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

[Bookcat]

and please note VICO speaks from a Eastern Catholic Church pew.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Bookcat,

I present what the Church does.

I do not wish to get into any more non-productive back and forth’s with some members.

Hence I simply post what the Catholic Church has indicated is to the case.

Including from Eastern Parishes and a Patriarch…

And some from other Eastern members here present who say the same…since some wish to “disqualify” me for being a Roman.

I understand what you are trying to do, but the Latin Catholic Church (much less the Catholic Church as a whole) is simply NOT all about laws.

I rather appreciate sister Marybeloved’s approach, who has balanced her posts by evincing the spiritual/mystical aspect of the Latin Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

and please note VICO speaks from a Eastern Catholic Church pew.

Pew? Latinization – is outrage!

 

[Bookcat]

Dear Bookcat,

I understand what you are trying to do, but the Latin Catholic Church (much less the Catholic Church as a whole) is simply NOT all about laws.

I rather appreciate sister Marybeloved’s approach, who has balanced her posts by evincing the spiritual/mystical aspect of the Latin Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

Yes I agree. But the laws there are to be followed (the reasons for the laws -both east and west-- can be read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church…)

And this question has been given a clear answer by the Church.

I am answering the question (or rather giving that of the Church).

As for spiritual and mystical aspects – I have been giving talks to a group recently on Prayer…from vocal to contemplative. Theology and within Theology – Spiritual Theology is one of my great loves (and I love theology so much that my degree is in theology from Steubenville).

But such was NOT the question here.

That question was straightforward and the Church’s straightforward answer was thus given.

 

[Bookcat]

Pew? Latinization – is outrage!

Pewus

 

[mardukm]

and please note VICO speaks from a Eastern Catholic Church pew.

Everyone here in the ECF appreciates brother Vico’s knowledge of Canon law, but with all due respect to him (sincerely), it really is not in the spirit of the Eastern or Oriental Traditions to SIMPLY quote the laws of the Church in consideration of ANY matter.

We appreciate brother Vico’s (name removed by moderator)ut since law is part of the life of the Church. But we understand his (name removed by moderator)ut as merely an aspect of the Church’s whole life in God. I trust brother Vico understands that.

I think the reactions you have been getting here is from the perception that you, as a Latin Catholic, do not understand that, nor that you understand the Eastern/Oriental perspective. And I personally think you have validated our perception in some of your posts. For example, it is simply not true that mortal sin=serious sin=grave sin, as you stated in an earlier post. “Serious sin” or “grave sin” from an Eastern/Oriental perspective is a lot more fluid concept for you to be able to make such an equality so blithely. And there are other examples that I am really not interested in enumerating for the sake of the post.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

But such was NOT the question here.

That question was straightforward and the Church’s straightforward answer was thus given.

Well, here’s a demonstration of your lack of understanding of the Eastern/Oriental perspective. We simply do not ever separate the laws of the Church from the spirit in which we are to live them. So I hope you can understand why your approach has been rather offputting to a lot of us here.

To repeat, this is why I appreciate sister Marybeloved’s approach.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

Well, I’ve been sitting this thread out, just watching (and sometimes smiling though more often grimacing), but I will offer a comment or two now. A friend warned me to continue to keep out of things like this, so I may or may not comment further.

Your arguments lose credibility, Bookcat, by your constant verbal vomit of canon law. Again, whose place is it to make such calls, East or West

Thank you for saying it so nicely. It was beginning to drive me up the wall too.

I think we have to admit that there is a disconnect between what the Church teaches and what many Latin Catholics live. But many Latin Catholics DO live their Faith according to the spirit as enjoined by Christ, and not “accoridng to the law,” so to speak …

I would venture to say that the bulk are in the first group with, unfortunately, only a minority in the second.

I think people like Dzheremi and ConstantineTG perhaps lived their lives with a juridical mindset while in the Latin Catholic Church, not finding nor living the mystical aspect of the Latin Church … They are coming at it from their own experience. I definitely agree with you, however, that they should not and cannot use their experiences to judge the Latin Catholic Church as a whole.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I’m not so sure that’s a correct characterization. One has to keep in mind that the RCC – and to my view particularly in these Novus Ordo days – de-emphasizes the mystical in favor of the legal, so if someone failed to “find the mystical aspect” I’d not be surprised.

I admit I have not lived the life of a Latin Catholic, and have only read about it. But from what I’ve read, I am impressed. I have never met “legalistic” priests or lay people. They only seem to exist on the I-net on message boards that debate about the Faith (which is probably understandable in that context, now that I think about it ).

FWLIW, I’ve lived for years in both worlds and, while I hate to say it, I’ve met more than my share of legal-eagle clergy (laity not so much except among rad-trads and on the internet boards). And that’s not only in the RCC. It saddens me greatly that a good number of them are supposedly Orientals, with a handful of Byzantines thrown in for good measure.

 

[mardukm]

(called either serious sins, mortal sins or grave sins in the Church documents)

Sorry. At this point, all I can say is “blah, blah, blah…”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

and please note VICO speaks from a Eastern Catholic Church pew.

This visualization perfectly explains the problems the Eastern Churches are suffering today.

 

[dzheremi]

Again you are trying to impose your own meaning of the words. Do you have any proof apart mere assertions that mortal sin does not refer to gravity of sin as opposed to venial? Do you want fresh citations about the meanings or are you simply bent on making assertions you can’t prove? Why do you think the words have to have some other meaning beyond what is, in your words, obvious and unrevealing? Simply because you’ve always assumed that it must? Please stay on. topic. We’re not discussing. the. word Catholic we’re talking about mortal and venial sin. It is your contention that it has changed in meaning in the church- please prove it, beyond your assumptions that it must have (seriously?) without any proof at all.

Prove that adjectives can be nominalized? Um…I use words every day…The word we’re actually talking about here (mortal) is a perfect example of that, etc. (see here, particularly the first definition, “mortal (n.)”)

As for “trying to impose (my) own meaning of the words” – definitely! I’m pretty sure I out-and-out said “this definition is acceptable to me; this one is not”, and I provided an example of why I think this reasonable. I’m sorry that you don’t like it, but it’s not off-topic, and nor is it something that needs many citations to prove, unlike your stance. If you have a dictionary handy, look up the phrase “mortal sin” (or venial sin). You’ll see that it’s a noun (e.g., a singular, concrete “thing”, to use the word that you were probably taught is signified by a noun in grammar school). Now look up “mortal”, and you’ll probably find that the primary definition is adjectival, meaning “subject to death” (there is also the secondary nominal definition of “a human being”. but that only developed as an extension of the original meaning, exactly like my “Catholic” example).

 

[mardukm]

It’s perhaps something like the difference between “mortal” conceived of as an adjective (as you have reminded me in a few posts in this thread, it means deadly, which is a good way to describe sin itself), versus “mortal” as a noun (as in the phrase “mortal sin”).

I admit I don’t understand your point. In the phrase “mortal sin,” the term “mortal” is obviously used as an adjective, not a noun.

You say “deadly is a good way to describe sin itself.” Are you saying ALL sin is mortal? Is that what you are getting from the Scripture? Yes, all sin should be confessed, but is all sin “mortal”?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Marybeloved]

Prove that adjectives can be nominalized?

No. Prove that the modern latin church has changed the meaning of the words mortal sins and venial sins from their use by the fathers, as you suggested.

As for “trying to impose (my) own meaning of the words” – definitely! I’m pretty sure I out-and-out said “this definition is acceptable to me; this one is not”,

Except the definition you claimed was purely your own creation with no place anywhere in the Latin church’s teaching.

and I provided an example of why I think this reasonable. I’m sorry that you don’t like it, but it’s not off-topic, and nor is it something that needs many citations to prove, unlike your stance. If you have a dictionary handy, look up the phrase “mortal sin” (or venial sin). You’ll see that it’s a noun (e.g., a singular, concrete “thing”, to use the word that you were probably taught is signified by a noun in grammar school). Now look up “mortal”, and you’ll probably find that the primary definition is adjectival, meaning “subject to death” (there is also the secondary nominal definition of “a human being”. but that only developed as an extension of the original meaning, exactly like my “Catholic” example).

So many words! Sigh…

But how has the modern Latin church evolved or changed the meaning of mortal and venial sins from their meaning as used by the fathers? Mortal sins kill the soul, venial sins though harmful don’t. The list of grave sins is the same today as in yester years. So I would really appreciate that you back up your assertions about the Latin church teaching on this distinction.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Dzheremi,

But how has the modern Latin church evolved or changed the meaning of mortal and venial sins from their meaning as used by the fathers? Mortal sins kill the soul, venial sins though harmful don’t. The list of grave sins is the same today as in yester years. So I would really appreciate that you back up your assertions about the Latin church teaching on this distinction.

I would also like to hear your answer. Marybeloved cited Fathers from when the Church was still united, as early as the 4th century.

Would you agree with brother ConstantineTG that this is a distinction that merits the statement from him that the Easterns and Westerns are “worlds apart” so as to justify disunity?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

Dear brothers PeterJ and ConstantineTG,

Can either of you please provide a quote from any Pope indicating that “Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics are the same”?

I can’t, at least at this point b/c I haven’t research the matter enough. I’ll just say that I wouldn’t be too surprised if the Pope (I assume we’re still talking about John Paul II) said something like that, given how pro-uniatism he was.

 

[Marybeloved]

I can’t, at least at this point b/c I haven’t research the matter enough. I’ll just say that I wouldn’t be too surprised if the Pope (I assume we’re still talking about John Paul II) said something like that, given how pro-uniatism he was.

Sorry to derail you two- but could you please explain ‘‘uniatism’’ to me? In this sub-forum it’s been used to imply something negative. Was the late Pope (Blessed) pro that?

 

[Bookcat]

In MISERICORDIA DEI Pope John Paul II repeated:

“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”

“…the Council of Trent declared that it is necessary “by divine decree to confess each and every mortal sin”.(7) The Church has always seen an essential link between the judgement entrusted to the priest in the Sacrament and the need for penitents to name their own sins,(8) except where this is not possible. Since, therefore, the integral confession of serious sins is by divine decree a constitutive part of the Sacrament, it is in no way subject to the discretion of pastors (dispensation, interpretation, local customs, etc.). In the relevant disciplinary norms, the competent ecclesiastical authority merely indicates the criteria for distinguishing a real impossibility of confessing one’s sins from other situations in which the impossibility is only apparent or can be surmounted.”

“All that I have decreed in this Letter is, by its nature, valid for the venerable Oriental Catholic Churches in conformity with the respective Canons of their own Code.”

Given in Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on 7 April, the Second Sunday of Easter, the Feast of Divine Mercy, in the year of our Lord 2002, the twenty-fourth of my Pontificate.

JOHN PAUL II

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_20020502_misericordia-dei_en.html

 

[dzheremi]

I admit I don’t understand your point. In the phrase “mortal sin,” the term “mortal” is obviously used as an adjective, not a noun.

“Mortal sin” is a noun phrase ((see here). “Mortal” is being used as an adjective, yes, but it is modifying a head noun (“sin”). That’s why we’re talking about a specific category of sin and not just sin itself.

You say “deadly is a good way to describe sin itself.” Are you saying ALL sin is mortal? Is that what you are getting from the Scripture? Yes, all sin should be confessed, but is all sin “mortal”?

Remembering that I do not recognize a division of sins into a taxonomy of different types, I am saying that sin itself leads to death. This is in the scripture, too, and I would argue is the dominant understanding of the subject (or else why didn’t the non-RC churches also recognize this taxonomy?).

 

[Peter_J]

Sorry to derail you two- but could you please explain ‘‘uniatism’’ to me? In this sub-forum it’s been used to imply something negative. Was the late Pope (Blessed) pro that?

Yes, I don’t think there can be any doubt that he was.

 

[dzheremi]

No. Prove that the modern latin church has changed the meaning of the words mortal sins and venial sins from their use by the fathers, as you suggested.

You’re not understanding my point, it seems. I do not think that the modern Latin Church changed the meaning (did you click the link to the etymology of “mortal” that I provided? I hardly think the 1520s counts as “modern”). I think this shift in meaning evolved rather naturally, and as a result when the modern Roman Catholic reads these old texts they are reading into them a modern distinction that did not exist at the time. It’s not a big cabal or whatever; it’s a natural evolution away from a common understanding of what the word originally meant (hence, the Orthodox Churches still have “one holy catholic and apostolic church” in their creed, without being confused as to what they mean).

Except the definition you claimed was purely your own creation with no place anywhere in the Latin church’s teaching.

Well, I’m not surprised that it is not anywhere in the Latin church’s teaching (for obvious reasons), but I beg to differ about the “purely my own creation” part. I did not create the history of the word “mortal” out of my own head in advance of this conversation. Heck, I wasn’t even alive in the 14th century (although some mornings, I do wonder…)

So many words! Sigh…

I’d send you the same points in smoke signals, but you’re too far away.

But how has the modern Latin church evolved or changed the meaning of mortal and venial sins from their meaning as used by the fathers?

Again, the fact that the words have evolved is separate (but related to) the Latin Church teaching. It is better to say that the Latin Church uses the nominal meaning that evolved from the adjectival in the 14th century, and hence reads uses of the term as support for the distinction that they make. But of course not every church makes that distinction, but every church (indeed, every person) can use the words in either sense – to support the taxonomy as in the Latin Church, or to talk about how not every sin is the same action (as I believe Jerome is saying).

So I would really appreciate that you back up your assertions about the Latin church teaching on this distinction.

I am talking about the evolution of the words paving the way for a particular understanding that is prevalent in the Western Christian mind. I have already provided sources that show that evolution. I don’t think there’s anything more I can do, honestly. Issanjose seemed to understand my point. Maybe ask him?