A discussion of the Catholic and Orthodox views on Mortal sin and realted issues

[Davidnic]

Related issues would be other serious discussions relating to Augustinian Theology in general.

Since many often do not understand the Orthodox view (or are not conversant with it) I invite my brothers and sisters to explain how it differs from the RC view.

Also any other issues that result from the influence of Augustinian Theology in the west.

I think Augustinian Theology and it's influence in the west as opposed to the east can help us have a serious discussion of some of the main and grave issues that divide us.

For our other Apostolic brothers and sisters, much of all Western theology is based on the work of St. Augustine. So feel free to join in the respectful discussion.

The many different ways Augustinian Theology is viewed and can be viewed is (I think) a vital conversation toward unity.

[WarriorAngel]

I am not EO/OO, but being RC I will just say that 'Sins unto death, and sins not unto death' are distinct.
But now I am curious about the differences between EO ~ OO and RC.

[EmperorConstantine]

I can sum this up right now: in the Orthodox Church, we do not differentiate between "mortal" and "venial" sins (being former RC, I know what they mean! ;))

It is just sin. That's it. No this sin or that sin, just sin.

[WarriorAngel]

I can sum this up right now: in the Orthodox Church, we do not differentiate between "mortal" and "venial" sins (being former RC, I know what they mean! ;))

It is just sin. That's it. No this sin or that sin, just sin.

Bear with my curiosity.

What does John mean by sins unto death, and sins not unto death?

[EmperorConstantine]

Bear with my curiosity.

What does John mean by sins unto death, and sins not unto death?
Not a clue.

But I can guess that Confession could have something to do with it.

*waiting for people older and wiser than I to explain these things*

[Globalnomad]

double post

[Globalnomad]

I can sum this up right now: in the Orthodox Church, we do not differentiate between "mortal" and "venial" sins (being former RC, I know what they mean! ;))

It is just sin. That's it. No this sin or that sin, just sin.
OK, let's explore that. You believe in Hell, so you must believe, like us, that at least some sins are serious enough to send you to damnation if you die unrepentant. You believe in purification (a different concept with the same function as our Purgatory), so you must believe, like us, that it is possible to "die in sin" to SOME extent and yet be saved.

So, to give an example: someone received Absolution yesterday and has done nothing bad since then, but today he said an unkind word to his mother in a fit of anger, and, before he could calm down and repent, he dies of a massive stroke. What happens, according to Orthodox theology?

[Davidnic]

One of the better descriptions I have learned about mortal and venial sin was about relationship and fundamental orientation. Picture it as a spiral moving upward.

We all have a fundamental orientation toward God and away from self. A venial sin hampers but does not reverse the flow. Enough of them may, but alone they do not. A mortal sin is one so grave that it changes the fundamental orientation and (for the moment) ends the progress toward God and away from self.

How would our Orthodox brothers and sisters view in this description? Would it fit? And if not, why?

[Mary of Bethany]

OK, let's explore that. You believe in Hell, so you must believe, like us, that at least some sins are serious enough to send you to damnation if you die unrepentant. You believe in purification (a different concept with the same function as our Purgatory), so you must believe, like us, that it is possible to "die in sin" to SOME extent and yet be saved.

So, to give an example: someone received Absolution yesterday and has done nothing bad since then, but today he said an unkind word to his mother in a fit of anger, and, before he could calm down and repent, he dies of a massive stroke. What happens, according to Orthodox theology?

As with all sin, we hope to have time to repent, but in the end we trust in God to have mercy on us. But we cannot say that because we had done this thing, or not done that thing, that we could know whether it caused our damnation. It's just not that black & white to us.

Mary

[Mary of Bethany]

One of the better descriptions I have learned about mortal and venial sin was about relationship and fundamental orientation. Picture it as a spiral moving upward.

We all have a fundamental orientation toward God and away from self. A venial sin hampers but does not reverse the flow. Enough of them may, but alone they do not. A mortal sin is one so grave that it changes the fundamental orientation and (for the moment) ends the progress toward God and away from self.

How would our Orthodox brothers and sisters view in this description? Would it fit? And if not, why?

Certainly some sins are more serious than others, and reflect a greater turning away from God. But, the thing is, those sins may be different, either in kind or degree, for different persons. It's not a "one size fits all" that can be categorized with "Mortal Sins" in one column and "Venial Sins" in another. All sin is dangerous.

Mary

[Davidnic]

Do all sins bar someone from the Eucharist or is there a level of gravity that needs to be present?

[EmperorConstantine]

Do all sins bar someone from the Eucharist or is there a level of gravity that needs to be present?
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if I understand correctly...

If the priest believes that someone's sin was needed penance (most priests do not give a penance, so this in itself is rare) than the priest can say "you can not receive Communion for X amount of time". But as far as I know, that is rare.

[Davidnic]

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if I understand correctly...

If the priest believes that someone's sin was needed penance (most priests do not give a penance, so this in itself is rare) than the priest can say "you can not receive Communion for X amount of time". But as far as I know, that is rare.

I suppose I could better phrase it that Catholics believe that if you are in a state of mortal sin you should not go to recieve the Eucharist before Sacramental Confession. I wondered if this concept existed for our brothers and sisters.

From your answer I surmise that it would be an issue between the person and the spiritual father in many cases.

But I was wondering if the concept of not receiving if you are in a state of sin was shared. And if so...would it be any sin, since there is no difference.

[WarriorAngel]

I sin daily... many I am not even sure are sins, but if I think I were to abstain for sinning...without a level which sin would be a matter to keep me from the Eucharist, then I should never receive.

I do have many faults. But I feel I would be scrupulous to avoid the Eucharist for all my sins...but instead only if the sin is grave.

[EmperorConstantine]

From your answer I surmise that it would be an issue between the person and the spiritual father in many cases.
99.9/100 times, it is.

Spiritual fathers play a very large role in Orthodoxy.

[Davidnic]

Many of the differences between East and West have Augustine at the center. Sin. Original sin. Trinity issues that resulted in filioque.

Yet to the Orthodox he is still a saint and a Church Father by a mutually accpeted Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils. The Orthodox priest Fr Seraphim Rose apparently has a well respected book on the issue: The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church

I am getting a copy of that.

But so many of our differences come from the works of a man (and his influence on Western Theology) we both consider a Saint. He, and his theology, seem like a good place to start chatting :)

There was recently an international conference on the issue. (link) (http://www.fordham.edu/mvst/conference07/augustine/index.html)

[zhilan]

In the Catholic view one mortal sin damns your soul. We do not see it like this, but as whether you have spent your life preparing for God or spent your life running from God. So, in Orthodoxy there is no belief that you can live a wonderful life, but commit one mortal sin before you get a chance to go to confession and then go to hell.

The best analogy I heard of is, think of God like the sun (but without the cancer-causing UV rays!). Now, let's say one persons spends time in the sun everyday. For him the sun is warm, healthy, and his body is prepared for it. Now another person spends his life in a dark room never seeing light. All of a sudden he is cast into the sun. The sun will be painful, burning, horrible. He wont be able to handle it.
Basically that's the Orthodox view.

[zhilan]

No it is not because we dont have mortal sin. But you should also realize that ORthodox are supposed to be in frequent confession with their SF face to face so he knows what's going on in their life.

[WarriorAngel]

In the Catholic view one mortal sin damns your soul. We do not see it like this, but as whether you have spent your life preparing for God or spent your life running from God. So, in Orthodoxy there is no belief that you can live a wonderful life, but commit one mortal sin before you get a chance to go to confession and then go to hell.

The best analogy I heard of is, think of God like the sun (but without the cancer-causing UV rays!). Now, let's say one persons spends time in the sun everyday. For him the sun is warm, healthy, and his body is prepared for it. Now another person spends his life in a dark room never seeing light. All of a sudden he is cast into the sun. The sun will be painful, burning, horrible. He wont be able to handle it.
Basically that's the Orthodox view.
:scratch: Ok, oculd you go back and explain how that analogy fits..?

Ok..I kinda figured it out...I think.

[WarriorAngel]

SO, um, what if a person spends their whole life in the sun, and since you do not believe in OSAS, then they fall right before death...
Are they saved anyway?

Again, presuming you do not believe in OSAS.

[Davidnic]

No it is not because we dont have mortal sin. But you should also realize that ORthodox are supposed to be in frequent confession with their SF face to face so he knows what's going on in their life.


As are Catholics.

[zhilan]

SO, um, what if a person spends their whole life in the sun, and since you do not believe in OSAS, then they fall right before death...
Are they saved anyway?

Again, presuming you do not believe in OSAS.
No we don't believe in OSAS. I don't quite understand what you mean. We do not believe, as the Catholic Church, that one mortal sin and you are in hell, regardless of the life you lived. We believe that ALL sin is "missing the mark" and falling short of fully loving God as we were created to. The sun thing is this (and again, for the sake of this analogy you should remove from your mind the cancer / negative things associated with sun)

God is like the sun. Say that you know that at some point in your future you will be thrust out into the sun. Now, person A has spent his life every day spending time in the sun, getting his body prepared for it, seeking to do whatever necessary to be close and connected with the sun. To him, the sun is warming, loving, a positive thing in his life. Of course, some days person A will not prepare, he may spend some days hiding in doors, but over the course of his life, he continuity tries to prepare to be in the sun's presence. Person B, however never leaves a dark basement. He lives in darkness and rejects the sun. He does nothing to prepare to be in the sun's presence but instead chooses to live his life in darkness. When he is thrust into the sun's presence it will be horrible. It will burn him. He's not ready to be in the sun.

It's actually like the opposite of osas. You see, it's a what your lifetime has been. Have you spent your life preparing to meet God? Or have you spent your life hiding from him? It's not about one time, or one sin, it's about how we've prepared ourselves over our lives so we will either be ready for God or we won't.

[Mary of Bethany]

Do all sins bar someone from the Eucharist or is there a level of gravity that needs to be present?

If a person has unconfessed sin that is troubling him, he would probably choose to stay away from the Eucharist. If the sin has been confessed, it would be up to the SF to decide what is best for the person's salvation.


Mary

[zhilan]

As are Catholics.
Yes, but in the Catholic Church you can go to Confession behind a screen and you can also go to different priests every time. In the Orthodox Church you must always go to the same priest and it's always face to face. So he, knowing your sin and your spiritual life, will know whether you should be receiving the Eucharist. But it is not as tied like in the Catholic Church where you suspect you have a mortal sin and then go to confession before receiving. It's more like a monthly checkup. And like a doctor, if your SF knows you have a "sickness" of the soul, he may tell you to come every week, or however often.

[WarriorAngel]

No we don't believe in OSAS. I don't quite understand what you mean. We do not believe, as the Catholic Church, that one mortal sin and you are in hell, regardless of the life you lived. We believe that ALL sin is "missing the mark" and falling short of fully loving God as we were created to. The sun thing is this (and again, for the sake of this analogy you should remove from your mind the cancer / negative things associated with sun)

God is like the sun. Say that you know that at some point in your future you will be thrust out into the sun. Now, person A has spent his life every day spending time in the sun, getting his body prepared for it, seeking to do whatever necessary to be close and connected with the sun. To him, the sun is warming, loving, a positive thing in his life. Of course, some days person A will not prepare, he may spend some days hiding in doors, but over the course of his life, he continuity tries to prepare to be in the sun's presence. Person B, however never leaves a dark basement. He lives in darkness and rejects the sun. He does nothing to prepare to be in the sun's presence but instead chooses to live his life in darkness. When he is thrust into the sun's presence it will be horrible. It will burn him. He's not ready to be in the sun.

It's actually like the opposite of osas. You see, it's a what your lifetime has been. Have you spent your life preparing to meet God? Or have you spent your life hiding from him? It's not about one time, or one sin, it's about how we've prepared ourselves over our lives so we will either be ready for God or we won't.

Ok, so you live a good life, and try to pray and be pious...
But one day you kill someone out of anger...and you are shot down immediately and die.

IS that sin just as 'lethal' as say, getting mad at your neighbor that morning and not worrying about if you are going to make up or not and getting killed in a car wreck..?

Yes, but in the Catholic Church you can go to Confession behind a screen and you can also go to different priests every time. In the Orthodox Church you must always go to the same priest and it's always face to face. So he, knowing your sin and your spiritual life, will know whether you should be receiving the Eucharist. But it is not as tied like in the Catholic Church where you suspect you have a mortal sin and then go to confession before receiving. It's more like a monthly checkup. And like a doctor, if your SF knows you have a "sickness" of the soul, he may tell you to come every week, or however often.


Well, it might be more conducive to really giving a good confession behind a screen, or seeing someone else we do not see all the time.

There is always the idea that someone such as a priest becomes someone we are too uncomfortable to be completely honest with with fear of facing letting them down...and maybe not making a heartfelt confession of really horrible sins.

Like say a man who without forethought ends of falling into temptation and cheating on his wife...
And all his life the priest thought he led a pious life...and the man feels intimidated that this priest will see him as a failure and he forgo's telling him this sin.

BTW, is adultery a bad sin...as compared to say breakin a window?

The CC says there is a difference in sins..as did John.

I think the EO do too.
I dont think some sins are condemnable, and some are.
:scratch:

[zhilan]

Ok, so you live a good life, and try to pray and be pious...
But one day you kill someone out of anger...and you are shot down immediately and die.

IS that sin just as 'lethal' as say, getting mad at your neighbor that morning and not worrying about if you are going to make up or not and getting killed in a car wreck..?




Well, it might be more conducive to really giving a good confession behind a screen, or seeing someone else we do not see all the time.

There is always the idea that someone such as a priest becomes someone we are too uncomfortable to be completely honest with with fear of facing letting them down...and maybe not making a heartfelt confession of really horrible sins.

Like say a man who without forethought ends of falling into temptation and cheating on his wife...
And all his life the priest thought he led a pious life...and the man feels intimidated that this priest will see him as a failure and he forgo's telling him this sin.



Your spiritual father should be someone you are comfortable with, like a doctor. You know, like sometimes there are things that are REALLY embarrassing to go to a doctor about. Are you going to run off to some other doctor who doesn't know your medical history because you are embarrassed? Is your health less important than some embarrassment? What if that embarrassing rash is a later development from something earlier? But because you ran off to a new doctor who doesn't know your history he misdiagnoses you and you end up getting a cream when really, the rash was a symptom of an internal disease that you needed treatment for?

I think if your really think about what you said, you will see the problem there. If the man cheated on his wife was it just a quick thing he needs to get off his chest and then go back, or is it a serious sickness of his soul that needs to be treated by someone who knows his situation, knows his spiritual life, and can really look after his soul.

One does not just "fall" into cheating on his wife. It's not like you are going to the store to buy apples, and oops, you cheat on you wife. Something like that desperately needs a spiritual "doctor." More than anything, your example is an example of the importance of a single spiritual father who sees you always face to face.

Also, just from my own personal experience, which can only account for a personal preference and nothing more, I have always found it far easier to confess face to face. Even as a Catholic, I always felt much more at east face to face than behind the screen. But maybe I'm just weird. =P

[zhilan]

I think you are having trouble with my explanations and trying to simplify the theology too much. Yes of course, murdering is more serious than breaking a window. The point is that ALL sin falls short of loving God. It is not as black and white as you want to make it. It's about how we live our life and if we have spent our lives preparing for God's presence. As to your question about the pious man who kills someone, I cannot speak to his fate, and I don't think you will find any Orthodox who would. We simply cannot speculate on God's mercy and God's justice.

[xristos.anesti]

Related issues would be other serious discussions relating to Augustinian Theology in general.

Since many often do not understand the Orthodox view (or are not conversant with it) I invite my brothers and sisters to explain how it differs from the RC view.

Also any other issues that result from the influence of Augustinian Theology in the west.

I think Augustinian Theology and it's influence in the west as opposed to the east can help us have a serious discussion of some of the main and grave issues that divide us.

For our other Apostolic brothers and sisters, much of all Western theology is based on the work of St. Augustine. So feel free to join in the respectful discussion.

The many different ways Augustinian Theology is viewed and can be viewed is (I think) a vital conversation toward unity.

I think that this is the place where different outlooks on theology that have developed in the ways of the Greek and Latin mind come into play.

One can not disregard either the analytical mind of the West not mystical mind of the East (pardon my simplification) - and this is where the division among us has the most catastrophic consequence.



To use an example - two of the greatest schools of thought (or catechetical schools) in the early Church - those of Alexandria and Antioch had two quite different, if not contrary, approaches to theology - yet there remained a steadfast defender of Orthodoxy.

Further - let us continue in using the example of these great schools and in short re-examine the differences between them:

Alexandrian 'school'
Tendency toward Platonic metaphysical approach; a desire to move beyond appearances to the 'truly real'.
Favours an allegorical reading of scripture, first proffered in a notable way by Origen; driven here by a desire to 'get to the real meaning' of given biblical passages.
With regard to Christ, a tendency to focus on inner, metaphysical composition and activity. Soteriological convictions driven most often by notions of sanctification/theosis, mystical relation, etc.
Generally: stress laid upon the ontological oneness of Christ-the divinity and humanity form one being-wrought most often by reference to the Logos/sarx framework (though not always; cf. Cyril of Alexandria).
Key weakness lies in the routine jeopardy into which the persistent distinction of natures is cast in the maintenance of the single ontological reality of the incarnate Christ.Antiochene 'school'
Tendency toward Aristotelian stress on concrete realities, factual historicity and its analysis, and the discernable characteristics of concrete reality.
Favours an historical/factual, 'literal', reading of scripture.
A tendency to focus upon the factual/historical aspects of the human life of Christ-what he did, said, accomplished, etc. Cf. Theodore's exegetical interest in the 'historical Jesus'.
Soteriological convictions driven by corrective agency of divinity on humanity.
Generally: stress laid upon the distinction between God and man in Christ-these not only distinct in discernable attributes, but in substantive reality. Preservation of full reality and integrity of both natures. Logos/anthropos model predominates.
Key weakness lies in the difficulty in expressing the genuine union of the two natures, and indeed the true oneness or singular subjectivity of the incarnate Christ.Now, this was the case - and it still is - in differences between these two schools - yet we see no contradiction and deem them both Orthodox and pray to the fathers of the both rejoicing in their knowledge and being blessed by their blessings.



Now, let me go back to the issue at hand.

There are real differences between the Greek and Latin schools. West has especially after the schism further developed ideas of blessed Augustine and (according to the East) went into some sort of extreme with absolute denial of mystical and servitude towards logical/defined.



Be as it is - one can argue that the differences between us now are in no way worse than those of the two schools above.


So, what is the problem?

Well - the problem is in our choice.


We choose (probably because we are stubborn) to accept the difference of these (Alexandria and Antioch) two schools and deem them Orthodox (or orthodox in Latin case) yet - at the same time we look at our differences developed before and after schism as dividing.

Regardless of what we may think about the teaching of the other - the differences have always existed in Christianity - even in the churches of the same Patriarchate coming from two different areas.

Christianity is not about believing same - but believing God through believing right.



If we are honest with ourselves we will see that the cases where we believe different are the cases that do no really divide - but provide a different axis/dimension - call it whatever.


These are the differences between Alexandria and Antioch as there are between two Romes or between Athens and Moscow - it is us seeing the same thing from a different angle.


God is not two-dimensional, or three-dimensional, God is out of dimension, He multi dimensional and mono dimensional - He is everything in all beings - through all beings - for all beings - in Himself and out of Himself - God is indescribable and unfathomable - God is above, passed and beyond all - so, having 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or even 10 different schools of thought is not the problem - it is the choices that we make -

for if Alexandria and Antioch can and are both Orthodox - and have given us the greatest fathers so are the Rome and New Rome -




I see no difference between Rome and New Rome - even with all the differences - it is the way we are - logical Latins and mystical Greek (again pardon the simplification) - I see no real differences - but in one thing -


The question of status and position of bishop of Rome - from this one all the others stem, and because of this one we choose to see all the others, for this one we choose to not use the method of acceptance of differences and consideration of the same being Orthodox - as in the case of Alexandria and Antioch - because this one is prevalent and over all the others -

and yes, this one is a huge one.


If a person writes a list of differences between us - none is unbridgeable, none is insolvable, none is something none is anything - except the one - the status of bishop of Rome - here, we have a war.

At this point I wish to say that - no I am not going to say a thing about the OP - yes I have missed the notion of the relevance totally - yet I think this was needed to be said.

I do not wish for this post to move to issues of primacy - no!! We have enough - to many - posts dealing with this one.

I wish to say that as far as I am concerned - and call me a heretic - the "problems" with understanding of Original Sin/Ancestral Sin and all other issues that we burden the blessed Augustine with and for which we blame him - are nothing - it is the way that different minds of the same (and pardon my day dreaming, sentimentalism and outright heresy for calling us the same) body of Christ see the God that can not be seen, explaining the unexplainable, speaking of unspeakable - using different approach in different methods for the same love of God and glory of the Mostholy Three.

The whole body of the Church balanced out the differences between the two schools in example - this is why the schism is so catastrophic - there is no balancing out now - we do not talk with each other and we do not listen to each other -

Pardon my rant, total lack of subject matter relevance and waste of your time - I just think this was needed to be said.


Blessed Augustine, all the fathers of Alexandria and Antioch - pray to God for us.

Many years.

[Globalnomad]

What an exceptional post, X_A! Humblest thanks. This is reference material, and I am copying it into my files, if you don't mind.

After this, all I can do is get back to the very pedestrian level and the concrete examples.

We Catholics don't believe, either, that you can go to Hell for one serious sin after a lifetime of faith. Of course it might happen in rare cases - but a person who has lived a life turned towards God can hardly be imagined to commit a deadly sin all of a sudden. Even if they kill someone, it will almost certainly be some sudden momentary madness. And of course the moment they realise what they have done and are sorry for it, the sin is behind them - even if they die before they can get to Confession.

What we define as "mortal sins" are only the sins which CAN be deadly to the soul. For example, missing Mass once with a reasonably but not totally good excuse would be a sin, but it would be exaggerated scrupulousness for a Catholic to think she is going to hell for that. On the other hand, if she kept on doing it, she would be putting her soul into jeopardy. So, missing Sunday Mass is defined as "grave matter" and listed as a "mortal sin" - but only because it has the POTENTIAL to be mortal to the soul. To be truly "mortal" in a particular case, the famous two conditions have to be there: "full knowledge" and "deliberate intent" - meaning that you KNOW this act is turning you away from God in a fundamental way, and yet you freely choose to do it. That is actually quite a steep requirement...

With this explanation, I think the chasm between our two ways of thinking becomes quite manageable.

And in practice, we do the same thing as you. Most Catholics (except, I sometimes think, our brothers on OBOB, who are an unusually careful group!) will not refrain from Communion because they missed Mass once or twice with a half-baked excuse. They will watch themselves carefully to see if it is not becoming a pattern, and if it does, then just like you, they will feel uneasy going to Communion again until they have been absolved by a priest and made the determined promise not to fall into this again.

[nestoj]

There is the difference between seeing sin as disconnected from the person and sin as consequence of person’s state. I find it that one will be held responsible for allowing himself to become so not-Christ-like (estranged from God – anti-Theosis) that as a consequence he is in constant sin. Sin can be forgiven (by God), not wanting to be with God, even though one lives, by secular measures, civilized-good neighbor-life, is something God will, I think so, not want to repair or that would be violation of one’s free will. Let me put it this way, brigand who repents and yearns for God, and as a consequence of this turn toward God stops his previous way of life, is in better place then good neighbor who does no evil but passes by the poor without noticing them and directing a single thought to God. (remember a man, sinner, that didn’t dare to look up in the church and a Pharisee who did things right but wasn’t changing himself to rejoice for others happiness). We find that not caring for God or one’s own soul (not paying attention to the Holly Ghost), even if one is not committing some terrible crimes for some reason of civilized behavior, is more dangerous then doing something bad and turning yourself on a God’s path after. (like Paul did) This is what some might also call a faith without works, together with what is commonly meant when someone says “faith without works”, – faith that is not changing you to become more like Christ.

Same is with giving up: you walk toward God; you sin; you get up, remember what you have done, change, repent and don’t do it again; you walk toward God; you sin; you get up, remember what you have done, change, repent and don’t do it again;…. If you ever give up on the path towards God it’s like you weren’t on it - ever.

It’s kind of hard to explain that what is most important is do you make yourself a home for Holly Ghost where His voice is strong or you make yourself a living, walking hell, where you will choke the Holly Ghost – if you are carrying your hell with you there is no other place you can go but to the place you are the same with, where following comes - brigand who doesn’t listen to Holy Ghost that is within him, enjoys what he is now doing and cares nothing for God is on a track to Gahanna and a company of the fallen. If you are estranged from love, but you are not thrown into Gahanna – where will you go – God is love, if you go to him will you be able to stay there, not because of God but yourself. Obviously this goes for those who know the message of the God (actually even more for them) a same way as it goes for those that live in some jungle and have never herd of the Lord – we are all given a gift of Holly Ghost and we all can listen to it – some call this conscience (if one is given one talant, and he earns one more, he is the same like one that is given ten talants and earns ten more). This is why Orthodox believe that everyone is given a path to salvation and do not deny that there is salvation outside of the Orthodox Church.


So, we find that “smaller” (venial as you call them) sins can be more dangerous if they lead to estrangement from God (especially if one sees them as small and he drifts away without noticing) then a “larger” (mortal) sins if one is snapped from a sleep by them and directs himself to God afterwards.

After reading what I have written, I’m convinced in my inability to explain things… *sigh

nestoj
God helps

[WarriorAngel]

Your spiritual father should be someone you are comfortable with, like a doctor. You know, like sometimes there are things that are REALLY embarrassing to go to a doctor about. Are you going to run off to some other doctor who doesn't know your medical history because you are embarrassed? Is your health less important than some embarrassment? What if that embarrassing rash is a later development from something earlier? But because you ran off to a new doctor who doesn't know your history he misdiagnoses you and you end up getting a cream when really, the rash was a symptom of an internal disease that you needed treatment for?

I think if your really think about what you said, you will see the problem there. If the man cheated on his wife was it just a quick thing he needs to get off his chest and then go back, or is it a serious sickness of his soul that needs to be treated by someone who knows his situation, knows his spiritual life, and can really look after his soul.

One does not just "fall" into cheating on his wife. It's not like you are going to the store to buy apples, and oops, you cheat on you wife. Something like that desperately needs a spiritual "doctor." More than anything, your example is an example of the importance of a single spiritual father who sees you always face to face.

Also, just from my own personal experience, which can only account for a personal preference and nothing more, I have always found it far easier to confess face to face. Even as a Catholic, I always felt much more at east face to face than behind the screen. But maybe I'm just weird. =P

I go either face to face.
But the point is, not every person is the same.
Some might feel like they 'let their priest down' and avoid telling them all their sins.

Because anyone can fall.
What I am saying is, and no one knows but the sinner, but being forced to do things one way could have an adverse effect, since not all ppl are cut from the same cloth.

I like the choices the CC gives.

Plus Padre Pio saw many ppl [18 hours on average] who came from miles to go to his confession behind a screen.

Since he could read hearts, he helped the ppl. Even when they stubbornly would 'forget' sins.
Was it forgetfulness...or was it fear?

But ppl came out penitent.

I am not going to suggest that the way the EO does confession is bad. That is their right.
I am just saying I prefer the way the CC does things.

It doesnt matter if you see someone's face... but that their hearts confess.

ALSO:
I have concluded a few things...
Maybe I am mistaken....
It seems that although the EO do NOT give an explanation per say for theology...
it has come to my attention the many times that the laity has offered an explanation they received from a priest.

So, that shows me that human nature is human nature and that it always seeks to know.

God can either conceal Himself...or He has answers.
Starting with the Bible, He begand giving answers to men.

For without which we would know of nothing about Him.

But God gave us many things through out the ages to find Him, to understand Him, and to worship Him.

So, as much as mysticism is beautiful, it is impractical even from the stand point of the laity who constantly need reassurance from a priest.

ALso, excluding answers given to humanity, then the Creed should be moot point....which is an explanation of God.

SO why is it a division?

Regardless, the scriptures were not left without understanding. From my POV.
Pehraps being West, I see the need for both.

The West cannot explain everything...
but it can give answers where answers are necessary.

It is human nature to seek, to ask, and Matthew 7;7-8 tells us we will receive the answers.

[Davidnic]

I think that this is the place where different outlooks on theology that have developed in the ways of the Greek and Latin mind come into play.

One can not disregard either the analytical mind of the West not mystical mind of the East (pardon my simplification) - and this is where the division among us has the most catastrophic consequence.



To use an example - two of the greatest schools of thought (or catechetical schools) in the early Church - those of Alexandria and Antioch had two quite different, if not contrary, approaches to theology - yet there remained a steadfast defender of Orthodoxy.

Further - let us continue in using the example of these great schools and in short re-examine the differences between them:

Alexandrian 'school'
Tendency toward Platonic metaphysical approach; a desire to move beyond appearances to the 'truly real'.
Favours an allegorical reading of scripture, first proffered in a notable way by Origen; driven here by a desire to 'get to the real meaning' of given biblical passages.
With regard to Christ, a tendency to focus on inner, metaphysical composition and activity. Soteriological convictions driven most often by notions of sanctification/theosis, mystical relation, etc.
Generally: stress laid upon the ontological oneness of Christ-the divinity and humanity form one being-wrought most often by reference to the Logos/sarx framework (though not always; cf. Cyril of Alexandria).
Key weakness lies in the routine jeopardy into which the persistent distinction of natures is cast in the maintenance of the single ontological reality of the incarnate Christ.Antiochene 'school'
Tendency toward Aristotelian stress on concrete realities, factual historicity and its analysis, and the discernable characteristics of concrete reality.
Favours an historical/factual, 'literal', reading of scripture.
A tendency to focus upon the factual/historical aspects of the human life of Christ-what he did, said, accomplished, etc. Cf. Theodore's exegetical interest in the 'historical Jesus'.
Soteriological convictions driven by corrective agency of divinity on humanity.
Generally: stress laid upon the distinction between God and man in Christ-these not only distinct in discernable attributes, but in substantive reality. Preservation of full reality and integrity of both natures. Logos/anthropos model predominates.
Key weakness lies in the difficulty in expressing the genuine union of the two natures, and indeed the true oneness or singular subjectivity of the incarnate Christ.Now, this was the case - and it still is - in differences between these two schools - yet we see no contradiction and deem them both Orthodox and pray to the fathers of the both rejoicing in their knowledge and being blessed by their blessings.



Now, let me go back to the issue at hand.

There are real differences between the Greek and Latin schools. West has especially after the schism further developed ideas of blessed Augustine and (according to the East) went into some sort of extreme with absolute denial of mystical and servitude towards logical/defined.



Be as it is - one can argue that the differences between us now are in no way worse than those of the two schools above.


So, what is the problem?

Well - the problem is in our choice.


We choose (probably because we are stubborn) to accept the difference of these (Alexandria and Antioch) two schools and deem them Orthodox (or orthodox in Latin case) yet - at the same time we look at our differences developed before and after schism as dividing.

Regardless of what we may think about the teaching of the other - the differences have always existed in Christianity - even in the churches of the same Patriarchate coming from two different areas.

Christianity is not about believing same - but believing God through believing right.



If we are honest with ourselves we will see that the cases where we believe different are the cases that do no really divide - but provide a different axis/dimension - call it whatever.


These are the differences between Alexandria and Antioch as there are between two Romes or between Athens and Moscow - it is us seeing the same thing from a different angle.


God is not two-dimensional, or three-dimensional, God is out of dimension, He multi dimensional and mono dimensional - He is everything in all beings - through all beings - for all beings - in Himself and out of Himself - God is indescribable and unfathomable - God is above, passed and beyond all - so, having 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or even 10 different schools of thought is not the problem - it is the choices that we make -

for if Alexandria and Antioch can and are both Orthodox - and have given us the greatest fathers so are the Rome and New Rome -




I see no difference between Rome and New Rome - even with all the differences - it is the way we are - logical Latins and mystical Greek (again pardon the simplification) - I see no real differences - but in one thing -


The question of status and position of bishop of Rome - from this one all the others stem, and because of this one we choose to see all the others, for this one we choose to not use the method of acceptance of differences and consideration of the same being Orthodox - as in the case of Alexandria and Antioch - because this one is prevalent and over all the others -

and yes, this one is a huge one.


If a person writes a list of differences between us - none is unbridgeable, none is insolvable, none is something none is anything - except the one - the status of bishop of Rome - here, we have a war.

At this point I wish to say that - no I am not going to say a thing about the OP - yes I have missed the notion of the relevance totally - yet I think this was needed to be said.

I do not wish for this post to move to issues of primacy - no!! We have enough - to many - posts dealing with this one.

I wish to say that as far as I am concerned - and call me a heretic - the "problems" with understanding of Original Sin/Ancestral Sin and all other issues that we burden the blessed Augustine with and for which we blame him - are nothing - it is the way that different minds of the same (and pardon my day dreaming, sentimentalism and outright heresy for calling us the same) body of Christ see the God that can not be seen, explaining the unexplainable, speaking of unspeakable - using different approach in different methods for the same love of God and glory of the Mostholy Three.

The whole body of the Church balanced out the differences between the two schools in example - this is why the schism is so catastrophic - there is no balancing out now - we do not talk with each other and we do not listen to each other -

Pardon my rant, total lack of subject matter relevance and waste of your time - I just think this was needed to be said.


Blessed Augustine, all the fathers of Alexandria and Antioch - pray to God for us.

Many years.

An excellent post and not at all a waste of time. If you feel it needs to be said, say it my brother.

I agree with much of the above. My hope for this thread is that we can look at these issue and see where we have different expressions of the same truth that add to the richness of the faith and where we have different truths.

[zhilan]

What an exceptional post, X_A! Humblest thanks. This is reference material, and I am copying it into my files, if you don't mind.

After this, all I can do is get back to the very pedestrian level and the concrete examples.

We Catholics don't believe, either, that you can go to Hell for one serious sin after a lifetime of faith. Of course it might happen in rare cases - but a person who has lived a life turned towards God can hardly be imagined to commit a deadly sin all of a sudden. Even if they kill someone, it will almost certainly be some sudden momentary madness. And of course the moment they realise what they have done and are sorry for it, the sin is behind them - even if they die before they can get to Confession.

What we define as "mortal sins" are only the sins which CAN be deadly to the soul. For example, missing Mass once with a reasonably but not totally good excuse would be a sin, but it would be exaggerated scrupulousness for a Catholic to think she is going to hell for that. On the other hand, if she kept on doing it, she would be putting her soul into jeopardy. So, missing Sunday Mass is defined as "grave matter" and listed as a "mortal sin" - but only because it has the POTENTIAL to be mortal to the soul. To be truly "mortal" in a particular case, the famous two conditions have to be there: "full knowledge" and "deliberate intent" - meaning that you KNOW this act is turning you away from God in a fundamental way, and yet you freely choose to do it. That is actually quite a steep requirement...

With this explanation, I think the chasm between our two ways of thinking becomes quite manageable.

And in practice, we do the same thing as you. Most Catholics (except, I sometimes think, our brothers on OBOB, who are an unusually careful group!) will not refrain from Communion because they missed Mass once or twice with a half-baked excuse. They will watch themselves carefully to see if it is not becoming a pattern, and if it does, then just like you, they will feel uneasy going to Communion again until they have been absolved by a priest and made the determined promise not to fall into this again.
This is a good post. I think it's important to remember that CF is not representative of the vast majority of church goers in -either- church, but a very self-selecting group that chooses to spend their time on religious message boards. So it is not accurate to bass perceptions of either church based on the members here.

[WarriorAngel]

I think that this is the place where different outlooks on theology that have developed in the ways of the Greek and Latin mind come into play.

One can not disregard either the analytical mind of the West not mystical mind of the East (pardon my simplification) - and this is where the division among us has the most catastrophic consequence.



To use an example - two of the greatest schools of thought (or catechetical schools) in the early Church - those of Alexandria and Antioch had two quite different, if not contrary, approaches to theology - yet there remained a steadfast defender of Orthodoxy.

Further - let us continue in using the example of these great schools and in short re-examine the differences between them:

Alexandrian 'school'

Tendency toward Platonic metaphysical approach; a desire to move beyond appearances to the 'truly real'.
Favours an allegorical reading of scripture, first proffered in a notable way by Origen; driven here by a desire to 'get to the real meaning' of given biblical passages.
With regard to Christ, a tendency to focus on inner, metaphysical composition and activity. Soteriological convictions driven most often by notions of sanctification/theosis, mystical relation, etc.
Generally: stress laid upon the ontological oneness of Christ-the divinity and humanity form one being-wrought most often by reference to the Logos/sarx framework (though not always; cf. Cyril of Alexandria).
Key weakness lies in the routine jeopardy into which the persistent distinction of natures is cast in the maintenance of the single ontological reality of the incarnate Christ.Antiochene 'school'

Tendency toward Aristotelian stress on concrete realities, factual historicity and its analysis, and the discernable characteristics of concrete reality.
Favours an historical/factual, 'literal', reading of scripture.
A tendency to focus upon the factual/historical aspects of the human life of Christ-what he did, said, accomplished, etc. Cf. Theodore's exegetical interest in the 'historical Jesus'.
Soteriological convictions driven by corrective agency of divinity on humanity.
Generally: stress laid upon the distinction between God and man in Christ-these not only distinct in discernable attributes, but in substantive reality. Preservation of full reality and integrity of both natures. Logos/anthropos model predominates.
Key weakness lies in the difficulty in expressing the genuine union of the two natures, and indeed the true oneness or singular subjectivity of the incarnate Christ.Now, this was the case - and it still is - in differences between these two schools - yet we see no contradiction and deem them both Orthodox and pray to the fathers of the both rejoicing in their knowledge and being blessed by their blessings.



Now, let me go back to the issue at hand.

There are real differences between the Greek and Latin schools. West has especially after the schism further developed ideas of blessed Augustine and (according to the East) went into some sort of extreme with absolute denial of mystical and servitude towards logical/defined.



Be as it is - one can argue that the differences between us now are in no way worse than those of the two schools above.


So, what is the problem?

Well - the problem is in our choice.


We choose (probably because we are stubborn) to accept the difference of these (Alexandria and Antioch) two schools and deem them Orthodox (or orthodox in Latin case) yet - at the same time we look at our differences developed before and after schism as dividing.

Regardless of what we may think about the teaching of the other - the differences have always existed in Christianity - even in the churches of the same Patriarchate coming from two different areas.

Christianity is not about believing same - but believing God through believing right.



If we are honest with ourselves we will see that the cases where we believe different are the cases that do no really divide - but provide a different axis/dimension - call it whatever.


These are the differences between Alexandria and Antioch as there are between two Romes or between Athens and Moscow - it is us seeing the same thing from a different angle.


God is not two-dimensional, or three-dimensional, God is out of dimension, He multi dimensional and mono dimensional - He is everything in all beings - through all beings - for all beings - in Himself and out of Himself - God is indescribable and unfathomable - God is above, passed and beyond all - so, having 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or even 10 different schools of thought is not the problem - it is the choices that we make -

for if Alexandria and Antioch can and are both Orthodox - and have given us the greatest fathers so are the Rome and New Rome -




I see no difference between Rome and New Rome - even with all the differences - it is the way we are - logical Latins and mystical Greek (again pardon the simplification) - I see no real differences - but in one thing -


The question of status and position of bishop of Rome - from this one all the others stem, and because of this one we choose to see all the others, for this one we choose to not use the method of acceptance of differences and consideration of the same being Orthodox - as in the case of Alexandria and Antioch - because this one is prevalent and over all the others -

and yes, this one is a huge one.


If a person writes a list of differences between us - none is unbridgeable, none is insolvable, none is something none is anything - except the one - the status of bishop of Rome - here, we have a war.

At this point I wish to say that - no I am not going to say a thing about the OP - yes I have missed the notion of the relevance totally - yet I think this was needed to be said.

I do not wish for this post to move to issues of primacy - no!! We have enough - to many - posts dealing with this one.

I wish to say that as far as I am concerned - and call me a heretic - the "problems" with understanding of Original Sin/Ancestral Sin and all other issues that we burden the blessed Augustine with and for which we blame him - are nothing - it is the way that different minds of the same (and pardon my day dreaming, sentimentalism and outright heresy for calling us the same) body of Christ see the God that can not be seen, explaining the unexplainable, speaking of unspeakable - using different approach in different methods for the same love of God and glory of the Mostholy Three.

The whole body of the Church balanced out the differences between the two schools in example - this is why the schism is so catastrophic - there is no balancing out now - we do not talk with each other and we do not listen to each other -

Pardon my rant, total lack of subject matter relevance and waste of your time - I just think this was needed to be said.


Blessed Augustine, all the fathers of Alexandria and Antioch - pray to God for us.

Many years.

So would you say that culture as well as theology defines our beliefs? :)

I am going to add, that we need the many parts of the ONE Body...
None are less beautiful in expression.
[*Only if they are heretical..such as denial of Christ's Divinity ...so forth] but IMO, when on the same path we see different aspects.

One could see the lovely stones, one the clear stream nearby, and some the flowers, and others the color of the mud...

BUT all are walking the same path, noticing different aspects of that same path.:groupray:

[zhilan]

WA,

Why is the "person" worried about letting a man down when in reality he let God down? Let me give you a personal example. When I was younger as a teenager I struggled for a time with anorexia. Now, I went to my doctor and he told me NOT to loose any more weight. He wanted me to come back in a month for another checkup. Now by the time the next month had come, I had lost about another 10 lb. I was ashamed to go see him because I knew he would be disappointed in me. He would be upset with me that I did not do as he said. He might have harsh words for me or make me (as he did) go see a specialist which I DID NOT want to do. Because he knew my situation, when he saw that my weight was 10 lb less, he would know that certain actions would need to be taken, not as a punishment to me but for my own good. Even so, to me it was humiliating, it was horrible, I did not want to face him. But would it have done me any good to go see a different dr who didn't know my history? Who might tell me, "well your weight is a little low, try eating some more" but would not know my situation, and know what was needed for my health? Ultimately, it didn't matter that I "let my dr. down" or that I was ashamed of what I did because the entire point was my health and getting me out of the sickness. It's exactly the same thing with confession. The priest is the dr. Sure you can run away and go to a different dr who doesn't know your sickness and history, but then it makes one wonder if that person is really seeking to be healed or simply to take the path of least resistance and find a way to escape the consequences of his actions.

[Davidnic]

Well some of us do indeed go to the same priest, if the situation allows. I have people I have known all my life who became priests and although I do not go to them for confession I will discuss the same sins and issues with them in confidence. And since I am fully honest with both. I normally (about 95%) get the same advice. That would be from a first time priest in confession to those I have known for 20 years. Yes, there is a slight personal difference. But if you are upfront and honest...the difference is not night and day.

[zhilan]

Well some of us do indeed go to the same priest, if the situation allows. I have people I have known all my life who became priests and although I do not go to them for confession I will discuss the same sins and issues with them in confidence. And since I am fully honest with both. I normally (about 95%) get the same advice. That would be from a first time priest in confession to those I have known for 20 years. Yes, there is a slight personal difference. But if you are upfront and honest...the difference is not night and day.

I'm pretty sure the idea of a Father of Confession is not foreign to the Western Church as I feel like I have heard it referred to in history.

[WarriorAngel]

WA,

Why is the "person" worried about letting a man down when in reality he let God down? Let me give you a personal example. When I was younger as a teenager I struggled for a time with anorexia. Now, I went to my doctor and he told me NOT to loose any more weight. He wanted me to come back in a month for another checkup. Now by the time the next month had come, I had lost about another 10 lb. I was ashamed to go see him because I knew he would be disappointed in me. He would be upset with me that I did not do as he said. He might have harsh words for me or make me (as he did) go see a specialist which I DID NOT want to do. Because he knew my situation, when he saw that my weight was 10 lb less, he would know that certain actions would need to be taken, not as a punishment to me but for my own good. Even so, to me it was humiliating, it was horrible, I did not want to face him. But would it have done me any good to go see a different dr who didn't know my history? Who might tell me, "well your weight is a little low, try eating some more" but would not know my situation, and know what was needed for my health? Ultimately, it didn't matter that I "let my dr. down" or that I was ashamed of what I did because the entire point was my health and getting me out of the sickness. It's exactly the same thing with confession. The priest is the dr. Sure you can run away and go to a different dr who doesn't know your sickness and history, but then it makes one wonder if that person is really seeking to be healed or simply to take the path of least resistance and find a way to escape the consequences of his actions.

:sigh: What of the weak in faith?
It is better they find a way to release their sins the way they need to than not at all.

You are judging a whole people on your own preferences.

I am saying, what you dismissed and disliked earlier about the CC, is a drawing point for many.

So you cannot paint with a broad brush.

AS long as the weak can confess and let everything go from their hearts to a priest, does it matter if it is a different priest, a behind the screen priest, or face to face priest?
No ...what matters is they confess the sins.

A priest helps the soul, which is NOT the same as a medical doctor for the body.

I am one person, and I have my own preferences, but all ppl in all places are not all the same.

So, as opposed to your own preferences, others find penitence through a variety of choices.

Comprehende? :scratch:

[Davidnic]

I'm pretty sure the idea of a Father of Confession is not foreign to the Western Church as I feel like I have heard it referred to in history.

Most likely. In some small areas it still happens. And can be a very good thing. In my home town the same man has been the only priest at the small (mainly Italian) Church for 20 years. He runs two parishes. In that case he is spiritual father and confessor to many.

[zhilan]

:sigh: What of the weak in faith?
It is better they find a way to release their sins the way they need to than not at all.

You are judging a whole people on your own preferences.

I am saying, what you dismissed and disliked earlier about the CC, is a drawing point for many.

So you cannot paint with a broad brush.

AS long as the weak can confess and let everything go from their hearts to a priest, does it matter if it is a different priest, a behind the screen priest, or face to face priest?
No ...what matters is they confess the sins.

A priest helps the soul, which is NOT the same as a medical doctor for the body.

I am one person, and I have my own preferences, but all ppl in all places are not all the same.

So, as opposed to your own preferences, others find penitence through a variety of choices.

Comprehende? :scratch:

Do you think think there are some people who it is better to go to a different doctor every time because they are embarrassed to tell a doctor their problems? Do you think this is ever healthier than a doctor who knows your medical history?

I have another question, and maybe this is the heart of the issue and a place where we have different views. What is the point of Confession? Is it about getting rid of the sins CURRENTLY ON YOUR HEART and cleaning the slate, or is it a process of advancing and molding yourself towards God? To continue with the medical analogy, is it an asprin for a headache or long term physical therapy?

[Davidnic]

Do you think think there are some people who it is better to go to a different doctor every time because they are embarrassed to tell a doctor their problems? Do you think this is ever healthier than a doctor who knows your medical history?

I have another question, and maybe this is the heart of the issue and a place where we have different views. What is the point of Confession? Is it about getting rid of the sins CURRENTLY ON YOUR HEART and cleaning the slate, or is it a process of advancing and molding yourself towards God? To continue with the medical analogy, is it an asprin for a headache or long term physical therapy?

It is both a healing of current sins and an ongoing process of growing in learing how to avoid future sins and continue to grow and be strengthened by grace. Long term physical therapy is the better comparison.

[nestoj]

:sigh: What of the weak in faith?
It is better they find a way to release their sins the way they need to than not at all.

You are judging a whole people on your own preferences.

I am saying, what you dismissed and disliked earlier about the CC, is a drawing point for many.

So you cannot paint with a broad brush.

AS long as the weak can confess and let everything go from their hearts to a priest, does it matter if it is a different priest, a behind the screen priest, or face to face priest?
No ...what matters is they confess the sins.

A priest helps the soul, which is NOT the same as a medical doctor for the body.

I am one person, and I have my own preferences, but all ppl in all places are not all the same.

So, as opposed to your own preferences, others find penitence through a variety of choices.

Comprehende? :scratch:

I think zhilan’s connection between a physical doctor and a spiritual doctor is a good one. Familiarity between a patient (faithful) and a doctor (priest) is of outmost importance for a effective cure – I don’t know about RC’s but Orthodox are not given only absolution of sins and penitence on confession but also an advice on spiritual and secular matters, words of comfort, actual involvement, outside or inside of the community, of priest when he can help in some matter, sometimes a smack on the ears ^_^ … anyway, carefully chosen set of actions for a good of the faithful. Something like that can’t be done by some priest who knows nothing of you and what about epitimia. If this is the same in RCC then a term “my confessor” is inappropriate and a “spiritual father” should be used, but don’t get me wrong – we are not telling you guys what you should do. Also to add - sometimes it takes a lot to endure a cure and a person might more easily forbade it if the spiritual father is not someone you are close with (one of mine's lasted for a year and if I wasn't ashamed of my SF - I would have give up).


I also have a strong issue with “original sin” – “immaculate conception” doctrine, but some other time about that.

nestoj
God helps

[Davidnic]

I think zhilan’s connection between a physical doctor and a spiritual doctor is a good one. Familiarity between a patient (faithful) and a doctor (priest) is of outmost importance for a effective cure – I don’t know about RC’s but Orthodox are not given only absolution of sins and penitence on confession but also an advice on spiritual and secular matters, words of comfort, actual involvement, outside or inside of the community, of priest when he can help in some matter, sometimes a smack on the ears ^_^ … anyway, carefully chosen set of actions for a good of the faithful. Something like that can’t be done by some priest who knows nothing of you and what about epitimia. If this is the same in RCC then a term “my confessor” is inappropriate and a “spiritual father” should be used, but don’t get me wrong – we are not telling you guys what you should do. Also to add - sometimes it takes a lot to endure a cure and a person might more easily forbade it if the spiritual father is not someone you are close with (one of mine's lasted for a year and if I wasn't ashamed of my SF - I would have give up).


I also have a strong issue with “original sin” – “immaculate conception” doctrine, but some other time about that.

nestoj
God helps

I think the practice of having a spiritual father or regular confessor is a very good one if possible. But confession should never be placed on hold because a spiritual father is unavailable.

The thing is that if we have regular confession in most cases we will be going to the same person often. In all cases it is not possible for it to be the same one everytime. But it is possible to have a priest we go to often and even if our last confession was with a different priest we can go over those same issues with our regular priest when the opportunity is there.

Having a consistent person has many benifits. But the variety of aid from different confessors is also helpful.

Much like a family. Just because one brother may know us well and help us often, does not mean the other brother does not have sound and sometimes better advice. But if they are working from the same family the advice should be equally valid.

[Davidnic]

I also have a strong issue with “original sin”

Original sin can be discussed here. It is part of Augustine and his theology that East and West disagree over.

The snapshot Catholic view of Original sin:

Original sin, in which all human beings are born, is the state of deprivation of original holiness and justice. It is a sin “contracted” by us not “committed”; it is a state of birth and not a personal act. Because of the original unity of all human beings, it is transmitted to the descendants of Adam “not by imitation, but by propagation”. This transmission remains a mystery which we cannot fully understand
Compendium to the Catechism

[Mary of Bethany]

I think the practice of having a spiritual father or regular confessor is a very good one if possible. But confession should never be placed on hold because a spiritual father is unavailable.

The thing is that if we have regular confession in most cases we will be going to the same person often. In all cases it is not possible for it to be the same one everytime. But it is possible to have a priest we go to often and even if our last confession was with a different priest we can go over those same issues with our regular priest when the opportunity is there.

Having a consistent person has many benifits. But the variety of aid from different confessors is also helpful.

Much like a family. Just because one brother may know us well and help us often, does not mean the other brother does not have sound and sometimes better advice. But if they are working from the same family the advice should be equally valid.

Some of this also boils down to a practical reason. RC parishes in the west are usually much bigger than EO parishes. So in the EO, it's probably easier for the priest to know his parishioners. For instance, my priest has made it known that if a parishioner hasn't been to confession in the last month, he might have to come and pull us up to the Iconastas for confession, in front of everybody. :)

Mary

[zhilan]

I've been thinking about this and I think it just boils down to the East and West having completely different views on sin and confession. In the West it is about being wiped clean because you must get the mortal sin off so that you can receive communion and not go to hell if you die. In the East we do not have the concept of mortal sin, so confession is seen (as has already been stated) a medical checkup. It's something you do at least once a month with your spiritual "doctor" so of course, no matter what the sin you should go to him because it is his job to tend to your soul. There is no such thing as a mortal sin, and the idea that you could just go and confess it and be on your way is alien to our theology. The man who "fell" into adultery is a perfect example. That sin has implications far beyond the act itself and so it needs to be treated by a spiritual doctor. It's like a cancerous growth. You can't just go to the walk-in clinic, have the growth cut off, and then go back to your normal doctor and never tell him about it! That would be horrible and the cancer would probably come back, grow in other areas, develop other ways, and end up likely killing you. An "embarrassing" sin is likely the same way. All the more reason to make sure you are being cared for.

But again, I dont think there can be any consensus here because I think it comes from totally different understandings of the nature of sin and the soul.

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

I think you like to paint things rather more contrastingly than they are zhilan. The western view may seem rather more legalistic, but then is it not true that the Orthodox also teaches that there are certain sins that may inhibit one from being able to receive communion? "All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not mortal."?

(That's somethnig I'm hazy on, so if someone could clear that up that'd be great. :) )

In my opinion, the metaphor of the Church to a hospital is one that only goes so far, notice it cannot be found in scripture. Myself, I am inclined to chalk up a lot more of my misdeeds to my own malice than to any sickness that I might have, and in that context the role of the Priest, not so much as a doctor, but as a confessor and a vehicle for reconciliation, becomes stronger. I also think that pushing that metaphore too hard can lead to confusion between "real" sickness, such as addiction or depression, that often leads to diminished responsibility and sickness as a metaphore for self-destructive pride.

It is also a mistake to say that Catholic go to confession just to wipe away mortal sin, I often go to confession when I don't consider myself to be in mortal sin, simply because it strengthens my relationship with Christ.

[WarriorAngel]

I think zhilan’s connection between a physical doctor and a spiritual doctor is a good one. Familiarity between a patient (faithful) and a doctor (priest) is of outmost importance for a effective cure – I don’t know about RC’s but Orthodox are not given only absolution of sins and penitence on confession but also an advice on spiritual and secular matters, words of comfort, actual involvement, outside or inside of the community, of priest when he can help in some matter, sometimes a smack on the ears ^_^ … anyway, carefully chosen set of actions for a good of the faithful. Something like that can’t be done by some priest who knows nothing of you and what about epitimia. If this is the same in RCC then a term “my confessor” is inappropriate and a “spiritual father” should be used, but don’t get me wrong – we are not telling you guys what you should do. Also to add - sometimes it takes a lot to endure a cure and a person might more easily forbade it if the spiritual father is not someone you are close with (one of mine's lasted for a year and if I wasn't ashamed of my SF - I would have give up).


I also have a strong issue with “original sin” – “immaculate conception” doctrine, but some other time about that.

nestoj
God helps

What would you do if you were in a different state and had an accident...
Would you seek an available priest, or hope you live through the accident to get home? :scratch:



I think the practice of having a spiritual father or regular confessor is a very good one if possible. But confession should never be placed on hold because a spiritual father is unavailable.

The thing is that if we have regular confession in most cases we will be going to the same person often. In all cases it is not possible for it to be the same one everytime. But it is possible to have a priest we go to often and even if our last confession was with a different priest we can go over those same issues with our regular priest when the opportunity is there.

Having a consistent person has many benifits. But the variety of aid from different confessors is also helpful.

Much like a family. Just because one brother may know us well and help us often, does not mean the other brother does not have sound and sometimes better advice. But if they are working from the same family the advice should be equally valid.
:thumbsup:
Original sin can be discussed here. It is part of Augustine and his theology that East and West disagree over.

The snapshot Catholic view of Original sin:

Original sin, in which all human beings are born, is the state of deprivation of original holiness and justice. It is a sin “contracted” by us not “committed”; it is a state of birth and not a personal act. Because of the original unity of all human beings, it is transmitted to the descendants of Adam “not by imitation, but by propagation”. This transmission remains a mystery which we cannot fully understand
Compendium to the Catechism
:thumbsup:
Some of this also boils down to a practical reason. RC parishes in the west are usually much bigger than EO parishes. So in the EO, it's probably easier for the priest to know his parishioners. For instance, my priest has made it known that if a parishioner hasn't been to confession in the last month, he might have to come and pull us up to the Iconastas for confession, in front of everybody. :)

Mary

That is probably a factor. Having a smaller community might make the practice seem different for all intents and purposes.

I've been thinking about this and I think it just boils down to the East and West having completely different views on sin and confession. In the West it is about being wiped clean because you must get the mortal sin off so that you can receive communion and not go to hell if you die. In the East we do not have the concept of mortal sin, so confession is seen (as has already been stated) a medical checkup. It's something you do at least once a month with your spiritual "doctor" so of course, no matter what the sin you should go to him because it is his job to tend to your soul. There is no such thing as a mortal sin, and the idea that you could just go and confess it and be on your way is alien to our theology. The man who "fell" into adultery is a perfect example. That sin has implications far beyond the act itself and so it needs to be treated by a spiritual doctor. It's like a cancerous growth. You can't just go to the walk-in clinic, have the growth cut off, and then go back to your normal doctor and never tell him about it! That would be horrible and the cancer would probably come back, grow in other areas, develop other ways, and end up likely killing you. An "embarrassing" sin is likely the same way. All the more reason to make sure you are being cared for.

But again, I dont think there can be any consensus here because I think it comes from totally different understandings of the nature of sin and the soul.

I go to confession monthly, sometimes more often, sometimes less because I am free to do this.
And I am free to see any available priest who is under the same roof of the Church.

I do not confess just mortal sins, although if I were to commit a mortal sin, I am much more aware of the urgency to go to confession.

I confess all sins..all that I remember, and all that I forget I ask still for forgiveness.

I just wish to clarify the problems you may have which really are not true.

[Assisi]

I'm entering late into the discussion...but I think there have been some rather oversimplified understandings of the Catholic position on sin and confession being expressed.

Confession is not simply wiping the slate clean and getting a ticket to heaven. To use the doctor analogy, confession is about removing the cancer of sin from our souls, it's like a surgery. Allowing God to break the barriers we have put up before Him, a chance to cling to Christ rather than to our sin. Confession is about receiving the grace of God and being filled with the life that comes from Him. It's not about reciting a list of sins so that we can go and forget about them. The grace God gives us in confession enables us to become the people God made us to be.

I don't feel that the Orthodox opinions of Catholic belief expressed here are accurate.:scratch:

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

Definitely... confession is a vital part of the entire sacramental outlook. "To cling to Christ rather than sin" That's a fantastic way of putting it. :)

[Davidnic]

I'm entering late into the discussion...but I think there have been some rather oversimplified understandings of the Catholic position on sin and confession being expressed.

Confession is not simply wiping the slate clean and getting a ticket to heaven. To use the doctor analogy, confession is about removing the cancer of sin from our souls, it's like a surgery. Allowing God to break the barriers we have put up before Him, a chance to cling to Christ rather than to our sin. Confession is about receiving the grace of God and being filled with the life that comes from Him. It's not about reciting a list of sins so that we can go and forget about them. The grace God gives us in confession enables us to become the people God made us to be.

I don't feel that the Orthodox opinions of Catholic belief expressed here are accurate.:scratch:


Agreed. But I think many of our brothers and sisters understand. And we understand them. But yes, in some places it has been gravely mis-stated. But we'll get through it :)

You did an excellent job stating hour view.

[zhilan]

What would you do if you were in a different state and had an accident...
Would you seek an available priest, or hope you live through the accident to get home? :scratch:



I would call my SF (or have him called). If he couldn't get there he'd probably contact a local Orthodox priest to be with you if you wanted someone. But because we do not have the same idea of mortal sin, there is not the urgency of "I have a mortal sin, I need to see a priest or I will go to hell." But of course, naturally I'm sure people would like to be with a priest if they are in a bad accident and of course, I'm sure any priest would be willing to come.

[smellynerfherder]

I disagree. In God's eyes, all sins are equal:

"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."
James 2:10

There is one punishment for sinners: exile from God. there is no innermost circle of hell, or worse bits for nastier people.

There is one heaven, and to enter we must accept Christ as our saviour, who 'saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.' Titus 3:5

[Assisi]

Definitely... confession is a vital part of the entire sacramental outlook. "To cling to Christ rather than sin" That's a fantastic way of putting it. :)

:D
I wish it was my thought but I stole it from a priest...

[Globalnomad]

I've been thinking about this and I think it just boils down to the East and West having completely different views on sin and confession. In the West it is about being wiped clean because you must get the mortal sin off so that you can receive communion and not go to hell if you die.

But again, I dont think there can be any consensus here because I think it comes from totally different understandings of the nature of sin and the soul.

No, zhilan, sorry, you are wrong. That is a very simplistic explanation of sin and Confession, which is only taught to 7-year-olds who are not yet able to understand the complex essence of sin. We wean them off this "baby milk" concept of Confession already in senior primary school Catechism classes. If this is the concept you are stuck with, please get rid of it.

The adult truth - which you will find well documented in the CCC - is that our views on sin do NOT differ all that radically from Orthodox ones. Mortal sin is a very nuanced idea, not at all incompatible with the gradualist Orthodox view of sin. Confession is essentially a Sacrament, for both of us: the added element of spiritual advice, which is stronger in Orthodoxy that in Catholicism, is not its essence. What keeps the slate clean is our continuing God-centredness = to be sorry for our sins and to KEEP making efforts to turn away from them, even the habitual ones that dog us all our lives. The priest giving us absolution is only a "visible sign" to keep us conscious that the slate IS clean as long as we keep turned towards God. That's the same as the Orthodox understanding, I think.

P.S. the "urgency" you refer to, of HAVING to go to Confession after a "mortal sin" just in case you die first, is frankly, childish. Of course if you stay "turned towards God" you will repent as soon as the burst of anger or lust passes, and you will have the serious intention to confess it next time: should you be run over by a car at that point, there is NO Catholic teaching that says you will go to hell. Some priests will gloss over this, because they want people to feel an urgency to go to Confession - if you ask me, I think that's using evil means (a theological untruth) to achieve a good end.

[WarriorAngel]

IT is best to confess sins [especially mortal] because we should not partake the Eucharist unworthily.

If anyone who says there are no distinct differences to sin levels...in matters of grave or not..
THEN explain what John & Paul meant.

Romans 6 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=52&ch=6&l=16&f=s#x) 16 Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey, whether it be of sin unto death, or of obedience unto justice.

21 John 5 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=69&ch=5&l=16&f=s#x) 16 He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask.

31 John 5 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=69&ch=5&l=17&f=s#x) 17 All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.

HOW come John pointedly explains there is a difference of sin...
But today ppl will say there is no difference?

How come John [speaking of the dead] says that we cannot pray for the sins unto death, but we can pray for those who sinned not unto death?

Evidently someone is not understanding this...and I do not think it was St John.

[kamikat]

During my catechumenate, I asked my priest about this. He said that a sin unto death is any unrepented sin. I believe WA asked if adultery was the same as breaking a window. If the adulterer repented of the act but the window breaker spent a lifetime of breaking windows and never repenting, then the window breaking would be a greater sin. God forgives all our sin, as long as we are repentant.

[nestoj]

As I’ve tried to explain – observing sin detached from sinner is the only way to classify sins and in that context we can line them by severity. Observed as a consequence of a sinner’s state their order of magnitude can be different for one person from another – one might commit murder in order to protect some child from being slaughtered while other might commit adultery, consciously, for sake of feeding his inner string that pulls him toward hell. They both have committed terrible sins, and both are in grave danger, but I would consider that helping the later will demand more time and a greater effort (I might be wrong – I don’t deny it). Hence the Orthodox believe that it is better to know someone and make your decisions based on that knowledge then to have prearranged division of more or less severe sins. As for all else: same sin is not carrying same weight for two different persons in different states – what do you think, who will suffer more damage: a monk who breaks his fast and drinks a glass of vine, or a lay person who gets drunk and starts shouting some obscure things? I would personally be more afraid for a monk.

So, yes "sin1 != sin2", but also "sin1 != sin1" and, while in one case "sin1 < sin2" in other "sin1 > sin2"...

And just to add, I’m not suggesting that RC’s see things differently from us, I’m just explaining how I see them. If you see things the same way – glory to God, if not – that’s for you to say.

nestoj
God helps

[WarriorAngel]

During my catechumenate, I asked my priest about this. He said that a sin unto death is any unrepented sin. I believe WA asked if adultery was the same as breaking a window. If the adulterer repented of the act but the window breaker spent a lifetime of breaking windows and never repenting, then the window breaking would be a greater sin. God forgives all our sin, as long as we are repentant.

Ok, I suggest that it was a one time thing.:wave:

BUT going on what you just said...
IF it does continue then it becomes a deliberate intent to 'steal' off others.
Stealing their livlihood to pay for this...and yet we are not truly repenting of the sin.

This sin leads us sin greater because we are not acting repentent.

Therefore, as you just suggested it becomes a mortal sin. Although you did not say mortal. The truth is there...
It becomes a more severe sin.

Adultery however; if done once, twice, or three times...is always a grave sin against our bodies, the Temple of the Lord, and breaks the Ten Commandment that we may not commit such an act.

So you do agree then, that there are degrees of sin?

AS You stated... the act of continious sin means we are allowing a sin to become greater in severity.

THUS if a sin is greater in severity, will it be treated differently than a sin that we try to avoid. Such as cussing when we stub our toes...? Done out of momentary pain vs a deliberate act.

So, which sin will most need a heartfelt confession?

Both should be confessed, but if we are out breaking windows aimlessly and enjoying the act...should we receive the Eucharist?
As compared to stubbing our toes and letting out some unrefined language?

The Church took the use of St John's language 'sin unto death' and used the latin word 'Mortal' or Mortare [Spanish I think] or Mortem...any of the languages off Latin...and it means 'unto death'

St Jerome did this in translation to Latin.
St John 5
16 qui scit fratrem suum peccare peccatum non ad mortem petet et dabit ei vitam peccantibus non ad mortem est peccatum ad mortem non pro illo dico ut roget

[Epiphanygirl]

I think the practice of having a spiritual father or regular confessor is a very good one if possible. But confession should never be placed on hold because a spiritual father is unavailable.

The thing is that if we have regular confession in most cases we will be going to the same person often. In all cases it is not possible for it to be the same one everytime. But it is possible to have a priest we go to often and even if our last confession was with a different priest we can go over those same issues with our regular priest when the opportunity is there.

Having a consistent person has many benifits. But the variety of aid from different confessors is also helpful.

Much like a family. Just because one brother may know us well and help us often, does not mean the other brother does not have sound and sometimes better advice. But if they are working from the same family the advice should be equally valid.Amen, why cut off the nose to spite the face?:thumbsup:
Truly, if we are to "confess our sins to one another" I would have no problem confessing to an EO priest if he would hear it.....as I hope he would in my time of need.

[kamikat]

The problem here is that you are trying to get us to classify sins. We don't like to classify and catagorize everything. As for whether or not we should recieve the Eucharist, that's not up to me. We believe that the Eucharist is medicine for the soul. If we are open to resisting temptation, the Eucharist gives us the strength we need to fit temptation. Here's an example from my own life: A couple months ago, I was on vacation. When I went to Vespers at the visiting church, I told the priest that I needed to make confession. He said that since I would be home in a few days, I should wait until I get home to talk with my spiritual father. I asked him if I should abstain from communion. He said that if I was facing a serious temptation, so serious that I need confession right now, then I needed the Eucharist to help me resist temptation.

[kamikat]

Truly, if we are to "confess our sins to one another" I would have no problem confessing to an EO priest if he would hear it.....as I hope he would in my time of need.


He would hear your confession, but he would not say the prayers of absolution. This is no different than a Catholic priest. A Catholic priest can hear the confession of anyone, but can not absolve a non-Catholic.

[Benedicta00]

In the Catholic view one mortal sin damns your soul. We do not see it like this, but as whether you have spent your life preparing for God or spent your life running from God. So, in Orthodoxy there is no belief that you can live a wonderful life, but commit one mortal sin before you get a chance to go to confession and then go to hell.

The best analogy I heard of is, think of God like the sun (but without the cancer-causing UV rays!). Now, let's say one persons spends time in the sun everyday. For him the sun is warm, healthy, and his body is prepared for it. Now another person spends his life in a dark room never seeing light. All of a sudden he is cast into the sun. The sun will be painful, burning, horrible. He wont be able to handle it.
Basically that's the Orthodox view.
Correction, one mortal sin is enough to damn your soul if you should die in a unrepentant state, totally unwilling to repent of that sin. You meet God and say, "yep, that was me God, i did it and I'd do it again if I had the chance."

Let's not get confused here. The only thing that damns any of us no matter if we are a Catholic or a Muslim, it is willful rejection.

The reason we confess mortal sins is precisely becuase our disposition is that way, we don't want to go to hell.

that is why it is needed, becuase we do think that way and we are not motivated out of a pure unselfish love of God, for His goodness and holiness but becuase *we* don't want hell.

Our contrition needs a hand, it needs humility, it needs the grace of the sacrament and it needs penance so we can make a mends for the damage.

Peter said, it is love that covers a multitude of sin... if we all had perfect love of God and was sorry out of love and not our self interest, we would not need the sacrament but becuase we are what we are, we must have it.

But did any one answer yet? What do y'all make of John who said there is sin unto death and then there are sins that are not unto death?

And what do y'all make of Jesus who implied sins can be forgiven in the world to come except for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Telling Him to take a hike when he come to convict you to repent for the last time before death?

And the sermon on the MT when he said, He who breaks the least of the commandments..."

[Davidnic]

He would hear your confession, but he would not say the prayers of absolution. This is no different than a Catholic priest. A Catholic priest can hear the confession of anyone, but can not absolve a non-Catholic.

Actually he can absolve an EO according to the RC, but not according to the EO. And in the end we are supposed to follow the teaching of our own Church on this. So an EO could not, but not because the Catholic priest would not, but that the EO would be barred by their own rules.

The basic RC view (The actualy canon law is longer, but a summary):

For both its own members and for other Christians, the Catholic Church requires that certain conditions be met in order for anyone to receive the sacraments of penance, Divine Eucharist and anointing of the sick. These conditions are principally valid baptism, Catholic faith in the sacrament, and the proper disposition.

Members of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Polish National Catholic Church, and churches in similar conditions as recognized by the Apostolic See of Rome are always welcome to receive any of these sacraments from a Catholic minister if they are properly disposed and ask on their own for it.

[Benedicta00]

He would hear your confession, but he would not say the prayers of absolution. This is no different than a Catholic priest. A Catholic priest can hear the confession of anyone, but can not absolve a non-Catholic.
The Catholic Church would allow me to go to a Orthodox preist if I were in danger of death if i were out in the middle of a place that was only EO as far as the eye could see.

becuase the EO do have valid sacraments, I would be able to receive the grace that would flow.

Are you allowed to do the same? If you only had access to a Catholic preist and you were about to die, would you be allowed to confess to him?

Do y'all have last rites BTW?

[Epiphanygirl]

He would hear your confession, but he would not say the prayers of absolution. This is no different than a Catholic priest. A Catholic priest can hear the confession of anyone, but can not absolve a non-Catholic.
Well. in that type of dire situation, would it really matter....as it is Christ who forgives and absolves us, not the priest;)

[Benedicta00]

The problem here is that you are trying to get us to classify sins. We don't like to classify and catagorize everything. As for whether or not we should recieve the Eucharist, that's not up to me. We believe that the Eucharist is medicine for the soul. If we are open to resisting temptation, the Eucharist gives us the strength we need to fit temptation. Here's an example from my own life: A couple months ago, I was on vacation. When I went to Vespers at the visiting church, I told the priest that I needed to make confession. He said that since I would be home in a few days, I should wait until I get home to talk with my spiritual father. I asked him if I should abstain from communion. He said that if I was facing a serious temptation, so serious that I need confession right now, then I needed the Eucharist to help me resist temptation.
Well wait a minute, serious temptation is not sin and we don't view it as such.

Sin is an act that you have committed where you knew it was grave and you consented to doing it anyway of your own free will.

Now the same applies for us. I had a priest tell me years ago i should never reframe from Communion becuase I didn't feel worthy due to temptations, that I needed the grace to withstand them.

But we are not talking about temptation, we are talking about actual sin.

Are ya'll supposed to confess temptation?

but notice you said in case of serious temptation- you are classify even if you don't acknowledge that you do.

[kamikat]

Actually he can absolve an EO according to the RC, but not according to the EO. And in the end we are supposed to follow the teaching of our own Church on this. So an EO could not, but not because the Catholic priest would not, but that the EO would be barred by their own rules.




I didn't say a priest wouldn't absovle BECAUSE a Catholic priest wouldn't, I said he wouldn't absolve a non-Orthodox person, just like a RC priest wouldn't absolve a non RC person. For example, while a person is a catechumen, in either the EO church or the RC, the priest can hear that person's confession, but the priest (in either case) can not absolve. A hospital chaplain hears many deathbed confessions, but he can only absolve the Catholics. I know this because when my stepmother was dying, she asked to see the priest (she was in a Catholic teaching hospital) and eventhough she was Methodist, she made a confession to him. When they were done, I asked him about it because I thought priests couldn't do that and he explained to me abut hearing confessions without absolving.

[kamikat]

Well wait a minute, serious temptation is not sin and we don't view it as such.

Are ya'll supposed to confess temptation?

but notice you said in case of serious temptation- you are classify even if you don't acknowledge that you do.

It depends on what you mean by serious. If you mean serious, as in "it a temptation to comit a serious act" or as in " an overwhelming temptation to comit a slightly bad thing".

Some temptations are sins. If you think about being with someone else's spouse, you have comitted adultery in your heart. If you are thinking about slashing someone's tires in revenge, then you have comited a sin in your heart, even if you don't go out an do those things. Yes, we are to confess those things.

[Davidnic]

I didn't say a priest wouldn't absovle BECAUSE a Catholic priest wouldn't, I said he wouldn't absolve a non-Orthodox person, just like a RC priest wouldn't absolve a non RC person. For example, while a person is a catechumen, in either the EO church or the RC, the priest can hear that person's confession, but the priest (in either case) can not absolve. A hospital chaplain hears many deathbed confessions, but he can only absolve the Catholics. I know this because when my stepmother was dying, she asked to see the priest (she was in a Catholic teaching hospital) and eventhough she was Methodist, she made a confession to him. When they were done, I asked him about it because I thought priests couldn't do that and he explained to me abut hearing confessions without absolving.

Hmm. Odd. To my knowledge they (RC priest) can indeed absolve according to canon law. In fact I'm pretty sure of it from priests I know and the seminary. For Protestants the danger of death or other extraordinary circumstances must exist. And for Orthodox they just need to approach of their own free will. Maybe I'm just not understanding...I work a bit of a different shift today and my coffee has not sunk in yet.

But canon law say that from the RC view that an Orthodox can have full sacramental confession or last rights (as well as Eucharist) if they approach of their own free will. And other circumstances for other denominations.

[Epiphanygirl]

Hmm. Odd. To my knowledge they (RC priest) can indeed absolve according to canon law. In fact I'm pretty sure of it from priests I know and the seminary. For Protestants the danger of death or other extraordinary circumstances must exist. And for Orthodox they just need to approach of their own free will. Maybe I'm just not understanding...I work a bit of a different shift today and my coffee has not sunk in yet.

But canon law say that from the RC view that an Orthodox can have full sacramental confession or last rights (as well as Eucharist) if they approach of their own free will. And other circumstances for other denominations.
This is what I have been taught as well...

[Benedicta00]

It depends on what you mean by serious. If you mean serious, as in "it a temptation to comit a serious act" or as in " an overwhelming temptation to comit a slightly bad thing".

Some temptations are sins. If you think about being with someone else's spouse, you have comitted adultery in your heart. If you are thinking about slashing someone's tires in revenge, then you have comited a sin in your heart, even if you don't go out an do those things. Yes, we are to confess those things.
Temptations aren't committed acts, they are not sins.

a sin is an act of our will to defy God's laws.

If we are tempted to be unfaithful, we resist the temptation and the devil flees from us, no sin was committed.

Now if we are tempted to have impure thoughts (about anyone, not just another's spouse) and cross the line and indulge ourselves in them, then we have committed a sin, we willfully engaged in impure thinking.

But if we look at another women with lust in our heart, we have sinned becuase of lust, lust is the sin, not the temptation to look at another woman.

with all that said, if you are having serious issues (being tempted all the time) with bad thoughts or lust, seeing women or men as if they are an object for you, then you should confess it becuase you need the grace of the sacrament to break the stronghold. To break the devil's power or the power your flesh has over you.

[Benedicta00]

Hmm. Odd. To my knowledge they (RC priest) can indeed absolve according to canon law. In fact I'm pretty sure of it from priests I know and the seminary. For Protestants the danger of death or other extraordinary circumstances must exist. And for Orthodox they just need to approach of their own free will. Maybe I'm just not understanding...I work a bit of a different shift today and my coffee has not sunk in yet.

But canon law say that from the RC view that an Orthodox can have full sacramental confession or last rights (as well as Eucharist) if they approach of their own free will. And other circumstances for other denominations.
The Good Thief scenario... they can convert to Catholicism on their death bed and even receive confirmation.

[WarriorAngel]

The problem here is that you are trying to get us to classify sins. We don't like to classify and catagorize everything. As for whether or not we should recieve the Eucharist, that's not up to me. We believe that the Eucharist is medicine for the soul. If we are open to resisting temptation, the Eucharist gives us the strength we need to fit temptation. Here's an example from my own life: A couple months ago, I was on vacation. When I went to Vespers at the visiting church, I told the priest that I needed to make confession. He said that since I would be home in a few days, I should wait until I get home to talk with my spiritual father. I asked him if I should abstain from communion. He said that if I was facing a serious temptation, so serious that I need confession right now, then I needed the Eucharist to help me resist temptation.

Being tempted is not a sin. Giving in...that is another story.

It depends on what you mean by serious. If you mean serious, as in "it a temptation to comit a serious act" or as in " an overwhelming temptation to comit a slightly bad thing".

Some temptations are sins. If you think about being with someone else's spouse, you have comitted adultery in your heart. If you are thinking about slashing someone's tires in revenge, then you have comited a sin in your heart, even if you don't go out an do those things. Yes, we are to confess those things.

My priest told me to pray the act of contrition before Mass and then seek confession when I can.

Of course, i forget what sin that was...
But it wasn't mortal.

Mortal are anything that willfully breaks the 10 commandments. Knowing that it does and doing it anyway...
Murder, theft, adultery [action], missing Mass, have strange idols [divination and occult practices]...etc.

[kamikat]

My priest told me to pray the act of contrition before Mass and then seek confession when I can.

Of course, i forget what sin that was...
But it wasn't mortal.

Mortal are anything that willfully breaks the 10 commandments. Knowing that it does and doing it anyway...
Murder, theft, adultery [action], missing Mass, have strange idols [divination and occult practices]...etc.

See,there's the difference. We are to confess everything not just the ones tha y'all might consider mortal.

[Benedicta00]

See,there's the difference. We are to confess everything not just the ones tha y'all might consider mortal.
Why is that?

[Globalnomad]

He would hear your confession, but he would not say the prayers of absolution. This is no different than a Catholic priest. A Catholic priest can hear the confession of anyone, but can not absolve a non-Catholic.

OK Kamikat, in reply to you and to all the others who answered you:

I happen to know this subject, I won't tell you the long story why, but I learnt the ins and outs of it a few years ago.

A Roman Catholic priest may give the Sacraments of Absolution, Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick to an Eastern Orthodox (and no, Benedicta, there is NO question of asking them to convert!!!!) if
1; the EO asks of it of his/her own free will;
2. he/she is "properly disposed", meaning that he/she fulfils the conditions under which she would receive the Sacrament in her own Church;
3. an Orthodox priest is unavailable, and to delay until she can find one would be spiritually harmful.

The above rule only applies to the Orthodox, because they have the same beliefs as Catholics about the Sacraments.

In addition, other Christians may receive these Sacraments ONLY if they are in danger of death; again, they have to ask for them freely, and show to have the Catholic belief about them (OK, this last requirement means in effect a sort of a "conversion to Catholicism", since Protestants DON'T have the same belief about the Sacraments that we do...) This rule can explain the story about your stepmother, Kamikat. She asked to confess, but she probably did not show that she had the "Catholic understanding" of the meaning of the Sacrament; then the priest did the right pastoral thing in listening to her confession and praying with/for her, but not to pronounce the sacramental words of absolution. But this story does not apply to the Catholic-Orthodox situation. Orthodox MAY, in some circumstances, receive sacraments in a Catholic church - as far as our Canon Law is concerned... but they would have problems with their own Church about it afterwards, unfortunately, I think!!

[Davidnic]

See,there's the difference. We are to confess everything not just the ones tha y'all might consider mortal.

Why is that?

Stab at that one. My nuns told me in preparing for confession to examine and discuss all sins. Not just mortal because habitual venial sins can become grave like mortal sins because they are a constant rejection of the Grace and love of God.

If I understand our brothers and sisters in general, that might be the type of reasoning. I was taught to talk to the priest in confession about all sins in a lifelong process of spiritual growth and health. So it is not an idea alien to the West.

[Davidnic]

OK Kamikat, in reply to you and to all the others who answered you:

I happen to know this subject, I won't tell you the long story why, but I learnt the ins and outs of it a few years ago.

A Roman Catholic priest may give the Sacraments of Absolution, Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick to an Eastern Orthodox (and no, Benedicta, there is NO question of asking them to convert!!!!) if
1; the EO asks of it of his/her own free will;
2. he/she is "properly disposed", meaning that he/she fulfils the conditions under which she would receive the Sacrament in her own Church;
3. an Orthodox priest is unavailable, and to delay until she can find one would be spiritually harmful.

The above rule only applies to the Orthodox, because they have the same beliefs as Catholics about the Sacraments.

In addition, other Christians may receive these Sacraments ONLY if they are in danger of death; again, they have to ask for them freely, and show to have the Catholic belief about them (OK, this last requirement means in effect a sort of a "conversion to Catholicism", since Protestants DON'T have the same belief about the Sacraments that we do...) This rule can explain the story about your stepmother, Kamikat. She asked to confess, but she probably did not show that she had the "Catholic understanding" of the meaning of the Sacrament; then the priest did the right pastora