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

[lssanjose]

I don’t know why, but I’m really itching to go to Forgiveness Vespers. I keep hearing what an experience that is. I did get to go to an Orthodox funeral. The fact there aren’t private liturgies is really putting that communal emphasis into practice. I never met the deceased’s parents, but they were thankful I attended the vigil, and liturgy the day after.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I refer all readers to the Church.

And the Eastern Fathers, Confessors, Martyrs, Saints, Theologians, Monastics, Clergy, etc. are not part of the Church?

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat, once I emptied my latin cup, I’m able to fully taste the Eastern tea, in all its fullness, and richness, unadulterated, without latinization, in thought, word, deed, or attitude. I only advise you do the same. If you want to understand where CTG is coming from, empty your cup, so you can taste the tea I, and other Eastern Christians offer to the greater Church. There are separate canons for a reason. Although, I’ll admittedly point out an Orthodox friend who says the CCC heavily quoted our early fathers, who were more or less based eastward.

I would not empty my Latin cup --for I am a Roman. And nor will I empty the all that I bring over from the East. I live as a Catholic enriched by the riches of the whole Catholic Church.

As to the question at hand --the Catholic Church is correct and CTG here is incorrect. His tea there in this instance is not the right blend.

As to the Eastern Canons – yes they are there for a reason --and as I have noted (read one of my above long posts) – what I have been stating IS what the Canons of the Eastern Catholic Churches actually state.

As to the CCC --such is for the entire Catholic Church --a fruit of the last Ecumenical Council --a rich fruit for all of the Catholic Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Isn’t that in the Latin Mass also? I’m sure i’ve heard it before in one of the Eucharistic prayers, if any of my Latin brethren can validate.

Blessings,
Marduk

The pre-communion prayers only talk about worthiness, not specifically forgiveness of sin. By all measures and standards we are never worthy, but as we sing in the Divine Liturgy, we sing in praises to Christ for having made us worthy to partake of His holy, divine, immortal and life giving Mystery. By us alone we are never worthy, only with Christ are we made worthy.

Same with the Latin prayers, “Lord, I am not worthy… but only say the word…”

 

[Bookcat]

And the Eastern Fathers, Confessors, Martyrs, Saints, Theologians, Monastics, Clergy, etc. are not part of the Church?

Yes and they will tell one to follow the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would not empty my Latin cup --for I am a Roman. And nor will I empty the all that I bring over from the East. I live as a Catholic enriched by the riches of the whole Catholic Church.

As to the question at hand --the Catholic Church is correct and CTG here is incorrect. His tea there in this instance is not the right blend.

As to the Eastern Canons – yes they are there for a reason --and as I have noted (read one of my above long posts) – what I have been stating IS what the Canons of the Eastern Catholic Churches actually state.

As to the CCC --such is for the entire Catholic Church --a fruit of the last Ecumenical Council --a rich fruit for all of the Catholic Church.

Sorry Bookcat, but you will never get it. I don’t even know why you want to get into this discussion if you are stubborn enough not to look at the Eastern point of view. I’m not bothered by your false claims that I am wrong. I know what the East teaches, it is the spirituality I try to live. I am secure with it. I know what the teachers of the East have taught.

 

[Bookcat]

The pre-communion prayers only talk about worthiness, not specifically forgiveness of sin. By all measures and standards we are never worthy, but as we sing in the Divine Liturgy, we sing in praises to Christ for having made us worthy to partake of His holy, divine, immortal and life giving Mystery. By us alone we are never worthy, only with Christ are we made worthy.

Same with the Latin prayers, “Lord, I am not worthy… but only say the word…”

Yes when we are in a State of Grace.

If one has committed a serious sin --they need to go and confess it and be absolved first --then approach by the mercy of God the Holy Eucharist.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes and they will tell one to follow the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

They tell me to follow our traditions. Their teachings are only true if validated by teachings of others like them in the past, and we trace it all the way back to the Apostles. The Magisterium is not the sole authority of the Church. Magisterium cannot contradict Tradition. Our Tradition is what I have stated in this thread, the Magisterium is not superior to Tradition.

 

[Bookcat]

Sorry Bookcat, but you will never get it. I don’t even know why you want to get into this discussion if you are stubborn enough not to look at the Eastern point of view. I’m not bothered by your false claims that I am wrong. I know what the East teaches, it is the spirituality I try to live. I am secure with it. I know what the teachers of the East have taught.

I have stated the Eastern view --such is the way of* the Catholic Church* (which includes all the Eastern Catholic Churches). The Eastern Catholic Churches are not different in this respect.

 

[dzheremi]

One wonders why recent Roman popes have called for the Eastern churches with whom they are in communion to return to their authentic traditions and authentic spirituality if in reality they do not differ from that of the Roman/Latin church.

 

[Bookcat]

They tell me to follow our traditions. Their teachings are only true if validated by teachings of others like them in the past, and we trace it all the way back to the Apostles. The Magisterium is not the sole authority of the Church. Magisterium cannot contradict Tradition. Our Tradition is what I have stated in this thread, the Magisterium is not superior to Tradition.

There is confusion in your understanding here.

For example: your confusing various senses of the term “tradition”.

And the idea that one can not go to confession after a serious sin and go then to Holy Communion is simply NOT part of Sacred Tradition or Apostolic Tradition.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm#I

Catechism:

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

(not that I am saying that such would be part of a local tradition or not in some place)

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes when we are in a State of Grace.

There is no concept of “State of Grace” in the East, as defined in the West.

If one has committed a serious sin --they need to go and confess it and be absolved first --then approach by the mercy of God the Holy Eucharist.

That is not an absolute necessity in the East. It is good if one does make a confession first, but if they do not, then it is not how people will be judged of their worthiness of receive. See, the Eastern faith is not about specific acts taken separately from your whole life as a Christian.

Let us say you were baptized 10 years ago. You lived a spotless life for 10 years. Never missed Vespers, Matins and Divine Liturgy whenever they are offered in your parish, you make your confessions regularly, you fast whenever you are supposed to fast and more, you follow a rigid rule of prayer, etc. By all intents and purposes you are a saint in the flesh. Then one day you succumb to temptation and sinned gravely. One big sin in the last 10 years. Does that make you inelligible for Communion, say if this sin happened on Sunday morning before you leave home for Matins?

In the Latin legalistic approach, then yes. One mortal sin, confession then Communion. But in the Eastern praxis it is not. You are judged not by one act in isolation, but your whole life. We don’t pretend people are saints on earth. As long as we live on earth we are subject to passions, we can always fall into sin. The Eucharist is part of the entire Christian life that helps us fight sin by uniting us with Christ. We cannot fight sin without Christ. So as long as we are faithful Christians, there is the understanding that we can and will falter along the way. We are not denied the Eucharist for faltering. In fact, we need it more so that we do not falter!

Your Roman goggles forces you to focus on that one act and disregard the entire life of a person. The Eastern way is not like that. God is not petty in such that one can life a spotless life and commit one mortal sin at the end of their life and then go to hell for all eternity because they never got to confess.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I have stated the Eastern view --such is the way of* the Catholic Church* (which includes all the Eastern Catholic Churches). The Eastern Catholic Churches are not different in this respect.

You have never stated the Eastern view. You have kept insisting that the Roman view is the view of both East and West. We have our own praxis which the Popes have called for us to adhere to and revive. As dzheremi stated, if it is the same as the Roman praxis, why make that call?

 

[Bookcat]

There is confusion in your understanding here.

For example: your confusing various senses of the term “tradition”.

And the idea that one can not go to confession after a serious sin and go then to Holy Communion is simply NOT part of Sacred Tradition or Apostolic Tradition.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm#I

Catechism:

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

(not that I am saying that such would be part of a local tradition or not in some place)

 

[Bookcat]

You have never stated the Eastern view. You have kept insisting that the Roman view is the view of both East and West.

Actually I have. And yes it is basically the very same as the Roman here.

 

[Bookcat]

They tell me to follow our traditions. Their teachings are only true if validated by teachings of others like them in the past, and we trace it all the way back to the Apostles. The Magisterium is not the sole authority of the Church. Magisterium cannot contradict Tradition. Our Tradition is what I have stated in this thread, the Magisterium is not superior to Tradition.

There is confusion in your understanding here.

For example: your confusing various senses of the term “tradition”.

And the idea that one can not go to confession after a serious sin and go then to Holy Communion is simply NOT part of Sacred Tradition or Apostolic Tradition.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm#I

Catechism:

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

(not that I am saying that such would be part of a local tradition or not in some place)

 

[ConstantineTG]

There is confusion in your understanding here.

For example: your confusing various senses of the term “tradition”.

And the idea that one can not go to confession after a serious sin and go then to Holy Communion is simply NOT part of Sacred Tradition or Apostolic Tradition.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm#I

Catechism:

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

(not that I am saying that such would be part of a local tradition or not in some place)

Canons from the council of Trullo from the late 600s already state that the Eucharist is for the remission of sins. 1400 years is not part of tradition?

 

[dzheremi]

I know I’m not Catholic or Eastern, but I think the Coptic view is very similar or the same as what Constantine has presented. When I asked my priest about this issue (because, like I said in my first post in this thread, this is really a change in mindset for me), he told me (paraphrasing) “God forgives the sin, so do not dwell on it. Focus on the repentance.”

If we are truly repentant, that is where our focus is, not on whether or not we are worthy to take communion. We know we are never worthy…but God forgives the sin just the same, and the Eucharist is given to us sinners for eternal life, not only to saints.

 

[dzheremi]

I thought the Latins rejected Trullo? Maybe that’s where the tension lies…

 

[Bookcat]

That is not an absolute necessity in the East.

In the Eastern Catholic Churches --YES it is (the only exceptions are noted already in the long post above).

It is good if one does make a confession first, but if they do not, then it is not how people will be judged of their worthiness of receive. See, the Eastern faith is not about specific acts taken separately from your whole life as a Christian.

Let us say you were baptized 10 years ago. You lived a spotless life for 10 years. Never missed Vespers, Matins and Divine Liturgy whenever they are offered in your parish, you make your confessions regularly, you fast whenever you are supposed to fast and more, you follow a rigid rule of prayer, etc. By all intents and purposes you are a saint in the flesh. Then one day you succumb to temptation and sinned gravely. One big sin in the last 10 years. Does that make you inelligible for Communion, say if this sin happened on Sunday morning before you leave home for Matins?
Yes

In the Latin legalistic approach, then yes. One mortal sin, confession then Communion. But in the Eastern praxis it is not.
It is not a “legalistic” approach (and it is good to follow I will note the laws of the Church…) it is the approach of reality --one is DEAD. One is now no longer Holy. Holy for the Holy!

You are judged not by one act in isolation, but your whole life. We don’t pretend people are saints on earth.
Such has been noted to be being an incorrect approach by the Church --indeed by the Pope – yes one single serious sin changes ones “fundamental option” --yes one single serious sin changes ones soul

As long as we live on earth we are subject to passions, we can always fall into sin. The Eucharist is part of the entire Christian life that helps us fight sin by uniting us with Christ. We cannot fight sin without Christ. So as long as we are faithful Christians, there is the understanding that we can and will falter along the way. We are not denied the Eucharist for faltering. In fact, we need it more so that we do not falter!

actually --yes one must be reconciled first – yes one is to not receive.

Your Roman goggles forces you to focus on that one act and disregard the entire life of a person.
Catholic glasses. We do not disregard the entire life --but yes one mortal sin can change life into death. yes that is the Catholic Teaching

The Eastern way is not like that. God is not petty in such that one can life a spotless life and commit one mortal sin at the end of their life and then go to hell for all eternity because they never got to confess.

Can a person go to hell by ending his life with one mortal sin? Yes. As Jesus tells us we must Watch! we know not the day or the hour…Can God with his grace offer that person a last change right before death? sure --though we ought not presume on such.

And can a person “eat and drink condemnation to himself” and commit new mortal sin --by receiving the Eucharist without confessing as serious sin he just committed? It is a very serious matter (in all the Catholic Churches --both East and West)