Questions on Confession and Communion in the East

  • Thread starter Thread starter AzzurriFan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AzzurriFan

Guest
Hi everyone,

Some questions have come up for me regarding Confession, Communion, and the relationship between the two after reading threads on this forum and others, as well as Fr. Alexander Schmemann’s Great Lent: Journey to Pascha (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1969). I’m afraid I’ve read just enough to get myself thoroughly confused :o. Hopefully, you can straighten me out 👍.

To help organize this post I’ll ask the question and then explain what I mean by it underneath.
  1. Is Fr. Schmemann’s view widely accepted?
To summarize part of the book (and if I’m off the mark, please let me know) in Great Lent’s Appendix (‘The Meaning of Communion’, ‘Meaning of Preparation for Communion’, and ‘Confession and Communion’) Fr. Schmemann is encouraging more frequent reception of communion by the laity, and says that confession is not necessarily a prerequisite for receiving communion. His interpretation, and Nicholas Cabasilas’, of I Cor. 11:29 (about receiving unworthily the body and blood of Christ) is that one eats/drinks “unworthily” the Lord’s body and blood by failing to realize that ‘worthiness’ comes through Christ’s holiness not our own (p122). BUT…
  1. Which sins require sacramental Confession before Communion?
Despite the above, Fr. Schmemann still says that there are sins that are sufficiently serious as to require not just Confession but Confession prior to reception of Communion. So, now I’m confused. I was under the impression that Eastern Christianity didn’t categorize sins like that West does (mortal vs. venial, serious vs. ‘less’ serious), but rather took the view that all sin is a disease leading one away from God. Coming from a Western perspective, when I’ve committed a mortal sin I know that I must go to Confession before Communion or otherwise not present myself for Communion. How would I know when to confess from an Eastern perspective without becoming overly scrupulous?
  1. Is there a link between Confession and Communion in the East as in the West?
I’ve always thought of the 2 sacraments as going hand-in-hand; ie from a Western viewpoint, ‘mortal’ = must go to Confession, ‘venial’ = should go to Confession. If one commits a mortal sin without first confessing it, then that person should refrain from Communion. Is part of my confusion because I’m misunderstanding the relationship of these 2 sacraments in the East?
  1. Is there a generally accepted belief about what happens to one who’s died with unconfessed sin(s)?
I’m curious, and what I’ve read has left me quite confused.

This post has gotten much longer and involved than I’d hoped. I apologize for that. If you could help me out with these questions I’d greatly appreciate it :).

AzzurriFan
 
AzzurriFan said:
Hi everyone,
  1. Is Fr. Schmemann’s view widely accepted?
To summarize part of the book (and if I’m off the mark, please let me know) in Great Lent’s Appendix (‘The Meaning of Communion’, ‘Meaning of Preparation for Communion’, and ‘Confession and Communion’) Fr. Schmemann is encouraging more frequent reception of communion by the laity, and says that confession is not necessarily a prerequisite for receiving communion. His interpretation, and Nicholas Cabasilas’, of I Cor. 11:29 (about receiving unworthily the body and blood of Christ) is that one eats/drinks “unworthily” the Lord’s body and blood by failing to realize that ‘worthiness’ comes through Christ’s holiness not our own (p122). BUT…
Click to expand...
Regarding #1 above, it has been the typical discipline in the Russian Church that there must be a confession for each and every reception of communion, i.e. a one-to-one correspondence. Since this tends to lead to many people communing less frequently, I suspect this is what Fr. Alexander is referring to. He is suggesting that perhaps one confession should be good for several communions. So that one might confess say once a month and commune at all DLs that month, unless one becomes guilty of a sin so serious as to bar one from communion.
 
First, although I am a great fan of Fr. Schmemann of blessed memory and the referenced book, bear in mind that he was an Orthodox writer, expressing a fully Orthodox perspective.

While the Eastern Catholic Churches do strive to live in the tradition of their Orthodox roots, I would say that we probably tend more toward a common Catholic view of the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Holy Eucharist in some ways - but only to an extent.

Our conceptions of sin are Orthodox in origin. We do indeed tend to think in terms of grave sin, which one can roughly equate to mortal sin. Yet, it is separation from God that is first and foremost the subject of examination of conscience for Eastern Christians. It is not the formula, definition or list of sins which preoccupy, but rather a deliberate and honest view as to whether we are indeed living as Christ wishes. It is this high standard that has resulted in infrequent reception of the Eucharist among some faithful, yet this is unbalanced in light of the salvific view of the Holy Eucharist in Holy Orthodoxy and Eastern Christian tradition, both Catholic and Orthodox.

Separation from the Eucharist is also seen as separation from the Body of Christ. It is for this reason that we commune infants, as we believe no baptized Christian should be separated from the Body of Christ. Therefore, we are ultimately encouraged to remain united with God both in terms of our daily lives and in the life of the Church. While there has been a long trend in some Orthodox Churches toward infrequent reception of the Eucharist, that is the opposite of the intended result and the subject of some catechetical focus within Orthodoxy today.

We recite in the prayer before Communion:
O Lord, I also believe and profess that this, which I am about to receive, is truly your most precious body and your life-giving blood, which, I pray, make me worthy to receive for the remission of all my sins and for life everlasting. Amen.
Click to expand...
confirming our belief in the Real Presence and praying that we be made worthy.

The priest, in administering the Sacrament says:
The servant of God receives the Precious Body and Most Pure Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins and for life everlasting. Amen.
Click to expand...
It is acknowledged that the Holy Eucharist is also given for the forgiveness of sins. We are not perfect, yet must be in a sufficient state of grace in order to receive the Blessed Sacrament which also “cleases us of our sins and washes away our iniquities”.
 
Thanks for the responses, they’ve been very helpful :).

Symeon: yes, I believe that some of the book that I referenced was presented to the Holy Synod of the OCA in the early '70s (1971, I think?). In part I wasn’t sure if what Fr. Schmemann was talking about had gained acceptance in the intervening years. And thank youvery much for the link, it helped tremendously 👍

ByzCath: thank you for your response :). Could clarify what you said, that the Eastern Catholic Churches follow a more common Catholic approach to Reconciliation and the Holy Eucharist, but only to an extent? Where would you say the Eastern Catholic Churches diverge from the ‘common Catholic’ approach?

So, if I’m understanding you correctly, ‘grave’ sins can be thought of as ‘mortal’ sins. As part of preparation for reception of the Holy Eucharist one should confess ‘grave’ sins, but the Holy Eucharist is sufficient ‘medicine’ for non-grave sins if one is unable to confess those before DL? I know this is going to be a clumsy question, but don’t know how else to ask it, so here goes: are ‘grave’ sins the same ones that are listed as ‘mortal’? I really like the holistic view of an examination of conscious that ByzCath described, but would a list of ‘mortal/grave’ sins be an appropriate place to begin an examination of conscious? I’m not trying to be difficult, I’m just not sure where to begin :o.

AzzurriFan
 
Sorry, I’m still learning how to post, edit, etc.

Please, on my last post, substitute ‘conscience’ for ‘conscious.’ I must be under caffeinated :o:D

AzzurriFan
 
Well, Eastern theology doesn’t have the concept of “State of Grace”. When we go to confession we have our sins forgiven, but we are still the same fallen human who is oriented more to sin. So there is no real scale to say how much worthy we are to receive Communion, and in Latin theology that is being in a state of Grace.
 
Thanks for the replies!

So, then, the measure of when one should go to Reconciliation from an Eastern Catholic perspective is when one feels weighed down by a particular sin or sins as part of a careful examination of conscience?

The reason that I ask, in addition to wanting to better understand, is that the church I regularly confess at is rather out of the way for me to get to as regularly as I’d like. Often, I’m in the position of trying to determine ‘was that a moral sin or a venial one?, can I approach for Holy Communion or should I refrain?’ Of course, it would be better to ask my confessor, but it’s not always possible, unfortunately.

Sorry, for this. I think I’m making this much more difficult than it is :). When I was in catechism, our instruction was more or less a check-the-box approach as to when to go to Reconciliation; ie ‘took the Lord’s name in vain? check, go to Confession.’ I don’t think this was very good instruction of the sacrament by Western standards, come to think of it. The approach that you describe seems like a more holistic way of approaching the sacraments as part of one’s spiritual growth (👍).

One more thing, is there a difference between how Eastern Catholic Churches approach Reconciliation and Communion, say between the UGCC and the Melkites?

AzzurriFan
 
AzzurriFan said:
So, then, the measure of when one should go to Reconciliation from an Eastern Catholic perspective is when one feels weighed down by a particular sin or sins as part of a careful examination of conscience?
Click to expand...
We are called to regularly examine our conscience, and confess as needed. After all, if we are expected to worthily receive the Holy Eucharist on a regular basis, we must do so.
AzzurriFan said:
The reason that I ask, in addition to wanting to better understand, is that the church I regularly confess at is rather out of the way for me to get to as regularly as I’d like. Often, I’m in the position of trying to determine ‘was that a moral sin or a venial one?, can I approach for Holy Communion or should I refrain?’ Of course, it would be better to ask my confessor, but it’s not always possible, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if an Eastern approach will help, as you are expected to follow the norms of your own canonical Church as regards the Sacraments. Your examination of conscience should be done accordingly.

Further, if you are nearer to an Eastern Catholic parish, you may confess there any time. The priest will not be expecting a categorized list :D, nor would he expect to hear only mortal sins confessed - just an honest confession based on a good examination of conscience.
AzzurriFan said:
is there a difference between how Eastern Catholic Churches approach Reconciliation and Communion, say between the UGCC and the Melkites?
Click to expand...
Basically the same, although translations of the prayers used by the priest and penitent may vary. That said, if you tell the priest you are Latin Catholic, he will undoubtedly expect to hear the prayers before and after confession from your own tradition (I know this works well in reverse).
 
ByzCathCantor said:
We are called to regularly examine our conscience, and confess as needed. After all, if we are expected to worthily receive the Holy Eucharist on a regular basis, we must do so.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I read back the quote of mine you’re referring to, and have no idea what I meant by it since that would also apply to a Latin approach to the sacrament. Again, no idea :o.

Thanks for your replies. Seeing how Reconciliation, sin, and Holy Communion are approached by Eastern Catholics and Latins, where they’re different/same, has been very insightful. I understand that my examination of conscience will be the same (in compliance with Latin canons), but I think that it will be helpful for me to approach it in a way that all of you have described it: medicinal, curative. I’m not saying that Western understanding of Reconciliation is more juridical or punitive than what you’ve described; I’m just increasingly convinced that my catechism growing up was, well, lacking :rolleyes:.

Thanks for all of your help and patience!
AzzurriFan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top