Eastern Orthodox and the Mortal vs. Venial sin quandry

  • Thread starter Thread starter gurneyhalleck1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
.
It sounds like you are primarily trying to explain what happened to your church, but Orthodox are not in your church so we don’t know what’s going on in there, and we would be hard pressed to explain it to you looking in from the outside.

As for the thought that Holy Orthodoxy might be borrowing bad practices from the Roman Catholic church, I frankly doubt it. Holy Orthodoxy has been accepting conservative and traditionalist Roman Catholics for years and I don’t think anyone has complained about Orthodox confession practices yet, I certainly have not.

I suggest that you raise your questions about the sources of modern confession practices in the RCC in another section of the CAF, like Apologetics or Traditional Catholicism. It sounds like a worthwhile discussion.
 
Isn’t mortal sin defined as a sin against the ten commandments in the Latin CC? Shouldn’t stealing be confessed, just as much as murder?

Blessings,
Marduk
Yes, but what we are talking about is the distinction.
 
Unfortunately I couldn’t answer if it’s a normal practice to receive the Eucharist with unconfessed sins on your conscience since my experience is limited to one parish and priest and I haven’t studied this issue, but perhaps others can give their experience as well.

We generally don’t make a distinction between venial and mortal sins, although we would say that some sins are more serious by their nature than others. All sins, no matter how small, can lead to serious spiritual problems if allowed to progress. Our Lord teaches that we are to guard ourselves against even minor sins when he says: "You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.” The spiritual root of both anger toward another and murder is the same, a lack of love, and one can eventually develop into the other if we’re not careful. St. James writes: “But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.” All sin should therefore be taken seriously and confessed to your spiritual father when you have the opportunity to discern the causes of our sins and the way to heal them.

Two things should be kept in mind regarding reception of the Eucharist. First, no one is worthy to receive Christ on the basis of his own holiness, as we confess in the Divine Liturgy: “Holy things are for the holy! One is holy, one is Lord, Jesus Christ…” It is impossible to approach the Eucharist without sin, and so we approach it with fear like Isaiah, who said: “Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.” Yet it is this Eucharist which purifies us of sin, just as angel touched Isaiah’s lips with the burning coal and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your iniquity is taken away, and your sin purged.” The Eucharist is the forgiveness of sins as the priest says when communing the faithful: “The servant of God partakes of the precious and all holy body and blood of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins and everlasting life.” We must not refuse to approach the chalice because we are aware of our sins, for such awareness is the beginning of repentance, which is the proper attitude before God, as the centurion said: “Lord, do not trouble Yourself, for I am not worth that you should enter under my roof, but say the word, and my servant will be healed.”

Second, we are to take the Eucharist seriously, and prepare our minds and bodies to receive our Lord in his body and blood. The traditional way this done is by prayer in the pre-communion prayers, Vespers, and Matins, and by fasting. This practice of prayer and fasting in preparation for spiritual work is attested to throughout Holy Scripture, as in this example of the apostles: “As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’ Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away” (note that the Holy Spirit comes to them after their preparation by prayer and fasting). I once visited a monastery where Fr. Roman Braga was celebrating the Divine Liturgy, who is probably the closest person to a living saint I’ve ever met, and he counseled us not to approach the chalice if we had eaten, drunk, or even smoked that morning. It isn’t that eating or drinking is sinful, but rather that abstaining from them is a way to cleanse and prepare ourselves to encounter our Lord.
 
Are you sure about this? I thought I’ve read from others here that one normally goes to confession right before DL in the Eastern Tradition. Are you absolutely positive you are allowed to receive the Body and Blood with unconfessed sin in your heart? That doesn’t seem to square with our Lord’s exhortation about approaching the altar with a clean conscience, or St. Paul’s exhortation in Scripture about approaching the Body and Blood worthily. Forgive me if it seems like I am disparaging your Eastern Tradition. I don’t intend to. I am genuinely puzzled. May I ask what patristic or scriptural warrant your Tradition uses to permit receiving the Eucharist even while having unconfessed sin in your heart? If that’s not what you were saying, forgive me for misinterpreting.

Blessings,
Marduk
Each time I’ve gone to confession it’s been after Vespers on Saturday night. Again, all I can say is that in my experience my priest has never counseled me to obstain from the Eucharist. The only time I’ve heard him say that is to warn people during a sermon that if they haven’t confessed at least during Nativity and Lent they are to do so before approaching the chalice.
 
I think the rules of the Catholic Church are very beneficial and I would encourage other churches to adopt them.

However, I am sorry to say I do not think most Catholics follow these rules. Very few people sit out communion at my church.

Mortal sins can include missing mass on a Sunday, lustful thoughts, coveting neighbors goods and envy.

When I see the very few people who show up for confession on Saturday and the large crowds going up for communion, I have to conclude the vast majority are either unaware or unconcerned with these rules.
 
I appreciate everyone’s answers. While many of them seem similar, there are some varying opinions as to how often one should confess and if confession is necessary to approach the Sacrament. Correct me if I’m wrong but the feeling I’m getting is that Catholics see Confession as the antidote to sin so that one can be made worthy of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The Orthodox see the Eucharist as the Antidote, the Medicine of Immortality (ignatius). Confession seems to be more a guidance and counseling-focused approach to help retool one’s walk.

The Catholic approach is very defined, very legal as most Catholic theology/morality is, the Orthodox seems more left to the individual. I’m not sure which I prefer.

I’m still learning about Orthodoxy obviously! 😊 I feel like such a naive novice with it sometimes. When I was watching the faithful go up to communion, I thought, “are they mixing the leavened Eucharist with the wine into a spoon? It looks spongey!” 😛 I never realized them mixed it into that little mass in a spoon?
 
Dear brother Don,
Each time I’ve gone to confession it’s been after Vespers on Saturday night. Again, all I can say is that in my experience my priest has never counseled me to obstain from the Eucharist. The only time I’ve heard him say that is to warn people during a sermon that if they haven’t confessed at least during Nativity and Lent they are to do so before approaching the chalice.
Thank you for your response. Brother Andrew explained it well, also.

So all the Churches are agreed that:
  1. One should not approach the Eucharist with conscious unconfessed sin on your heart.
  2. Each Church recognizes that some sins are more serious than others.
  3. ALL sins, no matter the severity, must be confessed before approaching the Eucharist.
  • In my own Coptic Orthodox Tradition, even “venial” sins are confessed before the priest.
  • In the Eastern Tradition, it seems to be the same (I’m not sure yet, though brother Phillip seems to indicate that even “venial” sins are covered in the public prayer at DL).
  • In the Latin Tradition, “venial” sins can be confessed before a priest, and are definitely covered in the public prayer of confession at Mass.
  1. The Eucharist should not be denied to anyone who has a clean conscience before the Lord, and the Eucharist is the great medicine for sin and to help avoid future sin.
  2. The priests are doctors of souls (who administer the Sacrament) and counselors.
So there is no substantial difference in the Sacrament itself.

The difference rests in the manner of administration.
  1. In the Eastern and Oriental Traditions, a spiritual Father is required, while in the Latin Tradition, personal responsibility is stressed, and a spiritual Father is optional.
  2. In the Oriental and Latin Traditions, the doling of penance is more common than in the Eastern Tradition.
Would you agree with that assessment?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
I appreciate everyone’s answers. While many of them seem similar, there are some varying opinions as to how often one should confess and if confession is necessary to approach the Sacrament. Correct me if I’m wrong but the feeling I’m getting is that Catholics see Confession as the antidote to sin so that one can be made worthy of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The Orthodox see the Eucharist as the Antidote, the Medicine of Immortality (ignatius). Confession seems to be more a guidance and counseling-focused approach to help retool one’s walk.
The Eucharist is the medicine of immortality, but Confession is also seen as a way for us to prepare to take that medicine and as you said to retool one’s walk. Its purpose is also for us to come to terms with our sins and have them excised. I’ve received great counsel from all the priests I’ve confessed to and they’ve recommended various things to me that I would have never come up with myself (that were very obvious, too, so I should get humility points for that. 😛 LOL).
The Catholic approach is very defined, very legal as most Catholic theology/morality is, the Orthodox seems more left to the individual. I’m not sure which I prefer.
I’m still learning about Orthodoxy obviously! 😊 I feel like such a naive novice with it sometimes. When I was watching the faithful go up to communion, I thought, “are they mixing the leavened Eucharist with the wine into a spoon? It looks spongey!” 😛 I never realized them mixed it into that little mass in a spoon?
This article might be helpful in understanding why it was like that. 🙂 The priest prepares the Lamb (the bread) at a small table to the left of the altar before Divine Liturgy and divides it in a certain way at the Preparation (Proskomedia in Greek) and later on in the Liturgy. It’s actually rather beautiful, IMHO.

In Christ,
Andrew
 
I appreciate everyone’s answers. While many of them seem similar, there are some varying opinions as to how often one should confess and if confession is necessary to approach the Sacrament. Correct me if I’m wrong but the feeling I’m getting is that Catholics see Confession as the antidote to sin so that one can be made worthy of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The Orthodox see the Eucharist as the Antidote, the Medicine of Immortality (ignatius). Confession seems to be more a guidance and counseling-focused approach to help retool one’s walk.

The Catholic approach is very defined, very legal as most Catholic theology/morality is, the Orthodox seems more left to the individual. I’m not sure which I prefer.

I’m still learning about Orthodoxy obviously! 😊 I feel like such a naive novice with it sometimes. When I was watching the faithful go up to communion, I thought, “are they mixing the leavened Eucharist with the wine into a spoon? It looks spongey!” 😛 I never realized them mixed it into that little mass in a spoon?
One thing to keep in mind is that it isn’t either/or, but both approaches have their place in the Church. To greatly simplify things, Catholics focus on confession as the place where we receive the forgiveness of sins, and Orthodox as the place we receive spiritual counseling. Both are correct, and both take place in either Church, they’re just differences in emphasis. I think this is why the east and west need each other, because we provide strengths to each other that compliment our weaknesses.
 
The Orthodox see the Eucharist as the Antidote, the Medicine of Immortality (ignatius). Confession seems to be more a guidance and counseling-focused approach to help retool one’s walk.
This seems to jibe with my readings from the Agpeya and the liturgy of St. Basil, and my discussions OO Christians (though, as the poster above points out, neither approach is alien). What others have posted from their own Byzantine/EO liturgies was so similar that I figured the same from St. Basil would seem pretty redundant, but just for good measure, here are a few of the snippets that I find particularly edifying, and speaking directly to our low station, and yet at the same time the salvation granted to us through God’s grace and gifts. First, from the priest, as he prays (inaudibly) after the preparation of the altar:

You, O Lord, have taught us this great mystery of salvation. You have called us, Your lowly and unworthy servants, to be servants of your holy altar. O You, our Lord, make us meet, in the power of Your Holy Spirit, to finish this service; so that, without falling into condemnation before Your great glory, we may offer up unto You a sacrifice of praise, glory, and great beauty, in Your sanctuary. O God, Who gives grace, Who sends forth salvation, Who works all in all, grant, O Lord, that our sacrifice may be accepted before You for my sins, and for the ignorances of Your people…

(I read that “ignorances” bit yesterday and it gave me a new appreciation for the discussion on “invincible ignorance”…whew…finally, someone and something to help with that! :o)

And from the responses of the deacon during the prayer of thanksgiving:

Pray that God have mercy and compassion upon us, hear us, help us and accept the supplications and prayers of His saints for that which is good on our behalf at all times, and make us worthy to partake of the communion of His holy and blessed mysteries, for the remission of our sins.

And in invoking Lord before the table, to come and bless the gifts and transform them, the priest prays that they “become for all of us a partaking, a healing, and salvation of our souls, our bodies and our spirits”.

Granted, none of these things say just who can and cannot partake, but they do show both the medicinal/healing view of the sacraments, and the fact that no one is ever worthy. If the priest of all people considers himself unworthy to even offer the liturgy, then what possible chance could you or I have at the Lord’s holy table?!
When I was watching the faithful go up to communion, I thought, “are they mixing the leavened Eucharist with the wine into a spoon? It looks spongey!” 😛 I never realized them mixed it into that little mass in a spoon?
Isn’t this what is called “intinction” in the West? I received that way when I went to the Ruthenian Catholic (Ukrainian) church, on a little golden spoon, and I thought I read somewhere that it is one of the permitted ways for Latins, too, should they for some reason be an area where the more standard unleavened bread is not used.
 
Isn’t this what is called “intinction”? I received that way when I went to the Ruthenian Catholic (Ukrainian) church, on a little golden spoon, and I thought I read somewhere that it is one of the permitted ways for Latins, too, should they for some reason be an area where the more standard unleavened bread is not used.
No, intinction is when the priest or (:eek:) the communicant takes the wafer and dips it into the Blood before recieving it, so gets both kinds at once. This is sometimes done by Latin Catholics and more commonly in other Protestant groups.

In the East the bread is mixed up with the wine in a cup to make a kind of paste that is distributed by spoon. I don’t know what it is called but I don’t think any Western groups do it.
 
Oh. Hmm. Nevermind. What happened at the Ruthenian Church wasn’t intinction, then – they certainly didn’t let me do anything to it, and the bread was already in there (mixed with the wine) before I came up to receive.
 
No, intinction is when the priest or (:eek:) the communicant takes the wafer and dips it into the Blood before recieving it, so gets both kinds at once. This is sometimes done by Latin Catholics and more commonly in other Protestant groups.
Intinction by the communicant is not permitted in the Latin Catholic Church. Maybe in your own Anglican Church? But the innovations of the Anglican Church should not be mistaken as the general practice of the Western Church.
In the East the bread is mixed up with the wine in a cup to make a kind of paste that is distributed by spoon. I don’t know what it is called but I don’t think any Western groups do it.
This is permitted in the Latin Catholic Church according to the decision of the local bishop/episcopal conference.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Instinction is allowed in the Anglican church. I did it a few times.
 
One thing to keep in mind is that it isn’t either/or, but both approaches have their place in the Church. To greatly simplify things, Catholics focus on confession as the place where we receive the forgiveness of sins, and Orthodox as the place we receive spiritual counseling. Both are correct, and both take place in either Church, they’re just differences in emphasis. I think this is why the east and west need each other, because we provide strengths to each other that compliment our weaknesses.
Interesting, when I was a practicing Catholic, I would engage the sacrament of reconcilation with the emphasis that the Orthodox make. I would always go and confess my sins to the (Catholic) priest, and he would do a good job and providing me counciling with a very personal approach on how to overcome that sin and live a holier life. My mindset was more Catholic however, thinking that confession was the means to prepare me to make me ready to receive the Eucharist.
 
No, intinction is when the priest or (:eek:) the communicant takes the wafer and dips it into the Blood before recieving it, so gets both kinds at once. This is sometimes done by Latin Catholics and more commonly in other Protestant groups.

In the East the bread is mixed up with the wine in a cup to make a kind of paste that is distributed by spoon. I don’t know what it is called but I don’t think any Western groups do it.
Perhaps ‘to intinct’ is not the most accurate term, but the Holy Body and Blood are not mixed into a kind of paste. The Lamb is immersed intact.

The Lamb of God ( host or Body of Christ) is cut from the loaf entire and rests in the chalice. (There are other small fractions that are specifically cut as comemorations, but the pieces all go in together and remains pieces.) It has the consistency of course bread when dry, but softens in the Holy Blood. The golden spoon actually breaks into the host for a fragment.

http://ocaphoto.oca.org/filetmp/2004/December/801/Detail/DSC_0073.jpg

There is an article here illustrating the Rite of Preparation. This precedes the Consecration, but one can see how it’s made ready.

Many (probably most) Ruthenian Catholic parishes in north America make use of crouton-like pre-cuts, and thereby skip the Rite of Preparation. Apparently they were taught this way in the seminary. The Chalice is then filled with these bits, which maintain their general shape.
 
Since I’m new to all of this, I am now wondering how the Orthodox view the divine liturgy in terms of “sacrifice.” I’m so accustomed to viewing the Mass in Anselmian terms and with relation to Malachi 1. The Mass is a re-presentation of the one Sacrifice of Calvary. And at that Sacrifice the Father receives the Sacrifice of his own beloved Son in the Eucharist upon the altar, and it is the only sacrifice worthy for God to receive.

But I wonder since the Orthodox are repelled by Anselmian thinking, don’t think the sacrifice was made to God per se (at least many I’ve read or spoken to) but rather as a ransom to Satan or a ransom for our souls somehow, to whom is the Sacrifice at the Divine Liturgy oriented? It’s not just memorialized, it’s an anamnesis, so it’s a sacrifice to God. If God doesn’t need to receive the sacrifice a la Augustine or Anselm, to whom is the sacrifice oriented in the ransom model?

Just wondering?
Perhaps ‘to intinct’ is not the most accurate term, but the Holy Body and Blood are not mixed into a kind of paste. The host is immersed intact.

The Lamb of God ( host or Body of Christ) is cut from the loaf entire and rests in the chalice. It has the consistency of course bread when dry, but softens in the Holy Blood. The golden spoon actually breaks into the host for a fragment.

http://ocaphoto.oca.org/filetmp/2004/December/801/Detail/DSC_0073.jpg

There is an article here illustrating the Rite of Preparation.

Many (probably most) Ruthenian Catholic parishes in north America make use of crouton-like pre-cuts, and thereby skip the Rite of Preparation. Apparently they were taught this way in the seminary. The Chalice is then filled with these bits, which maintain their general shape.
 
Many (probably most) Ruthenian Catholic parishes in north America make use of crouton-like pre-cuts, and thereby skip the Rite of Preparation. Apparently they were taught this way in the seminary. The Chalice is then filled with these bits, which maintain their general shape.
This sounds about right, to the best of my recollection. Thank you for the clarification and the article.
 
It sounds like you are primarily trying to explain what happened to your church, but Orthodox are not in your church so we don’t know what’s going on in there, and we would be hard pressed to explain it to you looking in from the outside.

As for the thought that Holy Orthodoxy might be borrowing bad practices from the Roman Catholic church, I frankly doubt it. Holy Orthodoxy has been accepting conservative and traditionalist Roman Catholics for years and I don’t think anyone has complained about Orthodox confession practices yet, I certainly have not.

I suggest that you raise your questions about the sources of modern confession practices in the RCC in another section of the CAF, like Apologetics or Traditional Catholicism. It sounds like a worthwhile discussion.
First off lets get something straight I’m not talking CC. I"m talking EO. Why would I want to explain what happens in the CC I attend it. I want to UNDERSTAND your church. Could theses questions be any simplier? Are we avoiding them, because thats what it now seems like?

The QUESTION is SIMPLE…

Can you receive Communion in the EO Church without attending Confession? Yes or No?

The link above appears to say {which I posted} the answer is a yes.

What bad practices are your referriing to in the CC? Should we start a conversation regarding those of the EO. Wow, what a comment. Why would you even come here with that kind of CONTEMPT?

So once we can resolve this simple question then the next would be “When did this practice start in the EO”🤷

“borrowing bad practices from the Roman Catholic church”? Great comment I guess it about shows your contempt for the CC. So let me ask you why do you come here? I wouldn’t set foot on a EO Forum if I felt that way about your choice or worship. You know what I don’t even talk to snake handlers that way. I guess thats the difference from you and I.

How do we know the only bad practices are not in the EO? Russia is surely a shining example.
 
Concerning the question of Orthodox requirements concerning having been to Confession prior to receiving Communion, the answer is that it depends on the particular Orthodox Church. Some Churches require that one attend Confession prior to each individual time one receives Communion. Some Churches require that one attend Confession when one is conscious of having committed grave sin. Generally speaking, I would say that most Orthodox pastors would encourage all the faithful to confess regularly (which is not necessarily to say weekly).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top