Lay Persons Cannot Absolve Sins (hear Confessions)

[Aloysius]

yes, I did not mean to imply that the Patriarch was standing alone out there with this position. However, individual Eastern Catholic opinions vary greatly on this topic, and the perception that a majority of Eastern Catholics hold that position is created by the amount of strong proponents of that position throughout the internet. That doesn't mean it's wrong; I supported Ron Paul myself and thought he was absolutely right, but I have to admit that it was mostly very vocal internet-based people that made him seem more popular than he was.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1823627' date='Apr 3 2009, 01:38 PM']yes, I did not mean to imply that the Patriarch was standing alone out there with this position. However, individual Eastern Catholic opinions vary greatly on this topic, and the perception that a majority of Eastern Catholics hold that position is created by the amount of strong proponents of that position throughout the internet. That doesn't mean it's wrong; I supported Ron Paul myself and thought he was absolutely right, but I have to admit that it was mostly very vocal internet-based people that made him seem more popular than he was.[/quote]
Just as individual Roman Catholic opinions vary.

That a spiritual father (or mother) can hear confessions even if they are not ordained is a part of the tradition of the Byzantine Churches, which have always recognized the holiness of monastics in particular as a reflection of the process of theosis (i.e., participation in the uncreated light of Tabor).

Edited April 3, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

this is true, however, it is my opinion that those Eastern Catholics who do believe in the last 14 Ecumenical Councils are not erring in their theology or in their traditions (and I am undecided about those who do not accept the last 14 Ecumenical Councils, but I understand their position and accept it as such and do not think it to necessarily be too grave of an error). However, I would hold that a Roman Catholic holding the last 14 Ecumenical Councils as mere particular synods would be erring gravely against the teachings of his own tradition. Eastern Catholicism, ie the "uniate churches," like it or not, has a tradition of accepting those councils (and were even present at the First Vatican Council)... but the Roman Church has no tradition of considering them particular synods.

I rather like the idea of Eastern confessions, actually, if you view my last edit I was trying to pull back from my comparison of EMHCs. It was just an immediate reaction when thinking about lay people serving functions that I'm used to priests serving, the first thought that came to mind was EMHCs; however, I think that it is a much more justified and beautiful tradition to have these spiritual fathers and mothers than the practice of EMHCs is.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1823641' date='Apr 3 2009, 01:51 PM']this is true, however, it is my opinion that those Eastern Catholics who do believe in the last 14 Ecumenical Councils are not erring in their theology or in their traditions (and I am undecided about those who do not accept the last 14 Ecumenical Councils, but I understand their position and accept it as such and do not think it to necessarily be too grave of an error).[/quote]
On that we shall have to agree to disagree.

[philothea]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1823641' date='Apr 3 2009, 03:51 PM']I rather like the idea of Eastern confessions, actually, if you view my last edit I was trying to pull back from my comparison of EMHCs. It was just an immediate reaction when thinking about lay people serving functions that I'm used to priests serving, the first thought that came to mind was EMHCs; however, I think that it is a much more justified and beautiful tradition to have these spiritual fathers and mothers than the practice of EMHCs is.[/quote]
Z's initial post was shocking, but then the practice actually sounded quite nice, which was why I asked for clarification.

Especially considering that the people who hear the confession have to be approved by a bishop. It's not just anybody.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1823296' date='Apr 3 2009, 08:02 AM']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.[/quote]

I can think of a few prominent Latin hierarchs today...

[Lilllabettt]

This is really not on topic ... but frankly, I don't get the Eastern Catholic thing at all.

In earlier days, I thought Eastern Catholic meant different Liturgy, different traditions regarding the Sacraments, customs regarding the clergy, etc. But now I know there are pretty significant theological divisions.

If the Latin Church thinks being "in union" means one thing, and Eastern Catholics believe "in union" means a different thing, are they really "in union" at all?

[philothea]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' post='1824186' date='Apr 3 2009, 11:59 PM']This is really not on topic ... but frankly, I don't get the Eastern Catholic thing at all.

In earlier days, I thought Eastern Catholic meant different Liturgy, different traditions regarding the Sacraments, customs regarding the clergy, etc. But now I know there are pretty significant theological divisions.

If the Latin Church thinks being "in union" means one thing, and Eastern Catholics believe "in union" means a different thing, are they really "in union" at all?[/quote]
I think it's more a chain-of-command thing than a serious, functional difference. As far as I know, Eastern Catholics defer entirely to their bishop, and trust that their bishop is guiding them correctly. The bishops consult with each other. If there was a doctrinal dispute among bishops, the pope would settle it.

Not sure why, Latin Catholics follow the pope plus a consensus of bishops. Hard to speculate why. Maybe we have historically had more trouble with individual bishops being, ah, creative? Maybe we like to argue issues out and see what happens?

[Aloysius]

there is a real union between the sui juris churches correctly in union with the Pope. there is simply the question of how far Vatican II de-latinization of the Eastern Churches is meant to go. The Vatican is very happy for the Eastern Catholics to have their own distinctive theological tradition which has intensely different focuses than our own theological tradition, but there is a bit of a question regarding many of the details particularly regarding doctrines that the Roman Church has historically considered binding upon the whole Church.

for large part, the average layman shouldn't concern himself too much with such things. as philo alluded to, things get worked out on the higher levels; no matter what confusions we might have at present regarding the theological differences, we should rejoice in the true sacramental union that exists. hey, think of all the people within our own Church that we believe hold positions contrary to our understanding of Catholic doctrine; we'll debate it out and everything, but we're still stuck in the same boat with them so long as they don't go totally apostate... it's OK for a Roman Catholic to consider some positions held by some Eastern Catholics to be outside the scope of what should be believed in the Church... I personally think when it comes to those positions we should be less harsh with them than with the things within the Roman Church that we think are outside the scope of Church teachings since the Eastern positions at least have a long and venerable history behind them, for the most part.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1823645' date='Apr 3 2009, 04:55 PM']On that we shall have to agree to disagree.

[/quote]
precisely. for now... there may come a time when the East and West can finally work these things out... maybe at the 22nd/8th Ecumenical Council