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

[TrueLight]

It may appear as denigration, but he’s just providing a descriptive explanation of the Latin approach to certain things.

Like I said, earlier: a lot of what I’ve encountered in the Latin rite doesn’t make sense to me, holistically, but I don’t say it’s wrong, invalid, or “bad.”

To come on a thread that seeks to understand the EC belief on a topic and say that Latin belief “doesn’t make sense”, more than once is just as insulting. l understand you are on your way out, as well, but that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss differences AND respect each other.

I actually think most of the Orthodox on CAF have mastered the art of having discussions without outright being offensive, which often times means a little careful in what one says.

 

[TrueLight]

Why do you think what I said about the Latin way, which is the truth by the way, a bad thing? You live it, right? Was there something negative about what I said? Or are you slighted because an Easterner said something about the Latin faith (who also happened to live the first 33 years of his life as a Latin)? Maybe you’d understand why we are offended by Bookcat’s false assertions. But there is nothing wrong with what I said. Did I say the Latin approach was wrong? I contrasted the difference and that is the truth. Latins like to piece things apart and really define everything to the letter. The Byzantine faith is all about, as lssanjose termed it, the holistic approach. The Latin Fathers felt that the legalistic, microanalysis approach is best, God bless them for it.

I mean, we can even look at the Eucharist as an example. The Latins believe and teach that the Words of Institution confect the Eucharist, that at the pronunciation of the words make the bread then Eucharist, and then the wine the Eucharist. The Byzantine approach is to simply say the entire Anaphora brings us the Eucharist. We don’t even care to p(name removed by moderator)oint the exact moment when Jesus becomes present. Is it at the Words of Institution? At the Epiclesis? At the elevation? Ultimately what we care about is that the entire Anaphora which is a coming together of the prayers of those gathered coming together and calling on God to remembrance, which is when He acts on His promise. We know Christ is present in the Eucharist at the end of the Anaphora, we don’t need to know precisely when. We are fine with that. It is just the culture of the faith, if you wish to call it that. Whether one is better than the other, who knows. For the Latins they think it is necessary to make that precise determination. For the Byzantines, it is not. That is just the way it is.

Come on Constantine. Everything you’ve said about RC’s within the past, what…six months has been critical. I understand that is where you are spiritually, but sometimes it gets to be too much.

 

[TrueLight]

And to add, this is why people do not get why Orthodox allow use of contraceptives and divorce. It is the holisitc approach. They don’t just go, “contraceptives, no matter what you do or say, they are evil.” Or, “divorce, no matter what you say or do, it cannot happen.” The acceptance of these practices are a result of something other than a “it’s this way and no other way” approach. Again, the holisitc approach to the entire life of a Christian is taken into consideration. For contraceptives, they do not see using a condom any different from using NFP. If you are avoiding conception, you are avoiding conception, no matter what method you use. And openness to life is seen in the context of the entire marriage, not every individual act of sex. And of course you have to account for the person’s entire spirituality. Are they able to keep their passions in check? If they can, then abstinence is a better approach and would be told to do that. If they cannot, then something must be done. You cannot force abstinence on someone who cannot. They will only fail and the overall picture of one’s spirituality will be dragged down.

Same with divorce, the Orthodox do not want divorce. But it happens, people end their marriages. An insistence of someone who does not live with their spouse anymore as still being married is just a lie. If they cannot be reconciled then they have broken Christ’s commandment. So they committed sin and therefore they must do penance for it. But what then? Force them to remain single? If they can, then yes. That is the ideal, not to get remarried. But if they cannot, then wouldn’t it be beneficial for them to get a second marriage that is blessed by the Church rather than for them to sleep with other people anyway and maybe they will settle with one person but they will never marry that person or marry that person through civil courts. But because the Church refuses to recognize them, they leave the Church and never return. So how is that better than allowing for divorce? How did we help save that person’s soul? As St. Paul said, it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Off-topic rants.

 

[TrueLight]

I have a feeling you are probably not going to like this perspective, but I would take this as more evidence of the difference between the East and the West. While there are some very apparitions in the East or Orient (the appearance of the Theotokos at Zeitoun in Egypt comes to mind), private revelations are not really looked at the same way, and are certainly not the source of devotions. So I don’t think this is a very good example of how the Latins and the Easterners are similar.

Yes, I know.

I cited it because Constantine said Latins have to investigate the historical accuracy of everything, which is just not true. If that were the case, then there wouldn’t be so many devotions based on essentially private revelations. That was my point.

Couldn’t we just as easily say that the problem is that some people take the idea that the East and the West are different to mean that one is better than the other, rather than just different? I mean, I’m not going to lie: Now that you brought it up, I think the East is better, in the sense of being a healthier spirituality that is (not coincidentally) truly the preservation and continuation of the apostolic faith in ways that Western Christianity is not…but that is only true in so far as the West hasn’t preserved the faith unchanged. In other words, it’s not something inherent in the West, but a result of development away from a common model of being Christian (that is to say, of living), with each side becoming in some ways estranged from the other until we have the kind of situation we have today, where we’re arguing about all this stuff on a messageboard for some reason instead of just hurling anathemas at each other and then calling it a day like our fathers did.

Again, you are Orthodox. I expect you to say exactly that, otherwise, why would you choose Orthodoxy? I have my own criticisms of Orthodoxy but that is not the purpose of this thread. If I want to discuss that, then I would go to the Non-Catholic Religions forum.

However, I do not think it is right for people to constantly be putting down Roman Catholics in the EC forum, just as it is not right for an RC to put down an EC on this forum.

By the way, that was not the purpose of this thread. I just wanted to know if it is true that EC’s think it is okay to receive communion with a serious sin and if that is true, how can there be two different teachings in one Catholic Church?

That is more a reflection on consistency and in no way does it say the Eastern understanding is wrong.

Also, while I’m at it, in defense of Bookcat who is treated like the villain on this thread. He always posts citations because sometimes it is better to post references, then to post one’s opinions. I say it is a good thing. Also, no one has responded to the specific Eastern sources he has posted.

We can have a conversation where nobody implies that one is better than the other. We cannot have a conversation in which Eastern or Oriental Christians stop seeing the faith and the world as they do. That would be just as impossible as having a conversation in which Latin Catholics cease to post Latin Catholic views, even while trying to relate to the non-Latins around them, as we have seen in many, many posts in this thread. We’re all just people, after all.

Agreed.

A conversation where “nobody implies that one is better than the other” would be ideal. I understand we all have our weaknesses and sometimes we get more heated, critical and defensive than we want to be, but it shouldn’t be standard operating procedure, right?

That reminds me. I do so miss an Orthodox poster who is no longer on this forum that I used to have good conversations with. Needless to say, we disagreed on some things, but surprisingly we agreed on some other things, including the private revelations devotion thing.

 

[TrueLight]

Yikes, look at the time.

Since I’m still up, I should just stay up and get to work early.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Can we have a discussion without implying that the Eastern way is better than the Western way even if you believe it?

The fullness of the Catholic Church derives from the fullness of all the traditions embraced by it. To your point, it is fine to compare and contrast, but it would be inappropriate for us as Catholics to assert superiority of any of those single traditions above all others. The Churches that preserve such traditions are, as the Catholic Church itself teaches, of equal dignity.

 

[Bookcat]

All should note that these things said above are also true in the Latin Church:

1. 
   *]There is no predefined list of ‘grave matters’ where if a person commits xyz they cannot receive.
   *]Not taught: if you commit this sin, you can approach, if you commit this sin you cannot.

1. 
   Understood in a certain way.
   
   But of course that does not mean (I note this for readers) is there are not many things that could not be given as a “beginning list” (not an exhaustive list) of what is grave matter.
   
   And we as are Eastern Catholics are not to approach Holy Communion if we have committed a mortal sin (more to a mortal sin than the grave matter) until we have made a good confession and received absolution.
   
   (the potential exceptions are noted in both codes–East and West of the grave/serious reasons with perfect contrition, inability to get to confession and intent to confess as soon as possible. But such are only with the grave/serious reasons --so not in the ordinary)

 

[Bookcat]

And to add, this is why people do not get why Orthodox allow use of contraceptives and divorce.

Yes if there is a valid sacramental marriage – yes they must live in the truth. They are married. They may not seek to appear to live in marriage with another with whom they are not in fact truly married. And yes Contraception is a grave sin. These are areas where among those in the Orthodoxy Churches who accept and teach such --they are not following or teaching “right-doctrine” or “right-practice”.

Now while this does shed some light too on other practices that may exist among some Orthodox (regarding Holy Communion) – it though is really off topic. So I will return to the regularly scheduled program.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
Definitely.

I’m afraid I don’t enough time to post as much as I’d like on this thread. (I’m actually kind of surprised at myself for the amount of time I’ve spend *reading *this thread.) But if I might just “piggy back” on TL’s post, I’d like to ask Constantine: On the subject of Latin thinking making sense or not making sense, do you believe that the Latin thinking behind the Union of Brest made sense?

 

[Peter_J]

What about the call for

… the total removal from Orthodox countries of all Uniate agents and Vatican propagandists, before dialogue could begin, and the subordination and incorporation of the so-called Uniate Churches into the Church of Rome [because] Unia and dialogue are simultaneously incompatible.

The original document for reference:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html

I’m a little confused by what you’re saying here, since your link is to the Balamand Statement.

 

[Bookcat]

What was the question of the thread?

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

And so the answer must be what does the Catholic Church’s answer

(not what do some Eastern Orthodox say about this question --and there are various views there it seems–even more strict)

And that is what I was giving – both from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Compendium of the same (entrusted to the whole Catholic Church), the Eastern Catholic Canons, documents from the Popes and even examples of how this is “on the ground” in Eastern Catholic Parishes --and even later from an Eastern Catholic Patriarch.

 

[Peter_J]

(not what do some Eastern Orthodox say about this question --and there are various views there it seems–even more strict)

True.

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat,

Read for example Pope Benedict XVI’s letter for the Year of Faith that is coming up for the entire Catholic Church.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20111011_porta-fidei_en.html

 

[ConstantineTG]

Come on Constantine. Everything you’ve said about RC’s within the past, what…six months has been critical. I understand that is where you are spiritually, but sometimes it gets to be too much.

C’mon, if I was sucking up to Latin and having the same tone against those who oppose Latin, you wouldn’t feel this way, right? I’m just being honest here, and you feel that way because I am on the other side. I mean, I really am sorry that you feel that way, but I am just being honest here. There is no other way around.

 

[lssanjose]

To come on a thread that seeks to understand the EC belief on a topic and say that Latin belief “doesn’t make sense”, more than once is just as insulting. l understand you are on your way out, as well, but that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss differences AND respect each other.

I actually think most of the Orthodox on CAF have mastered the art of having discussions without outright being offensive, which often times means a little careful in what one says.

I’m respecting your views. I can equally respect your views in disagreement, and agreement. I didn’t say Latin belief doesn’t make sense. The dogmas make sense, as I was raised Roman Catholic. It was Augustinian thought, which brought me back to the Roman Church.

Having gone eastward, things surrounding the dogmas make more sense. Everything done, in the tradition, is interconnected. I understand their time and place. And, I’ve only spent a few months in the tradition, albeit they’ve been three “obsessive” months. I’ve got enough literature to last me a half year, thanks to friends, parishes, and my spiritual father for hooking me up with literature from a guy who switched rites (I should say priest, not guy).

If you follow my little tendencies, I’ve changed my statuses throughout my time here. Rome to Constantinople, may convey a move from the Church of Rome, to the Church of Constantinople, but this isn’t the truth. The truth is, I’ve been moving Eastward. Hence, I did put Eastern Christian at one point. However, I settled on Informally Ruthenianized, meaning I’ve adopted, in mind body, and soul, the Rusyn Greek Catholic traditions. I just haven’t formally submitted my transfer papers, and don’t anticipate needing to do so, for another few years, per the conversation I had with the vocation director, for the eparchy of Phoenix (who also happens to reside in my hometown away from my “hometown.”)

As far as inquiry into Orthodoxy, and placing such discussion, into the Non-Catholic religion section, I think some of our Orthodox brethren would find contention in such a move. They do, too, recite the Nicene creed, with the “I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.” They just don’t include the filioque, which past popes have also dropped the hammer on, with respect to its inclusion in the creed (believing it shouldn’t have been there).

If there was a referendum on the return of Eastern Catholic traditions, I then believe there should be one, for Latin rite Catholics to restore, and preserve their own traditions. I think, for whatever reason, the disjointedness I find in Latin traditions was something born of whatever evolutions were deemed necessary, at their respective times. As Eastern Catholics work on ridding of Latinization, Western Catholics should work to rid of “Modernization.” (I mean to say, an abuse of modernization)

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes if there is a valid sacramental marriage – yes they must live in the truth. They are married. They may not seek to appear to live in marriage with another with whom they are not in fact truly married. And yes Contraception is a grave sin. These are areas where among those in the Orthodoxy Churches who accept and teach such --they are not following or teaching “right-doctrine” or “right-practice”.

Now while this does shed some light too on other practices that may exist among some Orthodox (regarding Holy Communion) – it though is really off topic. So I will return to the regularly scheduled program.

Live in what truth? That they hate each other and no longer want to live under the same roof? And still call that a marriage? C’mon, human beings are not that dense.

Those are just some of the examples of how the holistic approach differs when it looks at the entirety of a person, not just specific acts.

I’m afraid I don’t enough time to post as much as I’d like on this thread. (I’m actually kind of surprised at myself for the amount of time I’ve spend *reading *this thread.) But if I might just “piggy back” on TL’s post, I’d like to ask Constantine: On the subject of Latin thinking making sense or not making sense, do you believe that the Latin thinking behind the Union of Brest made sense?

Which Latin thinking? The one that went into the treatise? Or what they actually did?

 

[Bookcat]

Live in what truth? That they hate each other and no longer want to live under the same roof? And still call that a marriage? C’mon, human beings are not that dense.

That they are married and cannot act as single people or marry another.

The truth that what God has united man can not divide. That the Sacrament can only come to an end if one of the parties leaves this mortal coil.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#V

I am not going to continue on this --it is off topic.

 

[lssanjose]

C’mon, if I was sucking up to Latin and having the same tone against those who oppose Latin, you wouldn’t feel this way, right? I’m just being honest here, and you feel that way because I am on the other side. I mean, I really am sorry that you feel that way, but I am just being honest here. There is no other way around.

I wonder this, too.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That they are married and cannot act as single people or marry another.

The truth that what God has united man can not divide. That the Sacrament can only come to an end if one of the parties leaves this mortal coil.

I am not going to continue on this --it is off topic.

The truth is that the man and woman have disregarded God’s commandment and have sinned. Why are we asking them to pretend they are married when they do not act like they are? There is no sense in that. We are only perpetuating a sin with a lie, which is another sin.

 

[lssanjose]

The truth is that the man and woman have disregarded God’s commandment and have sinned. Why are we asking them to pretend they are married when they do not act like they are? There is no sense in that. We are only perpetuating a sin with a lie, which is another sin.

This is why I’ve come to respect the mindset of a Theologian isn’t a man of books, or knowledge. Instead, he/she is a person who lives out the faith IN PRACTICE. What are you going to be obedient to, more so: the creations of God, or God, and his commandments. I, believe it or not, got this mentality from speaking with my condescending Evangelical co-worker, at my old job. The one thing I respect them for, is they have this holistic approach, too. It makes me realize why Orthodoxy is fairly attractive to people, like Evangelicals.