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

[Bookcat]

See, you don’t even know what the issue is..

Huh? Have various misunderstandings. And confusing apples with oranges. Are western spiritualities different from eastern ones in part? yes sure. And they they are also the same in many ways. But that is simply not the question at hand here.

Here is the question and the answer that the Catholic Church gives to it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9756915&postcount=108

 

[Bookcat]

You say that Eastern Catholics are Catholics, meaning they should adhere to the Canon Law of Rome. Then you say that they are not Roman Catholics.

They are not the Roman Code of Canon Law they are the Code of Canons of the Eastern Catholic Churches

 

[Bookcat]

See, you don’t even know what the issue is..

Huh?

Are western spiritualities different from eastern ones in part? (and vice versa) yes sure…most certainly. And they they are also the same in many ways (and influence each other! ).

But that is simply not the question at hand here.

Here is the question and the answer that the Catholic Church gives to it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9756915&postcount=108

 

[twf]

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

You could be half asleep and not fully responsible for your actions. Genuine psychological addiction can also mitigate culpability (though the matter is always objectively grave). From the Catechism:

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

Which is to say…that the Latin position is quite grey and not black and white at all…at least on this point .

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think that here you are pushing the tertium non datur fallacy. Spirituality, theology and doctrines cannot be intermixed. Just within the Latin Church we have different types of spirituality, different theological understandings, and we still have the same doctrines. It seem to me that you even refuse to accept that some Orthodox Churches are not in communion with other Orthodox Churches and they differ on legal, theological, and spiritual aspects. There is not a single Orthodox spirituality, not a single Orthodox theology and not a single Orthodox set of canons that are completely uniform across the whole spectrum of the Orthodox Churches.

Tell me, how much do you know about the Orthodox Church? Have you picked up a book like Met. Kallistos’ “Orthodox Church” or “Orthodox Way”? Have you spoken to an Orthodox priest and asked these questions?

And so what if the Orthodox have other Orthodox not in communion with them? The Catholics have the SSPX, sedevacantists, Old Catholics, Anglican, etc.

Again, the Orthodox “way of life” is much different than the Catholic way of life. They don’t need to agree on everything as long as the essentials are the same. If there is something they need to agree on, they will call a council like what happened in the First Seven Ecumenical Councils, or other smaller councils if need be. They do not need to dogmatically define everything so it will be uniform for everyone, everywhere. As Orthodoxy is a way of life, the faith should be applied to people on how they live their lives. That includes cultural context and such. A one-size-fits-all solution is never ideal because we are never the same, especially on the cultural level. Even from the First Council of Jerusalem, a one-solution approach was never implemented. Why are we expecting such now? Again, your understanding is trying to fit a Roman mindset in a Church and faith that is totally foreign, totally alien to the Roman mind. What they do works if lived from their perspective, their approach, their way of life. It is like you are asking a Japanese man in Japan why is he living the way he is living because in America, the way of living is different.

They are not the Roman Code of Canon Law they are the Code of Canons of the Eastern Catholic Churches

The CCEO is a Roman Code. It was written by the Roman Catholic Church and forced on the Eastern Churches.

Huh?

Are western spiritualities different from eastern ones in part? (and vice versa) yes sure…most certainly. And they they are also the same in many ways (and influence each other! ).

But that is simply not the question at hand here.

Here is the question and the answer that the Catholic Church gives to it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9756915&postcount=108

And this is why I say that you simply do not get it. You are asking a question about Eastern spirituality and you are taking a Roman answer for it. If you want the honest answer about Eastern praxis you have to take it from someone who is Eastern. Otherwise, you will never get the truth.

 

[Bookcat]

The CCEO is a Roman Code. It was written by the Roman Catholic Church and forced on the Eastern Churches.

And this is why I say that you simply do not get it. You are asking a question about Eastern spirituality and you are taking a Roman answer for it. If you want the honest answer about Eastern praxis you have to take it from someone who is Eastern. Otherwise, you will never get the truth.

It is the Code of the Eastern Catholic Churches

Hum…gee some of what I posted was from an Eastern Catholic website…

You have come somehow to pick up various misunderstandings as to the nature of the Church and of course on the point of the question at hand. And the mixing of apples and oranges here does not help as others have pointed out.

(orthopraxis must follow orthodoxy and what I have noted is the orthodox and orthoprax approach --readers can see the fuller post below)

I will keep pointing out the answer that the Church gives.

The question that was asked has been given the answer that the* Catholic Church* gives --that of all the Catholic Churches that are in full communion with Peter.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9756915&postcount=108

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hum…gee it was from the Eastern Catholic website…

So if I put it on a Protestant website, then it is Protestant?

Fact is, the CCEO was written by the Roman Curia, the office of the Pope. They have the Congregation for the Oriental Churches headed by a Roman Catholic Cardinal. How can that be Eastern?

You have come somehow to various misunderstandings as to the nature of the Church and of course on the point of the question at hand. And the mixing of apples and oranges here does not help as others have pointed out.

Neither does insisting than an apple (Orthodoxy) is an orange (Catholicism) helps. Again, if you take a Roman approach to Eastern spirituality, it will never make sense.

(spirituality must be by the way be sound --orthopraxis must follow orthodoxy and what I have noted is the orthodox and orthoprax approach) (the understanding you have come upon is simply not the Catholic understanding here or practice).

But you are confusing that just because Eastern Catholics are Catholic, therefore they follow Roman Catholic spirituality. Many Eastern Catholics will detest that statement. Although I will admit that for one reason or another, that is how the practice is especially here in North America. But Eastern Catholic Churches came into communion with Rome with the understanding that we will keep our own spirituality and traditions as they were prior to communion. If you agree to that, then the only explanation of our spirituality is the Orthodox spiritualituy.

I will keep pointing out the answer that the Church gives.

The Roman Catholic Church does not represent Eastern spirituality. If they do, then we’d be in communion with the Orthodox.

The question that was asked has been given the answer that the* Catholic Church* gives --that of all the Catholic Churches that are in full communion with Peter.

Again, I pose the same question. What is the spirituality of the Eastern Catholic Churches? Roman or Orthodox? If Roman, you are correct. If Orthodox, I am correct. But ask the other Eastern Catholics, which is their spirituality.

 

[Bookcat]

So if I put it on a Protestant website, then it is Protestant?
a…it is a Catholic website not Protestant. It is an Eastern Catholic site teaching those who read it about themselves…

Fact is, the CCEO was written by the Roman Curia, the office of the Pope. They have the Congregation for the Oriental Churches headed by a Roman Catholic Cardinal. How can that be Eastern?
I do not know the actual authors – I imagine that Eastern Catholic hands were involved --but in any case such is the Code of Eastern Catholic Churches.

Neither does insisting than an apple (Orthodoxy) is an orange (Catholicism) helps. Again, if you take a Roman approach to Eastern spirituality, it will never make sense.

Your simply missing what Eastern Catholic Churches say is to be done here. What I noted is that. It is the Catholic way.

But you are confusing that just because Eastern Catholics are Catholic, therefore they follow Roman Catholic spirituality. Many Eastern Catholics will detest that statement.
Thankfully I have never made nor do I make such a statement. They are to follow what the Catholic Church says is to be done --which is the same here basically as what is in the west.

Again, I pose the same question. What is the spirituality of the Eastern Catholic Churches? Roman or Orthodox? If Roman, you are correct. If Orthodox, I am correct. But ask the other Eastern Catholics, which is their spirituality.

No again your misunderstanding the question and the answer that the Eastern Catholic Churches give --that the Catholic Church gives.

Again your bringing in “spirituality” which is not at issue --and furthermore what is noted is simply not Eastern Catholic Spirituality.

As has been noted in detail above --one is to go to confession first if one has committed a serious sin.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Classic example of the difference of East and West.

For the East, canons are just guides. They are not the be all, end all of the faith. The teachings of the Fathers, the traditions passed down, and the faith we live are greater than the canons.

In the West, canons are absolute. You do it or else!

One will never get Eastern spirituality if they think this way. The issue is indeed spirituality, because that is how faith is lived. If you think the issue is canons and not spirituality, then you do not get the issue from an Eastern mind.

 

[Bookcat]

Classic example

Such is simply not the case here. What ever authentic differences there are this is not one of them.

What is noted is simply the case in the Catholic Church. That goes for East or West.

 

[Bookcat]

Question:

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

Answer:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1457 … Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession.57 …

57 Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1647; 1661; CIC, can. 916; CCEO, can. 711.

The Catechism References there the Eastern Code of Canon Law 711 which goes into that one is not to receive the Divine Eucharist if one is conscious of serious sin (mortal sin) (outside the exceptional circumstance of a serious reason (grave reason), no possibility of confession, act of perfect contrition and resolve to go to confession as soon as possible–see the Canons for details).

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

And from the Byzantine Catholic Church in America website -from the Congregation for the Eastern Churches :

“In it, as affirmed by can. 718 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, the faithful who have committed sins after Baptism and resolve to lead a new life, “through the ministry of the priest, having themselves made a confession and accepted an appropriate penance, obtain forgiveness from God and at the same time are reconciled with the Church.” This confession, individual and integral, with absolution, constitutes the only ordinary means by which the Christian faithful aware of a serious sin can obtain omission.[74] Even if serious sins have not been committed, it is strongly recommended that all the Christian faithful frequently receive this sacrament, especially during times of fasts and penance.”

byzcath.org/

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

 

[Bookcat]

A line from a Homily from an Eastern (Byzantine) Catholic Priest I found online:

“Every time we receive Holy Communion conscious of a serious sin that we have not confessed, we lie to God.”

byzantinecatholicpriest.com/2-13-2011.htm

 

[Vico]

Such is simply not the case here. What ever authentic differences there are this is not one of them.

What is noted is simply the case in the Catholic Church. That goes for East or West.

I think you and I at least know that the canon law, east or west, is not absolute except where it is a matter of divine or natural law. The laws of the Church are not absolute, and exceptions are made through an indult. I know that the eastern canon law was created based upon older laws and it took about 100 years, and those that approved it were eastern Catholic bishops, as well as Blessed Pope John Paul II.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Hum…gee some of what I posted was from an Eastern Catholic website…

As the Administrator/Sponsor and the moderators have stated there many times, despite the common nickname and web address, it is not an exclusively Eastern Catholic website.

Notwithstanding, what you have quoted from it is a published work of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, a Curial entity.

Irrespective of the exchange here, Eastern Catholics may not receive unworthily if they are guilty of “grave sin”. Our priest so much as emphasized that with our 8th grade religion students this week, prefaced with a reading from 1st Corinthians:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 11:23-27[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[ConstantineTG]

Such is simply not the case here. What ever authentic differences there are this is not one of them.

What is noted is simply the case in the Catholic Church. That goes for East or West.

If we are forced to accept Canons contrary to authentic Eastern spirituality, then this is a classic example.

 

[lssanjose]

As the Administrator/Sponsor and the moderators have stated there many times, despite the common nickname and web address, it is not an exclusively Eastern Catholic website.

Notwithstanding, what you have quoted from it is a published work of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, a Curial entity.

Irrespective of the exchange here, Eastern Catholics may not receive unworthily if they are guilty of “grave sin”. Our priest so much as emphasized that with our 8th grade religion students this week, prefaced with a reading from 1st Corinthians:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 11:23-27[/BIBLEDRB]

To play devil’s advocate, brother ByzCathCantor, with this said, what place does the prayer prior to taking the body/blood have, when contrasted against this very passage? I just think of the phrases we say:

O God, be merciful to me a sinner.

O God, cleanse me of my sins and have mercy on me.

O Lord, forgive me for I have sinned without number.

Thanks, ahead of time.

 

[Vico]

One never rightly receives the Holy Eucharist without proper contrition.1 Cor 11
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number s]sleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.
33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment.
Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom

CELEBRANT AND CONCELEBRANTS: No one who is bound by carnal desires and pleasures is worthy to come to you, to approach you, or to minister to you, the King of Glory.

Later, before communion:
Holy gifts to holy people!
Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts:The presanctified Holy Things for the holy.

After receiving the priest says Isaiah 6:7:
Behold, this has touched thy lips and will take away thy iniquities and purge away thy sins.
This reception of the Holy Gifts by the Holy people keeps them in their holiness. We later sing:

May our mouth be filled with your praise, O Lord, so that we may sing of your glory. For you have deemed us worthy to partake of your holy, divine, immortal, pure, and life-creating mysteries. Keep us in your holiness so that all the day long we may live according to your truth. Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

 

[Marybeloved]

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.

Almost all sins we deal with on a daily basis are habitual. When they involve grave matter that you know is grave matter and no one forced you sit there and do it, you go to confession. The Church tells us that perfect love takes away mortal sin through perfect sorrow/contrition. Yet no one is permitted to presume this about himself and not go to confession. Yet some people can presume that sinning out of habit with full knowledge of the gravity of that sin needs not be confessed before receiving communion-How? It may be a venial sin or not, and your contrition may be perfect or not, yet I see nowhere the Church allows us to make these presumptions about it and excuse ourselves from confession when we knowingly committed an objectively mortal sin on our own initiative.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

To play devil’s advocate, brother ByzCathCantor, with this said, what place does the prayer prior to taking the body/blood have, when contrasted against this very passage? I just think of the phrases we say:

O God, be merciful to me a sinner.

O God, cleanse me of my sins and have mercy on me.

O Lord, forgive me for I have sinned without number.

Thanks, ahead of time.

There is no real contradiction. We are called to frequent reception of the Holy Eucharist, as it unites us with Christ and provides the grace necessary to continue in our path toward holiness. Yet, we are not perfect. We have sinned ad will likely sin again. We may receive worthily so long as we are properly disposed, meaning we have followed the precepts of the Church and are not “unreconciled” to / separated from God through commission of grave sin.

The priest prays, even at the very moment we receive the Holy Eucharist, that the “servant/handmaiden of God receives the Most Pure Body and Precious Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins and for life everlasting. Amen.” At the end, elevating the Chalice, he recites: “Behold This has touched your lips, taken away your iniquities, and cleansed you of your sins”.

All of the prayer, of priest and faithful, at the reception of the Holy Eucharist reminds us of our imperfection, the redemptive nature of the Holy Eucharist and the triumph of the Perfect Sacrifice, making eternal life possible despite our weakness and human frailty (all of this being additive to Vico’s post above).

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Reconsidering the question expressly stated in the title of the thread, common sense would dictate that the answer is “no” irrespective of how you look at it and through whichever lens, Oriental or Occidental. While the Holy Eucharist has redemptive power, to receive unworthily is in and of itself a most grave matter.

Despite everything mentioned hear, IMO and FWIW, we likely have a far greater problem in the Church in general of Catholics receiving the Holy Eucharist in a “casual manner”. The Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Holy Eucharist are not properly understood. Statistics on the belief in the Real Presence (or lack thereof) are alarming. There is absolutely no distinction between East and West among the Apostolic Churches in this regard.

Sacraments Today: Belief and Practice among U.S. Catholics - Executive Summary (2007)