stanley123
Protokentarchos
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2007
- Messages
- 3,814
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Do the western rite Orthodox make a distinction between mortal and venial sins?
Agabus said: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.
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?Iconodule said: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.
If you consider the Bible RC influence?Alpha60 said:Agabus said: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.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?Iconodule said: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.
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.Agabus said:If you consider the Bible RC influence?Alpha60 said:Agabus said: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.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?Iconodule said: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.
And then the following: "All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death."Volnutt said:1 John 5:16 comes to mind, a sin so bad (whatever it is) that we can't even pray for the person.
Volnutt said: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.
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.Tzimis said: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.
Well if there are degrees of sin then there are degrees of forgiveness.Rohzek said: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.Tzimis said: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.
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.