Just a few observations: all the faithful, not just the priests and bishops, act in persona Christi! Pope St. Leo the Great taught that 'in the Holy Eucharist you are transformed into that which you consume.'! So let's have done with egregious clericalism.

Secondly, the Roman Martyrology contains an entry for the Martyr Petronilla, daughter of the Blessed Apostle Peter. In other words, whether Mrs. Peter was still alive or not, his daughter followed her father to Rome! Lucky for Peter, he lived before the halcyon days of Ea semper and Cum data fuerit. St. Alexis Toth did not enjoy such good fortune!

Lastly, the Scripture is NOT silent about the marital status of the apostles: virtually all reputable scripture scholars today interpret St. Paul's complaint in 1 Cor 9:5 to refer to the right to apostleship while married: "Have we not every right to eat and drink? And every right to be accompanied by a Christian wife, like the other apostles, like the brothers of the Lord, and like Cephas?"

The 'facilitator' (obfuscator, more like) is merely parrotting the tendentious utterances of Pope John Paul II which virtually overturned the teaching of Vatican II on the point that celibacy is not required by the very nature of the priesthood or that the married priests have deserved well of the Church!

As to the astonishing remark about celibate priests making better confessors why do some Churches(Coptic?) prohibit monks from hearing the confessions of laymen?

I have known and revered many celibate priests, but as one who has not received this inestimable gift, I can only say that not only is my wife not an obstacle to the exercise of priestly ministry, she and our children and grandchildren are the chief channel of the grace that makes that exercise possible!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the Eastern Churches believe that the dead are "asleep" and awaiting the Second Coming.

But after the Second Coming there will be no more husbands and wives because of Mt 22:23-33:
Quote:

As angels are sexless, I can't see how the both beliefs (sleeping of the dead - that is, no conscious life after death - and marriage after the Second Coming) can be upheld at the same time.

As John Meyendorff points out in Marriage, an Orthodox Perspective (pp.13-14), this passage actually concerns the levirate:

Father Thomas Loya talks about eternal marriage here in this thread:



http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/287111/Re:%20Eternal%20Marriage#Post287111

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/287111/Re:%20Eternal%20Marriage#Post287111

hmm, don't know why link isn't working.

Isn't it also true, that the act of confessing one's sins used to be done to monks or others who were not ordained?

The sacrament of reconciliation has gone through a lot of development over the years. As I understand it, one confessed their sins, often times to someone who was not a Priest or the Bishop, the person then entered into the order of penitents, and was restored back to the community after that period of time in the order of penitents through the liturgy celebrated by the Bishop (which acted as the sacramental form of the absolution). The original understanding was much more communal and was seen more clearly as both reconciling to the community as well as God. Private confession loses some of that as the community aspect is represented more in the priest alone.

So, all of this about celibate priests doesn't really make sense in the historical context of the nature of how the sacrament of reconciliation was administered in the very early Church.

Originally, confession was public, done in the midst of the congregation. This worked as long as the Church was a small, elite group (today we would call it a cult), but once it became a mass movement, the problems inherent in this approach became evident. At that point, the bishop heard the confession of a penitent on behalf of the congregation, and he readmitted the sinner to communion, signifying reconciliation with the Church. Note that, originally, the emphasis on confession was not to gain God's forgiveness, but reconciliation and reintegration into the community.

Eventually, confession was habitually delegated to the presbyters, but for a long time, the emphasis remained on reintegration and restoration of communion, with specific orders of penitents (kneelers, weepers, hearers, etc.) who had to wear signifying badges and who had to leave the church at various times during the liturgy.

Over the centuries, each Church developed a Tradition around confession, each with a slightly different emphasis. The West came to think of confession in association with penance as the debt paid for transgression of divine law. The East came to think of confession as spiritual healing, and prophylaxis against future sins. In the East, the therapeutic aspect of confession became associated with the institution of the "spiritual father", usually a monastic, and hearing the confession became associated with him, while the priest (assuming the monastic was a layman) retained responsibility for readmitting the sinner to communion. People would often get notes from their spiritual father to their priest indicating that the individual had confessed and completed whatever prayer, fasting or other spiritual medicine the spiritual father had prescribed. These are sometimes seen by those unfamiliar with Orthodox spirituality as equivalent to the indulgences issued in the West, but they have entirely different orientations and purposes.

thanks for the information, Stuart.

There is a lot of talk in the latin rite about "general absolution" in special cases where there are large numbers of penitents and not enough resources.
It is only permitted in very specific cases,

Is there any cases of this in the Eastern Churches?

Not to my knowledge, though anointing services serve much the same purpose.

I am not sure what Stuart means by "serve much the same purpose."

Although my reading of the text of the Service of Holy Anointing leaves me with the clear impression that it is the same Mystery that is celebrated for those near death and so must have the same spiritual effect in that it removes all stain of sin, however grave, I have been told otherwise by several priests and deacons. None has been willing to say that the Mystery accomplishes a "general absolution." Their explanations have included: a characterization of what is done as having no ability to absolve any sin; the assertion that what is done absolves only "venial" sin; and the suggestion that what is done absolves all sin but only conditionally (i.e., that any grave sin must be confessed to a priest as soon as practicable and absolution received/confirmed then).

I raised this point before on this site and, as I recall, was not able to elicit any definitive views from others here. Is there, perhaps a difference between Eastern Catholic views and the Orthodox view? Are there differing views in other Eastern Christian Churches?

Yeah, well, it all depends on which priests, Tim. When in doubt, ignore the priests and look at the texts. After all, I've had priests tell me the Rite of Remarriage is sacramental, and lots of other things which quite obviously were not so.

Fr. George Maloney, a bi-ritual Roman priest who became Greek Orthodox in the last year or so of his life, wrote a book called "Your Sins Are Forgiven You" which discuses the development of the Mystery in the East and in the West. He goes into quite a lot of detail about the various forms the Mystery has taken in different times and places - the old rites and new rites. Very interesting read. The book is widely available.

It seems that at this point, the Church had a wonderful sense of "seeing Christ in our neighbor." In other words, a sin against the Church (meaning the people) was a sin against Christ, and visa-versa.



I wonder, though, if the practice could have been preserved if the mentality behind it--as you pointed out and I have bolded above--had not been lost.

There is clearly a difference between private sin, which should never be disclosed to the community, and public sin, which is already known to the community. The tendency in recent centuries seems to be to treat all sin as private, even when it clearly isn't ...


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Unless one is a "celebrity," in which case all sins are deemed public property and fodder for endless speculation.

Penthaetria,

People who are in the public eye (entertainers and athletes, as well as religious, civil, and business leaders) are subject to greater scrutiny than the general public--I think that's inevitable. Nevertheless, once a sin is made public (assuming there is credible evidence to support the allegations) it becomes a public sin and IMHO this necessitates some kind of public repentance.


Peace,
Deacon Richard