That there are “mortal sins” — certain acts that can forfeit one’s salvation — is clear from Scripture and Tradition, and of course from Catholic teaching.
However, I wonder if we too readily equate this with the common understanding proposed by the Catechism, e.g., certain acts are grave in themselves, and committing these acts lend themselves to an automatic loss of the state of grace.
I may be wrong, but wasn’t today’s common Catholic description of mortal sin formulated by Aquinas — or at least made official theology at the Council of Trent?
I know that Eastern traditions will sometimes say they do no accept the distinction between mortal vs. venial sin, for example. (But usually what this means is the specific formulation by Roman Catholics, since Eastern Christians at least believe you can walk away from salvation).
At least in my personal life, one result I see from the typical Catholic formulation of mortal sin is that I’m always worrying that I’m in the state of grace one week, in the state of mortal sin the next week, and back and forth and back and forth. While I believe this might be possible, this mentality just doesn’t seem quite right. I’m not blaming the teaching on mortal sin. But I wonder if we have the best formulation of it now.
However, it doesn’t take much research to see how older Catholics remember mortal sin back in the day (“eating meat on Friday meant going to hell,” etc.). At the very least, it is possible to have an unhealthy understanding of mortal sin, even when taking the current teaching at face value.
Basic question: ARE there any other possible descriptions of mortal sin in Catholic theology? What about in Eastern theology? Or in the first 1,000 years of the Faith?