Receiving the Eucharist forgives venial sins?

[Cristiano]

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.

I think that probably Eastern Catholics priests expect their flock to have a frequency of confession that a Latin priest would never think of.

 

[newlywed8]

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.

My EC abbot, a highly respected monk and educator, will tell you the exact same thing I said regarding the Eucharist forgiving sins. He has said so openly during liturgy.

What many people seem to be missing is that these differences are not new. They existed for the first thousand years as well. Somehow the churches managed to function in communion with one another.

 

[TrueLight]

My EC abbot, a highly respected monk and educator, will tell you the exact same thing I said regarding the Eucharist forgiving sins. He has said so openly during liturgy.

What many people seem to be missing is that these differences are not new. They existed for the first thousand years as well. Somehow the churches managed to function in communion with one another.

He said you can receive the Eucharist if you have a mortal (grave, serious) sin on your soul?

 

[TrueLight]

My EC abbot, a highly respected monk and educator, will tell you the exact same thing I said regarding the Eucharist forgiving sins. He has said so openly during liturgy.

What many people seem to be missing is that these differences are not new. They existed for the first thousand years as well. Somehow the churches managed to function in communion with one another.

1. What is necessary to receive Holy Communion worthily?

To receive Holy Communion worthily it is necessary to be free from mortal sin, to have a right intention and to obey the Church’s laws on the fast required before Holy Communion out of reverence for the body and blood of Our Divine Lord. However, these are some cases in which Holy Communion may be received without fasting.

(a) Venial sin does not make us unworthy of receiving Holy Communion; but it does prevent us from receiving the more abundant graces and blessings which we would otherwise receive from Holy Communion.

1. Does he who knowingly receives Holy Communion in mortal sin receive the body and blood of Christ and His graces?

He who knowingly receives Holy Communion in mortal sin receives the body and blood of Christ, but he does not receive His graces and commits a grave sin of sacrilege.

(a) To receive Holy Communion unworthily is a serious abuse of the sacred body and blood of the Lord, and therefore a sacrilege.
forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=9744715

If it is true that the Eucharist forgives mortal sin then no one need worry about receiving unworthily at all.

So if EC’s believe that one can receive unworthily, that is a grave matter.

 

[Cristiano]

He said you can receive the Eucharist if you have a mortal (grave, serious) sin on your soul?

I think that the previous poster paraphrased “forgiveness of sin” and not receiving with a mortal sin on the soul. Probably am very pedantic about the issue, but unless we dig into the details we keep yelling at each other and we is still correct. I would also becareful before attacking an abbot on doctrinal and/or theological.

The universal Church says that you it is possible receive communion without having gone through the sacramental confession, the Codes of Canon Law are very clear about that.

I want to stress again that there are fundamental differences between forgiveness and absolution, there are fundamental differences between ordinary and extraordinary methods. As long as we ignore the difference we, consciously or unconsciously, lack intellectual honesty in the conversation.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes 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”)

Serious sins are to be confessed and absolved prior to Holy Communion (see the Eastern Code of Canon Law).

 

[Cristiano]

Yes 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”)

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

I also think that here we might be dealing with a misuse of the word Eucharist. The Eucharist is for the forgiveness of all sins, either venial or mortal. The Eucharist is the sacrifice for the forgiveness of all sins. Communion or reception of the Eucharist is a different story. We can go back to post #21 where you already mentioned it.

 

[TrueLight]

ect. I would also becareful before attacking an abbot on doctrinal and/or theological.

I’m not attacking an abbot. In fact, my response was "If EC’s believe… "

I said nothing about the abbot.

 

[Bookcat]

I also think that here we might be dealing with a misuse of the word Eucharist. The Eucharist is for the forgiveness of all sins, either venial or mortal. The Eucharist is the sacrifice for the forgiveness of all sins. Communion or reception of the Eucharist is a different story. We can go back to post #21 where you already mentioned it.

I am referring to the reception of Holy Communion not the Sacrifice that is made Present in the Liturgy --and applied in Baptism and Penance for the forgiveness of mortal sins etc

 

[Cristiano]

I’m not attacking an abbot. In fact, my response was "If EC’s believe… "

I said nothing about the abbot.

I understand what you are saying. I did not use the proper wording, I was trying to keep it simple to make it clear that we should not infer too much from a few sentences, and always assume orthodoxy until proven otherwise.

 

[Bookcat]

The universal Church says that you it is possible receive communion without having gone through the sacramental confession, the Codes of Canon Law are very clear about that.

.

t there are fundamental differences between forgiveness and absolution, there are fundamental differences between ordinary and extraordinary methods. .

Such has been noted above…for certain grave/serious reasons when confession is not possible…and one is to make an act of perfect contrition and resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.

One is (outside the exceptional serious reasons with the other needed aspects)- not to receive if one has committed a serious sin --until one has received the Sacrament of Penance. Such is the same East and West in the Catholic Church.

 

[TrueLight]

Okay. I’m getting frustrated because we are going around in circles and there is nothing I hate more than lack of clarity.

Question: Can I receive the Eucharist at mass, if I have a mortal sin on my soul? Yes or no?

The assumptions are:

• The grave sin fulfills all the requirements of being mortal.
• We can use whatever word Eastern Catholics use for grave sin.

Something as important as this should have a clear answer because as the Bible states, some have 'fallen asleep" because of receiving unworthily.

 

[Bookcat]

"Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion?..”

“The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).”

–Cardinal Ratzinger

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfworthycom.HTM

 

[TrueLight]

"Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion?..”

“The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).”

–Cardinal Ratzinger

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfworthycom.HTM

Thank you. So the answer is no. I really don’t understand where there is room for discussion.

 

[Bookcat]

Thank you. So the answer is no. I really don’t understand where there is room for discussion.

It is clear in both Latin and the Eastern Codes of Canon Law --one is not to receive Holy Communion if one has committed a serious sin (mortal, grave -same thing) until one has gone to confession.

(outside the exceptional “grave/serious reason” possibility with no availability of confession --with the act of perfect contrition prior and intent/resolve to go to confession as soon as possible --see the two codes for details of this exception)

 

[Cristiano]

Thank you. So the answer is no. I really don’t understand where there is room for discussion.

My impression was that the discussion was not about what we are obligated to do in an ordinary situation but I think that it was turned into that. We hijacked the original thread by bringing in the forgiveness of mortal sins, and the we hijacked it again by bringing Canon Law to defend what is ordinary in regard to the reception of communion.

I am not surprised that you are frustrated.

 

[Bookcat]

We hijacked the original thread by bringing in the forgiveness of mortal sins

Yes good observation - this is really not the subject of the thread.

 

[TrueLight]

My impression was that the discussion was not about what we are obligated to do in an ordinary situation but I think that it was turned into that. We hijacked the original thread by bringing in the forgiveness of mortal sins, and the we hijacked it again by bringing Canon Law to defend what is ordinary in regard to the reception of communion.

I am not surprised that you are frustrated.

You’re right. We did hijack the thread, but I don’t’ think the thread was ever about exceptions. We all know there are always exceptions.

It just worries me when I see statements being made that cause confusion.

God is not a God of confusion.

 

[Elizium23]

If Constantine is going to insist that the Eucharist remits all sins then I would be interested to know where Confession fits in his version of sacramental theology. If an Eastern Catholic can have all his sins forgiven merely by receiving the Eucharist, then what need has he of Confession at all?

 

[newlywed8]

He said you can receive the Eucharist if you have a mortal (grave, serious) sin on your soul?

Please reread what I wrote. I will attempt to explain this one more time. I apologize for not being clear.

If you genuinly want to understand the Eastern perspective, you have get out of the Western mindset of the division of sins. I could go more indepth about this, but it is a side topic. Please PM me if you have questions about eastern perspective on sins. I will do my best to explain it, I am not a theologian but I have excellent resources.

Compare it to this. I hear the debate come up on this forum (I have actually floated around here since 2004) quite frequently - can a confessor require a murder to turn himself in as penance? Answer: no, but if he is truly repentant he should turn himself in on his own.

Now take that and apply it to this discussion. In the Eastern perspective, there are three ways to receive forgiveness of sins (annointing of the sick - we all receive it at least once a year because we also give it for spiritual sickness, not just physical, confession and Eucharist). All three offer the ability to forgive sins and heal the person. Only confession, however, offers you the ability to discuss these shortcomings with a confessor who can offer advice, guidance, a spiritual regiment to help you improve, and support. If there is something that is severely hampering your path to God, what one might say is a serious sin (but keep in mind in the East this could potentially be different for everyone depending on their personal spiritual place), then for true repentance, you should see your spiritual father (confessor) for guidance to ensure you can overcome the shortcomings and prepare for the Eucharist. It is the same double sword as above. You have to be truly repentant, and to be truly repentant you must experience metanoia (a desire to change), and to express that desire to change you need to see and discuss the matter with a confessor.

On a side note, Eastern Christian culture places a very heavy emphasis on people developing close relationships with spiritual fathers and mothers who know there personal circumstances and can advise them on an intimate level. Confession is expected to be done on a very regular basis, often weekly, regardless of sins committed. Everyone needs guidance. Of course, many EO and EC have allowed this practice to fall wayside in the face of secularism the way the Western churches are troubled as well.

I hope that clears it up. As others have noticed, we have wondered far off topic. Please PM me if you would like to continue the conversation.