Concerning Mortal Sins, Pardonable Sins, and Sins of Omission
Part I, Chapter 3 from the Exomologetarion (A Manual of Confession)
by St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite
Concerning these you must know that, just as a physician is required to know
what the illnesses of the body are in order to treat them, you who seek to be a
Spiritual Father are obligated to know what the illnesses of the soul are, that
is, sins, in order to treat them. Although the illnesses of the soul are many,
they generally fall into the following three categories. Hence, you need to
know which are mortal, which are pardonable and not mortal, and which are sins
of omission or inaction.
1. Concerning Mortal Sins
According to Gennadios Scholarios, George Koressios, the Orthodox
Confession, and Chrysanthos of Jerusalem, mortal sins are those voluntary
sins which either corrupt the love for God alone, or the love for neighbor and
for God, and which render again the one committing them an enemy of God and
liable to the eternal death of hell. [11] Generally speaking, they are: pride,
love of money, sexual immorality, envy, gluttony, anger, and despondency, or
indifference. [12]
2. Concerning Pardonable Sins
Pardonable sins are those voluntary sins
which do not corrupt the love for God or the love for neighbor, nor do they
render the person an enemy of God and liable to eternal death, to which
transgressions even the Saints are susceptible, according to the words of the
Brother of God: “For in many things we all sin” (Jas. 3:2), and of John: “If we
say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves” (l Jn. 1:8), and according to
Canons 125, 126, and 127 of Carthage. These sins, according to Koressios and
Chrysanthos, are: idle talk, the initial inclination and agitation of anger,
the initial inclination of lust, the initial inclination of hate, a white lie,
passing envy, or that which is commonly called jealousy, which is slight grief
over the good fortunes of one’s neighbor, and the like. [13]
Know also, Spiritual Father, that the many sins which are generally called
pardonable are not of one and the same degree, but they are of varying degrees,
smaller and larger, lower and higher, and that pardonable sins and mortal sins
are two extremes. For in between these extremes there are found varying degrees
of sins, beginning from the pardonable ones and proceeding up to the mortal
ones, which degrees were not given names by the Ancients, perhaps because they
are many and varied according to the class and specific kind of sins, but could
have named them if they so desired. Here we name some of them, for the benefit of
clarity and for your knowledge, beginning from below: pardonable sins, those
near the pardonable, those that are non-mortal, those near the non-mortal,
those between the non-mortal and the mortal, those near the mortal, and
finally, mortal sins. Here is an example of the sins of the incensive aspect of
the soul: The initial movement of anger is pardonable; near to the pardonable
is for someone to say harsh words and get hot-tempered. A non-mortal sin is to
swear; near the non-mortal is for someone to strike with the hand. Between the
non-mortal and the mortal is to strike with a small stick; near the mortal is
to strike with a large stick, or with a knife, but not in the area of the head.
A mortal sin is to murder. A similar pattern applies to the other sins.
Wherefore, those sins nearer to the pardonable end are penanced lighter, while
those nearer to the mortal end are more severely penanced. [14]
3. Concerning sins of omission
Those good works, or words, or thoughts, which are capable of being done or thought
by someone, but through negligence were not done, or said, or thought, are
called sins of omission, [15] and are brought forth from the mortal sin of
despondency, as we have said. I know very well that these sins of omission are
not considered by people as full sins, because those are few who consider it a
sin if they did not perform such and such a charity when they were able to, or
had the means to either give good advice to their neighbor, or to do a certain
amount of prayer, or do another virtue, and did not.
But this, however, I know for certain,
that God will render an account on the day of judgment concerning these. Who
verifies this for us? The example of that slothful servant who had the one
talent and buried it in the ground, who was judged, not because he committed
any sin or injustice with it (because he who gave the talent to him took it all
back, as Basil the Great says in the Introduction of The Long Rules), [16]
but because being able to increase it, was negligent and did not increase
it: “Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then
at my coming I should have received mine own with usury” (Mt. 25:27). It is
also verified for us by the example of the five foolish virgins who were
condemned for nothing other than an absence of oil. And concerning the sinners
placed at the left hand, they will be condemned, not because they committed any
sin, but because they were lacking and were not merciful to their brother: “For
I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no
drink” (Mt. 25:42). The reason that God gave to man natural strength was not in
order to leave it idle and useless, without results and fruit, just as that
slothful servant left the talent of the Lord idle, as we said above, but He
gave it to man in order for man to put it into action, and into practice, and
for it to increase, doing good with it and the commandments of the Lord, and so
to be saved through this. On this account Basil the Great said: “We have
already received from God the power to fulfill all the commandments given us by
Him, so that we may not take our obligation in bad part, as though something
quite strange and unexpected were being asked of us, and that we may not become
filled with conceit, as if we were paying back something more than had been
given us.” [17] And also in agreement with the above words, his brother,
Gregory of Nyssa, says: “As each shall receive his wages, just as the Apostle
says (1 Cor. 3:14), according to his labor, so also each shall receive
punishment according to the extent of their negligence.” [18]
Those things which are also called sins of omission are those which we were
able to prevent, by word or act, but did not prevent. On this account those who
commit these are likewise penanced according to Canon 25 of Ancyra, Canon 71 of
Basil the Great, and Canon 25 of St. John the Faster. [19]
Furthermore, Spiritual Father, you must know that the degrees of sin from the
beginning until the end are twelve. The first degree is when someone does good,
but not in a proper manner, mixing the good with the bad. This occurs in seven
ways, as Basil the Great says, “As regards the place, the time, the person, the
matter involved, or in a manner intemperate, or disorderly, or with improper
dispositions.” [20] An example of a sin of the first degree is when someone
performs an act of mercy, or fasts, or does some other good deed, so that he
might be glorified by people. The second degree of sin is complete idleness in
regard to the good. The third degree is an assault of evil. The fourth is
coupling. The fifth is struggle. [21] The sixth is consent. [22] The seventh is
the sin according to the intellect, according to St. Maximos, which is when a
person, having consented, plans carefully to accomplish that sin which is in
his intellect so as to do the deed. The eighth is the deed itself and the
sinful act. The ninth is the habit of someone committing the sin often. The
tenth is the addiction to sin, which with violence and force compels the person
to sin voluntarily and involuntarily. The eleventh is despair, that is,
hopelessness. The twelfth is suicide, namely, for a person to kill himself,
while having a sound intellect, being conquered by despair. So then, Spiritual
Father, you must try assiduously in every way to turn the sinner around to
smaller degrees of sin and to prevent him from proceeding to the greater
degrees ahead. And most of all, you must endeavor to sever him from despair, no
matter in how great a degree of sin he is found. [23]
Endnotes
11. “Translator’s note: St. Mark the
Ascetic says: “Because God’s righteousness is inescapable, it is hard to obtain
forgiveness for sins committed with complete deliberation” (On the Spiritual
I.aw 55); and again: ‘There is a sin which is always ‘unto death’ (1 Jn.
5:16): the sin for which we do not repent. For this sin even a saint’s prayers
will not be heard” (No Righteousness by Works 41); (GrPhilokalia, pp.
93; 102; tr. The Philokalia, London, 1979, v. 1, pp. 114; 129).
And Elder Sophrony (Sakharov) writes: “Sin cuts us off from the God of Love” (His
Life Is Mine, Crestwood, 1977, p. 41).
12. Take note that according to the Orthodox
Confession, Gabriel of Philadelphia, and Nicholas Boulgaris, the effects
and offspring of pride are these: vainglory, boasting, conceit, self-esteem,
disobedience, scorn, hypocrisy, stubbornness, and others. Those of love of
money are: greed, mercilessness or lack of charity, hardness of heart, theft,
robbery, deceit, injustice, treachery, perjury, simony, sacrilege, unbelief,
and taking interest on money. Those of sexual immorality are: adultery, sodomy,
fornication, bestiality, incest, child molestation, virgin molestation,
colluctation (Translator’s note: An explanation of this word, sygkylismos, can
be found in the Interpretation to Canon 19 of St. John the Faster. It
implies the idea of “rolling around,” “caressing,” or “heavy-petting.”), masturbation, insolence, blindness of
the intellect, and fearlessness of God. Those of anger are: conspiracy, malice,
spite, argumentation, slander, fraud, betrayal, murder, ingratitude, and grief
over the good things of the one envied. Those of gluttony are: gormandizing,
drunkenness, debauchery, stupor, lewdness, despondency, and others. Those of
anger are: blasphemy, hate, remembrance of wrongs, argumentation, perjury,
malediction, invectiveness, war, contention, and murder. Those of despondency
are: cowardice, effeminacy, grief and indignation over the good that they
should be doing, excuses for sins, despair, unbelief, and, in short, apathy and
indifference concerning the good which they ought to do. Note also that these
mortal sins are considered as passions and habits rooted in the soul, from
which are born the above-mentioned offspring. Some of these are worse than
others, and some are caused by others, while some are causes of others, as you
saw. From gluttony is born gormandizing and despondency, and from these are
brought forth various offspring, while others give birth to these same ones,
just as both envy and anger give birth to murder and argumentation. Theophylact
of Bulgaria says that self-love is the beginning and cause of all evils,
wherefore the Apostle placed self-love before the others (Explanation of the
verse, For people shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, etc. 2 Tim. 3:2; PG
125, 1 16D- 1 17A).
13. It is difficult to distinguish the reason and exact difference between
mortal sins and pardonable ones. Explaining the saying of John: ‘There is a sin
unto death; and there is a sin not unto death” (1 Jn. 5:16, 17), Metrophanes of
Smyrna says a sin unto death is every sin which was penalized by death under
the Old Law, as was blasphemy against God, voluntary murder, bestiality, and
others. A sin not unto death is that one which was not penalized by death, such
as involuntary murder, and others. Anastasios of Sinai says that the sin unto
death is that which is committed knowingly, and the sin not unto death is the
one committed in ignorance; but blasphemy against God and a great sin committed
knowingly, such as murder or adultery, is unto death (Quaestiones LIV, PG
89, 616C-617A). Canon 5 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and Oikoumenios say
that the sin unto death is the one which is not repented for and uncorrected.
Similarly, George Koressios in his Theology (which seems to me the most
accurate from the others because he noticed these differences), says that
mortal sins may differ from pardonable sins according to their class, as for
example a mortal deed differs from idle talk and from some vain thought, as
there are three general classes of sin: the evil deed, the evil word, and the
evil thought. All the evil deeds are of one class, differing among themselves
according to their specific kind, and this goes also for all of the evil words
and all of the evil thoughts. They may also differ according to the
incompletion of the deed and act, just as the initial inclination of anger and
hate differs from full-blown rage and remembrance of wrongs. Mortal sins may
also differ from pardonable sins according only to the value of the content,
for theft (which does not differ in itself from other theft, either in specific
kind or content), if it involves a lot of money or capital, is mortal; if it
involves a little, without resulting in much harm to the owner, is pardonable.
Chrysanthos also says these things in his Exomologetarion. In addition
to these, they may also differ according to the specific kind, just as perjury,
being mortal, differs according to the kind of sin from idle talk. Gennadios Scholarios
(in the Exomologetarion of Chrysanthos), dividing the mortal sins and
the pardonable sins into the general areas where they are enacted, that is,
evil thoughts to the intellect, evil words to the tongue, evil deeds to the
body, says that every sin belonging to the intellect and being mortal according
to its kind, then becomes mortal when it is given form and carried out, not
however merely through assault or
consent or struggle with the bad thought (concerning these see Canons 2, 3,
and 4 of the Faster), but through consenting to its completion (as it is with
pride, remembrance of wrongs, heresy, and others). Likewise, every sin
belonging to the tongue and being mortal according to its kind, then becomes mortal
when it is carried out (like blasphemy, perjury, false witness, and the like).
Similarly, every sin belonging to the body and being mortal according to its
kind, then becomes mortal when it is carried out (as it is with fornication,
adultery, murder, etc.). Mortal sins belonging to the body become pardonable
when they only appear to the intellect and reason. For example, when the mortal
sin of sexual immorality is conceived in desire and in the intellect, or if it
is spoken through obscenity, it is pardonable. Hence, the Brother of God said:
“Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin,” pardonable sin, that
is; for it produces, “sin, when it is finished (through the body and the act),
bringeth forth death” Gas. 1:15). Likewise, mortal sin belonging to the word,
if it occurs only in the intellect, is pardonable. The mortal sin of blasphemy,
for example, when it occurs involuntarily in the intellect alone, it is
pardonable. Simply speaking, the mortal sins arising from the lower and grosser
areas, when they occur in the higher and finer areas, are pardonable.
Worthy of attention and fear is that which the sacred Augustine says (On the
First Epistle of John and On the Saints, Homily 41, taken from
Koressios) which is in accord with many others: that many small sins create a
large one. This is understood, according to Koressios, when a person dismisses
small sins as small, because the one continuously stealing small things sins
mortally. Wherefore also Basil the Great, knowing that according to the Holy
Gospel there exists a difference between a gnat and a camel, straw and wood,
but saying it more clearly, small and large sins, yet at the same time he says
that in the New Testament there is no such distinction between large and small
sins. First, because a small sin and a large one are equally transgressions of
the Law, for according to John: “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 Jn.
3:4) and defiance of the Son, as is said: “He that disobeyeth the Son shall not
see life” Jn. 3:36) (Regulae Brevius 293, PG 31, 1288C- l289A). Second,
because a small sin becomes a large one when it is master of the one committing
the sin: “For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage”
(2 Pet. 2:19). The divine Chrysostom gives a third reason (On I Cor., Homily
16,. and To Demetrios on Compunction), saying that wood and straw, that
is, the large sin and the small one, because they do not receive the same
punishment, differ; but in so much as those committing sins (small or large)
are put out of the kingdom of heaven, they do not differ. Wherefore the Apostle
also says that both idol-worshippers, and sodomists, and revilers, equally will
not inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-10), that is, those who commit
large and small sins. That which the aforementioned Koressios says is also
worthy of note and awe, namely that desire becomes a mortal sin in two ways:
either when it moves toward some severe sin (like murder, or another like it),
or when it consents to do a sin, even if it is not carried out, because the
movement of desire is threefold: involuntary, incompletely voluntary, and
completely voluntary. The first movement is not called sin; the second is
called a pardonable sin; the third is mortal. Accordingly, in Instructions
for Penitents (p. 239), it is written that every hedonistic pleasure, when
it is completely voluntary, is a mortal sin.
14. Translator’s note: St. Ambrose says:
“Paul teaches us that we must not abandon those who have committed a sin unto
death, but that we must rather coerce them with the bread of tears and tears to
drink, yet so that their sorrow itself be moderated. For this is the meaning of
the passage: ‘Thou hast given them to drink in large measure’ (cf. Ps. 79:6),
that their sorrow itself should have its measure, lest perchance he who is
doing penance should be consumed by overmuch sorrow, as was said to the
Corinthians: ‘What will ye? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a
spirit of meekness?’ (1 Cor. 4:21). But even the rod is not severe, since he
had read: ‘Thou shalt beat him indeed with the rod, but shalt deliver his soul
from death’ (Pr. 23:13)” (On Repentance, Book I, ch. 13, NPNF (V2-10),
p. 339).
15. Translator’s note: St. Mark the Ascetic says: “Failure to do the good that
is within your power is hard to forgive” (On the Spiritual Law 64, GrPhilokalia,
p. 94; tr. The Philokalia,v. l, p.1l4).
16. Regulae Fusius, PG 31, 893A.
17. Regulae Fusius 2, PG 31, 909A; tr. Saint Basil: Ascetical Works, pp.
233-234.
18. Contra Eunomium 12, PG 45,
912C.
19. A certain teacher compares sins of
omission with the venom and bite of the asp, because, just as it kills without
causing pain to the person (wherefore the Alexandrians killed those committing
small crimes this way, as Galenos says), so also those transgressions kill the
soul, without the sinners hurting or feeling anything.
20. De Baptismo II, Question 8, PG 31, 1600C; tr. Saint Basil:
Ascetical Works, p. 408.
21. Struggle is considered common to all of the degrees of sin, because one
struggles and wrestles in order to do good in a proper manner, and not to delay
in doing good and so forth in all things.
22. Concerning these four (assault, coupling, struggle, consent) see the Canons
of St. John the Faster. Webmaster note: See also Chapter 2 from The Acquisition of the Holy
Spirit in Ancient Russia, by I.M. Kontzevich (Platina, CA: St. Herman of
Alaska Brotherhood, 1988).
23. The arguments with which you will be
able to free the sinner from despair are these, Spiritual Father. 1) That
despair is the greatest and worst of all evils, because it is opposite to and
extremely opposed to God. And even though every sin is opposed to God in some
way and partially, despair is entirely opposed to God and in every way, because
it negates God, and by taking Him out of the picture it makes evil as another
God, as well as the cause of evil, the devil. It would make evil stronger than
the goodness of God, more infinite than His infinity, and for despair to even
be in the place of wherever God is. What can be found that is more impious or
more mindless? To believe that powerless sin is more powerful than Power
Himself? That the finite is more infinite than the Infinite Himself? And for
non-being to be above the Eternal Being? For this reason the Orthodox
Confession writes that despair is opposed to the Holy Spirit. Therefore say
to the sinner, Spiritual Father, that which Basil the Great says, that is, if
it is possible to measure the fullness and the magnitude of the compassion of
God, let the sinner then despair, comparing and measuring the amount and
magnitude of his sin: “If it is possible to number the multitude of God’s
mercies and the greatness of Gods compassion in comparison with the number and
greatness of sins, then let us despair” (Regulae Brevius 13, PG 31, 1
089C). Even if one’s transgressions are measured and counted, the mercy and
compassion of God being immeasurable, why should one despair and not know the
mercy of God and blame his transgressions: “But if, as is obvious, the latter
are subject to measure and can be numbered, but it is impossible to measure the
mercy or number the compassions of God, there is no time for despairing, but
only for recognizing mercy and condemning sins; the remission of which is set
forth in the blood of Christ’ (ibid.). 2) Despair is opposed to common
sense, because it does not have a proper place among people. For a sinner to
live, even though he sins, is a sign that God accepts him and does not reject
him, Who did not put him to death when he sinned as he deserved, but allowed
him to live, for no other reason other than that he may repent. The great
Gregory of Thessaloniki verifies this for us in this way: “This is why no one
should give way to despair... because the time of this life is time for
repentance, the very fact that a sinner still lives is a pledge that God will
accept whoever desires to return to Him” (To the Most Reverend Nun Xenia,
GrPhilokalia, p. 933; tr. The Philokalia, v. 4, London, 1995, p.
299). 3) Despair is a child of the devil, according to St. Ephraim. Before
someone sins, the devil says to that person how the sin is nothing, and then
when he does sin, he says to that person how his sin is terrible and
unforgivable (Evergetinos, Venice, 1783, p. 11; also see the English
language translation, The Evergetinos: A Complete Text, Etna, 1988, vol.
I, book 1, p. 41). If we search more exactly, we find that despair sprouts both
from pride and self-esteem. The prideful who speaks of himself as great in
regards to virtue and holiness, when he falls into some mortal sin, he
straightway despairs, thinking that that fall is unworthy of his virtue,
according to John of the Ladder (Step 26, PG 88, 1032D-1033A; The Ladder, p.
175). It also sprouts from the inexperience which one has in the noetic warfare
of the enemy. Just as Judas was inexperienced in this warfare and despaired, as
one Father says, thus despairing he hung himself. Peter being experienced, even
though he denied, did not despair, but repented, again becoming Peter (the
rock). (Translator’s note: The ‘Father’ St. Nikodemos is referring to is St.
John of Karpathos. See Texts for the Monks in India 85, GrPhilokalia,
p. 255; The Philokalia, v. 1, p. 318). It also sprouts from the many
sins one commits, just as Solomon says: “When an ungodly man comes into a depth
of evils, he despises himself” (Pr. 18:3). It sprouts from other causes also,
like the negligence and idleness in doing good works and not bearing fruits of
repentance. Therefore, whoever desires not to fall into the webs of despair,
let them remember its causes and correct them, learning the machination of the
devil with which he tries to create despair, throwing away one’s pride,
becoming experienced in noetic warfare, abstaining from sins, and striving for
their salvation with all of their strength. 4) Lastly, despair is
opposed to the Old and New Scripture which in a thousand places portrays the
immeasurable mercy of God with which He receives all sinners equally. It is
opposed to so many examples of sinners, who were great transgressors, who were
saved from the beginning of the world until the end without despairing::
Lamech, Manasseh, Nebuchadnezzar, David, prostitutes, adulterers, tax
collectors, prodigals, thieves, Peter, Paul. It is opposed to all of the words
of the divine Fathers who taught sinners to hope in the mercy of God and to
cast away despair, showing that there is not one sin which can conquer the
philanthropy of God. See also the Evergetinos, vol. I, book 1, Hypothesis
I.
These things having been said, we complete
this footnote with the following. Just as despair is opposed to the Holy
Spirit, as we said, likewise is exaggerated hope and boldness in the compassion
of God opposed to the same Holy Spirit when one is so bold as to sin without
fear, as the Orthodox Confession says (p. 221). Concerning this the word
of the polymath George Koressios is very wise, saying that the life of
Christians must stand between these two, between hope and despair: on the part
of God they must hope in His goodness; but on their part they must despair on
account of the multitude of their sins (from his Theology). (Translator’s
note: Concerning this last statement by George Koressios, these are the words
told to St. Silouan by the Lord: “Keep thy mind in hell, and despair not”
(Archimandrite Sophrony, Saint Silouan the Athonite, Crestwood, 1999, p.
460).)
From Exomologetarion (A Manual of Confession), by St.
Nikodemos the Hagiorite (Thessaloniki, Greece: 2006,
Uncut Mountain Press). Order today from
Uncut Mountain Supply! Posted on 1/2/2007.
|