www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Eucharist: for the remission of the sins?

If the Eucharist is for the remission of the sins, why we have to be in state of grace before receiving it?

My Catechism reads that the Eucharist is for the remission of minor (venial) sins, but mortal sins have to be confessed so one does not profane the Eucharist and himself.


http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson23.htm

The link above is a shorter read.

In the various Orthodox prayers one can choose to read before partaking of the Eucharist, (in the one attributed to St. John Chrysostom), this is all that the Eucharist does for us:

And as Thou didst not disdain to enter and dine with sinners in the house of Simon the Leper, so consent also to enter the house of my humble soul which is leprous and sinful. And as Thou didst not reject the woman, who was a harlot and a sinner like me, when she approached and touched Thee, so also be compassionate with me, a sinner, as I approach and touch Thee, and let the live coal of Thy most holy Body and precious Blood be for the sanctification and enlightenment and strengthening of my humble soul and body, for a relief from the burden of my many sins, for a protection from all diabolical practices, for a restraint and a check on my evil and wicked way of life, for the mortification of passions, for the keeping of Thy commandments, for an increase of Thy divine grace, and for the advancement of Thy Kingdom.

I think that says it all--a catechism of faith in the most beautiful and meaningful way that only St. John the Goldenmouthed could say it!

Alice

Yes indeed Alice! I think that we would say (in the Orthodox Church) that the Eucharist forgives all sins. It would be strange to think that the principal sacrament of the Church (the whole purpose of the Church) did not forgive mortal sins whereas a supplementary sacrament (confession) did.

Personally, I think that being in a state of grace means approaching the altar with a humble and repentant heart. I don't think that it is some kind of ontological status. In fact, I think that this is a mistake in some theologies. It is a mistake to set up "being in grace," and "being in mortal sins" as if they were ontological realities and that "being in mortal sin" can only be remedied through the sacrament of confession. The reason I think that it is wrong is that it too easily leads to the idea that I can judge that I'm going to hell because I committed some sin of the flesh and haven't made it to confession yet (I realize the bit about acts of perfect contrition, but who can make such an act?). Also, as Father Schmemann rightly points out in his book "Great Lent," it becomes a temptation to see communion as a reward for being good.

Instead of thinking about which sacraments forgive which sins, I think it would be better to focus on the purpose of the different sacraments. I would submit that the primary purpose of confession is to restore one who has broken communion with the Church. Only secondarily does it have the purpose of wiping the slate clean, so to speak, of someone's soul. Though we are absolved from sins, I believe that what is really important is that we are being given the grace of repentance and humility. In other words, going to confession on a regular basis helps (along with fasting, prayer, and charity), to prepare our heart for worthy reception of the Eucharist. What do I mean by "worthy?" I mean the reception of the Eucharist "in faith and the fear of God and with love," as our priest says when bringing the gifts out for communion. That is, if we are repentant, if we are not judging others but humbly judging ourselves as unrighteous, and if we are longing for Christ's love and mercy, then we should commune. But, if we see in ourselves some grave unrepentance, or some grave thing being held against a brother, or if we know that we have not adequately prepared to receive (e.g. we neglected fasting) then we should refrain.

Joe

Both of you said it so well. Thank you.

Dr. Eric, I would interpret the Roman practice as being one of discipline.

just my 2 cents.

peace.

-- John

As far as I know the BCC follows the RCC with regard to being in a state of grace. Though I have heard RCC priests say that as long as you make an act of contrition prior to receiving you may commune (even if you are conscience of a 'mortal sin). Since God is "outside," of time anyway, He knows that you will confess the sin in the sacrament of reconciliation eventually. I don't think that is the 'offical,' position however, though it does make some sense.

"There was a Church Deacon named Lynn
who succumbed to original sin;
to escape his guilt onerous
he wrote a check generous
it's now a state of grace that he's in!"

(From How to Become a Bishop Without Being Religious).

Father bless,

You obviously took me for some intelligent enough to know if you were agreeing with the RCC priest or not. I should have, perhaps, said "state of grace," above.
As I said I have heard differing opinions on this subject, but officially if one is conscience of a 'serious sin,' they should first go to sacramental confession before approach the chalice.

The law of prayer is the law of belief:

O Lord, I believe and profess that You are truly Christ, the Son of the living God, Who came into the World to save sinners, of whom I am the first. Accept me as a partaker of your mystical supper, O Son of God, for I will not reveal Your mysteries to our enemies, nor will I give you a kiss as did Judas, but like the thief will I confess to You:

Remember me, O Lord, when You shall come into Your kingdom.
Remember me, O Master, when You shall come into Your kingdom.
Remember me, O Holy One, when You shall come into Your kingdom.

May the partaking of your holy mysteries, O Lord, be not for my judgment, or condemnation, but for the healing of soul and body.

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
O God, be merciful to me a sinner.
O God, cleanse my sins and have mercy on me.
O Lord forgive me for I have sinned without number.

Behold, this has touched my lips, and shall take away my iniquities, and shall cleanse my sins.

The servant of God, N., partakes of the precious, most holy and most pure Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ for the remission of his (her) sins and for life everlasting. Amen.

In the early western church was it not "The Eucharist " as the primary method for forgiving sins.

The only exception to this were three sins, namely
1. Murder 2. Adultery 3. Apostasy which had to be dealt with by the Church (court or bishop ?)

And, was it not later that Irish monks brought about the use of auricular confession which is now the standard practice in the church?

Kolya

To say that the practice of private auricular confession is from the Celtic monks is also not correct.

In the early Church, serious sins were dealt with through "excommunication" - and that spanned the range from the inability to receive the Eucharist to total exclusion from the Christian community. To have this excommunication withdrawn, the penitent would always go through an auricular confession, undergo a penance (satisfaction) and then receive reconciliation from the bishop or his representative. The satisfaction could last for years, and often entail enrollment in an "order of penitents" and placement in a particular, set apart area of the assembly. It was also quite rigorous - many times this was done only once in a lifetime, as "repeat offenders" were, and still often are under specific circumstances, called recidivists. Because of the rigor of this method of confession, all too often people delayed their baptism till later in life, a la St. Augustine of Hippo.

This was the earliest form of penance. However, to say that what the Celtics did was an innovation would be incorrect. Though it would be true to say that they popularized it and that we have our current form largely from them.

In short, the history of the transition from the public confession to private is admittedly hazy. However, if a sudden innovation occured among the Celtic monks in the 6th Century, we could have assumed large and forceful accusations of heresy and whatnot against those monks; however, this is not the case, at least not until the 1970s . The logical conclusion is that private auricular confession organically developed alongside the public form for a certain amount of time especially as a response to the early rigorism, and eventually all sins, even those outside the "triad" would be confessed in this manner.

This is all in a nutshell!

I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with much of anyone - my intention was simply to offer a bit of comic relief. But to get at least a bit more serious:

practice in the Christian East varies in several ways, from Churches and clergy who absolutely require lay people who wish to receive Holy Communion to make Confession each time (and to the priest who will administer the Eucharist to them, believe it or not) to people who never seem to make Confession at all, nor even come to Church much more than once a year, but who on a given day will walk into the Church for Liturgy sometime around the Lord's Prayer, put an envelope on the candle desk, walk up and receive Communion, and walk out again without bothering to wait for the Dismissal. Unhappily, I am not making this up.

"state of grace" - it's been many years, even decades, since I last heard that expression, and the phrase is problematic. The notion that one can bounce repeatedly in and out of the Grace of God is peculiar, to put it mildly. So is the notion that one might be living most of the time in a condition of "mortal sin", make one's Confession immediately before the Divine Liturgy, manage to remain in this purified and grace-filled condition for an hour or so, receive Communion, and then "go back to normal". This is not my idea of a "state of grace".

But I can easily be mistaken. Even the great Saints have differed on these matters.

Fr. Serge

Joe,

"Mortal sin," properly understood, is a rejection of our baptismal grace. Since this changes the soul's orientation completely--away from heaven and towards hell--it certainly seems to qualify as an ontological state.

The real question here, I think, is: just what constitutes a mortal sin?

St. John the Theologian, in his first Epistle, clearly affirms two things: first, that there is such a thing, and second, that it is something far more extreme than what has traditionally been understood by the RCC--although it is worthwhile to note that the RCC has always maintained that a mortal sin must be a fully deliberate act of the will.

As I understand it, the EOC does not distinguish between mortal and venial sins--at least, not in the same way as the RCC--and I like that approach insofar as I think in most cases the severity of the sin has little to do with the "empirical" act. Furthermore, the notion of "venial" sin suggests that this really isn't very important.

Then again, we have this idea--still being held forth by some RC priests--that in the case of a sexual sin, it's either a mortal sin, or it's no sin at all! (Does anyone know where they came up with that?)

Just some thoughts.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Blahoslovy!

I would say, and I think my Catechetical training backs me up, that a person who is a habitual sinner who goes to Confession with the intention of receiving Communion only to go back to that lifestyle once having received the Sacrament, is committing a Sacrilege and is just heaping sin on top of sin.

Those who are addicted to certain sins are under mitigating circumstances. I don't include them, they want to change but are weak. There are some who have not contrition, but attrition. They are the ones to whom you are referring.

Your unworthy son,

Dr. Eric

Fr. Serge,

I would certainly agree here--either repentance is a life-changing act or it is not true repentance. In this respect, I very much like the Eastern idea that the priest's primary role in confession is to help the penitent discern whether or not his repentance is genuine.

I also love the phrase "peace and repentance" that we use in the Liturgy. Theologically, you could substitute the phrase "state of grace" here, but I think this is both more biblical and a better expression of our faith.


Peace,
Deacon Richard