Eastern Orthodox and the Mortal vs. Venial sin quandry

[mardukm]

Dear brother Andrew,

If what you think he said were true, then you should be appalled. But he’s not saying what you thought he said. Look a little closer. He is talking about in context of confession, not forgoing it altogether. And I have experienced similar. I have never had a priest in confession tell me that anything I did warranted being barred from communion, but I’m sure there are some sins that would. I have been proscribed penance once or twice, but never told not to approach the Chalice. It’s far more pastoral than you might realize.

Oh! Thanks for the explanation!!! I know the Latins don’t refuse the Body and Blood to anyone who has confessed, but consider it the greatest aid to avoid future sin. I guess we are all, Easterns, Orientals and Latins, similar in that way.

We aren’t “theologically legalistic” as you might like to think.

Well, not on this point, at least.

There are things that would prevent someone from receiving, such as not confessing or not fasting during the week and/or the 12 hour pre-communion fast, willfully being unprepared, etc.

It’s good to know that your Church has definite legal standards in that regard. Thanks, again, for the explanation.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ryan,

I suppose one could make the argument that, from the Byzantine perspective, one is forgiven of all sins (both mortal and venial, using the Western categories) in receiving communion. In the prayers just before communion, we pray, “O Lord, I also believe and profess that this which I am about to receive is truly your most precious body, and your life-giving blood, which I pray, make me worthy to receive for the remission of all my sins and for life everlasting. Amen.” However, it has been my experience that most Byzantine Churches teach that one should be properly disposed before receiving communion. Being properly disposed involves having fasted and having confessed grave sins.

Thank you for that explanation. That seems similar to the Latin principle that venial sins are forgiven in exactly that context. Fascinating.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bluegoat]

So from what I have seen here, it seems that in the Orthodox tradition, what precisely needs to be confessed and paid attention to, and how often one normally confesses, is worked out between the priest and the individual.

And it seems to me that people are saying that in the case a person is not able to get to confession right before the Eucharist, if one intends to go and is following the priest’s advice, it may be ok to receive and then confess later? To choose to abstain under those conditions would be up to the discretion of the individual? Is that correct?

I have spoken to a few Orthodox who have been barred from the Eucharist as penance, but only for something very serious. OTOH, I haven’t ever met a Catholic this happened to.

I think, in best conditions, you would probably see very similar effects in the Latin model. As far as I understand it, what are classified as mortal or venial sins are not absolutes, but just guidelines. And after all, a venial sin that becomes too much a part of one’s life can be as bad as a mortal sin committed in an extreme circumstance. But I also find that many people don’t seem to understand this. I spoke to one young fellow online who had missed church one Sunday, and went to confess it before receiving. He had been going to confession every week for the last while. Anyway, his priest told him he was becoming scrupulous and he did not need to confess, and would not hear his confession, and told him to come only once a month.

But the young man could not let go of the idea that sleeping in through Sunday obligation was on the mortal sin list, and now felt he could not receive until he could confess in a month’s time. And he was convinced that having committed a mortal sin, he was no longer in a state of grace and would be in danger of Hell if he died.

Now, I would have put this down to individual issue, except many people thought that he was totally in the right, and I have seen this attitude quite frequently.

So to me, this is the problem with going so far as classifying sins, and perhaps also relates to anonymous confession where the priest cannot get a good feel for the individual’s struggles.

I also have been told by a very well educated Catholic priest that strictly speaking, spiritual guidance is not part of Catholic Confession, and there were many who felt it ought to be avoided. That seems to be different than the Eastern view as far as I can see.

Anyway, it seems to me the biggest difference is the East seems to see the sins as a kind of continuum, like you are on a ladder to Heaven and they can weigh you down or block your way. We always want to move forward, but most of us are never really close to the top. The danger become taking the Eucharist while we are either content with those sins weighing on us or actually encouraging them, because that is a kind of lie. Confession is the natural response to someone who wants to keep moving forward, so not going when instructed shows that we are not taking our sin seriously.

Whereas the CC seems to present it like an either/or - you are either in a state of Grace, or you are not. If not, you are not able to take the Sacrament worthily and are so in a bad spot. I can’t say I like this view, it seems very Protestant to me.

 

[Harpazo]

It’s good to know that your Church has definite legal standards in that regard. Thanks, again, for the explanation.

Blessings,
Marduk

I just wanted to point out that priests won’t go and interrogate the faithful before communion. Like the Latins, it would be on the individual to make the final call whether he has prepared according to the guidance of the Church.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[dzheremi]

I’d have to ask her again about this, but I didn’t get the sense that this outlook tolerates any amount of laxity. The Coptic Orthodox, as I’m sure you know (or should know), are famously not lax about anything. It is different to state as a general principle regarding the sacrament something like “the Eucharist is healing and should be available to all in consultation with their spiritual fathers” (I expect that this would be an idea that my friend would agree with, even if she would phrase it differently), and “don’t receive unless you’ve confessed in X (time period)” (while not necessarily wrong, this just isn’t the operating principle by which they approach the sacrament to begin with).

Do you understand what I mean? Different mindsets, leading to different approaches, and from them different practices. You may not see them as substantially different (and, yes, confession is confession is confession…to a degree), but I do.

And one is definitely not supposed to receive communion if one has unconfessed sin on your conscience - your friend obviously displayed a great love for the Eucharist, but not, it seems, a comparable appreciation for its utter holiness (but perhaps she misunderstood you). Further, abstaining from communion is an acceptable form of penance in the COC.

In any case, there is nothing substantially different between confession in the COC from confession in the LCC (except the form of absolution, which is the same in the Eastern Churches).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

So from what I have seen here, it seems that in the Orthodox tradition, what precisely needs to be confessed and paid attention to, and how often one normally confesses, is worked out between the priest and the individual.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

“the Eucharist is healing and should be available to all in consultation with their spiritual fathers” (I expect that this would be an idea that my friend would agree with, even if she would phrase it differently)

I can see how that would be different from the LCC perspective. I think the LCC would say, “the Eucharist is healing and should be available to all who have a clean conscience before the Lord.” I doubt this is really much different from how the Easterns understand it. From your experience with the EO, what do you think?

I should note that Latins regularly do have a spiritual father, as well. Maybe you never had one when you were a Catholic? I know a lot of Latins who don’t have one. But it’s actually normative in the LCC, AFAIK.

“don’t receive unless you’ve confessed in X (time period)” (while not necessarily wrong

I’m sure the LCC would agree with the “don’t go to confession unless you’ve confessed your sins” portion. I seriously doubt about the “in X (time period)” part, though.

Do you understand what I mean?

Not really, though I accept you see it differently.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

Too Protestant? No actually thats the early teachings of the church which at the time there were no Protestants.

I also don’t believe that from a Byzantine perspective you are absolved on Mortal Sin without confession and allowed Communion. Sounds to me like heresy.

And I have seen Catholic’s barred from Confession and Communion and have seen them excommunicated . So that hold no water either.

Classifying Sins? Well what else would you call it. There are venial and mortal. I could speak in a rude manner to an elder and thats a venial sin. The supernatural virtue of Baptism gives one the connection to God and to know the right or wrong. The right and wrong then becomes a teaching from God himself aside from Scripture.

And there is no debating your Sins in Confesssion, You go to confesssion…

Forgive me father for I have sinned, Its been {so-long} since my last confession and these are my sins. Which you then, however verbal one may be, get into the issues. From there its the “Act of Contrition” and the penance. Done. And of course its all done in a Confessional. And then to the next Communion.

There is no debating anything. Unless “YOU” have a question for the Priest. And you are in conflict with what you are doing, then you should have a private consultation with the Priest whichj in effect would be Confession, just not cut and dry in the confessional. Nonetheless, confession doesn’t have to take place in the confessional.

“Jeremy…I’d have to ask her again about this, but I didn’t get the sense that this outlook tolerates any amount of laxity. The Coptic Orthodox, as I’m sure you know (or should know), are famously not lax about anything. It is different to state as a general principle regarding the sacrament something like “the Eucharist is healing and should be available to all in consultation with their spiritual fathers” (I expect that this would be an idea that my friend would agree with, even if she would phrase it differently), and “don’t receive unless you’ve confessed in X (time period)” (while not necessarily wrong, this just isn’t the operating principle by which they approach the sacrament to begin with).”

How you see this as different in the CC you’ll have to explain? I love to hear this.

God Bless, Gary

 

[dzheremi]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

I can see how that would be different from the LCC perspective. I think the LCC would say, “the Eucharist is healing and should be available to all who have a clean conscience before the Lord.” I doubt this is really much different from how the Easterns understand it. From your experience with the EO, what do you think?

Well, I’m talking about the OO (the Copts). I haven’t had very much one-on-one conversation with EO priests or laity about this issue. I really couldn’t tell you how the EO would respond, outside of the responses already given in this thread. To me, it seems that the EO and OO are closer in their approaches to the sacrament than the OO and LCC.

I should note that Latins regularly do have a spiritual father, as well. Maybe you never had one when you were a Catholic? I know a lot of Latins who don’t have one. But it’s actually normative in the LCC, AFAIK.

Oh no, I did! Fr. Augustine. I still hold him in very high esteem and recall the hours upon hours of conversation with him both in and outside of confession (and at monasteries, and at dinners, and at lunches…) with much fondness. Although I doubt he would appreciate it in the way I intend it, I do credit him in no small part for my progress from Catholicism to Orthodoxy (to the extent that I’ve made any, that is!), as it was while I was under his guidance that I began to first seriously explore Orthodoxy, and he did not discourage it. He even went so far as to read to me in confession and outside from the prayers of St. Ephrem the Syrian, whom he had developed a great love for while in seminary together with a Chaldean priest. And when we visited the Benedictine monastery on the Oregon coast, he pointed out to me that the gift shop carried many pamphlets by HH Pope Shenouda III, and suggested I buy one. A fantastic man, all around! All of my best experiences in my time as a Catholic were of this very personal pastoral nature, and I am only too delighted to find that this is normative in the Orthodox Church (at least as far as I’ve been able to gather without a proper spiritual father of my own). God bless him and all like him, who really go the extra mile for those in their charge.

I’m sure the LCC would agree with the “don’t go to confession unless you’ve confessed your sins” portion. I seriously doubt about the “in X (time period)” part, though.

You brought up a time-period in response to my friend’s observations. I’m just running with it. The thing is, I could definitely see circumstances in which it would also apply in the Orthodox Church, too. If I were to approach the Eucharist in the local Catholic church in my hometown (where I was baptized and everyone knows me), I have no doubt that the priest would say “I haven’t seen you at Mass, let alone in confession, for two years. I will not commune you.” In a comparable situation in the Orthodox Church, I am equally sure that the Orthodox priest would tell me, “I haven’t seen you in two years, I will not commune you.” But this does not mean that the Orthodox Church adopts the same criteria as the LCC regarding confession, communion, or for that matter anything else.

Not really, though I accept you see it differently.

Okay. Close enough.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well I’m still waiting to hear the difference of the “oh so wonderful EO” church which you seem to place the standard for Morality at?

The EO at some point had to follow suit with the CC in Confession/Communion. There was no Communion without Confession until V-II. So where did they even adopt the concept?

Of course most here wouldn’t remember that but I do. So its also possible this controversy on how one approachs confession may well arrise from this issue alone. We always went to both Confession/Communion. Vatican II became the change. Those who follow the old TLM still do things the same way.

God Bless, Gary

 

[dzheremi]

Who are you addressing in your latest post, Gary?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Whoever has the answer? Do you?

Where did the idea on confessing venial Sins in the Pew and attending Communion come from?

I may be wrong, but I don’t think so since I was raised into this in the late 50’s early 60’s. Attended Catholic School and there was no such thing as Communion without Confession until V-II So where does the EO even get this idea? And if you attended Communion without being in a State of Grace it was a Mortal Sin since V-II

God Bless, Gary

 

[Hesychios]

In Orthodoxy, there isn’t that hard definition of mortal sin, etc. As a newbie studying Orthodoxy, I’d love to know from Orthodox in here, preferably EO’s, how do you know when or when not to go to confession. I would think, and this is my assumption (so it can be wrong!!!), that in the end, won’t the Orthodox Christian end up evaluating his/her sins almost like a Catholic when it comes to the criteria that the CC gives in the catechism? What is the thought process as to when to go to confession and how does an Orthodox know?

I’d love everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut and thinking on this. Thanks!

I think the early answers so far have been rather sufficient, but I would like to comment.

I would confess anything and every thing I could think of to my spiritual father, but he would also know me, and be aware of my recurring issues. The act of confession can also be a counseling moment, and a teaching moment. This can be vital.

Naturally, one should expect to attend vespers the evening before divine liturgy as often as possible (of course that is not very convenient for most people, and attendance at vespers is not often great). It is usually at vespers that people make confessions, and then there is often some time during Orthos in the morning when distance travelers get a chance to make a confession.

I refrain from presenting myself for communion, if I don’t feel worthy, out of respect. But one of my old EC pastors taught us something that I had kept with me: receiving communion is a healing and forgiving act. In his words (I paraphrase) " …we toss Him our junk - and He gives us His forgiveness", it is a dynamic transaction. This is evident in the words of the liturgy.

Again, we bow before You and pray to You, O good and loving God. Hear our supplication: cleanse our souls and bodies from every defilement of flesh and spirit, and grant that we may stand before Your holy altar without blame or condemnation. Grant also, O God, progress in life, faith, and spiritual discernment to the faithful who pray with us, so that they may always worship You with reverence and love, partake of Your Holy Mysteries without blame or condemnation, and become worthy of Your heavenly kingdom.

We are literally always unworthy. There is no case of perfect blamelessness.

I suppose one could make the argument that, from the Byzantine perspective, one is forgiven of all sins (both mortal and venial, using the Western categories) in receiving communion. In the prayers just before communion, we pray, “O Lord, I also believe and profess that this which I am about to receive is truly your most precious body, and your life-giving blood, which I pray, make me worthy to receive for the remission of all my sins and for life everlasting. Amen.” However, it has been my experience that most Byzantine Churches teach that one should be properly disposed before receiving communion. Being properly disposed involves having fasted and having confessed grave sins.

Thank you for presenting this other quote from the divine liturgy.

One should always make the attempt to make a confession, and one is unworthy if there has been no real attempt to confess. But as soon as confession is over we are back in the world again. There is no such thing as a ‘minimalist approach’, where one could skip the process and just go up for communion expecting to be forgiven, that is presumptuous upon the Lord. The Law of God is inscribed on our hearts, and we should know we need a confession.

One’s pastor knows his congregation for the most part, and if he knows he hasn’t seen a believer at vespers or in confession within the last few weeks (and is not made aware of any other spiritual director involved in the persons life), he has the right to refuse this person communion.

I have also heard of priests refusing to commune people with cigarette or alcohol breath in the morning (It is a clear sign the individual has not kept the fast for one thing).

I have also witnessed a mother bringing here small child up for communion, and protesting her unworthiness vehemently (“no! no not for me for her!!”) while, dismissing this assertion with a smile the priest popped Our Precious Lord in her mouth!

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think the early answers so far have been rather sufficient, but I would like to comment.

I would confess anything and every thing I could think of to my spiritual father, but he would also know me, and be aware of my recurring issues. The act of confession can also be a counseling moment, and a teaching moment. This can be vital.

Naturally, one should expect to attend vespers the evening before divine liturgy as often as possible (of course that is not very convenient for most people, and attendance at vespers is not often great). It is usually at vespers that people make confessions, and then there is often some time during Orthos in the morning when distance travelers get a chance to make a confession.

I refrain from presenting myself for communion, if I don’t feel worthy, out of respect. But one of my old EC pastors taught us something that I had kept with me: receiving communion is a healing and forgiving act. In his words (I paraphrase) " …we toss Him our junk - and He gives us His forgiveness", it is a dynamic transaction. This is evident in the words of the liturgy.

Again, we bow before You and pray to You, O good and loving God. Hear our supplication: cleanse our souls and bodies from every defilement of flesh and spirit, and grant that we may stand before Your holy altar without blame or condemnation. Grant also, O God, progress in life, faith, and spiritual discernment to the faithful who pray with us, so that they may always worship You with reverence and love, partake of Your Holy Mysteries without blame or condemnation, and become worthy of Your heavenly kingdom.

We are literally always unworthy. There is no case of perfect blamelessness.

Thank you for presenting this other quote from the divine liturgy.

One should always make the attempt to make a confession, and one is unworthy if there has been no real attempt to confess. But as soon as confession is over we are back in the world again. There is no such thing as a ‘minimalist approach’, where one could skip the process and just go up for communion expecting to be forgiven, that is presumptuous upon the Lord. The Law of God is inscribed on our hearts, and we should know we need a confession.

One’s pastor knows his congregation for the most part, and if he knows he hasn’t seen a believer at vespers or in confession within the last few weeks (and is not made aware of any other spiritual director involved in the persons life), he has the right to refuse this person communion.

I have also heard of priests refusing to commune people with cigarette or alcohol breath in the morning (It is a clear sign the individual has not kept the fast for one thing).

I have also witnessed a mother bringing here small child up for communion, and protesting her unworthiness vehemently (“no! no not for me for her!!”) while, dismissing this assertion with a smile the priest popped Our Precious Lord in her mouth!

Now this I agree with whole hearted Michael

Still doesn’t resolve the question of Communion without Confession which at the moment is on the table, though.

God Bless, Gary

 

[dzheremi]

That it is allowed in the context that Michael describes (the confessor knows his people) should settle the issue, no? It is at the priest’s discretion to refuse those who are unworthy, and that discretion is exercised in those cases.

 

[Harpazo]

Whoever has the answer? Do you?

**Where did the idea on confessing venial Sins in the Pew and attending Communion come from? **

I may be wrong, but I don’t think so since I was raised into this in the late 50’s early 60’s. Attended Catholic School and there was no such thing as Communion without Confession until V-II So where does the EO even get this idea? And if you attended Communion without being in a State of Grace it was a Mortal Sin since V-II

God Bless, Gary

Who said that?? Please see my reply to Marduk where he misunderstood someone’s posting. That will help quell some of these issues and perhaps halt any sort of inflammation that might occur (whether real or fictional)

For what it’s worth, my priest has those who are receiving the Mysteries confess once a week. I know many other jurisdictions who do likewise, but of course it will vary from parish to parish, just like in the RCC.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Hesychios]

The EO at some point had to follow suit with the CC …

I am curious … what makes you think that?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well I’m wondering is it not true you can recieve Communion without confessing Venial sin in the Confessional or to the priest in the EO? This is the impression from the above posts

When did it start?

I remember it starting in the CC. I can’t speak on how it came about in the EO? Thats what I’m asking. Was it always this way? Is it something that started when?

I understand whats been written above but I fail to see where this issue is addressed?

God Bless, Gary

 

[GaryTaylor]

If what you think he said were true, then you should be appalled. But he’s not saying what you thought he said. Look a little closer. He is talking about in context of confession, not forgoing it altogether. And I have experienced similar. I have never had a priest in confession tell me that anything I did warranted being barred from communion, but I’m sure there are some sins that would. I have been proscribed penance once or twice, but never told not to approach the Chalice. It’s far more pastoral than you might realize. We aren’t “theologically legalistic” as you might like to think.

There are things that would prevent someone from receiving, such as not confessing or not fasting during the week and/or the 12 hour pre-communion fast, willfully being unprepared, etc.

In Christ,
Andrew

This is you post from above Andrew. To me it unclear, and not addressing my point , maybe its just me. Could you confess venial sins in the EO without going to confession? And then receive communion?

God Bless, Gary

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s a link I just searched from the EO.

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CCgQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.orthodox-christian-comment.co.uk%2Fconfession_communion_preparation_for_communion.htm&ei=IBHcTZ3pFuTk0gHfiPX1Dw&usg=AFQjCNHQyoZUgkKF5LSEVk6Dq5XEgwDFTw

Basically this sounds like what happens today in the CC. I don’t know what Catholic Church everyone attends or rather which Mass.

My point is with the TLM pre 62 this wasn’t like this. Does the CC use this thinking from the EO is this something the EO changed as a result to V-II. I’m just not understanding how this worked in history to the point we are at today.

I know wehere we once were. Which is definatly different today and pretty much in line with this link.