Topic: Orthodox-Catholic Confession

[lubeltri]

Since, George, you've locked the other thread, I will post the response I prepared here. I suggest you move the part of the thread dealing with Catholic vs. Orthodox confession here (from about page five on).

Again with the Catholics.... Roll Eyes
Who cares what you believe? (which, by the way, is that the sin would be outweighed by the "Treasury of the Church" which according to your mob includes "the truly immense, unfathomable and ever pristine value before God of the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, who following in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by His grace have sanctified their lives and fulfilled the mission entrusted to them by the Father. Thus while attaining their own salvation, they have also cooperated in the salvation of their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body." (Indulgentarium Doctrina 1967) So you see, we are different. You guys think the "merits" of the Saints "co-operate" to save and form part of the "Treasury of the Church" which can be applied in the form of "Indulgences" for the remission of temporal punishment.- we don't. The only thing we place in the other side of the scale is God's mercy in Christ. Smiley So now, why not be a good little poster and do as the moderators have asked you to and post in the Orthodox-Catholic Discussion Forum rather than turn every thread into a theological argument about doctrinal differences between RC's and Orthodox, or your inane claims that they don't exist? And if you can't do that, then I really have to wonder what you are doing here apart from trolling.

My "mob"? Is that an attack on my Church or my ancestry? Is this not shades of TomS from you?

I'm not taking your bait. Did I "inanely" say everything was the same doctrinally between the Catholic and EO Churches? Once again, these are straw men you are punching. The basic point I made before STILL holds true---BOTH of our Churches treat different sins in different ways. Some are barriers to Holy Communion because they have so sickened the soul that they require medicine in confession. Others, however, can be healed by the mercy and grace of Jesus Christ through Holy Communion. OF COURSE all sin is sin and requires repentance and trust in the mercy of the Lord for us to be healed at all.  I've never claimed otherwise! That's why I feel personally attacked and have become utterly disgusted by this "discussion." My words have been twisted and other words put in my mouth, I feel.

As I was afraid, it seems you actually took seriously my last statement about Catholics not caring about "small" sins, even with the smiley face. You actually believe we think that, don't you?

The thread was already discussing (the negative aspects of) Catholic confession before I came to it. I jumped in only to correct serious mischaracterizations, before your uncharitable dissembling act took things off the rails. Had it been moved to the RC-EO forum, I would have taken it up here. It should be here now.

But some simply cannot discuss purely EO topics without dragging Catholics into it, as if the EO self-definition and identity includes as a chief component "not RC." It's a very ugly streak in EO culture. This is personally offensive to me (similar to attacks on my own mother), and less tolerable with the level of frequency I've seen here---it is tempting me to develop corresponding anti-EO feelings, feelings which did not exist before here. Blessedly I was spared most of this uncharitable stuff in my dealings with EO offline. I came here with such a warm orientation toward the EO Church, despite our differences, but through this experience, I can feel the temptation of growing hostility. These feelings trouble me. It's safe to say that I've grown to be glad I'm not EO---it had some appeal to me before. But I'm not sure I want to stick around and develop an anti-EO streak after seeing my faith mischaracterized and disrespected so much here. I fear that may happen if I stay on a regular basis. I don't want to harbor this kind of hostility toward a Church I've always admired, despite the uncharity of some of its members.

So after some thinking, like PJ, I've decided to restrict my participation here. Better for you, better for me. I will pop in now and then but use discernment in deciding what threads to jump into. Starting today. Please direct all barbs to my PM box. I will answer them there. Many thanks.

[Αριστοκλής]

Apparently you are unaware of Australian colloquialisms. You over-reacted to the 'mob'.

[ozgeorge]

I suggest you move the part of the thread dealing with Catholic vs. Orthodox confession here (from about page five on).

The problem is that "page 5 onwards" includes genuine inquiries and answers by posters regarding the Orthodox Mystery of Repentance in the Orthodox Faith Issues forum, which is the subject of the thread. The fact that they are interspersed with your persistent posts telling us what we as Orthodox believe (despite myself and cleveland trying to explain to you that we in fact do not believe as you think we do) does not warrant the pages being moved here.
You're clearly upset, and have said as much. You think I'm "out to get you" and am trying to "bait" you, whereas nothing could be further from my mind. I think it's best that you take a break from this issue for a while, rather than try to discuss it with me while you are upset.
George

[authio]

But some simply cannot discuss purely EO topics without dragging Catholics into it, as if the EO self-definition and identity includes as a chief component "not RC." It's a very ugly streak in EO culture. This is personally offensive to me (similar to attacks on my own mother), and less tolerable with the level of frequency I've seen here---it is tempting me to develop corresponding anti-EO feelings, feelings which did not exist before here. Blessedly I was spared most of this uncharitable stuff in my dealings with EO offline. I came here with such a warm orientation toward the EO Church, despite our differences, but through this experience, I can feel the temptation of growing hostility. These feelings trouble me. It's safe to say that I've grown to be glad I'm not EO---it had some appeal to me before. But I'm not sure I want to stick around and develop an anti-EO streak after seeing my faith mischaracterized and disrespected so much here. I fear that may happen if I stay on a regular basis. I don't want to harbor this kind of hostility toward a Church I've always admired, despite the uncharity of some of its members.

Eh, that's an insecurity.  As people get more secure in the Faith, they'll stop referencing that.  Besides, most of us live in a Western (Roman Catholic) world whether we know it or not!

[Jakub]

Guess I better chime in being a part of the Roman Familia (a rogue of course) , however, East being East and West being West, good enough for me, differences yes, so what, is everything discussed a contest (type is well known, no description needed) ?

I would participate in the "contest" but have not consumed enough coffee or alcoholic beverages yet... got to pickup the grandgirls from school...

My schedule is tanking today...

[prodromas]

As an Australian who enjoys using colloquialisms and rhyming slang. Mob in Australia is used ONLY to refer to the people one associates themselves with and is not to be confused with the negative connotations of the people one associates with (e.g criminals or mafia). A group of kangaroos is referred to as a mob "look at that mob of kangaroos". I cannot believe lubeltri that one can be offended now if one looks back at the post.

[Jakub]

Speaking for myself, I have no problem with the word, I'm half Siciliano...

thanks for the info though

[PeterTheAleut]

But some simply cannot discuss purely EO topics without dragging Catholics into it, as if the EO self-definition and identity includes as a chief component "not RC." It's a very ugly streak in EO culture. This is personally offensive to me (similar to attacks on my own mother), and less tolerable with the level of frequency I've seen here---it is tempting me to develop corresponding anti-EO feelings, feelings which did not exist before here. Blessedly I was spared most of this uncharitable stuff in my dealings with EO offline. I came here with such a warm orientation toward the EO Church, despite our differences, but through this experience, I can feel the temptation of growing hostility. These feelings trouble me. It's safe to say that I've grown to be glad I'm not EO---it had some appeal to me before. But I'm not sure I want to stick around and develop an anti-EO streak after seeing my faith mischaracterized and disrespected so much here. I fear that may happen if I stay on a regular basis. I don't want to harbor this kind of hostility toward a Church I've always admired, despite the uncharity of some of its members.

lubeltri,

Did you come to OC.net with the naïve assumption that we Orthodox would be as ecumenically minded as you are?  I hate to disappoint you, but even the moderates among us are more committed to preserving traditional Orthodox points of view than you probably anticipated.  This makes our heresy sensors more sensitive than maybe you're used to.  According to the Tradition we seek to preserve as being that of the Holy Apostles, the Roman Catholic church has embraced many heresies that--I hate to sound uncharitable--have made her a heretical fellowship in our eyes.  Though some of us do indeed define ourselves in opposition to the Roman church as "Emphatically Not Catholic", the Orthodox Church encourages us to see herself as something much bigger than just the anti-Catholic Church.  Even so, we cannot escape the fact that our rejection of what we perceive to be the heresies of Catholicism makes us of necessity somewhat anti-Catholic.  I just hope that we Orthodox will strive to express only our disagreements with Latin doctrine and will show nothing but charity to individual RC adherents such as you.

-PeterTheAleut

[Jakub]

Balderdash...

[ozgeorge]

Balderdash...

What is?

[ozgeorge]

Here's what I think is balderdash:

"This treasury also includes the truly immense, unfathomable and ever pristine value before God of the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, who following in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by His grace have sanctified their lives and fulfilled the mission entrusted to them by the Father. Thus while attaining their own salvation, they have also cooperated in the salvation of their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body."
Source

And why I think this is balderdash is best described by C.S. Lewis:
If a child asks his father for sixpence to buy his father a birthday present and the father gives him sixpence and receives the gift from his son, anyone can see that the father is "Sixpence None the Richer" for it.

[Jakub]

Could it be a foot race by balding men

[recent convert]

Here's what I think is balderdash:
And why I think this is balderdash is best described by C.S. Lewis:
If a child asks his father for sixpence to buy his father a birthday present and the father gives him sixpence and receives the gift from his son, anyone can see that the father is "Sixpence None the Richer" for it.

"sixpence" was truly a creative & non pretentious Christian rock band.

[Veniamin]

"sixpence" was truly a creative & non pretentious Christian rock band.

One of my absolute favorites.

[Symeon]

Here's what I think is balderdash:
And why I think this is balderdash is best described by C.S. Lewis:
If a child asks his father for sixpence to buy his father a birthday present and the father gives him sixpence and receives the gift from his son, anyone can see that the father is "Sixpence None the Richer" for it.

Yes, but the discussion was about Confession, not indulgences, wasn't it? These are separate issues. See IV.11 of your cited document.* This is a red herring you introduced after your attempt to create an artificial distinction between the RC and Orthodox views of Confession failed.

*

Therefore Holy Mother Church, supported by these truths, while again recommending to the faithful the practice of indulgences as something very dear to the Christian people during the course of many centuries and in our days as well--this is proven by experience--does not in any way intend to diminish the value of other means of sanctification and purification, first and foremost among which are the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, particularly the Sacrament of Penance. Nor does it diminish the importance of those abundant aids which are called sacramentals or of the works of piety, penitence and charity. All these aids have this in common that they bring about sanctification and purification all the more efficaciously, the more closely the faithful are united with Christ the Head and the Body of the Church by charity.

[ozgeorge]

This is a red herring you introduced after your attempt to create an artificial distinction between the RC and Orthodox views of Confession failed.

I didn't introduce it into this thread. lubeltri did in his OP by quoting me, so may be you should be talking to him about red herrings.
If you wish to ask me a question about the difference and similarities between Orthodox and Catholic Confession, I shall answer it, but the quote lubeltri quoted from the other thread was in response to his false claims about the Orthodox teaching regarding sin, namely that it is no different to the Roman Catholic concept of merit, as epitomised in the Roman Catholic dogma of "The Treasury of the Church".
"Indulgences" are not the issue here. The doctrine of "The Treasury of The Church" on which the teaching of Indulgences is based is the issue.
You've just taken it out of context, hence it appears to you as a "red herring". But my experience is that these are complex issues requiring complex answers, and that simplistic answers simply cultivate stupidity.

[prodromas]

George now that you mention it I would love to know the similarities and differences between Orthodox and Catholic confession and also the concept of the treasury of the church from the Catholics.

[Didymus]

Apparently you are unaware of Australian colloquialisms. You over-reacted to the 'mob'.

[lubeltri]

the quote lubeltri quoted from the other thread was in response to his false claims about the Orthodox teaching regarding sin, namely that it is no different to the Roman Catholic concept of merit, as epitomised in the Roman Catholic dogma of "The Treasury of the Church".

Hogwash. You were the first to mention the treasury of merit.

George, you are way off-base. Your red-herring crack at the treasury of merit was just as off-topic as it is here---as you well know, the discussion only concerned whether sins are treated in different ways by the EO Church (yes) and whether EO believe faithful in the throes of mortal sin (or "missing the mark" to a deadly state, since you seem to require everything in Eastern terminology) should receive absolution in confession before consuming the Body and Blood of OLJC (yes). Never at any time did I say that the theologies of atonement behind the sacrament were the same (though you seem to want to artificially box the Catholic theology into one narrow view), and never did I say that EO use "mortal" and "venial" to describe the treatment of sins. I never said that everything was the same. But in your effort to disavow ANY commonality between RC and EO (the horror!), you obfuscated by making straw men of me and introducing red herrings like the "balderdash" about the treasury of merit (once again, irrelevant to our discussion). Nice try, though. 

"Our receiving of Holy Communion, while it is with the blessing of our spiritual father to be frequent, should never be mechanical or automatic. We are to prepare. And how should we do it? We are to prepare above all through the use of the sacrament of Confession." Kallistos Ware http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/resources/saints/kallistos_john_kronstadt.htm

Prodromas, I would suggest you get a more accurate answer to your question by going to a Catholic website like EWTN. I'd answer, but as I mentioned before, I am weary. I couldn't let George get away with that one, though.

[ozgeorge]

never did I say that EO use "mortal" and "venial" to describe the treatment of sins.

Um. Yes you did:

In EO terms, a venial sin is like catching a cold. A mortal sin is like catching pneumonia.

And my correcting you is what has caused you to go off like you have. This whole dispute is because you will not take correction that the above is not the Orthodox view.

[ozgeorge]

By the way. Has anyone noticed the tags at the bottom of this thread?
One must be the Orthodox view of "Confession", and the other the Roman Catholic view. (joking!)

[Ian Lazarus]

A funny anecdote about confession.  

When I first converted to Orthodoxy, I was afraid because my priest used a brass cross held over his epitrachil over my ehad while taking confession.  I thought "Oh great, he's gonna whick me with the brass cross if I say simething really bad!"  Of course I was wrong, and he explained that the cross was meant to symbolize that Christ was hearing my confession in Mercy, and is always there when we call on him.  But I was still waiting for the blows, and after confession that to the priest, he nearly burst out laughing!

[lubeltri]

Um. Yes you did:

And my correcting you is what has caused you to go off like you have. This whole dispute is because you will not take correction that the above is not the Orthodox view.

I did not. Sigh. . .didn't the use of the words and phrases "like" and "in EO terms" clue you in on that?

BTW, drop the baggage you're heaping onto "mortal" and "venial" sins. Those terms are not that big a deal and do not show up in the confessional. But it is true that some sins are harder to cure than others, being more damaging to communion with Christ. So theologians have come up with general terms to describe them (though the first actually comes from the New Testament). I fear that you have the idea that somehow we ultralegalistic Catholics are somehow keeping score in the confessional. Not by any means. We are patients too, going for medicine.

[ozgeorge]

I did not. Sigh. . .didn't the use of the words and phrases "like" and "in EO terms" clue you in on that?

You still don't get it. What you call a "venial" sin and what you call a "mortal sin" are both terminal illnesses in the Orthodox Church. One is not "like" catching a cold at all.

[Papist]

You still don't get it. What you call a "venial" sin and what you call a "mortal sin" are both terminal illnesses in the Orthodox Church. One is not "like" catching a cold at all.

  "All wrongdoing  is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal." 1John 5:17

[lubeltri]

You still don't get it. What you call a "venial" sin and what you call a "mortal sin" are both terminal illnesses in the Orthodox Church. One is not "like" catching a cold at all.

 

I can imagine a man facing the judgment of God at his death. God has barred the door to paradise and is writing him a one-way ticket to hell. "Why, why?" asks the man. "I was faithful!" God answers, "Yes, but on October 28, 1996 you felt tired after a night on the town and pretended to be sick so that you could miss work. You forgot to confess it." God shrugs his shoulders. "Sorry. Neeeeext. . ."

[ozgeorge]

I can imagine a man facing the judgment of God at his death. God has barred the door to paradise and is writing him a one-way ticket to hell. "Why, why?" asks the man. "I was faithful!" God answers, "Yes, but on October 28, 1996 you felt tired after a night on the town and pretended to be sick so that you could miss work. You forgot to confess it." God shrugs his shoulders. "Sorry. Neeeeext. . ."

Sounds like a very legalistic view you have there.
Most sins are forgiven even before we Confess them in the Mystery of Repentance. God loves us infinitely, and will rush to forgive and save us for the sake of the briefest sigh in repentance over our sins. Confessing our sins is our way of showing our love for Him back and receiving His promise of forgiveness. From the age of 12, our Mother among the Saints, Mary of Egypt spent her days in debauchery, prostitution, fornication and also caused the fall of many others. She persisted in this sin for 17 years, until one day, entering a Church to seek yet more young men to fornicate with, she responded to grace and wept over her sins, and that very day she received Holy Communion without even having Confessed her sins to a Priest. It would be another 17 years before she would Confess her sins to the Priestmonk, St. Zossimas.

[Νεκτάριος]

Sorry to disappoint, George, but when I was a Catholic the concept of sin and confession was the same as when I was Orthodox.  In the minds of ordinary lay people such hair splitting doesn't really exist.  Citing an example of saint who spent the majority of her life living alone in the desert is hardly normative Orthodox practice. 

[SiviSokol]

Sorry to butt-in to the conversation here, but it seems that Lubeltri and Nektarios have a point. I think, Ozgeorge, that to a certain extent the mortal/venial categorization of sin is a perfectly acceptable, and occasionally officially taught, idea within Orthodoxy:

Works by Bishop Alexander (Mileant, formerly of ROCOR)
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/guidance_repentant.htm

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/penance.htm

Pre-Revolutionary Russian Moral Theology textbook (see the section on “The Manifestations of Sin”):
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/nravstvennoe_bogoslovie_olesnitsky_e.htm#_Toc68170368

The Orthodox Confession of Faith by Peter Mohyla (part III, questions 1-50):  http://esoptron.umd.edu/ugc/ocfi.html

(repeating from another’s post) from the Exomologetarion of Nikodemos the Hagiorite: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/exo_sintypes.aspx


To repeat your snarky earlier graphic:
___________________
   /\           []          /\
  |  |          []         |  |
  |  |          []         |  |
  |  |          []         |  |
  |  |          []         |  |
  |  |          []         |  |
  |  |          []         |  |
  |  |          []      Nikodemos the Hagiorite
  |  |          []      Bishop Alexander Mileant
ozgeorge     []      Peter Mohyla
\______/     []      \______/
                 []
                 []
                 []
     =================

[ozgeorge]

The Orthodox Confession of Faith by Peter Mohyla (part III, questions 1-50): 

You mean the guy who introduced the Roman Catholic formula of absolution into the Russian Church which they heretically use to this day?

[Νεκτάριος]

You mean the guy who introduced the Roman Catholic formula of absolution into the Russian Church which they heretically use to this day?

Would you be so kind as to refresh my memory as to which pan-Orthodox synod condemned Mohyla and which other Patriarchates have suspended communion with the Russian Church over this issue? 

[ozgeorge]

Would you be so kind as to refresh my memory as to which pan-Orthodox synod condemned Mohyla and which other Patriarchates have suspended communion with the Russian Church over this issue? 

I will, if you will be so kind as to refresh my memory as to which PanOrthodox Synod was convened to correct the other Russian heresy of the Name Worshippers. Russia has always been the Church's little brother, always getting itself into trouble, and having to be bailed out of it by it's more compassionate elder brother.

[drewmeister2]

I think the problem with the Western concept of sin isn't so much that yeah, I agree some sins will not impact our souls in the same way necessarily as much as other sins, at the same time, I think the problem with Catholicism is that there is an official distinction between venial and mortal sins that has led the Catholic Church to where it is now.  This type of mindset of that oh this sin is only a venial sin has led Catholics to go as far as they can in venial sin before they hit mortal, but then eventually because they are playing that game they end up landing into mortal sin.  It seems to lead to the idea of testing how far you can go before you really start having problems, but this attitude towards sin tends to lead that person into mortal sin because they don't feel its necessary as much to repent for venial sins, and this lack of repentance fails to keep the devil away and thus you fall to the more serious sins.  We must repent for every sin as if they were all mortal sins. 

[prodromas]

I thought the problem was that the Roman Catholic church constantly tries to distinguish and define theological concepts that supersede human understanding.

[SiviSokol]

You mean the guy who introduced the Roman Catholic formula of absolution into the Russian Church which they heretically use to this day?

Err...nice dodge.  The confession, however, was accepted by local council at Jassy, and was adopted more widely within the Orthodox world. 

From “Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume I. The History of Creeds.” By Phillip Schaff:

It was revised and adopted by a Provincial Synod at Kieff for Russia, then again corrected and purged by a Synod of the Greek and Russian clergy at Jassy, in 1643, where it received its present shape by MELETIUS SYRIGA, or STRIGA, the Metropolitan of Nicæa, and exarch of the Patriarch of Constantinople. As thus improved, it was sent to, and signed by, the four Eastern Patriarchs. The Synod of Jerusalem gave it a new sanction in 1672 (declaring it a ὁμολογία, ἣν ἐδέξατο καὶ δέχεται ἁπαξαπλῶς πᾶσα ἡ ἀνατολικὴ ἐκκλησία). In this way it became the Creed of the entire Greek and Russian Church. It has been the basis of several later Catechisms prepared by Russian divines.
59
The Orthodox Confession was a defensive measure against Romanism and Protestantism. It is directed, first, against the Jesuits who, under the protection of the French embassadors in Constantinople, labored to reconcile the Greek Church with the Pope; and, secondly, against the Calvinistic movement, headed by Cyril Lucar, and continued after his death. It is preceded by a historical account of its composition and publication, a pastoral letter of Nectarius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, dated Nov. 20, 1662; and by a letter of indorsement of the Greek text from Parthenius, Patriarch of Constantinople, dated March 11, 1643, followed by the signatures of twenty-six Patriarchs and prelates of the Eastern Church.

I will, if you will be so kind as to refresh my memory as to which PanOrthodox Synod was convened to correct the other Russian heresy of the Name Worshippers. Russia has always been the Church's little brother, always getting itself into trouble, and having to be bailed out of it by it's more compassionate elder brother.

Yes, that little brother served for hundreds of years as a light and beacon, albeit imperfectly, to the rest of the Orthodox world which was languishing under the Tourkokratia.  Perhaps one should note, in response to your post, that the throne of the “elder brother” at the time of Peter Mohyla was occupied by Cyril Lucaris whose Calvinist-inspired teachings were condemned by Synod at Constantinople and by council in 1642 at Jassy.  What council has condemned the “Confession” of Mohyla?

[ozgeorge]

Err...nice dodge.  The confession, however, was accepted by local council at Jassy, and was adopted more widely within the Orthodox world. 

Don't you mean "the Slavic Orthodox world"?

What council has condemned the “Confession” of Mohyla?

Again, I will tell you if you tell me what Council condemned the heresy of the Name Worshippers.

[SiviSokol]

Don't you mean "the Slavic Orthodox world"?Again, I will tell you if you tell me what Council condemned the heresy of the Name Worshippers.

No, it had influence within the wider Orthodox world (not just the Slavs).  Didn’t you read the quote concerning the history of the “Confession”?

As far as the heresy of the name worshippers, despite initial cautious endorsement of the work of the monk Ilarion (one of the original proponents of the idea), it was later condemned by the Synod of the Russian Church (incl. Patriarch Tikhon) as well as Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitski, although the matter was still a controversial one when the revolution occurred.  But what does this have to do with the original topic?

[Symeon]

Again, I will tell you if you tell me what Council condemned the heresy of the Name Worshippers.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate condemned the heresy in 1912 and in 1913 the Russians condemned it in a synod. OK, so now tell us which Council condemned Peter Moghila's "Confession"? (hint: it doesn't exist).

[ozgeorge]

No, it had influence within the wider Orthodox world (not just the Slavs).  Didn’t you read the quote concerning the history of the “Confession”?

So do Priests have the authority to "forgive and absolve" as Peter Moghila's formula says; or do Priests have "no power to forgive sins on earth" as the Greek formula says?

As far as the heresy of the name worshippers, despite initial cautious endorsement of the work of the monk Ilarion (one of the original proponents of the idea), it was later condemned by the Synod of the Russian Church (incl. Patriarch Tikhon) as well as Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitski, although the matter was still a controversial one when the revolution occurred.  But what does this have to do with the original topic?

Let's see what the Russian Bishops have to say about this. In 1999, Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev said:

"Even though the movement of the “Name-worshippers” was crushed at the beginning of the century on the orders of the Holy Synod, discussion of the matter regained impetus in the years preceding the Moscow Council (1917-18), which was supposed to come to a decision about this but did not succeed in doing so. Thus the Church’s final assessment of Name-worshipping remains an open question to this day."
Source http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/1.aspx

So I'm afraid the Russian Bishops aren't as sure as you guys are that Name Worshipping is condemned.

[SiviSokol]

You seem quite keen on drawing attention away from the fact that you haven't answered the challenges to your original position with any, er, EVIDENCE.

I'm going to stick with the original argument of the OP and not let this evolve into a discussion of all the shortcomings of Russian theological speculation.

BTW, Bishop Hilarion brings up a number of controversial items in that particular article.  He seems keen on reviving discussion of them, but I believe he is not explicitly endorsing them.

[ozgeorge]

You seem quite keen on drawing attention away from the fact that you haven't answered the challenges to your original position with any, er, EVIDENCE.

What "challenges" to what "position"?
What exactly have I said which you disagree with?

[SiviSokol]

What "challenges" to what "position"?
What exactly have I said which you disagree with?

The “position” that consists of a sort of willful denial that some commonality exists between the Orthodox and Catholic views of sin; the inability or unwillingness to acknowledge the implications of Orthodox acceptance of the Confession of Peter Mohyla, or that “categorization” of sin, and levels of “seriousness” exist in works not influenced by Russian Orthodox thought evincing the mindset of “Western Captivity” (e.g. Nikodemus the Hagiorite).

Heck, to simplify…my priest (a native Serb, btw) says that I should go to confession before communion- assuming I’m praying, fasting, attending services, etc. regularly- only if I have been guilty of “serious” sin (his words).

[prodromas]

I am always learning on this site and I am no way taking sides in this conversation but SiviSokol one preists words does not constitute universal Orthodox truth.

[ozgeorge]

Let's take a look at your interpretation of reality, and what I actually have said:

Your interpretation of reality:

The “position” that consists of a sort of willful denial that some commonality exists between the Orthodox and Catholic views of sin;

Where did I say there was no commonality? What I said was there is no such thing as "venial sin" sin Orthodoxy, and that the differences in degrees of sin are based on how easily remedied they are. Here's what I actually said:

In Orthodoxy, sins are spiritual illness requiring treatment. Untreated, all and any of these spiritual illnesses will lead to spiritual death. The only sense in which Orthodoxy understands sins to be "less serious" is in the sense that they are illnesses which are easier to treat. But left untreated, they will lead to spiritual death as certainly as the "most serious" sin will.

In Roman Catholicism, a "venial sin" does not, by definition, lead to spiritual death. In Orthodoxy, there is no such thing as a venial sin, since all sins cut us off from God and lead to spiritual death, the only difference is that some are remedied easier than others.

[lubeltri]

I think the problem with the Western concept of sin isn't so much that yeah, I agree some sins will not impact our souls in the same way necessarily as much as other sins, at the same time, I think the problem with Catholicism is that there is an official distinction between venial and mortal sins that has led the Catholic Church to where it is now.  This type of mindset of that oh this sin is only a venial sin has led Catholics to go as far as they can in venial sin before they hit mortal, but then eventually because they are playing that game they end up landing into mortal sin.  It seems to lead to the idea of testing how far you can go before you really start having problems, but this attitude towards sin tends to lead that person into mortal sin because they don't feel its necessary as much to repent for venial sins, and this lack of repentance fails to keep the devil away and thus you fall to the more serious sins.  We must repent for every sin as if they were all mortal sins. 

What you've described is absolutely antithetical to Catholic teaching. Thanks for pointing out what not to do.