Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Those are the kind of penances I'd rather get. But instead I manage to get the "reflect on the readings of today's Mass" or "pray for all the seminarians" or...
Bene, from my understanding of Orthodoxy, the EO Church teaches that each sin breaks relationship with God, and there's no distinction between mortal/venial sin. (if I'm wrong, someone please correct me)
the Catholic Church teaches that we break friendship with God when we willingly walk away, as you said.
I agree with the rest of your post btw.. that's how I see it too.
But here is what i don't get.. if there is no mortal sin, ie, a sin that breaks your friendship with God then why do you confess? What is the purpose of the sacrament if it is not to reconcile you back to God when you choose to walk away from Him?
You seem to be saying sins that are harmful to the spiritual life need not only confession but time away from communion becuase we are assuming the person is still attached to the sin and here is where you are losing me, if you confess it, the sin (the actual act) is gone, remembered no more, right? and if we still have a inclination towards the sin, then yes we need to work on it but the sin itself is gone and yes we are to work on the attachment to it but we can't work on it with out Communion, we need Christ. Also penance is issued to atone for the effects, attachment to the sin.
So, I dunno... I honestly don't understand what is a person going to confession for? To be absolved for particular sins or to work on the sin nature? And if you are going to work on the sin nature then you need communion to do that.
Now I can see if a priest hears a person's confession and the person really isn't showing any repentance, then yeah, tell him he can not go to Communion. But that's what priest do too in the Latin rite but it's really if you really show that you aren't sorry.
One important part, you do not have to go to confession if it's venail sin, ie what you described as venial sin. An act of contrition is enough and with reception of the Eucharist, even just assisting at Mass washes you clean again.
These sins hurt us and weaken us and run us down (kind of like having the flu) but they do not break our relationship with God the way mortal sin does. IOW, we are sick but not dying. Mortal sin is, we are not merely sick but we are dying.
So as far as the EO view, I'm trying but I really do not understand.
but but but if you confess it, what ever it is and make a act of contrition and have a purpose to amend your life (sin no more) then you are free to go to Communion. Penance is to help you atone for the sin and its' effects.
I'm lost on the not being able to receive communion after you have repented and confessed the sin??
Does the EO have such a thing as making a firm purpose of amendment? Meaning, resolving to not commit the sin again and doing what ever it takes to stay away from what leads to the sin?
Frequent Confession is recommended by the late Pope John Paul II. (We receive graces each time we go to Confession.) I found the book, Frequent Confession: Its Place in the Spiritual Life by Benedict Baur helpful.
Benedictaoo
In Orthodoxy any sin is a break in the relationship with God - as as been said above.
There is really no distinction between what you understand as venial and mortal - they all damage the relationship.
It is rare for an Orthodox Priest to tell someone to abstain from receiving Communion - and then it is intended to draw the penitent's attention to the fact that he has damaged that relationship by his actions. It gives the penitent time to think about his position and why he has been informed that he should not approach the Chalice . Once he has realised the severity of his actions and confessed to the Priest and accepted that he has to change - metanoia - here meaning changing one's mind, in the sense of embracing thoughts beyond its present limitations or thought patterns (an interpretation which is compatible with the denotative meaning of repentance but replaces its negative connotation with a positive one, focusing on the superior state being approached rather than the inferior prior state being departed from.) then he should confess again and if the priest is satisfied about his repentance then he may administer absolution .
Bene,
I'm enjoying this discussion and I'm happy to continue it and explain more about our positions, but I'm kind of concerned a mod is going to pop in here and decide I'm debating and next thing I know I have another warning. I've gotten warned for much less, so while to me this seems like a good discussion, is there a way to get a mod blessing to continue this so long as it remains a sort of Q&A/clarifying understanding discussion?
While we wait for that sort of thing, I can give you a small example, the only example that I personally know of of this happening is with a woman who had been married 5 times, decided to convert to Orthodoxy, and during her conversion married a 6th time (outside the church) then divorced that guy. She was given a penance of refraining from communion. In the end she became a nun. =)
I've never had a priest tell me that occasionally missing Sunday mass is a mortal sin. And from that counsel, I believe that missing an occasional Sunday mass is not a mortal sin. The explanation I've received time and time again is that going to hell is a process, that no particular sin will instantly damn you, but that a lifetime of consistently, consciously rejecting God is the only way you can "accumulate" mortal sin. Priests are in a position of teaching authority, so that's really the only conclusion that I can come to. Who will fault me for obeying my priests?The same priest who tells us missing Mass on Sunday is not really a mortal sin.
I've never had a priest tell me that occasionally missing Sunday mass is a mortal sin. And from that counsel, I believe that missing an occasional Sunday mass is not a mortal sin. The explanation I've received time and time again is that going to hell is a process, that no particular sin will instantly damn you, but that a lifetime of consistently, consciously rejecting God is the only way you can "accumulate" mortal sin. Priests are in a position of teaching authority, so that's really the only conclusion that I can come to. Who will fault me for obeying my priests?
Anhelyna said:It is rare for an Orthodox Priest to tell someone to abstain from receiving Communion - and then it is intended to draw the penitent's attention to the fact that he has damaged that relationship by his actions. It gives the penitent time to think about his position and why he has been informed that he should not approach the Chalice .
Bene,
I'm enjoying this discussion and I'm happy to continue it and explain more about our positions, but I'm kind of concerned a mod is going to pop in here and decide I'm debating and next thing I know I have another warning. I've gotten warned for much less, so while to me this seems like a good discussion, is there a way to get a mod blessing to continue this so long as it remains a sort of Q&A/clarifying understanding discussion?
While we wait for that sort of thing, I can give you a small example, the only example that I personally know of of this happening is with a woman who had been married 5 times, decided to convert to Orthodoxy, and during her conversion married a 6th time (outside the church) then divorced that guy. She was given a penance of refraining from communion. In the end she became a nun. =)
You are NOT debating at all but answering questions that we ask.. if someone reports you for that, then... you know... shame on them.
but anyway, yeah I can see where that women needed to not take Communion. I do think we need something where the priest recognizes ppl are struggling just to do the right thing and they should be advised to reflect before they receive.
It seems like zhilan's example isn't in the context of confession, the way it's stated, but on observed behavior of a certain parishioner. If so, in this instance I think the penance of being denied communion might be more understandable, and reflects on the Biblical precedence I cited earlier: denial of communion is turning one over to Satan's dominion, so that one might really see the depth of sin and truly repent. Another example is a saint whose memory we celebrated yesterday: St. Ambrose. He barred communion from Emperor Theodosius I for months because of the Emperor's massacre at Thessolonica.
If not, with Anhelyna's point about a regular confessor having a relationship with the penitent, what was said above is how it's been taught to me, even if the penance comes as a result of the penitent actually confessing (rather than just being observed).
I've read about some linking this to the parable of the prodigal son, having had to eat pig slop (turning over to Satan) he "came to himself" (repented -- along with realizing how stupid he was being) and returned to the father.
Ok, that works for me for now. At least I have someone to vouch for me. Haha, now what was the question again? You want to know why it could be necessary for someone to not receive communion even though they confessed already?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?