Joe,
Actually, from what I've read, the Early Christians communicated regularly, and would, in fact, bring some of the Eucharist home to have before every meal (see the section on the origins of the Liturgy of the Presanctified in "Evening Worship in the Orthodox Church" by Uspensky). Confession was held for grave sins only, and was public.
Our usage of all of the Holy Mysteries has changed much over the years. Frequent Confession, even for what we might see as common, "human" sins (e.g. lying to get out of an uncomfortable dinner, etc), is good for our souls, and frequent examinations of conscience are good for promoting inner change and true metanoia.
The Church's use of the Holy Mysteries will change, and should change, as the times change. Christ told us as much when he instituted Confession in Matthew 16:19.
I agree with you. I would never say that it is good not to go to confession (well, unless we are dealing with a very specific neurosis, obsessional compulsive disorder). My thought was just that it becomes too easy to see confession as just a means of wiping out all the bad marks on your record. And, to me, it seems that a legalistic approach reinforces that. It is true that we are forgiven our sins in the sacrament of confession, but one can easily fall into the error of thinking that it is only in confession that sins are forgiven and that holy communion is a reward for people who have behaved themselves.
Let me clarify that I am not in any sense suggesting that people should receive the holy mysteries in a state of grave sin and unrepentance. But I have read many written examinations of conscience with commentary that nearly convinced me that I was almost certainly going to be damned. Some of these little tracts could easily put one in a state of constant fear and agony. I say this as one who suffers from scrupulosity and OCD. If I ever get the courage, I will tell my story here. I will just say that I am in a much better place today than I was 7 years ago. God bless.
Joe
