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

[lssanjose]

I just thought about this now, so I apologize in advance, for any disjointedness of thought. What we’re discussing, throughout the last 20 some odd pages, only underscores the importance of having a spiritual father, in the eyes of Eastern Catholics, and other Eastern Christians. And yes, I’ve been taught a spiritual father is distinct from what’s commonly called a spiritual director. Spiritual father, implies an actual relationship with your confessor.

This in mind, it’s important to keep contact regularly. As already discussed, they should know, and one should tell the spiritual father, of essential details surrounding his/her life. That way, they can see, on behalf of the confessee, whether or not someone was truly in the state of mortal, or grave sin. It’s their call to make, not the laity’s. If the spiritual father finds gravity in your transgressions, then he’ll make the call for the person in question to have a formal confession. At least, this is from my limited understanding.

if you’re in a known state of mortal, or grave sin; and aren’t repentant about it, then no, you shouldn’t partake in the mystical supper. The key is, confessing informally to your spiritual father about what’s bogging you down, in your mind.

 

[lssanjose]

A crisis (one of many in the Church’s long History) that has taken the Church too long to begin to address (which thankfully is changing)- a sad thing indeed. Yet the Latin Church retains its teaching, traditions and if you’re genuinely interested, you will find them. The spiritual traditions are retained still in many places (though not enough obviously) and really Catholics can find them if they want. Even reading the Newadvent Catholic Encyclopedia alone that many in these subforum love to hate will dispel a lot of these false notions.

only underscores my point about referendum, further , sister marybeloved. I’ve met very devoted Latin rite catholics, among the elderly. I guess that’s why I treasure their association a little more than people of my own age demographic, to be honest. They have something most, these days, don’t have.

At the same time, I did read some of what brother Phillip Rolfes, and others discussed in the Liturgy and Sacraments section of this site. Basically, their concern wasn’t so much about devotions, but rather, liturgical traditions, like the Liturgy of the Hours, and what have you.

Secondly, I notice a disconnect between feast days, and the laity, within the greater Latin rite laity. I think a large part of this is lost within mainstream Latin rite Catholicism; and is something I’ve been filled with joy to discover, as I travel Eastward.

 

[Marybeloved]

I just thought about this now, so I apologize in advance, for any disjointedness of thought. What we’re discussing, throughout the last 20 some odd pages, only underscores the importance of having a spiritual father, in the eyes of Eastern Catholics, and other Eastern Christians. And yes, I’ve been taught a spiritual father is distinct from what’s commonly called a spiritual director. Spiritual father, implies an actual relationship with your confessor.

This in mind, it’s important to keep contact regularly. As already discussed, they should know, and one should tell the spiritual father, of essential details surrounding his/her life. That way, they can see, on behalf of the confessee, whether or not someone was truly in the state of mortal, or grave sin. It’s their call to make, not the laity’s. If the spiritual father finds gravity in your transgressions, then he’ll make the call for the person in question to have a formal confession. At least, this is from my limited understanding.

if you’re in a known state of mortal, or grave sin; and aren’t repentant about it, then no, you shouldn’t partake in the mystical supper. The key is, confessing informally to your spiritual father about what’s bogging you down, in your mind.

What do you mean confessing ‘informally’ vs ‘formally’? There’s some ‘‘legalism’’ for you!

When I’m not sure of my culpability, I go to confession. I tell the priest everything. He will tell me what is mortal or not and if there’s some scrupulosity that’s impeding my reception of the sacraments, he’ll dispel it and the next time I’m in that situation, I wont per his advice, fore-go communion.

 

[dzheremi]

Wow, problem with it or not, I have never heard such a thing… Where did this priest get his ideas?

That our sins should bring forth occasion to reflect upon the state of our relationship with God, and the obstacles that they present in entering into union with Him in His holy Eucharist? I don’t know…maybe it’s just something I dreamed up in my crazy Oriental mind. I would think that this would be an uncontroversial point, however (hence my having no problem with it when I was told that if you miss confession and have something to confess, you do not approach for communion).

I was actually under the impression that we were, for once, simply engaged in a rather pleasant cordial exchange

Oh good, me too!

I know what it is, but in this instance (communion in mortal sin without prior confession) this economia is not practiced except in very serious circumstances that genuinely deprive one of the options normally available to Catholics (to go to confession)

All economia is practiced in serious circumstances (keeping in mind that we don’t have a separation of sins into different categories), because if you have a rule that someone cannot follow, it is a serious problem for their spiritual development. That is why it is modified in the first place, because we work to do what we can do, not to burn ourselves out trying to do what we can’t.

It’s just Latins adhering to their practice as always, why do we have to give it a label?

To illustrate how its character is its own? I don’t know. I guess we don’t, if you don’t have to, but I have to keep calling it something, to the extent that it differs.

This makes no sense. Do you see non-orthodox individuals who may want to receive in your church as persons or just as a category?

The only non-Orthodox people who attend our liturgies know not to receive, so I am not sure how to answer this one. Every person is a person, and their being able/eligible to receive communion in the COC has to do with their baptism first and foremost (since you’ve brought up non-Orthodox, this is the distinction we would make), and not really to do with their “state”, since of course we have no stated opinion on the sacraments of those outside of our communion.

This just seems to say that if a rule is strict, then the people are not seen as persons but as fitting into categories.

No, I mean to say that the category of properly disposed vs. not properly disposed (which I would think is a pretty good category, as categories go ) is determined with reference to mortal sin (which is not even a concept we have), so if you do X, you can’t receive communion, but if you do Y, you can. So it is fitting people into a conceptual category, rather than, as Constantine has put it, looking at their whole lives and seeing where they are, which is how we do it, too.

I’m sure our absolute prohibition against homosexual affairs does not mean that we do not see the individuals who deal with this as merely fitting categories instead of as persons.

I’m not seeing the connection. Are we talking past each other by this point?

Again, it makes no sense to me.And in ten years of Catholicism I have never once heard a Roman Catholic priest ask people if they are in a state of grace!

Ah, indeed! Neither did I…but…is this the operative principle by which a person is told he may either receive communion or abstain coming up to receive? I think it is. It’s not even bad as an operative principle, either, it’s all in how it is approached. If it is approached categorically, then I think it is wrong, but if it is approached holistically (hat tip to Issanjose; great way to put it!), then it is right.

In fact no Catholic priest presumes to deny persons who present themselves for communion, they’re all presumed to be there because they are well prepared. This teaching is for everyone’s personal consideration before approaching the alter, not for priests to start inquiring of people

Oh, I know. I always marveled during my days as a Latin Catholic at how people could show up for Easter or Christmas but not during the rest of the year, and still take communion. May the Lord have mercy upon those who receive in error or confusion. In some ways I guess you could say that the Latin approach is more difficult as it is mostly self-directed, whereas in the East it is in consultation with your spiritual father who will deny you if there is reason to. If you will be given at all times, as in the Latin Church, who will measure your progress? I wouldn’t want to measure my own, that’s for sure.

I have been going to confession regularly for six years now. I don’t get what fixed penances you’re referring to

Forgive me for not being clear, I was referring here to the mortal v. venial sin distinction again. You did this X number of times, so do X number of (hail Marys, glory be’s, whatever). If my father in the COC said that to me, I think I’d fall of out of my chair. But I remember those types of penances being assigned in the RCC, along with other types (e.g., practice a certain virtue).

I’m beginning to think you just never had a good or authentic Latin experience, five years or not. Not like mine anyway.

Well if yours is the only authentic way, then maybe not, but I think my priests in the RCC did a good job, usually. I would hate to chalk up my own apostasy to some supposed incompetence on their part, when that is not even something I entertained when I first began to sense that I could not honestly remain a Catholic.

 

[ConstantineTG]

LOL. Certainly St. John Chrysostom, who is an Eastern Father by the way, said what is consistent with Eastern (Orthodox and Catholic) spirituality. He never said anything about mortal sins. If interpreted in Latin legalism you will get Bookcat’s conclusion of course. But that is not the right conclusion nor what St. John meant. As I stated, the corruption is based on the entire life of the person, not one act. The Latin Church teaches one act is all it needs. That is not the Eastern way, that is not the Eastern belief. Falsely interpreting the teaching of the Fathers does not make one right. It is just a Protestant approach to take things in context and make it mean what one intends to make it mean. That also is not the Eastern way. To understand one comment or one homily, it is taken in context of the entire life of the Church, all the teachings of all the teachers, Apostles, Fathers, monks, theologians, etc. That is why the Orthodox do not believe in Papal Infallibility. One cannot arbitrarily, right there and then, decide what is or what is not. One cannot have a change of interpretation on one teaching and change the course of the entire Church. If we are indeed guided by the Holy Spirit, we do not get impulses of Truth that happens right there and then. We see it throughout the history of the Church, through our TRADITION. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Therefore His teachings should also be the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. It cannot be different in the First Millennium and then different today at the dawn of the Third Millennium just because someone says so. Is that someone above Jesus Christ?

St. John Chrysostom isn’t talking about one act of mortal sin. As I have said over and over again, it depends on the entire life of a Christian. If they are trying to be faithful but faltered, then that does not disqualify them from Communion. If they are living a life of sin, then no amount of Confession will make them worthy until they truly REPENT.

 

[mardukm]

19 pages of circular arguments on this thread isn’t proof? The fact that I’m offering the Eastern perspective and Bookcat is not buying anything of it shows how far apart we are.

“We” as in you and Bookcat, yes. I’ve yet to see evidence that this “worlds apart” attitude between you and Bookcat can be applied to the Latin Church/Tradition and Eastern/Oriental Churches/Traditions as a whole. Bookcat is legalistically focusing on the rule, and you are just as legalistically focusing on the exception - but BOTH the rule AND the exception exists in ALL Traditions. You two just have to live with that.

We do not only have different perspectives but there is also stubborness to understand the other side.

That is a humble submission brother.

Indults are only granted by Papal dispensation.

So what? They are exceptions to the rule.

And even dispensation is overtly legalistic, as it is outlined what can or cannot be dispensed.

Here’s a Canon from the Latin Code:
Can. 595 §1. It is for the bishop of the principal seat to approve the constitutions and confirm changes legitimately introduced into them…§2. A diocesan bishop can grant dispensations from the constitutions in particular cases.

Can you please show us where this “legalistic” list of what can or cannot be dispensed is? Or maybe it is on a case-by-case basis depending on the circumstances? I hope you can produce that list in order to justify your comment.

Here’s another Canon:
Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess.

Can you please show us this “legalistic” list of “grave reasons” from which there is no leeway? I hope you can produce this list in order to justify your comment.

I think you are looking at these on a very high level which is why it appears to be the same thing.

Until you can produce these “legalistic” lists of what can or cannot be done or dispensed with…well, you haven’t proven a thing. I’m 99.999% sure such lists do not exist, and that is why I don’t see much of a difference.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bookcat]

" Bookcat is legalistically focusing on the rule, and you are just as legalistically focusing on the exception - but BOTH the rule AND the exception exists in ALL Traditions. You two just have to live with that.

A…first off the Law of the Church is very important (not to say you say it is not…but to affirm it is not bad thing)…and to invoke word like “legalism” here is an incorrect usage.

AND again I have quoted in full the various aspects of this question --the “potential” exceptions are included in such and the theological conditions for such-- I have linked some examples of such posts from me.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9765252&postcount=305

The Law is grounded in the Catholic Teaching and Theology regarding the Holy Eucharist and nature of the killing and profaning effect of serious sin. Holy for the Holy!

So your post does not represent my approach fairly. Thanks (nor does it present that of the OP --for he is not repeating the permitted exceptions for serious reasons,with no opportunity to confess, act of perfect contrition etc)

 

[Marybeloved]

That our sins should bring forth occasion to reflect upon the state of our relationship with God, and the obstacles that they present in entering into union with Him in His holy Eucharist?

Yes, our sins should. It has nothing to do with not approaching in this state though. There’s no such ‘‘penance’’ as far as I know- unless we are talking about excommunication.

I would think that this would be an uncontroversial point, however (hence my having no problem with it when I was told that if you miss confession and have something to confess, you do not approach for communion)

Well it is, because it’s just not the case. We don’t approach simply because of Corinthians.

All economia is practiced in serious circumstances (keeping in mind that we don’t have a separation of sins into different categories), because if you have a rule that someone cannot follow, it is a serious problem for their spiritual development. That is why it is modified in the first place, because we work to do what we can do, not to burn ourselves out trying to do what we can’t.

True, East, West, Orient.

The only non-Orthodox people who attend our liturgies know not to receive, so I am not sure how to answer this one.

You can’t answer a question about whether a rule that is present in your church amounts to looking at people as persons or simply neat categories?

Every person is a person, and their being able/eligible to receive communion in the COC has to do with their baptism first and foremost (since you’ve brought up non-Orthodox, this is the distinction we would make), and not really to do with their “state”, since of course we have no stated opinion on the sacraments of those outside of our communion.

I’m not asking about what you think of the state of those outside your communion. I’m asking about a rule of your church that they are not to receive communion based on that category you’ve just given (within or outside communion) Does it amount to seeing them not as persons but merely in terms of categories? Certainly the connection is clear enough, and its just not a valid point that you brought up in your analysis of the West based our rule about communion.

No, I mean to say that the category of properly disposed vs. not properly disposed (which I would think is a pretty good category, as categories go ) is determined with reference to mortal sin (which is not even a concept we have), so if you do X, you can’t receive communion, but if you do Y, you can. So it is fitting people into a conceptual category, rather than, as Constantine has put it, looking at their whole lives and seeing where they are, which is how we do it, too.

Our approach is holistic. I don’t believe that anyone could claim that someone who murdered was not in that state of grave sin just because he’s otherwise lead a good life.

 

[Marybeloved]

I’m not seeing the connection. Are we talking past each other by this point?

I don’t think so- you said that latin approach does not see an individual as a person but as fitting predetermined categories. That’s certainly not true and I gave you examples where your own communion has rules it holds just as strictly.

Oh, I know. I always marveled during my days as a Latin Catholic at how people could show up for Easter or Christmas but not during the rest of the year, and still take communion. May the Lord have mercy upon those who receive in error or confusion. In some ways I guess you could say that the Latin approach is more difficult as it is mostly self-directed, whereas in the East it is in consultation with your spiritual father who will deny you if there is reason to. If you will be given at all times, as in the Latin Church, who will measure your progress? I wouldn’t want to measure my own, that’s for sure.

I’m sure you are required to personally examine yourself too, surely! Why would your Patriarch ask you to in that encyclical? He was following the example of St. Paul who tells us in scripture to each look at ourselves to see that we don’t receive unworthily. And if a person is unsure of the gravity of their sin, confession and consulting with the priest is certainly not dealing with it alone. Even the CCC’s talking about things that may mitigate guilt in the sin of masturbation is addressing directly ‘‘pastors’’- not penitents.

Forgive me for not being clear, I was referring here to the mortal v. venial sin distinction again. You did this X number of times, so do X number of (hail Marys, glory be’s, whatever).

Why do you think that’s set according to those categories? Really you are presuming too much. My first general confession when I first started seriously living the life of a Catholic 6 years ago- I confessed sins not confessed over a long time (around four years!) with a good deal of mortal sins there and the priest gave me a single Our father. I have been recently given rather harsh penances for mere venial sins. There’s a story in the book : The Faith Explained by Leo Trese, pre-vatican II, that tells the story of a man who went to confession overwhelmed with contrition over a really bad sin. The priest said, say a rosary in penance. The man exclaimed- But father I have committed such a terrible sin! And the priest said, ok- Say one decade of the Rosary, the man exclaimed some more and the priest gave him only one Hail Mary- Penance is based on the contrition or amendment of soul of the person and their spiritual maturity- NOT categories of sin separate from the individual kneeling in confession.

If my father in the COC said that to me, I think I’d fall of out of my chair. But I remember those types of penances being assigned in the RCC, along with other types (e.g., practice a certain virtue).

Why? The early Church did much more than issue such lenient penances as the modern Latin Church does- And they used very defined categories of sin to do it, too!

Well if yours is the only authentic way, then maybe not, but I think my priests in the RCC did a good job, usually. I would hate to chalk up my own apostasy to some supposed incompetence on their part, when that is not even something I entertained when I first began to sense that I could not honestly remain a Catholic.

Who said it was the only authentic experience? I said yours were not- based on your own descriptions of it, which do not match any teaching of the Latin church- That’s why it’s not authentic, it doesn’t follow the teaching of the Church.

 

[mardukm]

I have repeatedly noted the possible exception (west and east) which have very particular criteria and are exceptions (which is going to be different than what is in the old 1900’s encyclopedia)

I’ll pose to you the same question I posed to brother ConstantineTG. Where is this list of criteria/exceptions? Maybe it depends on the situtation. And how do you know it is different from the earlier attitude of the Latin Catholic Church as reflected in the old Catholic Encyclopedia? Please provide some citations (if you can give the list I asked for, that would even be better).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear Bookcat,

A…first off the Law of the Church is very important (not to say you say it is not…but to affirm it is not bad thing)…and to invoke word like “legalism” here is an incorrect usage.

I know what legalism means and I don’t use that word lightly. You and brother ConstantineTG are invoking your positions without understanding and it is detrimental to the spirit. That is legalism. You have quoted the exception to the rule, but you have ignored it in your expositions throughout this thread. Brother ConstantineTG, on the other hand, is presenting the exception as if it was the rule in the Eastern Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Marybeloved

There’s a story in the book : The Faith Explained by Leo Trese, pre-vatican II, that tells the story of a man who went to confession overwhelmed with contrition over a really bad sin. The priest said, say a rosary in penance. The man exclaimed- But father I have committed such a terrible sin! And the priest said, ok- Say one decade of the Rosary, the man exclaimed some more and the priest gave him only one Hail Mary- Penance is based on the contrition or amendment of soul of the person and their spiritual maturity- NOT categories of sin separate from the individual kneeling in confession.Why? The early Church did much more than issue such lenient penances as the modern Latin Church does- And they used very defined categories of sin to do it, too!

WOW! That’s a great story! It really speaks to my heart as an Oriental.

It’s altogether possible that many Latin Catholics (perhaps those that left the Catholic Church) do not really take the time to know about nor experience the mystical Tradition of the Latin Catholic Church. We should be thankful that they can find it, even if it is not in the Latin Catholic Church. My only reservation is that these particular folks often have a rather incomplete view of the Latin Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bookcat]

I’ll pose to you the same question I posed to brother ConstantineTG. Where is this list of criteria/exceptions? Maybe it depends on the situtation. And how do you know it is different from the earlier attitude of the Latin Catholic Church as reflected in the old Catholic Encyclopedia? Please provide some citations (if you can give the list I asked for, that would even be better).

Blessings,
Marduk

We have to set aside for our purposes the old Catholic Encyclopedia…tis from early 1900’s (could some be the same?? sure could some things have changed? sure --I am just not getting into it here).

The Criteria is there in the two codes of Canon Law --the Eastern and the Latin and which basically come down to what we find there noted in the Catechism:

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.

One would add that one is to make a perfect act of contrition and intend/resolve to goto confession as soon as possible (see the respective Codes)

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM

and

intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_PJR.HTM

There is no “list” for life presents us with contingencies which can not be seen in advance. But they are of course “exceptions” ordinarily one MUST go to confession if one commits a serious sin --prior to Holy Communion. That is mentioned in a number of places.

Just like there is no exhaustive lists of all the possible grave matters for the committing serious sin (we invent more)–

—there is also not an exhaustive list of potential “grave reasons” (serious reasons).

Some examples could be that are often noted are: danger of death, serious embarrassment if one does not receive …

They are serious reasons --not just cause one decides to do so or cause one thinks one ought not to have to confess mortal sins before Holy Communion --and again one has to make an act of perfect contrition and resolve to get to confession as soon as possible (so again I repeat --not the ordinary run of things.

As the Church repeats ordinarily for mortal sin:

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.”

 

[Bookcat]

Dear Bookcat,

I know what legalism means and I don’t use that word lightly. You and brother ConstantineTG are invoking your positions without understanding and it is detrimental to the spirit. That is legalism. You have quoted the exception to the rule, but you have ignored it in your expositions throughout this thread. Brother ConstantineTG, on the other hand, is presenting the exception as if it was the rule in the Eastern Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

I disagree firmly (speaking for myself)

Also I not only quoted it but I mentioned it using my own words a number of times.

(and his position does not reflect here what the Church notes…even by way of the potential exception for a grave reason)

 

[Bookcat]

Here is a write up from Catholic Answers:

catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion

and another

catholic.com/quickquestions/should-i-receive-if-i-have-an-unconfessed-mortal-sin-on-my-conscience

 

[mardukm]

Dear Bookcat,

They are forgiven via the absolution when one honestly forgot them and was contrite etc.

Such would be “indirectly absolved” in that last (good) confession.

But if later remembered --they still need to be confessed in confession.

I think this is a good example of the tendency to excessively categorize in the Latin Church. I am not saying this is in the essence of Latin theology (as some here would have it), but it is a feature that I think that many Latins are prone to take to an extreme. I mean, here we are discussing the manner in which the Eucharist can remit sin, and all you can do is talk about the Sacrament of confession.

I think the old Catholic Encyclopedia gives an excellent and holistic explanation if the general Catholic understanding:
“The Council of Trent declared that the sacraments are not all equal in dignity; also that none are superfluous, although all are not necessary for each individual (Sess. VII, can.3, 4). The Eucharist is the first in dignity, because it contains Christ in person, whilst in the other sacraments grace is conferred by an instrumental virtue derived from Christ…the Eucharist is as the end to which the other sacraments tend, a centre around which they revolve.”

This excerpt from the old Catholic Encyclopedia is basically what I was taught in my Coptic Tradition. Especially as regards Confession and the Eucharist, Confession is merely a preparation for the Eucharist, and the Eucharist is the completion of all other Sacraments. I think it is in this very real sense that the Eucharist remits sin, because it is Christ Himself. As a Copt, I do not and cannot separate Confession from the Eucharist, and as a Latin, at least according to the explanation of the old Catholic Encyclopedia, neither should you.

In your explanation to which I was responding, you would have done everyone a favor if you had presented the Latin Catholic position more evidently. I mean, this whole discussion is geared towards the relationship of Confession to the Eucharist, so I guess I am admittedly being hard on you for not explaining the Latin Catholic position more fully.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, our sins should. It has nothing to do with not approaching in this state though. There’s no such ‘‘penance’’ as far as I know- unless we are talking about excommunication.

No, no…not that not receiving communion IS itself the penance (at least I don’t think I wrote that), but that it is part of penance in the sense forming the contrition necessary to come back to God and receive communion. That you should not be able to sin as much as you want or whatever and not have consequences. This, I think, is very in line with Orthodoxy, even as my own church says that there is no defined matter that should keep you from the Eucharist separate from what your spiritual father holds you to. (Granted, if you cheat and steal and fornicate and do all kinds of evil, you should expect to be told that you will not be receiving, so perhaps it works out to be roughly the same in the end, even if the approach to communion is different.)

Well it is, because it’s just not the case. We don’t approach simply because of Corinthians.

Okay, does this somehow contradict what I was taught? Because I was taught, as I said, that if you do not confess your sins before attending mass, then you cannot receive communion in that mass. Is that wrong? I don’t think it’s wrong.

You can’t answer a question about whether a rule that is present in your church amounts to looking at people as persons or simply neat categories? I’m not asking about what you think of the state of those outside your communion.

You are asking me to compare those outside of the communion to those within it, though. That is why it is not an apt comparison.

I’m asking about a rule of your church that they are not to receive communion based on that category you’ve just given (within or outside communion) Does it amount to seeing them not as persons but merely in terms of categories?

Once again, you cannot compare the treatment of those outside of the communion to those within it (the topic of this thread). To say that it places them in the category of non-communicants (as they are not Orthodox) is true, but obvious and unelightening. The Catholic Church has such categories as well, hence you do not commune Protestants. This is a fundamentally different categorization than for a Catholic believer to be in or not in a state of grace, is it not? So perhaps it would be clearer if I said to you that the problem is not that you HAVE such categories, full stop, but what the categories are based on. So long as you have this categorization of “mortal” v. “venial” sin, it will seem odd to the Orthodox.

Certainly the connection is clear enough, and its just not a valid point that you brought up in your analysis of the West based our rule about communion.

I don’t think it’s nearly as relevant as you think it is. Anything that is not “under what circumstances may a communicant receive or not receive” is not going to be a very good comparison.

Our approach is holistic. I don’t believe that anyone could claim that someone who murdered was not in that state of grave sin just because he’s otherwise lead a good life.

Has anyone tried to claim that? I have a hard time believing that this is such a difficult concept that you much go to such extremes to prove the Latin approach correct (when I’m not even saying it isn’t, btw). But yes, in conformity with what I have been taught about how to approach the Eucharist, I must say both that I don’t believe that a murderer is sinless, and that nonetheless there are probably some priests somewhere who have given the Eucharist to murderers. I find it hard to imagine that someone involved in a prison chaplaincy program would not encounter the worst possible sins imaginable, and maybe even commune those who have committed them. (I am not sure what is involved in such programs, so maybe communion might not come into play.) Such is the power of the forgiveness of our God. And indeed some murderers are among our greatest saints, like St. Moses the Ethiopian. Fornicators, too, as in the case of St. Mary of Egypt. Their deeds, while great, do not tar them forever. Anyone who is not blinded by pride (to the terribleness of their own deeds) may repent and be accepted. I don’t think Catholics and Orthodox differ in this regard.

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t think so- you said that latin approach does not see an individual as a person but as fitting predetermined categories. That’s certainly not true and I gave you examples where your own communion has rules it holds just as strictly.

I talked about the tendency to classify rather than see the big picture, yes. That does seem to be a Latin tendency, as we can see by the division of sins into mortal v. venial, the “indelible mark” theology surrounding baptism or ordination (i.e., I continue being “Catholic” by virtue of my baptism despite the fact that this is not how I am living my life; a priest is still a priest even if he’s repudiated the church; these sure sound to me like they’ve put people into categories that are kept to even to the point of disregarding the individual’s life and choices), and many other things.

I’m sure you are required to personally examine yourself too, surely! Why would your Patriarch ask you to in that encyclical? He was following the example of St. Paul who tells us in scripture to each look at ourselves to see that we don’t receive unworthily.

Yes, certainly. We do not expect the priest to live our spiritual lives for us.

And if a person is unsure of the gravity of their sin, confession and consulting with the priest is certainly not dealing with it alone.

Here is where we probably differ a bit. If I were to ask my priest about the gravity of the sin, as opposed to confessing the sin itself or in the process of confessing the sin, it would probably be a strange moment. As we do not have a division between venial and mortal sins, I suspect he would say: “Well, you’re here confessing it, aren’t you?” There is no “I didn’t know if I should confess this or not”. While not every sin is of the same magnitude (murder v. stealing bubble gum; so I can see how the West developed the distinction they did), all sin has the same effect in separating us from God. And that is what we work to fix,

Why do you think that’s set according to those categories? Really you are presuming too much.

Is it presuming too much to recall my experience? I’m not saying it’s your experience, but I fail to see how it could be presumptuous. There were times when a priest would say “Do X hail Marys, and X Glory Be’s”. And those numbers would vary based on the number of times I had done X sin. So, yes, it seems like they are set according to categories, at least some of the time. I have never been asked how many times I did a sin in the Coptic Church. Father tells me to focus on repentance, because God will forgive the sin even if I did it a lot (though, of course, if I did it a lot, it is a sign that I struggle with that sin more than others, so it should be addressed in light of that fact).

Penance is based on the contrition or amendment of soul of the person and their spiritual maturity- NOT categories of sin separate from the individual kneeling in confession.

So then the categorization of “mortal” v. “venial” doesn’t come into play, then?

The early Church did much more than issue such lenient penances as the modern Latin Church does- And they used very defined categories of sin to do it, too!

Show me where any Early Church Father divided sins into “mortal” and “venial”.

 

[Marybeloved]

Dear sister Marybeloved

WOW! That’s a great story! It really speaks to my heart as an Oriental.

It’s altogether possible that many Latin Catholics (perhaps those that left the Catholic Church) do not really take the time to know about nor experience the mystical Tradition of the Latin Catholic Church. We should be thankful that they can find it, even if it is not in the Latin Catholic Church. My only reservation is that these particular folks often have a rather incomplete view of the Latin Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you! It touched my heart too! That’s why I have not forgotten it though I read it back when I was still looking into the Church.

I guess I’m very lucky. Perhaps because I was introduced into the Church by Opus Dei, which had a centre I would go to every Saturday for Meditation, recollection, doctrine, confession, works of mercy, the Saturday Latin devotions to Our Lady (We sing the Salve Regina in Latin- In English it’s the Hail, Holy Queen) and the Benediction of the Eucharist (Also in Latin). Everything else in English and they always gave us meditations lead by the Priests based on the Saints. You also had to give time daily to spiritual reading in which we read the lives of Saints, their own works and papal encyclicals. They were always the authorities to refer to in understanding the faith and how to live it (especially those who are Doctors of the Church). I found St Thomas on my own and read him, plus I read the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Faith Explained, the Catechism.

Really, the Latin Catholicism that is often presented here is so unrecognizable to me that I really wonder how anyone could believe it. I do understand that the US is overwhelmed with protestant influence, so that in the absence of catechesis as is the case in many Latin parishes after Vatican II, these '‘common’ notions about christian concepts may gain root in Catholic minds.

But the charge of legalism I have found only comes from constantly reading ‘‘technical or mechanical theologians’’ if I can call them that and then not even all, but of a particular mindset. And this without reading the spiritual theology (or mystical theology as we call it) of the Saints- which is the faith ‘‘lived’’- not just spoken and debated as an academic topic. I know this because I have never seen anyone cite these doctors and saints in debates, its always some strange names that I don’t even know who do not command the influence, respect of the Church and authority to teach us, as do our own doctors.

I find it impossible to believe that a person who picks up the autobiography of St. Therese de Lisieux, the Story of a Soul, can go about casually saying: The Latin approach is legalistic! Really, I do. But I blame the last forty years that has cut off the laity from their rich tradition, so that they really have no idea it exists and how wonderful it is. I pray for the Pope’s efforts to bear fruit soon so that this sad situation can end.

Peace.

 

[mardukm]

If they are trying to be faithful but faltered, then that does not disqualify them from Communion. If they are living a life of sin, then no amount of Confession will make them worthy until they truly REPENT.

If anyone else (especially Dzheremi) is reading this, here is what I mean when I say I cannot understand where ConstantineTG is coming from, and that he is presenting the exception as the rule.

A serious sin, performed even once, does disqualify you from Communion. St. Paul’s exhortation is clear on that. Brother ConstantineTG is saying it does not (that is not the Oriental Orthodox way, btw). You are only permitted to approach the Holy Body and Blood if your spiritual confessor has determined, by oikonomia, that the spiritual benefit of receiving communion outweighs your deprivation of it. And even then, you must be in a genuine spirit of repentance, and you really had no opportunity to confess beforehand (interestingly, the Armenians have basically overcome this whole debate since IIRC they practice general confession during the Liturgy rather regularly). I mean, ask yourself why oikonomia is even being applied - that’s because the norm is indeed that serious sin does disquality you from Communion.

Blessings,
Marduk