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

[Bookcat]

Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches Issued January 6, 1996 by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches

“88. The sacrament of Penance and its ordinary celebration
With motherly condescendence the Church continuously comes to meet human frailty allowing for new penitence after Baptism. In the framework of a life ever characterized by the full realization of the baptismal powers and of adhering to Christ, the sacrament of Penance occupies a privileged position and, in a special way, prepares for receiving the Divine Eucharist. In it, as affirmed by can. 718 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, the faithful who have committed sins after Baptism and resolve to lead a new life, “through the ministry of the priest, having themselves made a confession and accepted an appropriate penance, obtain forgiveness from God and at the same time are reconciled with the Church.” This confession, individual and integral, with absolution, constitutes the only ordinary means by which the Christian faithful aware of a serious sin can obtain omission.[74] Even if serious sins have not been committed, it is strongly recommended that all the Christian faithful frequently receive this sacrament, especially during times of fasts and penance.[75]”

Libreria Editrice Vaticana - 1996

 

[TrueLight]

Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches Issued January 6, 1996 by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches

“88. The sacrament of Penance and its ordinary celebration
With motherly condescendence the Church continuously comes to meet human frailty allowing for new penitence after Baptism. In the framework of a life ever characterized by the full realization of the baptismal powers and of adhering to Christ, the sacrament of Penance occupies a privileged position and, in a special way, prepares for receiving the Divine Eucharist. In it, as affirmed by can. 718 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, the faithful who have committed sins after Baptism and resolve to lead a new life, “through the ministry of the priest, having themselves made a confession and accepted an appropriate penance, obtain forgiveness from God and at the same time are reconciled with the Church.” This confession, individual and integral, with absolution, constitutes the only ordinary means by which the Christian faithful aware of a serious sin can obtain omission.[74] Even if serious sins have not been committed, it is strongly recommended that all the Christian faithful frequently receive this sacrament, especially during times of fasts and penance.[75]”

Before this is summarily dismissed, I would like to ask the EC’s if they adhere to this Canon 718 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Catholic Church. Thanks.

 

[Marybeloved]

With due respect, I believe what we have here is an inability to see beyond the fact that some of the saints used the words mortal and venial. But what did they mean by that? Since the only one who actually literally wrote “there are mortal sins and there are venial sins” is Jerome, I think it is useful to not take that sentence in isolation but to look at what else he said:

The quote after Jerome even goes ahead and gives a list of grievous sin and the result of failing to rid oneself from the ‘‘grievous sins’’ is damnation! The lesser sins not only do not have the same effects but even the Saints can’t be rid of them entirely while on Earth.

"Although the apostle [Paul] has mentioned many grievous sins, we, nevertheless, lest we seem to promote despair, will state briefly what they are. Sacrilege, murder, adultery, false witness, theft, robbery, pride, envy, avarice, and, if it is of long standing, anger, drunkenness, if it is persistent, and slander are reckoned in their number. **Or if anyone knows that these sins dominate him, if he does not do penance worthily and for a long time, if such time is given him . . . he cannot be purged in that transitory fire of which the apostle spoke [1 Cor. 3:11–15], but the eternal flames will torture him without any remedy. But since the lesser sins are, of course, known to all, and it would take too long to mention them all, it will be necessary for us only to name some of them. . . . There is no doubt that these and similar deeds belong to the lesser sins which, as I said before, can scarcely be counted, and from which not only all Christian people, but even all the saints could not and cannot always be free. We do not, of course, believe that the soul is killed by these sins, but still they make it ugly by covering it as if with some kind of pustules and, as it were, with horrible scabs" (*Sermons *179[104]:2 [A.D. 522]).

We shall have to give an accounting for an idle word no less than for adultery.

Of course we will! It’s called the particular judgment. :shrug:But venial sin does not kill the soul- nor lead to that unquenchable eternal fire as can grievous sin.

***What do you make of that in the context of the whole quote? Because it seems to support what I have been saying, namely that sin is sin is sin, and that the proper understanding of “mortal” and “venial” thus refers to their gravity ***

Yes, that’s exactly the proper understanding of mortal sin vs venial sin-The difference in gravity! Do you really at this point need a repetition of the quotes from the CCC? If you have proof that gravity is not what the modern Catholic Church means by the words moertal vs venials sins, please feel free to offer it here instead of just making claims- What do you think grave matter is?

(cf. the farthings example from the same quote), and not to an actual taxonomy in which this sin goes over here, that sin over there, such as the modern Catholic Church has developed from quotes like these and particular interpretations of the Bible.

This has been continually disproved in this very thread- Next time you make the claim, please show us this neat taxonomy you speak of. Do you want proof that the Fathers considered grave precisely what the Catholic Church considers grave?Why?

Because we shall have to give an accounting for an idle word no less than for adultery. Again, maybe I’m out to lunch, but this seems to square with my previous understanding that the effect of sin is the same, even if the gravity of a given sin may be different than another (e.g., even if an idle word and adultery are not the same sin).

Only if you were previously claming that Catholics do not teach that venial sin is sin- less grave than mortal- Were you?

 

[dzheremi]

The bottom line, Marybeloved, is that if “mortal” and “venial” are used to express the concept that owing one farthing is not the same as owing 5,000 (as Jerome says), there is no problem. That is obvious, and not terribly illuminating in and of itself. I don’t think anyone in this thread would disagree with that, or has done so. If, however, it is used in order to establish separate categories in a taxonomy of sins, either via a particular reading of 1 John 5:17 or any other passage, then it is a problem.

It’s perhaps something like the difference between “mortal” conceived of as an adjective (as you have reminded me in a few posts in this thread, it means deadly, which is a good way to describe sin itself), versus “mortal” as a noun (as in the phrase “mortal sin”). The Latin Church has had some similar developments in its past, so I do believe there is a precedent for this in the process of the transformation of the Western Church from an Orthodox church to heterodox. See, for instance, “Catholic”. In taking what were previously adjectives and nominalizing them, the Latin church particularizes these concepts, such that when you hear “catholic” you think “in union with Rome”, or you hear “mortal” or “venial” you think of the Latin distinction, when in their original adjectival senses they did not mean that.

 

[Marybeloved]

Again you are trying to impose your own meaning of the words. Do you have any proof apart mere assertions that mortal sin does not refer to gravity of sin as opposed to venial? Do you want fresh citations about the meanings or are you simply bent on making assertions you can’t prove? Why do you think the words have to have some other meaning beyond what is, in your words, obvious and unrevealing? Simply because you’ve always assumed that it must? Please stay on. topic. We’re not discussing. the. word Catholic we’re talking about mortal and venial sin. It is your contention that it has changed in meaning in the church- please prove it, beyond your assumptions that it must have (seriously?) without any proof at all.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I find the idea of expiatory as opposed to a State of Grace interesting.

"In Christian theology, divinization (or deification, or making divine, or theosis), the transforming effect of divine grace, the spirit of God, or the atonement of Christ. It literally means to become more divine, more like God, and/or take upon a “divine nature.” W-Pedia… I know, I know!

Terminology with “no” difference except the process apparently.

 

[lssanjose]

The bottom line, Marybeloved, is that if “mortal” and “venial” are used to express the concept that owing one farthing is not the same as owing 5,000 (as Jerome says), there is no problem. That is obvious, and not terribly illuminating in and of itself. I don’t think anyone in this thread would disagree with that, or has done so. If, however, it is used in order to establish separate categories in a taxonomy of sins, either via a particular reading of 1 John 5:17 or any other passage, then it is a problem.

It’s perhaps something like the difference between “mortal” conceived of as an adjective (as you have reminded me in a few posts in this thread, it means deadly, which is a good way to describe sin itself), versus “mortal” as a noun (as in the phrase “mortal sin”). The Latin Church has had some similar developments in its past, so I do believe there is a precedent for this in the process of the transformation of the Western Church from an Orthodox church to heterodox. See, for instance, “Catholic”. In taking what were previously adjectives and nominalizing them, the Latin church particularizes these concepts, such that when you hear “catholic” you think “in union with Rome”, or you hear “mortal” or “venial” you think of the Latin distinction, when in their original adjectival senses they did not mean that.

Thanks, for this, brother; and, it makes sense.

 

[lssanjose]

Again you are trying to impose your own meaning of the words. Do you have any proof apart mere assertions that mortal sin does not refer to gravity of sin as opposed to venial? Do you want fresh citations about the meanings or are you simply bent on making assertions you can’t prove? Why do you think the words have to have some other meaning beyond what is, in your words, obvious and unrevealing? Simply because you’ve always assumed that it must? Please stay on. topic. We’re not discussing. the. word Catholic we’re talking about mortal and venial sin. It is your contention that it has changed in meaning in the church- please prove it, beyond your assumptions that it must have (seriously?) without any proof at all.

He was offering Catholic as an example of what he was trying to explain, what he believes, is a phenomena going on, in the Latin church.

 

[Marybeloved]

He was offering Catholic as an example of what he was trying to explain, what he believes, is a phenomena going on, in the Latin church.

A phenomenon which he can’t show anywhere except in his assertions. If that is true, why do you have such a hard time showing it? What teaching, what phenomenon that can be found nowhere in our teachings or definitions? Just claiming and believing something doesn’t make it so.

 

[Bookcat]

aaaa…threads are not to go off their tracks.

Please stick to the question of the Thread.

Really lets not fill this tread up with things that are off topic.

 

[Bookcat]

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA

Bl. Pope John Paul II

"The Apostle Paul appeals to this duty when he warns: “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (1 Cor 11:28). Saint John Chrysostom, with his stirring eloquence, exhorted the faithful: “I too raise my voice, I beseech, beg and implore that no one draw near to this sacred table with a sullied and corrupt conscience. Such an act, in fact, can never be called ‘communion’, not even were we to touch the Lord’s body a thousand times over, but ‘condemnation’, ‘torment’ and ‘increase of punishment’”.73

Along these same lines, the Catechism of the Catholic Church rightly stipulates that “anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion”.74 I therefore desire to reaffirm that in the Church there remains in force, now and in the future, the rule by which the Council of Trent gave concrete expression to the Apostle Paul’s stern warning when it affirmed that, in order to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner, “one must first confess one’s sins, when one is aware of mortal sin”.75"

 

[Bookcat]

Yes. And so does my pastor. (Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburgh, USA)

CCEO Canon 1
The canons of this Code affect all and solely the Eastern Catholic Churches, unless, with regard to relations with the Latin Church, it is expressly stated otherwise.
CCEO Canon 718
In the sacrament of penance, the Christian faithful who committed sins after baptism, internally led by the Holy Spirit, turn back to God, moved by the pain of sin, intent on entering a new life through the ministry of the priest, having themselves made a confession and accepted an appropriate penance, obtain forgiveness from God and at the same time are reconciled with the Church which they injured by sinning; by this sacrament they are brought to a greater fostering of the Christian life and are thus disposed for receiving the Divine Eucharist.

 

[Bookcat]

The CCEO was promulgated in 1990. Here Blessed John Paul II relates how the canons were “composed by the Easterners themselves”.

Excerpt from: Apostolic Constitution Sacri Canones

The constitution and form of the established Pontifical Commission for the Revision of the «Code of Eastern Canon Law», coming in mid-1972, safeguarded its Eastern character since it consisted of a multiplicity of Churches, with the Eastern patriarchs being in the very first place. The work of the commission kept in sight the exceptional collegial aspect. For the formulation of the canons, gradually worked out by groups of experts chosen from all the Churches, was sent to all the bishops of the Eastern Catholic Churches before anyone else, so that their opinions could be given collegially insofar as possible. Finally, these formulae, repeatedly revised anew in special study groups according to the wishes of the bishops, after a diligent examination by the members of the commission who repeatedly reconsidered the matter if it was warranted, were accepted by unanimous vote in a plenary assembly of the members gathered in November of 1988.

We must admit that this Code is “composed by the Easterners themselves” according to the directions given by our predecessor, Paul VI at the solemn inauguration of the work of the commission (AAS 66 [1974] 246). Today, as generously as possible, I thank those who were participants in this work.

In the very first place, with a spirit of gratitude I note the name of the deceased Cardinal Joseph Parecattil of the Malabar Church who, for nearly the whole time except the last three years, meritoriously served as president of the commission for the new Code. Along with him I recall in a singular manner the deceased Archbishop Clement Ignatius Mansourati of the Syrian Church who certainly and to the highest degree fulfilled the office of vice- president of the commission in the first and especially arduous years.

It pleases me also to remember the living, especially my venerable brothers Miroslav Stephen Marusyn, now an Archbishop, appointed secretary for the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, who for a long time admirably carried out the office of vice-president of the commission, and also Bishop Aemilio Eid, vice-president today, who brought the work to a most happy outcome. After those, I remember the esteemed Ivan Zuzek, a priest member of the Society of Jesus, who, as secretary of the commission from the beginning, showed determined effort. I remember others who, whether as members, patriarchs, cardinals, archbishops and bishops; whether as consultors and collaborators in study groups and other tasks, carried out their parts at a high price. Next I remember the observers who, on account of the desired unity of all Churches, were invited from the Orthodox Churches, and were of great help by their very useful presence and collaboration.

With great hope I trust that this Code will “happily be put into the action of daily life and that it offer a genuine testimony of reverence and love for ecclesiastical law” as was the hope of Paul VI of blessed memory (AAS 66 [1974] 247), and will establish an order of tranquility in the Eastern Churches, so clear in antiquity, which, when I promulgated the Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church, I desired with an ardent spirit for the whole ecclesial society. It is a question of order which, attributing the principle parts to love, to grace, to charism, renders, at the very same time, an ordered progression of them easier whether in the life of the ecclesial society or in the life of the individuals which belong to it (AAS 75 [1983] Part II, xi).

ia700604.us.archive.org/26/items/ApostolicConstitutionSacriCanonesJohnPaulIi1990/Sacri_Canones_Apostolic_Constitution_John_Paul_II_1990_djvu.txt

From the Pastoral Letter of “MAR NASRALLAH PETER SFEIR BY THE GRACE OF GOD
PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH AND ALL THE EAST” 2005

“This is why the Church commands her children to participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to go to confession and receive sacramental absolution, and to partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord. As for those who partake of the flesh of the Lord unworthily, they bring judgment on themselves, as the Apostle Paul put it: “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27).”

“It is written in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO) “Whoever is aware of having committed a grave sin, must receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation, i.e. repentance, before participating in Holy Communion, and those who are publicly unworthy are forbidden to receive the Divine Eucharist”. And the Second Vatican Council says: “They are fully incorporated into the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept her whole structure and all the means of salvation established within her, and in her visible framework are united to Christ, who governs her through the Supreme Pontiff and the Bishops, by the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government and communion”.”

maronite-heritage.com/The%20Eucharist.php

 

[Bookcat]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9765449&postcount=319

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9765453&postcount=320

 

[Bookcat]

1. When is a person obliged to confess mortal sins?

1457

Each of the faithful who has reached the age of discretion is bound to confess his or her mortal sins at least once a year and always before receiving Holy Communion.

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[Bookcat]

The CCEO was promulgated in 1990. Here Blessed John Paul II relates how the canons were “composed by the Easterners themselves”.

Excerpt from: Apostolic Constitution Sacri Canones

The constitution and form of the established Pontifical Commission for the Revision of the «Code of Eastern Canon Law», coming in mid-1972, safeguarded its Eastern character since it consisted of a multiplicity of Churches, with the Eastern patriarchs being in the very first place. The work of the commission kept in sight the exceptional collegial aspect. For the formulation of the canons, gradually worked out by groups of experts chosen from all the Churches, was sent to all the bishops of the Eastern Catholic Churches before anyone else, so that their opinions could be given collegially insofar as possible. Finally, these formulae, repeatedly revised anew in special study groups according to the wishes of the bishops, after a diligent examination by the members of the commission who repeatedly reconsidered the matter if it was warranted, were accepted by unanimous vote in a plenary assembly of the members gathered in November of 1988.

We must admit that this Code is “composed by the Easterners themselves” according to the directions given by our predecessor, Paul VI at the solemn inauguration of the work of the commission (AAS 66 [1974] 246). Today, as generously as possible, I thank those who were participants in this work.

In the very first place, with a spirit of gratitude I note the name of the deceased Cardinal Joseph Parecattil of the Malabar Church who, for nearly the whole time except the last three years, meritoriously served as president of the commission for the new Code. Along with him I recall in a singular manner the deceased Archbishop Clement Ignatius Mansourati of the Syrian Church who certainly and to the highest degree fulfilled the office of vice- president of the commission in the first and especially arduous years.

It pleases me also to remember the living, especially my venerable brothers Miroslav Stephen Marusyn, now an Archbishop, appointed secretary for the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, who for a long time admirably carried out the office of vice-president of the commission, and also Bishop Aemilio Eid, vice-president today, who brought the work to a most happy outcome. After those, I remember the esteemed Ivan Zuzek, a priest member of the Society of Jesus, who, as secretary of the commission from the beginning, showed determined effort. I remember others who, whether as members, patriarchs, cardinals, archbishops and bishops; whether as consultors and collaborators in study groups and other tasks, carried out their parts at a high price. Next I remember the observers who, on account of the desired unity of all Churches, were invited from the Orthodox Churches, and were of great help by their very useful presence and collaboration.

With great hope I trust that this Code will “happily be put into the action of daily life and that it offer a genuine testimony of reverence and love for ecclesiastical law” as was the hope of Paul VI of blessed memory (AAS 66 [1974] 247), and will establish an order of tranquility in the Eastern Churches, so clear in antiquity, which, when I promulgated the Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church, I desired with an ardent spirit for the whole ecclesial society. It is a question of order which, attributing the principle parts to love, to grace, to charism, renders, at the very same time, an ordered progression of them easier whether in the life of the ecclesial society or in the life of the individuals which belong to it (AAS 75 [1983] Part II, xi).

ia700604.us.archive.org/26/items/ApostolicConstitutionSacriCanonesJohnPaulIi1990/Sacri_Canones_Apostolic_Constitution_John_Paul_II_1990_djvu.txt

From the Pastoral Letter of “MAR NASRALLAH PETER SFEIR BY THE GRACE OF GOD PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH AND ALL THE EAST” 2005

“This is why the Church commands her children to participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to go to confession and receive sacramental absolution, and to partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord. As for those who partake of the flesh of the Lord unworthily, they bring judgment on themselves, as the Apostle Paul put it: “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27).”

“It is written in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO) “Whoever is aware of having committed a grave sin, must receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation, i.e. repentance, before participating in Holy Communion, and those who are publicly unworthy are forbidden to receive the Divine Eucharist”. And the Second Vatican Council says: “They are fully incorporated into the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept her whole structure and all the means of salvation established within her, and in her visible framework are united to Christ, who governs her through the Supreme Pontiff and the Bishops, by the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government and communion”.”

 

[Bookcat]

Originally Posted by Vico
Yes. And so does my pastor. (Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburgh, USA)

---

Oh Vico!

I didn’t know you were an EC!

 

[mardukm]

Dear Marybeloved,

A phenomenon which he can’t show anywhere except in his assertions. If that is true, why do you have such a hard time showing it? What teaching, what phenomenon that can be found nowhere in our teachings or definitions? Just claiming and believing something doesn’t make it so.

I think we have to admit that there is a disconnect between what the Church teaches and what many Latin Catholics live. But many Latin Catholics DO live their Faith according to the spirit as enjoined by Christ, and not “accoridng to the law,” so to speak - such as yourself, for instance.

I think people like Dzheremi and ConstantineTG perhaps lived their lives with a juridical mindset while in the Latin Catholic Church, not finding nor living the mystical aspect of the Latin Church (unlike yourself). They are coming at it from their own experience. I definitely agree with you, however, that they should not and cannot use their experiences to judge the Latin Catholic Church as a whole.

I admit I have not lived the life of a Latin Catholic, and have only read about it. But from what I’ve read, I am impressed. I have never met “legalistic” priests or lay people. They only seem to exist on the I-net on message boards that debate about the Faith (which is probably understandable in that context, now that I think about it ).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[lssanjose]

Your arguments lose credibility, Bookcat, by your constant verbal vomit of canon law. Again, whose place is it to make such calls, East or West

 

[Bookcat]

I present what the Church does.

I do not wish to get into any more non-productive back and forth’s with some members.

Hence I simply post what the Catholic Church has indicated.

Including from Eastern Parishes and a Patriarch…

And some from other Eastern members here present who say the same…since some wish to “disqualify” me for being a Roman.