Mortal and Venial sins

[Simon_Templar]

I am curious what the Orthodox take on the idea of Mortal and Venial sins is.

 

[E.C.]

I believe it is something like this: Sin is sin. Period.

 

[ReadingForOrders]

That is pretty much my understanding. I will have to look for it but there is a good definition in "Orthodox Domatic Theology" It may take me a few days to find it though.

Tom

 

[a_ntv]

I am curious what the Orthodox take on the idea of Mortal and Venial sins is.

I change the question in a very similar one

Which are the sins that allow a Orthodox to receive the communion?

Please not answer me: no sin, because anyone of us us, more or less heavily since the confession one hour before the Liturgy up to the Communion.

Which are the sins that an Orthodox can anyway have while he receive the Communion? (we call them he 'venial' sins)

 

[Vasileios]

That's the thing. There is no such list. While there are canons about several sins that suggest a time for the person to abstain from the Holy Eucharist, those are not binding to the spiritual father, they are guidelines, a standard.

So, yes, murder would be a pretty important reason not to partake for pretty much everyone but for most sins there is no official line that can be crossed. How serious a sin is to someone's spiritual life is something to be determined by the spiritual father and the person's conscience. We are not all uniform souls, we are unique persons, with unique lives and circumstances, so the effect a sin has to each of us is different, that is how much it separates us from God.

 

[Hoankan]

I don't know about other jurisdictions but the Archdiocese of Japan requires confession before partaking of the Eucharist each time. As for what would bar us, Vasileios says it pretty well. I would also like to add that sometimes a constant issue with repeating a similar sin can also be cause for our spiritual father to have us not partake but I have no idea what circumstances would cause that. It really is a personal issue in the Church and each person must struggle with their own sins.

 

[ContraMundum]

I believe it is something like this: Sin is sin. Period.

Then what would be your understanding of this text:

1Jn 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

 

[Rowan]

Then what would be your understanding of this text:

1Jn 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

I asked my priest the same thing and he told me that the verse refers to the deadly sins that the Church in its infancy (and today) would guard the chalice against: blasphemy, adultery, and murder.

 

[RestoreTheRiver]

This is a difference in the historic pastoral approach of east and west. The western church developed a more juridical view. Therefore, lists, rules, and standards are natural to her thinking. The east, on the other hand, has maintained more of a spiritual direction approach, which does not lend itself to such lists.

The eastern view was also found in the "spiritual friend" tradition that developed in the Celtic Church.

Michael

 

[ContraMundum]

I asked my priest the same thing and he told me that the verse refers to the deadly sins that the Church in its infancy (and today) would guard the chalice against: blasphemy, adultery, and murder.

Doesn't really suit the context though, does it? Also- doesn't explain the distinction.

 

[Gianna]

I think the others have addressed the question pretty well...we don't have a list of sins , etc.

It is my understanding that St. Thomas Aquinas wrote extensively on the subject of "venial" and "mortal" sins as a response to some very difficult times in his parish/part of the world. Realizing that the concepts of "venial" and "mortal" sins are unique to the western Catholic world, it's important to say that in the eastern mind/Orthodox world, such distinctions are not really drawn . For us, narrowly interpreting the cannons and the sacraments, any sin unconfessed, is a danger to our souls and to our salvation.

Haviing said that, confession and communion are two distinctly separate sacraments, and though they are definitely related, the one is not necessarily dependent upon the other. Our priests tend to trust us when we don't seem to "need" confession. This isn't to say that people should go all the time, or not at all...but people need to be responsible for their own salvation, and one way for them to "own it" is to go to confession when they have something to say, not just to fulfill a 'weekly duty". I hope I am making sense to you and not just confusing you....I appreciate the opportunity to at least take a stab at your question.
One Love-One Hope,
Gianna

 

[Rowan]

Doesn't really suit the context though, does it? Also- doesn't explain the distinction.

How so? As explained very well in this thread, the 'mortal' and 'venial' distinction doesn't exist in Orthodoxy, but that doesn't mean that there aren't sins that bar one from communing if they are unconfessed.

 

[Ave Maria]

I believe it is something like this: Sin is sin. Period.

If that is the case then that makes no sense to me Biblically. After all, the Bible speaks of a sin unto death.

(DRB) 1 John 5:17 All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.

So therefore, I don't see how it gets any clearer than that. The Bible clearly speaks of two different kinds of sin. The first being a sin that is not unto death or venial sin and the second being a sin that is unto death or mortal sin.

 

[Rowan]

If that is the case then that makes no sense to me Biblically. After all, the Bible speaks of a sin unto death.

(DRB) 1 John 5:17 All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.

So therefore, I don't see how it gets any clearer than that. The Bible clearly speaks of two different kinds of sin. The first being a sin that is not unto death or venial sin and the second being a sin that is unto death or mortal sin.

Already addressed:

I asked my priest the same thing and he told me that the verse refers to the deadly sins that the Church in its infancy (and today) would guard the chalice against: blasphemy, adultery, and murder.

Doesn't really suit the context though, does it? Also- doesn't explain the distinction.

How so? As explained very well in this thread, the 'mortal' and 'venial' distinction doesn't exist in Orthodoxy, but that doesn't mean that there aren't sins that bar one from communing if they are unconfessed.

To be fair though, Contra has not gotten his counter in yet.

 

[Ave Maria]

Already addressed:







To be fair though, Contra has not gotten his counter in yet.

So in other words, the Orthodox Church does not teach that all sins are equal but that some are more grievous than others?

 

[Rowan]

So in other words, the Orthodox Church does not teach that all sins are equal but that some are more grievous than others?

I think there's some confusion going on. I think the whole "we don't have a list" thing is throwing you off.

I think that we can all agree that all sin is an affront to God. It's not as if I think those that believe in a list of mortal and venial sins compromise themselves on venial sins and think that they're "okay" as long as they don't commit any mortal sins.

In Orthodoxy (and in Eastern Catholicism, I've read), we believe that the Christian life consists of avoiding all sin by drawing closer to God...the details of the sickness aren't drawn universally, but the Cure, Jesus Christ, most certainly is.

As far as a common application of this, whether someone can partake of the Eucharist or not: we don't have a defined concept of receiving communion in "a state of grace", but that does not mean that proper discernment before partaking of the Holy Mysteries is not taught. This is why there are some Orthodox who only commune a few times a year. What it does mean is that the subject is handled pastorally, with one and their spiritual director.

 

[Ave Maria]

I think there's some confusion going on. I think the whole "we don't have a list" thing is throwing you off.

I think that we can all agree that all sin is an affront to God. It's not as if I think those that believe in a list of mortal and venial sins compromise themselves on venial sins and think that they're "okay" as long as they don't commit any mortal sins.

In Orthodoxy (and in Eastern Catholicism, I've read), we believe that the Christian life consists of avoiding all sin by drawing closer to God...the details of the sickness aren't drawn universally, but the Cure, Jesus Christ, most certainly is.

As far as a common application of this, whether someone can partake of the Eucharist or not: we don't have a defined concept of receiving communion in "a state of grace", but that does not mean that proper discernment before partaking of the Holy Mysteries is not taught. This is why there are some Orthodox who only commune a few times a year. What it does mean is that the subject is handled pastorally, with one and their spiritual director.

Oh okay. It sounds confusing to me. But I think I barely understand what you're talking about. Thanks.

 

[ContraMundum]

How so? As explained very well in this thread, the 'mortal' and 'venial' distinction doesn't exist in Orthodoxy, but that doesn't mean that there aren't sins that bar one from communing if they are unconfessed.

I know this sounds crazy, but this sounds like double-speak. The scriptures are clear- there is a distinction in degrees of sin. I think we agree on the scriptures. However, if the replies here are anything to go by, the Orthodox appear to only apply this in regards to communion, whereas that means that there is a material distinction between degrees of sin...so....in other words you actually agree with us but use different terms and only apply them to communion? Am I right?

 

[Rowan]

Oh okay. It sounds confusing to me. But I think I barely understand what you're talking about. Thanks.

Sorry about that. It's easier for me to live than to explain, like most things

I know this sounds crazy, but this sounds like double-speak. The scriptures are clear- there is a distinction in degrees of sin. I think we agree on the scriptures. However, if the replies here are anything to go by, the Orthodox appear to only apply this in regards to communion, whereas that means that there is a material distinction between degrees of sin...so....in other words you actually agree with us but use different terms and only apply them to communion? Am I right?

Speaking personally, I put in into the context of taking communion because the question was brought up once in this thread, and that's the context in which I'm usually asked to explain when my Catholic friends ask, so it's familiar ground. Also, it's a good objective, outward indicator, and that's good for the discussion.

Sure. The points that were made were that we don't use the terms "mortal" and "venial", and there's no "list". However, that doesn't mean, for example, that murderers are permitted to commune.

This is all related to this point: we are disciplined as a whole pastorally, with few (relatively) universal, all-encompassing arcs; instead, there are canons and disciplines that our leaders apply to us in his particular flock.

 

[ContraMundum]

Sorry about that. It's easier for me to live than to explain, like most things



Speaking personally, I put in into the context of taking communion because the question was brought up once in this thread, and that's the context in which I'm usually asked to explain when my Catholic friends ask, so it's familiar ground. Also, it's a good objective, outward indicator, and that's good for the discussion.

Sure. The points that were made were that we don't use the terms "mortal" and "venial", and there's no "list". However, that doesn't mean, for example, that murderers are permitted to commune.

This is all related to this point: we are disciplined as a whole pastorally, with few (relatively) universal, all-encompassing arcs; instead, there are canons and disciplines that our leaders apply to us in his particular flock.

I think basically we all acknowledge degrees of sin- not every sin being "unto death", but we may explain that differently and apply it much the same to some extent. As usual, it becomes more about semantics than theology.