Do Eastern Catholics Believe in Mortal and Venial Sin?

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by jmj1984

Is that supposed to be a good thing? It could be or it could just be that people are't properly catechised or don't understand the seriousness of certain sins or any number of things. There are number of reasons why that may be the case and most of them aren't good, so I hardly see that as a benefit to the eastern approach.

The problem with Western legalism is that people think just because they have their hands on these precise and exhaustive documents is that they have everything they need in their hands. How many times do you see around these forums that people would quote CCC, Canon Law, Apostolic Letter, Encyclicals, etc. and claim authority based on it? The Eastern approach has always been to rely on a spiritual authority, usually your own priest or bishop, to provide guidance to the teachings.

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by steve b

It's in your Catechism Alex

this opens up on P 224 Ukranian Catholic Catechism http://www.archive.org/stream/Ukrain...rch/mortal+sin scroll to p225

click the (+) in the magnifying glass icon till you can read the text conveniently

I've checked several other catechisms we have and they too all have the mortal/venial distinction.

And, so what? That only proves that there are catechisms that are Latinized. And Rome told us to get rid of the Latinizations.

You'll have to do better than that sir!

Alex

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by steve b

When was the last pan orthodox council for all the EO?



Canon law is very specific
The CCC is very specific
Encyclicals are very specific

The CC treats people like adults.



You're speaking as though all the churches and cathedrals are closed. I've traveled Europe too. I've been to the holy land. On the feast of Fatima, I was in Fatima Portugal. 1,000,000 people at the outdoor mass. Ever been to a mass that large?

Been to mass with JPII presiding at St Peter's. You know how big St Peter's is right? It was full. Ever been to a papal audience at St Peter's?

I think you see what you want to see,



Catholicism is on the rise and you seem to be grumpy today. I think you neeeeeed a hug

btw Alexii the patriarch of Russia was a KGB agent, codename Drozdov. He prevented while he was alive, any pope from even visiting Catholics in Russia. There is no religious freedom in Russia except for the Orthodox.

Q: What do you say about the following?
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....&postcount=138





You still peddling that stuff that it's the Catholic Churches fault for Constantinople's delemas? http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/1182.html I gave you this before. http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....6&postcount=48 I thought for sure you would stop using that argument.



Alex

On this forum there is no such thing as "Orthodox Catholic Church"

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=2935402&postcount=25
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=2935437&postcount=30


The topic is mortal and venial sin. I quoted from the Ukrainian Catholic Catechism which clearly identifies mortal and venial sin as something taught.

As for "spiritual success" my posts quote scripture, the CCC, and other church docs. Hardly materialistic, worldly, or non spiritual. However, when the teaching of the Church is ignored, bad things happen, spiritually AND worldly......agreed?



You haven't given the evidence for that when I asked for it. I take former presiden Reagan's approach with people I don't know. "Trust but verify".

One problem I have with responding to your points is that you are setting me up. You establish Latin standards as THE standards and then want me to work under them. I just won't do it. You have defined the terms of reference but I don't accept them.

We will talk another time about all of this, I have to go to a church meeting to give a talk about the Jesus Prayer.

Hugs to you.

Alex

[jmj1984]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

The problem with Western legalism is that people think just because they have their hands on these precise and exhaustive documents is that they have everything they need in their hands. How many times do you see around these forums that people would quote CCC, Canon Law, Apostolic Letter, Encyclicals, etc. and claim authority based on it? The Eastern approach has always been to rely on a spiritual authority, usually your own priest or bishop, to provide guidance to the teachings.

I don't think thats the eastern approach, I think thats common sense. The issue is that often people do not trust their own priests or bishops and often with good reason. The two are not however mutually exclusive and it is perfectly legitmate to use these authorities precisely because they are authority, the church herself does it and so do all her children.

[jmj1984]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

I've checked several other catechisms we have and they too all have the mortal/venial distinction.

And, so what? That only proves that there are catechisms that are Latinized. And Rome told us to get rid of the Latinizations.

You'll have to do better than that sir!

Alex

Just thought I'd point out the logical disconnect, you accuse steve of setting the standards and then you claim that any catechism that mentions mortal/venial sins must be latinized and therefore wrong. Seems like you're setting the standards

[Fone Bone 2001]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

You know, I really like you!

You are very honest and forthright about ecclesial realities.

Well, thank you. I'm sure I make lots of mistakes, but I always try to be honest and thorough.

While I haven't heard Rome's side of the story regarding the UGCC's desire for a patriarch, I certainly agree with you that - however embarrassed Rome might be at the way in which most eastern Catholic churches came into existence - those eastern Catholic churches nonetheless have rights that ought to be honored despite how much it might irritate the Orthodox. I'm certainly aware of just how much the Ukrainian Greek Catholics have suffered because of last century's Soviets...

Originally Posted by Hesychios

Hi Fone Bone,
I don't feel threatened.

As an orthodox Christian I simply don't believe in it, but I think I understand how it works and what it claims, and I will point that out if I find someone is understating the case.

I sympathize with your position, it would be nice if the church would move in your direction, but it is simply not there.

Fair enough, Hesychios. I will happily agree to disagree on that last point. Rome always moves slowly and continues to do so, but the ecumenical example set by our current pope and his Blessed predecessor continually convinces me that they are truly willing to rethink the way Roman primacy is exercised in the Catholic Church. I understand and respect that you don't feel any interpretation of Vatican I is one you could ever assent to in good faith.

Originally Posted by jmj1984

This simply isn't true, the tradition has been present in the church from the earliest times.

'The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church's canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail. ' Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea.

I'm a little confused. You don't really think this quote in any way shows that the pope always confirmed episcopal appointments throughout the entire Catholic Church from the earliest days, do you? I think I've misunderstood you... you can't seriously be claiming that...

Originally Posted by jmj1984

In the early 1st Millenium AD we hear about The Investiture controversy where the Papacy emphasised its right to appoint and depose bishops, the most telling documents from the Papacy are in nomine Domini which asserts that only cardinals have the right to elect the pope and Dictatus Papae which again asserts the same rights the Pope claims today. That includes the sole right to appoint and depose bishops, that he may depose and appoint bishops without a synod etc.

I don't think that's really relevant, for these two reasons:

(a) the Investiture Controversy was early second millennium, not early first millennium...

(b) And the alternative in that controversy to papal appointment of bishops was secular states being allowed to do so, which is obviously a Bad Thing. It made sense for the pope to take a stronger hand when the rights of the Church were being threatened.

Originally Posted by jmj1984

I'm guessing the protestant reformation with the resulting persecution throughout europe, the french revolution, the spanish civil war, the atrocities in mexico in the early 20th century, the persecution in japan during the 16th and 17th centuries and the continuing persecution in china all don't count? And thats just off the top of my head.

That is a good point. Latin Catholics have certainly suffered for their faith, too.

Originally Posted by steve b

Just drawing your attention back to it

Okay.

[Fone Bone 2001]

Originally Posted by steve b

I was referring to your comment

"The leaders of both churches who are serious about ecumenism are, in fact, open to reworking their understandings of papal primacy/supremacy "to think things out into a completely new thesis with far-reaching consequences," in the words of Pope Benedict XVI (when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger in 1988)."

The article you linked to, posits that then Cardinal Ratzinger was misunderstood by the East, and those words of his were taken to mean something then Cardinal Ratainger didn't mean.

Ah, I see. But the part I quoted - "thinking things out into a completely new thesis with far-reaching consequences" - was not part of his original misunderstood proposal, but part of the clarification he issued.

Originally Posted by steve b

I see now my response wasn't clear. Allow me to explain

There is no "Orthodox Church" There are many. So one needs to be clear which one is doing the talking.

Ah, I see now. I agree with you in general and with the implications of this first point. It's part of the reason for what I said: that the Orthodox Church (i.e. the eastern Orthodox Communion) does not actually function the exact same way the first millennium church did.

Originally Posted by steve b

ergo, regarding the 1st millenium, and how the Catholic Church is run, the CC still has the pope, and functions in MANY respects the same way. 1st millenium Antioch and Alexandria from ~380 forward, shows me WHY the split from the CC was gonna happen.

We've changed the way we function too, though. That is, I think, what justifies the words of Pope Benedict as Cardinal Ratzinger in suggesting that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (i.e. communion of eastern Orthodox churches) work things out into a new praxis that honors Catholic teaching and the example of the first millennium.

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

Catholicism is on the wane, sir, in Europe and in North America on a number of fronts. Baptismal records alone are a bad indication of Church membership.

To be fair, I think it's remaining relatively stable in North America and South America. It's declining in Europe and is growing in Asia and Africa.

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

The Ecumenical and Local Councils have defined dogma et alia MUCH better than the later 14 Latiin Councils (if you are a real RC trad, then 13 later Councils).

I disagree on this. Watching Marduk on this very forum actually use the nuances of Trent in defending the eastern view on original sin, and the nuances of Vatican I in defending an eastern view of Roman primacy, certainly convinces me otherwise. (And Vatican II definitely counts as much as the other thirteen, Alex!)

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

Traditionalist Roman Catholics can and do join Eastern Catholic parishes, having had all they can take from their NO Latin Church

I think you greatly overstate the problem... but perhaps I'm simply blessed to live in a diocese where reverent Masses in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite are readily available.

(By the way, the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite can be done in Latin, ad orientem, with the Canon of the Mass, etc. Do it that way, and it's really not that different from the Extraordinary Form...)

Generally speaking, everyone, I feel we've begun to play a very sad rhetorical game here: whose church and whose theological patrimony is better, more spiritually advanced, holier, etc. I really think that's a sad argument to have, and I for one do not doubt the spiritual wisdom, beauty, and holiness of either the western or eastern traditions...

[jmj1984]

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

I'm a little confused. You don't really think this quote in any way shows that the pope always confirmed episcopal appointments throughout the entire Catholic Church from the earliest days, do you? I think I've misunderstood you... you can't seriously be claiming that...

The relevant point is the menton to 'metropolitan bishop', the pope is universally accepted as being the metropolitan bishop of the west, ergo this canon would apply to the pope even all the way back then.

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

I don't think that's really relevant, for these two reasons:

(a) the Investiture Controversy was early second millennium, not early first millennium...

(b) And the alternative in that controversy to papal appointment of bishops was secular states being allowed to do so, which is obviously a Bad Thing. It made sense for the pope to take a stronger hand when the rights of the Church were being threatened.

Actually its very relevant, you were trying to claim that the pope appointing bishops outside Italy only turned up in the 19th century and yet I have shown you have clear evidence that brings this date all the way back to the early 1st millenium Ad. Thats very significant considering your argument was 'it didnt turn up till the 19th century'

There could have been any number of alternatives, the lay electing them, other bishops electing them etc... regardless the fact is the Pope was exercising his prerogative in this way in the early first millenium AD and it did not as you claimed occur only from the 19th century onwards.

The Pope appointing bishops is a legitmate development of the doctrine of papal supremacy and as Blessed Cardinal Henry Newman said legitmate development goes forward, it does not go back to previous stages in its development. Hence an attempt to revoke the popes right to appoint bishops would not be a legitimate development of the doctrine. The right is implied by the very same texts that support Papal supremacy and has been upheld by The Church for millenia, it cannot be described as a 'recent phenomena' unless one is ignorant of church history.

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

That is a good point. Latin Catholics have certainly suffered for their faith, too.

I abhore the term latin catholics, at least in this context, I prefer the term 'Roman Catholic'.

[Fone Bone 2001]

Originally Posted by jmj1984

The relevant point is the menton to 'metropolitan bishop', the pope is universally accepted as being the metropolitan bishop of the west, ergo this canon would apply to the pope even all the way back then.

Okay, I see now.

I don't think I disagree with you as much as you probably think I do. I am not saying that papal confirmation of episcopal appointments would ever have been uncanonical. I do not believe it would have been.

I'm just saying that on a practical level, it didn't happen for quite awhile.

Originally Posted by jmj1984

Actually its very relevant, you were trying to claim that the pope appointing bishops outside Italy only turned up in the 19th century and yet I have shown you have clear evidence that brings this date all the way back to the early 1st millenium Ad. Thats very significant considering your argument was 'it didnt turn up till the 19th century'

(a) Early second millennium AD.

(b) Not saying it never happened before that... just saying that it wasn't the standard norm throughout the whole Latin Church before the nineteenth century.

Originally Posted by jmj1984

There could have been any number of alternatives, the lay electing them, other bishops electing them etc...

In the Investiture Controversy, the alternative was secular states' having the authority to do so. That is very much a Bad Thing, and so it absolutely made sense for the pope - a strong central authority - to take the reins when the rights of the Church were being threatened.

Originally Posted by jmj1984

The Pope appointing bishops is a legitmate development of the doctrine of papal supremacy

I don't disagree. The pope is perfectly entitled to confirm episcopal appointments. It's just not a necessary part of the praxis of papal supremacy.

By the way, if you're wondering, I personally do not advocate undoing papal appointment of bishops in the Latin Church. As you said, it's a valid development. I was simply using it as an example of something that could validly change.

Originally Posted by jmj1984

and as Blessed Cardinal Henry Newman said legitmate development goes forward, it does not go back to previous stages in its development.

Sometimes it does both - forging a new thesis by returning in a spirit of renewal to the example set by Christians of earlier centuries.

Doing so in our postmodern context would not truly be a return to the first millennium. One cannot actually go back fully; hopefully a reunited third millennium Church would incorporate the lessons and examples of both the first and second millennium Catholic Church.

Originally Posted by jmj1984

I abhor the term latin catholics, at least in this context, I prefer the term 'Roman Catholic'.

Really? Why?

It's been my impression that "Roman Catholic" is often used by people to refer to all members of the Catholic Church, though eastern Catholics of course cringe at that. That is why I prefer the term "Latin Catholic" - I've always felt it's more specific. When you say it, there's no mistaking that you mean members of the Latin Church specifically.

Generally I think the adjective "Roman" ought to be retired, especially in terms like "Roman Catholic Church." There's too much equivocation involved - most of the world uses it to refer to the whole Catholic Church; those of us involved in these discussions use it to refer specifically to members of the Latin Church; etc.

What's your experience with the two terms, jmj?

[steve b]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

I've checked several other catechisms we have and they too all have the mortal/venial distinction.

And, so what? That only proves that there are catechisms that are Latinized. And Rome told us to get rid of the Latinizations.

Alex,

I was responding to your following comment

"As for the Latin distinction between "mortal and venial sins," I have not heard that scholastic terminology used in our parishes in years."

So I gave you a copy of your Catechism, quoting the page on mortal and venial sin. Did you notice your catechism adds the scripture references also? That's Latinization to you? And apparantly now, you've found other catechisms as well with the same teaching. And your response to this is SO WHAT!

All I can say, if our conversation caused you to open a catechism to see what's in it, that's a good thing in my book.

But don't take that away by shooting yourself in both feet.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

We will talk another time about all of this, I have to go to a church meeting to give a talk about the Jesus Prayer.

My question here is how do I get you to our parish?

[steve b]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

One problem I have with responding to your points is that you are setting me up. You establish Latin standards as THE standards and then want me to work under them. I just won't do it. You have defined the terms of reference but I don't accept them.

We will talk another time about all of this, I have to go to a church meeting to give a talk about the Jesus Prayer.

Hugs to you.

Alex

Alex

Where have I set you up. http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....&postcount=416

I merely responded to all your comments.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by jmj1984

I don't think thats the eastern approach, I think thats common sense. The issue is that often people do not trust their own priests or bishops and often with good reason. The two are not however mutually exclusive and it is perfectly legitmate to use these authorities precisely because they are authority, the church herself does it and so do all her children.

Yes, I do find the Eastern approach to be more practical and plainly common sense. That is why I fell in love and moved.

For example we do not have the notion of transubstantiation. In a general sense, we're satisfied that Christ himself declared the bread and wine to be His body and blood. There are Eastern theologians and monastics who tried to give explanation just to aid in understanding, but not as a matter of doctrinal definition. Any explanation is just gravy, its delicious but we can live without it. I have yet to hear from a Latin priest or teacher explain the Real Presence effectively without the use of transubstantiation. The problem here is that its not an easy thing to understand. I myself took a while just to get my mind wrapped on it.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by jmj1984

Just thought I'd point out the logical disconnect, you accuse steve of setting the standards and then you claim that any catechism that mentions mortal/venial sins must be latinized and therefore wrong. Seems like you're setting the standards

What Alex is trying to say here, you cannot really hold the Eastern belief against the Western light. Its unfair. And you can't hold the Western belief against Eastern light as well. Its like your judging a Japanese how good of a citizen he is of his nation by comparing it to how an American loves his country.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by jmj1984

The relevant point is the menton to 'metropolitan bishop', the pope is universally accepted as being the metropolitan bishop of the west

He is the Metropolitan bishop of Rome and Suburbicarian Italy (much larger then than what the modern suburbicarian area would be), not the entire west.

He wasn't originally the Metropolitan over Milan, which had it's own Synod for that part of 'modern' Italy, and a little further afield. This can also be evident when one reads the letters of Saint Ambrose, and goes some way to explaining how the city and it's Metropolitan dependencies not so far from Rome was able to develop it's own liturgy.

Spain, Gaul and North Africa had their own synods and their own Metropolitans, which goes some way to explaining all those different local Councils we read so much about.

Originally Posted by jmj1984

, ergo this canon would apply to the pope even all the way back then.
.

It would apply to the bishop of Rome way back then for his synod. This should make the selection method of early bishops of Rome much easier to understand, because the practice (once universal in the church) lasted in Rome for a long time.

But he was not the 'Metropolitan for all the west'. That is reading back into history something that was not there.