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

[mardukm]

Exactly…that is the point. That’s entirely why I brought it up, as you had praised the Fathers (rightly, but with a wrong appraisal of today’s practice) for the strictness of their penitential practice. Well, here is St. Moses telling us not to glory in that, and he is far from the only one to do so.

Who did any appraising? Who said anything about “glorying” in the penance? I just stated a FACT - the penitential praxis of the early Church was greater than what any of the apostolic Churches today possess. Show me just one canon or custom from any of our Churches TODAY that would enjoin the deprivation of the Eucharist for 10 - 20 years, even after one has confessed one’s sins.:coffeeread:

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Marybeloved]

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 …

I didn’t know that there were circumstances you could receive communion without confession, having committed a mortal sin. I’ve always been taught that only perfect love of God takes away mortal sin, only other thing is confession. That you make an act of perfect contrition immediately you regret your sin and make arrangements to go to confession as soon as possible. If you are at mass, before the confession, then you don’t approach because only God can tell just how perfect your contrition is, you can’t just presume it.

Personally, I have always found it hard to believe that my acts of contrition are perfect acts of contrition, short of an infused contemplation that would make it so. I know that they are true acts of contrition, I don’t know that they are perfect. Since this stems from and is in fact the perfect love of God (for his own sake) in the soul of a sinner, I find it hard to convince myself that that’s what I’ve done. I’ve come to greatly appreciate the sacrament of penance because of this- a mere free gift, totally unmerited, but unconditionally offered to selfish souls like me, nonetheless.

Interesting to note, though.

 

[Marybeloved]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

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

Really, apart from Sunday obligation, Contracepting and willful impurity, I don’t know as a regular Catholic, what constitutes mortal sin as opposed to venial in a regular Catholic’s life (That is, assuming he’s not a murderer, abortionist, fornicator, adulterer etc). That line is so grey- just speaking from personal experience with penance here. There are things that the Church has clearly defined as grave matter- The category above. If you do these things willfully (consensually) with clear knowledge, you commit a mortal sin. That’s clear enough. But really, there’s a whole lot that is left in the grey area .

Speaking from experience, I had this issue/ struggle with temper and I found myself consistently confessing this sin for like a year, really to the point of embarrassment. It kept me from communion when I couldn’t get to confession in time because I just never knew, short of hurting someone, when that anger had crossed over to mortal sin. So I kept pestering the confessors about where that line was, how I was supposed to know when, in my temper, I had crossed over from venial to mortal sin, presuming it did not result in a concrete action that would be serious in itself (like trying to strangle someone!). They never gave me an answer, only that if I continued frequenting the sacraments, praying, communion, I’d eventually develop a reliable inner rada about when I had crossed that line or not. One ven told me point blank that only I knew in my heart, if I had committed mortal sin or not .

Add the fact that one who may not commit an actual mortal sin but persistently continues in venial sin unrepentant can find himself in that same state of separation from God- which is mortal sin- without doing anything that might be considered mortal sin! Very grey indeed! If we remember that mortal sin, venial sin, state of grace, perfection in their core are all states of the soul in its relationship/orientation to God- A state of the will, loving (more or less perfectly) or rejecting him, then we can see that it’s not as clear cut as many might think. That’s why we have the consensual and full knowledge requirements- They indicate whether one was actually rejecting God in those actions.

 

[Bookcat]

Interesting to note, though.

Such is when for serious/grave reasons…and with the other aspects I noted–among which is making the act of perfect contrition (out of love God above all) (no confession available etc) -thus not the norm --but in the sense of the exception.

As the CCC notes if one commits a mortal sins one must confess it prior to Holy Communion…no matter how contrite one is.

It is only in grave reasons etc that something else could occur.

 

[Vico]

…

Add the fact that one who may not commit an actual mortal sin but persistently continues in venial sin unrepentant can find himself in that same state of separation from God- which is mortal sin- without doing anything that might be considered mortal sin! …

This is not possible since sins are per occurrence rather than cumulative. A mortal (or serious sin) is through an informed decision to be uncharitable towards God (which includes your neighbor, because it is a command to be charitable to your neighbor). In fact one only has to firmly decide to do the sin of commission or omission, to be guilty of it. Any other fault is not-serious, that is, it is venial.

 

[Marybeloved]

This is not possible since sins are per occurrence rather than cumulative. A mortal (or serious sin) is through an informed decision to be uncharitable towards God (which includes your neighbor, because it is a command to be charitable to your neighbor). In fact one only has to firmly decide to do the sin of commission or omission, to be guilty of it. Any other fault is not-serious, that is, it is venial.

An unrepentant persistence in what is objectively venial sin, done long enough might indicate just such a decision which is the failure of love that makes mortal sin- I’m pretty sure I’ve read this in Catholic spiritual books more than once though I can’t come up with a title off the bat. But I’m definitely searching for it because I’m pretty sure I read it.

 

[Bookcat]

An unrepentant persistence in what is objectively venial sin, done long enough might indicate just such a decision which is the failure of love that makes mortal sin- I’m pretty sure I’ve read this in Catholic spiritual books more than once though I can’t come up with a title off the bat. But I’m definitely searching for it because I’m pretty sure I read it.

Such can “lead” to one falling into a mortal sin eventually. It can “dispose” us for such a fall.

Catechism:

1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. “Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm#IV

 

[Aramis]

Right Grave sin =serious sin =mortal sin --the terms are interchanged in the Catholic Church for the same thing. The differing terms only bring emphasis to different aspects of the same thing.

Not exactly. In the Roman context - a grave sin is only a mortal sin if one is culpable for ones actions in committing that sin.

The whole culpability angle is absent in the East… if you did it, repent it and confess it.
In the west, sins which constitute habituated offenses are not mortal sins, but are still grave, and don’t bar reception even tho grave, provided the individual is remorseful, and attempting to reduce or eliminate the habit. The most common case for this is habitual masturbation…

The east doesn’t usually concern itself with the causes - the effect is still a sin, a rent from God.

And further, in most of the East, confession is requisite before each communing. Not just weekly, not just “no grave sins” - but confession within 24 hours prior to communing is the tradition, often as little as 12 hours before (after vespers Sat Night or either side of Sunday matins.) Many ECCs in the US have become lax in that praxis.

 

[Marybeloved]

Not exactly. In the Roman context - a grave sin is only a mortal sin if one is culpable for ones actions in committing that sin.

The whole culpability angle is absent in the East… if you did it, repent it and confess it.
In the west, sins which constitute habituated offenses are not mortal sins, but are still grave, and don’t bar reception even tho grave, provided the individual is remorseful, and attempting to reduce or eliminate the habit. The most common case for this is habitual masturbation…

I’ve seen this idea expressed at CAF before- Do you have citations?

What I find most disagreeable is this idea that mere remorse without confession will permit you to approach the alter, even if you knew it was mortal sin when you did it and no one forced you? From what I was taught, this sounds wrong- You can’t just give yourself a pass simply because you have a bad habit, and assume that your choices were not free. Unless it’s some real dis-order, honestly this is very presumptuous. It’s true that only God can weigh the strength of the temptation vs your resistance at the time and possible escape routes availed to you, and your true culpability- and it may not amount to mortal sin after-all, But if something is grave matter and we have full knowledge and there’s no clear impediment to the exercise of free will in escaping, we shouldn’t just excuse ourselves from confession by saying ‘‘It’s a habit!’’

 

[Bookcat]

Not exactly.

Yes exactly.

In the Catholic Church: mortal sin =serious sin = grave sin.

Each term brings out a different aspect but these terms are for the same object.

Grave sin does not “become a mortal sin” when on is culpable anymore than mortal sin becomes a grave sin or a mortal sin becomes a serious sin.​

One can speak on the objective level using all three terms:

Mortal sin, Serious sin, Grave sin

The Church uses these terms in two senses (and objective if you will and a subjective). And in both senses the terms grave sin, mortal sin, and serious sin are interchangeable.

Here are the two senses:

1. Objective sense

Murder is a grave sin.
Murder is a serious sin.
Murder is a mortal sin.

(all three mean the same)

this is one way the Church use the term. Talking about the ‘moral object’ of the act or the ‘objective kind of sin’. Referring to the object itself. Like if I said…do not commit murder for that is a mortal sin.

Then there is this way…

1. Subjective sense…

I committed the grave sin of Murder
I committed the serious sin of Murder
I committed the mortal sin of Murder

(all three mean the same)

This is speaking of when the thing I committed is grave matter …done with full knowledge and deliberate (complete) consent.

Both are true. Both are ways the terms get used in Church documents

---

Ordinarily I tell people “such and such is a grave matter” for mortal sin and if one does it with full knowledge and complete consent…then one commits a mortal sin (one could use the other two terms here too).

 

[mardukm]

Yes exactly.

In the Catholic Church: mortal sin =serious sin = grave sin.

Each term brings out a different aspect but these terms are for the same object.

Not exactly. And brother Aramis explained it quite well. Those terms are not perfectly equivalent.

At least in my Coptic tradition, every sin is serious enough to confess, even those that the Latins might consider only “venial” (though, as stated, “venial sin” is really a grey area). If it weighs on our conscience, confess it, for confession is a medicine.

I think the explanation in your last post is pure semantics.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bookcat]

Not exactly.

Yes exactly (well of course bringing out different aspects)

They are synonyms …yes bringing out different aspects of the same object.

Some examples of usage:

A Few Examples:

CCC1385: “Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.”

From: The Compendium of the Catechism issued by Pope Benedict XVI

"304. Which sins must be confessed?

1456

All **grave sins **not yet confessed, which a careful examination of conscience brings to mind, must be brought to the sacrament of Penance. The confession of serious sins is the only ordinary way to obtain forgiveness." (see also both codes of Canon Law …the terms are used there too).

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.

(note the above used Two to mean the same thing in the same paragraph in the above…)

“However, it must be remembered that the church, guided by faith in this great sacrament, teaches that no Christian who is conscious of** grave sin** can receive the eucharist before having obtained God’s forgiveness.”

Pope John Paul II Reconciliatio et Paenitentia 17

In MISERICORDIA DEI Pope John Paul II noted also 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

Since “the faithful are obliged to confess, according to kind and number, **all grave sins **committed after Baptism of which they are conscious after careful examination and which have not yet been directly remitted by the Church’s power of the keys.

And in a speech from Pope John Paul II

“The sacrament of Penance is meant to take away personal sins committed after Baptism: first of all mortal sins, then venial. If the penitent has committed more than one mortal sin, they can only be remitted all at once. In fact, the remission of serious sin consists in the infusion of the sanctifying grace which has been lost, and grace is incompatible with any and every** serious sin**. Venial sins are to be regarded differently…”

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.”

And if one looks at the respective Codes of Canon Law -both the Roman Code and the Eastern code they say basically the same thing --but use the different terms “serious sin” and “grave sin” to mean the same thing as do these other documents here.

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/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/october/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051015_meeting-children_en.html

In another place he said:

“The faithful, in their turn, must seek to receive and to venerate the Most Holy Sacrament with piety and devotion, eager to welcome the Lord Jesus with faith, and having recourse, whenever necessary, to the sacrament of reconciliation so as to purify the soul from every grave sin.” vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20070511_canonization-brazil_en.html

 

[twf]

I think people are confusing grave sin and grave matter. Bookcat is correct - the Catechism and Canon Law tend to use grave sin and mortal sin interchangeably. In the Latin context, however, a sin involving grave matter can still be a venial sin, as oppposed to a mortal or grave sin if full consent of the will or full knowledge are lacking.

If I masturbate out of habbit and without full consent of the will, the matter is grave, but the sin may be venial. If I masturbate knowingly and deliberately, both the matter and the sin is grave/mortal.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I think people are confusing grave sin and grave matter. Bookcat is correct - the Catechism and Canon Law tend to use grave sin and mortal sin interchangeably. In the Latin context, however, a sin involving grave matter can still be a venial sin, as oppposed to a mortal or grave sin if full consent of the will or full knowledge are lacking.

If I masturbate out of habbit and without full consent of the will, the matter is grave, but the sin may be venial. If I masturbate knowingly and deliberately, both the matter and the sin is grave/mortal.

I’d be surprised if you’d find many ECs and EOs/OOs who would say this would not be confessed.

 

[lssanjose]

Not exactly. And brother Aramis explained it quite well. Those terms are not perfectly equivalent.

At least in my Coptic tradition, every sin is serious enough to confess, even those that the Latins might consider only “venial” (though, as stated, “venial sin” is really a grey area). If it weighs on our conscience, confess it, for confession is a medicine.

I think the explanation in your last post is pure semantics.

Blessings,
Marduk

Brother Marduk,

Christ is in our midst!

Well said, as I’ve learned to look at confession, in the aforementioned manner.

And, regarding sin, in general, I think this is another healthy way to look at it. Sin is sin: you’re still missing the mark. It’s just the individual instances of how badly off the mark one is. However, the effects are the same: separation from God; separation from the mystical body of Christ, and so on. That’s why I try not to split hairs over the categorization of the types of sin. Just confess it, and I believe, your spiritual father will be able to discern among those sins confessed, which are grave, and which are gray area sin (I think this was already touched up on, by another poster, previously)

 

[lssanjose]

I’d be surprised if you’d find many ECs and EOs/OOs who would say this would not be confessed.

Agreed, brother ByzCathCantor.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think people are confusing grave sin and grave matter. Bookcat is correct - the Catechism and Canon Law tend to use grave sin and mortal sin interchangeably. In the Latin context, however, a sin involving grave matter can still be a venial sin, as oppposed to a mortal or grave sin if full consent of the will or full knowledge are lacking.

If I masturbate out of habbit and without full consent of the will, the matter is grave, but the sin may be venial. If I masturbate knowingly and deliberately, both the matter and the sin is grave/mortal.

I think you gave a poor example. I mean, how can that be accomplished without full consent? You do it to yourself!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Again let me reiterate that the problem here is that people look at the Eastern (Orthodox) practice with Roman goggles. That makes is not make sense, or they start to rationalize how the Eastern way is the same as the Western way. But it is not. It is seen from a different perspective and a totally different mentality. In Orthodoxy what qualifies you to receive the Eucharist is Baptism (which agiain in the Orthodox context always includes Chrismation). We are all in a journey towards perfection which can only be done with Christ. There is no direct between making confession and receiving Communion. It does not mean you do not need Confession, you need to to be able to achieve the goal (Theosis). It is like eating and drinking, do you eat first or do you drink first? It doesn’t matter, but to live you need to do both. But to say you need to do one first over the other, it does not make sense in the Orthodox faith. If you have sinned but you are resolved to repentance (that is, reform your life) and you can still approach. If one is a fornicator and one does not want to change that lifestyle, then of course that person is unworthy. But if that person is committed to change, but has a lapse and falls into sin, then that person can still receive because that person needs the spiritual strength to be able to conquer that passion.

We can’t treat the Eastern approach to faith with the same black and white approach as the West has decided to take with her faith and spirituality. It is a completely different mindset. Just read the first chapter of Met. Kallistos’ Orthodox Church, he reiterates how different the Orthodox mindset is from the Western mindset that even the things that look the same, aren’t.

And if you are an Eastern Catholic who is committed to live the Eastern spirituality, this is the Eastern spirituality. Its not Canon Law and Magisterial documents, the Eastern spirituality is built upon the expeirence of the teachers and Fathers of the East from the faith handed down to us from the Apostles. You can’t legislate against that. If you do, then it is not Eastern spirituality you are living, but rather you are just following the motions of Eastern traditions but the spirituality is hollow. You are actually living Western spirituality and you are nothing more than a Roman Catholic with Eastern Liturgies and traditions, but not spirituality and faith.

 

[dzheremi]

^ Spectacular, fantastic…should be required reading before even posting on the Eastern subforum. And although I am an “Oriental”, not an “Easterner” (as we understand those terms to mean, in terms of communion), the same goes for those who would like to make Oriental Christianity (that is to say, the traditions of the Copts, Syriacs, Ethiopians, etc.) beholden to Latin dogma, process, speculation, or whatever you’d call it. Respect our churches’ right to follow their traditional spirituality, whether in terms of monasticism, Christology, ecclesiology, soteriology, or any other way of thinking in which we might differ. It is, I should hope, a solidly Catholic principle.

 

[Bookcat]

Let me reiterate:

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/

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.”

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”.

"304. Which sins must be confessed?

1456

All grave sins not yet confessed, which a careful examination of conscience brings to mind, must be brought to the sacrament of Penance. The confession of serious sins is the only ordinary way to obtain forgiveness." (see also both codes of Canon Law …).

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

Such is consistent with the Teaching of Sacred Scripture --being both the Inspired Word of God and the writings of the Apostle Paul. Which has been handed down through 2000 years…