I've just finished reading a booklet about receiving Holy Communion that I picked up in the gift shop of an Orthodox Church and I have to say, I'm a bit blown away by the mentality of the Orthodox on the matter vs. that of Roman Catholics.

The (traditional) Roman Catholic approach is that it's better to avoid communicating if you're concerned you might need to confess something. The Orthodox view, however, seems to be that one shouldn't use the fact that you haven't confessed as an "excuse" not to approach.

From the Roman Catholic perspective, one should communicate as frequently as possible, yet one is only obliged to communicate once, annually (the "Easter Duty"). The Orthodox, on the other hand--according to the literature I've read--seem to insist that if you have presented yourself at Divine Liturgy on Sunday, then you're under something of an obligation to approach the chalice. It was even suggested that if you aren't going to communicate at Divine Liturgy, it would be better that you did not attend at all!

RC: you'd better not dare if you're not sure!
Orthdox: You'd better not dare stay away just because you're not sure!

Really?

The booklet in question, incidentally, is called "Preparing to Receive Holy Communion" by Fr. Tom Avramis.

I'd love to hear what readers of these fora think about this interesting (apparent) contrast between the Orthodox view of approaching for Communion and the Roman Catholic view.

The Eucharistic prayer in the Byzantine rite has us petition God that what we are about to receive be "not for judgment or condemnation but for the remission of all my sins and for life everlasting".

The Eucharist by its nature remits sins. Those who receive regularly are under no obligation to confess beforehand. In the Orthodox Church, as in the Catholic Church before the middle of the 20th century, few people receive regularly--most only once or twice per year.

An ancient canon, probably intended to foster more frequent communion, required those who missed liturgy or who did not receive for three consecutive Sundays without good cause had to abstain from communion until he confessed and was readmitted. From this came the Orthodox discipline of mandatory confession before communion--a discipline that used to be common to the Latin Church as well, prior to Vatican II.

Now the Orthodox are trying to restore the patristic norm of frequent communion, are trying to break that mindset. The Fathers, in fact, railed against scrupulosity on the part of the laity, and insisted that those who showed up for Liturgy ought to receive, and not abstain out of a sense of unworthiness.

The concept of being in a "state of grace" in order to receive is something unique to the Latin Church, and not to the East, though in the East the concept of preparation for worthy reception went far beyond merely confessing: one also had to fast from midnight before receiving, attend Vespers and Orthros (or the All-Night Vigil) preceding the Divine Liturgy and have gone to confession immediately before (no more than a day or so).

This is why Metropolitan Kallistos once described the Orthodox as "a people who talk endlessly about the Eucharist but who never receive communion".

That very same difference seems to be at the heart of the discussion (and Latin mindset) on the order of the Sacraments of Initiation. It is inconceivable to many RCs (including those in my family who have been well exposed to Eastern Catholicism) that infants are communicated when baptized and chrismated, and that we openly welcome our youngest to the Holy Eucharist before the age of reason.

The Eastern mindset seems to be that we are drawn to the Eucharist as we are to be drawn to Christ Himself, and the only thing that should separate us is a condition of grave sin, unconfessed.

While I have no intention of inquiring into the reasons why, there are several people at my UGCC parish, who I've noticed occasionally abstaining from Holy Communion. Unfortunately, in many RC parishes nowdays you're likely to here "It was so wonderful at the wedding, even my non-practicing Methodist cousin and her agnostic husband went up for Communion".

This seems to be the practice in the ROC and the OCA. We consider even a simply cup of coffee as breaking the fast and therefore one should not approach the chalice. There are case by case exceptions on fasting for the elderly, very young and those with medical issues such as diabetes.

Lawrence, we also have inherited the very-Slavic custom of infrequent communion. I have known even survivors of labor camps who still feel after all those years that they can only "worthily" receive the Holy Mysteries maybe four or half a dozen times a year after fasting, preparation, confession every time, etc.

Somwhere, someone, referred to the Divine Eucharist as "the medicine of immortality". Accentuating this idea is the fact that in most Byzantine Churches, It is administered by a spoon.

I heard an RC permanent deacon one day say in his homily that reception of the Eucharist is the escape-hatch from death. That stuck with me.

Many immigrants from Mexico and Central/South American countries never receive, even though they go to Mass. The DRE in a certain Latin parish was trying to address this issue, so she asked the older children and teenagers (most of whom had only received once, at their First Communion, which ironically became their LAST Communion) what they thought would happen if they only ate one meal in their lives. They all agreed they'd die. She went on to tell them if you don't frequently receive Holy Communion, failure to receive will likely lead to spiritual death.

I could tell this was a very new idea for these kids. It might be for other people as well.

I like this analogy; it was very wise and enlightened.
Thanks for sharing it...

Much better than via intravenous injection. Actually, the spoon was an innovation. Originally, everybody received the Body of Christ in his hand and drank directly out of the Chalice.

Didn't Bl. Pope John XXIII once allow a person being fed by intravenous tubing to receive Communion under the form (species) of the Wine, on a one-time basis, so that person could fulfill the so-called Easter Duty?

By the way, June 3 was/is his liturgical comemmoration. May we be saved by his holy intercessions.

Why on earth would it have been necessary to get a papal dispensation for that, I wonder? I am under the impression that the fasting laws for Communion are automatically dispensed with in cases of persons who are that sick or in such acute need of medical care.

Never mind...I see what you meant: that he was permitted to communicate intervenously. I see. Interesting.

Thanks very much for this thread.
I suffer from scrupulosity and have found some of the things said here to be helpful.

I also have scruples. This helps me quite a bit, especially you, Stuart.

All this conversation is good, but the one most important thing to remember is to go with your spiritual father's or parish priest's recommendation for your individual needs. Some are more strict about the frequency than others for a variety of reasons.