression is deserving of hell. I have heard some pastors claim that hell isn't going to be experienced the same compared to one of another. That there are "lesser hells" So someone's torment may be more severe than the other in other words hell won't be the same for everybody in it.

I am not always right about things, my natural response is that doesn't seem right, of course some sins are worse than others. For example, in society each crime is seen with different severity and different lengths of punishment depending on what the crime is, with some crimes so heinous that they either get life or death penalty.

My natural inclinations are not as sound as the word of God. So, what does the Bible seem to suggest for this matter?

As I have learned, what we may naturally think "ought to be the way or right" is not always what God thinks, for God's ways are not our ways.

Of course not! Severe sins may harden our heart a way a lesser sin wouldn't. I'm sure David sinned a few times in his life, but it was the sin with Bathsheba that was particularly bad, and had the most dire consequences.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: fhansen
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,990
Pacific Northwest
✟200,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Is one like Hitler who orchestrates a massacre as equally bad, as one who made a white lie?

I remember being in school and a teacher saying all sins are equally bad.

Well, we do know that no matter how small the sin may seem to anybody, that just one transgression is deserving of hell. I have heard some pastors claim that hell isn't going to be experienced the same compared to one of another. That there are "lesser hells" So someone's torment may be more severe than the other in other words hell won't be the same for everybody in it.

I am not always right about things, my natural response is that doesn't seem right, of course some sins are worse than others. For example, in society each crime is seen with different severity and different lengths of punishment depending on what the crime is, with some crimes so heinous that they either get life or death penalty.

My natural inclinations are not as sound as the word of God. So, what does the Bible seem to suggest for this matter?

As I have learned, what we may naturally think "ought to be the way or right" is not always what God thinks, for God's ways are not our ways.
James 2:10

New International Version

10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Have you ever seen a topographical map? Where different elevations are represented through borders? There is definitely a difference in those maps between sea level and a mile high, but the way they're laid on the map makes their similarity far easier to see. In the same way I don't think God is unable to distinguish between degrees of sinfulness, nor is every sin equivalent, but there is no such thing as a minor sin. The differences really only matter when we're comparing ourselves to others, because even the tiniest sin makes us guilty before God.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,886
3,525
✟320,715.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Is one like Hitler who orchestrates a massacre as equally bad, as one who made a white lie?

I remember being in school and a teacher saying all sins are equally bad.

Well, we do know that no matter how small the sin may seem to anybody, that just one transgression is deserving of hell. I have heard some pastors claim that hell isn't going to be experienced the same compared to one of another. That there are "lesser hells" So someone's torment may be more severe than the other in other words hell won't be the same for everybody in it.

I am not always right about things, my natural response is that doesn't seem right, of course some sins are worse than others. For example, in society each crime is seen with different severity and different lengths of punishment depending on what the crime is, with some crimes so heinous that they either get life or death penalty.

My natural inclinations are not as sound as the word of God. So, what does the Bible seem to suggest for this matter?

As I have learned, what we may naturally think "ought to be the way or right" is not always what God thinks, for God's ways are not our ways.
The Bible lists examples of sins that will keep us from heaven/separate us from God in, for example, Gal 5 and Rev 22. These are sins so grave or serious as to oppose love of God and neighbor and so, if persisted in, destroy love in us, as one teaching I’m familiar with puts it. Love and sin are mutually exclusive with love, however yet imperfect, being the hallmark of a believer, one who’s been justified.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Have you ever seen a topographical map? Where different elevations are represented through borders? There is definitely a difference in those maps between sea level and a mile high, but the way they're laid on the map makes their similarity far easier to see. In the same way I don't think God is unable to distinguish between degrees of sinfulness, nor is every sin equivalent, but there is no such thing as a minor sin. The differences really only matter when we're comparing ourselves to others, because even the tiniest sin makes us guilty before God.

I also think it helps if we discard the Western forensic model of sin in favor of the Eastern medicinal approach, in that all sins are diseases; it is equally bad from God’s perspective for us to be afflicted by any disease, but some diseases cause us more harm. This is why in the New Testament St. Paul specifically warns in Romans 1:16-32 about numerous sins, such as idolatry, fornication, murder, backbiting, conceit, homosexuality, adultery, theft, pride, envy, and other sins that harm others, while not mentioning various forms of self-destructive sins, such as sloth, gluttony, despair, and so forth, perhaps because these sins are either, in the case of despair over our salvation or crises of faith, primarily self-destructive, whereas the Seven Deadly Sins mentioned in the Roman Scholastic Theology, aside from Pride, Lust and Envy, are not enumerated completely, with Sloth and Gluttony being absent, but these sins I think were originally understood by the Roman Church, before Roman hamartiology became overly forensic due to an overemphasis of St. Augustine and an underemphasis of more traditional Latin hamartiologists such as St. John Cassian, St. Isidore of Seville, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Hippolytus, St. Vincent of Lerins, and Pope St. Gregory the Great (venerated by the Eastern Orthodox as St. Gregory Dialogos), and the Greek and Syrian fathers (and the largely Coptic pre-schism Desert Fathers), was that these sins tended to be progenitors of the severe sins St. Paul enumerates: for example, lust leads to homosexuality, fornication and adultery, wrath leads to murder, backbiting, slander, and invention of evil things, avarice and covetousness lead to theft, more backbiting, and so on, while sloth is largely self-destructive but leads to one neglecting important things around them, and covenant-breaking, and gluttony is a dangerous sin because it is wasteful of food, and the waste of food when others go hungry is a distressing failure of society.

Where the Roman model errs I think, is that the sins enumerated by St. Paul are not moral failings that are the progenitors of worse sins, moral failings that are endemic to the population, but rather specific acts of misconduct, often grave misconduct, which can cause a multiplicity of sins in response to the initial sin. The Early Church historically penanced sins on a variable scale, but the Orthodox Churches, from what various priests have told me, increasingly does not penance sins, except for those which harm the congregation, or destroy marriages, or cause some objective external harm, that must be amended for spiritual healing, and is more interested in a pastoral care technique to medicinally treat the sin, and this can be accomplished, as St. John of Kronstadt demonstrated, without penancing anyone; in his church, because of the flock of pilgrims who came to see him to partake of the Eucharist and experience the fullness of Russian Orthodox spirituality* were directed to shout their sins in a sort of hybrid of auricular and general confession**, the noise this produced providing a degree of privacy.

This showed that penances were not as important as confession, in terms of spiritual health, and nowadays, the prevailing Russian Orthodox model is to encourage auricular confession and the Eucharist as frequently as possible, especially in Lent. This was also the ancient model, at least in the Eastern Orthodox Church (During Lent, only Armenian priests take communion, and the altar is concealed from view by a curtain, however, this is a specifically Armenian practice), but early Christians had much more faith and endurance, for the Church was a refuge from worldiness, so penances may have been more frequent, but they were never required in the Eastern churches, under the principle of spiritual economy, or oikonomia, which is one of two ways the canon law of the Eastern Churches can be applied, the other being I think akrivia @GreekOrthodox is that the right word? - which means something like precision or exactitude, with the choice of how to apply the canons left to the confessor.

An important difference here arises between the two great strands of Eastern Orthodoxy, the Greek and Syrian (Antiochian) tradition, and the Russian tradition, with the Russians stressing high frequency confession, and aRussian priests being authorized to hear confessions, whereas in the Greek, Antiochian, and other “south-Eastern Orthodox” churches***, in that all Russian Orthodox priests and priests in that general tradition, such as priests of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the Latvian Orthodox Church, the Japanese and Chinese Orthodox Churches (the latter is suppressed in the PRC but still operational in the Republic of China, on the island known historically as Formosa, but now called Taiwan, and in the Hong Kong SAR, for now, and perhaps Macau), the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR), the the Belarussian Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Church of America (which is auticephalous; all the other churches I mentioned are autonomous provinces of the Russian Orthodox Church, whose relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church is a bit like that of Bermuda, Gibraltar or the Falklands or Channel Islands with the United Kingdom), are confessors. In contrast, only experienced priests are confessors in the “south-Eastern Orthodox tradition”, which include the Church of Greece (which itself consists of all those parts of Greece, such as Athens, where its Archbishop resides, which became independent in the Civil War of 1929), the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (which consists of the rest of Greece, a tiny dwindling community in Turkey, mainly in the Phanar district of Istanbul, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, the Metropolis of Thyatira and Great Britain, the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia, South America and New Zealand, and also several autonomous churches), the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa, the Orthodox Church of Cyprus (which like Antioch, Alexandria and Rome, is one of only four churches to have been continually autocephalous since the fourth century), and the Albanian Orthodox Church.

In these churches, you can tell if a priest is a confessor by whether or not he wears an Epigonation when fully vested for the Divine Liturgy, whereas in the Russian/ Northern Orthodox tradition, the Epigonation is usually an award for meritorious services.

This has an impact on the frequency of confession in the South-eastern churches, in that not all parishes have a confessor present at every liturgy, and these churches tend to either require annual confessions, or confessions when the penitent feels inclined to make one. Auricular confession is not seen as a prerequisite to receiving the Eucharist like it is in the Russian Orthodox Church, and like in the Anglican, Lutheran and Roman Catholic traditions, and indeed most other Orthodox churches, there is a general confession in the Eastern Orthodox liturgy, as well as penitential prayers in preparation for communion.

The South-eastern Orthodox tradition is also, in all probability not coincidentally, the tradition of the Coptic Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox churches, which are the Oriental Orthodox counterparts to the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria, and the Antiochian Orthodox Church, respectively. The Catechism of the Syriac Orthodox Church, which is the only one of which I have an English language copy (I found a Coptic catechism online, and downloaded it, but I seem to have forgotten where I saved it, perhaps @dzheremi could help) requires the Syriac Orthodox faithful to confess and receive communion annually. My understanding from personal experience is the Coptic Church follows similar principals.

I don’t know if this is the case in the Armenian church but perhaps @ArmenianJohn could help.

The Assyrian Church of the East in theory still has auricular confession, but in practice Assyrians who I have spoken to about it claim their church does not have it. This is a bit like the theoretical icons and theoretical monasticism in the Assyrian church; they are things the church had but centuries of poverty and persecution since the genocide of Tamerlane and the oppressive rule of the Ottoman and Persian states have caused it to temporarily lose, although efforts are being made to restore these practices.

*In the 19th century this underwent a revival, following the spiritual disaster of the 18th century, with the schism with the Old Believers, who started to be reconciled with the canonical church in the early 19th century, and the disastrous mismanagement of the church by the Imperial Procurator, who in the absence of the Moscow Patriarchate, dominated the Holy Synodm which consisted of only three bishops. By the time of St. John of Kronstadt things were better, however, the really pious Russian Orthodox would still go out of their way on pilgrimages to visit the starets, or elders, of the era, as was always the case in Orthodoxy before the Soviet Union made such internal travel very difficult, and St. John of Kronstadt was especially popular, for unlike most parishes at the time, at his parish he encouraged everyone to confess and receive the Eucharist at every Divine Liturgy. And this turned into the model for Russian Orthodox spiritual health, with laity encouraged to confess at least monthly and receive the Eucharist every time.

** Auricular confession is private confession made in the witness of a priest, which in Roman Catholicism invariably involves while general confession is the the congregation collectively confessing following a preset formula, followed by the priest, who in either case pronounces absolution acting in persona Christi, in accordance with the directive to the Apostles in Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 18:18-19 and John 20:22-23. In some forms of related prayer, sometimes called confiteor, the priest confesses his sinfulness and that of the congregation (declaring himself the chief of sinners in the Eastern Orthodox church, which us a remarkably anti-clericalist act of humility, of being “less holier than thou”), and then simply pronounces absolution for any sins committed by himself and the congregation, again using the powers conferred on ministers of Christ’s church in Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22-33.

***basically the sort that use Byzantine chant and whose priests don’t wear the Russian or Ukrainian style vestments with the raised collar, but instead wear vestments which hangs down over the shoulders like most chasubles or copes (a chasuble, such as requested by St. Paul in one of his last epistles before his execution, is called a Phelonion in Greek).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ArmenianJohn

Politically Liberal Christian Fundamentalist
Jan 30, 2013
8,962
5,550
New Jersey (NYC Metro)
✟205,242.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I also think it helps if we discard the Western forensic model of sin in favor of the Eastern medicinal approach, in that all sins are diseases; it is equally bad from God’s perspective for us to be afflicted by any disease, but some diseases cause us more harm. This is why in the New Testament St. Paul specifically warns in Romans 1:16-32 about numerous sins, such as idolatry, fornication, murder, backbiting, conceit, homosexuality, adultery, theft, pride, envy, and other sins that harm others, while not mentioning various forms of self-destructive sins, such as sloth, gluttony, despair, and so forth, perhaps because these sins are either, in the case of despair over our salvation or crises of faith, primarily self-destructive, whereas the Seven Deadly Sins mentioned in the Roman Scholastic Theology, aside from Pride, Lust and Envy, are not enumerated completely, with Sloth and Gluttony being absent, but these sins I think were originally understood by the Roman Church, before Roman hamartiology became overly forensic due to an overemphasis of St. Augustine and an underemphasis of more traditional Latin hamartiologists such as St. John Cassian, St. Isidore of Seville, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Hippolytus, St. Vincent of Lerins, and Pope St. Gregory the Great (venerated by the Eastern Orthodox as St. Gregory Dialogos), and the Greek and Syrian fathers (and the largely Coptic pre-schism Desert Fathers), was that these sins tended to be progenitors of the severe sins St. Paul enumerates: for example, lust leads to homosexuality, fornication and adultery, wrath leads to murder, backbiting, slander, and invention of evil things, avarice and covetousness lead to theft, more backbiting, and so on, while sloth is largely self-destructive but leads to one neglecting important things around them, and covenant-breaking, and gluttony is a dangerous sin because it is wasteful of food, and the waste of food when others go hungry is a distressing failure of society.

Where the Roman model errs I think, is that the sins enumerated by St. Paul are not moral failings that are the progenitors of worse sins, moral failings that are endemic to the population, but rather specific acts of misconduct, often grave misconduct, which can cause a multiplicity of sins in response to the initial sin. The Early Church historically penanced sins on a variable scale, but the Orthodox Churches, from what various priests have told me, increasingly does not penance sins, except for those which harm the congregation, or destroy marriages, or cause some objective external harm, that must be amended for spiritual healing, and is more interested in a pastoral care technique to medicinally treat the sin, and this can be accomplished, as St. John of Kronstadt demonstrated, without penancing anyone; in his church, because of the flock of pilgrims who came to see him to partake of the Eucharist and experience the fullness of Russian Orthodox spirituality* were directed to shout their sins in a sort of hybrid of auricular and general confession**, the noise this produced providing a degree of privacy.

This showed that penances were not as important as confession, in terms of spiritual health, and nowadays, the prevailing Russian Orthodox model is to encourage auricular confession and the Eucharist as frequently as possible, especially in Lent. This was also the ancient model, at least in the Eastern Orthodox Church (During Lent, only Armenian priests take communion, and the altar is concealed from view by a curtain, however, this is a specifically Armenian practice), but early Christians had much more faith and endurance, for the Church was a refuge from worldiness, so penances may have been more frequent, but they were never required in the Eastern churches, under the principle of spiritual economy, or oikonomia, which is one of two ways the canon law of the Eastern Churches can be applied, the other being I think akrivia @GreekOrthodox is that the right word? - which means something like precision or exactitude, with the choice of how to apply the canons left to the confessor.

An important difference here arises between the two great strands of Eastern Orthodoxy, the Greek and Syrian (Antiochian) tradition, and the Russian tradition, with the Russians stressing high frequency confession, and aRussian priests being authorized to hear confessions, whereas in the Greek, Antiochian, and other “south-Eastern Orthodox” churches***, in that all Russian Orthodox priests and priests in that general tradition, such as priests of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the Latvian Orthodox Church, the Japanese and Chinese Orthodox Churches (the latter is suppressed in the PRC but still operational in the Republic of China, on the island known historically as Formosa, but now called Taiwan, and in the Hong Kong SAR, for now, and perhaps Macau), the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR), the the Belarussian Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Church of America (which is auticephalous; all the other churches I mentioned are autonomous provinces of the Russian Orthodox Church, whose relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church is a bit like that of Bermuda, Gibraltar or the Falklands or Channel Islands with the United Kingdom), are confessors. In contrast, only experienced priests are confessors in the “south-Eastern Orthodox tradition”, which include the Church of Greece (which itself consists of all those parts of Greece, such as Athens, where its Archbishop resides, which became independent in the Civil War of 1929), the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (which consists of the rest of Greece, a tiny dwindling community in Turkey, mainly in the Phanar district of Istanbul, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, the Metropolis of Thyatira and Great Britain, the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia, South America and New Zealand, and also several autonomous churches), the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa, the Orthodox Church of Cyprus (which like Antioch, Alexandria and Rome, is one of only four churches to have been continually autocephalous since the fourth century), and the Albanian Orthodox Church.

In these churches, you can tell if a priest is a confessor by whether or not he wears an Epigonation when fully vested for the Divine Liturgy, whereas in the Russian/ Northern Orthodox tradition, the Epigonation is usually an award for meritorious services.

This has an impact on the frequency of confession in the South-eastern churches, in that not all parishes have a confessor present at every liturgy, and these churches tend to either require annual confessions, or confessions when the penitent feels inclined to make one. Auricular confession is not seen as a prerequisite to receiving the Eucharist like it is in the Russian Orthodox Church, and like in the Anglican, Lutheran and Roman Catholic traditions, and indeed most other Orthodox churches, there is a general confession in the Eastern Orthodox liturgy, as well as penitential prayers in preparation for communion.

The South-eastern Orthodox tradition is also, in all probability not coincidentally, the tradition of the Coptic Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox churches, which are the Oriental Orthodox counterparts to the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria, and the Antiochian Orthodox Church, respectively. The Catechism of the Syriac Orthodox Church, which is the only one of which I have an English language copy (I found a Coptic catechism online, and downloaded it, but I seem to have forgotten where I saved it, perhaps @dzheremi could help) requires the Syriac Orthodox faithful to confess and receive communion annually. My understanding from personal experience is the Coptic Church follows similar principals.

I don’t know if this is the case in the Armenian church but perhaps @ArmenianJohn could help.

The Assyrian Church of the East in theory still has auricular confession, but in practice Assyrians who I have spoken to about it claim their church does not have it. This is a bit like the theoretical icons and theoretical monasticism in the Assyrian church; they are things the church had but centuries of poverty and persecution since the genocide of Tamerlane and the oppressive rule of the Ottoman and Persian states have caused it to temporarily lose, although efforts are being made to restore these practices.

*In the 19th century this underwent a revival, following the spiritual disaster of the 18th century, with the schism with the Old Believers, who started to be reconciled with the canonical church in the early 19th century, and the disastrous mismanagement of the church by the Imperial Procurator, who in the absence of the Moscow Patriarchate, dominated the Holy Synodm which consisted of only three bishops. By the time of St. John of Kronstadt things were better, however, the really pious Russian Orthodox would still go out of their way on pilgrimages to visit the starets, or elders, of the era, as was always the case in Orthodoxy before the Soviet Union made such internal travel very difficult, and St. John of Kronstadt was especially popular, for unlike most parishes at the time, at his parish he encouraged everyone to confess and receive the Eucharist at every Divine Liturgy. And this turned into the model for Russian Orthodox spiritual health, with laity encouraged to confess at least monthly and receive the Eucharist every time.

** Auricular confession is private confession made in the witness of a priest, which in Roman Catholicism invariably involves while general confession is the the congregation collectively confessing following a preset formula, followed by the priest, who in either case pronounces absolution acting in persona Christi, in accordance with the directive to the Apostles in Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 18:18-19 and John 20:22-23. In some forms of related prayer, sometimes called confiteor, the priest confesses his sinfulness and that of the congregation (declaring himself the chief of sinners in the Eastern Orthodox church, which us a remarkably anti-clericalist act of humility, of being “less holier than thou”), and then simply pronounces absolution for any sins committed by himself and the congregation, again using the powers conferred on ministers of Christ’s church in Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22-33.

***basically the sort that use Byzantine chant and whose priests don’t wear the Russian or Ukrainian style vestments with the raised collar, but instead wear vestments which hangs down over the shoulders like most chasubles or copes (a chasuble, such as requested by St. Paul in one of his last epistles before his execution, is called a Phelonion in Greek).
I read through kind of quickly so if I missed what you (@The Liturgist ) asked me to confirm just let me know. You are correct that during Lent our altar is concealed behind a curtain until Easter. As for confession, we have general confession. If "auricular" confession means confessing directly to a priest, people in our Church can do that if they want but it is not required or expected. If I told my priest I wanted to do that he would probably be surprised but would not act surprised and would accommodate it.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0