G
GaryTaylor
Guest
So what does this mean? That in some EO’s you DON’T HAVE ATTEND CONFESSION to Recieve Communion? Right?
Yes or No?
- Status
Yes or No?
H
Harpazo
Guest
Please see my previous post on this where I replied to you. Perhaps you missed it.So what does this mean? That in some EO’s you DON’T HAVE ATTEND CONFESSION to Recieve Communion? Right?
Yes or No?
In Christ,
Andrew
R
RyanBlack
Guest
If your question is do you have to attend Confession each and every time you go to Communion, the answer is it depends: in some Orthodox Churches, this is the case; in some, it is not.So what does this mean? That in some EO’s you DON’T HAVE ATTEND CONFESSION to Recieve Communion? Right?
Yes or No?
I’m not quite sure what axe you’re grinding here. If your complaint is that some Orthodox don’t require confession each and every time one receives Communion, I would point out, as I know you are aware, that this is also the case in the Catholic Church. It was also the case in the ancient Church, which had a less developed concept of mortal sin vs. venial than what currently exists in the Roman Catholic Church; also, there was a shorter less of sins that required Confession.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
There is no axe to grind there a CONSTANT mixed message which once again “you” provided:shrug: Here you say…
“the answer is yes: in “some” Orthodox Churches, this is the case.”
So what does this mean? In “some” of the churchs you “don’t” have to go to confession? I"m aware of the early church the CC and all that so we could skip the educational part.
Do you not see the mixed message?
God Bless, GT
M
Mickey
Guest
He did not give you a mixed message. I attended an Orthodox Church where the priest required confession before each time you received the Eucharist–or you could not approach the Chalice. The Church I attend now encourages regular confession, but not each time you receive. My Spiritual Father likes his spiritual children to have Holy Confession about once every six weeks.
What’s your question?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
None now, thats all I was asking. But it seems we went around the world to get there
Who knows maybe its me
M
Mickey
Guest
Nah. This type of interaction gets confusing sometimes.Who knows maybe its me
B
bilop
Guest
Gary,So what does this mean? That in some EO’s you DON’T HAVE ATTEND CONFESSION to Recieve Communion? Right?
Yes or No?
I don’t know what you are talking about.
In the Latin Church you don’t have to attend confession prior to receiving unless you are conscious of mortal sin. That’s not a post-Vatican 2 innovation, it’s always been true.
You may have been taught something different, but that’s not Church doctrine.
Heck, priests would have difficulty saying daily Mass without rushing to confession every other day.
God Bless
M
Mickey
Guest
I have a question for you. Christ expanded a bit on the commandments by saying things such as:
You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
and
You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Does the RCC teach that you must go to confession for sins such as anger and lust?
H
Hesychios
Guest
It is definitely a sacrifice, it is an oblation, not thought of primarily as a payment.
Perhaps one can think of it as a worshipful offering, a gift like the First Fruits, not so much as a transaction (although there may be some sense of that).
The liturgy is well informed with the language of sacrifice.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Pre vatican II in Catholic School we all attended Confession Communion weekly. All at the alter, lined kneeling, no host in hand etc. Thats how its was.
I was young so maybe there were those recieving communion without confession. But thats not what we were doing or how I remember it. I do remeber V-II and actually being told we didn’t have to attend the confession for venial sins also. Could its be a Parish thing? I wouldn’t know.
But to ensure more rapid progress day by day in the path of virtue, We will that the pious practice of frequent confession, which was introduced into the Church by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, should be earnestly advocated. By it genuine knowledge is increased, Christian humility grows, bad habits are corrected, spiritual neglect and tepidity are resisted, the conscience is purified, the will strengthened, a salutary self control is attained, and grace is increased by virtue of the Sacrament itself. And thats what we were taught. What else might have went on? God only knows.
But what Mickey is talking about would require confession for sure. Not going to mass on Sunday is a Mortal sin and requires confession. So the idea of being in State of Grace becomes a bit more complex than many assume.
Today what I see is appauling, but then again I grew into this a different way in an eastern church to boot.
God Bless, Gary
I was young so maybe there were those recieving communion without confession. But thats not what we were doing or how I remember it. I do remeber V-II and actually being told we didn’t have to attend the confession for venial sins also. Could its be a Parish thing? I wouldn’t know.
But to ensure more rapid progress day by day in the path of virtue, We will that the pious practice of frequent confession, which was introduced into the Church by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, should be earnestly advocated. By it genuine knowledge is increased, Christian humility grows, bad habits are corrected, spiritual neglect and tepidity are resisted, the conscience is purified, the will strengthened, a salutary self control is attained, and grace is increased by virtue of the Sacrament itself. And thats what we were taught. What else might have went on? God only knows.
But what Mickey is talking about would require confession for sure. Not going to mass on Sunday is a Mortal sin and requires confession. So the idea of being in State of Grace becomes a bit more complex than many assume.
Today what I see is appauling, but then again I grew into this a different way in an eastern church to boot.
God Bless, Gary
C
Cristiano
Guest
You keep repeating this statement as if it were true but I am not sure at all that you are correct. Can you please refer to an article of a Code of Canon Law before the 1983 CCL. I am old enough to remember that frequent confession was a common practice and that receiving communion was not as frequent but I cannot remember no communion without confession.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia (pre V-II):
Venial sin does not deprive the soul of sanctifying grace, or diminish it. It does not produce a macula, or stain, as does mortal sin, but it lessens the lustre of virtue… Effects
I would agree that the nuns that taught me the Catechism would tend to make everybody think that any kind of sin was voluntary and grave. This might also be the reason of my need for frequent confession.
H
Hesychios
Guest
My memory is likewise.
M
Mickey
Guest
This is also my experience growing up while attending a Latin Catholic school. We must be about the same age.
It saddens me beyond words.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
How do you see the difference? I’d love to know your thoughts on this, Michael. If Jesus came to conquer sin and death, not to please God’s honor or anything of that nature at all, then I don’t understand the whole sacrificial process? A sacrifice is a giving up of something to pacify or please or give honor to another. Please explain and help me understand the Eastern thinking. Thanks!
D
dcointin
Guest
You may find this essay helpful. I’ll quote the part that pertains specifically to sacrifice, but I’d urge you to read the entire thing when you have the time:How do you see the difference? I’d love to know your thoughts on this, Michael. If Jesus came to conquer sin and death, not to please God’s honor or anything of that nature at all, then I don’t understand the whole sacrificial process? A sacrifice is a giving up of something to pacify or please or give honor to another. Please explain and help me understand the Eastern thinking. Thanks!
"Together with the juridical model of explaining how we are redeemed by Christ’s death, the Holy Scriptures and Holy Fathers use the model of sacrifice. As mentioned earlier, the Old Testament sacrifices were a prefiguration, a “type” of the one true Sacrifice that would be offered for the whole world: Christ, Who was sacrificed on the Cross. In the first Epistle of St. Peter we hear Christ described as a spotless sacrificial lamb: Ye were redeemed with the precious Blood of Christ, as a lamb without blemish and without spot, Who was foreordained before the foundation of the world (I Peter 1:19-20). And in the Epistle to the Hebrews we read: Now once at the end of the world Christ hath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (Heb. 9:26).
Many of the Holy Fathers wrote on this theme of Christ as sacrifice. Origen (who is not a Holy Father) and, following him, St. Gregory of Nyssa, posited that the sacrifice was offered to the devil. But St. Gregory the Theologian and all the Fathers after him rejected this idea. They often spoke of the sacrifice as being offered to God the Father, and sometimes they spoke of it as being offered to the Holy Trinity, since the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are One God. St. Symeon the New Theologian writes: “God, Who is incomparably higher than the visible and invisible creation, accepted human nature, which is higher than the whole visible creation, and offered it as a sacrifice to His God and Father… Honoring the sacrifice, the Father could not leave it in the hands of death. Therefore, He annihilated His sentence. [18]
Why did the Son have to offer Himself in sacrifice to the Father? Why did God sacrifice Himself to God? Here we get at the crux of the mystery of Redemption. St. Gregory the Theologian urges us not to try to conform this mystery to human logic, not apply to it human conceptions that are unworthy of God. He says: “The Father accepts the sacrifice not because He demanded it or felt any need of it, but on account of economy,” [19] that is, to fulfill the Divine plan of our salvation in accordance with the Divine ordering of creation.
St. Gregory Palamas sheds more light on this question. He says that God could have found other ways of saving man from sin, mortality and servitude to the devil. But He saved man in the way He did—by coming to earth, dying and resurrecting—because this was according to justice and righteousness. [20] As the Psalmist says: God is righteous and loveth righteousness … and there is no unrighteousness in Him (Ps. 11:7, 92:15). Death was the just penalty for sin, and Christ paid that penalty. But because He was sinless, His death was unjust. Therefore, He justly destroyed death. This was God’s economy, completely in accordance with His righteousness.
The devil thought He could destroy Christ by inciting people to put Him to death. But Christ’s death proved to be the devil’s undoing because, unlike every other person who had ever lived, Christ did not deserve death. St. John Chrysostom offers us a vivid image to highlight this teaching: “It is as if, at a session of a court of justice, the devil should be addressed as follows: ‘Granted that you destroyed all men because you found them guilty of sin; but why did you destroy Christ? Is it not very evident that you did so unjustly? Well then, through Him the whole world will be vindicated.” [21]
Christ saved us in the way He did not only to manifest His justice and righteousness, but also to manifest His love. St. Isaac the Syrian writes: “God the Lord surrendered His own Son to death on the Cross for the fervent love of creation. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son to death for our sake (cf. John 3:16). This was not, however, because He could not have redeemed us in another way, but so that His surpassing love, manifested hereby, might be a teacher unto us. And by the death of His only begotten Son He made us near to Himself. Yea, if He had had anything more precious, He would have given it to us, so that by it our race might be His own.” [22]
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/christcross.aspx
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
**“The Father accepts the sacrifice not because He demanded it or felt any need of it, but on account of economy,” **
What does this mean?
What does this mean?
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I’ve heard this theory man times. It makes sense. I’m just wondering how it sacrificially relates to the Divine Liturgy we enter into? If the passion was really just tricking the Devil with Satan condemning the only Just Man in Christ, to whom is the sacrifice directed at the DL?
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I thought that the idea was that at DL we were participating in the one, heavenly sacrifice, like all the saints and angels around the throne in Revelation? That is, we are in a sense taken out of time and are present with that one eternal sacrifice? So I am not sure what that would mean about any individual DL being directed at something different?
In fact, I rather thought the CC taught that too. I am embarrassed to find that isn’t so.
That is what I get for assuming I guess.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Yes, i realize Catholics are not allowed to do it themselves. I was only giving a definition of intinction, and either way that is what it is called.
Some Anglicans do it, though they shouldn’t. Although our diocese no longer allows it, but that is because it is unsanitary, not because they realize it is a bad idea.
That’s very interesting, I thought they mixed it together. Thanks!
- Status