Receiving the Eucharist forgives venial sins?

[Bookcat]

As to our Eastern heritage, please, stop comparing it to Latin practice. Yes, we have a different theology. Therefore, yes, we have a different sacramental theology. No, it is not wrong…

With all brotherly respect - this is not a discussion of Eastern Orthodox practice here (not that I am saying what that practice may be or not be) --but of the Teaching and way and Theology in the Catholic Church (in all the Catholic Churches…even where of course differences in expression etc exist). The Catechism and the Eastern Code of Canon Law provide the relevant texts to demonstrate such.

 

[Cristiano]

I think that people here play on the confusion due to different theologies between the Latin Church and the Eastern Churches. I assume that such an action it is unintentional but it is fundamentally wrong. Theologies are one thing and doctrines are another, just because the theologies are different that does not mean that the doctrines are different too. We all follow the same doctrines, there are two kinds of sins (mortal a.k.a. grave a.k.a. serious) and venial (also simply known as sin). In our ordinary life we are forbidden to receive communion in a state of mortal/grave/serious sin.

Within the Latin Church we have strongly different, almost opposing, theological approaches in respect to the same doctrine, and that does not matter as long as they do not contradict the doctrine.

It is also wrong to say that there are two different developments of doctrine (east vs. west) thus they can contradict each other, such a statement would say that the universal church is in contradiction and thus it is objectively heretic.

I think that here people are not willing to look into the nuances of forgiveness vs. absolution and into the ordinary vs. extraordinary necessity of confession.

I am not a theologian and so I am not capable to guide the discussion but I can see why the eastern brothers are quite strong in regard to their position, extraordinary methods of receiving communion without absolution are available in the Latin Church too (e.g. Latin CCL Can. 916). However, I have the impression that some eastern posters are trying to present methods that are extraordinary across the universal Church as ordinary.

 

[newlywed8]

With all brotherly respect - this is not a discussion of Eastern Orthodox practice here (not that I am saying what that practice may be or not be) --but of the Teaching and way and Theology in the Catholic Church (in all the Catholic Churches…even where of course differences in expression etc exist). The Catechism and the Eastern Code of Canon Law provide the relevant texts to demonstrate such.

I am not sure what you are referring to. I honestly think you are getting in a little over your head with your discussions on Eastern** Catholic theology, and I, too, mean that will all brotherly/sisterly (I am a woman) love. Stick with Roman theology, or else learn Eastern theology from true Eastern theologians (the Saints and Fathers of the church)

My church is in communion with Rome. I am within the Catholic Communion. I was referring to the Eastern heritage of my church, the church of the Kievan tradition to be more precise.

I am intimately familiar with many prominant teachers and theologians within my church and they would all say the same thing I did. It is from them I take my guidance. I brought up the Eastern tradition because it was already being discussed and seemed to be misunderstood.

The CCEO is due for some major revisions, IMHO. Since I am personally witnessing a genuine revival among the faithful of practicing Eastern tradition, instead of functioning mostly as Latin Catholics, I retain hope that it will be coming when the time is right. The Eastern Catholics have been charged by the heads of all the churches within the communion to live their true faith. Some have been faster or slower than others, and that is reflected in the CCEO. Regardless, as I said, we take our faith from the LITURGY, without qualification. That is all I am going to say on the matter.

 

[Cristiano]

I am not sure what you are referring to. I honestly think you are getting in a little over your head with your discussions on Eastern** Catholic theology, and I, too, mean that will all brotherly/sisterly (I am a woman) love. Stick with Roman theology, or else learn Eastern theology from true Eastern theologians (the Saints and Fathers of the church)

My church is in communion with Rome. I am within the Catholic Communion. I was referring to the Eastern heritage of my church, the church of the Kievan tradition to be more precise.

I am intimately familiar with many prominant teachers and theologians within my church and they would all say the same thing I did. It is from them I take my guidance. I brought up the Eastern tradition because it was already being discussed and seemed to be misunderstood.

The CCEO is due for some major revisions, IMHO. Since I am personally witnessing a genuine revival among the faithful of practicing Eastern tradition, instead of functioning mostly as Latin Catholics, I retain hope that it will be coming when the time is right. The Eastern Catholics have been charged by the heads of all the churches within the communion to live their true faith. Some have been faster or slower than others, and that is reflected in the CCEO. Regardless, as I said, we take our faith from the LITURGY, without qualification. That is all I am going to say on the matter.

I think that you do not understand that Bookcat is not talking about theology here, he is talking about the law of the Church. The Church has been divinely granted the authority of writing such laws since Peter’s times.

 

[Bookcat]

I, too, mean that will all brotherly/sisterly (I am a woman) love.

My church is in communion with Rome. I am within the Catholic Communion. I was referring to the Eastern heritage of my church, the church of the Kievan tradition to be more precise.

Ah *brother -sister *(my apologies --people think at times I am a she…what guys can’t like cats? --I do by the way have a great dog too but bookdog did not appeal to me)…and I thought you where Eastern Orthodox…

What I note is simply the case for ALL Catholics. As is stated in the Encyclical etc of Pope John Paul II …the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Eastern Code of Canon Law. There is no doubt on this question – if one has committed a serious sin --one is first go to Confession --prior to Holy Communion (we are not discussing the grave extra-ordinary possible exceptions).

Such will not change.

 

[Cristiano]

…I think that here people are not willing to look into the nuances of forgiveness vs. absolution and into the ordinary vs. extraordinary necessity of confession.

I am not a theologian and so I am not capable to guide the discussion but I can see why the eastern brothers are quite strong in regard to their position, extraordinary methods of receiving communion without absolution are available in the Latin Church too (e.g. Latin CCL Can. 916). However, I have the impression that some eastern posters are trying to present methods that are extraordinary across the universal Church as ordinary.

This just to give a better idea of what I was talking about:

Latin CCL Can. 960 Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the only ordinary means by which a member of the faithful conscious of grave sin is reconciled with God and the Church. Only physical or moral impossibility excuses from confession of this type; in such a case reconciliation can be obtained by other means.

 

[TrueLight]

It is also wrong to say that there are two different developments of doctrine (east vs. west) thus they can contradict each other, such a statement would say that the universal church is in contradiction and thus it is objectively heretic.

 

[TrueLight]

I am not sure what you are referring to. I honestly think you are getting in a little over your head with your discussions on Eastern** Catholic theology, and I, too, mean that will all brotherly/sisterly (I am a woman) love. Stick with Roman theology, or else learn Eastern theology from true Eastern theologians (the Saints and Fathers of the church)

My church is in communion with Rome. I am within the Catholic Communion. I was referring to the Eastern heritage of my church, the church of the Kievan tradition to be more precise.

I am intimately familiar with many prominant teachers and theologians within my church and they would all say the same thing I did. It is from them I take my guidance. I brought up the Eastern tradition because it was already being discussed and seemed to be misunderstood.

The CCEO is due for some major revisions, IMHO. Since I am personally witnessing a genuine revival among the faithful of practicing Eastern tradition, instead of functioning mostly as Latin Catholics, I retain hope that it will be coming when the time is right. The Eastern Catholics have been charged by the heads of all the churches within the communion to live their true faith. Some have been faster or slower than others, and that is reflected in the CCEO. Regardless, as I said, we take our faith from the LITURGY, without qualification. That is all I am going to say on the matter.

And that, IMHO, is the difference between an Eastern Catholic and an Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

But I’ve discussed this on other threads ad nauseum.

 

[Bookcat]

Can. 960

The Eastern Code 720 says the same.

And 719 of the Eastern Code actually says anyone who is conscious of mortal sin (serious sin) is to receive the Sacrament of Penance as soon as possible.

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church section which says:

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

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

The Catechism References there the Eastern Code Canon 711 which goes into that one is not to receive the Divine Eucharist if one is conscious of serious sin (mortal sin) (outside the exceptional circumstance of a serious reason (grave reason) etc etc as noted above).

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

 

[ConstantineTG]

You are mistaken. The Catechism is for the entire Catholic Church --though certainly local Bishop Conferences and Patriarchs etc can make use of it too to make local catechisms that are in harmony with it --that was part of its original intention–and in the case of the Eastern Churches --these will of course reflect the particular culture etc of the area etc. Mortal (serious sin, grave sin --these are other terms used for the same) and Venial sins are part of the Catholic Faith not just something in the West.

As is noted not only in the Catechism of the Catholic Church…but in the Eastern Code of Canon Law.

This not a matter in doubt but is the way in the Catholic Church.

---

“All those who are clean, may always draw near the holy Cup, whereas those who are unclean may not draw near even once. for they are given their own condemnation and disapproval and hell and punishment…”-- St John Chrysostom

"Therefore, my brethren, I implore you and say: let no blasphemer, perjurer or liar, no fornicator, adulterer or sodomite, no magician or fortune teller, no thief or heretic draw near to the awesome mysteries of Christ or touch them without having confessed and prepared himself, for “it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

-St John Chrysostom

If the CCC is the Catechism of the entire Church East and West alike, why did our bishops waste their time on this? sainteliaschurch.blogspot.ca/2012/08/christ-our-resurrection-catechism-of.html

Sorry Bookcat, but you are mistaken. The beliefs of East and West cannot be expressed in the same exact way. The CCC is purely a Western Catechism. Like I said, no matter how much you keep insisting, it won’t change the FACT. Even your argumentation is hollow, you’re merely trying to make conclusions out of statements that are not even making that same conclusion. Even a basic knowledge of Eastern traditions would make one realize that the CCC does not represent Eastern faith very well.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Here is another instance of an early teaching on the Eucharist, coming from the Quintisext Council of 692. This is an Eastern Council and obviously some Canons here even highlighted the divergence of practice between East and West, such as the affirmation that married men be admitted to the subdiaconate, diaconate, and presbyteriate as opposed to the growing practice in the Roman Church of a celibate priesthood.

Here is the Canon:

Canon XXVIII.
Since we understand that in several churches grapes are brought to the altar, according to a custom which has long prevailed, and the ministers joined this with the unbloody sacrifice of the oblation, and distributed both to the people at the same time, we decree that no priest shall do this for the future, but shall administer the oblation alone to the people for the quickening of their souls and for the remission of their sins. But with regard to the offering of grapes as first fruits, the priests may bless them apart [from the offering of the oblation] and distribute them to such as seek them as an act of thanksgiving to him who is the Giver of the fruits by which our bodies are increased and fed according to his divine decree. And if any cleric shall violate this decree let him be deposed.

Obviously the issue is what we will call today a Liturgical abuse of mixing grapes with the wine that is offered in oblation (wine that is consecrated for the Eucharist). But we can’t miss the part where the Fathers of the Council themselves affirm that the Eucharist is given to the people for the remission of their sins.

 

[Vico]

Here is another instance of an early teaching on the Eucharist, coming from the Quintisext Council of 692. This is an Eastern Council and obviously some Canons here even highlighted the divergence of practice between East and West, such as the affirmation that married men be admitted to the subdiaconate, diaconate, and presbyteriate as opposed to the growing practice in the Roman Church of a celibate priesthood.

Here is the Canon:

Canon XXVIII.
Since we understand that in several churches grapes are brought to the altar, according to a custom which has long prevailed, and the ministers joined this with the unbloody sacrifice of the oblation, and distributed both to the people at the same time, we decree that no priest shall do this for the future, but shall administer the oblation alone to the people for the quickening of their souls and for the remission of their sins. But with regard to the offering of grapes as first fruits, the priests may bless them apart [from the offering of the oblation] and distribute them to such as seek them as an act of thanksgiving to him who is the Giver of the fruits by which our bodies are increased and fed according to his divine decree. And if any cleric shall violate this decree let him be deposed.

Obviously the issue is what we will call today a Liturgical abuse of mixing grapes with the wine that is offered in oblation (wine that is consecrated for the Eucharist). But we can’t miss the part where the Fathers of the Council themselves affirm that the Eucharist is given to the people for the remission of their sins.

Quickening means life-giving.

Also “When venial sin is remitted, the guilt is removed and as much of the temporal punishment as the person’s dispositions warrant from the grace of God.” - Modern Catholic Dictionary

And from the Council of Trent
Session XXII, Chapter II

THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS IS PROPITIATORY BOTH FOR THE LIVING AND THE DEAD

And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy council teaches that this is truly propitiatory and has this effect, that if we, contrite and penitent, with sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence, draw nigh to God, [10] For, appeased by this sacrifice, the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons even the gravest crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through this unbloody one, so far is the latter from derogating in any way from the former. Wherefore, according to the tradition of the Apostles,[11] it is rightly offered not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those departed in Christ but not yet fully purified.

10 Heb. 4:16.
11 Cf. , can. 3, and Sess. XXV, decr. on Purgatory.

As the Church has the power to bind and loosen sins, it may require, as it will, that individual integral confession occur prior to reception of the Eucharist. This condition may change over time. The sin is forgiven if the Church allows it to be forgiven.

 

[Bookcat]

If the CCC is the Catechism of the entire Church East and West alike, why did our bishops waste their time on this? sainteliaschurch.blogspot.ca/2012/08/christ-our-resurrection-catechism-of.html

Sorry Bookcat, but you are mistaken. The beliefs of East and West cannot be expressed in the same exact way. The CCC is purely a Western Catechism. Like I said, no matter how much you keep insisting, it won’t change the FACT. Even your argumentation is hollow, you’re merely trying to make conclusions out of statements that are not even making that same conclusion. Even a basic knowledge of Eastern traditions would make one realize that the CCC does not represent Eastern faith very well.

I am not mistaken. And again – the Catechism of the Catholic Church is for the entire Church --but as I noted-- it is intended that local places also develop local Catechisms --drawing from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (and not contradicting it of course)-- Local language etc can then be used splendidly. As they have done too in the US in the Latin Church. Your Bishops have done what they were invited to do. Such is to be in harmony with the CCC and put the Faith into local language and culture etc.

The matter at hand though is simply not going to change.

Please see the post regarding the footnote in the Catechism which points to the Eastern Catholic Code of Canon Law. What I note is simply the case. One who is conscious of serious sin (mortal sin, grave sin --the same) is to first receive the Sacrament of Penance before receiving the Holy Eucharist.

 

[Bookcat]

H But we can’t miss the part where the Fathers of the Council themselves affirm that the Eucharist is given to the people for the remission of their sins.

Yes --venial sins. Venial sins can be forgiven via the Holy Eucharist. Such is not for serious sins one is conscious of --these need to be confessed and absolved in a different Sacrament --that of Penance.

“All those who are clean, may always draw near the holy Cup, whereas those who are unclean may not draw near even once. for they are given their own condemnation and disapproval and hell and punishment…”-- St John Chrysostom

"Therefore, my brethren, I implore you and say: let no blasphemer, perjurer or liar, no fornicator, adulterer or sodomite, no magician or fortune teller, no thief or heretic draw near to the awesome mysteries of Christ or touch them without having confessed and prepared himself, for “it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

-St John Chrysostom

ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA --Bl. Pope John Paul Encyclical (encyclicals are not for only part of the Catholic Church)

“If a Christian’s conscience is burdened by serious sin, then the path of penance through the sacrament of Reconciliation becomes necessary for full participation in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.”

---

 

[Bookcat]

Here is another instance of an early teaching on the Eucharist, coming from the Quintisext Council of 692. .

From the Council of Trent

Session XIII - The third under the Supreme Pontiff, Julius III, celebrated on the eleventh day of October, 1551

CHAPTER VII
THE PREPARATION TO BE EMPLOYED THAT ONE MAY RECEIVE THE SACRED EUCHARIST WORTHILY

If it is unbecoming for anyone to approach any of the sacred functions except in a spirit of piety, assuredly, the more the holiness and divinity of this heavenly sacrament are understood by a Christian, the more diligently ought he to give heed lest he receive it without great reverence and holiness, especially when we read those terrifying words of the Apostle: <He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.>[32] Wherefore, he who would communicate, must recall to mind his precept: [33] Now, ecclesiastical usage declares that such an examination is necessary in order that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may feel, ought to receive the Sacred Eucharist without previous sacramental confession.[34] This the holy council has decreed to be invariably observed by all Christians, even by those priests on whom it may be incumbent by their office to celebrate, provided the opportunity of a confessor is not wanting to them. But if in an urgent necessity a priest should celebrate without previous confession, let him confess as soon as possible.

(EWTN has it in their Library)

 

[InJesusItrust]

Thanks guys. What is the difference between an indulgence and forgiveness of venial sins?

Also I am not baptized yet but is it possible to have my venial sins forgiven via contrition or indulgences? I do not want to go to Purgatory or Hell if I die before being able to convert. I think that it is stated that there is a baptism of desire if you truly want to be baptized as soon as possible but are not able to.

 

[Bookcat]

Thanks guys. What is the difference between an indulgence and forgiveness of venial sins?

Also I am not baptized yet but is it possible to have my venial sins forgiven via contrition or indulgences? I do not want to go to Purgatory or Hell if I die before being able to convert. I think that it is stated that there is a baptism of desire if you truly want to be baptized as soon as possible but are not able to.

Indugences are regarding that which can remain “after” a sin is forgiven. They are not about forgiveness of sin. See the longer text here in the CCC: scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm#X

As to forgiveness of sin – of the various kinds – for you in your pre Baptized Christian state – you can pray and ask of course – such is part of conversion --namely repentance.

One Believes in Jesus Christ …repents …professes the Faith and is Baptized.

In Jesus of Nazareth is true life! Thanks be to God for you and your Faith!

As to catechumens dying prior to Baptism-- this will be of consolation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#VI

As to the term “baptism of desire” --the Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. Is it possible to be saved without Baptism?

1258-1261
1281-1283

Since Christ died for the salvation of all, those can be saved without Baptism who die for the faith (Baptism of blood). Catechumens and all those who, even without knowing Christ and the Church, still (under the impulse of grace) sincerely seek God and strive to do his will can also be saved without Baptism (Baptism of desire). The Church in her liturgy entrusts children who die without Baptism to the mercy of God.

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

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes --venial sins. Venial sins can be forgiven via the Holy Eucharist. Such is not for serious sins one is conscious of --these need to be confessed and absolved in a different Sacrament --that of Penance.

“All those who are clean, may always draw near the holy Cup, whereas those who are unclean may not draw near even once. for they are given their own condemnation and disapproval and hell and punishment…”-- St John Chrysostom

"Therefore, my brethren, I implore you and say: let no blasphemer, perjurer or liar, no fornicator, adulterer or sodomite, no magician or fortune teller, no thief or heretic draw near to the awesome mysteries of Christ or touch them without having confessed and prepared himself, for “it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

-St John Chrysostom

ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA --Bl. Pope John Paul Encyclical (encyclicals are not for only part of the Catholic Church)

“If a Christian’s conscience is burdened by serious sin, then the path of penance through the sacrament of Reconciliation becomes necessary for full participation in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.”

---

Your insistence that the Fathers mean venial sins is baseless. There is nothing in the text that suggest that and for one to make such a conclusion is to pollute the teaching of the Fathers.

Fact is, that is the belief on the Eucharist in the First Millennium. It holds true then, it holds true today.

Also, you keep quoting St. John Chrysostom but the prayers in the Liturgy he wrote states that the Eucharist is for the forgiveness of sins. Obviously you are misinterpreting what he is saying here.

 

[Bookcat]

Your insistence that the Fathers mean venial sins is baseless. There is nothing in the text that suggest that and for one to make such a conclusion is to pollute the teaching of the Fathers.

Fact is, that is the belief on the Eucharist in the First Millennium. It holds true then, it holds true today.

Also, you keep quoting St. John Chrysostom but the prayers in the Liturgy he wrote states that the Eucharist is for the forgiveness of sins. Obviously you are misinterpreting what he is saying here.

Yes the Liturgy states the Eucharist is for the forgiveness of sins. Yes of course.

It is for the forgiveness of sins – not of serious sins. (see the Eastern Code of Canon Law about “serious sins” verses “sins”)

It falls to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church to Teach and give the proper understanding and practice in the Church – I am simply echoing such here.

I refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Popes, the Ec. Council of Trent and the Eastern Code of Canon Law…etc

As I have noted above in detail:

*Serious sins are to be confessed and absolved prior to Holy Communion. *

 

[TrueLight]

Your insistence that the Fathers mean venial sins is baseless. There is nothing in the text that suggest that and for one to make such a conclusion is to pollute the teaching of the Fathers.

Fact is, that is the belief on the Eucharist in the First Millennium. It holds true then, it holds true today.

Also, you keep quoting St. John Chrysostom but the prayers in the Liturgy he wrote states that the Eucharist is for the forgiveness of sins. Obviously you are misinterpreting what he is saying here.

Constantine, I would advise you to not go back and look for writings on this, and come to your own conclusion, but to look at what the magisterium has to say (as Bookcat stated).

In fact, I am interested in what Eastern Catholic priests teach about this and are they really teaching something different, or is that you’re understanding. I would love to see some EC’s weigh in on this if they haven’t already. We want to be sure not to mix up EC teaching with Orthodox teaching as they are not one and the same.