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

[ConstantineTG]

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

And this is not the truth. It is not as straightfowards as this is. Eastern Catholic Churches are entitled to their own praxis, their own traditions, their own beliefs. In fact, in the Apostolic Letter Orientale Lumen written by our beloved Blessed Pope John Paul the Great, he writes:

Since, in fact, we believe that the venerable and ancient tradition of the Eastern Churches is an integral part of the heritage of Christ’s Church, the first need for Catholics is to be familiar with that tradition, so as to be nourished by it and to encourage the process of unity in the best way possible for each.

Our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are very conscious of being the living bearers of this tradition, together with our Orthodox brothers and sisters.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_02051995_orientale-lumen_en.html

Clearly the Blessed Pope himself teaches (this is an Apostolic letter, mind you) that the traditions of the East are borne by the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics. We have the same traditions, the same beliefs, the same spirituality. Anyone who says otherwise simple are not speaking what THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THROUGH THE POPE teaches.

 

[Bookcat]

And this is not the truth. It is not as straightfowards as this is. Eastern Catholic Churches are entitled to their own praxis, their own traditions, their own beliefs. In fact, in the Apostolic Letter Orientale Lumen written by our beloved Blessed Pope John Paul the Great, he writes:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_02051995_orientale-lumen_en.html

Clearly the Blessed Pope himself teaches (this is an Apostolic letter, mind you) that the traditions of the East are borne by the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics. We have the same traditions, the same beliefs, the same spirituality. Anyone who says otherwise simple are not speaking what THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THROUGH THE POPE teaches.

Hum he also said in his letters or encyclicals… directly one must confess the mortal sin prior to Holy Communion.

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.”

Your understanding here is simply mistaken. You cannot simply say “hey some of the Eastern Orthodox accept contraception and allow remarriage for someone who is already married --so we can in the Eastern Catholic Churches too” etc

Your mistaken premise underlying all the going round and round is that Eastern Catholic Churchs have the same everything as Eastern Orthodox --they do not (and heck even the Eastern Orthodox are not the same in everything among themselves)

What I noted was directed to readers --they may go read for themselves what is noted there from the Catholic Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hum he also said in his letters or encyclicals… directly one must confess the mortal sin prior to Holy Communion.

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.”

Your understanding here is simply mistaken. You cannot simply say “hey some of the Eastern Orthodox accept contraception and allow remarriage for someone who is already married --so we can in the Eastern Catholic Churches too” etc

What I noted was directed to readers --they may go read for themselves what is noted there from the Catholic Church.

That is addressed to the RCs, not the ECs. Orientale Lumen is about the ECs.

 

[Bookcat]

That is addressed to the RCs, not the ECs. Orientale Lumen is about the ECs.

Hum …well I would have to look into exactly who each was addressed to…in at least one of them there are hum…foot notes pointing to the Eastern Code of Canons and to Orientalium Ecclesiarum

 

[Marybeloved]

Wow…How long are you two going to keep this up? The thread has a shot of hitting 1,000 at this rate-

 

[Bookcat]

That is addressed to the RCs, not the ECs. Orientale Lumen is about the ECs.

Hum…ENCYCLICAL LETTER
ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA

"The Apostle Paul appeals to this duty when he warns: “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (1 Cor 11:28). Saint John Chrysostom, with his stirring eloquence, exhorted the faithful: “I too raise my voice, I beseech, beg and implore that no one draw near to this sacred table with a sullied and corrupt conscience. Such an act, in fact, can never be called ‘communion’, not even were we to touch the Lord’s body a thousand times over, but ‘condemnation’, ‘torment’ and ‘increase of punishment’”.73

Along these same lines, the Catechism of the Catholic Church rightly stipulates that “anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion”.74 I therefore desire to reaffirm that in the Church there remains in force, now and in the future, the rule by which the Council of Trent gave concrete expression to the Apostle Paul’s stern warning when it affirmed that, in order to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner, “one must first confess one’s sins, when one is aware of mortal sin”.75"

Now lets see: what is that foot note 74 there:

It references the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the (Roman) Code of Canon Law AND the EASTERN code

74No. 1385; cf. Code of Canon Law, Canon 916; Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Canon 711.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_eccl-de-euch_en.html

Oh and for added interest it quote the Ec. Council of Trent

 

[mardukm]

Dear Dzheremi,

And does this eschatological sense necessarily contradict what I have written? (Obviously, I don’t think it does, but now that you have read the encyclical, I am open to being convinced otherwise, and changing my mind should I be wrong; the Church is not the Jeremy show.)…Perhaps. I don’t see why it couldn’t be both.

No, in fact, from what I’ve read and heard from BOTH Oriental AND Latin sources, the Eucharist is AT ONCE a present AND eschatological reality. I’m just having a hard time understanding brother ConstantineTG’s pov. Admittedly, I’ve read about Latin teachings more than Eastern teachings, and knowing what I know about what the Latins teach about the Eucharist, there is no “worlds apart” difference that I can see. So I gather that when he insists there is, his (personal)understanding of the Eucharist really is different (at least subjectively from his pov).

With due respect (and ample room for Constantine to explain his own view, should he choose to), this is not how I interpret Constantine’s writings at all. To say that we (and here I am speaking of Easterners and Orientals, both Catholic and non) do not have the strict legal mindset of the Latins that makes it an impossibility for someone to receive the Eucharist while in sin is a mere statement of fact.

Well, we know that it is not impossible per their canon law.

It is not saying what is normative in practice, but what sort of mindset leads us to different conclusions than those of the Latins.

I’ve met very spiritual Latins (not talking about charismatics, but those who are inclined to follow the mystical tradition of the Latin Church) who are very similar to Orientals and Easterns in their approach to life. I’m just lucky I guess.

Believe me, as I have written before, this is a big change in mindset for me.

I can understand that too, because I’ve met Latins like that too.

I didn’t even want to receive upon being told that this is how the Copts do it, because it was so successfully drilled into me as a Latin that it would be the worst possible thing I could do, but Father really calmed me down (because I was so uneasy about it, I asked him directly when he came by with the censer during the censing of the church): “Yes, you will confess afterward; be at peace”.

Sounds like the same advice I got from the Latin priest that I mentioned earlier in the thread. I guess coming from a Coptic Orthodox background, I knew the value of having a confessor, so I’m proactive in approaching priests, even Latin ones, and the ones I’ve met have been very good spiritual fathers to me. Sorry you did not experience the same thing when you were in the Latin Catholic Church.

I definitely see what you are getting at here, Mardukm, and you do have a point that it can be read to be in accordance with the Latin way of doing things. Not knowing HH personally or being near any Syriac Orthodox Christians, I’m not sure how to get clarification on exactly what he meant. All I can say is that it seems to boil down to what we mean when we say “state of grace”. Being Orthodox people, is it more likely that we mean an actual, legal(istic) state?

You were Latin Catholic, and you never read about the Protestant Reformation, and the fact that one of the main differences between the Catholic position and the Protestant position was that the Catholic position insisted that being in a “state of grace” was not a purely legal state?

From my experience with the Copts, who are at least in union with the Syriacs, common sense would tell me that this is the less likely interpretation, since we do not have such legalistic categories in the first place.

As far as Grace and salvation is concerned, neither are the Latins. Do you have proof otherwise?

but a certain flexibility is possible in the East and the Orient in the ordering of the sacraments that is apparently not possible in the Latin or Latin-influenced world.

Here’s what the old Catholic Encyclopedia says:
The only case in which one in grievous sin might dispense with confession and rest in content with perfect contrition, or perfect charity is when on one hand confession here and now is morally speaking impossible, and where, on the other a real necessity of communication exists.

It is reflected in that Canon mentioned earlier (wherein Bookcat left out the extenuating exception when quoting it). Brother ConstantineTG was obviously unaware of this mitigation. Otherwise, he would not be making his unsupported claims.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bookcat]

:

It is reflected in that Canon mentioned earlier (wherein Bookcat left out the extenuating exception when quoting it). Brother ConstantineTG was obviously unaware of this mitigation. Otherwise, he would not be making his unsupported claims.

Blessings,
Marduk

Not responding to the whole…but to where my name is noted.

I have repeatedly noted the possible exception (west and east) which have very particular criteria and are exceptions (which is going to be different than what is in the old 1900’s encyclopedia)

Lets see --already here in my first post (post number 4 in the thread)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9745333&postcount=4

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9746222&postcount=32

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9748648&postcount=58

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9749988&postcount=83

and various other places…either directly or mentioning such.

As to when I did not quote the whole the post you mentioned before --I have explained why I did not then: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9746147&postcount=28

Cheers

 

[Cristiano]

With all due respect, bookcat, you’re talking in circles. Once you empty the Latin cup, you’ll be talking in a straight line.

Why do traditions need to be distinguished from one another? You’re sweating the wrong small stuff.

You appear to be drinking from the Latin cup when you say that if you do not attend the Divine Liturgy for three times in a row you are excommunicated, isn’t that even more legalistic than what the Latin Church would do?

What about traditions that are just disciplines or devotions that when they change they contradict each others, are you saying that the Church can contradict herself in everything? Isn’t that reason good enough to make a distinction?

I think that some of the self professed Eastern Catholics in this thread feel so threatened at the idea that they might not truly consider themselves Eastern Christians that the only way to argue a point is to say that the everybody else has the blindfolds of the Latin Church. It does not work that way, a lot of other Easter Christians seem to understand the difference between ordinary and extraordinary.

 

[lssanjose]

You appear to be drinking from the Latin cup when you say that if you do not attend the Divine Liturgy for three times in a row you are excommunicated, isn’t that even more legalistic than what the Latin Church would do?

What about traditions that are just disciplines or devotions that when they change they contradict each others, are you saying that the Church can contradict herself in everything? Isn’t that reason good enough to make a distinction?

I think that some of the self professed Eastern Catholics in this thread feel so threatened at the idea that they might not truly consider themselves Eastern Christians that the only way to argue a point is to say that the everybody else has the blindfolds of the Latin Church. It does not work that way, a lot of other Easter Christians seem to understand the difference between ordinary and extraordinary.

You’re taking that statement I said, out of context. I did preface the statement, as did Zekariya, the spiritual father will determine that, not we lay people. The CCC, from what I’ve heard was more for bishops, and other clergy, than lay people.

In all honesty, it wouldn’t be right for me to argue against a Latin point, from an Eastern perspective, would it?

 

[dzheremi]

No, in fact, from what I’ve read and heard from BOTH Oriental AND Latin sources, the Eucharist is AT ONCE a present AND eschatological reality. I’m just having a hard time understanding brother ConstantineTG’s pov.

Oh, okay. If your confusion was with Constantine, fine. That is for him to discuss, if he so chooses. I responded as I did because you had previously questioned my understanding of HH’s statement, not Constantine’s understanding of the Eucharist.

Well, we know that it is not impossible per their canon law.

Here I must confess my ignorance, as I had earlier before Marybeloved (? that doesn’t feel right, but with so many posts in this thread, I’m afraid I’ve forgotten who exactly made this point) when it was pointed out to me that there is some leeway involved in the Latin Church, as well. I must confess and say I never experienced that myself, but also that I never had to, as it had been successfully drilled into me as per the norm in the Latin Church that in order to receive you first must confess, so I never found myself in a situation in which I considered receiving before confessing. Such a thing would have been unthinkable, and if I remember correctly remains impossible even in the case of “economia” as exercised for the poster I’ve now forgotten, who brought up confessing after the mass and then receiving the Eucharist. I could see a similar situation playing out if abouna made a house visit to a sick person, as he sometimes does while here in Albuquerque. The point is, we are still talking about the order of the sacraments, as I have insisted throughout this entire thread, and yes, it still seems that even with the example of economia within the Latin Church given in this thread that the Latin Church is less flexible than the OO.

I’ve met very spiritual Latins

Good. I’m glad. My old FOC, a westerner through and through (he was a Dominican), was actually the one who originally brought me up to love and cherish St. Ephrem the Syrian, who he would read to me both in and out of confession, as appropriate. This does not change the nature of the Latin Church at all, but I am not one to deny the spirituality of a person just because they’re Latin. Certain bright spots of openness and depth do most definitely exist.

Sounds like the same advice I got from the Latin priest that I mentioned earlier in the thread.

Really? A Latin priest told you to receive first and then confess afterward? And you did it? And the Earth didn’t stop on its axis or anything? I must’ve missed that post. What am I being opposed for, then? All I’ve been talking about is the Oriental flexibility in the ordering of the sacraments, and what that says about how our communions differ. But of course if this is not a place where we actually differ because the Latins have that same flexibility, then fine. Let’s stop all this, then.

I guess coming from a Coptic Orthodox background, I knew the value of having a confessor, so I’m proactive in approaching priests, even Latin ones, and the ones I’ve met have been very good spiritual fathers to me. Sorry you did not experience the same thing when you were in the Latin Catholic Church.

Huh? I don’t know where this is coming from. I think you are reading a certain negativity or bitterness into my posts regarding the Latin Church that is not actually there. I love my former FOC, and mention him as often as I can here and anywhere else. He’s a great, great priest and I feel lucky to have had the time with him that I did.

You were Latin Catholic, and you never read about the Protestant Reformation, and the fact that one of the main differences between the Catholic position and the Protestant position was that the Catholic position insisted that being in a “state of grace” was not a purely legal state?

Yes, of course I read it. Sort of like how the Latins at one point also insisted that the faith of the Fathers, Greek and Latin alike, had been preserved via the filioque, right? There is the theoretical position of the Latin Church, which seems to admit no true difference between itself and an ever-widening number of other churches, and then there is the lived reality of the Latin Church. I lived in the Latin Church. It was my reality. You can say that I was wrong or my churches were wrong, but I think all this proves is that the theoretical bickering between the Catholics and their children the Protestants shows them to be in many, many ways speaking the same language and having the same presuppositions which inform their stances (whether they come to agree on any one point or not), whereas completely outside of that are the Oriental and Eastern churches who maintained their faith while Catholic Europe was coming apart at the seems, probably at least in part by never having engaged such debates in the first place, as they are far outside of what preoccupies the Eastern churches, theologically or philosophically speaking.

As far as Grace and salvation is concerned, neither are the Latins. Do you have proof otherwise?

Sure, how about the division of sins into either “mortal” or “venial”? I have yet to read that in St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, etc., let alone in their sons and daughters in the OO churches.

Here’s what the old Catholic Encyclopedia says:
The only case in which one in grievous sin might dispense with confession and rest in content with perfect contrition, or perfect charity is when on one hand confession here and now is morally speaking impossible, and where, on the other a real necessity of communication exists.

Can you give this to me in plain English, please? I want to make sure I’m understanding it properly before I decide how to approach it. It could be that it’s not saying anything I disagree with.

 

[Bookcat]

COLOR=“Red”]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/

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA

Bl. Pope John Paul II

"The Apostle Paul appeals to this duty when he warns: “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (1 Cor 11:28). Saint John Chrysostom, with his stirring eloquence, exhorted the faithful: “I too raise my voice, I beseech, beg and implore that no one draw near to this sacred table with a sullied and corrupt conscience. Such an act, in fact, can never be called ‘communion’, not even were we to touch the Lord’s body a thousand times over, but ‘condemnation’, ‘torment’ and ‘increase of punishment’”.73

Along these same lines, the Catechism of the Catholic Church rightly stipulates that “anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion”.74 I therefore desire to reaffirm that in the Church there remains in force, now and in the future, the rule by which the Council of Trent gave concrete expression to the Apostle Paul’s stern warning when it affirmed that, in order to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner, “one must first confess one’s sins, when one is aware of mortal sin”.75"

Now lets see: what is that foot note 74 there:

It references the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the (Roman) Code of Canon Law AND the EASTERN code

74No. 1385; cf. Code of Canon Law, Canon 916; Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Canon 711.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_eccl-de-euch_en.html

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”.

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

 

[Bookcat]

Here is an example from Eastern Churches “on the ground” as it where:

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

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

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.”

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

 

[Cavaradossi]

You appear to be drinking from the Latin cup when you say that if you do not attend the Divine Liturgy for three times in a row you are excommunicated, isn’t that even more legalistic than what the Latin Church would do?

What about traditions that are just disciplines or devotions that when they change they contradict each others, are you saying that the Church can contradict herself in everything? Isn’t that reason good enough to make a distinction?

I think that some of the self professed Eastern Catholics in this thread feel so threatened at the idea that they might not truly consider themselves Eastern Christians that the only way to argue a point is to say that the everybody else has the blindfolds of the Latin Church. It does not work that way, a lot of other Easter Christians seem to understand the difference between ordinary and extraordinary.

Do you know why that canon was written? The reasoning behind it is anything but legalistic.

 

[lssanjose]

If you’ve studied Latin Catholicism with any seriousness, you certainly don’t show it in this thread. Being born in the rite means nothing as far as understanding the Church’s teaching- not in post VII Latin Catholicism, I think we all know that.

(PS:- You didn’t mention St. Thomas Aquinas, Sts Teresa and John of Avila, St Catherine of Siena, The little flower, St Louis de Monteforte, St Alphonsus Liguori, St Francis de Sales, St Ignatius etc- Have you read any of the spiritual teachers of the Latin tradition? Or did you just concentrate on some theologians? I don’t know those people you mentioned except Chris West. Also, really Christopher West is in some trouble with many renowned theologians in Rome for some of his teachings- He’s not a theologian, he’s not a scholar. Just a good Catholic trying to spread the truth he has found in some of Blessed JP II’s work)

Why are we arguing our upbringing in the Latin tradition, anyways? The OP was asking the Eastern Catholic perspective, which was born of Holy Orthodoxy (something beaten like a dead horse, by others aside from myself), by the way. I know I diverged some of my discussion, but it was in defense of brothers trying to make certain points about the Eastern traditions, bookcat was trying to refute by utilizing the latin-filled cup, and throwing down the CCC, as if it were gospel truth. As I understand it, there’s only one Gospel truth, found in the Gospels of Christ.

 

[Marybeloved]

Why are we arguing our upbringing in the Latin tradition, anyways? The OP was asking the Eastern Catholic perspective, which was born of Holy Orthodoxy (something beaten like a dead horse, by others aside from myself), by the way. I know I diverged some of my discussion, but it was in defense of brothers trying to make certain points about the Eastern traditions, bookcat was trying to refute by utilizing the latin-filled cup, and throwing down the CCC, as if it were gospel truth. As I understand it, there’s only one Gospel truth, found in the Gospels of Christ.

I know what the Op asked, but lots of things have been said here and they indicate a very impoverished understanding of the Latin Catholic Tradition.

 

[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/

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA

Bl. Pope John Paul II

"The Apostle Paul appeals to this duty when he warns: “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (1 Cor 11:28). Saint John Chrysostom, with his stirring eloquence, exhorted the faithful: “I too raise my voice, I beseech, beg and implore that no one draw near to this sacred table with a sullied and corrupt conscience. Such an act, in fact, can never be called ‘communion’, not even were we to touch the Lord’s body a thousand times over, but ‘condemnation’, ‘torment’ and ‘increase of punishment’”.73

Along these same lines, the Catechism of the Catholic Church rightly stipulates that “anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion”.74 I therefore desire to reaffirm that in the Church there remains in force, now and in the future, the rule by which the Council of Trent gave concrete expression to the Apostle Paul’s stern warning when it affirmed that, in order to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner, “one must first confess one’s sins, when one is aware of mortal sin”.75"

Now lets see: what is that foot note 74 there:

It references the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the (Roman) Code of Canon Law AND the EASTERN code

74No. 1385; cf. Code of Canon Law, Canon 916; Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Canon 711.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_eccl-de-euch_en.html

Oh and for added interest it quote the Ec. Council of Trent

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”.

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

 

[Bookcat]

Answer continued:

Here is an example from different Eastern Catholic Churches “on the ground” as it where:

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

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

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.”

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

 

[lssanjose]

I know what the Op asked, but lots of things have been said here and they indicate a very impoverished understanding of the Latin Catholic Tradition.

Well, that lack of understanding has been bred into certain pieces of the laity, then projected onto the fellowship, in the form of catechism classes, interactions among the laity; and some of the clergy, even.

 

[Marybeloved]

Well, that lack of understanding has been bred into certain pieces of the laity, then projected onto the fellowship, in the form of catechism classes, interactions among the laity; and some of the clergy, even.

A crisis (one of many in the Church’s long History) that has taken the Church too long to begin to address (which thankfully is changing)- a sad thing indeed. Yet the Latin Church retains its teaching, traditions and if you’re genuinely interested, you will find them. The spiritual traditions are retained still in many places (though not enough obviously) and really Catholics can find them if they want. Even reading the Newadvent Catholic Encyclopedia alone that many in these subforum love to hate will dispel a lot of these false notions.