Recently, a subscriber commented on one of my earlier articles entitled “The Devil Hates When People Find the Orthodox Faith” wherein he stated that he was surprised to learn that new converts, or more precisely those who are not yet fully received into the Church, are unable to receive the Most Holy Sacrament of Eucharist. Of course I confirmed for the reader that this was in fact the case in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, but his comment also forced me to consider the sacraments in general. Specifically I thought about how these sacraments are viewed in the two churches and how they relate to our salvation, and indeed about the reasons why one might not be able to partake in these sacraments.
I started to ponder, specifically on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. As I contemplated this topic it forced me to confront the differences between how the two churches view the necessity of this sacrament, but more precisely how the two churches view overall salvation, attendance and restrictions or guidelines as they relate to reception of this Sacrament while in a state of sinfulness. Those observations are what I want to discuss today.
One of the major differences between the Catholic and Orthodox Church is the approach that is taken towards both attendance at Liturgy/Mass and the connection between that attendance, sin deriving from missing attendance and the receiving of the Most Holy Sacrament while in a state of sin. These differences are a significant reason why someone like myself, who is transitioning from Catholicism to Orthodoxy might struggle somewhat during that conversion. For instance, in the Catholic Church it is considered a mortal sin to miss Mass on a holy day of obligation, and therefore to miss the Most Holy Sacrament.
“There can be unavoidable circumstances that prevent our coming to Mass, but under normal circumstances, attending Mass on Sunday is a solemn and binding obligation. If we deliberately fail in this matter, it is a grave sin and we must go to confession before receiving communion again.”
It is for this reason that the extremely lengthy process of entering the Orthodox Church, which can take upwards of a full year or more, can be difficult for Catholic converts. Not only are we accustomed to receiving the Eucharist every Sunday, but we are programmed to believe that our salvation is intrinsically tied to that sacrament. If we miss Mass, and therefore miss receiving the Eucharist for any reason, we are meant to confess that sin before we can subsequently receive the sacrament again. For us, receiving the Body and Blood of Christ on a regular basis is most essential. For a Roman Catholic who has spent an entire life observing this practice, it can actually be debilitating to be refused this Sacrament for such a lengthy period of time.
Conversely, in the Orthodox Church, not only is it normal for people to miss the Liturgy on a given week, but attendance is not in any way tied to one’s salvation. Furthermore, even if Orthodox faithful attend the Liturgy religiously and without fail, week in and week out, there is no guarantee (in some parishes) that Holy Communion will even be offered on a weekly basis. The following article from the OCA website sheds some light on this practice, which is still commonplace in ROCOR churches:
“There are many reasons… …that led to the infrequent reception of Communion… …in the time of St. John Chrysostom one finds that frequent reception of the Eucharist was not necessarily observed. Until quite recently—I would say prior to the 1960s—it was common to find the faithful receiving the Eucharist only once every year, usually during Great Lent. Certainly, if one receives the Eucharist only once or twice every year, one should indeed observe individual Confession before receiving Holy Communion…”
Some Orthodox believe that missing the Divine Liturgy in and of itself is not a reason for excommunication. I have heard it said that if a person misses three Liturgies in a row, without valid excuse, he or she “might” be excommunicated. I cannot locate any hard and fast documentation on these claims, and as with all doctrinal and dogmatic matters in the Orthodox Church, it is best if one consults with his or her Spiritual Father for the correct answers to these questions. That too is a huge difference between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. While the Catholic Church is very legalistic, rules based and contains very black and white guidelines for acceptable practice, the Orthodox Church is much more “mystical” in this regard. We refer to our Spiritual Father for most subject matter that we are unsure of the answers to. We do not have lists of “venial” and “mortal” sins, or juridical guidelines for how to address these infractions. In fact, the Orthodox view “sin” in an altogether different way than their Roman Catholic counterparts:
In the Orthodox Church there are no “categories” of sin as found in the Christian West.
In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as “mortal” and “venial.” In this definition, a “mortal” sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of “mortal” sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered “mortal” sins. A “venial” sin, according to this line of thinking, did not jeopardize one’s salvation. While stealing a car might be considered a “mortal” sin, stealing a candy bar was not. While a “venial” sin did not jeopardize one’s salvation, it still needed to be confessed and still may have had time in purgatory attached to it. Another way to see this distinction in Roman Catholic teaching—and here I simplify a tremendously complex line of reasoning—is as follows: If one commits a mortal sin and dies before confessing it, one would go straight to hell. If one commits a venial sin and dies before confessing it, one would not go straight to hell, but would have to spend time in purgatory before entering heaven.
[The Orthodox Church does not accept the teaching on purgatory that developed in more recent times in Roman Catholicism.]
These categories do not exist in the Orthodox Church. Sin is sin.
The Greek word for sin, amartia, means “to miss the mark.” As Christians, the “mark” or “target” for which we “aim” is a Christ-like life, one lived to the best of our ability in line with the teachings, precepts, and commandments of God. When we miss this mark, when we fail to hit this target, we sin. Murder is a sin. Pride and envy are sins. Stealing a car is a sin. Stealing a candy bar is a sin. Refusing to attend the Liturgy is a sin—but so is attending the Liturgy with hatred for others.
Yet in a strange way, the Orthodox Church has a much more strict approach to the Eucharist despite not having the juridical guidelines surrounding that approach. For instance, in a Roman Catholic Church, due to the sheer size of the congregations and the impersonal nature of the relationships in such large parishes, it would be virtually impossible for a priest to keep track of who is permitted to receive the Eucharist and who isn’t. In most cases, a priest wouldn’t even notice if a parishioner had been absent from Mass for several weeks, unless that particular parishioner was involved in a church ministry or other role that forced them into prominence, such as being on the Parish Council, or a member of the Knights of Columbus. Certainly, if a parishioner who normally acts as an usher or a tithe collector goes missing, it would likely be noticed. However the majority of parishioners in just about every Catholic Church where I have ever frequented, is largely unnoticed on any given week. In the Catholic Church, despite the strict rules, reception of the Eucharist is mainly conducted on the honor system.
“But priests cannot read souls. There are very few that can be said to be in a public state of sin as St. Thomas Aquinas described. The default for the priest is to not deny us Communion if we approach. He must assume the best of us if we have not been in the public eye. This means we ourselves must make a thorough examination of conscience so we do not desecrate the Eucharist with an unworthy reception.”
In the Orthodox Church however, there is no getting away with it. The communities are much more tight knit, the priest knows everyone in his parish, literally by name in most cases, and it wouldn’t be uncommon to see an Orthodox Priest deny the Sacrament to a visitor he doesn’t know. Despite the fact that the legalistic rules are not present, the Sacrament itself is taken much more seriously and regarded as much more sacred, not to be offered to just anybody who professes to be Orthodox, in good standing and clean of spirit and soul.
When my Spiritual Father talks about early 20th century Orthodox worship in Russia and Eastern Europe, he paints a picture of the faith that is very sporadic, and for good reason. Communism and the Bolshevik Revolution almost destroyed the Russian Orthodox and Eastern European Orthodox Churches. In most cases people were prevented from practicing the faith openly, they were forced underground to practice it. Habits grow from necessity. With the proliferation of atheism in the region, people fell away from the Church, and some of those formed habits persist today.
Still, it is an odd juxtaposition to consider the Orthodox proclivity to miss the Divine Liturgy and therefore miss the Most Holy Sacrament while also regarding that Sacrament as too sacred and holy to offer just anybody without discernment, while also considering the legalistic and punitive Catholic Church who deems one’s soul bound for hell or purgatory, but who will also freely administer the Most Holy Sacrament to just about anybody who approaches the chalice. An odd juxtaposition indeed.