Do Eastern Catholics Believe in Mortal and Venial Sin?

[TrueLight]

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

Remember that the obligation from the Orthodox side is to cease to condemn as heretical the developments in the west.

Is that really the only obligation?

There's a difference between saying, "We eastern Christians get to define for ourselves what we believe about the doctrine under discussion and reject whatever we believe to be western rather than universal" - of which I approve ...

Really?

To take a specific example:

The Immaculate Conception
What if an eastern Christian said, "I deny this dogma. It is false." That would fail to meet the obligation Ratzinger suggested for the eastern side of the divide.

What if an eastern Christian said, "I believe in this dogma. It is true." That would probably be a Latinization that no eastern Christian should have to profess.

What if an eastern Christian said, "This dogma was defined in terms only relevant to the western concept of the Fall. It therefore has no meaning for me. I will simply be satisfied with honoring the sinlessness of the All-Holy Theotokos." That, I think, is entirely appropriate and in line with both sides of the Ratzinger Proposal.

Wow, I totally disagree with the above.

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

You know, I actually do not. I've been a Latin Catholic all my life. The reason I seem very pro-Eastern theology is twofold: first, like you, I often relate more to and agree more with the eastern take on things. Second, it's eastern Catholics - and particularly the few I've encountered online from the Oriental/Miaphysite tradition - who have most adeptly helped me understand not only theology more clearly, but even the theology of my western tradition.

For instance, the things Mardukm on this forum has taught me about the papacy have given me an almost infinitely clearer understanding of just what papal supremacy and infallibility mean - to the extent that I now find both absolutist distortions and Low Petrine innovations equally in-credible and un-patristic.

I wouldn't understand the matter as clearly as I now do, however, if I had never encountered eastern and oriental Catholics whose different perspective helped refine my vision - just as all humans have depth perception only because the views provided by each eye overlap with each other.

To be honest, I think I've only gone to the Divine Liturgy at an eastern Catholic church twice - once to the Melkite parish in my old hometown, once at a Romanian Catholic parish when I was in Romania. The city I live in now has no eastern Christian presence at all - no Orthodox, no eastern Catholics. In any case, there are plenty of western traditions that I quite love, like the Rosary.



Brief nitpicky - but important - point: I actually disagree with the second link that eastern Catholics are "Eastern by ritual, Western by ecclesial jurisdiction." The eastern Catholic churches are (at least some of them, and at least in theory) hierarchically distinct - truly autonomous (sui iuris). The Coptic Catholic Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Maronite Syriac Church of Antioch, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, etc. can in no sense be accurately described as "western by ecclesial jurisdiction."



Oh, I agree with then-Cardinal Ratzinger. I just think that many eastern Christians misunderstood the conditions of his proposal.

Remember that the obligation from the Orthodox side is to cease to condemn as heretical the developments in the west.

There's a difference between saying, "We eastern Christians get to define for ourselves what we believe about the doctrine under discussion and reject whatever we believe to be western rather than universal" - of which I approve - and of saying, "We eastern Christians reject the doctrine itself that this council taught."

The latter actually fails to meet the obligation Ratzinger suggested above, because if the doctrine itself is in error, then that means the West has unwittingly attempted to add to the deposit of faith. Thus, the West would still be in heresy.

To take a specific example:

The Immaculate Conception
What if an eastern Christian said, "I deny this dogma. It is false." That would fail to meet the obligation Ratzinger suggested for the eastern side of the divide.

What if an eastern Christian said, "I believe in this dogma. It is true." That would probably be a Latinization that no eastern Christian should have to profess.

What if an eastern Christian said, "This dogma was defined in terms only relevant to the western concept of the Fall. It therefore has no meaning for me. I will simply be satisfied with honoring the sinlessness of the All-Holy Theotokos." That, I think, is entirely appropriate and in line with both sides of the Ratzinger Proposal.



Thank you; that's very interesting and it makes sense to me! I can see how it is different from the western understanding yet how both can legitimately coexist.

I believe that the Orthodox/Catholic dialogue is going to be available for reading in November. Speculating on what Ratzinger said and Pope Benedict said may have to be viewed in light of Ratzinger as not the Pope and the Pope speaking. It may well be that the November dialogue may clear the air or not?

[TrueLight]

Originally Posted by CopticChristian

I believe that the Orthodox/Catholic dialogue is going to be available for reading in November. Speculating on what Ratzinger said and Pope Benedict said may have to be viewed in light of Ratzinger as not the Pope and the Pope speaking. It may well be that the November dialogue may clear the air or not?

Which Nov dialogue is this?

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by jmj1984

True but the fact remains, mortal sins condemn one to hell. And of course some sins imply the consent to be mortal because they are self-evidently against natural law, sins such as:

1)Sodomy
2)Murder
3)Rape
4)Abortion
5)Lust

and that list is by no means exhaustive

Yet the Catholic Church says that if you are unaware of the seriousness of your actions, its not a mortal sin. Say there were these child warriors in Cambodia I think a while back. They were trained to fight from the time they learned to walk and wouldn't know anything better. Their actions wouldn't be considered mortal sins because they wouldn't have known any better.

[TrueLight]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Yet the Catholic Church says that if you are unaware of the seriousness of your actions, its not a mortal sin. Say there were these child warriors in Cambodia I think a while back. They were trained to fight from the time they learned to walk and wouldn't know anything better. Their actions wouldn't be considered mortal sins because they wouldn't have known any better.

But anyone who is a Catholic knows that lust is wrong, right? So if I'm a God-fearing Catholic and I am walking down the street and happen to be admiring a fine looking man and have a moment of weakness and start lusting (knowing that I shouldn't be lusting, but enjoying the moment anyway) and I get hit by a car while looking and die, then what?

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

This is not a conversation/thread that I really want to be involved in. I suspected as much from the beginning and ought to have just kept my trap shut. I shall do so, and also continue to follow the leaders of my Church sui iuris by holding to the Byzantine tradition in full, including the lack of distinction between mortal and venial sin. Rome has not seen fit to excommunicate any of the Eastern leaders who hold to this same view.

God bless.

My priest told me as much about discussing the faith on the internet. There are those who genuinely seek knowledge, and there are those who discuss just to debate and argue. Then he gave an example of how Jesus would refrain from answering questions from those he knew were not interested in the truth, but rather just want to argue. I think its clear here that someone is not interested in learning about the Byzantine praxis, but rather would not accept anything that doesn't fit his own version of truth. Best that like Christ, we avoid fruitless discussion when it gives no spiritual advantage to anyone.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by TrueLight

But anyone who is a Catholic knows that lust is wrong, right? So if I'm a God-fearing Catholic and I am walking down the street and happen to be admiring a fine looking man and have a moment of weakness and start lusting (knowing that I shouldn't be lusting, but enjoying the moment anyway) and I get hit by a car while looking and die, then what?

Still its inconclusive. Most Catholics I know don't know that IVF is a sin. Even I do not know that until like 1.5 years ago. Because we think abortion is a sin because its killing a baby, then a medical process that gives life cannot be a sin. But it is.

In this day and age, if no one will tell someone that lust is a sin, many will fall into the trap of the liberal media that lustful actions are okay and ordinary.

And your question, "and then what?" I shudder to think if any human being will be able to answer that because there is only one judge. We are asked not to judge. I do not know, I cannot quantify the state of your soul.

[jmj1984]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

My priest told me as much about discussing the faith on the internet. There are those who genuinely seek knowledge, and there are those who discuss just to debate and argue. Then he gave an example of how Jesus would refrain from answering questions from those he knew were not interested in the truth, but rather just want to argue. I think its clear here that someone is not interested in learning about the Byzantine praxis, but rather would not accept anything that doesn't fit his own version of truth. Best that like Christ, we avoid fruitless discussion when it gives no spiritual advantage to anyone.

several days later and J, is still waiting for any evidence

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by TrueLight

Which Nov dialogue is this?

Cannot recall the name. I will look. It was the most recent dialogue.

[jmj1984]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Yet the Catholic Church says that if you are unaware of the seriousness of your actions, its not a mortal sin. Say there were these child warriors in Cambodia I think a while back. They were trained to fight from the time they learned to walk and wouldn't know anything better. Their actions wouldn't be considered mortal sins because they wouldn't have known any better.

This is the favourite weapon of those who want to disprove something but can't do it with any actual evidence, give the most extreme example possible. Brainwashing = not culpable, not catholc but sinning against natural law = almost certainly guilty, why? Because natural law is self-evident, hence the 'natural law'.
Evidence for argument that The Church allows people not to believe in mortal sins = non-existent

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by jmj1984

several days later and J, is still waiting for any evidence

For What. SSPX denied the Holy Spirit and Vatican II? Or for what?

[jmj1984]

Originally Posted by CopticChristian

For What. SSPX denied the Holy Spirit and Vatican II? Or for what?

And this of relevance to the discussion how?

Just the minor matter of evidence that the church approves dissent from De-Fide issues

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by jmj1984

several days later and J, is still waiting for any evidence

Evidence of what? You will only accept that the East has taken the position of the West, which is not the reality. Anyway, I've said what I said in that post and this will be the last time I will address you. Its a waste of time really.

*shakes off the dust from my sandals and walks away*

[jmj1984]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Evidence of what? You will only accept that the East has taken the position of the West, which is not the reality. Anyway, I've said what I said in that post and this will be the last time I will address you. Its a waste of time really.

*shakes off the dust from my sandals and walks away*

I did say this above and oh dear I'm getting sandalised over the internet This wouldnt happen to be what the papal legates did to the patriarch of constantinope that started the whole schism in the first place would it?

Maybe if you actually bothered to provide some evidence for your statements rather than make ad hominem attacks and argue ab absurdam we'd get somewhere but you haven't or can't.

And as for doing what Jesus told the apostles to do in a town where they were not received, all I can say is how childish can you get? Doing that on an internet forum to someone who has only ever asked for evidence and has not insulted your faith at all (and don't say otherwise that would be an untruth) is well just wow.

[ThatOneGuy92]

Originally Posted by TrueLight

But anyone who is a Catholic knows that lust is wrong, right? So if I'm a God-fearing Catholic and I am walking down the street and happen to be admiring a fine looking man and have a moment of weakness and start lusting (knowing that I shouldn't be lusting, but enjoying the moment anyway) and I get hit by a car while looking and die, then what?

Then what? That is up for God to decide.