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

[Bookcat]

ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA --Bl. Pope John Paul Encyclical

“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.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes:

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) etc etc as noted above).

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/

 

[TrueLight]

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/

What is meant by “can obtain omission?”

Bookcat thanks for your faithful work in citing these documents.

 

[Bookcat]

What is meant by “can obtain omission?”

to omit – means the absence of something - like I sin “by omission” if I do not do some duty I am to do (where as commission is when I do something I should not do)…

It is speaking about the need to confess them and have the absolved.

In the Roman Code of Canon Law it says basically the same but some different words.

See also the other Eastern Canons regarding the need for the Sacrament of Penance prior to Holy Communion.

 

[TrueLight]

to omit – means the absence of something - like I sin “by omission” if I do not do some duty I am to do (where as commission is when I do something I should not do)…

It is speaking about the need to confess them and have the absolved.

In the Roman Code of Canon Law it says basically the same but some different words.

See also the other Eastern Canons regarding the need for the Sacrament of Penance prior to Holy Communion.

So omission in this context equals absolution?

 

[Bookcat]

If EC’s truly believe that one can receive with a grave sin without reconciliation and if that is okay with the magesterium, then the policy should be applied equally across the Catholic Church.

That doesn’t help my faith, honestly.

Such is simply not the case --see the Eastern Canons – if one commits a mortal sin (serious sin, grave sin --same thing) one is required to confess and be absolved prior to Holy Communion.

Such an integral confession of ones serious sins – is the ONLY ordinary means to its omission --to basically ones reconcillation with God and the Church.

But now do some in the west not know this etc and do otherwise?? sure unfortunately such happens. East and West.

Unfortunately some have come to believe incorrect understandings in this area -be they Eastern Catholics or Roman Catholics.

But as to what is supposed to be - well that has can be seen in the actual documents of the Catholic Church (East and West).

One reason Catholic Answers exists I think – is to give what the Church Teaches and lives --and clear up misunderstandings.

 

[R_C]

Coming from the other thread, I had wanted to say: I can hardly believe that Orthodox Church - which is “almost in full communion with the Catholic Church” - helds such radically different beliefs with regards to the Holy Eucharist and to Reconciliation.

I did some basic research on this matter, that I would like to post.

St. Nicholas Cabasilas - Byzantine writer of the XIV century - wrote:

There are sins which are not mortal according to the teaching of St. John. And this is why nothing prevents those Christians, who have not committed sins separating them from Christ and leading them to death, from communion to Divine Mysteries and the participation to sanctification, not only externally, but in reality, for they continue to be living members united to the Head.

We see that he states how when we have committed “sins that are not mortal”, these sins “have not separated us from Christ” and that “nothing prevents us from communion”; which necessarily implies that if we had committed “sins that are mortal” then something would prevent us from communion.

Other Orthodox writings on these topics:

The mysterion of repentance
The sacred ceremony of repentance and confession has been practiced from the very beginning by the Church. The Christian confesses his faith and sin, especially before partaking of Holy Communion, as a spiritual preparation for communion with God. …] Absolution of sins is a divine act, for only God can forgive sins. In the Orthodox Church, the priest merely reads prayers, using verbs in the passive voice, invoking the remission of sins by God.

The mysterion of the Holy Eucharist
…] Spiritual preparation is necessary for the recipient “to prove himself”; otherwise, he “eateth…damnation to himself” (1 Cor. 11:29; cf. 1 Cor. 11:23-33).(link)

In conclusion, consider a Report to the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America by Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann, in which he states something very similar to the same point you are making, and goes even further when he dares to say:

This practice, natural and self-evident in the case of infrequent, once-a-year, communion, led to the appearance in the Church of a theory according to which the communion of laity, different in this from the communion of clergy, is impossible without the Sacrament of Penance, so that confession is an obligatory condition - always and in all cases - for communion. I dare to affirm that this theory (which spread mainly in the Russian Church) not only has no foundation in Tradition, but openly contradicts the Orthodox doctrine of the Church

What was the answer of the Holy Synod? That the report was received “with gratitude and approbation”, but the Synod did not fully agree with his statements on this matter. The entire document can be read here, but the following seems to be the most significant part:

Encyclical Letter of the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America
Therefore, practice of more frequent communion is encouraged in all parishes of our Church. In this connection, and for the purpose of deepening the spirit of repentance among the laity, in addition to individual confession, the practice of General Confession is also blessed …]

The General Confession is not a replacement of private confession, but is rather for those who commune frequently and who regularly make their private confessions, who realize the need in our times for a regular examination and cleansing of conscience and repentance.

Clearly the Synod encourages frequent communion and promotes General Confession for this matter - a practice that, from my viewpoint, has similarities with our Penitential Rite:

My brothers and sisters, to prepare ourselves to celebrate the Sacred Mysteries, let us call to mind our sins:
(all say) I confess to Almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters that I have gravely sinned…
May Almighty God have Mercy on us, forgive us our sins and bring us to everlasting life.
Amen.

However, the Synod clearly underscores that in no way this practice replaces private confession, but that, on the contrary, it is meant for those who confess regularly and, wishing to receive Communion more frequently, have a need for regular examination and cleansing of conscience and repentance. This encyclical underscores the need for the mysterion of Penance before reception of the Holy Eucharist, but it tries to ease the mind and conscience of those who - because of the different doctrine that does not speak of venial vs. mortal sins - may erroneously feel not properly disposed for Communion when instead they are.

 

[TrueLight]

Coming from the other thread, I had wanted to say: I can hardly believe that Orthodox Church - which is “almost in full communion with the Catholic Church” - helds such radically different beliefs with regards to the Holy Eucharist and to Reconciliation.

I did some basic research on this matter, that I would like to post.

St. Nicholas Cabasilas - Byzantine writer of the XIV century - wrote:

We see that he states how when we have committed “sins that are not mortal”, these sins “have not separated us from Christ” and that “nothing prevents us from communion”; which necessarily implies that if we had committed “sins that are mortal” then something would prevent us from communion.

Other Orthodox writings on these topics:

In conclusion, consider a Report to the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America by Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann, in which he states something very similar to the same point you are making, and goes even further when he dares to say:

What was the answer of the Holy Synod? That the report was received “with gratitude and approbation”, but the Synod did not fully agree with his statements on this matter. The entire document can be read here, but the following seems to be the most significant part:

Clearly the Synod encourages frequent communion and promotes General Confession for this matter - a practice that, from my viewpoint, has similarities with our Penitential Rite:

However, the Synod clearly underscores that in no way this practice replaces private confession, but that, on the contrary, it is meant for those who confess regularly and, wishing to receive Communion more frequently, have a need for regular examination and cleansing of conscience and repentance. This encyclical underscores the need for the mysterion of Penance before reception of the Holy Eucharist, but it tries to ease the mind and conscience of those who - because of the different doctrine that does not speak of venial vs. mortal sins - may erroneously feel not properly disposed for Communion when instead they are.

Great post RC!

I would love to see some responses to these quotes.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Coming from the other thread, I had wanted to say: I can hardly believe that Orthodox Church - which is “almost in full communion with the Catholic Church” - helds such radically different beliefs with regards to the Holy Eucharist and to Reconciliation.

Maybe it is the RC that has changed its doctrine. Even the Council of Trullo, which is basically the East’s Trent in terms of the amount of canons issued concerning beliefs and practices of the Eastern Churches, says that the Eucharist is for the remission of sins. And this is in the 7th century.

 

[R_C]

Maybe it is the RC that has changed its doctrine. Even the Council of Trullo, which is basically the East’s Trent in terms of the amount of canons issued concerning beliefs and practices of the Eastern Churches, says that the Eucharist is for the remission of sins. And this is in the 7th century.

For a second there I thought you were referring to my initials

Nobody here is questioning a few essential truths on which we both agree:

The Eucharist is for the remission of sins.

The Sacrifice of Christ is for the remission of sins.

Yet just like some of our Protestant brothers believe that by virtue of Christ’s death already forgave our personal sins and we do not need Confession, you are saying that simply consuming the Bread of Life forgives our personal sins and we do not need Confession.

Both things are gravely mistaken.

If either of these were correct doctrines, then Christ would have never said to the Apostles:

As my Father has sent me, so I am sending you …] f you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.

Do you realize that unless there is a very important need for Confession, Christ would not have given such an important mandate to His apostles? Also specifically to the Apostles and not to all of His disciples? To all His disciples gathered He commanded to “go and make disciples of all peoples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”. But to the Apostles He told to go, just like He went, not just to forgive, but to discern who is to be forgiven and who is not, based - as you yourself pointed out earlier - on whether the person has truly repented, for forgiveness cannot be granted to an unrepented sinner.

The matter is not “sin” for we have all sinned and we are all sinners. The matter is the kind of sin that takes away sanctifying grace from our souls. Remember that Christ is in the Eucharist, and it is still Christ that forgives sins: in the Eucharist He mercifully forgives all stains of sin remaining in our soul, but He chose to forgive mortal sins through his ministers - because they need to see whether or not we have repented.

If I kill somebody, will receiving the Eucharist obtain forgiveness from this mortal sin if I have not repented?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Coming from the other thread, I had wanted to say: I can hardly believe that Orthodox Church - which is “almost in full communion with the Catholic Church” - helds such radically different beliefs with regards to the Holy Eucharist and to Reconciliation.

I did some basic research on this matter, that I would like to post.

St. Nicholas Cabasilas - Byzantine writer of the XIV century - wrote:

We see that he states how when we have committed “sins that are not mortal”, these sins “have not separated us from Christ” and that “nothing prevents us from communion”; which necessarily implies that if we had committed “sins that are mortal” then something would prevent us from communion.

There is a major problem though, in interpreting Cabasilas. We need first to know what definition he uses for ‘sins which are mortal’. I do not know if he ever defines it, but even a quick glance at an annotated pdf I have of the pedalion shows that several different definitions of mortal sin have existed through the ages. Metrophanes of Smyrna, defined mortal sin in a very literal fashion, that is, sins which were punished under the Law with death. These sins would be like adultery, bestiality, sodomy, murder, etc. Anastasios of Sinai defines it as any sin which is committed knowingly. The Second Council of Nicaea defined mortal sin simply as sin which is not repented of. That certain sins cut people off from communion with the Church is not questionable. What is questionable is what sins have such an effect, and this is where the confessor must come into play, especially since one cannot interpret and apply the canonical tradition of the Church to himself.

Other Orthodox writings on these topics:

In conclusion, consider a Report to the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America by Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann, in which he states something very similar to the same point you are making, and goes even further when he dares to say:

What was the answer of the Holy Synod? That the report was received “with gratitude and approbation”, but the Synod did not fully agree with his statements on this matter. The entire document can be read here, but the following seems to be the most significant part:

Clearly the Synod encourages frequent communion and promotes General Confession for this matter - a practice that, from my viewpoint, has similarities with our Penitential Rite:

However, the Synod clearly underscores that in no way this practice replaces private confession, but that, on the contrary, it is meant for those who confess regularly and, wishing to receive Communion more frequently, have a need for regular examination and cleansing of conscience and repentance. This encyclical underscores the need for the mysterion of Penance before reception of the Holy Eucharist, but it tries to ease the mind and conscience of those who - because of the different doctrine that does not speak of venial vs. mortal sins - may erroneously feel not properly disposed for Communion when instead they are.

The deal with Alexander Schmemann needs to be contextualized a bit. At the time he was writing, infrequent communion was the normal practice. Canonically, all who abstain from communion for a certain period of time (it is very short, about two or three weeks) are to be excommunicated. Because of this, when infrequent communion became the norm, it was necessary that people be reconciled to the Church because of this canonical excommunication. The two wound up becoming connected, such that confession came to be seen as a prerequisite to communion. Alexander Schmemann rightly commented that both of these, infrequent communion and the rule of one confession for one communion, are foreign to the Tradition of the Church. His argument was that confession was originally only for reconciliation with the Church once one had been cut off for a sin which is mortal. I honestly am not seeing, however, where the Holy Synod disagrees with Schmemann. Your claim that they disagreed with him over the nature of General Confession is untrue, because Schmemann himself wrote: General Confession is not meant simply to replace individual confession, is not and must not be a substitute. It is only for those and those alone who, receiving communion often and regularly confessing their sins, realize the self-evident need for purifying their conscience, for repentance, for that spiritual concentration and attention which is so difficult to achieve in our modern life.
Considering the Synod’s decision to approve the reproduction and distribution of Schmemann’s report, I’m not seeing where they disagreed with him.

 

[mardukm]

Maybe it is the RC that has changed its doctrine. Even the Council of Trullo, which is basically the East’s Trent in terms of the amount of canons issued concerning beliefs and practices of the Eastern Churches, says that the Eucharist is for the remission of sins. And this is in the 7th century.

The fact is, there were sins for which one was actually excommunicated, and for which you could NOT partake of the Eucharist without confession and penance, according to the ancient canons of the Church (Canons from ancient synods of Antioch and Laodicia).

If your understanding of the Trullan Canon is true, then you have made the Easterns more similar to the Latins than you pretend on this matter, for this is in fact the same teaching Latin Catholics have regarding VENIAL sin.

So much for the “worlds apart” opinion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[twf]

The fact is, there were sins for which one was actually excommunicated, and for which you could NOT partake of the Eucharist without confession and penance, according to the ancient canons of the Church (Canons from ancient synods of Antioch and Laodicia).

If your understanding of the Trullan Canon is true, then you have made the Easterns more similar to the Latins than you pretend on this matter, for this is in fact the same teaching Latin Catholics have regarding VENIAL sin.

So much for the “worlds apart” opinion.

Blessings,
Marduk

Exactly! The Latin Church has not changed its teaching - over the centuries, the Church has simply come to a much more precise definition and understanding of what constitutes mortal vs venial sin. Receiving Holy Communion does indeed remit venial sin…as does a simple act of contrition, the pious use of holy water, or the penitential rite at mass. It should also be noted that the Latin Church does not teach that sacramental absolution is the only way to be forgiven of mortal sin - it is simply the normative way: a perfect act of contrition, with firm intention of seeking the sacrament of penance as soon as possible, also brings God’s full forgiveness. The problem is, as fallible human beings, we can never be fully certain if our contrition was perfect.

Someone noted that in the East, the sacrament of the sick also remits sin. This is also the Latin Church’s understanding, though verbal confession is always required when possible. A person on their deathbed, who is no longer able to verbally confess their sins, can be forgiven via the sacrament of the sick.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The fact is, there were sins for which one was actually excommunicated, and for which you could NOT partake of the Eucharist without confession and penance, according to the ancient canons of the Church (Canons from ancient synods of Antioch and Laodicia).

If your understanding of the Trullan Canon is true, then you have made the Easterns more similar to the Latins than you pretend on this matter, for this is in fact the same teaching Latin Catholics have regarding VENIAL sin.

So much for the “worlds apart” opinion.

Blessings,
Marduk

At the same time, the laity do not have the power to interpret and apply the canons as a confessor does (as a matter of fact, most of the laity are probably potentially excommunicated by the canons, simply because the canons are impossible to follow to the letter; who has not once violated Apostolic Canon IX or Canon II of Antioch, for example? There would be, then, many who receive unworthily, but this sort of thinking is untenable, I think, because being excommunicated in actuality by the power of the Church is a different thing entirely from being potentially excommunicated). Another interesting fact is that I have not found any canon within the Pedalion which gives a recommended penance for those who commune unworthily. It is undeniable that there is a greater grey area in Orthodoxy for what one is to do between committing a grave sin and seeing his confessor.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The fact is, there were sins for which one was actually excommunicated, and for which you could NOT partake of the Eucharist without confession and penance, according to the ancient canons of the Church (Canons from ancient synods of Antioch and Laodicia).

If your understanding of the Trullan Canon is true, then you have made the Easterns more similar to the Latins than you pretend on this matter, for this is in fact the same teaching Latin Catholics have regarding VENIAL sin.

So much for the “worlds apart” opinion.

Blessings,
Marduk

Definitely. I am not contesting that. I am just saying that the Eastern teaching isn’t as black and white as the Latin teaching that Confession is an absolute must prior to Communion. If one has sinned but not excommunicated, once can approach. I think the problem here is people are trying to understand the Eastern tradition through Roman goggles. It would never make sense because there are two completely different thoughts here.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Cavaradossi,

At the same time, the laity do not have the power to interpret and apply the canons as a confessor does (as a matter of fact, most of the laity are probably potentially excommunicated by the canons, simply because the canons are impossible to follow to the letter; who has not once violated Apostolic Canon IX or Canon II of Antioch, for example? There would be, then, many who receive unworthily, but this sort of thinking is untenable, I think, because being excommunicated in actuality by the power of the Church is a different thing entirely from being potentially excommunicated). Another interesting fact is that I have not found any canon within the Pedalion which gives a recommended penance for those who commune unworthily. It is undeniable that there is a greater grey area in Orthodoxy for what one is to do between committing a grave sin and seeing his confessor.

The Latin Catholic Church expresses a similar concern and answers it by either applying the principle of invincible ignorance to mitigate or indults to excuse. The principle of mercy really is present in the Latin Church despite its more juridic approach.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

Definitely. I am not contesting that. I am just saying that the Eastern teaching isn’t as black and white as the Latin teaching that Confession is an absolute must prior to Communion. If one has sinned but not excommunicated, once can approach. I think the problem here is people are trying to understand the Eastern tradition through Roman goggles. It would never make sense because there are two completely different thoughts here.

AFAIK, "venial sin’ is a pretty grey area (i.e., not “black and white”) according to the Latin concept. Really, I don’t see a radical difference here.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Exactly! The Latin Church has not changed its teaching - over the centuries, the Church has simply come to a much more precise definition and understanding of what constitutes mortal vs venial sin. Receiving Holy Communion does indeed remit venial sin…as does a simple act of contrition, the pious use of holy water, or the penitential rite at mass. It should also be noted that the Latin Church does not teach that sacramental absolution is the only way to be forgiven of mortal sin - it is simply the normative way: a perfect act of contrition, with firm intention of seeking the sacrament of penance as soon as possible, also brings God’s full forgiveness. The problem is, as fallible human beings, we can never be fully certain if our contrition was perfect.

Someone noted that in the East, the sacrament of the sick also remits sin. This is also the Latin Church’s understanding, though verbal confession is always required when possible. A person on their deathbed, who is no longer able to verbally confess their sins, can be forgiven via the sacrament of the sick.

Thank you for this more detailed explanation brother Tyler. It is explanations such as these, despite the more juridic approach of the Latin Church, that helped me realize, “Hey, you guys are OK. I don’t mind being in communion with you.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bookcat]

Question:In the Eastern Catholic Church, 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).

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/

 

[ByzCathCantor]

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/

Bookcat - thanks for posting this again. I know a question came up earlier about the word omission.

I’ll note that this is an excerpt from the Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, issued January 6, 1996 by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, under a section entitled .

The word “omission” is followed by footnote [74], which refers to CCEO Canon 720 § 1

Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the ordinary way by which the Christian faithful who is aware of a serious sin is reconciled with God and the Church; only physical or moral impossibility excuses one from confession of this type, in which case reconciliation can take place in other ways.

While this does not explain the use of the term, the cite gives further clarity regarding the question in the OP.

 

[Vico]

Bookcat - thanks for posting this again. I know a question came up earlier about the word omission.

I’ll note that this is an excerpt from the Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, issued January 6, 1996 by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, under a section entitled .

The word “omission” is followed by footnote [74], which refers to CCEO Canon 720 § 1

While this does not explain the use of the term, the cite gives further clarity regarding the question in the OP.

Full reference text.

Omit: from Latin omittere, from ob- away + mittere to send

This is the link for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches:

ewtn.com/library/curia/eastinst.htm

No. 88 is:**88. The sacrament of Penance and its ordinary celebration

**With motherly condescendence the Church continuously comes to meet human frailty allowing for new penitence after Baptism. In the framework of a life ever characterized by the full realization of the baptismal powers and of adhering to Christ, the sacrament of Penance occupies a privileged position and, in a special way, prepares for receiving the Divine Eucharist. 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.[75]

[74] Cf. CCEO can. 720 § 1.
[75] Cf. CCEO can. 719.

Canon 718
In the sacrament of penance, the Christian faithful who committed sins after baptism, internally led by the Holy Spirit, turn back to God, moved by the pain of sin, intent on entering 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 which they injured by sinning; by this sacrament they are brought to a greater fostering of the Christian life and are thus disposed for receiving the Divine Eucharist.

Canon 719
Anyone who is aware of serious sin is to receive the sacrament of penance as soon as possible; it is strongly recommended to all the Christian faithful that they receive this sacrament frequently especially during the times of fasts and penance observed in their own Church sui iuris.

Canon 720

1. Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the ordinary way by which the Christian faithful who is aware of a serious sin is reconciled with God and the Church; only physical or moral impossibility excuses one from confession of this type, in which case reconciliation can take place in other ways.
2. Absolution of many penitents at the same time without prior individual confession cannot be imparted unless:
   (1) the danger of death is imminent and there is not time for the priest or priests to administer the sacrament of penance to the individual penitents;
   (2) there is a grave necessity, that is, when in light of the number of penitents, a supply of priests is not available to administer the sacrament of penance to the individual penitents within a suitable time so that, through no fault of their own, they are forced for a long time to be deprived of sacramental grace or reception of the Divine Eucharist; it is not considered a sufficient necessity if confession cannot be readily available only because of the great number of penitents as can occur on the occasion of some great feast or pilgrimage.
3. The eparchial bishop is competent to decide when such grave necessity exists and can determine such a case of necessity with general prescriptions having taken counsel with the patriarch and eparchial bishops of the other Churches sui iuris exercising power in the same territory.

Also from Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches …

** 87. The penitential attitude permeates all Christian worship
** … The penitential attitude notably appears in many sacraments. Baptism, in fact, is given to us for the “blessed purification” of sins,[71] in the Divine Liturgy we offer “spiritual worship for our own sins and the faults of your people,”[72] approaching the Holy Communion in which we receive “the Body and the Blood of the Lord broken and shed for the remission of sins;”[73] the Anointing of the sick also procures the remission of sins (cf. Jas. 5:15).