Relationship of confession and communion

[M. Markewich]

I was searching around the forum for a bit but I didn't find anything quite like the question I have (though I probably didn't search thoroughly enough). Since becoming Orthodox there have been times where I wasn't sure if I had just done a sin that was severe enough to make taking communion a bad idea. I know we're supposed to approach worthily, as Saint Paul says. In my Church weekly confession isn't really practiced, so it makes it difficult for me to know whether I can take it worthily.

For example, my priest told me to never take communion if I commit fornication (I am a college student after all). Now I remember Jesus said that looking on another woman with lust is commiting adultery in the heart, and I am by no means good at keeping my thoughts pure 24/7. So aren't I technically commiting fornication in my thought life?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I was searching around the forum for a bit but I didn't find anything quite like the question I have (though I probably didn't search thoroughly enough). Since becoming Orthodox there have been times where I wasn't sure if I had just done a sin that was severe enough to make taking communion a bad idea. I know we're supposed to approach worthily, as Saint Paul says. In my Church weekly confession isn't really practiced, so it makes it difficult for me to know whether I can take it worthily.

For example, my priest told me to never take communion if I commit fornication (I am a college student after all). Now I remember Jesus said that looking on another woman with lust is commiting adultery in the heart, and I am by no means good at keeping my thoughts pure 24/7. So aren't I technically commiting fornication in my thought life?


It's important to understand that we need to confess our sins with openheartedness & without overly interpreting our sins or having any expectations. Then having confessed we let our spiritual father decide about communion or about any other advice he wishes to give.

The danger we fall into if we interpret too much before confessing is that we deny the freedom of the priest to use discernment. For example we do a certain sin many times over. This is actually quite common as the years go by. But very often we will see that our spiritual father responds to the sin in different ways each time.

Simply put the Holy ascetic Frs tell us to examine our conscience and then with simplicity of heart just confess the sin. We need to let our spiritual father give the interpretation we need to hear at that particular time.

Secondly, temptation of thought is not the same as falling into the act. But again we shouldn't analyze this too much in terms of our own sins. It could very well be that one person's fall in thought is more serious than another's fall in action. Again we need to allow our spiritual father room to make these assessments.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

Mark,

I don't know if this is exactly the answer to your question, however, one thing you have to always remember is that the *priest* (not you) is the steward of the Holy Mysteries. It is *his* responsibility to make sure that all to whom he gives the Holy Mysteries are properly prepared. In Russian tradition parishes this is accomplished (in part) by the close link between confession and communion. In parishes where this is not the practice, the priest will have other avenues of fulfilling this responsibility (I am a priest in the Russian Church and so there is that close association of confession that I use - I don't know what other priests might do). Your priest has given you at least one guideline - that you do not committ the sin of fornication. You should ask him how strictly you should apply that injunction (is it the thought or the act or something in between?). But in the end, if you approach the chalice, it is still his choice to admit you to the Holy Mysteries. Just because you do all the "right things" and come up doesn't automatically mean that he *has* to give you the Mysteries. He is the one responsible before his bishop and ultimately before God for the proper care for the sacrament. So, I would suggest to you that you follow whatever discipline and guidelines he has given you for your spiritual life and if you have questions about his instructions ask him. You are responsibile for your spiritual life - but he is responsible for the sacraments. Take care of that which is your responsibility and let him take care of those things that are his responsibility.

Fr David Moser

[M. Markewich]

Thank you both. I was under the wrong impression that communion was up to the individual in this case.

[Mourad Mankarios]

I think what is also often overlooked with regards to such a question and issue is that the Holy Sacrament is given as it is said to sinners and for the remission of sins...It is because of your sin my friend and your struggle with such that Christ calls you to this blessed sacrament that you may receive strength, forgiveness, support and hope...That you may be united to Him and that it may be the fire of His divinity that burns away all impurities and His life-giving body and blood that gives life and raises again this dead body to life and so that in this mystery I may experience a personal resurrection from the death of sin.

I think that the two sacraments of confession are two separate sacraments in their own right and it is good that you continue to practise both seeking healing in both and not simply afflicting your soul with guilt through the sacrament of confession and if your spiritual guide would to ask you to abstain for some reason or another from the Holy Communion then it would be good to bind your soul with his as a father to a son and trust in the wise elderly advice that he may give.

[M. Markewich]

Thank you Mourad. Your post definitely helps. I had viewed it more that the sacrament is for helping us, but we must be pretty much spotless before we take it. When put together with the earlier helpful posts, it's refreshing to know I can partake if my priest allows me without fear and condemnation, and God can help me despite my sin.

[Xenia Rose]

Right after my coming into the church I struggled with this subject myself. I was told to come to confession "about once a month" "to start with" by my Priest.

Having that guideline I also had the guideline of "but if a sin is weighing on you very much or you think you should not receive until you have confession, contact me ASAP so I can hear your confession before you receive."

This sounds all reasonable and sensible. But, I suffer from a tendency toward scrupilousity. I had to discuss this or that example of things with my Priest before I could figure out how to apply his directive to me and it took me a few months before I had it figured out enough to feel as if generally, I knew if I could receive each week or if it was something I needed to have confession for first.

Like your parish, in ours confession is not weekly at all. It is not always even as often as once a month. Now my confessions are every other month unless something is weighing on my conscience and I ask for an earlier one. (I also like to have confession just before going to Holy Unction so I sometimes have one sooner for that reason.... and my Priest agrees that this is a good practice for me.)

The bottom line is that on some level you do have a bit of a say about receiving the Eucharist. It has to do with weighing whether something needs to be confessed before receiving or if it could wait until the next confession.

But at the same time, it is also very true, imo, that the Priest is the one who determines if you can receive the Eucharist and who sets the rate of confessions he feels is right for each parishioner.

Therefore, I suggest strongly that you talk with your own Priest about this matter. Ask if your lustful thoughts are reason enough to have confession before receiving the Eucharist. (BTW, don't think your Priest will be shocked by this. They have heard it all and show us Love as Christ does when we confess openheartedly.)

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I would be interested to expand and re-invigorate this discussion somewhat.

Given the pending canonical reconciliation between the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia and abroad, the question of the relationship of the mystery of confession to that of the eucharist has been much discussed, as it is one in which customs vary between different portions of the Russian Orthodox Church. To summarise very briefly, the synod and many parts of the patriarchate in Russia itself have long had the norm of partaking in the holy communion only if one has confessed the evening before or the morning of, while in other parts of the patriarchate's territories, and in other daughter-communions of the patriarchate, customs are for communion to be regular but not necessary linked to each reception of the eucharist.

I would be keen to discuss here the relationship of the two sacraments, and in particular the theological and practical issues of their linkage (or otherwise) in Russian Orthodox practice. I would be particularly interested to look at the historical formation of the practice of their linkage; patristic testimony on their relationship; etc.

INXC, Matthew

[Father David Moser]

Matthew,

I think that one aspect of the origin of these differences is the practice of infrequent communion. The longer one goes between receiving the mysteries, the more vigorously one must prepare. I have had one person tell me that in their Serbian parish, the custom is to receive the Mysteries only once a year and in order to prepare, one is expected to keep a "water fast" for a week prior (eating nothing, drinking only water) and make confession on the eve of or on the day that one receives. That is a pretty severe preparation, but perhaps it is necessary preparation for those who, during the other 51 weeks of the year are not particularly mindful of their spiritual condition.

Confession is an integral part of "preparing" for Holy Communion - just as one makes sure to bathe and dress in their nicest clothing when they come to the Church. We fast, we pray and we confess to prepare. The more often you bathe, the less dirt buildup their is and so it takes less effort to do a proper job of it. Thus, for those who receive regularly, the necessity of confession is less acute - and in fact those who confess regularly (weekly) the "breadth" of their confessions (the number of different sins) decreases, but the "depth" of their confessions (their awareness of and attention to particular faults) increases. In effect you spend less time on the "surface dirt" and more time "deep cleaning".

In my own practice, I generally try to link the frequency of communion with the intensity of preparation. Thus if a person receives weekly, then I take their confessino weekly and if they should approach during the intervening week, I don't require that they come again (unless there is something on their conscience). OTOH if a person only receives once a month on Sunday, and wishes to receive the Mysteries say at a feast that occurs midweek, I do expect that they will give their confession prior to receiving. It is simply a matter that the intensity of preparation and regularity of confession should be consistent with the frequency of the receiving the Mysteries.

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear all,

I would be interested to expand and re-invigorate this discussion somewhat.

Given the pending canonical reconciliation between the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia and abroad, the question of the relationship of the mystery of confession to that of the eucharist has been much discussed, as it is one in which customs vary between different portions of the Russian Orthodox Church. To summarise very briefly, the synod and many parts of the patriarchate in Russia itself have long had the norm of partaking in the holy communion only if one has confessed the evening before or the morning of, while in other parts of the patriarchate's territories, and in other daughter-communions of the patriarchate, customs are for communion to be regular but not necessary linked to each reception of the eucharist.

I would be keen to discuss here the relationship of the two sacraments, and in particular the theological and practical issues of their linkage (or otherwise) in Russian Orthodox practice. I would be particularly interested to look at the historical formation of the practice of their linkage; patristic testimony on their relationship; etc.

INXC, Matthew

Our little parish is a microcosm of two of the three basic practices I have seen in the Church Abroad.

Our older people who were from the founding 'diaspora' generation receive only a few times a year at most. Usually this takes place during the fasting periods especially of Great Lent and the Nativity Fast. Confession always precedes reception of the Eucharist.

From what I gather this has been pretty standard Russian practice for a very long time, perhaps centuries. By the way, there was a time when before receiving there was a rigorous period of preparation called 'govenie' which included very strict fasting & prayers. Now, at least here, govenie has disappeared.

One of the reasons for this is that for the past 30 years or so younger priests have begun stressing more frequent reception of the Eucharist and as part of this downplaying the need for a standard period of preparation, ie govenie. This change in focus comes from the ongoing effort to teach a more Patristic understanding of the Eucharist in which the best preparation for the Eucharist is a consistent Orthodox way of life.

Govenie probably had its place with people communing so rarely. But it can also distort one's understanding of the Eucharist to that of a legalistic transaction.

Among our new arrivals from Russia and Ukraine there is often a desire for more frequent reception of the Eucharist than is seen among the older diaspora generation. This makes sense as these people are usually committed Orthodox Christians having basically 'converted' at some point. Much of their formation is obviously of the new kind seen in Russia- quite Patristic with a strong stress on asceticism and piety. These people also strongly connect the Eucharist and confession but perhaps a little less so than the older generation. But by more frequent reception I mean perhaps every couple of months and at times less than this.

During times of frequent Liturgies such as Holy Week I tell our people that once having confessed on Palm Sunday they may receive through the week unless they have something on their conscience.

To be honest I must refer to a serious problem in many of our parishes where the above two ways prevail rather than the third which really is frequent communion (and which I have seen in our convert and larger Russian parishes).

As noted above, the priests here, similarly to other small Russian parishes, have been preaching about the need for more frequent communion for at least 30 years now. Often with this 'new' teaching goes instruction that confession need not be connected to the Eucharist as if it were a transaction of some kind.

But many of our people have not really responded to this invitation to more frequently partake of the Eucharist. When new people arrive the tendency can be to fall into the same pattern as the older people regardless of the instruction by the priest. As a result in many parishes this pattern of reception is no longer restricted only to those of Russian background. It has crept through the whole parish to include even converts or our assimilated parishioners.

It seems that this problem is not restricted to only our Russian parishes. One can see a very similar pattern in many Orthodox parishes in North America of a more ethnic background. And this even once they begin assimilating. So it seems our Orthodox Church as a whole, regardless of jurisdiction, falls into two contradictory ways of approaching the Eucharist and Confession.

One reason this problem needs addressing is that from my observation this no longer is restricted to being an ethnic problem anymore. Rather I think we are beginning to see increasing worldly influences in some of our parishes where a rule of rarely receiving prevails because it is understood that reception requires at least some measure of regularly confessing as part of keeping to an ascetic church life.

Ironically I think this new take on an old way of relating to the Eucharist and Confession is beginning to dovetail with the new fashion found in some parishes to always receive the Eucharist but rarely confess.

The point is that the Eucharist and Confession do seem to go hand in hand in some integral way, even if it should not be as a transaction. When one is neglected so is the other. But a more recent reticence to come to grips with the fact that one is sinful has also begun to affect this question.

Basically if I can put it this way. We have for the past few decades stressed that there should not be a transactional relationship between Confession & the Eucharist. However in this more recent hesitation to approach the sacraments there is much of the general cultural rejection of self-sacrifice. While not a transaction these sacraments are part of a relationship of giving of oneself within the Church to receive Christ. So I think there is a nuance about giving and receiving in terms of the sacrament that needs consideration and conveying to our people & which is part of the Patristic teaching.

By the way I see absolutely no sign that any culture or group within the larger Church is completely free of this ongoing and recent temptation.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Trudy]

This past Sunday I had a very good conversation with our visiting priest (Fr. Andrew) who is best friends with our parish priest (Fr. Timothy) who continually stresses frequent Confession and frequent Communion.

Fr. Andrew used the term "nexus" to describe the relationship of Confession and Communion. They are connected to one another. It is a situation of "both/and" not "either/or." He said it took some time for him to educate his parishoners about this relationship of the two, but he is now seeing more people come to Confession prior to receiving Communion.

I do not understand the reluctance to partake of Confession. God blesses me with such peace during confession. I cannot explain it. I cannot undersand why would one neglect such a comforting sacrament? But that's just me.

Athanasia (Trudy)

[Nina]

Christ is Risen!

In contrast, to what I took for granted before and considered normal because of the lives of Saints I had read, now I have a question: Are the tears, we might shed during confession, seen as an exhibition of an "emotional" person here? I received an email and also from some people's thoughts here I got very confused... I would appreciate any clarifying thoughts very much!

[Chris Manaras]

...I have a question: Are the tears, we might shed during confession, seen as an exhibition of an "emotional" person here? ...


I think tears would indicate a human person during a very intimate conversations.

Many people have been raised to believe that tears are a sign of weekness (eg., wimp or over emotional...) and have conditioned themselves to really withhold such emotion in day to day life. I believe also that this is not (physically, emotionally, mentally, or spiritually) healthy. After a while, one may become delusioned thinking that "No Emotion... No Problem". But when that person takes off the masks during confession, the soul clenses and tears flow.

[Mourad Mankarios]

Dear Matthew,

It seems that frequent communion was historically the common practise of the church. However, as time progressed it seemed that the unworthiness of the participant was emphasised more and more and manifested itself perhaps in both a less frequent participation in the Eucharist as well as as the development of a closer relationship of Confession to Eucharist. The fourth Lateran council in 1215 established a canonical statute requiring confession at a minimum of once per year. With the general relationship developing between confession and eucharist this could then have resulted in the reception of communion only once a year.

This phenomenon I suppose is perhaps understood best in a better understanding of Confession itself and how this developed through time. It seems that historically confession was a rite of passage into the Christian community for those who may have been excommunicated for some kind of offence. A period of penance and a confession, perhaps even public, would re-introduce the individual back into the fold again. Perhaps this is how we can understand how certain individuals in ancient times understood that a person was permitted to sin only once.

Ther modern day practise of confession can be closely related to a monastic practise introduced by Irish monks in the 9th century.

However, many modern developments which have stemmed from the above do not seem conducive to the repentance of the members of the church. And seems to alienate and marginalise them more than urge them towards repentance, the prime duty of the church. It seems also to diminish the work of the Eucharist itself, which is given for the remission of sins and not saintly individuals who seem to ironically have an arrogant claim to no sin.

It seems to me that if Christ offered His body and blood to Judas and Peter, who betrayed and denied Him respectively then how can we so easily deny it to those individuals who are sincerely and earnestly struggling in their spiritual journey.

[Paul Cowan]

The second Baptism is the Baptism of tears. St. Symeon the New Theologian talks about this. Here is a link.
http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/wareonhs.html

We should all weep for our sins. How they have taken us far from God. It is not a form of emotionalism but more the most sincerest form of repentence.

PC

[Xenia Rose]

I absolutely love confession... ok, well, the way I feel when confession is over is what I love the most to be honest. But, there are times when I crave confession... I might not have one particular sin weighing on me, but I begin to feel the need for confession just the same.

I don't cry every time I go to confession, but I am an easily tearful person to begin with anyway. I cry in my evening prayers when I think of my sins, so confession would not be any different. However, I don't put much power into those tears. If I don't cry it does not mean I am not sorry or as sorry about my sins. My tears are part of my emotional make up and sometimes, I am more stoic then other times, but I always feel bad about my sins.

I converted from protestantism that put a great deal of emphasis on "feeling" this or that... emotionalism. I think that I am so careful about this subject for that reason. I don't want to believe something based on how I "feel" ever again. I want to believe based upon what is Truth and what my Church teaches me.

I am concerned about a comment made in this thread that implied that those of us who follow our Spiritual Father's limitations for confession to once a month or every other month are in some way making more superficial confessions and who are not really doing what is right. I think that we need to be respectful of our Spiritual Father's and obedient to their direction above all.

But also, I find that if I make more frequent confessions, I do not feel that my confessions are as good or as "deep". I think that confessing at about the pace my SF has me at is really working very good. I have time to self examine and really look at the patterns of my sins, the things that are triggering me to make these poor choices, my internal attitude issues that regularly demonstrate themselves, etc.

Keep in mind that the practice my SF has me follow is "regular confession" (according to the pace he has set) and VERY frequent reception of the Eucharist. I feel really bad if I have not taken the time to prepare for weekly reception of the Eucharist. The prayers to prepare for the Eucharist are very good for me but sometimes I get lazy or self involved and don't set aside the proper amount of time to say them. I also prepare for confession as well. I prepare for and recieve the Eucharist weekly ideally.

To do both on a weekly basis would be I am sure, very very good for me, but unrealistic not just for me, but for my Priest who has a full time job and is raising (with Matuschka) five children. Our parish is small (30 families... around 55 adults and their children some children are starting to go to confession too I believe.) but still, it would very difficult for him to do confession with every person once a week.

Perhaps he could do confession that often, but would he then have time for our Adult Education Program? Or what about the fact that we have several catechumens at any given time? There is only 24 hours a day and only 7 days a week.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Thanks to all for some interesting initial replies.

What I am particularly curious about is a discussion of the direct linkage of the two mysteries. It is true that in our current practice, there is a specific and direct connection (as described above in posts by various people); but it is equally true that this was not always the case. I'm interested in the historical progression of, first of all, the practical interconnection of the two (i.e. when the practice of seeing them as united sacraments began); and second, of the theology of that connection.

It is clear that there is not a single mind on such matters, as practices vis-a-vis the linkage of the two sacraments varies in the Orthodox world (e.g. the different in practice - in general - between the Russian and Greek traditions).

Further comments on this most welcome indeed.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Recently I read the English translation of St Nikodemos the Hagiorites' Concerning Frequent Communion. This book doesn't involve a detailed historical study but St Nikodemos does say in a general way that reception of communion has diminished (he is writing in the 18th century) since the early times of the Church. He clearly connects this to a diminishing fervency among the faithful over the ages.

St Nikodemos then makes the interesting point that the rules found in the canons for various sins are really attempts of the Church to restore the balance of fervency through asceticism. Again this is not a historical study but as one reads through St Nicodemos one notices that he always makes it clear that the rule is fulfilled only upon confession. Now since in this work St Nikodemos himself acknowledges that the way in which the faithful confess has changed over the time (in private to a confessor rather than openly before the Church) as well as the frequency (for any consciously sinful thought or action rather than only mortal sins) one gets the strong impression that St Nikodemos connects confession with the eucharist mainly as an ascetic measure to restore the seriousness that has been lost in the life of Christians.

Just as an added historical point in passing. From St Nikodemos' comments it seems clear that at that time in the Greek world in which he found himself at least, confession and the eucharist did go hand in hand. So he wasn't urging the need to confess before receiving the eucharist as if the practice had been completely lost so much as a more serious intent and understanding when doing this.

As for what would St Nikodemos have been in favour of for Christians who had attained the level of what he called frequent communion. He writes: "One is to frequently partake of the divine Mysteries with the proper preparation of confession, contrition, the fulfillment of your rule, and fasting as much as you are able, The other is prayer." (p 215 Concerning Frequent Communion).

One senses in this urging of St Nikodemos not only a strong desire for the faithful for a more fervent life of which confession and the eucharist are central. One also sees here a willing and thought out acceptance of what had originally been monastic standards in order to encourage the faithful to this increased level of fervency. Thus St Nikodemos speaks at length of the sinfulness of thoughts, an understanding which largely arose from within monasticism, as a standard to encourage the faithful to confession. This is an interesting example of using monastic standards to increase the spiritual fervency of the faithful, not the first time this has happened in the life of the Church.

I suppose a lot of how we decide on the relation of confession to the eucharist will come down to what we see in practice. At one time there was a very strict connection made between confession and the eucharist. Now it seems there is not as strict a connection made but this in itself comes from the attempt at more frequent communion.

I myself as a priest have mostly had experience of these two ways: very strict and less. Personally I think the less is better if one is communing frequently. If as in Holy Week there are many liturgies at which one can receive then confession simply may not be needed before each time one receives. On the other hand someone may feel something on their conscience. That's why in these situations I usually say a person can receive according to conscience.

A situation I have had experience of however which I could tell over time was most wrong is not requiring confession in any way while obligating everyone to receive the eucharist. At least at one time this practice was quite widespread. What I noticed was that people were receiving at every Liturgy but only confessing a few times a year, some once. This is dreadful.

I'm not sure Matthew if your question is even more fundamental than this. It could be that frequent confession could go hand in hand with frequent reception of the eucharist but more as coinciding with rather than as necessarily culminating in the other. But first the faithful need to have attained this level which is rare; and then for practical reasons even in most monasteries I have been in confession is frequent but the monastics do confess before the Eucharist.

So it could be that in many cases it is for pastoral reasons that we have to be strict about the connection between confession and the eucharist.

In Christ- Fr Raphael





Thanks to all for some interesting initial replies.

What I am particularly curious about is a discussion of the direct linkage of the two mysteries. It is true that in our current practice, there is a specific and direct connection (as described above in posts by various people); but it is equally true that this was not always the case. I'm interested in the historical progression of, first of all, the practical interconnection of the two (i.e. when the practice of seeing them as united sacraments began); and second, of the theology of that connection.

It is clear that there is not a single mind on such matters, as practices vis-a-vis the linkage of the two sacraments varies in the Orthodox world (e.g. the different in practice - in general - between the Russian and Greek traditions).

Further comments on this most welcome indeed.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Fr Raphael,

Thank you for your above response. I appreciate the reference to the text by St Nikodemos, which it has been a long while since I last read.

What strikes me as interesting is the particularity of the custom of a direct and definitive linkage of confession to communion that has arisen in the Russian tradition, which has not, as such, in the Greek.

INXC, Matthhew

[Nina]

What strikes me as interesting is the particularity of the custom of a direct and definitive linkage of confession to communion that has arisen in the Russian tradition, which has not, as such, in the Greek.

INXC, Matthhew

Please, could you explain this further?

Once with some friends (Orthodox from Greece) we were visiting a church in another country (Slavic) in EU and my friends were refused Holy Communion because the priest said that he does not know them, or heard their confession. :) (I am not sure if you refer to this kind of practice). My friends were so embarrassed, but we all understood the motive of the priest and appreciated his concern and discernment.

[Father David Moser]

Once with some friends (Orthodox from Greece) we were visiting a church in another country (Slavic) in EU and my friends were refused Holy Communion because the priest said that he does not know them, or heard their confession. :) (I am not sure if you refer to this kind of practice). My friends were so embarrassed, but we all understood the motive of the priest and appreciated his concern and discernment.

Nina,

No matter where you are, it is always a good practice to make yourself known to the priest of a parish where you are visiting before you approach the Chalice. The priest has an obligation before God to guard the Mysteries and thus must be careful about to whom he gives them. Should he be lax in this duty and even unknowingly give the Mysteries to someone who is outside the Church or who is under some kind of ban or simply who has not prepared, then he too shares the responsibility before God. Of course, those who do meticulously care for this aspect of their ministry, but are decieved by an intenional liar (for example) are free of such danger.

In today's mobile world where tourists and travelers seem to be everywhere, there absolutely no assurance that a visitor is 1. Orthodox or 2. has any clue about whether or not they would be permitted to recieve communion. (In the US, for example, many Anglicans and Roman Catholics think that they are permitted to receive in Orthodox Churches because their clergy have told them its OK - they never think to ask the Orthodox if it's OK. And most of the Protestants don't hold that there is anything special about the Mysteries, that it is all just a symbol and so every "Christian" is eligible).

Confession prior to receiving the Mysteries (Whatever the theological originsof the practice) is one way to provide the priest with an avenue to make sure he knows each and every person who approaches the Mystery. Myself, I can tell you that it is much easier to say "I can't commune you because I haven't confessed you" than it is to launch into a dialogue at the Chalice with a stranger about baptism and sacraments and ecclesiology. I find it a very practical and useful tool. Of course, with my regular parishioners and spiritual children, I already have a really good sense for what their situation may be and so I can make an "exception" to the rule on occasion when it seems appropriate. But I can't just offer the Gifts to any unknown who walks in the door.

Fr David Moser

[Nina]

Nina,
No matter where you are, it is always a good practice to make yourself known to the priest of a parish where you are visiting before you approach the Chalice.

Dear Father David,
Your Blessings!

This is what surprised and humbled us the most, because the priest knew we were members of an Orthodox youth association and were visiting officially. We learned a lot from that occasion.


The priest has an obligation before God to guard the Mysteries and thus must be careful about to whom he gives them. Should he be lax in this duty and even unknowingly give the Mysteries to someone who is outside the Church or who is under some kind of ban or simply who has not prepared, then he too shares the responsibility before God. Of course, those who do meticulously care for this aspect of their ministry, but are decieved by an intenional liar (for example) are free of such danger.

In today's mobile world where tourists and travelers seem to be everywhere, there absolutely no assurance that a visitor is 1. Orthodox or 2. has any clue about whether or not they would be permitted to recieve communion. (In the US, for example, many Anglicans and Roman Catholics think that they are permitted to receive in Orthodox Churches because their clergy have told them its OK - they never think to ask the Orthodox if it's OK. And most of the Protestants don't hold that there is anything special about the Mysteries, that it is all just a symbol and so every "Christian" is eligible).

I couldn't agree more with you Father! And I appreciate such a careful priest very much. I think it is also our duty as believers to help the priests guard the Holy Communion. I feel so guilty because I think of an occasion, when a friend, who was not Orthodox, or even baptized at the time, approached the chalice and received the Holy Communion because I did not have enough time (the church was full of people) to warn her and the priest about her status. She thought that it was something tasteful served at church, when she saw everyone receiving it. Now she is Orthodox thank God!


Confession prior to receiving the Mysteries (Whatever the theological originsof the practice) is one way to provide the priest with an avenue to make sure he knows each and every person who approaches the Mystery. Myself, I can tell you that it is much easier to say "I can't commune you because I haven't confessed you" than it is to launch into a dialogue at the Chalice with a stranger about baptism and sacraments and ecclesiology.

I agree completely and thank you for the humorous hue!


I find it a very practical and useful tool. Of course, with my regular parishioners and spiritual children, I already have a really good sense for what their situation may be and so I can make an "exception" to the rule on occasion when it seems appropriate. But I can't just offer the Gifts to any unknown who walks in the door.

Fr David Moser

Who am I to say this? However I can not help, but thank you Father, since Holy Communion is the most precious, frightening Mystery and the core of our faith!

[M.C. Steenberg]

Thank you all for some thoughtful responses.

I would be grateful to hear from some for whom the local custom of their Orthodox Church is not to link confession directly with communion (e.g. many Greek parishes, OCA, Antiochian). I would be very interested to hear the presentation made for this practice as well.

INXC, Matthew

[Trudy]

Thank you all for some thoughtful responses.

I would be grateful to hear from some for whom the local custom of their Orthodox Church is not to link confession directly with communion (e.g. many Greek parishes, OCA, Antiochian). I would be very interested to hear the presentation made for this practice as well.

INXC, Matthew

For what it is worth, I am in an OCA parish and it is there I learned of the link of confession and communion. It is our local custom. I guess each parish would be different due to local custom - which is your point Matthew.

Athanasia

[Bogdan]

In the serbian church, at least in America, the common practice is to do confession in the hour before church begins. In bigger parishes (more than one priest), priests will give confession during the liturgy itself, most commonly after the reading of the gospel, before the "Veliki Hod". There are a few parishes where priests will have confession on saturday before giving communion, but in general it is not a practice to do confession anytime too far before communion. I sure this practice has some to do with laziness, and some to do with a tradition that does not want to give you too much time to mess up your confessed state.

I personally believe the whole "right before church" thing is a disgrace and we should move confession to days before sunday. It has gotten to the point now that the priest will actually pause right before communion to go out and do confession. That means the person doesn't even have to be in church for the whole liturgy!!

However, if the priest has not seen you, you usually do not take communion. Not that the priest wouldn't allow it, it's just not the practice for us. Most people in the Serbian church believe you can not take communion unless you just confessed that day. For them, communion can not be had without immediate confession. This has become such a deep practice for us, I would wager most people do not know they can confess before sunday! I try to teach it during my sunday school classes, but the younger generation could never talk the older into "changing their ways".

Perhaps there is some good in a confession before every communion. I can't help but believe this was more a case of priests wanting to make sure that people had confessed for sure before just giving out communion. Especially because 50% of communion's happen EXCLUSIVELY during the great fasts.

[Andrew]

At my home parish, confession and communion are closely linked. A good portion of the people confess every week and commune every week. Our bishop recommends once a month for confession if a person is communion frequently, but our own priest confesses often, and encourages us to. I find the most spiritual benefit in confessing weekly and communing weekly. The very best in my mind is during Lent when one can receive the holy mysteries on Wednesdays, Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays (if properly prepared), while confessing during the week.

My parish away from home has much less frequent confession, but frequent communion. The circumstances of this parish are much different than my home one... both are churches in the Diocese of the South of the OCA. Both have very good priests, but with different styles, ages, and life circumstances.

[Mourad Mankarios]

Dear Fr Raphael,

Thank you for your above response. I appreciate the reference to the text by St Nikodemos, which it has been a long while since I last read.

What strikes me as interesting is the particularity of the custom of a direct and definitive linkage of confession to communion that has arisen in the Russian tradition, which has not, as such, in the Greek.

INXC, Matthhew

I think this is largely due to the latinizing influence of Peter Mogila...

[Father Serafim]

Our parish under the Jerusalem Patriarchate follows the Greek practice of St Macarius of Corinth, who recommended frequent Communion. As a member of the Kolyvades movemet, he together with St Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain reintroduced the ancient practice of regular communion and confession as well as not serving memorial services on Sundays.

St Macarius writes that we receive great benefits from the Divine Mysteries, both in soul and body, before we commune, at the time when we commune and after we have communed. Before we commune, we must make the necessary preparation, that is confession, correct ourselves, feel compunction, guard ourselves from passionate thoughts, as far as possible and that after communing we should preserve the grace within us until the next communion.

What the saint is saying that one Communion leads us to the next. "And when he reflects that after a few days he will commune again, he doubles his attention...he struggles to the highest degree possible. He is incited on the one hand by the fact that he has communed only a short time ago, and on the other by his anticipation of the Commuion he will receive only a short time hence". St Macarius says that infrequent Commuion produces in Christians the opposite of all these.

From a pastoral perspective, I discourage infrequent Communion, although there are occasions of course when this is necessary because of an epitemia or because of menstruation. Otherwise people commune more than they would in Russia, for example.

[Dusan Basta]

Christ is risen!
Indeed is risen!

On this topic I would like to quote on Serbian episcope Porfirije who said:

`When it is a fast I am fasting.
When I have something to confess I confess.
When there is Liturgy I (with all the others in the church) take communion.
And this is so simple and it requires no philosophy.`

We go to the Liturgy to take communion because `Christ is risen` for us to have eternal life not only to forgive our sins.

It is very dangerous, as Father Alexander Schmemman said - to condition sacraments. `To make somebody’s confess a token required for the communion`. Because God is love that is unconditioned, and on the Cross He has forgiven us all our sins because he loves us.
The only condition we have to fulfill is to repent for our sins, and we do that during the Liturgy.
We are in the fallen world and we are never sinless, of course, but it is in the empirical experience of the Liturgy that we are allowed to become one body in Christ.
Of course if we confess something for which the priest excommunicates us, we would not take communion.
One interesting thing is that in the old (`apostolic`) church people who were excommunicated were not allowed to stay after the Liturgy for the catechumens. The episcope (or priest) would call their names and they would have to leave together with catechumens so only those who take communion should stay.

[Bogdan]

dusane,

would you say you actually take communion every sunday? From my experience in the Serbian church I would say people take communion 3-4 times a year. If that. Is it any better by you?

[Dusan Basta]

Cheers to all,

If we look at this problem from Liturgical perspective it is even more questionable to have orthodox bishops that are against frequent communion.

When episcope with the priests moves to the upper room they sit to form icon of the last judgment as it should be in Eshaton. After scripture reading, the last judgment is now over, it had happened. All our sins are forgotten, we can enter into the Kingdom. But not all of us. Deacon calls all the catechumen to depart. He should also call all the others who are not going to take communion to depart, but this does not happen as we lost this understanding of the Liturgy as the icon of Kingdom. All the ones who should not be in the Kingdom once the last judgment is over should depart and the doors of the church are closed. For us who remain in the Kingdom as our sins are already forgotten, we become Saints. That is why we can get in communion with Christ, not because we are prepared or not. That is also why we should all get communion together. Those who not take communion should not be in the Kingdom, that is why we have epithemy.
Those bishops who deny this understanding of the Liturgy think in RC way, i.e. the Liturgy is the repetition, commemoration of the Mystical Supper and of the historical Christ suffering and dying for us on the Cross. But this is only one part of what happens during Liturgy, so it is serious reduction in Christian faith.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Some people fast on Saturday and take communion on Sunday, but a couple of weeks ago our priest told us that we had first to go to confession in order to take communion.

Effie

[Andrew]

Cheers to all,

If we look at this problem from Liturgical perspective it is even more questionable to have orthodox bishops that are against frequent communion.

When episcope with the priests moves to the upper room they sit to form icon of the last judgment as it should be in Eshaton. After scripture reading, the last judgment is now over, it had happened. All our sins are forgotten, we can enter into the Kingdom. But not all of us. Deacon calls all the catechumen to depart. He should also call all the others who are not going to take communion to depart, but this does not happen as we lost this understanding of the Liturgy as the icon of Kingdom. All the ones who should not be in the Kingdom once the last judgment is over should depart and the doors of the church are closed. For us who remain in the Kingdom as our sins are already forgotten, we become Saints. That is why we can get in communion with Christ, not because we are prepared or not. That is also why we should all get communion together. Those who not take communion should not be in the Kingdom, that is why we have epithemy.
Those bishops who deny this understanding of the Liturgy think in RC way, i.e. the Liturgy is the repetition, commemoration of the Mystical Supper and of the historical Christ suffering and dying for us on the Cross. But this is only one part of what happens during Liturgy, so it is serious reduction in Christian faith.

The various traditions regarding frequent and infrequent communion are not a cut and dried either or. Infrequent communion is not necessarily formed by a Papist understanding the Liturgy. Romanians have a long tradition of infrequent communion, but the ascesis involved in preparation is much greater than what we who commune frequently do. Fr. Alexander Schmemann is not the end all be all of liturgical theology or history in the Church. There are various valid approaches to participation within the ascetical-sacramental life of the Church. Some are more rigoristic, some emphasize economia more. But all of them are aimed at the salvation of man.

There are valid reasons to be against frequent communion... if there is infrequent confession and a lack of preparation for communion. The best case is frequent confession and frequent communion, I think.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Effie wrote:


Some people fast on Saturday and take communion on Sunday

There are also at least two different practices about how to relate fasting to the reception of communion that I have seen.

On Mt Athos at the monasteries I stayed in a special lenten-style supper was provided for those who intended to receive communion the next day. Here in our Russian parishes there was a practice called Govenie where the person who intended to receive the Eucharist would follow a strict fast along with other ascetic practices for a certain period of time (often a week) beforehand.

In the west however it is much more common to see the practice of a total fast from midnight before one wishes to commune. In practice what this really means is not having breakfast or drinking anything before the Liturgy that morning. Probably as a result of following this new pattern the older practice of Govenie has almost disappeared here in the west.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

Here in our Russian parishes there was a practice called Govenie where the person who intended to receive the Eucharist would follow a strict fast along with other ascetic practices for a certain period of time (often a week) beforehand.

Most of my new Russians are accustomed to this type of preparation for 3 days before receiving. This practice make sense if you receive only occasionally, but not for someone coming to the cup every week. What we have worked out here is a kind of "graduated" preparation. (The theory being that if you wash regularly, you are mostly clean - but if you bathe infrequently, well then you need a longer, more intense cleansing - think Peter at the last supper) If someone is coming to the cup every week, then the "short" preparation from Vigil through the next day is appropriate but if someone only comes once a month, then the three day preparation is about right. If one comes less than once a month (say 1-4x/year) then the preparation for a week is appropriate. This helps preserve the practice of govenie but at the same time does not impose impossible barriers on frequent reception.

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Most of my new Russians are accustomed to this type of preparation for 3 days before receiving. This practice make sense if you receive only occasionally, but not for someone coming to the cup every week. What we have worked out here is a kind of "graduated" preparation. (The theory being that if you wash regularly, you are mostly clean - but if you bathe infrequently, well then you need a longer, more intense cleansing - think Peter at the last supper) If someone is coming to the cup every week, then the "short" preparation from Vigil through the next day is appropriate but if someone only comes once a month, then the three day preparation is about right. If one comes less than once a month (say 1-4x/year) then the preparation for a week is appropriate. This helps preserve the practice of govenie but at the same time does not impose impossible barriers on frequent reception.

Fr David Moser

This is a very good way to consider and deal with this.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Nicolaj]

I am just reading a fine book of Bishop Hilarion Alfajev, who accidentally happens to be my bishop, called The mystery of Faith. It is written for those interesting in the dogmen of the Orthodox Church. I can highly recommend to all who like to know exactly about things like preparing for communion and more such things which are often forgotten about.

Bishop Hilarion tells in his book, which he wrote for seminarians in Russia, that it is good to participate in the Holy Meal as often as we can. The praxis of going only once or twice a year came up while people thought they are unworthy to take part more often. As if not taken part and not confession my sins and not to prepare makes me more worthy?
Okay read this book it is really nice and clear to read!

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[Dusan Basta]

Cheers,

When we orthodox speak about our salvation, we have to be very careful not to confuse ethical and ontological aspects.

Orthodoxy without ascetic life is of course ridiculous as ascetic life is necessesary to bring us close (back) to God.
But we can fast for months only on water, confess every day, feed and clothe every soul in need, do best things, be super moral persons. It would not help us against the death, which is the utmost enemy according to the Fathers. If Christ is not Risen from the death, we would simply die after all and this is then ontological catastrophe. We would seize to exist by simply returning to the inexistence where we came from and whatever we did in our lifes was in vain.

Story of Pharisee and a Tax collector is one of many examples from the Gospel that reminds us not to forget ontological aspect of our salvation.

In addition, many more people outside orthodoxy are better in fasting and in prayers, even if you compare them with our orthodox monks. Take Buddhist as an example.

The only way to defeat death is through communion with resurrected Christ and it is very dangerous to condition this by clergy if it is not done in pure love because then it is not conditioned. :))

When Christ left us Holy Communion through his apostles at Mystical Supper, he knew that they were not saints at that moment. He gave them communion even he knew that they would betray him tomorrow. However, his vocation was to defeat death, not only to take on him our sins, and to fulfill what his father wanted.