B
Bookcat
Guest
(to pretend to be single or to pretend to be able to “marry” another is the lie…one does not remedy a sin by continuing to sin in another grave way…)
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#V
Again off topic.
In the Eastern Catholic Church, Can One Receive Communion with a Serious Sin on One's Soul?
- Status
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#V
Again off topic.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Yes, that is why that discussion is relevant to this thread. If we’re stuck looking at one act of one person, then we miss the entirety of the person. That is why people have become so judgmental. We break down people into individual acts and proclaim condemnation based on those individual acts, disregarding their entire humanity.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
That is another case. At that point they already have destroyed their marriage. God told us not to set apart what God put together. But those who divorce did set them apart, violating God’s rule. So they are already apart.
L
lssanjose
Guest
I think my friend pointed out best: between you, your confessor, and God. That’s why I’ll never bring myself to ask someone: “When was the last time you went to confession?”
B
Bookcat
Guest
Actually they are not put apart (they only live separated and may have civil legal things done if necessary to sort out care of the kids etc).
They are still married.
Divorce does not dissolve their sacrament.
Again off topic
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#V
P
Peter_J
Guest
What I had in mind, when I asked, was the Latin thinking that led to said union. In other words, imagine asking the Latins in 1594 (the year before) “So what’s this Union of Brest you’re planning? What are you hoping to accomplish thereby?”
M
mardukm
Guest
I’m not talking about worthiness. I’m talking about the Eucharist being for the remission of sins. I am still puzzled why you think the Latins and Easterns are “worlds apart” on this matter. You haven’t provided any proof.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
If I’m not mistaken, it is ALSO for mortal sins that one has forgotten to confess.
Blessings,
Marduk
L
lssanjose
Guest
Brother, having been raised Latin rite, for a good chunk of my life, I’ve reflected on this disconnect between moments, throughout the Novus Ordo mass. I think why Constantine feels worlds apart is that it does feel worlds apart when we go through phases, in liturgy.
- Penitential Rite
- The Gloria
- Liturgy of the Word/Homily
- Prayer of the Faithful
- Communion.
)Growing up we were only told what was going on, and rarely reflected on each phase’s significance, and how it ties into our faith as a whole. I think, for some Latin Catholics, there is a real spiritual disconnect, during liturgy. Rarely, much thought is given to the words recited, during mass.
In the Byzantine divine liturgy, the significance of each phase is spelled out. “Let us worthily thank the Lord,” responding “Lord have mercy,” throughout the liturgy. Let us Mystically represent the cherubim… more than once.
B
Bookcat
Guest
They are forgiven via the absolution when one honestly forgot them and was contrite etc.
Such would be “indirectly absolved” in that last (good) confession.
But if later remembered --they still need to be confessed in confession.
(the Eastern Catholics -in their particular law confess mortal sins “as soon as possible” --not sure if this is in the case of forgotten mortal sins too -or if they can wait til the next confession in such cases. Roman Catholics may wait til the next confession (next month or week…) in the case of forgotten but absolved mortal sins and can go to Holy Communion)
(Now in the case of say my honestly not realizing that I had a mortal sin to confess – where I say honestly examined my conscience well where not conscious of mortal sin (where as objectively I had committed one) could such be forgiven in various other ways since I do not know to confess it --yes sure. My not knowing of it makes “impossible” for me to confess it.)
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother ConstantineTG,
Blessings,
Marduk
There’s a lot of ifs and buts in Latin Canon law. Perhaps you have never looked (admittedly, attitudes like Bookcat’s don’t help, but neither does yours).
Actually, your consistent failure to look at or admit the manifestations of oikonomia within the Laitn Tradition in their Canon law (indults, invincible ignorance, specific mitigations for extenuating circumstances, etc., etc.) can also be legalism. You should keep that in mind.
Blessings,
Marduk
L
lssanjose
Guest
Makes me want this referendum for Latins to recover their tradition even more… Because, as much as I back up the institution, there are some dangers tied to certain institutional constructs, leading to unintended consequences.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Right, there is more to the path to holiness than just going to Confession. It certainly is a part of that journey, but not the only thing in that journey. That is what is being missed here. Our discernment on approaching for Communion isn’t summed up by one act, but our entire life and our entire journey. That is at least the Eastern way.
If you don’t live as husband and wife, you are not husband and wife. It is as simple as that. It is the same way with approaching Communion. Are you at least trying to live life as a faithful Christian. If you are, then it doesn’t matter if you falter in sin. It happens, it is a fact of our lives. We are on a journey to holiness, as long as we are on that journey and we are committed to that journey then we have discerned rightfully to approach. But if we are not, if we are stuck to our sins and refuse to reform, then we eat and drink judgment to ourselves. This is not summed up by one act.
Tell me this, if I legalistically follow Catholicism for the sake of following it. I show up to Mass every week and every Day of Obligation. I don’t eat meat when I shouldn’t eat meat, I fast the two days I am requried to. But I live a life of excess. I fornicate, I gamble, I drink to get drunk, I party. Holy Thursday I go to confession knowing I have the obligation to receive Communion once a year, so I stop all those things I do for 4 days. I receive Communion on Easter Sunday, then on Eastern Monday I go back to that life. Was I worthy to receive Communion more than someone who prays dails, fasts, goes to confession once a month, but it just happens that one Sunday morning they falter and commit a mortal sin, and then approach Communion? Who is worth and who is not worthy of these two? Who is the real Christian?
People would like to think this is all, “oh, they realized their faith is nothing without the Pope.” But there were more considerations for that. As the same with the Council of Florence, they tried to get Rome to help out with the barbarians and the threat of the Islamic armies. I haven’t delved into this history but I heard that Rome never sent the armies anyway. They also thought they could bridge East and West by being in communion with both. Also do not discount the political nature of the Churches in the former Rus. There are separate claims as to where the Royal Family of Rus did escape to. Moscow or Galicia.
19 pages of circular arguments on this thread isn’t proof? The fact that I’m offering the Eastern perspective and Bookcat is not buying anything of it shows how far apart we are. We do not only have different perspectives but there is also stubborness to understand the other side.
Indults are only granted by Papal dispensation. And even dispensation is overtly legalistic, as it is outlined what can or cannot be dispensed. As Jesus said, the Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath. If the law disregards the human condition, then what good is it to the actual needs of man? Not just because there is a capability to excuse one from the law, it doesn’t mean it is the same thing. I think you are looking at these on a very high level which is why it appears to be the same thing. But when you examine closely that is when you will find out that there are differences.
M
Marybeloved
Guest
Wow, problem with it or not, I have never heard such a thing and I was baptized ten years ago! We do not approach because we are not ready to receive, we do not want to be guilty of the Lord’s body as St. Paul warned. I have never heard the term penance associated with not communing in mortal sin- really, ever.
Where did this priest get his ideas?I was actually under the impression that we were, for once, simply engaged in a rather pleasant cordial exchange- I’m rather surprised you thought it was an argument, really.
I know what it is, but in this instance (communion in mortal sin without prior confession) this economia is not practiced except in very serious circumstances that genuinely deprive one of the options normally available to Catholics (to go to confession)
It’s just Latins adhering to their practice as always, why do we have to give it a label?
This makes no sense. Do you see non-orthodox individuals who may want to receive in your church as persons or just as a category? This just seems to say that if a rule is strict, then the people are not seen as persons but as fitting into categories. I’m sure our absolute prohibition against homosexual affairs does not mean that we do not see the individuals who deal with this as merely fitting categories instead of as persons. Again, it makes no sense to me.
And in ten years of Catholicism I have never once heard a Roman Catholic priest ask people if they are in a state of grace! I have never heard such words come out of the lips of one of them! In fact no Catholic priest presumes to deny persons who present themselves for communion, they’re all presumed to be there because they are well prepared. This teaching is for everyone’s personal consideration before approaching the alter, not for priests to start inquiring of people: Are you in the state of grace?
I’d like to understand this difference in approach, is it more than the rule about communion or confession itself?
I have been going to confession regularly for six years now. I don’t get what fixed penances you’re referring to- Penances are fixed at confession by the priest and they are never equal or uniform or predetermined by whatever taxonomy you refer to. The priest fixes penance according to the evidence of contrition he sees in the person, and what he deems best for him- plus he aids him in penance also by also performing some penance for his penitents. I’m beginning to think you just never had a good or authentic Latin experience, five years or not. Not like mine anyway.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.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Such notions that you mention are not in harmony with the Teachings etc of the Catholic Church.
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#IV
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#VI
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
It is in harmony with the teachings of the Fathers of the Catholic Church in the First Millennium.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Your not offering the Eastern Catholic Perspective.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
How do you know? You are not Eastern Catholic nor do you even care to view things from the Eastern perspective. All you claim to know about Eastern Catholicism has been links and quotes from things you have googled the last couple of days. Suddenly you are an expert on Eastern Catholicism?
B
Bookcat
Guest
For Readers of this thread:
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.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9761528&postcount=221
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9761867&postcount=226
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.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9761528&postcount=221
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9761867&postcount=226
- Status