Is Lax Communion or Strict Communion a better option?

[Gardener]

The Orthodox churches of the East are schismatic. I don't understand why their practices should concern us at all. Or be held up as a standard for comparison. These are the people that permit divorce, abortion and contraception in certain cases where the Catholic church forbids them. Why do we care how they practice their so called sacraments?

Their Sacraments are not "so-called", but are as real as the Sacraments in the West. Thus, if I drive by an Orthodox Church I cross myself in honor of the Blessed Sacrament, on the assumption of His presence.

And, prior to the Schism, their Sacraments were the same as today.

You really need to get off the Donatism train.

[LausTibiChriste]

My wife has been going to a Ukrainian church and they seem to have embraced frequent Communion

Yes, my Ruthenian parish definitely likewise has frequent Communion. I'm the oddball who receives infrequently. Of course, I was the oddball in my previous Latin parishes who received infrequently, too...

I went to a Divine Liturgy last week in a rather large cathedral and there were at least 150 people there (no idea but let's say). I think 20 people went for communion. My western North America sensibilities were petrified

[LausTibiChriste]

The Orthodox churches of the East are schismatic. I don't understand why their practices should concern us at all. Or be held up as a standard for comparison. These are the people that permit divorce, abortion and contraception in certain cases where the Catholic church forbids them. Why do we care how they practice their so called sacraments?

In addition to what Gardener posted - many practices of the Orthodox are exactly those of the Eastern Catholics....and they should concern us.

[aquinas138]

My wife has been going to a Ukrainian church and they seem to have embraced frequent Communion

Yes, my Ruthenian parish definitely likewise has frequent Communion. I'm the oddball who receives infrequently. Of course, I was the oddball in my previous Latin parishes who received infrequently, too...

I went to a Divine Liturgy last week in a rather large cathedral and there were at least 150 people there (no idea but let's say). I think 20 people went for communion. My western North America sensibilities were petrified

Interestingly, whenever I would go to a Spanish NO Mass in Alabama, the place would be filled to the rafters, several hundred at least, and *maybe* 30 people communed. Is "always communing" a white thing?

[Maximilian]

Interestingly, whenever I would go to a Spanish NO Mass in Alabama, the place would be filled to the rafters, several hundred at least, and *maybe* 30 people communed. Is "always communing" a white thing?

SWPL

[Miriam_M]

Interestingly, whenever I would go to a Spanish NO Mass in Alabama, the place would be filled to the rafters, several hundred at least, and *maybe* 30 people communed. Is "always communing" a white thing?

For years I went to a mixed (about half and half) white + Latino N.O. parish.  At every Mass, the same percentage of Latinos received as non-Latinos:  typically 95% from each group.  And the Latino crowd acted every bit as casual/irreverent toward the Mass as the white crowd did.  In similar mixed parishes, and in dominant Latino parishes, I experienced the same thing.  Perhaps it's more about different locations, and/or the example and preaching of the priest.

[Miriam_M]

Weekly confession and daily Mass and communion is by far and away the best practice of all.

I agree, and I often feel I would benefit from weekly confession, but my spiritual director forbids it, even though he recognizes that I am not scrupulous.  I have asked him three times.  I could go to another confessor, but that kind of defeats the coherence of it all.

[Green]

In the Orthodox Churches, the Russian Orthodox Church is extremely strict, mandating Confession before one can receive Communion, and forbidding it otherwise. Although there are obvious benefits such that Communion is much less likely served to one's condemnation, nonetheless it has created a situation where some individuals only receive Communion once every 6 months.

Which practice for Catholics or Orthodox would be superior in your opinion?

Strict would be superior as in, if one wants to commune then they would have to frequent confession. So frequent communion = frequent confession. Not sure why some would wait 6 months to commune when confession is available unless they're nervous or something.

The ROCOR churches I have been to the priest will sometimes make an announcement that Communion is only for Orthodox Christians who have made recent Confession, said pre-Communion prayers and went to vigil the night before. This is on the stricter end but I like how everybody in the congregation knows before so that there are no awkward conversations at the Chalice.

I think this would be a good middle ground to make a announcement that 'communion is for only Orthodox Christians who have made a recent confession' as abc123 said, especially if its a church that gets many visitors like in a city. I think having to say pre-communion prayers and observe the vigil is too much though.

The Greek Orthodox Church, on the other hand, is loose such that anybody who is a canonical member of the Orthodox Church can receive Communion, unless the Priest knows they have committed a grave sin or they have been excommunicated. While people more frequently receive Communion, nevertheless some feel that it creates an ambivalence to the reality of Christ in the Body and the Blood.

with the lax practice you basically have to assume that those attending a Orthodox Church and approaching communion are Orthodox and know their faith enough to have confessed beforehand. How does a priest know if they're a 'canonical orthodox christian' unless you have to talk to the priest beforehand or you mean of the parish and not the Orthodox Church as a whole. I suppose this is where partitioning a Church by ethnic lines is useful 'Greek' Orthodox Church etc,.

[Jon Paul]

I find the idea of of confession being tied to communion as stupid as the idea that you have to communicate at ever Mass you assist at. Confession should not be reduced to a mere preparation for receiving Holy Communion.

And it seems bizzare to insist on confession before communion when there's no mortal sins to confess. The most blessed Sacrament itself forgives venial faults, no?

[aquinas138]

I find the idea of of confession being tied to communion as stupid as the idea that you have to communicate at ever Mass you assist at. Confession should not be reduced to a mere preparation for receiving Holy Communion.

And it seems bizzare to insist on confession before communion when there's no mortal sins to confess. The most blessed Sacrament itself forgives venial faults, no?

I agree that Confession should not be reduced to mere preparation for Communion, but rigorous preparation does mitigate against cavalier reception. On the other hand, Confession primarily exists to restore baptized sinners to the Eucharistic Communion of the Church, so calling it preparation for Communion isn't exactly wrong. I would also hesitate to call another venerable tradition, especially one essentially based on respect for the Holy Eucharist, "stupid." Furthermore, it's not really stupid in a context wherein Communion is extremely infrequent; a great many Russians only communicate 2-3 times a year, if that, even if they attend Liturgy every Sunday. Roman Catholics were pretty similar until the 20th century - there's a reason the canons requiring we "make our Easter duty" exist. Before 1215, when the requirement began, many Catholics went years between Communions.

The Eastern tradition does not view Confession primarily as a means of expunging mortal sins (there's not really a venial/mortal distinction in Eastern tradition), but as an opportunity to advance in holiness. The dominant understanding of Confession-Communion is of illness/medical treatment, with the priest or spiritual father acting as a physician, whereas the dominant Western understanding is in terms of crime or sin/juridical act of absolution, with the priest acting as a judge. Neither image is wrong, but both are prone to distortion if insisted upon absolutely.

Especially in Russian tradition, one does not receive Communion unless blessed by his father of confession. Communion is treated as the supreme medicine against sin, but medicine must be taken properly. It is not enough simply to not have mortal sins; one must be in a proper state – at peace with our neighbors, struggling against the passions, having observed the fasts, etc.

[Jon Paul]

When I typed my post I framed it in my mind solely within the context of the Latin Church's understanding-or at least my own personal understanding of the Latin tradition-of the sacraments and the spiritual life.

I failed to put my post in that context. So let me assure you that I was not referring to any eastern practise or tradition whatsoever and I am very sorry that my post, out of context and in the middle of a discussion concerning Eastern practises, was taken as an attack on the Russian tradition. But that was my fault and so I apologise.

I maintain that in the Latin Church, tying communion and confession so closely together is stupid in light of our understanding and interpretation of these two sacraments. As you yourself noted confession exists to restore us to communion if we have the misfortune to sin. But if we've not committed a mortal sin, then we've not lost that bond. We also have a chance to confess our sins at the Confiteor and again in communion itself. I'm not saying not to confess venial faults or even not to confess before receiving. The problem in the West, traditionally or at least in traditional circles, is that confession is reduced to a mere ancillary to communion.

My personal suggestion, again only in a western context, is that only one host should be used at Mass and if you want to receive communion, let the priest know before hand to add an extra host for you. That way there's simply not enough hosts to communicate everyone there and will also make communicating a more deliberate act.

[Livenotonevil]

The Orthodox churches of the East are schismatic. I don't understand why their practices should concern us at all. Or be held up as a standard for comparison. These are the people that permit divorce, abortion and contraception in certain cases where the Catholic church forbids them. Why do we care how they practice their so called sacraments?

Because something something "Holy Unia" something something?