Do Eastern Catholics Believe in Mortal and Venial Sin?

[jmj1984]

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

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.



(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.

I can't see how it wasn't the standard practice when we see the Popes mentioning it in the early 2nd millenium AD So on a 'practical' level it happened from at least the 11th century AD if not much earlier.

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

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.

This really makes no difference, the Popes made it clear they claimed this authority and always had.

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

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.

I'm afraid it rather is part of the praxis of papal supremacy or at the very least the confirmation of bishops is, its been that way for close to a 1000 years and possibly longer.

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

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.

Nor would one want to go back, this is Antiquaranism, an error condemned by the church.

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

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?

Because I do not believe into splitting the church into two, east and west. Further these martyrs and those who suffered did not suffer as 'Latin Catholics' but as Roman Catholics it was not for the so called 'Latin Church' they suffered but for the whole church.

[jmj1984]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

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.

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.

Fascinating

[ConstantineTG]

A Metropolitan is basically an Archbishop of an Archdiocese. An Eparch is a Bishop of a Suffragan Diocese.

[Formosus]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

A Metropolitan is basically an Archbishop of an Archdiocese. An Eparch is a Bishop of a Suffragan Diocese.

Well in the Slavic tradition yes. In the Greek Tradition the metropolitan is a Bishop of a suffragan eparchy, while the Archbishop holds primacy over them.

[Jack Bauer]

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy92

But TrueLight, Eastern Catholics are Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

Some Orthodox would argue that Eastern Catholics are just that, Catholic and not Orthodox. I tend to disagree with that subscription.

Theology exists to explain that something believed is rational, not to prove that it is truth. There are different theologies that point to the same belief. Hope I said that right.

[ATeutonicKnight]

Originally Posted by Jack Bauer

Some Orthodox would argue that Eastern Catholics are just that, Catholic and not Orthodox. I tend to disagree with that subscription.

Theology exists to explain that something believed is rational, not to prove that it is truth. There are different theologies that point to the same belief. Hope I said that right.

Mr. Bauer, I just wanted to say that it is an honor to speak with you, and I want you to know how big a fan I am of your work. Thank you for undergoing what most people couldn't handle in a lifetime in just twenty-four hours. You make us all proud. However, when you make decisions such as cutting off a man's head and putting it on a platter to save you a few extra hours to save the nation is immoral and cannot be justified.

Sincerely,

Miles.

[Formosus]

Originally Posted by jmj1984

Because I do not believe into splitting the church into two, east and west. Further these martyrs and those who suffered did not suffer as 'Latin Catholics' but as Roman Catholics it was not for the so called 'Latin Church' they suffered but for the whole church.

I don't beleive in splitting the church in two either. There is a lot more diversity then just "East and West". I hate to break it to you though, but Latin Church is synonymous to Roman Church ( or Latin Catholic= Roman Catholic). My Church is not the Roman Church, it is the Ukrainian one, a member of the Catholic Church. The Roman one is merely one among many.

Its not antiquarianist to look back to the first millennium. The ecclesial policies of the second millennium have been a clear failure as far as the relationship between the Eastern churches and the Roman church. Frankly they have been a clear failure within the Western Church (protestantism comes to mind). In the 1st millennium, things definitely weren't perfect, but there was an ideal of church unity based on mutual respect and love that was lost mostly due to Rome's ambitions for supremacy over the entire Church. By looking to the first thousand years of the Church, we can learn how real unity existed in that time and learn from the mistakes that lead to the painful schisms that plague Christ's Church today.

[Fone Bone 2001]

Originally Posted by Formosus

I don't beleive in splitting the church in two either. There is a lot more diversity then just "East and West". I hate to break it to you though, but Latin Church is synonymous to Roman Church ( or Latin Catholic= Roman Catholic). My Church is not the Roman Church, it is the Ukrainian one, a member of the Catholic Church. The Roman one is merely one among many.

I agree, although the term "Roman church" makes me think of the diocese of Rome, i.e. the particular church of which the pope himself happens to be the proper bishop.

Because of that mental connection in my mind, I generally think "Roman church" is best used when referring to the pope's diocese, whereas "Latin Church" unequivocally conveys that one is speaking of the whole western church.

Originally Posted by Formosus

Frankly they have been a clear failure within the Western Church (protestantism comes to mind).

That doesn't make a lick of sense in my estimation. Protestantism cannot be laid at the feet of gradually centralized papal authority in the Latin Church.

Originally Posted by Formosus

In the 1st millennium, things definitely weren't perfect, but there was an ideal of church unity based on mutual respect and love that was lost mostly due to Rome's ambitions for supremacy over the entire Church.

I definitely agree about the first millennium, but to lay the blame for the enduring East-West Schism at the feet of the Church of Rome and her bishop is precisely the sort of simplistic blame game that hinders the nuance and humility necessary at every step for working toward reunion. You know quite well that there has been pride and even atrocities committed on both sides. Politics (the creation of the "Holy Roman Empire," for instance) and the complications of Byzantine imperial involvement with the Church are at least as much to blame, as is that whole mess between the orthodox Christians in the East and the iconoclasts.

Honestly, it seems clear to me that the ever-increasing power of Rome in the West was due far less to papal ambition than to the fact that after a few centuries there was neither a secular emperor nor additional Apostolic Sees in the West to take up greater authority when needed.

The pope was all they had. Pope Gregory the Great, for instance, experienced a great expansion of papal power even politically not due to religious ambition but because he simply did a way better job of caring for the poor in Rome than the secular authorities in Constantinople could ever have fairly been expected to. It only makes sense that the people began looking to the pope for leadership that they (quite understandably, given the great distance) simply weren't able to get from the imperial authorities in the East.

Originally Posted by Formosus

By looking to the first thousand years of the Church, we can learn how real unity existed in that time and learn from the mistakes that lead to the painful schisms that plague Christ's Church today.

Well said.

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by Jack Bauer

Some Orthodox would argue that Eastern Catholics are just that, Catholic and not Orthodox. I tend to disagree with that subscription.

Theology exists to explain that something believed is rational, not to prove that it is truth. There are different theologies that point to the same belief. Hope I said that right.

Very good sir, and very true!

Alex

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by Formosus

I don't beleive in splitting the church in two either. There is a lot more diversity then just "East and West". I hate to break it to you though, but Latin Church is synonymous to Roman Church ( or Latin Catholic= Roman Catholic). My Church is not the Roman Church, it is the Ukrainian one, a member of the Catholic Church. The Roman one is merely one among many.

Its not antiquarianist to look back to the first millennium. The ecclesial policies of the second millennium have been a clear failure as far as the relationship between the Eastern churches and the Roman church. Frankly they have been a clear failure within the Western Church (protestantism comes to mind). In the 1st millennium, things definitely weren't perfect, but there was an ideal of church unity based on mutual respect and love that was lost mostly due to Rome's ambitions for supremacy over the entire Church. By looking to the first thousand years of the Church, we can learn how real unity existed in that time and learn from the mistakes that lead to the painful schisms that plague Christ's Church today.

[Alexander Roman]

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

Actually, my Latin friend, Rome is the one who set the standards for us to return to our Eastern (not Romanized) theological heritage.

Unless you can show me where Rome encouraged Eastern Catholics to become more Latin in their theology and traditions, you are completely wrong here.

Both Steve and yourself, in good Latin trad fashion, seem to have difficulty accepting standards other than the Roman ones as being valid. That is for a separate discussion, but until we come to terms on that, we will just be talking in circles.

On the score of the mortal/venial distinction, it is not spiritually helpful and, to the East, appears part of the Roman "legalism" and spiritual accountancy perspective.

Lest you think the East makes no distinction between sins, the Eastern canonical law from the Seven Councils lists all manner of sins to be penanced by various canonical penances. Whenever we make the conscious choice to sin, to disobey God - we are doing just that, disobeying God and that act cuts us off from God. It matters not that it is a small matter. It is our will that determines to disobey God - sin is simply disobedience.

And all sin, without your "mortal/venial" distinction, is a grave offence against God precisely because we determine to disobey and therefore offend God.

The various penances, including excommunication for a time, are intended to help heal the soul from its spirit of disobedience. The heaviness of the penance is related to the heaviness of the sin which indicates how wide-spread that disobedience is in the soul.

Disobeying God in small matters and calling it "venial sin" is RIDICULOUS. It is the spirit of disobedience alone, irrespective of what we choose to call a "small matter" that is the culprit and which puts us outside God's love. In the Scriptures our Lord refers to His good servant in the parable who was faithful in "small matters" and who, as a result, will be put in charge over larger ones. Venial sin is no small matter therefore the distinction is a particularly false one, nomatter which catechism has it listed as such.

Alex

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by ATeutonicKnight

Mr. Bauer, I just wanted to say that it is an honor to speak with you, and I want you to know how big a fan I am of your work. Thank you for undergoing what most people couldn't handle in a lifetime in just twenty-four hours. You make us all proud. However, when you make decisions such as cutting off a man's head and putting it on a platter to save you a few extra hours to save the nation is immoral and cannot be justified.

Sincerely,

Miles.

Sir, what are you talking about?

Alex

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

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.



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.



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.



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.

Well, I was responding to Steve's rather ridiculous attack against the Orthodox. The Orthodox Church in Russia especially is really flowering (as is the UGCC in Ukraine). Religious fervour abounds there in a way we can only pray for in the Americas. South America has a Catholic culture, but whether it is truly Catholic in spirit is another matter and this flows from the colonial period of Catholicism there. In North America, Catholicism will have pockets of fervour and then pockets of something other than. It's a matter for another discussion. The growth of Christianity in Africa is phenomenal - unfortunately, it's not all Catholic and Islam is on the upswing there too. In Asia, Christianity has yet to make any significant inroads and its doubtless because of the whole inculturation issue.

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!)

I respect Marduk very much - as I do yourself (and Steve and JMJ too, don't get me wrong). But taking nuances from Trent to defend anything that is Eastern won't work because those nuances are simply incidental. Trent was about addressing the Protestant Reformation and the crisis it caused in the Western Church (period). Defending an "Eastern view of the papacy" on the basis of Vatican I is perhaps doing an abdominal stretch of great proportions, wouldn't you think? Marduk does very intelligent theological explications, but will they play in Peoria or among Eastern theologians or Roman Catholic theologians who are experts on Eastern theology? They would find the idea to be not to their liking . . . Vatican II's decreed on the EC Churches is a great leap forward, to be sure! However, even EC commentators have said that it is a Latin document about the Eastern Churches. That document isn't the source of the current tension between Rome and the UGCC - Rome's ecumenical praxis with Russian Orthodoxy is. In the end, rather than see the absence of anything like the Roman magisterium in Orthodoxy as an indicator that Orthodoxy is bereft of something - why can't we Catholics appreciate the way in which the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Orthodox Local Councils have guided their spiritual life, including the witness of their Martyrs, until today? Rome not only resolved theological problems/crises with its later Councils, but also created new ones. That is part of the speculative spirit of the RC Church - but the fact that that is not the patrimony of the East should not be held against it. Thus my comment to Steve and JMJ that unless we can accept other ecclesial/theological paradigms than Roman Catholic ones as being valid, there is no use even talking about these matters.

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...

Yes, and if I've contributed to that in any way - I am deeply sorry. If I were a Roman Catholic in my area today, I would belong to the Extraordinary Rite. I can't speak for the Novus Ordo elsewhere, but it is just a disaster here. I've also seen lax Latin Catholics begin to attend the Extraordinary Rite and become transformed as die-hard and committed Roman Catholics - a very good thing!

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

Sir, what are you talking about?

Alex

It's a reference to a television show (I have not seen it but I think it's very popular), sort of a joke.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

Yes, and if I've contributed to that in any way - I am deeply sorry. If I were a Roman Catholic in my area today, I would belong to the Extraordinary Rite. I can't speak for the Novus Ordo elsewhere, but it is just a disaster here. I've also seen lax Latin Catholics begin to attend the Extraordinary Rite and become transformed as die-hard and committed Roman Catholics - a very good thing!

Alex, another reason to move to the West Coast Archbishop Miller has done a fantastic job with the Roman Catholic Church here. While I can't conclusively say that every RC parish celebrates the OF reverently, Archbishop Miller has led by example and the RC Cathedral here is one of the best places to go to the OF Mass.

C'mon Alex, how many more times do I need to petition you go head west?