Mortal and venial sins

[stanley123]

Do the western rite Orthodox make a distinction between mortal and venial sins?

 

[Opus118]

bump

 

[Volnutt]

I doubt it. The WR practice tends to be to take Western forms and fill them with Orthodox meaning. You can KIND OF get the mortal-venial distinction out of eg. St. Nikodimos the Hagiorite, but it definitely seems like a minority teaching.

 

[Agabus]

Of course it's going to depend on which theological manual you lean on, but they are definitely a thing.

The difference is that at least in contemporary Orthodoxy the emphasis is not on making the distinction and worrying about mortal sins but rather on repenting of all of them.

 

[Iconodule]

WR is a pretty decentralized niche still finding its feet, so I doubt you can find a united answer to this question. For what it's worth, the distinction between mortal and venial sins, as well as other schema for classifying sins, have appeared in Eastern Orthodox literature.

 

[Alpha60]

Of course it's going to depend on which theological manual you lean on, but they are definitely a thing.

The difference is that at least in contemporary Orthodoxy the emphasis is not on making the distinction and worrying about mortal sins but rather on repenting of all of them.

WR is a pretty decentralized niche still finding its feet, so I doubt you can find a united answer to this question. For what it's worth, the distinction between mortal and venial sins, as well as other schema for classifying sins, have appeared in Eastern Orthodox literature.

To the extent we find this idea present in Orthodox hamartiology (that is, of a distinction between mortal and venial sins), might it be considered as one of those cases where there was in fact some RC influence?

 

[WPM]

The Western Rite accepts the General Confession of All Sins.

 

[Agabus]

Of course it's going to depend on which theological manual you lean on, but they are definitely a thing.

The difference is that at least in contemporary Orthodoxy the emphasis is not on making the distinction and worrying about mortal sins but rather on repenting of all of them.

WR is a pretty decentralized niche still finding its feet, so I doubt you can find a united answer to this question. For what it's worth, the distinction between mortal and venial sins, as well as other schema for classifying sins, have appeared in Eastern Orthodox literature.

To the extent we find this idea present in Orthodox hamartiology (that is, of a distinction between mortal and venial sins), might it be considered as one of those cases where there was in fact some RC influence?

If you consider the Bible RC influence?

 

[Alpha60]

Of course it's going to depend on which theological manual you lean on, but they are definitely a thing.

The difference is that at least in contemporary Orthodoxy the emphasis is not on making the distinction and worrying about mortal sins but rather on repenting of all of them.

WR is a pretty decentralized niche still finding its feet, so I doubt you can find a united answer to this question. For what it's worth, the distinction between mortal and venial sins, as well as other schema for classifying sins, have appeared in Eastern Orthodox literature.

To the extent we find this idea present in Orthodox hamartiology (that is, of a distinction between mortal and venial sins), might it be considered as one of those cases where there was in fact some RC influence?

If you consider the Bible RC influence?

No.  But I just don’t follow.  In other words, I don’t know what the scriptural or patristic references within Orthodoxy are that define mortal sins and venial sins.

 

[Volnutt]

1 John 5:16 comes to mind, a sin so bad (whatever it is) that we can't even pray for the person. Though it seems to me that the two "works of the flesh" lists in Scripture combined with Christ's admonition to be perfect, pretty much cover all possible human failings with the implication that they all lead to death.

So, to me it just doesn't seem like that meaningful of a distinction if it's not combined with a legalistic set of temporal punishments to be paid off in Purgatory.

 

[Agabus]

1 John 5:16 comes to mind, a sin so bad (whatever it is) that we can't even pray for the person.

And then the following: "All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death."

But yeah:

So, to me it just doesn't seem like that meaningful of a distinction if it's not combined with a legalistic set of temporal punishments to be paid off in Purgatory.

 

[Tzimis]

That is because there theology is built on guilt for the most part. Degrees of guilt also offer them more in indulgence. Its probably linled to a monetary system somewhere.

 

[Rohzek]

That is because there theology is built on guilt for the most part. Degrees of guilt also offer them more in indulgence. Its probably linled to a monetary system somewhere.

Actually the theology has a long life in the Latin tradition and has more to do with the contextual severity of the sin against an intended lifestyle. It comes out of penitential book culture - especially in the Irish tradition. Many of these books were written originally for monks alone, not the laity. So in those cases, for example, sexual sins were ruled against more severely less because of the guilt and more because celibacy is one of the core features of being a monk and separated from the world. These books eventually bleed over into being written for the laity too by the seventh and eighth centuries. In short and in general, the pleasures of boners threatens monasticism more than say taking extra portions of food from the pantry without permission from the abbot.

This all of course becomes entangled in the indulgences and Purgatory aspects in the High and Late Middle Ages, but these are later developments. The core foundations, however, cannot really be said to be based on guilt though.

 

[Tzimis]

That is because there theology is built on guilt for the most part. Degrees of guilt also offer them more in indulgence. Its probably linled to a monetary system somewhere.

Actually the theology has a long life in the Latin tradition and has more to do with the contextual severity of the sin against an intended lifestyle. It comes out of penitential book culture - especially in the Irish tradition. Many of these books were written originally for monks alone, not the laity. So in those cases, for example, sexual sins were ruled against more severely less because of the guilt and more because celibacy is one of the core features of being a monk and separated from the world. These books eventually bleed over into being written for the laity too by the seventh and eighth centuries. In short and in general, the pleasures of boners threatens monasticism more than say taking extra portions of food from the pantry without permission from the abbot.

This all of course becomes entangled in the indulgences and Purgatory aspects in the High and Late Middle Ages, but these are later developments. The core foundations, however, cannot really be said to be based on guilt though.

Well if there are degrees of sin then there are degrees of forgiveness.