'Mortal' sin

[sue moore]

I have recently been reading the second book about Father Arseny entitled, " A Cloud of Witnesses." It is a wonderful book, but I encountered several stories in it that referred to 'mortal sin.' Father Arseny even said that the individual would need to beg for forgiveness for the rest of his life, and hope at Judgement that God would have mercy on him. Do the Orthodox have sin listings like the Catholics do such as venial and mortal sins? I have never been Catholic but this was alittle confusing as I had not heard of it before. I have never heard our priest mention this.

Thank you for your assistance.
Sunny

[nurse-aid]

In St. Mary of Egypt lifestory...Abba Zosima said:

that degree of her Sainscity was equal to degree of her Fall...This is the same energy, wchich was transform her from one to enoghter person...More energy...more result...to one or enoghter side!

If it is degree or stages of our moving forward...there is degreee of opposite...But in the end Salvation is NOT depend on it..HIS MERCY only!

[nurse-aid]

And IF it is degree or stages of Purity, Sainscity...There IS degree of sin, falling, going back...But the degree of repentance is different too...Different time, lenght, power...

For cold we use just Aspirin....
For bronghitist we use Amoxicilin....

http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/smile.gif

[nurse-aid]

To proff my point i will say, that first simptoms of cold we are not noticed (ignorance),
later simptoms more visable, but we are still do not pay attension (sin got deeper, to the lungs),it was still possible to take aspirin, but we didn't....So cold slowly become bronghitist or worst...We are still ignore, then we HAVE to take Amoxicilin, or even IV ingection for chance to be healed...

So IT IS stages, it is difference in condition....BUT we know, that we can PRAY to HIM and HE can heal without pillls, ignoring stages...Depends on HIS MERCY and our desire to be healed!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I would invite the comments of others about this but it is my understanding that 'mortal sin' for the Orthodox Church refers to very serious sin that seriously endangers one's salvation unless repented of. I have heard of murder, adultery & apostasy referred to in this way. Usually a serious epitimia (penance) is also involved.
If I remember correctly the incident referred to in the Fr Arseny book was a bishop who was dying who had betrayed others to the Soviet authorities. I am not sure if the book went into this clearly but often this type of betrayal meant that someone actually was arrested or even executed. This is an extremely serious sin & Fr Arseny's hesitation about offering absolution to this particular bishop seems to imply that something especially horrendous & direct was involved in the betrayal. Also from the description of the bishop's character (something was 'dark' about it) it would seem that the betrayal was perhaps conscious & needless cowardice in hopes of worldly gain- it was not just caving in out of fear in the face of terror.
So although I do not think we have hard & fast lists of mortal sins in Orthodoxy & mortal sins are different from other sins only in degree (all sin if unrepented of can lead to spiritual death) the concept of mortal sin is useful to convey the sense that such & such a sin seperates one from the grace of the Church in an especially radical way.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kevin Teo]

There is one verse in Mark 3:28 to 29 where Jesus Christ our Lord talks of the sin of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The verses state that all sins can be forgiven except for the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. In the context of that passage, that is the act of the Jews in claiming that what Jesus had done in casting out devils in God's power and name was done through the prince of darkness and his dominions instead. In this sense, would anyone in our modern day context be guilty of committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and how different is it from mortal sin?

[Kevin Teo]

Also, talking about mortal sin, one has to note that this Catholic distinction between venial sin and mortal sin has been dropped in the Protestant tradition, insofar as Protestants acknowledge that there are various degrees of sin and punishments (or consequences) arising from the sin itself, but that all sin will eventually lead to spiritual death if not repented of. Would mortal sin be as such a solely Catholic notion?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

In Fr Michael Pomazansky's Dogmatic Theology he quotes the Fathers of the 7th Ecumenical Council regarding deadly sins. "The sin unto death is when certain ones, after sinning do not correct themselves...In such ones the Lord Jesus does not abide, unless they humble themselves and recover from their fall into sin. It is fitting for them once more to approach God and with contrite heart to ask for the remission of this sin and forgiveness, and not to become vainglorious over an unrighteous deed. For the Lord is nigh unto them that are of a contrite heart." Psalm 33:18)

Previous to this Fr Michael writes: "the reason why the forgiveness of sins is not possible is to be found in the sinners themselves, and not in the will of God; more precisely, it lies in the lack of repentance of the sinners. How can a man be forgiven by the grace of the Holy Spirit, when blasphemy is spewed forth against this very grace? But one must believe that, even in these sins, the sinners, if they offer sincere repentance and weep over their sins, will be forgiven. 'For,' says St John Chrysostom about the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, 'even this guilt will be remitted to those who repent. Many of those who spewed forth blasphemies against the Spirit have subsequently come to believe, and everything was remitted to them.'(Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew)."

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Herman Blaydoe]

There are different kinds of wounds. A paper cut is different from a severed artery. Medical triage talks in terms of non-mortal and mortal wounds. A mortal wound is one that, if not treated immediately and drastically, will soon lead to death. However, even a paper cut can become infected and lead to serious problems if not treated. There seems to be something analogous in this to the Orthodox attitude towards sin. I have also read analogies to a hole in a boat. A big hole (mortal?) means the boat will sink quickly. But small holes can eventually sink a boat too if ignored.

FWIW

[Justin]

When I talk to Catholics about this or purgatory, they always bring up 1 Jn. 5:16-17: "If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death."

Certainly Bl. Augustine and others talked about sins being veniel, mortal, etc., but I'm not sure how far one can push the distinction based solely on the early Fathers (the later ecclesiastical writers, I don't know). Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, 2, 15 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-59.htm#P5845_1777484)) seems to mostly be concerned with how this passage shows "differences of sin," without getting into too much detail. St. Ambrose of Milan ( Two Books Concerning Repentance, 1, 10 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-10/Npnf2-10-32.htm#P6499_1659390)) seems to think the main point of the verse is that there are some sins that us ordinary sinners can't really do much about; this would sort of go hand in hand with verses like "the prayers of a righteous man are powerful and effective" (James 5:16). Bl. Jerome (Against Jovinianus, 2, 30 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-11.htm#P6582_2060348)) seems to think that St. John was over-stating things in order to make a point: namely, that while we will be judged for all of our sins and in that sense we shouldn't think of any as "little," nonetheless some sins were harder to get forgiveness for than others. Bl. Augustine (Explanation of the Sermon on the Mount, 1, 22 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-06/npnf1-06-07.htm#P544_191844)) seems to have focused on the idea that we can see in the verse a distinction between how we ought to see the sins of Christians and how we ought to see the sins of non-Christians.

[Ken McRae]

Dear Fr. Raphael ~

Would you please comment on the following penances prescribed by St. Basil, and how such offenses are dealt with in the Orthodox Church today. Many thanks, in Christ - Theophilus

St. Basil of Caesarea on Penance

01 - "Those guilty of sodomy or beastiality, and also murderers, sorcerers, adulterers, and idolators, all deserve the same penalty ... We ought to receive those who have repented for the space of thirty years: ignorance, voluntary confession, and the long lapse of time, give ground for forgiveness." - Epistle 188, ad Amphil., Can. 7

02 - "An intentional homicide, on repentance, will be excommunicated for twenty years, appointed as follows; for four years he must weep, standing outside the door of the house of prayer, beseeching the faithful as they enter to pray for him, and confessing his sin. After four years he will be admitted among the 'hearers' and for four years will go out with them. For seven years he will go out with the 'kneelers'. For four years he will merely stand with the faithful, not partaking of the oblation. On the completion of this period he will be admitted to partake of the sacrament.

"The unintentional homicide will be excommunicated for ten years ... [2 as 'weeper', 3 as 'hearer', 4 as 'kneeler', 1 as 'stander'].

"Adulterer; fifteen years [divided, as above, 4. 5. 4. 2]. Fornicators; seven years [2. 2. 2. 1].

"He who has denied Christ ought to weep for the whole of his life, and must remain in penitence, being granted the sacrament only in the hour of death." - Ep. 217, ad Amphil., Can. 56-58, 73

03 - "Heretics are to be received on a death-bed repentance." - Ep. 188, Can. 5

* Please Note:- The above passages are taken from the volume entitled 'Later Christian Fathers', ed. by Henry Bettenson, pp. 92-93

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I do not feel qualified to comment in any real depth about these Canons.

However when it comes to Canons on penance we would read them as a general model & not necessarily for specific instructions about the length or nature of a penance. In other words in reading the Canons one gains a great deal of insight as to how the Church perceives sin & its healing. But the specifics must always be guided by discernment- and often from instruction from others, such as our bishop & spiritual father. This is so especially when it comes to very serious sins such as those referred to above. In any case, speaking very generally the lengthy penances prescribed in the Canons are very rarely applied nowadays in their fullness. After all if one reads the Book of Canons one can clearly see how the length of prescribed penances diminishes over the centuries for the same sins. Somewhere I believe there is a Patristic commentary about this & how penances decreased as spiritual ardour decreased over the centuries.

A final thought often encountered nowadays but worth repeating is that a penance is seen by the Church as a method of therapeutic spiritual healing- not as a way of forcing the sinner into shape. So one always has to balance the need to seriously consider one's sin & the danger of breaking a person. Seen this way penance is always applied personally & not mechanically.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[nurse-aid]

Speking of canons and penitence:

Just came to mind, then after... Peter denied Christ from fear...how many days later he got Fully Holy Spirit? I meant Pentiicost!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear nurse-aid,
Good point! I'll try to keep that in mind.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Marie-Duquette]

dear All,

Nurses-aid has a good point! as verified by Fr. Raphael.

It is good to keep in mind, also, I believe all that Jesus the Logos spoke in the Gospels concerning sin. At healings, and forgivenesses, He just simply stated "Go, and sin no more!" "your sin in forgiven, your Faith has saved you." "Today, you will be with me in Paradise."

True we are human, and do sin again, through frailty, doubt, ignorance and the natural darkness within us, even if we have received the Holy Spirit, and the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity in Baptism, Christmation, Confirmation, which is renewed in us daily through repentence, Confession, Penance, Prayer, and good works.

The only "mortal sin" or sin "unto death" that I have heard Jesus speak about in the Gospels, is the
"sin against the Holy Spirit" for which there is no forgiveness most probably because the person despairs, and does believe that his/her sin can be forgiven.

So Perhaps the "Canons" are referring to Hardened sinners? and not to the sincere of Heart!

Sin is sin, isn't it? It is missing the mark: a breach in the Loving connection with God's Holy Will. As to the degrees, who realy knows?

Just a few simple thoughts.

marie_duquette

[Ken McRae]

Thank you, Father, for your honest and helpful reply. I must confess, though, that St. Basil's penances seemed very harsh to me, in comparison to how I "imagine" St. Cyprian might have dealt with them, but I could be wrong. I don't recall him ever requiring the Lapsed believers in his day, many of who had offered sacrifice to idols, to be on their death-beds before being received back into the Church.

Another mystery to me is how St. Basil thought those whose will's were infirm enough to commit such crimes against God, could possibly have the ascetic firmness to endure such apparently harsh or rigorous penances. May God enlighten my darkness.

Humbly in the Lord,
Theophilus

[Ken McRae]

"The only 'mortal sin' or sin 'unto death' that I have heard Jesus speak about in the Gospels, is the 'sin against the Holy Spirit' for which there is no forgiveness most probably because the person despairs, and does believe that his/her sin can be forgiven." - marie-duquette

hi marie ~

Similarly, Catholicism teaches that only "final-impenitence" remains unforgiven, either in this life or the next, as far as I know.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Theophilus wrote, "Another mystery to me is how St. Basil thought those whose will's were infirm enough to commit such crimes against God, could possibly have the ascetic firmness to endure such apparently harsh or rigorous penances. May God enlighten my darkness."

An abbess of one of our women's monasteries once told me that, "you have to be strong-willed to be obedient." This seems a bit strange until you think about it- you need to really exert yourself in order to humble yourself.

Sins-even terrible ones- are not necessarily due to an infirm will in the sense of 'feeble-willed'. As often as not it can be the other way around. And we are after all referring to Canons composed at a time up to 1700 years ago when people were dramatically less self-indulgent. For example in the book on Wealth & Poverty I recently referred to in a post to monachos, it was explained how few wealthy people there were by percent in the Christian Roman world compared to now; & the wealth of these relatively few did not remotely compare to the wealth of the present day wealthy.
I also recently read a description by a soldier in the British Army in the Second War of the un-emotional manner in which they dealt with the suffering & loss of life around them. This soldier who is still alive compared this to modern responses to suffering which he felt were overly self indulgent & would have damaged morale in the worst way. As he explained, it wasn't that people didn't feel anything- rather they understood that self-indulgent displays of emotion would be destructive not helpful.

These are only two small examples- one far in the past, the other more recent- of how we have changed. As one of my seminary professors said one day, stopping his lecture in mid-stream- we are a lot more filled with pride in ways we do not recognise, than those of the past. Consequently we are more broken.

So this all affects how one can apply penance which is geared to the level of the person. On the one hand, the penance must be that good opportunity to recognise the sin & repent of it; on the other the penance should not be so severe it breaks a person. At the present time however penances are often quite light (if at all) because it already is such an effort for us just to make it to confession & actually confess or admit to what we have done. So in our circumstances the effort of the confession is often already the penance.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[nurse-aid]

Do we see seed when its in the ground? Do we see its growing inside, or maybe dead...NO until late spring...untill its become alive and shows to us...The thief on the cross on the right of HIM...do we see his seed untill Cryx...Until it was his time to confess, repent, being buptized, penace and etc. all togehter at ones...But maybe becuse this seed was almost dead, but not in real..it gave forth at the last moment...Becuase this seed was never dead and we never know WHAT in his heart was after all his deeds he perforemed...But because repentance was uncovered during lifetime, it happend at the last moment...If it was empty it will be empty...like with other one on the left... And then like it is in the cannon that one on the right did recive his Communioun on the death bed! So what? He enter paradise! Other one didn't recive it..becuase his seed was dead...The death bed is the last chance...For those who refused it during life, actively refused!

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

I believe the sense of "mortal" sin is not in how badly the sin offends God, ie how hard it is to be forgiven, but how deep seated it is in our hearts, and so how hard it is to repent from. The "mortal" concept is over its danger to us.

Roman Catholicism notes seven deadly or mortal sins. Many patristic writers list sins similarly, but they differ from one to another on which sins might be on that list.

The various lists in the canons & as noted in St Basil that have to do with how long a person should be kept from the Holy Eucharist had two main intentions - one as noted above as guidelines for the clergy - bishops & priests - in how to handle such sins, and as maximums, so the pastors of the church would not be too harsh. This acknowledges Father R's point made so excellently that penance is meant to help heal, not to break. These sins though are not intended to be seen as "mortal" in the sense that the Roman Catholic church would use. These are serious offenses that may or may not be the result of a mortal sin - for instance, murder may well be the acting out of the mortal sin of anger. The act of murder may be easily repented from and forgiven - but anger that hides in the heart may destroy the one with the anger, but never be visible to anyone but them & God.

May God save me from my sins! regardless of their categorization!

Using the concepts of mortal sin has been helpful to me in catechetical & pastoral contexts, because it tends to get past the "everyday" acts of sin and deeper into the heart that needs healing & cleansing. When the inside of the cup is clean . . . !!

[Matt Keyes]

i have been taught that mortal sin is not something that causes our death in and of itself. We are saved by Christ on the cross, not by our weak repentance (after all, are not even the largest efforts of repentance on our part plagued with weakness?). Rather, there are "stages" that mortal sin will lead us through unless we seek to confess and aim at repentance.

To illustrate, let's say someone wrestles with drunkeness. After a bad bout of too much to drink, he/she may very well say, "Lord have mercy on me! Grant me strength to repent!" He/She may go through several days of repentance - or weeks or months - but then lapse back into his/her habit.

The problem is not so much in the relapse of sin, rather, it is the blinding effect that it has on us. If one does not struggle - even if that struggle bears no full repentance - then sin begins to cause "spiritual blindness" in a person and leads them away from God. Thus, someone who wrestles with gossipping may indeed think it is a small issue, but in twenty years they may not care at all about God anymore. Indeed, this "spiritual blindness" leads to further mortal sin in such a way that it leads to our death.

That's why i've had difficulties with the Latin notion of mortal sin - i have some Latin friends who say if one dies with unrepented mortal sin then they necessarily go to hell. My response is always, "Well, what if they desired repentance in their hearts but were too weak? Does God overlook such things? Is salvation restricted to our ability to repent?"

Just some thoughts - i really am seeking to understand this issue, so if anyone sees something wrong in what i said please let me know. i am not an authority - although these things were taught to me by a priest.

Yours,
Matt

[Ken McRae]

Please forgive my long reply times, Fr. Raphael. I intend to reply sooner, but cannot always do so as quickly as I'd wish ; sometimes because it takes me time to recollect my thoughts long enough to sufficiently reflect and prepare a reply. This question has caused my some thought, though:-

If the Church is a hospital for the sick, as I most certainly believe she is, and her priests are her principal physicians, with the eucharist as the "medicine" of immortality, (the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch, I believe,) I'm struggling to understand how keeping a "sincere" penitent from the cup of life for a 20-30 year stretch is ultimately in his best spiritual interest(s).

"Mortal sin is like a severe wound, from which a man rarely recovers, whereas venial sin is a slight wound, which at the most makes him ill. By mortal sin the axe is laid to the root of the tree; by venial sin a cut is made in the bark, which may perhaps prove prejudicial to it growth." ( The Catechism Explained: An Exhaustive Explanation of the Catholic Religion p. 457 )

St. Paul teaches quite clearly, I feel, that the commission of certain sins will keep a person out of the kingdom of heavem, as for example: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10)." Such sins are "aptly" described, I feel, as "mortal" or "terminal" in nature.

My struggle here is with understanding how keeping the therapeutic "gifts" from the terminally ill, (spiritually speaking,) is to their spiritual benefit, who have confessed their sin before both God and man, and are willing to accept the most rigorous penance, so long as they have access to the "therapeutic" spoon and chalice? In my "untrained" eye(s), it seems like the healing power of the gifts is an indispensable source of spiritual healing for a mortal wound or terminal illness. Please forgive me, if I'm confused and mistaken here.

On the otherhand, I've been trying to penetrate the mind of St. Basil, and fathom his reasoning for barring these soul's from the Sacrament, for as long as the canons prescribe. And it appears to me that the passage I've posted above may contain a hint: "Mortal sin is like a severe wound, from which a man rarely recovers." Thus, to impress upon the soul the severity of the offense and cut-off all opportunity for repeat performances of similar sins, or cheapening the "medicine of immortality" on account of its easy access, I can see some wisdom in a lengthy barrings from the Cup, but within reason, as you "skillfully" suggest.

By the way, I found this other canon by St. Basil, and thought to post it here as well, as it puzzled me, not a little. Forgive me, but I have'nt taken the time to check it out in the Rudder. I sourced it from the internet, as you can see. However, it seems to imply that laity ought to be excommunicated for "mortal" sin, but not clergy. If this is a correct inference, can you or anyone else offer an explanation for that, please?

St. Basil the Great - "The clergyman who is deposed for mortal sin shall not be excommunicated" (Canonical Letter, canon 32 [A.D. 374] ) (http://www.catholic.com/library/Mortal_Sin.asp)

Many warm thanks for your thoughts, Fr. Raphael.

In the Lord,
Theophilus

(Message edited by theophilus on 02 February, 2005)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Theophilus,

The Church always is a hospital for the sick; or rather those sick from sin & death. But within the Church there are different means of healing encompassing all of Her life which She offers to Her children. The list of the means of healing is almost endless but one can point at least to the prayer of the Church, Her ascetic life, & the tangible presence of grace within the Church. But of course the chief means of attaining Life is through the sacramental life of the Church (which is Christ's uncreated grace) & the chief of these is the Body & Blood of Christ.

This is important to point out because we must see how the Eucharist is tied to the whole life of the Church; it is not seperate or alone even though it is the Crown. Thus the Eucharist is tied to the ascetic life and a life of continual repentance which is what we mean by a worthy reception of the Body & Blood of Christ.

That already in the Apostolic Church there was this understanding we can see from the Epistles. For example in 1Cor.11:27-32 we read: 27Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and then let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.32But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

So we must continually examine ourselves in regards to sin in order that we not partake unworthily of the Body & Blood of Christ. And conversely, to say it positively, we must have as full of a life within the Church as is possible for us, for us to worthily partake.

Now when we turn to the Canons you cite I think we can see that the sins referred to are very serious. And usually such sins & falls occur because we have not been leading a full & proper Church life according to what Christ has called us to at a particular time. So such falls are a failure not just in the sense that they are falls into sin (which is continually happening with us) but rather they are a sign of how we forgot about & neglected a life of repentant vigilance and thus fell. Perhaps this is why these sins are called mortal; because they are rooted in a carelessness in regards to sin & a Church life they lead to spiritual death unless we dramatically come to ourselves & turn back to Christ.

Now this turning back to Christ is not a momentary process. It does not occur simply at the moment of confession especially if we are talking about very serious falls. In this case a lengthy period of spiritual recuperation & of getting back on track is needed all within the context of compunction & repentance. Here it should be said that when someone approaches confession about such serious falls they are usually the first to desire a time away from the Eucharist as a way of truly admitting their failure to live up to what Christ called them to and as a means of coming back on track again. Almost always a person confessing such sins themselves feels how wrong it would be to just confess and then go to Communion. One thing to point out here about such serious falls: when the person confesses, the actual absolution for the sin comes at the end of their penance (epitimia) not when they come the first time to confess what they did. In other words forgiveness of the sin comes through the whole process of spiritual recuperation & not just from the admission of one's sin at confession.

As to the length of time the Canons refer to. I think part of this reflects the ardour of the times. Within the Canons themselves one can see the length of penances shortening over the centuries for the same sins. In any case one gauges a penance according to both the sin & the actual personal spiritual condition of the person confessing. And to say it simply: we break more easily nowadays because we are more proud. Consequently (and paradoxically) one can heal with less simply because almost any measure of self-humbling by the modern man deeply affects him in a good way.

Lastly about how "the clergyman who is deposed for mortal sin shall not be excommunicated" from St Basil's Canonical Letter, canon 32. The commentary on this canon states, "Such clerics, however, are not entitled to communion in the sense of partaking of the divine Mysteries."

Canon 25 of the Apostolic Canons says in a similar way that for certain very serious sins the cleric must be deposed from office but, "he shall not be excommunicated". This is because,"Thou shalt not exact revenge twice for the same offense." Here the Commentary is even more clear. By "shall not be excommunicated" is meant that deposed clerics are not prevented from praying with the faithful; they are however as in St Basil's canon prevented from partaking of the Sacrament. For the faithful who commit the same sins, they are prevented from praying with the rest of the Church which probably means they stand in their own place with the pentitents at the very back of the Church (it doesn't mean that they weren't allowed in the Church). So the comment about not exacting revenge twice for the same offense means that for the cleric the penalty of deposition is at least equal to the layman who is to stand with the penitents at the back of the Church.
Actually when laymen are barred from communion many often do not notice this; & only rarely do any others know the reason why the person is not going to Communion. For a cleric however who is deposed this is known to all & usually the fall that led to this is also known. So the deposition of a cleric is a very humbling (not to say humiliating) experience compared to the excommunication of the laity.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[nurse-aid]

As i remember from reading about St.Athanasious...he was few times excumunicate and and his bishop's title was taking away from him...and it was done under other church autority, who were in heresy themselfs... St. Afanasious of course knew, that their desisions is wrong, becuase they were in heresy...i also do belive that he still serve Liturgy and recived Communiung, at his chapel, cell, else...

[Ken McRae]

Thank you, Father, for patiently bearing with my questions. Your reply was very helpful to me. It shed much light on the question, which the Spirit of the Lord has blessed to my soul. Please forgive my inquisitive spirit.

In Christ's humility,
Theophilus

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear 'nurse-aid',

I'm uncertain where you've obtained information suggesting that St Athanasius, when exiled (five times) during his life, was so treated by groups 'in heresy'. A single example here would be the deposition leading to his first exile, which was enacted by a regional council and accepted by most Eastern bishops for many years -- until his restoration.

INXC, Matthew

[nurse-aid]

Dear web-site-master! On your own site, by you or somebody was given a link to the russian web site icon, life of saits and etc.All information about St.Athanasious, during his exile, and how those bishops taking his title away few times, becuase he was only one not in heresy some times...So you can read there all information....http://www.days.ru/

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

A handful of thoughts:

1) The Holy Eucharist is not the Church's only medicine. But it is the Body & Blood of our Lord, and so the bishops and priests are called to above all protect the glory of the Lord, and the health of the whole church, by not allowing it to be tainted by those who are captive of sin - unrepetent serious sin - by barring them from partaking until they repent. The clergy's first duty is to the Lord, to protect His honor and glory.

2) Allowing a Christian who is in serious, unrepentant sin to continue to partake of the Eucharist is no gift to them - as Fr. V states, they are eating & drinking to their own condemnation. I am always reminded of the fact the Adam & Eve were barred from the Garden of Eden & the Tree of Life not as punishment first and foremost but to ensure their salvation. This was God's first act of mercy on our fallen race.

3) Excommunication is intended to help bring the one barred to repentance. It is not final judgement on them in any way shape or form. The Church hopes for repentance and healing as a result.

4) The length of the excommunication for various offences were intended & treated as being maximums; there are many references in the patristic literature to the need of the bishop involved to judge the heart of the person, not just legislate some formal penance. A truly broken heart can be healed quickly; a hard heart needs more time.

5) The sins usually enumerated as mortal or deadly have very little to do with outer acts visible to others - murder is not considered a mortal sin - serious most certainly but not deadly - but anger and sloth and gluttony and lust certainly are. These occur in privacy of my heart - the heart that God sees just as clearly as my outward acts of sin are visible to those around me. Let us not be fooled into thinking that my heart is safe because I have not murdered today! Have I committed anger, even though I never struck a fly?

May God be glorified as we walk in penitence in the coming Lenten season! Our whole lives are to be penitential, and we should have a sense that truly 30 years is not enough for me to fully repent of the horrid sins I have committed. The gift of tears of repentance is important to ponder - that my sins do not cause me to weep is an indication of my hardness of heart.

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

Here's the list of the sins most commonly referred to as "mortal" or "deadly":

1) Lust
2) Gluttony
3) Sloth
4) Envy
5) Greed
6) Anger
7) Pride

One other is sometimes added, "vain-glory", which means to seek the praise of men rather than the praise of God. St. John Cassian for instance lists several of these in his Conferences. The list is not hard & fast, you will find variations on these. The list above is the more commonly accepted one, and I personally have found it very helpful. I always write this list in the front of my Bibles, as I get new ones, to keep it handy. Of course I also list the seven essential virtues!

What shocked me when I began thinking about these sins, is I could commit all of these "invisibly"! No one would ever need to know how enraptured I was by them. Very scary! May God have mercy on me!

[Janine]

It's important to remember that Orthodoxy does not view humankind as negatively as Western spirituality does: we are not "guilty" or "stained" in some ontological sense, but we do suffer the effects of original (first) sin as our environment suffers from its continuing effects.

Repentance - metanoia (change of mind, transformation) - has to be seen in the context of turning to God, not punishing ourselves in paroxysms of guilt which can be seen as another form - the flipside if you will - of self-indulgence. Everything is about rehabilitation and love, and turning to Logos.

There's an excellent article I would recommend to everyone to read thoroughly by John Chryssavgis - link below:

Repentance and Confession - Introduction (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8493.asp)

[Janine]

Here are a couple of paragraphs excerpt:

Reference has already been made to the cloud of guilt which at times shrouds the sacrament of confession. It is by no means a theoretical question, for guilt is part of the tragedy experienced by many people, whether in their per*sonal lives or in the face of the appalling sufferings and misery - mental, physical, social - which afflict the world at large today and for which we all share the responsibility and the guilt. But in the specific context of repentance and confession, guilt is a highly misleading concept, largely fostered by Western thinking.[33] It originates in a hyper*trophied individualistic, self-regarding view of sin and sal*vation, and indeed of repentance with its attendant legalis*tically oriented penitential system. Orthodoxy always re*sisted legalism, whether in repentance or in confession, eschewing both undue confidence in man's achievement or merit and the overwhelming sense of guilt, which is the negative aspect of being centered on oneself and seeking for some means to propitiate God's wrath. By contrast with this God is seen to declare His love for men at their most unac*ceptable. It is God's identification with man and His loving acceptance of the worst that men can do that makes repen*tance and confession a way of rediscovering God and one*self, and thereby of being set on the road to full and loving relationship with God and with other men. There is no men*tion in Scripture of the word "guilt" (ἐíï÷Þ), although there is the adjective "guilty" (ἔíï÷ïò). Instead of "guilt" there is "sin" (ἁìáñôßá) - failure, loss, a break-up in relations, result*ing in a kind of false consciousness. Even "ἐíÝ÷ïìáé" implies keeping fast within, cherishing, sharing, as distinct from be*ing ashamed in the face of God who inflicts retributive punishment.

Break in communication or communion can lead to path*ological forms of guilt. But there is guilt born of a sense of responsibility for others as well as for oneself, leading one to an awareness of other people. The Christian view of man is largely a social one. Where there is a breakdown in per*sonal love, or a rise in institutionalism, one finds a thicken*ing of the atmosphere of guilt. Its antidote is collective con*fession, communal prayer to "our Father." A saint might con*fess daily without fear of neurosis, because he is in constant communion with God and man. Acknowledgment of one's limitations leads to personal communion with God who alone can erase sin: "I acknowledged my sin to You, and I did not hide my iniquity.... Then You did forgive the iniquity of my sin" (Psalm 32.5).

[Owen Jones]

"The Christian view of man is largely a social one."

This is true. But the opposite is equally true. Jesus was was anti-social. Jeremiah was anti-social. There is a strong defense in Christian tradition of the solitary believer as the paradigm.

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

Yes, Owen, I agree; but solitaries have always attracted followers - vide Saints Anthony and Pachomius and the other early hermits of the Thebaid. Something of a paradox here, methinks.

seeker

[Janine]

We don't call it "communion" for nothing. We are always in relationship to God, to Christ and to each other. The very notion of "Father" means we are in relationship. We are never completely solitary creatures by even this basic language, not to mention Christ's teachings.

[Daniel Jeandet]

Perhaps God allowed solitaries to attract followers so they would always be learning how to be more and more anti-social http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Could even a hermit become too comfortable with his social life?

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

Well, Daniel after reading many saints' lives (mainly Western, it's true) in the course of my academic studies I am left wondering whether some of them were not just a little bit... strange; at least eccentric if not actually mad, and certainly anti-social. I instance St Cuthbert of Lindisfarne and Saint Godric of Finchale, for starters. Both subsequently became role models for monks in a later age. I prefer the Monk of Farne, who was a hermit but seemingly quite balanced withal.

seeker

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

Well, Daniel after reading many saints' lives (mainly Western, it's true) in the course of my academic studies I am left wondering whether some of them were not just a little bit... strange; at least eccentric if not actually mad, and certainly anti-social. I instance St Cuthbert of Lindisfarne and Saint Godric of Finchale, for starters. Both subsequently became role models for monks in a later age. I prefer the anonymous Monk of Farne, who was a hermit but seemingly quite balanced withal.

seeker

[Irene]

Dear Seeker, To those who aren't Orthodox some of the Saints would seem strange. I definitely did not have the same sort of respect/love for the fools-for-Christ that my in-laws had. That is because I didn't understand.

The thing is the weirder you act the more people will avoid you - even walking on the other side of the street. The more "normal" you are the more people stop you for a chat in the street. (Country town perspective). People avoiding you means more time to pray. Praying more brings you closer to God.

Holy Fools for Christ pray for us sinners! please.

In Christ
irene

[guest]

Dear Fr Raphael,

I was struck by a detail in the Apostolic Canons in your posting, which seemed to imply that excommunicated layman should not normally pray with the faithful. In general what things are lay people who have been excommunicated for serious sins not expected to do, besides receiving communion?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

By "not praying with the Faithful" from what I have read meant staying in the Narthex of the church. There are categories of penitents referred to in the Canons such as "weepers" that imply that in previous times penitents stood in a specially designated place at the back of the church. An important point here is that to my knowledge at least none of these categories of penitents was ejected from the church- rather their period of repentance took place from within the church. Certainly this is an important point about what the Church intends by an epitimia even for very serious sin. Others would probably know better about this subject- but I wonder if this means that it would only be hardened heretics who would not be allowed entry into the church.
As for what occurs nowadays except for not being able to approach the Cup- I think this would vary from parish to parish. Perhaps it occurs in some places I have not seen the practice of penitents being denied entry into the main part of the church except on Mt Athos.
As for what the penitents SHOULD do. It is very important to point out that the parish priest or spiritual father usually gives a very strict 'rule' of prayer to those who have fallen in a very serious way. This may include prostrations, & acts of charity to the poor, etc.
In Christ- Fr Raphael