In the Eastern Catholic Church, Can One Receive Communion with a Serious Sin on One's Soul?

[Cristiano]

It’s right there in the word “may”, my friend. As I made an effort to tell Father that I had unconfessed sin and did not feel myself worthy to receive in that day, and was unsure what to do with this (new, to me) information that in the Coptic Church it may be possible to receive in such a state Father made the determination that I would receive, and confess afterwards. He could have made some other decision, but he decided this time that I should receive and confess afterwards. Such is the importance of the Eucharist as medicine for the sick in the Oriental view, I guess…

Here you are saying that youl did not make the determination but you asked the priest to make the determination. In this case the priest said that it was appropriate to receive communion, but what about the case when the priest says no to the reception of communion, isn’t that a legalistic case? For the Latins we submit to the direct authority of the Code of Canon Law when it comes to ordinary cases and for the Orthodox they submit to the authority of the priest when it comes to ordinary cases. It seems to me that in both cases people still submit to an authority, I think that self determination usually ends up being just moral relativism, and that is independent from the theology.

 

[dzheremi]

Here you are saying that the individual did not make the determination but he asked the priest to make the determination. In this case the priest said that it was appropriate to receive communion, but what about the case when the priest says no to the reception of communion, isn’t that a legalistic case?

No, because it is individualistic, not typological. It is tailored to your spiritual development, as the priest knows you as a person, not as a category.

For the Latins we submit to the direct authority of the Code of Canon Law when it comes to ordinary cases and for the Orthodox they submit to the authority of the priest when it comes to ordinary cases. It seems to me that in both cases people still submit to an authority, I think that self determination usually ends up being just moral relativism, and that is independent from the theology.

I agree. If we were to determine by ourselves alone our worthiness, then there would likely be some who always receive (even when they shouldn’t) and some who never receive (even when they should, which is as often as possible). This is one of the reasons why confession is so crucial: Because it involves being with the priest and confessing before him and God your sins, it is essential for forming a proper relationship with him so that he can know, at least generally, how to best treat you (in the “sacraments as medication” sense of the word “treat”).

 

[Cristiano]

No, because it is individualistic, not typological. It is tailored to your spiritual development, as the priest knows you as a person, not as a category.

That does not make a difference, the priest still makes a determination based on objective factors, the decision is still based on categories but it simply includes more factors.

 

[Marybeloved]

It’s right there in the word “may”, my friend. As I made an effort to tell Father that I had unconfessed sin and did not feel myself worthy to receive in that day, and was unsure what to do with this (new, to me) information that in the Coptic Church it may be possible to receive in such a state Father made the determination that I would receive, and confess afterwards. He could have made some other decision, but he decided this time that I should receive and confess afterwards. Such is the importance of the Eucharist as medicine for the sick in the Oriental view, I guess.

It boils down to: Are the clergy the servants of the sacraments, or their masters? Because looked at another way we can likewise say that a priest, say if he were feeling vindictive toward a particular parishioner (parish the thought!), could not cut a layperson off from God by depriving him of the sacraments. Rather the sacraments work to unite us to God (as HH wrote above), and those who are deprived of them are thus reminded of the impediment that their sins are to that union, but even then they are not absolute such that a priest may individually determine to cut you off from God, as in my hypothetical example than that. The priest is a man. He is a man of great authority and wisdom and honor, but still just a man. He serves the sacraments that after all he takes for the remission of his sins. And so, should he withhold the sacrament from any person, we all recognize that there must be something seriously wrong with that person’s relationship with God (such as not availing himself of confession when possible), but we do not say “this person cannot receive the grace of God” because he cannot receive the sacraments for some penitential reason that he is probably aware of. As a different HH, our beloved departed Pope Shenouda III, says in my favorite sermon of all time: “The person who is successful in his prayer is the one who succeeds in his repentance.” Within the context of the current conversation, this shows us that we come back to God not only through confession, but through personal prayer as well. Please do not misunderstand me, it is not an “either/or” situation, but a “both/and”, and it is because it is both that a priest may judge, on an individual basis, that some may receive the Eucharist and then confess, while others may require strict penance.

I do not know (and I hope I never test this), but common sense tells me that one who is allowed through economia to receive before confessing will very quickly find himself in the position of not receiving at all should he not take seriously his repentance, in both is personal prayer and through confession.

Ok, but the Catholic teaching does not say ‘‘this person cannot receive the grace of God’’, nor ‘‘this person cannot receive the sacraments…’’ Our teaching says, go to confession first before taking communion- both are grace, both are mercy. Just like the mercy that was shown to Adam and Eve in preventing them from partaking of the fruit of life after committing the first mortal sin, because that would have made them worse. The same Christ is present at confession as in communion, it’s not a different smaller Christ who forgives and a greater one who communes himself. So no Catholic is denied sacraments or grace by this clear teaching of the entire Catholic hierarchy- Those in mortal sin are prevented by mercy from partaking of the body of Christ without first going through the merciful (free) sacrament of penance because if they did they’d take in condemnation in themselves.

Also, a Catholic who cannot get to confession in time can make an act of perfect contrition and an act of spiritual communion because our Lord is not confined to the communion but his grace stretches everywhere- That is grace too. Plus it has happened to me that having missed the opportunity of confession before mass, I sit through the mass and see the priest after mass for confession, and he, aware that I did not receive communion, has given me communion after confession. That’s grace too- and economia too. I have also requested communion after mass and received the Lord. That’s economia. That’s grace.

I don’t understand why this approach is ‘‘legalistic’’ and the other one is not. In both, it has to do with a priest caring for the welfare of his parishioners, penitents in the best way he sees. This term ‘‘legalistic’’ is too easily thrown around in reference to the Latin rite- it’s not my experience, and I just don’t get why Eastern and Oriental Christians while expecting people to take time to understand their nuance, and contexts, feel free to simplify and caricaturize Latin Christianity, without caring for its nuances and contexts!

 

[dzheremi]

Ok, but the Catholic teaching does not say ‘‘this person cannot receive the grace of God’’, nor ‘‘this person cannot receive the sacraments…’’

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you do. I put it that way because it is necessary to make a distinction here (since this is what we’re talking about) between the sacrament as a thing to be taken and eaten (as in, the literal reception of the body and blood) and the reason why we take them. Normally I wouldn’t make such a distinction, but in the face of a theology that carries an absolute prohibition on reception in a certain context, it becomes important to reaffirm that while the sacraments really and truly communicate grace (or however you’d prefer to put it), the opposite (that is to say, the non-reception of the sacraments) does not automatically lead to gracelessness. That there are, indeed, people who may not receive for some reason known only to them and their priest, and yet, by the very same grace of God (which, as far as I understand EO theology, is just a shorthand for saying “the energies of God”, which is itself a long way of saying “God”) be working out their salvation and sincere contrition despite the obstacle that the sin puts in the way of their full communion in, with, and through the Church. In this way, again, being “in grace” or having grace is not a matter of legal status, but a matter of working towards Theosis, by partaking of the sacraments (all of them you can), by prayer, etc.

Our teaching says, go to confession first before taking communion- both are grace, both are mercy.

I am not aware of any Orthodox teaching that would disagree with this. What we are discussing here is more a matter of economia and possibility.

Also, a Catholic who cannot get to confession in time can make an act of perfect contrition and an act of spiritual communion because our Lord is not confined to the communion but his grace stretches everywhere- That is grace too. Plus this has happened to me, I can have sit through the mass and see the priest after, and he, aware that I did not receive communion, has given me communion after confession. That’s grace too- and economia too. I have also requested communion after mass and received the Lord. That’s economia. That’s grace.

Indeed, indeed.

I don’t understand why this approach is ‘‘legalistic’’ and the other one is not. In both, it has to do with a priest caring for the welfare of his parishioners, penitents in the best way he sees. This term ‘‘legalistic’’ is too easily thrown around in reference to the Latin rite- it’s not my experience, and I don’t get why Eastern and Oriental Christians while expecting people to take time to understand their nuance, ad contexts, feel free to simplify and caricaturize Latin Christianity, without caring for its nuances and contexts!

Maybe “legalistic” isn’t the best way to put it, then. Flexible vs. inflexible, maybe? But then it seems from your examples that there has been some economia exercised on your behalf as well, and that’s wonderful. But the point is that there does not seem to be an absolute prohibition on receiving prior to confession among the Coptic Orthodox, so in that way the OO seem more flexible in the ordering of the sacraments, if necessary on an individual basis (as I wrote before in this thread).

So I don’t know what you’d call it. Call it whatever that is, then, whatever term you think fits best. It seems like any way you put it, you’re bound to offend someone who thinks it is rude to say the churches are different. Your way isn’t bad, it’s just not our way.

 

[Bookcat]

Sweet! You just validated my claim. Thanks!

So our bishops say these are our traditions, everything I have said all along. Signed. Sealed. Delivered!

You are mistaken in your understanding.

 

[Marybeloved]

Dzheremi,

I accept that there are differences- that’s not at all offensive to me.

As to absolute prohibition, I forget the post, but someone posted the teaching of the CCC that grants economia in serious situations to receive communion (having committed a mortal sin) without going to confession- so it’s not absolute this prohibition, but this form of economia in Latin Christianity is not the norm, Confession is.

My point really was that the Latin approach is not about legalism. Easterns and Orientals always reduce any sort of difference between us to this notion of ‘‘legalism’’. It’s not true, unless one has an impoverished understanding of the larger Latin approach (which in reality is not even uniform but has several approaches and five spiritualities within it). Just as E and O demand, as sometimes they do, that Latins take off their goggles to understand them, they should also take off their own goggles (that can often be very thick) not of Eastern or oriental approaches, but goggles of stereotypes and presumptions about Latin Christianity, so that they can understand Latin Catholicism with all its nuance

 

[Bookcat]

Question:

In the Eastern Catholic Churches, Can One Receive Communion with a Serious Sin on One’s Soul?

Answer:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1457 … Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession.57 …

57 Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1647; 1661; CIC, can. 916; CCEO, can. 711.

The Catechism References there the Eastern Code of Canon Law 711 which goes into that one is not to receive the Divine Eucharist if one is conscious of serious sin (mortal sin) (outside the exceptional circumstance of a serious reason (grave reason), no possibility of confession, act of perfect contrition and resolve to go to confession as soon as possible–see the Canons for details).

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

And from the Byzantine Catholic Church in America website -from the Congregation for the Eastern Churches :

“In it, as affirmed by can. 718 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, the faithful who have committed sins after Baptism and resolve to lead a new life, “through the ministry of the priest, having themselves made a confession and accepted an appropriate penance, obtain forgiveness from God and at the same time are reconciled with the Church.” This confession, individual and integral, with absolution, constitutes the only ordinary means by which the Christian faithful aware of a serious sin can obtain omission.[74] Even if serious sins have not been committed, it is strongly recommended that all the Christian faithful frequently receive this sacrament, especially during times of fasts and penance.”

byzcath.org/

In MISERICORDIA DEI Pope John Paul II noted noted:

“Individual and integral confession and absolution are the sole ordinary means by which the faithful, conscious of grave sin, are reconciled with God and the Church; only physical or moral impossibility excuses from such confession, in which case reconciliation can be obtained in other ways”

and in ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA from Bl. Pope John Paul II again

“If a Christian’s conscience is burdened by serious sin, then the path of penance through the sacrament of Reconciliation becomes necessary for full participation in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.”

And Pope Benedict XVI in his Catecheses with Children said:

"Only in that case, when you are in a state of “mortal” sin, in other words, grave (sin), is it necessary to go to confession before Communion. This is my first point. " vatican.va/holy_father/be…ildren_en.html

The Compendium of the Catechism issued by Pope Benedict XVI and which he entrusted to “the entire Church”.

"304. Which sins must be confessed?

1456

All grave sins not yet confessed, which a careful examination of conscience brings to mind, must be brought to the sacrament of Penance. The confession of serious sins is the only ordinary way to obtain forgiveness." (see also both codes of Canon Law …).

1. What is required to receive Holy Communion?

1385-1389
1415

To receive Holy Communion one must be fully incorporated into the Catholic Church and be in the state of grace, that is, not conscious of being in mortal sin. Anyone who is conscious of having committed a grave sin must first receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before going to Communion.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

Here is an example from “on the ground” :

St Vladimir Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church:

“SACRAMENT OF PENANCE (CONFESSION)
before Liturgies or by appointment. Parish members should go to Holy Confession at least once a month on average, or more often if there is a serious or mortal sin. In the case of a serious or mortal sin, one may not receive Holy Communion, until they have first gone to Confession and received absolution. For small or ‘daily’ sins, one may receive Holy Communion as often as once a day, provided they have made an examination of conscience, a sincere Act of Contrition, and recited the Prayer before Holy Communion, found in the text of the Liturgy.”

parishesonline.com/scripts/hostedsites/org.asp?p=16&ID=18561

 

[TrueLight]

Ok, but the Catholic teaching does not say ‘‘this person cannot receive the grace of God’’, nor ‘‘this person cannot receive the sacraments…’’ Our teaching says, go to confession first before taking communion- both are grace, both are mercy. Just like the mercy that was shown to Adam and Eve in preventing them from partaking of the fruit of life after committing the first mortal sin, because that would have made them worse. The same Christ is present at confession as in communion, it’s not a different smaller Christ who forgives and a greater one who communes himself. So no Catholic is denied sacraments or grace by this clear teaching of the entire Catholic hierarchy- Those in mortal sin are prevented by mercy from partaking of the body of Christ without first going through the merciful (free) sacrament of penance because if they did they’d take in condemnation in themselves.

Also, a Catholic who cannot get to confession in time can make an act of perfect contrition and an act of spiritual communion because our Lord is not confined to the communion but his grace stretches everywhere- That is grace too. Plus it has happened to me that having missed the opportunity of confession before mass, I sit through the mass and see the priest after mass for confession, and he, aware that I did not receive communion, has given me communion after confession. That’s grace too- and economia too. I have also requested communion after mass and received the Lord. That’s economia. That’s grace.

I don’t understand why this approach is ‘‘legalistic’’ and the other one is not. In both, it has to do with a priest caring for the welfare of his parishioners, penitents in the best way he sees. This term ‘‘legalistic’’ is too easily thrown around in reference to the Latin rite- it’s not my experience, and I just don’t get why Eastern and Oriental Christians while expecting people to take time to understand their nuance, and contexts, feel free to simplify and caricaturize Latin Christianity, without caring for its nuances and contexts!

Great post.

 

[Bookcat]

Question:

In the Eastern Catholic Churches, Can One Receive Communion with a Serious Sin on One’s Soul?

Answer:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1457 … Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession.57 …

57 Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1647; 1661; CIC, can. 916; CCEO, can. 711.

The Catechism References there the Eastern Code of Canon Law 711 which goes into that one is not to receive the Divine Eucharist if one is conscious of serious sin (mortal sin) (outside the exceptional circumstance of a serious reason (grave reason), no possibility of confession, act of perfect contrition and resolve to go to confession as soon as possible–see the Canons for details).

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

And from the Byzantine Catholic Church in America website -from the Congregation for the Eastern Churches :

“In it, as affirmed by can. 718 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, the faithful who have committed sins after Baptism and resolve to lead a new life, “through the ministry of the priest, having themselves made a confession and accepted an appropriate penance, obtain forgiveness from God and at the same time are reconciled with the Church.” This confession, individual and integral, with absolution, constitutes the only ordinary means by which the Christian faithful aware of a serious sin can obtain omission.[74] Even if serious sins have not been committed, it is strongly recommended that all the Christian faithful frequently receive this sacrament, especially during times of fasts and penance.”

byzcath.org/

In MISERICORDIA DEI Pope John Paul II noted noted:

“Individual and integral confession and absolution are the sole ordinary means by which the faithful, conscious of grave sin, are reconciled with God and the Church; only physical or moral impossibility excuses from such confession, in which case reconciliation can be obtained in other ways”

and in ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA from Bl. Pope John Paul II again

“If a Christian’s conscience is burdened by serious sin, then the path of penance through the sacrament of Reconciliation becomes necessary for full participation in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.”

And Pope Benedict XVI in his Catecheses with Children said:

"Only in that case, when you are in a state of “mortal” sin, in other words, grave (sin), is it necessary to go to confession before Communion. This is my first point. " vatican.va/holy_father/be…ildren_en.html

The Compendium of the Catechism issued by Pope Benedict XVI and which he entrusted to “the entire Church”.

"304. Which sins must be confessed?

1456

All grave sins not yet confessed, which a careful examination of conscience brings to mind, must be brought to the sacrament of Penance. The confession of serious sins is the only ordinary way to obtain forgiveness." (see also both codes of Canon Law …).

1. What is required to receive Holy Communion?

1385-1389
1415

To receive Holy Communion one must be fully incorporated into the Catholic Church and be in the state of grace, that is, not conscious of being in mortal sin. Anyone who is conscious of having committed a grave sin must first receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before going to Communion.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

Here is an example from “on the ground” :

St Vladimir Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church:

“SACRAMENT OF PENANCE (CONFESSION)
before Liturgies or by appointment. Parish members should go to Holy Confession at least once a month on average, or more often if there is a serious or mortal sin. In the case of a serious or mortal sin, one may not receive Holy Communion, until they have first gone to Confession and received absolution. For small or ‘daily’ sins, one may receive Holy Communion as often as once a day, provided they have made an examination of conscience, a sincere Act of Contrition, and recited the Prayer before Holy Communion, found in the text of the Liturgy.”

parishesonline.com/scripts/hostedsites/org.asp?p=16&ID=18561

The question has been asked -and the above is the answer from the Catholic Church

 

[Bookcat]

Another --this time from the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church:

“Even among the Faithful, those who are aware of serious sins, or who have been absent from the weekly celebration of the Holy Liturgy, or who have not prepared for Communion by prayer and fasting, may not approach the Sacred Mysteries until they have been reconciled through Confession.”

melkite.org/tag/primer from the Eparchy of Newton site

 

[ConstantineTG]

I actually love to hear different viewpoints, but honestly this was offensive to me:

Don’t take these things as being offensive because it was just an honest statement by dzheremi. I myself wouldn’t even know how to phrase that statement, but it is a true statement. Why tell us what we believe, especially coming from someone who has never lived the faith we live. Don’t you think it is more offensive to us that we are told we are wrong by someone who knows absolutely nothing about our faith?

Whether Eastern Catholics or Latin Catholics, we are Catholic and we should understand what we both believe. In fact, our differences, should not be monumental, otherwise, why do we call each other Catholic?

You would have to ask the Popes who have accepted the treatises of union between the Eastern Churches, especially for those who asked that our beliefs and practices will not be altered. They accepted that we are to remain unchanged. Of course history proved otherwise. This attitude by Bookcat is precisely why Eastern Catholics have been embrolied in Latinizations for centuries, so many bishops believed that the Roman Catholic belief should be our belief. Was it a legitimate call? If it was, why are the Popes as of late have been calling for Eastern Catholic Churches to rediscover their lost traditions and restore them. If we are to believe what RCs believe, we have them now. What are we restoring?

I don’t feel I am getting a balanced sense of what EC’s believe in this thread not because I don’t’ want to accept the answer, but because only a few have chosen to respond.

Truth doesn’t depend on numbers.

And Constantine, no offense, but you are so close to the Orthodox side in your spiritual journey (as you’ve publicly made known), your view is definitely colored by Orthodox goggles.

Isn’t that the same goggles the ECs should have? Again, the question is, are the ECs Orthodox Churches that have “returned home to Rome”? Or are they just Roman Catholic copycats of the Orthodox? If we live a faith that is not one or the other, then we are just a fabrication that is illegitimate because the faith is not something that evolved from Apostolic Tradition.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You are mistaken in your understanding.

No I’m not. Here’s the thing, you’ve been throwing around Canons, CCCs, website FAQs. Who is the magisterium? The bishops. And the bishops say that regardless of what you find on the internet, this is our tradition. Your interpretation of the canons and how it applies to us have no authority behind it. Our bishops who has said we are returning to our traditions (which are the Orthodox traditions) are the magisterium. So what their interpretation is what counts, not yours.

 

[ConstantineTG]

TrueFaith, I hope you take my offer. If you Google Fr. Tom Loya and Fr. Roman Galadza, you can find their email address. Send them an email and ask them your questions. Forum rules says I cannot post their contact info here, but you can Google it, it is on the web. They are some of the most “Orthodox” Eastern Catholic priests in North America.

 

[Bookcat]

Eastern Catholic Church of the Maronites

From the Pastoral Letter of “MAR NASRALLAH PETER SFEIR BY THE GRACE OF GOD
PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH AND ALL THE EAST” 2005

“This is why the Church commands her children to participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to go to confession and receive sacramental absolution, and to partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord. As for those who partake of the flesh of the Lord unworthily, they bring judgment on themselves, as the Apostle Paul put it: “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27).”

“It is written in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO) “Whoever is aware of having committed a grave sin, must receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation, i.e. repentance, before participating in Holy Communion, and those who are publicly unworthy are forbidden to receive the Divine Eucharist”. And the Second Vatican Council says: “They are fully incorporated into the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept her whole structure and all the means of salvation established within her, and in her visible framework are united to Christ, who governs her through the Supreme Pontiff and the Bishops, by the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government and communion”.”

maronite-heritage.com/The%20Eucharist.php

Lets see is taught little ones of the Maronite Eastern Catholic Church:

“If you have committed a mortal sin, then you must go
to Confession in the Mystery of Penance to receive
forgiveness of your sins before receiving Holy
Communion.”

“If you have committed a mortal sin, then you must go
to Confession in the Mystery of Penance to receive
forgiveness of your sins before receiving Holy
Communion.”

www.stanthonydanbury.com/documents/The%20Holy%20Mystery%20of%20first%20communion.pdf

And this was from an article printed in “the Maronite Voice” a publication of the Maronite Eparchies in the USA": stmaron.org/Maronite_Voice_January_2007.pdf

“In order to receive Holy Communion
we must be in communion with God
and with the Church. Mortal sin
constitutes a rejection of communion
with God and destroys the life of grace
within us. Mortal sin is an act violating
God’s law that involves grave matter
and that is performed with both full
knowledge and complete consent of the
will. If we are no longer in the state of
grace because of mortal sin, we are
seriously obliged to refrain from
receiving Holy Communion until we
are reconciled with God and the
Church.”

“Because our sin has separated us from
God and from our brothers and sisters
in Christ, we have forfeited our right to
receive Holy Communion, for the
Eucharist, by its very nature, expresses
and nurtures this life-giving unity that
the sinner has now lost. St. Paul warned
the Corinthians that “whoever eats the
bread or drinks the cup of the Lord
unworthily will have to answer for the
body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor
11:27).Manifesting the Father’smercy,
Jesus instituted the Sacrament of
Penance precisely to allow us to
confess our sins in repentance, receive
absolution from the priest, and so
receive again the grace of the Holy
Spirit, who once more makes us living
members of Christ’s body, the Church.”

and from the Eparchy of St. Maron of Brooklyn

“Christ taught us that the Father is ever-forgiving and, in His compassion, granted to His Apostles the power to forgive sins. Thus the Mystery of Reconciliation enables us to reaffirm our baptismal conversion, and re-admits us to participation in Holy Communion.”

 

[lssanjose]

+infinity unto ages and ages

amen.

True Light, you asked for an EC perspective or goggles rather. The problem with this request, it’ll be very close to Orthodoxy’s fashion sense anyway. As put, by Melkite archmandrite Geiger: we need to be loyal to our Orthodox identity, AND to Rome. If we lose our identity, it’s a signal to Orthodoxy, don’t commune with Rome, otherwise you’ll lose your identity. This may have been sent, via the latinizations in the past, the latinzations parishes are trying to rid themselves of, gradually.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Eastern Catholic Church of the Maronites

From the Pastoral Letter of “MAR NASRALLAH PETER SFEIR BY THE GRACE OF GOD
PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH AND ALL THE EAST” 2005

“This is why the Church commands her children to participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to go to confession and receive sacramental absolution, and to partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord. As for those who partake of the flesh of the Lord unworthily, they bring judgment on themselves, as the Apostle Paul put it: “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27).”

“It is written in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO) “Whoever is aware of having committed a grave sin, must receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation, i.e. repentance, before participating in Holy Communion, and those who are publicly unworthy are forbidden to receive the Divine Eucharist”. And the Second Vatican Council says: “They are fully incorporated into the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept her whole structure and all the means of salvation established within her, and in her visible framework are united to Christ, who governs her through the Supreme Pontiff and the Bishops, by the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government and communion”.”

maronite-heritage.com/The%20Eucharist.php

Lets see is taught little ones of the Maronite Eastern Catholic Church:

“If you have committed a mortal sin, then you must go
to Confession in the Mystery of Penance to receive
forgiveness of your sins before receiving Holy
Communion.”

“If you have committed a mortal sin, then you must go
to Confession in the Mystery of Penance to receive
forgiveness of your sins before receiving Holy
Communion.”

www.stanthonydanbury.com/documents/The%20Holy%20Mystery%20of%20first%20communion.pdf

And this was from an article printed in “the Maronite Voice” a publication of the Maronite Eparchies in the USA": stmaron.org/Maronite_Voice_January_2007.pdf

“In order to receive Holy Communion
we must be in communion with God
and with the Church. Mortal sin
constitutes a rejection of communion
with God and destroys the life of grace
within us. Mortal sin is an act violating
God’s law that involves grave matter
and that is performed with both full
knowledge and complete consent of the
will. If we are no longer in the state of
grace because of mortal sin, we are
seriously obliged to refrain from
receiving Holy Communion until we
are reconciled with God and the
Church.”

“Because our sin has separated us from
God and from our brothers and sisters
in Christ, we have forfeited our right to
receive Holy Communion, for the
Eucharist, by its very nature, expresses
and nurtures this life-giving unity that
the sinner has now lost. St. Paul warned
the Corinthians that “whoever eats the
bread or drinks the cup of the Lord
unworthily will have to answer for the
body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor
11:27).Manifesting the Father’smercy,
Jesus instituted the Sacrament of
Penance precisely to allow us to
confess our sins in repentance, receive
absolution from the priest, and so
receive again the grace of the Holy
Spirit, who once more makes us living
members of Christ’s body, the Church.”

and from the Eparchy of St. Maron of Brooklyn

“Christ taught us that the Father is ever-forgiving and, in His compassion, granted to His Apostles the power to forgive sins. Thus the Mystery of Reconciliation enables us to reaffirm our baptismal conversion, and re-admits us to participation in Holy Communion.”

No matter what you post, your admission that you do not want to look at the situation other than from your Latin perspective have lost you all credibility on this matter. Sorry, but that is the truth.

 

[dzheremi]

Dzheremi,

I accept that there are differences- that’s not at all offensive to me.

As to absolute prohibition, I forget the post, but someone posted the teaching of the CCC that grants economia in serious situations to receive communion (having committed a mortal sin) without going to confession- so it’s not absolute this prohibition,

Oh, good. I was unaware of this. It was very much impressed upon me as a Latin Catholic that you go to confession, then receive the Eucharist, and if you miss confession, too bad for you. You sit it out and think about why you can’t take it. That this deprivation is, in essence, a part of the penance involved for your sin. (I have no problem with this teaching, btw.)

So, uh…why are we arguing, then?

but this form of economia in Latin Christianity is not the norm, Confession is.

No form of economia establishes the norm in any kind of Christianity, Latin or otherwise. Economia is a looser application of the rule in order to adhere to the spirit of it – i.e., that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, to borrow a Biblical rule. Economia is thus by definition applied to the individual on a case-by-case basis.

My point really was that the Latin approach is not about legalism.

As I said in my last post, perhaps legalism is not the best word for this phenomenon, then. Fine. I am not wedded to it. Use whatever word you’d like to instead.

By “legalism”, though, I am referring to the difference between seeing the individual as a person and seeing the individual as fitting into a particular conventionalized category (e.g., being “in grace” or “out of grace”, or any other binary categorization). I have never once been asked by my father in the Coptic Orthodox Church whether or not I am in a “state of grace”. I have never heard those words come out of his mouth. Chances are they wouldn’t have to because he knows my struggles because I have been to confession with him, and anyway we talk and he generally knows where I’m at. This part is not really any different than it was with my old Father of Confession in the Latin Church, a wonderful Dominican priest named Fr. Augustine. The approach to confession, however, is.

Easterns and Orientals always reduce any sort of difference between us to this notion of ‘‘legalism’’. It’s not true, unless one has an impoverished understanding of the larger Latin approach (which in reality is not even uniform but has several approaches and five spiritualities within it). Just as E and O demand, as sometimes they do, that Latins take off their goggles to understand them, they should also take off their own goggles (that can often be very thick) not of Eastern or oriental approaches, but goggles of stereotypes and presumptions about Latin Christianity, so that they can understand Latin Catholicism with all its nuance

While this may be true in the general (stereotypical? ), I am not sure what it has to do with our conversation, unless you object to my characterization of the Latin Church as seeing its communicants as either “in grace” or “not in grace”, as two separate categories by which they are either deemed fit for communion or unfit, and have penances assigned according to a preexisting taxonomy of sins. That was my experience in the Latin Church (five years, hundreds of confessions, etc), anyway, and it is all foreign to the way I have been experiencing confession and communion in the Coptic Orthodox Church since being baptized. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Bookcat]

No matter what you post, your admission that you do not want to look at the situation other than from your Latin perspective have lost you all credibility on this matter. Sorry, but that is the truth.

Huh?

I have given the answer that the Catholic Church gives to the question.

And I have even provided examples of how various different Eastern Catholic Churches treat the question “on the ground”…

And I have even given as an example what the Maronite Patriarch of Antioch and all the East…

But I suppose one could email the various Eastern Catholic Churches …and also the Patriarch of Antioch and and all the East – and let them know that they are incorrect about the Eastern Catholic perspective.

 

[Vico]

And you completely omitted the prayers of the people and of the clergy where they say that the Eucharist is for the forgiveness (or remission) of sins.

They were given before by another poster. The point is that those that are not holy are not called forward to receive. To receive without having contrition or believing that what is received is truly the Body and Blood of our Christ, is to eat one’s own condemnation. When we receive the Holy Spirit will keep us holy, with our synergy.

If one has proper contrition, then reception is proper, yet one must also follow the guidance of the Church in its ecclesial laws, which have changed through the ages. Therefore, per the Church, at some times it is permitted to receive without personal absolution and at other times is not.