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

[Marybeloved]

I may be pedantic. But, when it comes to exact classification of those sins, we consider the totality of the commission, in context. Although, there are broader statements, like Abortion is sin. However, there are contexts where abortion is necessary. I’m not refuting there are less grave sins, and ones more grave. I’m just saying, the attempt at splitting hairs, with respect to classification is unhealthy. That’s the spiritual father’s place to deal with, not ours as laity. We just know we’re guilty of sins, voluntary, and involuntary.

No. 1- Who called you pedantic?

No. 2- What attempt at splitting hairs? If you can find me one sin that Catholics list as grave, that the Fathers or Apostles (Or Christ) did not consider grave, you may have a point.

No. 3- Mortal sin means deliberately and with full knowledge doing what is grave sin, like adultery for example. Do you need to be told that if you do this you sin gravely and need confession as soon as possible? There’s no clear cut list apart from a very short list that was considered grave from the earliest church and the Bible. So I don’t get what you’re saying here.

 

[lssanjose]

No. 1- Who called you pedantic?

No. 2- What attempt at splitting hairs? If you can find me one sin that Catholics list as grave, that the Fathers or Apostles (Or Christ) did not consider grave, you may have a point.

No. 3- Mortal sin means deliberately and with full knowledge doing what is grave sin, like adultery for example. Do you need to be told that if you do this you sin gravely and need confession as soon as possible? There’s no clear cut list apart from a very short list that was considered grave from the earliest church and the Bible. So I don’t get what you’re saying here.

I’m not talking from a standpoint of codification administratively; let me get that part, out of the way. I’m talking among the laity. Again, I back up the institution as much as anyone, but the glowing problem is laity; and I think, this is where most of the trouble lies, not in the magisterium, for they are only benevolent “dictators.” it’s up to us, laity, to live out our lives in accordance to those “laws,” and “by-laws.”

I’ve seen that definition of mortal sin, floating around here. I find that fitting. However, laity have a tendency to take the codification, and run with it; or they take it, and obsess over it. Look at all the threads, asking if this, and that is an x type of sin, as opposed to a y type of sin.

When we’re talking about responses to sin, I think it is, and should be, dealt primarily at the local level (which reminds me of the podcast I listened to about the pro-life movement being a travesty, in the eyes of an Orthodox professor). By local, I mean, between the confessor, the confessee, and God.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

Remove your Roman goggles. The problem here is you are seeing reception of Communion as a rule, not as a Sacrament. It is a Sacrament given to us people. You know, real people with real lives, not merely people who are like robots beholden to rules. There is no “exception to the rule” if we see people as people and not merely one act.

Well, I don’t know what goggles you have, but you should remove them nevertheless. It’s certainly not patristic. You read any of the Fathers, and if you think the Church has no rules to live by, you are sorely mistaken. The holiness of the Eucharist is a DIVINE law, that the Church lived by since the beginning. People need rules. Remember the Apostolic Canons? Remember the Canons of St. Basil? Remember the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils? Remember the Canons of Trullo? Yes, we as apostolic Christians live by rules established by the Church. And there are times when those the usual prescriptions for violating those rules need to be relaxed. That is the principle of oikonomia.

No, it is subject to your interpretation on what he means. St. Paul never said that one sin disqualifies you. He says that we should discern the Body and Blood of Christ lest we receive unworthily. What does that mean? Your interpretation, one sin. Eastern interpretation, entire life of one person. It is not as clear and drycut as you claim it to be, unless you are blinded with bias.

St. Paul gave a very specific example. If he meant “your entire life,” tell me what the point of that specific example was. I hope you respond to that.

It is not oikonomia applied to one who is allowed to approach regardless of when the Confession took place. A priest will disbar one from Communion if one is not going to confession at all, it means one is not trying to enrich one’s spiritual life by frequent confession. But again that doesn’t mean that if one sins in the morning and didn’t go to confession before Liturgy, one cannot receive Communion. That is not an exception, that is not oikonomia. That is a “way of life”.

Here’s where we disagree, and I think you are being disingenuous. We are not talking about any sin here, but sins that are serious (that should be evident from this whole discussion), such as adultery or murder or violations of certain canons, and such other serious sins, the kind that the Fathers of the early Church deemed worthy of meriting deprivation of the Eucharist for anywhere from 3 to 20 years. Yes, you murder in the morning, you bet you cannot receive the Eucharist. If you are not talking about sins that are that serious, then show me where the difference is with the Latin theology, for sins that are not that serious would fall under “venial sin” in the Latin scheme of things and you and the Latins end up in the same place receiving the Eucharist without confession. So please explain where you are coming from with this “worlds apart” pretension on this particular matter.

You have to understand, Orthodoxy, and therefore Byzantine Rite Catholicism, is not a set of rules, it is a way of life.

Please stop with these idyllic platitidues. You expect us to believe that life is not without rules? You really expect us to believe that all Latin Catholics have your experience, to the point that you would judge the ENTIRE Catholic Church by just your experience? That’s just hubris, brother.

Becoming holy is not determined by strict canons that say do A then B then C.

You tell me who said it was in this discussion. Tell us who has taught that in the Catholic Church?

Anyway, the Eucharist is part of the life of a Christian. As well as Confession. Frequent reception of these Sacraments is a must, but there is no order. We sin, that is a given. So if we sin in the morning and didn’t confess, we still can receive. Why? If we are comitted to the life of repentance, why not? We are expected to falter because of our iniquities.

So if you commit adultery or murder in the morning, then you feel you still have some sort of right to receive the Eucharist without confession? As stated before, you know very well we are talking of serious sins here, and you know very well that this is all that Bookcat is talking about as well, so I don’t know why you make these statements so blithely without that consideration.

But that doesn’t mean because we sinned it means we have become unworthy by St. Paul’s teaching.

St. Paul gave a SPECIFIC example (sinning against your brother). Then he says you must repent and do penance. Then he warns about receiving the body and blood of Christ UNWORTHILY. Really, you mean after St. Paul says that, you are going to tell us that there is no question of our worthiness to approach the Eucharist after sinning? If what you are proposing is really Byzantine spirituality (and I seriously hope it is not), then I want none of it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[lssanjose]

Brother, I see where you’re getting at, but is it our call to make? It should always go back to the Spiritual father, and those in position to properly interpret, and exercise the necessary steps to address aforementioned transgressions, which is what I think Constantine is arguing. We’re not striving to be canon lawyers (well maybe I am, if I am indeed called to holy orders, but another story, for another day).

I think one of the problems we’re having is finding the right place of the canon laws, within overall church life. Spiritually, canon laws aren’t to be coming down like a jack hammer. At the same time, they’re the laws, and by-laws detailing Church membership, and how to properly exercise duties, therein. That’s why I need to figure out where I saw the notion the CCC was more for the bishops, than lay people.

 

[mardukm]

Yes, we do, though honestly I don’t know a lot about them, as I’m still taking baby steps in the faith. But I know that we have things like the Canons of St. Basil which govern our Coptic Church specifically (others may have other canons, which I don’t know about). I couldn’t find a full translation of them in English (I’ve only seen them referenced to in various texts which quote individual canons), but here is a short summary of what they are from the Coptic Encyclopedia.

They’re all in arabic.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

It’s what you said the first time you said it-

Is it? From yesterday (emphasis added):

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. **

Did you have something else in mind? Because all this says is that there is a taxonomy (formal classification into different categories) of sins in the Latin Church, which there is.

But what have we discussed here in this thread- Of course it makes a difference! And not ‘‘as far as WHAT you confess’’- When you go to confession you confess all sins that you can remember, venial or mortal. But a soul in mortal sin has only two ways of getting rid or that sin, confession and perfect contrition-which requires the intention to go to confession. A soul only in venial sin has more ways than confession to rid himself of sin.

I…see. :ehh:

I think I’m back to not understanding this “mortal, venial” thing. So it doesn’t have an effect on what you confess, but it has an effect on how you can be forgiven? That makes even less sense to me than what I originally thought it was about! I’ve never heard of that. What is the purpose of it?

Funny- You set up your own debate, claim that someone said something they didn’t and then offer an argument- I’m sure you know what a straw man is.

How is it a strawman? I didn’t say you said anything you didn’t say. I asked if you could tell me what Early Church Fathers divided sins into “mortal” and “venial”, as you believe that the Roman Catholic understanding of this matter is reflected in the early Church. I do not believe it is, so I asked you to show me evidence that it is. You responded without that evidence, so I am wondering if that’s a “no ECF had this understanding”, or if maybe you just forgot the question, or I dunno what. At any rate, no strawmen over here.

Yet you miss this entirely and come to the 21st century to say that Latins are legalistic because they say mortal sins must be confessed (which is available, by the way- not like we need to climb a mountain to find a confessor!) before communion?

I say, as I said, that it is legalistic to create a division of sin into “mortal” and “venial”, not that there weren’t penances for sins in the early church.

That’s not what I said. did you miss the last part about waiting to go to confession on Saturday (I wouldn’t wait if I had mortal sin)?

No, I did not miss that. What you said was this:

That category comes into play when choosing to go to confession, not penance. Because mortal sin is, well- mortal- the sin that leads to death! Venial sins we can confess, but we can also just pray the confiteor at mass and make an act of contrition and wait for Saturday to go to confession.

“The category comes into play when choosing to go to confession” because “mortal sin is mortal”, while venial sins presumably are not (you can still confess them of course, but you can also pray the confiteor at mass and still receive, right?). So how is this not a help to determine what to confess? If one you don’t have to confess before receiving, but the other you do? Because as you say below (deleted due to length limit), one is a matter of greater urgency than the other, so with the mortal/venial distinction, you know what to confess first?

Dhzeremi, do you have to make straw men this way, really? Who said confession is ONLY for mortal sin? Show me where really.

You said, using St. James as an example, “Clearly the earliest Christians had mortal (sins that lead to death) and venial (which means they don’t lead to death) sins too”. So I alluded to other verses in the Bible (even that same Gospel) that talk about sin as well, but do not give any indication of mortal v. venial distinctions, to show that it is all in the interpretation to say that this distinction is found in the Bible, and I do not agree that this distinction is what St. James is talking about… How is that a strawman?

And how can you say the effect is the same if one kills you and one does not? The last time I checked, life and death were not the same effects- certainly not in the Bible.

You sin and it strains your relationship with God, as you are not living according to His will for you. As we know that the wages of sin is death, unrepentant sin leads to death. Not even a LITTLE sin is acceptable in heaven (see, for instance, Job 15:15; even the heavens are impure before God), and all sin has the same effect in harming your relationship with God. Should you continue in unrepentant sin, you will not enter heaven. So we keep our minds on this eternal fact rather than trying to determine if something should be considered “venial” or “mortal”, since after death there is no chance to offer repentance.

 

[dzheremi]

They’re all in arabic.

Blessings,
Marduk

Well yes. My Arabic is not good enough to understand them all, and I do not know if Issanjose speaks Arabic, so Coptic Encyclopedia it is!

 

[Bookcat]

Remove your Roman goggles. The problem here is you are seeing reception of Communion as a rule, not as a Sacrament.

Huh?

No it is seeing the Eucharist --as a Sacrament.

A Sacrament of the* living*. Not of the dead.

 

[Bookcat]

Anyway, the Eucharist is part of the life of a Christian. As well as Confession. Frequent reception of these Sacraments is a must, but there is no order. We sin, that is a given. So if we sin in the morning and didn’t confess, we still can receive. Why? If we are comitted to the life of repentance, why not?

Such contains various things that are not in harmony with the Catholic Church (Latin and Eastern Churches)

Yes there is an order. If one commits a mortal sin one must first confess that serious sin prior to Holy Communion.

The potential exceptions which are rather specific and defined are just that exceptions–such as it must be a serious reason (etc)

Such is the approach and law of the Eastern Catholic Churches (and entire Church)

As to the Interpreation of what Paul said --I refer you to the Church - the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Bl. Pope John Paul II even the Eastern Patriach I quoted earlier of Antioch.

 

[Bookcat]

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"

 

[mardukm]

Brother, I see where you’re getting at, but is it our call to make? It should always go back to the Spiritual father, and those in position to properly interpret, and exercise the necessary steps to address aforementioned transgressions, which is what I think Constantine is arguing. We’re not striving to be canon lawyers (well maybe I am, if I am indeed called to holy orders, but another story, for another day).

Agreed brother. That is my objection to Bookcat’s approach to this whole thing. For example, when I mentioned the advice the Latin priest told me about receiving communion after waiting in confession line for so long and then the priest left to say Mass, his/her response was “well the canon says this.” I mean, how does s/he know what other circumstances played in that decision by the priest? I think Bookcat’s approach is not just juridical, but legalistic. I think an Eastern or Oriental Christian would more likely respond with, “why did he give you that advice?” instead of immediately imposing the rules of the Church on the matter. And despite that comment, I am wary enough to admit that this was Bookcat’s approach. I am not so willing to accuse all Latins, much less the Latin Catholic Church herself, of being like that.

I think one of the problems we’re having is finding the right place of the canon laws, within overall church life. Spiritually, canon laws aren’t to be coming down like a jack hammer. At the same time, they’re the laws, and by-laws detailing Church membership, and how to properly exercise duties, therein.

Agreed. Seriously, though, when does canon law really come into any apostolic Christian’s life unless there is an actual need to refer to it? I think since the time I became Catholic, I’ve never had to once refer to canon law, but only lived by the teachings of the Church and the advise of my confessor. I think it is the same for all Catholics. We live the laws as part of our daily life, not even really cognizant that, if we are faithful apostolic Christians, we are indeed living by the laws of the Church. It is like St. Paul says, those who have the law in their hearts do not need the law.

That’s why I need to figure out where I saw the notion the CCC was more for the bishops, than lay people.

I’ve read that before too, just last week in fact (though I couldn’t find the link now if I tried ). IIRC, it said that the CCC is specifically for the teachers of the faith, i.e., to bishops, and those to whom the bishops delegate to teach, including lay catechists.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bookcat]

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”.”

 

[Bookcat]

and note well the highlights while not missing the rest…

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"

---

 

[Marybeloved]

Is it? From yesterday (emphasis added):

Did you have something else in mind? Because all this says is that there is a taxonomy (formal classification into different categories) of sins in the Latin Church, which there is.

Ok, then. It’s not true. You don’t get more prayers simply because it was mortal or less simply because it was venial- It’s about how repentant you are. Remember in Latin Catholicism, perfect love (in contrition) can take away all of that. It’s about how sorry you are.

I…see. :ehh:

I think I’m back to not understanding this “mortal, venial” thing. So it doesn’t have an effect on what you confess, but it has an effect on how you can be forgiven? That makes even less sense to me than what I originally thought it was about! I’ve never heard of that. What is the purpose of it?

I don’t get the difficulty here, really. Mortal sin is more limited in the ways in which it can be forgiven than venial sin. It’s also more grave in its effects on the soul (death). Therefore it presents a greater urgency. That’s like saying, I have been stabbed in the chest-how urgently do I need to get to the doctor? I’d say FAST! As opposed to I have a backache- Let me set up an appointment to see the doctor in the weekend. Then someone comes and says- AHA! You think you don’t need a doctor UNLESS someone stabs you in your chest! Of course you’ll wonder whats up with that?

How is it a strawman? I didn’t say you said anything you didn’t say. I asked if you could tell me what Early Church Fathers divided sins into “mortal” and “venial”, as you believe that the Roman Catholic understanding of this matter is reflected in the early Church. I do not believe it is, so I asked you to show me evidence that it is. You responded without that evidence, so I am wondering if that’s a “no ECF had this understanding”, or if maybe you just forgot the question, or I dunno what. At any rate, no strawmen over here.

It is a straw man- you’ve been complaining about this categorizations of sins and being prevented from communion as legalism. I showed you that the church had a strict categorization of sins and specific penances (including being deprived of communion for years, not just until confession)- Then you start with show me where they had mortal vs venial (which I did-it’s right there in the Bible!)- You can’t ask me to prove what I didn’t claim- I claimed an even more particular categorization of sin and penance- If categorization is legalism, then it is, for them as for anyone else.

I say, as I said, that it is legalistic to create a division of sin into “mortal” and “venial”, not that there weren’t penances for sins in the early church.

If that’s what you say, then the Bible and St James are legalistic? Creating a division between sins that lead us to death and those that don’t?

“The category comes into play when choosing to go to confession” because “mortal sin is mortal”, while venial sins presumably are not (you can still confess them of course, but you can also pray the confiteor at mass and still receive, right?). So how is this not a help to determine what to confess? If one you don’t have to confess before receiving, but the other you do? Because as you say below (deleted due to length limit), one is a matter of greater urgency than the other, so with the mortal/venial distinction, you know what to confess first?

It’s simply is not a matter of What, I’m sorry. When I go to confession, if I told a white lie, I’ll confess it. But that’s not the only way it can be forgiven? But if I plot your murder, I’m sorry- I must confess it if I’m to return in communion with God.

You said, using St. James as an example, “Clearly the earliest Christians had mortal (sins that lead to death) and venial (which means they don’t lead to death) sins too”. So I alluded to other verses in the Bible (even that same Gospel) that talk about sin as well, but do not give any indication of mortal v. venial distinctions, to show that it is all in the interpretation to say that this distinction is found in the Bible, and I do not agree that this distinction is what St. James is talking about… How is that a strawman?

There is sin that leads to death and sin that does not lead to death- You’re telling me that’s not a distinction there in sins that kill you and sins that don’t? There’s interpretation and then there’s plain denial. The distinction is quite plain.

You sin and it strains your relationship with God, as you are not living according to His will for you. As we know that the wages of sin is death, unrepentant sin leads to death. Not even a LITTLE sin is acceptable in heaven (see, for instance, Job 15:15; even the heavens are impure before God), and all sin has the same effect in harming your relationship with God.

Of course it does- But not all of it kills you- That’s Biblical

Should you continue in unrepentant sin, you will not enter heaven. So we keep our minds on this eternal fact rather than trying to determine if something should be considered “venial” or “mortal”, since after death there is no chance to offer repentance.

Perhaps someone should have offered that advice to st James then, who apparently did bother to distinguish for us that some sins brings death to the soul where others do not, before he put it in scripture.

 

[Marybeloved]

From CA

Basil the Great

“The clergyman who is deposed for mortal sin shall not be excommunicated” (*Canonical Letter, *canon 32 [A.D. 374]).

Pacian of Barcelona

“Stinginess is remedied by generosity, insult by apology, perversity by honesty, and for whatever else, amends can be made by practice of the opposite. But what can he do who is contemptuous of God? What shall the murderer do? What remedy shall the fornicator find? . . . These are capital sins, brethren, these are mortal. Someone may say: ‘Are we then about to perish? . . . Are we to die in our sins?’ . . . I appeal first to you brethren who refuse penance for your acknowledged crimes. You, I say, who are timid after your impudence, who are bashful after your sins, who are not ashamed to sin but now are ashamed to confess” (*Sermon Exhorting to Penance *4 [A.D. 385]).

Jerome

“There are venial sins and there are mortal sins. It is one thing to owe ten thousand talents, another to owe but a farthing. We shall have to give an accounting for an idle word no less than for adultery. But to be made to blush and to be tortured are not the same thing; not the same thing to grow red in the face and to be in agony for a long time. . . . If we entreat for lesser sins we are granted pardon, but for greater sins, it is difficult to obtain our request. There is a great difference between one sin and another” (*Against Jovinian *2:30 [A.D. 393]).

Caesarius of Arles

“Although the apostle [Paul] has mentioned many grievous sins, we, nevertheless, lest we seem to promote despair, will state briefly what they are. Sacrilege, murder, adultery, false witness, theft, robbery, pride, envy, avarice, and, if it is of long standing, anger, drunkenness, if it is persistent, and slander are reckoned in their number. Or if anyone knows that these sins dominate him, if he does not do penance worthily and for a long time, if such time is given him . . . he cannot be purged in that transitory fire of which the apostle spoke [1 Cor. 3:11–15], but the eternal flames will torture him without any remedy. But since the lesser sins are, of course, known to all, and it would take too long to mention them all, it will be necessary for us only to name some of them. . . . There is no doubt that these and similar deeds belong to the lesser sins which, as I said before, can scarcely be counted, and from which not only all Christian people, but even all the saints could not and cannot always be free. We do not, of course, believe that the soul is killed by these sins, but still they make it ugly by covering it as if with some kind of pustules and, as it were, with horrible scabs” (*Sermons *179[104]:2 [A.D. 522]).

 

[Marybeloved]

Oh and apparently, it’s 1st John, not St. James.

 

[Vico]

In the spirit of the original question of this thread, which is:

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

**But I think the real question is does one put on Christ in that situation?

No!, one professes belief that the Body and Blood are of Christ, and expects healing of body and soul, but is not prepared to live the life, so is not an icon of Christ. Only after forgiveness is given* by God* through our request * for it while sincerely turning away from sin, through which we demonstrate our love of The Holy Trinity. (Matthew 18:18; John 20:22-23) Then are we prepared to cooperate with the Holy Spirit, that we may remain in holiness. It is not strictly necessary to receive the Body and Blood at that time, for we already receive the Holy Spirit when forgiven. Frequent confession and seldom reception of the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ was an ancient practice.

• The Church loosens or retains our sins so can say in what way absolution is certainly given, so we should cooperate with that.

The various arguments in this thread, touch on the topic of the declaration of absolution by the Church. As Catholics we share a common Mystery of Confession and Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t get the difficulty here, really. Mortal sin is more limited in the ways in which it can be forgiven than venial sin. It’s also more grave in its effects on the soul (death). Therefore it presents a greater urgency.

The difficulty was that I thought you said one thing but you insisted you didn’t say that so I had to ask again for clarification. I’m sorry.

It is a straw man- you’ve been complaining about this categorizations of sins and being prevented from communion as legalism. I showed you that the church had a strict categorization of sins and specific penances (including being deprived of communion for years, not just until confession)-

But I never denied that the early Church had penances for sins. I denied and still do deny that they divided sins into categories of mortal and venial, as such an understanding appears to be absent from the Fathers.

Then you start with show me where they had mortal vs venial (which I did-it’s right there in the Bible!)- You can’t ask me to prove what I didn’t claim-

Wait…what? You didn’t claim that, but you did show where it was in the Bible…? Am I missing something?

If that’s what you say, then the Bible and St James are legalistic? Creating a division between sins that lead us to death and those that don’t?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Bible or St. James. I am disagreeing with your interpretation of that Bible that you think proves that this distinction is Biblical. It is according to the interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church, but not that is not the only interpretation possible, and it is not the interpretation of the Fathers.

There is sin that leads to death and sin that does not lead to death- You’re telling me that’s not a distinction there in sins that kill you and sins that don’t? There’s interpretation and then there’s plain denial. The distinction is quite plain.

The wages of sin is death. Period. However you divide them is secondary to that ultimate reality, and indeed the Orthodox Church has not divided sins as ‘mortal’ or ‘venial’ in the first place.

Perhaps someone should have offered that advice to st James then, who apparently did bother to distinguish for us that some sins brings death to the soul where others do not, before he put it in scripture.

St. John did not, however, make the distinction “mortal” v. “venial”. That was a later Latin interpretation of what he did write. In trying to find Patristic commentaries on this concept, I found some (as here) that distinguished between voluntary and involuntary, but none that did between mortal and venial. Take that as you wish.

 

[dzheremi]

With due respect, I believe what we have here is an inability to see beyond the fact that some of the saints used the words mortal and venial. But what did they mean by that? Since the only one who actually literally wrote “there are mortal sins and there are venial sins” is Jerome, I think it is useful to not take that sentence in isolation but to look at what else he said:

We shall have to give an accounting for an idle word no less than for adultery.

What do you make of that in the context of the whole quote? Because it seems to support what I have been saying, namely that sin is sin is sin, and that the proper understanding of “mortal” and “venial” thus refers to their gravity (cf. the farthings example from the same quote), and not to an actual taxonomy in which this sin goes over here, that sin over there, such as the modern Catholic Church has developed from quotes like these and particular interpretations of the Bible. Why? Because we shall have to give an accounting for an idle word no less than for adultery. Again, maybe I’m out to lunch, but this seems to square with my previous understanding that the effect of sin is the same, even if the gravity of a given sin may be different than another (e.g., even if an idle word and adultery are not the same sin).

From CA

Basil the Great

“The clergyman who is deposed for mortal sin shall not be excommunicated” (*Canonical Letter, *canon 32 [A.D. 374]).

Pacian of Barcelona

“Stinginess is remedied by generosity, insult by apology, perversity by honesty, and for whatever else, amends can be made by practice of the opposite. But what can he do who is contemptuous of God? What shall the murderer do? What remedy shall the fornicator find? . . . These are capital sins, brethren, these are mortal. Someone may say: ‘Are we then about to perish? . . . Are we to die in our sins?’ . . . I appeal first to you brethren who refuse penance for your acknowledged crimes. You, I say, who are timid after your impudence, who are bashful after your sins, who are not ashamed to sin but now are ashamed to confess” (*Sermon Exhorting to Penance *4 [A.D. 385]).

Jerome

“There are venial sins and there are mortal sins. It is one thing to owe ten thousand talents, another to owe but a farthing. We shall have to give an accounting for an idle word no less than for adultery. But to be made to blush and to be tortured are not the same thing; not the same thing to grow red in the face and to be in agony for a long time. . . . If we entreat for lesser sins we are granted pardon, but for greater sins, it is difficult to obtain our request. There is a great difference between one sin and another” (*Against Jovinian *2:30 [A.D. 393]).

Caesarius of Arles

“Although the apostle [Paul] has mentioned many grievous sins, we, nevertheless, lest we seem to promote despair, will state briefly what they are. Sacrilege, murder, adultery, false witness, theft, robbery, pride, envy, avarice, and, if it is of long standing, anger, drunkenness, if it is persistent, and slander are reckoned in their number. Or if anyone knows that these sins dominate him, if he does not do penance worthily and for a long time, if such time is given him . . . he cannot be purged in that transitory fire of which the apostle spoke [1 Cor. 3:11–15], but the eternal flames will torture him without any remedy. But since the lesser sins are, of course, known to all, and it would take too long to mention them all, it will be necessary for us only to name some of them. . . . There is no doubt that these and similar deeds belong to the lesser sins which, as I said before, can scarcely be counted, and from which not only all Christian people, but even all the saints could not and cannot always be free. We do not, of course, believe that the soul is killed by these sins, but still they make it ugly by covering it as if with some kind of pustules and, as it were, with horrible scabs” (*Sermons *179[104]:2 [A.D. 522]).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Only after forgiveness is given* by God* through our request

The Eucharist is for the remission of sins.