Mortal and Venial Sin.

finger-pointing-left16.gif

IS THERE SUCH A THING AS "MORTAL SIN" ?

(under construction)

link:

The Orthodox view (taken verbatim from oca.com)

Catholics Theology

distinct theology

The Roman Catholics make a distinction between

1) Mortal sin:

Ox. Eng. Dict.

denoting a grave sin that is regarded as depriving the soul of divine grace. Often contrasted with venial. she had committed a mortal sin.

2) Venial sin

Ox. Eng. Dict.

denoting a sin that is not regarded as depriving the soul of divine grace.

• (of a fault or offence) slight and pardonable.

Certainly that there is mortal sin is unquestionable except that it is termed "a work of the flesh" and the new testament makes long lists of these offences and states clearly that committing these sins long term and not repenting. and dying in that state, will result in eternal damnation.

The Catholics are also clear and distinct on war and adultery by second marriage - they say there is such a thing as just war, thus these soldiers do not need forgiveness in the first place (though motivation may need addressing in confession), and that second marriage while the first spouse lives is adultery, and will lead to damnation if not repented of (but they have some inconsistencies at times about dressing up adultery by fake annulments of marriages). 

 

Roman Catholic theological conclusion (warning to refrain from sin) :

War: "There are just wars. Killing in wars is not always sin. People killing in just wars can still be saved as it is not a sin in the first place."

Adultery: Christian marriage is for life. Even adultery does not break the marriage bond. Second marriage is such circumstances is adultery. All unrepentant adulterers will be damned.

Protestant Theology:

various (I will describe and define this later)

My own view (Evangelical pacifist):

distinct theology:

I do not generally use the expression "mortal sin" but instead I use the biblical expression "works of the flesh", but the two terms are for the most part interchangeable. 

war - I disagree with the Roman Catholics on this subject, My theology is that killing in wars, no matter what the motivation or "cause" of a nation entering into a war, is a sin. Killing others in new covenant law is always a quote "work of the flesh" or mortal sin, whether it be in a war, abortion, and even in self defence of yourself or your family.

adultery: Christian marriage is for life. I totally agree with the Roman Catholics that the word "porneia" in context in Matthew 5:32 simply cannot mean post marital adultery, because of its context, it refers to fornication, a premarital sin, such as a woman saying she is a virgin and before consummation, on the marriage bed after the wedding ceremony, she is seen not to be and confesses. 

my theological conclusion (warning to refrain from sin) :

War: everyone who unrepentantly kills in wars will be damned. Killing in wars is a "work of the flesh". The belief in killing in wars is heresy.

Adultery: Christian marriage is for life. Even adultery does not break the marriage bond. Second marriage is such circumstances is adultery. All unrepentant adulterers will be damned.

Romans 13: - God will use unbelievers in society to stop drunken riots etc, as a lesser of two undesirable situations, in comparison to the anarchy before the Flood of Noah. 

Orthodox Theology:

indistinct theology:

The underlying question here is - Can a church maintain its theological credibility, and claim to authority,  if it adopts the callow and green standpoint of simply making no proper and clear stance on issues as massively serious and important as the subjects of murder and adultery? And the definition of "a work of the flesh".

I hope the Roman Catholics will agree with me that, the Orthodox view - that they can adopt an indistinct theology on these kind of things, and on what mortal sin is - is puerile, lacking in moral fiber, gives a very bad example, and exposes them as men without biblical authority. 

I will try to prove, that the rambling and indistinct theology on this subject by Orthodox theologians, bishops and priests hides an underlying sin of a form of the Antinomian heresy. And when I say "hides" I really do mean they are trying to disguise the fact that, unlike Roman Catholics, they naively and stupidly think that it is an attribute of a bishop or a priest to keep saying "we reserve judgement on that" on the eternal destiny of people unrepentantly living in long term sin.

 

One reason for this is a massive difference in the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox approach to theology. Where Catholics seek to defend error by entrenching themselves, standing firm, and explaining it away, the Orthodox have an entirely different approach to their false doctrines - they are oxymoronic in theology, they constantly seduce people into doublethink, and to do that you must have an underlying trend of never making the eternal destiny of those in sin clear.

 

So whereas the Catholics will say "he died in a state of adultery and will be damned" the Orthodox will say "he died in a second marriage, but we cannot judge his eternal destiny" and indeed how can they say otherwise, as their priests think they are indirectly empowered to "forgive continuous adultery" by giving absolution over the issue of adulterous long term second marriage, thus they must always adopt a stance of being indistinct on mortal sin, and defend themselves from exposure in error by inflicting a guilt complex on anyone in the whole human race who wish to make a clear stand on mortal sins, by inferring "all sin is sin, you will be damned if you judge" but when I say inferring that, even that cannot be adopted as a doctrine or it is distinct theology, so it is only inferred. 

Orthodox Strawman attacks on Catholics:

The Orthodox attempt to hide their outright false teachings on adultery, and their oxymoronic stance on war, is to create a very shallow strawman attack on the Catholic doctrine of "mortal sin". What they in effect say is -

The Catholic concept of mortal sin is wrong (and therefore the bible concept of "works of the flesh") because lists of sins like

 

adultery

homosexuality

murder

kidnapping

stealing

heresy

etc, do not also include, (say / for instance)  an idolatrous attitude to your car, or possessions, which betray idolatry, and could also lead to a lost soul, or that listening to rock music (not a sin in itself) could be obsessive to the point of a person becoming a do nothing who cares about no one in pursuit of that obsession. And thus Catholics are not as comprehensive as the Orthodox are in their definition by "expanding" it in this way.

Refutation:

Firstly that is a straw man argument by the Orthodox. Catholics will tell you that what the Orthodox describe also as mortal sins, are indeed mortal sins (Catholics do not disagree) it's a straw man, because obsession with things not sin in themselves can become a kind of idolatry or Hedonism, both of which are mortal sins anyway.

Secondly the Orthodox motivation for this is not "to be more comprehensive" than Catholics, as they simply are not. The motivation is that if the Orthodox agree that the bible list of "works of the flesh" is indeed correct, and that statements like "we don't wanna judge if someone went to Hell" is morally enfeebled, and religiously debilitated, then suddenly they have to face up to the fact their "forgiveness" of long term adulterous marriages is deadly debauchery, and their oxymoronic stand on killing in wars is incompetent heresy lacking in authority, and so..... they want to muddy the waters on the issue of what mortal sin is, or "works of the flesh" in order to try to bring humanity under a guilt complex for every possible petty transgression of the law, from women wearing lipstick, men having long hair, or either eating black pudding (containing blood and thus forbidden as food even under new covenant law). And in this way they create a foggy landscape to hide their blunders, sexual immorality, filthy debauchery, mega serious heresies, and the bloodbath of Orthodox wars.

 

The Orthodox are mass murderers:

I wish to make a special paragraph here to say not only do the Orthodox have a long and bloody history of battles and wars, despite their pretentions of "the higher calling" of avoiding both, but the Orthodox method of murder and torture is simply more craftily done than that of Catholics. And that is the forgotten terror! the sheer horror! inflicted on their victims - the strategy of its cunningly hidden nature, the thought that no one would realise the sheer nightmare and torture they suffered . We may not be able to point to clear examples like The Holy Inquisition. frequent Crusades, Conquistadores, the Spanish Armada, the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre, etc, with Orthodoxy, but that is simply because the Orthodox are more cunning. They do not want to risk creating martyrs that obviously.

 

What the Orthodox do is to murder and torture people in prisons, more out of plain sight. Notice how many of their "saints equal-to-apostles" were monarchs, rulers or emperors who imprisoned anyone not converting to Orthodoxy, including any Evangelical type believers, where instead of being openly burnt alive in public view, their victims instead died slowly of disease, hypothermia, malnutrition, beatings or even starvation hidden behind cold dank prison walls. It is part of the martyrdom of those people that their agony is so hidden from view, and the Orthodox are so religiously obsessed they cannot be bothered empathizing with the utter agony of their imprisonments and deaths.  It was like that in World War 2, the Russians (the land of Orthodox) killed their German captives not with firing squads, but by marching them to death in freezing weather with little food or proper clothing. Same technique.