Lay Persons Cannot Absolve Sins (hear Confessions)

[Ziggamafu]

Oh. march geniuses. I get it, an okay but not SO great novel,.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Ziggamafu

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1822193' date='Apr 1 2009, 04:05 PM']Oh. march geniuses. I get it, an okay but not SO great novel,.[/quote]

Is it over? Is the April fool's thing over???

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1822193' date='Apr 1 2009, 04:05 PM']Oh. march geniuses. I get it, an okay but not SO great novel,.[/quote]

OK, so here's the deal: do Eastern Catholics, like the Eastern Orthodox, allow lay-persons to hear confessions?

[thessalonian]

No way. Never heard that and Eastern Catholics are under the pope so it certainly isn't true in that case.

[Ziggamafu]

Apotheoun?

[Ziggamafu]

[quote]Repentance
Main article: Confession

Orthodox Christians who have committed sins but repent of them, and who wish to reconcile themselves to God and renew the purity of their original baptisms, confess their sins to God before a spiritual guide who offers advice and direction to assist the individual in overcoming their sin. Parish priests commonly function as spiritual guides, but such guides can be any person, male or female, who has been given a blessing to hear confessions. Spiritual guides are chosen very carefully as it is a mandate that once chosen, they must be obeyed. Having confessed, the penitent then has his or her parish priest read the prayer of repentance over them.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Repentance"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Ortho...urch#Repentance[/url][/quote]

[quote]Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism

Within the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches, it is understood that the Mystery of confession and repentance has more to do with the spiritual development of the individual and much less to do with purification. Sin is not seen as a stain on the soul, but rather a mistake that needs correction.

In general, the Orthodox Christian chooses an individual to trust as his or her spiritual guide. In most cases this is the parish priest, but may be a starets (Elder, a monastic who is well-known for his or her advancement in the spiritual life) or any individual, male or female, who has received permission from a bishop to hear confession. This person is often referred to as one's "spiritual father" or "spiritual mother". Once chosen, the individual turns to his spiritual guide for advice on his or her spiritual development, confessing sins, and asking advice. Orthodox Christians tend to confess only to this individual and the closeness created by this bond makes the spiritual guide the most qualified in dealing with the person, so much so that no one can override what a spiritual guide tells his or her charges. What is confessed to one's spiritual guide is protected by the same seal as would be any priest hearing a confession. While one does not have to be a priest to hear confession, only an ordained priest may pronounce the absolution.

Confession does not take place in a confessional, but normally in the main part of the church itself, usually before an analogion (lectern) set up near the iconostasion. On the analogion is placed a Gospel Book and a blessing cross. The confession often takes place before an icon of Jesus Christ (usually the Icon of Christ "Not Made by Hand"). Orthodox understand that the confession is not made to the priest, but to Christ, and the priest stands only as witness and guide. Before confessing, the penitent venerates the Gospel Book and cross, and places the thumb and first two fingers of his right hand on the feet of Christ as he is depicted on the cross. The confessor will often read an admonition warning the penitent to make a full confession, holding nothing back.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession#Eastern_Orthodoxy_and_Eastern_Catholicism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession#Ea...ern_Catholicism[/url][/quote]

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1822590' date='Apr 2 2009, 07:38 AM']No way. Never heard that and Eastern Catholics are under the pope so it certainly isn't true in that case.[/quote]


In another thread I learned that "communion with the pope" is...wow...just incredibly loose in interpretation. There is a very, very, very liberal definition of "communion with the pope" with regards to Eastern Catholics.

...which is why I'm asking this question.

[Resurrexi]

I'll let the Council of Trent give you the answer to this one:

"With regard to the minister of this sacrament the holy Synod declares false and entirely foreign to the truth of the Gospel all doctrines which perniciously extend the ministry of the keys to any other men besides bishops and priests , believing that those words of the Lord: "Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven" and "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained," were indifferently and indiscriminately addressed to all the faithful of Christ contrary to the institution of this sacrament, so that anyone may have the power of remitting sins, public sins by way of rebuke, if the rebuked acquiesces, and secret ones through a voluntary confession made to anyone." (DS 1694)

"If anyone says that priests who are in mortal sin do not have the power of binding and loosing, or, that not only priests are the ministers of absolution, but that these words were spoken also to each and all of the faithful: "Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed in heaven," and, "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained," that by virtue of these words anyone can absolve sins, public sins indeed by reproof only, if the one reproved accepts correction, secret sins by voluntary confession: let him be anathema." (DS 1710)

[Ziggamafu]

Okay...but of course other things that we (Western Catholics) hold as doctrinally correct - even explicit dogmas - are rejected by some (if not most; but I'm thinking specifically of Melkites, here) Eastern Catholics, who are nevertheless embraced as being "in communion with the pope"; embraced even to the point of being called the 2nd vital lung of the Church. Such Eastern Christians refer to our dogmas as having absolutely no authority over the East, much less as being infallibly applicable to the universal Church.

So I'm curious about their stance, here. Like other disagreements with the West, do the Eastern Catholics side with the Orthodox on this issue, and consider the restriction of absolution to priests a mere Western discipline?

[philothea]

Am I understanding right? According to the Wikipedia article, in the Orthodox tradition the ordained priest may not necessarily listen to the whole confession, but they still are required to perform the absolution?

Doesn't sound like that big a difference, to me. Given the hearing of some of the priests at my parish, I'm not sure the confessor ever does hear anything.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1823120' date='Apr 2 2009, 10:45 PM']Okay...but of course other things that we (Western Catholics) hold as doctrinally correct - even explicit dogmas - are rejected by some (if not most; but I'm thinking specifically of Melkites, here) Eastern Catholics, who are nevertheless embraced as being "in communion with the pope"; embraced even to the point of being called the 2nd vital lung of the Church. Such Eastern Christians refer to our dogmas as having absolutely no authority over the East, much less as being infallibly applicable to the universal Church.

So I'm curious about their stance, here. Like other disagreements with the West, do the Eastern Catholics side with the Orthodox on this issue, and consider the restriction of absolution to priests a mere Western discipline?[/quote]

Just because the majority of Eastern Christians who hold themselves to have full communion with the Pope don't believe in a number of the dogmas of the Catholic Church doesn't mean that they are not required to do so. It's very similar to the manner in which many self-proclaimed Latin Catholics believe that women can be validly ordained and that contraception is not morally problematic. The Holy See doesn't often act in such situations, but lack of action from the Vatican in no way means that the Magisterium supports such pernicious lies that she has condemned in the past.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1823164' date='Apr 2 2009, 10:37 PM']Just because the majority of Eastern Christians who hold themselves to have full communion with the Pope don't believe in a number of the dogmas of the Catholic Church doesn't mean that they are not required to do so. It's very similar to the manner in which many self-proclaimed Latin Catholics believe that women can be validly ordained and that contraception is not morally problematic. The Holy See doesn't often act in such situations, but lack of action from the Vatican in no way means that the Magisterium supports such pernicious lies that she has condemned in the past.[/quote]

The difference being that Western liberals (aka Protestant-Catholics) are not embraced under a formal recognition of communion with the pope, nor are they referred to as a vital lung of the Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='philothea' post='1823140' date='Apr 2 2009, 09:01 PM']Am I understanding right? According to the Wikipedia article, in the Orthodox tradition the ordained priest may not necessarily listen to the whole confession, but they still are required to perform the absolution?[/quote]
Yes, you are understanding the article correctly.

[Aloysius]

A lot of misconceptions are coming across regarding the Eastern Catholics. It is NOT a majority of Eastern Catholics that reject the past 14 Ecumenical Councils and such, necessarily; the numbers are, frankly, unknown; but only the Melkite Patriarch has been extremely bold and candid about that position (which is why it is often referred to as the "Melkite position")... you will usually find that many Eastern Catholics you will meet on Catholic sites on the internet have been convinced of this Melkite Position, but that many ordinary Eastern Catholics who do not usually frequent such internet areas will not have been convinced of the Melkite Position (like how you find a ton of Ron Paul supporters on the internet but then out in real life it's like 'hey, where'd all those smart Ron Paul supporters go?'). It is an open question within the Eastern Catholic Churches and there are those who hold to extremes on both sides (I was recently at a byzantine church where some of the members insisted upon kneeling for the Eucharistic prayer up to the epiclesis, though the missals there clearly mention the correct liturgical posture there is to stand as previously latinizations had inserted kneeling there, so there are all kinds of variations within the Eastern Catholic tradition)

the Eastern Orthodox version of confession is not against the Catholic understanding. it is up to the priest to bind or loose the sins, if he has a layman help him by first hearing the confession and then sending him to be absolved by the priest, it is still only the priest who binds or loosens these sins. its desirability liturgically is an open question, perhaps analogous in some ways to our use of "Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion", the laity certainly do not consecrate, but they hand it out. similarly, the laity of the East certainly do not absolve, but they hear the sins. I do not say that the practice is bad, as it certainly has a longer and more venerable history than the current use of "Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion", but I do not say it is the most desirable form of confession either. And I would certainly oppose any attempt to import it into the Roman Rite.

edit: I am not sure how comfortable I actually am comparing it to an EMHC, it seems much more complex than that, it only fits when it is viewed from the perspective of one who is used to only the priest being involved in the full act of confession... but one note has struck me as interesting: Eastern Christian confession is different from Roman Catholic confession in much the same way Roman Catholic marriage is different from Eastern Christian marriage... in Eastern Christian confession, the priest is the witness of the confession between the person and his spiritual guide and pronounces words to ratify that in the Church the same way in the Roman Catholic marriage, the priest is merely the witness to the consent of the two as they marry each other, pronouncing words to ratify it within the Church. conversely, in Roman Catholic confession, the priest is the active agent causing the confession and absolution and in Eastern Christian marriage (the Mystery of Crowning), the priest actively marries the two together rather than the two marrying each other with him as witness. very interesting, and both focuses are valid in my opinion.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1823617' date='Apr 3 2009, 01:27 PM']. . . but only the Melkite Patriarch has been extremely bold and candid about that position (which is why it is often referred to as the "Melkite position")...[/quote]
And the majority, 24 out of the 26 members, of the Melkite Holy Synod.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Apotheoun