www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West General Absolution East and West

Dear Colleagues in Christ,

One of the issues that came out during WYD was the push by the Canadian Catholic Bishops for Rome to place General Absolution on an even keel with private confession.

Feel free to comment on this, but I understand that there is a "type" of General Absolution, the Service of Forgiveness that is done in monasteries, I believe, following the Midnight Hour (?).

The Old Believers repeat it three times for the Midnight Hour, after the day Hours and following Compline.

Then there is the rite for Forgiveness Sunday.

What I would be interested in learning from you, especially those who are liturgically inclined, and who are still speaking to me, if the Rite of Forgiveness such as practiced in our Church is the same as what is implied by "General Absolution."

If not, why not? Has there been any push to have this Gen. Absol. in our Church? I understand that at one time there was a movement to adopt it here.

Alex

Dear Alex,

One of the issues that came out during WYD was the push by the Canadian Catholic Bishops for Rome to place General Absolution on an even keel with private confession.

I wish I knew what they or you meant by "even keel with private confession".

How could the communal and general admission of sinfulness, followed by general absolution, possibly substitute for private confession?

I went to a Latin penance service once, and there was a public act of contrition, but it was basically the Confiteor of Mass, with Scripture readings, a sermon, and then individual confessions. Certainly that's very general, except for the private confessions later.

In some Eastern services (Byzantine and Syrian), I see a formula(e) for a communal confession of every sin under the sun, but still communal, and thus general.

How could a general absolution do any good without a personal, private confession, an opportunity to confess, be sorry, receive guidance, and then forgiveness? General confession sounds to me like "I've sinned, but don't care to admit it to a priest, so I'll go to church, and Father will zap my sins away". It sounds to me more superstition than sacrament*.

Of course, in some circumstances, general absolution is necessary (e.g., on 11 September at the Pentagon and WTC and PA), but to put it on even footing with private confession is not going to do any good. After all, why park your car and walk into McDonald's for your food when you can go to the drive-thru? Is that next? Drive-thru confession? Confess your sins through the mic built in the shape of Father McDonald, drive up to the window, and get absolved?

Sounds nuts to me.

*In Syrian churches, since confessions are (from my experience) something that is only done during penitential seasons (e.g., Lent), there is a general absolution before the Liturgy. You walk up to the priest, cross yourself, and while you're presumably confessing your sins to God, the priest simultaneously reads the Hoosoyo (Absolution) over you and absolves you and boom, you're done. I'm not a big fan of the practice (nor of having confession only during Lent...it should be offered much more often), but it's been done pretty much forever. I guess it's organic development? :p

Alex,

Not that I've gone digging for such, but I've never heard any suggestion that the begging of mutual forgiveness in monastic observance was akin to the Western practice of general absolution.

If I apologize to you, with perfect contrition for my sin against you, after receiving your forgiveness, I still need to seek God's.

I'd say the closest thing we have to "general absolution" in the Byzantine Churches is the Annointing of the Sick (all of us wounded humans) on Great Wednesday.

And just 'tween you & me, with respect, what have the Canadian bishops been smoking? General absolution as equal to (read: replacing) private Confession?????????


Astounded, perplexed, etc.,

Sharon
(who as usual is overdue and in need of the Most Neglected Mystery, but ain't looking for anonymous forgiveness in a crowd...)


Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Goodness gracious me ! To say that I am stunned is putting it mildly. Yes there is a time and place for General Absolution in the Latin Church - no problem with that - but to try and put it on an even keel with private [ one to one ?] Confession.

Here in the UK we are having quite an interesting time with discussions on that very subject - and it is not allowed. No way no how - or at least not as a 'normal' thing.

And next month I have to produce chapter and verse on this very subject to our Liturgy Group meeting.
Oh dear, Alex please could you provide me with anything that the Canadian Bishops have said /are saying on this topic ?

Angela,

Wondering what your meeting will be about??

Two things which I can't get past - the Scriptural directive to "confess your sins." Perhaps the authors really meant "sit in an auditorium & listen" and it's been mistranslated & misconstrued (or as we say "misconscrewed") all these millennia?

Even older than that - why do the Jews even now not call the Lord of Hosts by His "given name?" Because to speak the name of something/somebody is to have power over it. It is true for the deity, it is true for the demonic - and it is true in our battle with sin. To overcome it we MUST name it and speak it.

Every time somebody tries to make the practice of the Faith "easier" by papering over the fundamentals, it just makes a mess of things.


Sharon

Dear Alex and co.,

In the Armenian Apostolic Church general confession is the norm. No one does private confessions anymore to my knowledge (not even in Lent). The Armenians who united with the Roman Catholics, of course, have private confession. But I'm not sure if it is the authentic Armenian rite or an Armenian translation of the Roman rite of Confession. I'm researching this and hope to find the answer soon.

Many of the strongly devoted Armenian Apostolic pastors regret not having private confession. Many Armenian Apostolic faithful, I have heard, also think they would like to have this opportunity to privately confess their sins. An authentic Armenian rite of private confession does exist, I have read, but it has fallen into disuse. This, I am also looking into with my pastor, in hopes of reviving it in our parish.

In light of all this, I have to question if the opening up to more and more general confession does not lead a Church down the road to an eventual loss of the practice of private confession. After all, if one can be forgiven generally, then minimalistically one never really has to go to private confession. This attitude can become very contagious.

There's no question that the Church always intercedes on the faithful's behalf for forgiveness (perhpas this is the meaning behind the monastic tradition you mentioned). But the question is should we confuse this with the Holy Khorhort or Mystery of Pennance?

Just a few thoughts,

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

Alex, there is an order of forgiveness after Compline in the Byzantine monastic usage.

If there is Vsenoshcnoe (all-night vigil with Vespers, Matins and First Hour) the forgiveness occurs after First Hour at the end of the service. This is not really "confession" in the sacramental sense with absolution but a public confession of sins and transgressions to the community. As with Eucharist we must be reconciled with our brethren and families first before approaching the Holy Mysteries.

Hmm - I wonder if Alex realised how this thread would develop as quickly as this - truly fascinating.

Sadly for the next couple of days I seem to be madly madly busy [ and I am supposed to be a lady of leisure since my retiral ] but I will get back to this - Mor Ephrem, Sharon and Der-Ghazarian have actually echoed my own thoughts on this subject

More to come - and I hope you don't regret this Latin letting fly here

Angela

Dear Friends,

In answer to Mor Ephrem's (Catholicos') question about what is meant by General Absolution - I just don't know.

I can tell you what most of my Latin friends think it means - a "sacramentally effective" means of the Church forgiving the sins of the people collectively.

So clearly, as Diak, Our Lady's Slave, Mother Sharon and others have said, this raises concerns and issues, since our rite of forgiveness would, under no circumstances, be considered "sacramentally effective."

I'm not sure what the Latin Church says it is officially.

I believe it is assumed people will have gone to private, auricular ( ) confession beforehand.

The Latin Church, however, does teach (and correct me if I'm wrong, please) that only mortal sins are to be confessed in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

There are other means of dealing with venial sins, Holy Communion itself, recitation of the Our Father (St Augustine), meditation on the Passion of Christ etc.

So, if we have no "serious sin" on our souls, the kind that cuts us off from God (Heaven forbid this!), could not the General Absolution be "sacramentally effectual" in forgiving our "venial sins?"

Call me a heretic, but that makes some sense to me.

I will receive corrective teaching from this internet Ecumenical Council .

I put aside all heretical or schismatical thoughts in advance, awaiting your collective judgements, resolutions and considered canons!

Alex

Alex,

As I mentioned, ya fergot one. The Mystery of Annointing also forgives sin. At least amongst the Ruthenians, "general Annointing" is done on Great Wednesday.


Quibble, quibble, quibble

(grin)


Sharon

A most interesting question indeed. What I find interesting is the inconsistency in the practice of 1. the Mystery of Forgiveness/Sacrament of Penance and 2. It's administration.

As I am sure many of you know, private confession simply did not exist in the early Church. One went to public confession and did public penance for a few designated "major" sins, among them apostasy, heresy, murder, rape, adultery. Public sins that impacted the community. Private auricular confession was an invention of the monks and didn't really tkae hold until they controlled the episcopacy. Also interestingly enough those Churches with a small to nonexistent number of monastics, the Assyrians and Malabars primarily, and to a to a lesser extent the Syrians and Armenians, didn't develop a requirement of auricular confession for absolution. In fact, it is still in question whether the Assyrians and Malabars ever practiced the Mystery of Forgiveness.

Given these facts, I find the current theology requiring private auricular confession pretty shaky. What are we saying? The early Church was full of unforgiven sinners? The Assyrians and Malabars were wrong in not doing what the Latins and Byzantines did? Soldiers given general absolution on the battlefield that get killed are forgiven but those who survive aren't. A lot of inconsistency here. And this despite the fact that Trent affirmed that Holy Communion forgives not only "venial" sins but "mortal" ones as well provided the recipient has "perfect" contrition. The same goes for Anointing of the Sick.

Just some observations...

In Christ,
Lance

Dear Lance,

Does the Gen. Absolution "effect" absolution of sins then? You are saying "Yes, based on the history of the issue."

The (theologically sophisticated) way you've presented this matter leads to another question based on a comparison of "then and now."

"Then" the idea of private confession was definitely monastic, leading to the development of the role of the Spiritual Father, or guide for the individual in the Christian life.

The Ethiopian Church, as one I am aware of, extended this role to the laity and Spiritual Fathers in that Church come to the homes of families to hear confessions and offer spiritual guidance.

The historic role of the confessor was surely more than the "juridical" act of formally forgiving one's sins. It must have also have been a development of the monastic tradition of the Spiritual Father and guide for those lay Christians who are serious about spiritual growth.

"Now" we tend to see the Mystery of Forgiveness as a distasteful process by which our sins are forgiven only. The long-term relationship between penitent and Father confessor is not there.

So do we "now" run the risk of a) undermining the comprehensive role of the Mystery of Forgiveness, or of its return, through the bringing in of the Gen. Absolution; b) undermining private confession altogether.

I would say that while it can be shown that this Church or that didn't have auricular confession due to whatever circumstances, those Christians have other opportunities for repentance that Christians in the West, both Latin and Byzantine, would probably not avail themselves of.

Without private confession, therefore, how would one experience the Mystery of Forgiveness in a more personal way than is to be had by Gen. Absolution and how could one use this Mystery to extend it to include the aspect of spiritual guidance in one's Christian struggles?

Alex

Alex,

I would say yes, general absolution does forgive sins, but so do all the other sacraments if the sacraments are what we say they are, i.e. a participation in the Divine Energies. How can one who is contrite and repentant come into contact with the Divine and yet have sin remain? Now to borrow from the Scholastics the fruitfulness of the contact may be affected by other factors, but the sacrament itself is dependent on God not us, so it is always effective. I think this is a case where in an attempt to force people to do what is probably the best thing (auricular confession), they have overlooked the theological implications of the canons.

In my opinion, auricular confession to anyone besides their own spiritual father/mother isn't very helpful from a patristic standpoint. Only a confessor who: A. really knows an individual or B. is of saintlike holiness is going to be of the type of help the monastics intended when they instituted the practice. What we have today is mostly: A. pseudo-counseling sessions which many (most?) priests aren't qualified to provide or B. a completely anonymous juridical act in which the grocery list of transgression are presented and absolved. Neither is what was intended when the practice was introduced.

If we truly believe the Holy Spirit can speak through the faithful, is there any indication in that the majority of the faithful, even those who attend weekly, do not go to confession? I am not saying this is defintely the case but at least it needs to be considered. Yet, the Pope recently denied the use of general absolution except in specific circumstances. General absolution in my opinion would not negatively affect the use of auricular confession, and may in fact increase the use of it as people start to understand that forgiveness truly comes from God the Lover of Mankind and the priest is really there to help not to judge. Given that most people don't go now would it be that bad to try? Polish National Catholics do this and I have never seen it raised as an obstacle to reunion.

I would also add it is the practice of spiritual fathership that gave rise to auricular confession rather than the other way around. The problem in my opinion is the monsatic ideal became the standard for all faithful. I think the best solution would be mandated auricular confession for specific sins of a grave nature or that have scandalized the community. While auricular confession may be very helpful for the faithful I don't think mandating it is helpful. But then again what do I know, I am just a deacon candidate.

In Christ,
Lance

Lance,
Sometimes you really confuse me.

The public confession of the past, and I believe that it is a very very long time in the past, that you are speaking of bares no resemblance to the practice of General Absolution as practiced in the Roman Catholic Church today.

I believe that it was a very public confession in the past, again distant past, with a very public penance. As I stated earlier, the individuals would stand at the entrance of the church wearing a sack cloth with their face covered in ashes begging forgiveness from their fellow parishioners before Mass.

Are you suggesting that we ignore the "organic development" of the Mystery of Penance? Are we suggesting that it is not possible that the Holy Spirit worked though the monastic order to institute this Mystery within the Church?

General Absolution, as practiced in the Roman Church, is as Phil (Mor Ephrem) describes. There is not actual confession by the individuals involved. They do this in the Diocese of Rochester during Lent and Advent. It is supposed to be followed up by a private confession.

The use of General Absolution is supposed to be held for emergency circumstances. When the nuclear power plant at 3 mile island had its problem many years ago they acutally did have General Absolution because of the thought, at the time, that everyones' life was in immediate danger.


David

ps Lance, nothing personal here, if I lived closer to you we would go at this privately, as I am sure you are more educated in these things than I am.

This is not quite correct, Alex. No episcopal consecration for you!

The Latin Church teaches that, without exception, ALL mortal sins must be revealed in individual auricular Sacramental Confession. Penitents are not required, but STRONGLY encouraged, also to reveal all venial sins. Even if venial sins are not revealed, Sacramental Absolution absolves all the sins of the penitent, revealed or not. If a mortal sin is forgotten, it is absolved until the next Sacramental Confession, at which it must be revealed. If a mortal sin is intentionally misrepresented or is concealed, the penitent incurs the additional mortal sin of sacrilege against the Sacrament of Penance, and the entire confession is invalid.

As a (in practice) Byzantine Catholic, I am aware that traditional Orthodox thought does not make the distinction between mortal and venial sin. However, even given my "forced" Byzantinization (forced in the sense of "done quickly and intensely", not "coerced"), and abandonment of Latin ways, I find the distinction useful. In fact, in another posting in this thread, it is shown that the Church, even in its earliest days, made the distinction between the great sins such as murder, for which public penance was required, and lesser sins for which it was not required.

The proper use of general absolution is in emergencies. It is perhaps the one area in the Latin Church where economia is used. However, after the emergency has passed, the requirement for auricular Sacramental Confession is the same as if geneneral absolution had never taken place.

The systematic substitution of general absolution for private auricular confession is clearly an abuse.

Esteemed group,

It is anathama to me to even consider the prospect of adoting an even greater usage of "general absolution". As has been mentioned here earlier, public confession was the norm in the early church. As churches grew and human nature gave way to scandel, such public forums were seen as more pejorataive and that private confession was the next best thing. The priest acting "in persona Christi" and as the ambassador or mayor of the faith community is there to reconcile the individual, who through sin, has separated himself from the faith community. The human element in our spiritual life requires a compuntion manifest toward God and man to whom he is a "living icon" of the Master. A general absolution nearly mitigates this human element. We, as a faith community, ARE our brother's keeper and as such are accountable to the faith community. To eliminate this accountability through general absolution leads us straight to protestantism which posits that my personal relationship with God is all I need. It is only a short trip from there that the whole sacramental life is found to be supurfluous.

Athanasius

With all respect, Lance (and usually agreeing with you), I must disagree with you on your position on auricular confession.

While I agree that have a spiritual father (in the Latin Church, a "regular confessor") is the context of the greatest benefit for auricular confession, even going to confession to an "anonymous priest" is helpful. The examination of conscience and the revelation of one's sins to another human being, who at the same time represents Christ, are immeasurably helpful. To have to face your sins head-on, contemplate the awfulness of that sin, and to develop the humility required to confess, are all, to say the least, beneficial, let alone the certainty of forgiveness upon hearing the words of absolution.

As the late Fulton Sheen said of confession, who knows what level of piety, of humility, of love, came from those anonymous grocery-list confessions?

One other thing...

In this day and age, in this society, should we really be demanding LESS accountability from the faithful?

I can see it now -

"I can go out and do anything I want, and on Sunday morning just before Mass, I'll get absolution - and I don't even have to face up to my sins!" (This is the sin of presumption, but that's not mentioned anymore either).

Y'know, it just ain't Christian to sow wild oats on Saturday, and then pray for crop failure on Sunday.

[ 07-30-2002: Message edited by: NDHoosier ]

Dear NDHoosier,

First of all, Big Guy, unless you are in favour of married bishops, I'm out of the picture for episcopal consecration even BEFORE I submitted my last post on this thread .

Secondly, I didn't make any positive affirmations about anything here. I'm only trying to make heads and tails of this issue.

Even the person who attends private confession once a month, and approaches Holy Communion every Sunday and more frequently, Gen. Absolution would be done at every Mass that person would attend.

And, assuming no one's a pure saint just yet, would that person's venial sins, and the righteous man falls seven times a day or so I've read somewhere , not be addressed in a General Absolution, and is this not the intention of those who promote this rite?

I say it would!

The issues of private confession and the impact this rite MIGHT have on its frequency, or current infrequency is another matter.

Alex

Dear Lance,

As always, we appreciate reading the posts of "Lance-a-lot!"

Thank you for your painstaking assessment and comprehensive review of this subject.

And I say that a "Deacon-to-be" is a "Beacon!"

I think the generalization that many Catholics don't attend regular private confession is a true one.

The Church's guidelines in this department for those who wish to attend Communion each Sunday is, as I believe, (and I don't wish to hurt my chances of becoming a bishop more than I already have here) once a month (?) although this used to be once every two weeks.

That's assuming one doesn't commit adultery or murder before the next monthly confession, of course .

My own view here is that the Canadian bishops may just be looking for a way out of a deteriorating situation in the Canadian church with respect to confession attendance records.

Perhaps they also feel that enforcing this "prying" sacrament may be what's turning people, especially sexually overhealthy young people, from the Church.

Rather than work against it, as I believe General Absolution would do since, if given a choice, everyone would do the General thing, I think the Mystery of Forgiveness needs to be reworked.

I personally think that the Orthodox form of confession, facing an Icon, with hand on the Gospel and a priest who could just have some sensitive training in this area, or else also possess (I'm really going out on a limb here) some behavioural training is the way to go.

We all have our horror stories with priests. This is mine.

The priest I was confessing to began to give me a lecture on how to arouse women, preferably only the one I was married to.

He was married with six children, and, at the age of about 80, he had lost nothing of his lust for, shall we say, life . . .

While in the seminary, he said, he had such powerful urges that he even laid down in a coffin and had the lid closed.

But even that experience didn't have a calming effect . . .

The confession lasted for half an hour with people getting concerned behind me.

After I left him, I wondered if I should still not go to confession one more time.

Now, if this happened to most other people, they might get turned off confession altogether.

But, then again, I'm not most other people . . .

I agree that we need much better trained confessors than we are getting and I now have a spiritual father who is rather traditional and conservative.

But I'm one of those for whom that's not a bad thing.

And I'll go to you for confession any time.

I think Gen. Absolution is one of those commercial, assembly-line type rituals that imitates the world.

That's definitely not the mandate our Lord gave us through His Church.

Alex

Dear Friends
I am sure that a lot of what I will say is known to you - please forgive me - I am not trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs - but it will also help me to get my thoughts in order for our meeting.

OK - here in my parish we have a Liturgy Group whose remit is to plan the emphasis for the liturgical celebrations for the year - ie our Parish Feast, the annual Mass for the Bereaved, Advent and Christmas, Lent and Easter and so on. This group involves me as well .

Now cometh Advent and Lent we prepare the Parish Services of Reconciliation. But this is the problematical area for us.

In the Latin Church there are three Rites of Reconciliation
1 Individual Confession, and Individual Absolution
2 Communal Penitential Service with Examination of Consscience with individual Confession and Individual Absolution
3 Communal Service with a General Form of Confession and General Absolution.

Rites 1 and 2 are supposed to be the Norm and Rite 3 is only for use in times when people are in danger and it will not be possible to hear individual Confessions - yes Sept 11th comes to mind here and other such instances. But it is not supposed to be the norm. And this is where the problem really starts. Reconciliation is as we all know neglected by many, individual confession is seen as a stumbling block, it is often badly taught and people do not seem to be availing themselves of this wonderful Sacrament as often as they did in years past [ can't speak about the pre-Vat II practices as I am a post-Vat II convert ] , and so the practice has crept in by stealth that at the Communal Penitential Services which start out as Rite 2 there are not enough Priests to hear the Individual Confessions of so many people [ our Church can hold 1400 ! and it can be full for these Services] Therefore though a Service would be planned as Rite 2 because of a lack of Priests the people would be instructed that General Absolution would be given to those who wished to avail themselves of it but all serious sins must be Confessed individually to a priest as soon as possible and the penitent is supposed to mention that he has been at a service where General Absolution was given.

In our Parish it has become the norm to in practice prepare a service for General Absolution [ Rite 3] in Advent and Rite 2 in Lent. Once this custom is known then you get people from other parishes coming for Rite 3 Services as they know they will get General Absolution and then not go to individual confession. However this situation is an abuse and we realise that our people are going from one General Absolution to another the following year without going to individual Confession in between. As a group we have asked the Clergy [ and they are at our meetings ] to give teaching about this and it does not seem to happen. Last year our Bishops decided that the practice had to stop. So we managed at Lent and in planning the programme for this year's meetings we said rather emphatically to the Clergy that we were not happy preparing a Service that we knew would be taken as Rite 3. There was a lot of talk - and we were reminded that every celebration of the Mass had a form of Penitential Rite and people were therefore being given Absolution then. We seem to have hit a stumbling block - but 8 out of the 10 members are convinced that Rite 3 must not be used at Advent - our Parish Priest is sitting on the fence - bless him- our Senior Assistant made reference to the Holy Father's Letter to all Priests on Holy Thursday [ which reminded them that Rite 3 was not permitted]. The next meeting when this will be brought up again should prove quite interesting.

I would be most interested to hear how our Eastern Friends manage to give sufficient teaching about the comfort that this Sacrament gives and it's benefits. Can you suggest how we can bring our people back to the regular reception of Confession - we need help

I realise that most of what I have said pertains to the Latin Church .

On a personal note- I also have my own horror story about Confession - which happened a few months after I was Received - and I ran from the Confessional - a most unsympathetic Priest to put it mildly and I never went back to him. Now I do see my Spiritual Director face to face - and I can just about cope with Confession then.

Sorry about the length

Friends,

Please do not misunderstand, I am not advocating abolishing private auricular confession. However, in my opinion, the theology behind the idea that auricular confession is necessary is weak. It did not exist in the early Church as we have it now. Some Churches never had it and continue not to have it. What do we make of all this? Can we be positive be said that allowing general absolution will have a negative impact on private auricular confession? I don't think that the those who actually go to confession would stop if general absolution were offered. And as I said before it is God who makes the sacrament effective, so maybe the grace given at general absolutions might lead those who don't privately confess to do so. Again, just my thoughts and as a future deacon (God willing) I am bound to uphold the teachings of the Church. But I don't think it hurts to discuss things.

In Christ,
Lance

Dear Lance,

Thanks for mentioning this. It sorta explains why we have the custom we have. I'm glad it's not just laziness. :p Incidentally we do have private auricular confession, face to face with the priest, but it is usually done only in Lent, and perhaps a couple of other times a year. For most of the time, people just go to the priest before the Liturgy begins, and he prays the Hoosoyo over them.

I would tend to agree that the more serious sins should be confessed privately, while the lesser ones could be dealt with in a different way. Whether a general absolution would work toward this is something I do not know, as I would figure absolution in confession takes care of all sin, but if you don't confess the mortal ones, how would you be able to be forgiven of the venial ones as well? Yet, the Confiteor and Kyrie in the Roman Mass, while not taking care of "mortal sins", still forgives venial sins, and is thus a type of "selective general absolution".

I don't know. Chalcedon still confuses me. :p

At any rate, even though all of what I've just said doesn't even make sense to me, let alone anyone else (probably), I am enjoying the conversation. Keep it coming.

Perhaps we could do as St. John of Kronstadt did in his parish-have everyone in the church yell out their sins simultaneously and then move about the church placing his epitrakhil over them and absolving them individually -the best of both worlds.

No wonder he was a saint. And another reason to have churches without pews

[ 07-31-2002: Message edited by: Diak ]

***see replies to Lance below***
L:Given these facts, I find the current theology requiring private auricular confession pretty shaky.
What are we saying? The early Church was full of unforgiven sinners?
******interesting theme that would be interetsing to discuss
L:The Assyrians and Malabars
were wrong in not doing what the Latins and Byzantines did? Soldiers given general absolution on the
battlefield that get killed are forgiven but those who survive aren't.
******coming from a Roman Catholic interested in and attending ByzCCh: I was under the impression that RCs are expected to go to private confession as soon as possible after a (very rare) general absolution if they had serious sins to confess. This might not be correct at all - anyone with authoritative info please speak up. I don't know of an actual gen. abs. having taken place and what might have been said to the people in this regard, but this is my understanding. This is because the 'emergency' nature of the reason for having a genl. abs.

L:A lot of inconsistency here. And
this despite the fact that Trent affirmed that Holy Communion forgives not only "venial" sins but
"mortal" ones as well provided the recipient has "perfect" contrition.
******RC teaching (see Catechism of the Cath. Ch., but I can't give you page #s): Actually the Eucharist doesn't "forgive mortal sin" (it should already be forgiven before reception of the Eucharist); the point is actually and simply that one <could> theoretically receive communion while in the state of serious/grave/mortal sin if one has 'perfect contrition', but he is <required> to go to confession asap afterwards (this assumes there was some reason that private confession was impossible and the reception of communion was absolutely necessary as opposed to desirable - a rare case, I think), but it shouldn't be done in order to put off confession...would be applicable for soldiers in battle or for other serious reasons. The danger would be it is presumably rare to have truly perfect contrition, and the Church requires a person to be 'in the state of grace' (no mortal sin on ones conscience already or has received sacramental absolution for such sins) to receive the Eucharist; otherwise a sin of sacrilege is committed. Of course this 'loophole' obviously shouldn't be a temptation to avoid confession in order to receive communion. That is my understanding of the matter. I replied because I thought it was a serious misunderstanding of our doctrine. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

L:The same goes for Anointing of the Sick.
******true, but in this case the sick person does confess to the priest if able - thus he is forgiven. I think if he is unconscious or otherwise unable to confess, his sins are, so to speak, 'provisionally' forgiven, meaning that if the person had a desire to be forgiven/repentance when he had his faculties, then he would be forgiven through the anointing/prayers of the priest.

Dear Colleagues in Christ,

As an aside, I thought that Assyrian monastics were once quite numerous, especially in the tradition of St Isaac of Nineveh. Am I wrong?

The Assyrian monasteries are no longer around, as a result of persecution, but that doesn't mean they didn't have a rich monastic tradition, one that saw monks recite the entire Psalter daily, divided over the seven daily Hours with three "Marmeetha" or "Kathismata" per Hour.

Anyway, Lance is right and we are only discussing this topic.

The reason why this issue raises so many red flags for Catholics in Canada is precisely because of the fact that private confession appears to be falling off.

And no one wants to help that process by allowing people a General Absolution whereby they don't have to enumerate their sins etc.

What the Gen. Abs. does do is offer us a sense of the communal dimensions of sin, that sin is not just a private matter, it does do harm to the people around us, our community, society and the Church.

We seem to have lost a sense of penance overall, a sense of our own inclination to sinfulness and the fact that our nature is "diseased" with the effects of Original Sin.

Perhaps the answer lies in the Eastern view on human nature and sinfulness.

There has been much nonsense written and spoken about sin in recent times.

The notion that sin is only a sin if "we feel it to be a sin."

The fact is that we can break a commandment of God and not feel it to be wrong at all. Does that make it any less of a sin?

And then there is the notion that once we confess our sins then our "slate" is wiped clean and we are "perfect."

In fact, we know that our human nature is sinful and inclines toward the "law of sin" or rebellion against God.

This is why the Fathers teach that we must pray "Forgive me a sinner" until our dying breath.

So I believe a main "block" if you will against the very notion of us even having personal sins (so much can be explained by social/cultural negative influence to make our personal responsibility null and void) is that we think there can even be a time when we are outside the weakness of our human nature that inclines toward sin.

And we cannot be.

That so many of us feel we haven't anything to confess only indicates that we have already given ourselves our own form of personal exoneration/absolution in advance.

And that is not good for anyone's spiritual development.

Alex

Angela,

It's a difficult situation when layfolk have to convince the clergy of their own theology! Funny thing is that it DOESS seem to happen most around the Most Neglected Sacrament.

The one or two times when we had a big ol' penitential service where folks expected to also have the opportunity to confess, we borrowed priests. I've seen this done in RC churches, too. It works beautifully - there are enough priests available, folks who want to go to someone they know can, and folks who want to confess to a stranger can too.

Would that be a possibility for you?


Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Yes, I understand a RC church in Florida has a "speedy" drive through confessional for seven sins or less.

Sharon - how true that statement was - about convincing the Clergy I mean. We will continue to quietly nag and eventually thanks to the new [young]Assistant and the Senior Assistant I think we will win through.

Yes for the Rite 2 Service [ general Exam. of conscience built in to a Parish Penitential Service with Individual Confession etc ( you know - the permitted one ) ] we have "imported" Priests from other parishes but found another snag - all the Parishes left their Penitential Services in Lent as late as possible and this has sometimes been a problem - though I have to say that when the word spread round the City that you did not get general Absolution in our Parish for Easter - well you can imagine - the numbers dropped off

I have to say that when it is said that the use of General Absolution will bring people back to Individual Confession, I am far from convinced. And I say that as someone who was very guilty of using/misusing it. It took me a very long time after my horror experience to be able to approach a priest.

But the fact still remains we have to be able to teach our Parishioners about it - and how to - well that is a problem. I don't like being legalistic and quoting Cannon of the Church - or CCC paragraph numbers [ and yes I have the necessary 'bits'] I wonder sometimes how we can do it - I know what finally made me see what a joy Confession was - a short paragraph in Julian of Norwich's Revelations of Divine Love - where Mother Julian was discussing how a child who has done wrong turns to it's Mother and hides their fac in her as they say they have done wrong - and of course a mother will always forgive her child.
I remeber turning to my Director after reading that section and saying - "Aah now I begin to get it - " and he just quietly smiled. Maybe this is what we should all be teaching - I don't know - but there are times when individual Confession is a 'must'

Ooh forgot to say to MikeC - don't know about 'drive through' but I did hear of people suggesting Confession over the Internet :p

[ 07-31-2002: Message edited by: Our Lady's slave of love ]

Angela,

There's a WONDERFUL booklet you might want to get ahold of - I know that in our own Hieromonk Elias' parish they give them to the parents of all kids approaching their first Reconciliation - it's called "Kiss of Christ" and it's a collection of Catherine de Huek Doherty's sayings/writings on confession. Just wonderful stuff. I know it comes out of Combermere, ONT Canada - if I had a source I'd grab you one...

But yeah, catechesis and conversion of heart are necessary.

Sharon

Dear all,

Please forgive me if I don't get back for a bit - someone's new PC is demanding attention - and he wants the Internet line

Roll on the advent of ADSL soon

I will be back on this as there are a few other bits and pieces on which I need elucidation.

Truly a fascinating topic and we seem to be so much in agreement here - it's wonderful

[ 07-31-2002: Message edited by: Our Lady's slave of love ]

Dear Friends in Christ,

Early on in this thread Mor Ephrem said << In some Eastern services (Byzantine and Syrian), I see a formula(e) for a communal confession of every sin under the sun, but still communal, and thus general.
How could a general absolution do any good without a personal, private confession, an opportunity to confess, be sorry, receive guidance, and then forgiveness? General confession sounds to me like "I've sinned, but don't care to admit it to a priest, so I'll go to church, and Father will zap my sins away". >>

This certainly struck home and Sharon made another comment<< Because to speak the name of something/somebody is to have power over it. It is true for the deity, it is true for the demonic - and it is true in our battle with sin. To overcome it we MUST name it and speak it. >>

Then Lance entered with a refresher course in the history of confession - parts of which I did not know and brought it up to the present time . Now this is where my practice of Confession as an RC may well differ from yours.

As a convert I was [being totally unused to the practice of Confession] taught that in Confession I should not concentrate on producing so-to-speak a �shopping list of sins� - but look at my sins and think about what had caused me to sin and confess that failing , or two or more.This would/could lead to a helpful discussion as to how to avoid that failing in the future but obviously this [ the guidance aspect] would depend on the priest. This is what I tried for many years to do, and Confession became rather irregular and more and more problematical. I personally found the use of the Traditional Confessional difficult and after I had been trapped in fire it was impossible - a panic state because of claustrophobia would set in. So for me Confession face-to-face was the only option but finding the time and place [ oh and the necessary priest ] was not easy. So I fell away from it - and availed myself of General Absolution in our Parish - honest I did , and was glad to be able to say that I had been to Confession . I don�t suppose I was the only one either that felt that way - then or now.

I suspect part of the problem is the definition of �serious sin�.

As we all know during the Celebration of Mass [ and yes I do here include The Divine Liturgy ] we do admit our failings and ask forgiveness so yes, it is a Confession and yes, this is a form of General Confession and the forgiveness is �General� being extended to all present but being totally legalistic here it is not �General� as in the Celebration of Reconciliation as in Rite 3 of the RC Church.

BTW Slavyanskiy << I was under the impression that RCs are expected to go to private confession as soon as possible after a (very rare) general absolution if they had serious sins to confess. >> Spot on - if you want [ and I shouldn�t think you reallydo ]I will give you chapter and verse from the Canons of the Church, the CCC , Misericordia Dei etc �cos I have had to collect them all for my own purposes.

Alex then referred back to his original comment which had sparked this <<The reason why this issue raises so many red flags for Catholics in Canada is precisely because of the fact that private confession appears to be falling off.
And no one wants to help that process by allowing people a General Absolution whereby they don't have to enumerate their sins etc.>>

And now for the first time since I ventured here I am going to disagree with Alex <<What the Gen. Abs. does do is offer us a sense of the communal dimensions of sin, that sin is not just a private matter, it does do harm to the people around us, our community, society and the Church.>> - No Alex, a Communal Penitential /Reconciliation Service will do that as it is constructed in such a way to point out the communal aspects of sin and its consequences.

General Absolution is the forbidden Rite 3 to be used only in times of war and the like when Individual Confession is not possible. But having disagreed with that bit I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of that post.

So now to the nitty gritty - If we are all in agreement that venial sins are �dealt with� in the Penitential Rite during the Liturgy each time we go - and actually mean what we say., how do we get across the message that individual confession is necessary as well ?

I think that guidance can really only be given, as I think Lance said , by someone who really knows you - your Confessor/Director/Spiritual Father - but what happens if you really are too ashamed to approach your normal Confessor ? So far that has not happened to me - as I said to Father John when I started Direction with him, that I realised that total honesty was a pre-requisite and with one exception I have never held anything back from him. The one time I was evasive I was reminded that , oh so very very gently, that he knew I had a problem but if I could not be honest and tell him, then he could not help and that did it - the flood gates opened.

A quote from Mor Ephrem earlier to finish for today <<I am enjoying the conversation. Keep it coming. >>

[ 08-01-2002: Message edited by: Our Lady's slave of love ]

Dear Angela,

Could you double-space your next post?

I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you were disagreeing with in what I said.

Could you refer back to it and explain it in simple terms to enlighten this neophyte to Gen. Absolution?

Again, I was only thinking out loud.

One of our bishops tried to introduce this in our Eparchy way back when, but it didn't fly.

Alex

Sorry Alex - didn't mean to be difficult . General Absolution refers [ at least in the RC Church] only to the Rite 3 Reconciliation - when the whole congregation make a confession together and receive Absolution at that time. As has been said earlier anyone who receives General Absolution is bound to confess individually any serious sins that were included in that General Absolution before they avail themselves of that particualr Rite again] - you don't want chapter and verse surely ]

However a Penitential Service can be held at any time and does not need to incorporate individual Confession, in order to emphasis the effect that sin has on the Community.Obviously these services are normally held at important times in the Church year and tend to be concentrated on Advent and Lent - since they are times for us of Preparation.

We do now hold a Penitential Service for the Parish when our little ones celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation for the first time, and during this Service they make their first individual Confession - as well as anyone else in the Parish who wishes to avail themself of the opportunity.

I apologise for confusing you - please forgive me

Dear Angela,

No problem, now you're really on to something!

So for the Rite 3, the congregation confesses together, but I assume in general terms?

Also, in the Latin Church, do all three Rites have the same "sacramental effect" as far as forgiving sins is concerned?

St John of Kronstadt, an Orthodox Saint, was once surprised that so few were coming to Communion.

When he asked why, someone said that they had not had an opportunity to attend Confession.

So he asked them all to say their sins out loud and gave them a "General Absolution" right there and then!

Alex

__________________________________________________

Alex,

We have made the break through

Yes - Rite 3 - we normally start with a hymn and then the Liturgy of the Word - 2 readings split by a Psalm then the Gospel. Followed by a very very short Homily [ we suggest to the priest about 5 mins !!] a well prepared Examination of Conscience and then an act of Confession - the congregation stand for this and it is usually the Confiteor as at Mass. After that the Celebrant usually asks those who wish to receive the Absolution to kneel and it is then given. We then sit and the Celebrant gives us our Penance - as it is normally the Advent Service it is a suggestion that we think of others - and give Christmas presents and other goods to another Parish we have 'adopted' - a very poor Parish.[ I am told that the 13 very large sacks we donated last year ensured that every man woman and child in that Parish had a proper Christmas present, and a useful one - ie the kids got toys and things like gloves hats jumpers etc. So did the adults ] The Service closes with another hymn, the Blessing and a Recessional Hymn. The whole Service is built round a theme suggested by the Celebrant and the Liturgy Group actually construct it - including the Exam of Conscience. The Service for a Rite 3 Reconciliation will normally last for about 1 hour - but for Rite 2 [ communal Service , Communal Exam. of Conscience, individual Confession individual Absolution] can take as long as necessary -[ I have known it to take 2 1/2 hours - at least 3/4 of it was for confessions and our poor Cantor was running out of music !]

Now for your next question :- All 3 Rites are Sacramental and providing the penitent wishes Absolution and is in the correct frame of mind then yes, his sins are forgiven. But the priest has to mention the bit about serious sins must be confessed before the next instance of General Absolution - and this is what folk definitely forget - and the Priests also sometimes forget to stress it.

Having said all that though just to confuse you a Penitential Service does not have to include Confession - but it usually does

Dear Angela,

Between Slav and Slave, you mean private confession, presumably for serious sins, correct?

I have no problem with these Latin Rites, as long as they don't take away from the significance of private confession.

If Lance is reading this with his all-seeing eyes, he might squint at this given his earlier posts about the history of private confession etc.

But I think what Christians in another age did reflects other aspects of what I, at least, conceive to be a more openly penitential life then.

Today, I think the problem is that we don't like to even admit that we can sin.

The Ven. Fulton J. Sheen once said, "It used to be that only Catholics believed in the Immaculate Conception. Now everyone thinks he is immaculately conceived!"

Anything that can help us come to a deeper realization of our sinfulness, of an experience of metanoia, as you say, and of repentance is what we should be after.

The Rites you describe appear to me to be an excellent resource for the pursuit of just such goals.

Alex

Alex,

Private Confession/one to one either with the anonymity of the traditional Confessional or Face-to-face as it is now often practiced is the Norm and indeed what the Church demands/expects. Rite 1 and Rite 2 are for normal use Rite 3 is the problematical one as it is not for general [everyday] use, But the problem seems to be that people do not wish/do not practice Confession for one reason or another. The theory that some believe is that if you provide a service with General Absolution then the people will return to individual Confession - I'm not at all convinced.

I would be very glad to hear the views of others here about this - what about the Clergy - I know that this[ General Absolution] is not an Eastern Practice - but Confession is Confession wherever you go and we all need it. As Sharon said - it is a sadly neglected Mystery.

Angela,

A couple years ago a priest friend of mine asked me to help him out - it was Lent, and his local Roman Catholic High School wanted him to do some sort of penance service for the students, which would be followed by opportunity for individual confession with 3 or 4 priests present.

Not being Roman Catholic, we didn't have Rites 1, 2 or 3 to choose from so we got creative, lifted some penitential stuff fom daily Matins, a psalm or two, and came up with a neat little 5-7 minute service. It went very nicely, and I settled in behind the lectern in the back to "sing cover" for the duration.

The lovely thing about chant is that all you really need is text. I sang through a couple of psalms, then turned to the Lenten Triodion, chanted most of the texts for that week, then for a change hopped into "The Spiritual Psalter" of St. Ephrem for a couple of selections before things wound down. I had plenty more in reserve.....

I'd asked for water before the service - I still have the school coffee mug they brought me. It's a bit faded now, but makes me smile remembering.

Sharon

Sharon

Curious thing - Cantor's needing water - our senior one is always accompanied by a bottle of the stuff and during Christmas and Holy Week the choir must get through gallons of the stuff - the congregation don't half look as we arrive clutching bottles of it !!

Chant must be useful - we don't and I'm sure it could behelpful. But as you said it is useful having a Cantor who can provide cover - not just useful - essential more like.

Angela,

As I get older, I get less and less tolerant of incense. Water helps immensely. The Particular Law for Ruthenians has what I thnkfully refer to as "the Cantor's clause" in the section on fasting & abstinence. It says "water may be taken at any time."

Being a nursing mother as well, some days I think I'm not a person, just a temporary fluid-holding device.

Best,

Sharon

Sharon

I kmow what you mean about incense - we use very little of it now because , I think, that maybe we have too many folk with respiratory problems and since our choir is up at the back - the incense seems to get to us - particularly if one server is 'on duty' -- Brendan loves it and we feel as if we are pushing the clouds apart as we [ sorry folks but it has to be said ] Eucharistic Ministers go down for Communion. I will have to have a word with him before Christmas .

Also singing for 2 + hours constantly is very drying.

Just to increase my education Sharon - are nursing mums also exempt from fasting ?

Dear Lance,

The Armenian Church I know has had a very strong monastic tradition. Our ancient homeland (which is now Turkey) is carved up with the ruins of monasteries built on mountains and in caves. Where did you get this idea?

Just curious,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

William,

My post should have been clearer. All the mentioned Churches, except the Malabars, had a strong monastic tradition, even the Assyrians. However, the monastic tradition pretty much died out in the Assyrian Church and got proportionally smaller in the Armenian and Syrian Churches in comparison to the Latin, Byzantine, and Coptic Churches. The monastic element had much less influence in the Assyrian, Armenian, and Syrian Churches in comparison to the other three. This is most readily discerned in the Divine Office which has remained almost a purely cathedral office in the Assyrian and Armenian Churches and somewhat so for the Syrian Church.

I find it an interesting parallel that the monastic-influenced Latin, Byzantine, and Coptic Churches all developed more or less the same practice regarding auricualr confession and absolution, whereas the Assyrian, Armenian, and Syrian Churches, less influenced by the monastics, either did not develop auricular confession at all, as is the case of the Assyrians, or as among the Syrians and Armenians, were more free in the application of generalized confession and general absolution.

Which again makes me raise the question which nobody seems to want to grapple with: "What do we make of this?" Are the Assyrians, Armenians, Syrians wrong? I don't think so and given that it is never brought up in ecumencial discussion I don't think the hierarchs of our Churches do either. If they are not wrong, then we must admit the Latin/Byzantine/Coptic practice might be good but cannot at all be said to be absolutely neccessary.

In Christ,
Lance

Lance,
I can see a problem here.

While I understand what you are saying I think you go to far and end up comparing apples to oranges.

While it is fine to look at the history of the development of one Church's Tradition, I do not think we can really compare two different Church Traditions.

For example, the Assyrian Liturgy lacks the words of Institution, does this mean that they are not absolutely necessary for the Byzantine Divine Liturgy?

As for you question, "What do we make of this?" is that this is how the Assyrian, Armenian, and Syrian traditions developed, I do not think they have any impact upon us.

This type of thing has caused some problems with in the Latin Church, when the Vatican declared that the Assyrian Liturgy is "ok" even though it lacks the words of Institution, there was an up roar among some Latin Catholics as they see this as a first step to removing the Words from their Liturgy. I don't think we can do this, nor can we change our tradition of auricular confession to be the generalized confession and general absolution of these churches, as this would be like the History of Latinization that we are now overcoming.

David

David,

I do not think comparing the traditions of one Church to another is comparing apples and oranges but rather comparing differing varieties of apples.

It is impossible to conduct serious study of the One Church without comparing the practices of the particular Churches which compose her. The only way to get a benchmark, so to speak, is to see what all share in common.

I am not suggesting that the any Church adopt another Churches' tradition. However, I do question the theological inconsistencies in what the Latin Church does. My problem is that some in the Latin Church seem to hold the postion that general absolution is invalid unless followed at a later time by auricular confession, except when one dies before that can happen. I can't be the only person to see the ridiculousness of such a position. Either one is absolved or one is not. The history of the Sacrament as well as the practice of other Churches points to the fact that absolution without auricular confession is valid, period. Now bishops or synods can refuse the use of this as that is within their right, but it can not be maintained that general absolution is invalid.

As to the Anaphora of Mar Addai and Mar Mari (and the Anaphora of Peter III, Syrians and Maronites have this one and it lacks the Words of Institution as well) the Vatican ruled that it is indeed a valid Anaphora, citing that the Words of Institution were implicit. This got very little coverage considering the Vatican went back on years of sacramental teaching that the Words of Institution were absolutely necessary. It is this that got some Latins in a bunch. The idea that the Words will be removed from any of their Anaphora is silly. What started this was one dissenting priest with a column stated that perhaps this opened up the doors for some of the unapproved Eucharistic Prayers floating around out there and which some use illicitly. Many of which are invalid for several reasons without even considering the Words of Institution.

In Christ,
Lance

Lance,
I can see this, maybe you are more correct, that it is just different varieties of apples.

But, I do not think what you are doing is using a benchmark of what we all share in common, as here you are dwelling on what we do not share in common. Maybe this is where my confusion is.


Again, you confuse me. You say that you are not for copying another church but then you go on about inconsistencies in theology.

As I am not a theologian, when in doubt I leave it to the Church to teach me. Even when the Church explains everything to me, I still do not always understand. As I said, I am not a theologian.

As for this comment;

I do not see anything ridiculous in this. If one attends a General confession/absolution rite and is expected to follow it up with auricular confession but is hit by a bus before one can do so, through no fault of their own, I can understand them being absolved, while if someone is in the same situation and is hit by the same bus, but had no intention of ever going to confession, should they be absolved?

Read Pastoral Norms Concerning the Administration of General Sacramental Absolution at http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6PASTOR.HTM


God Bless,
David

[ 08-02-2002: Message edited by: DavidB ]

Lance - I will apologise in advance for the length of this. As you will have seen I am troubled by this question of General Absolution . I have no doubt whatsoever that it is a valid Absolution but personally I doubt whether it, as a Sacrament, is being used correctly, -- hence and being terribly legalistic I quote :-

Can. 960 Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the sole ordinary means by which a member of the faithful who is conscious of grave sin is reconciled with God and with the Church. Physical or moral impossibility alone excuses from such confession, in which case
reconciliation may be attained by other means also.

Can. 961 �1 General absolution, without prior individual confession, cannot be given to a number of penitents together, unless:

1� danger of death threatens and there is not time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents;
2� there exists a grave necessity, that is, given the number of penitents,there are not enough confessors available properly to hear the individual confessions within an appropriate time, so that without fault of their own the penitents are deprived of the sacramental grace or of holy communion for a lengthy period of time. A sufficient necessity is not, however, considered to exist when confessors cannot be available merely because of a great gathering of penitents, such as can occur on some major feastday or pilgrimage.

�2 It is for the diocesan Bishop to judge whether the conditions required in �1, n. 2 are present; mindful of the criteria agreed with the other members of the Episcopal Conference, he can determine the cases of such necessity.

Can. 962 �1 For a member of Christ's faithful to benefit validly from a sacramental absolution given to a number of people simultaneously, it is required not only that he or she be properly disposed, but be also at the same time personally resolved to confess in due time each of the grave sins which cannot for the moment be thus confessed.

�2 Christ's faithful are to be instructed about the requirements set out in �1, as far as possible even on the occasion of general absolution being received. An exhortation that each person should make an act of contrition is to precede a general absolution, even in the case of danger of death if there is time.

Can. 963 Without prejudice to the obligation mentioned in can. 989, a person whose grave sins are forgiven by a general absolution, is as soon as possible, when the opportunity occurs, to make an individual confession before receiving another general absolution, unless a just reason intervenes.

And as a summary from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Section 1483. "In case of grave necessity recourse may be had to a communal celebration of reconciliation with general confession and general absolution. Grave necessity of this sort can arise when there is imminent danger of death without sufficient time for the priest or priests to hear each penitent's confession. Grave necessity can also exist when, given the number of penitents, there are not enough confessors to hear individual confessions properly in a reasonable time, so that the penitents through no fault of their own would be deprived of sacramental grace or Holy Communion for a long time. In this case, for the absolution to be valid the faithful must have the intention of individually confessing their sins in the time required.[Cf. CIC, can. 962 �1.] The diocesan bishop is the judge of whether or not the conditions required for general absolution exist.[Cf. CIC, can. 961 �2.] A large gathering of the faithful on the occasion of major feasts or pilgrimages does not constitute a case of grave necessity.[Cf. CIC, can. 961 #�1.] "

I have not quoted from Misericordia Dei or the Letter from the Pope to all priests on Holy Thursday this year but both of them stated the fact that General Absolution was only for grave occasions and should not be regarded as the norm.

Given these extracts I find it difficult to accept that General Absolution should be the norm - and from what I have learned here I do not think that the Eastern Churches would agree either - but I am open to correction [ and further education/elucidation]

Re: Our Lady's Slave of Love's scholarly reply about Gen'l absolution: Two thumbs up. Good work on getting the research done on that for us.

Even as a Roman Catholic (not the somewhat disparaging term "Latin" people like to throw out here, please) I have to agree with Lance that it does seem strange that for whatever reason the gen'l abs. might have had to be given, if it WAS given, it would seem that the penitents <assuming proper disposition to receive teh sacrament> (i.e., repentence and determination to refrain from sin) WOULD be forgiven (all their sins, even serious) without a mitigating condition of private confession later. It would happen so rarely that this shouldn't be such a big deal, but it is an interesting question.

-Slavyanskiy RC chelovek, kotoriy lyubit Pravoslavnuyu tserkov to zhe!!!

Slavyanskiy,

Please do not take my use of the term Latin as disparaging. I use it as the proper indicator of the sui iuris Church over which the Pope presides as Patriarch of the West. This is how the Code of Canon Law refers to it and is actually the best term as the Latin Church is multi-ritual, containing the Roman (Tridentine, Modern, and Anglican usages, as well as the uses of a few Religious Orders), Ambrosian, and Mozarabic Rites. I do acknowledge that sometimes hardline Orthodox will use Latin as a term of denigration, but that is not my intent nor that of most of those who post here. When speaking liturgically I will refer to the Roman or other approriate Rite, but when speaking of particular Churches Latin is the correct term.

In Christ,
Lance

Slavyanskiy,<<Re: Our Lady's Slave of Love's scholarly reply about Gen'l absolution: Two thumbs up. Good work on getting the research done on that for us.>>
Thanks for the undeserved compliment - actually I had been given the Canon Numbers by a Seminarian and the content was given to me by one of the members here, whom I approached as I was sure he would know to which ones I was referring, - he did and provided the CCC reference as well - the other bits that I have found were as a result of digging - but they are needed as my lack of theology is shaming and since I feel that something is being wrongly used, and I cannot give the theological reason, so have to resort to the use of chapter and verse.

I am in agreement with Lance here :-
<<My problem is that some in the Latin Church seem to hold the postion that general absolution is invalid unless followed at a later time by auricular confession, except when one dies before that can happen. I can't be the only person to see the ridiculousness of such a position. My problem is that some in the Latin Church seem to hold the postion that general absolution is invalid unless followed at a later time by auricular confession, except when one dies before that can happen. I can't be the only person to see the ridiculousness of such a position. Either one is absolved or one is not. . >>

and have to admit that I do not understand - as Lance says
<< Either one is absolved or one is not. >> and I wish that someone would explain the reasoning here in words of one syllable that I can understand.

I don't know if I am being dense here or not - but I really am confused The same non-understanding also applies to the Penitential Rite during Mass - we say we are sorry - and the Priest says the form of Absolution - are we absolved or not ? I personally thinks so but .......


Angela - still looking for education and elucidation

[ 08-03-2002: Message edited by: Our Lady's slave of love ]

Dear Lance,

Ah, thanks for your explanation. It is a lot clearer now as to what you meant. But I'm not sure what is meant by "cathedral office." Could you elaborate for me please?

Secondly, on the popular (not ecumenical) level, I have heard from many Armenian Apostolic Christians that they would like private confession to once again be re-instituted. Perhaps private confession isn't the best way to describe what we are referring to. Maybe "individual confession" as opposed to a general, annonymous "collective confession" would be more clear. Like I said, I've heard many Armenian Apostolic Christians express a desire and need for this kind of confession.

Example: here's a text that might be beneficial to our discussion from an Armenian Apostolic cleric, Archbishop Shnork Kaloustian (who latter became the Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem). His Grace writes,

"The last act of Penance is Confession. Confession is an important part of the sacrament of Penance. There is private confession not only in the Roman Catholic Church, but in all the Ancient Eastern Churches, including the Greek, Russian and Armenian Churches. The unfortunate fact however, is that in many places it is not practiced. But in Jerusalem it is still practiced...."

"If we do not feel well physically, we go to a doctor, or if we do not feel good mentally, we would perhaps consult a psychiatrist. Like wise, when we do not feel peaceful in our souls, we should go to a priest to regain our inner peace and spiritual health (Saints and Sacraments, pgs. 43-44)."

This is his expression of the need for individual confession. Also, I would like to take a stab at your question regarding those Churches which have had this practice fall into disuse.

Maybe the various Churches are not perfect in and of themselves. Maybe some excell in some areas but are weak in others. Maybe in some of their traditions they can be teachers for the others and in others they can learn from the others and vice-versa.

Considering the great good that has come from the practice of individual confession throughout the centuries and the great Fathers of the Church who recommended the practice, perhaps those Churches which lost the practice (or maybe even never had it) could reap much spiritual gain by (re)employing this forgotten Mystery in their Churches?

What I am saying is that perhaps their not having the practice isn't a proof that the universal Church doesn't need it but rather, it is a proof only that a few Churches could learn from the many others which do? I can say for a fact that I know many in the Armenian Apostolic Church who believe much good could come from this kind of restoration of individual Confession. And I suspect this might be a similar notion in the other Churches.

After all, Jesus told the Apostles who's sin you forgive are forgiven them and who's sins you retain are retained. How can the Church's ministers forgive sins if they do not hear them? Isn't it true that the practice of the Church has always been to confess (very serious) sins where someone (maybe everyone) could here them? The Church only limited the amount of listeners as time progressed (down to only the priest). The Church also increased the array of sins that should be confessed (both serious and even minor ones) for greater spiritual growth. But from what I know of the history of the practice the basic elements of the Mystery are still intact. General confession as we know it today is a very different animal from these basic elements I mentioned above.

Let me know what think of all this.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

Slava Isusu Christu!

Another idea:

In a comparison of the Roman and Byzantine rites, I've noticed that in each rite, the emphases of each, which could lead to abuse or even heresy, is also counterbalanced by some other thing in that rite.

This is a good argument against mixing and matching elements of rites (e.g. latinization) - you can end up with the weaknesses of both.

Example: in the traditional lands of the Roman Rite (Western Europe), there is a strong individualist tendency - "God and me". Individual auricular confession balances this tendency to individual autonomy with a strong dose of individual responsibility.

There are others I've thought of, but it's late and I have a headache. When I think of them again, I'll edit this post.

NDHoosier,

Interesting. I'd like to hear more.

Mmmmm

Me too - this sounds as if it could be something that I have been struggling with for a while

Angela

Just as a side line at least the problem in our Parish is solved - the Archbishop has spoken - so the clergy obey. There will be no Services of Reconciliation with General Absolution within the Archdiocese this year.

Mind I would still love to hear NDHoosier's thoughts

Angela

[ 08-05-2002: Message edited by: Our Lady's slave of love ]

My parents are Roman Rite (I am a Byzantine Rite)
in Florida. They and their other "senior" friends in various locations are upset about the Pope doing away with the general confession they have grown used to each Lent the last several years. They complain that with so few priests it is difficult for so many parishioners to seek private confession. Besides "what sins do us old folks have to confess anyway?"

It seems that with a general confession it is too easy to not dig deeply into ourselves and examine where we are not living up to the Gospel (not that I think all the seniors are out there committing "mortal" sins!). The benefit of having a spiritual father, who over time comes to know your heart and guides and heals, is lost. And the opportunity to learn a bit of humility as we confess face-to-face, as we do in the Byzantine rite, is also lost.
denise

Slava Isusu Christu!

I changed my mind - I'll add another post instead of editing the previous one.

Another example: In Western European societies, there is a strong emphasis on "doing something constructive". If you're not "doing", your worth is questionable. However, in the Tridentine Mass, you are expected to be silent and attentive. You are there not to DO, but more to BE in the presence of God and render Him worship - not considered "doing something" in the economic sense, which is usually meant by this emphasis in action.

The seeming passivity of Latin Catholics in the Tridentine Mass, which could give rise to a spiritual sloth or the heresy of Quietism, was counterbalanced by a strong quasi-liturgical devotional life.

However, the introduction of quasi-liturgical devotions into the Byzantine Churches certainly helped to dismantle and/or discourage the practice of parish Orthros and Vespers, and the praying of the Akathist to the Theotokos.

Another Example: there is a lot of furor over the centralized Roman polity versus the synodal Eastern polity. I think that both can co-exist in the Catholic Church, because each is a response to the cultures of their development. The Roman polity is appropriate for the Latin Church because of the strong individualistic tendencies in the cultures of its members. A strong centralizing tendency is required to keep the individualistic tendencies of its members in check. The Protestant "Reformation" has resulted in tremendous denominational splintering. Even the infamous Orthodox jurisdictionalism doesn't approach this sort of division! (moreover, they have the Apostolic faith). Schisms in the East didn't admit of this kind of splintering - a testament to a stronger sense of community than Christians in the West.

Another Example: Western Christians tend to a sort of Arianism - "God...AND Jesus!" (this is more evident if you say that with a southern accent). The insertion of the Filioque into the Creed by the Western Church is an explicit admission of this tendency. The counterbalance: extraliturgical worship of the Eucharist, both in exposition and in repose.

Another Example: Catholicism and Orthodoxy are replete with praises to Mary. This could easily be carried to idolatry. However, the prevention of this is addressed differently in the two rites. In the East, except in three icons (Crucifixion, Pentecost, Dormition), Mary is NEVER portrayed unless in physical contact with her Son. Note that here, the couterbalance is in the context of icons, the primary vehicles of veneration and devotion in the Byzantine Churches. Latin Christianity avoids this with the formula at the end of the Hail Mary: Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. The usual vehicle for this prayer is the Rosary, the most important devotion in the Latin Church.

Maybe I'm off the mark, but I think I'm onto something here.

CIX!

Just a a point of information, there's also the Icons of Extreme Humility; of the Mother of God, softner of evil hearts; of the Protecting Veil...

These depict the Mother of God alone.

=)

Dear NDHoosier,

The West does tend to emphasize the Virginity of the Mother of God, her personal holiness that MIGHT lead one to consider her as a super-human. The East sees her glory in terms of her being the Mother of the Word Incarnate.

In terms of iconography, as Patriarch Edward says, the Mother of God is also often depicted alone in Eastern Icons.

But she is never alone and even in the western depiction of Our Lady of Grace, the sun that surrounds her is the glory of the Lord Jesus.

Some have criticized the RC Saint Louis de Montfort for overdoing veneration to Our Lady.

However, how can that be since his explication showed the Mother of God as the vehicle or means by which we go to Her Son?

In the East, the veneration of Saints is always a Divine Service because through them we pray to the Incarnate God Who lives in them and Who is the final end of any invocation of any saint.

This is, ultimately, another way to celebrate the Incarnation of our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Alex

General Confession is not unknown in Orthodoxy. There are many parishes -- mostly in the OCA, I think -- that serve General Confession periodically. However, it works differently than my experiences of it growing up as a Latin Catholic.

In the OCA version, there is a service, typically during which we kneel (relatively rare for some Orthodox outside of Lent), various pslams are chanted and prayers for forgiveness are chanted, sins are enumerated and so forth. But the absolution given at the end of the service is administered individually, and there is time to mention specific sins, individual sins, to the priest at that time (but this is not required).

The idea behind General Confession (something spearheaded by Fr. Alexander Schmemann) was to get more people accustomed to regular confessions as well as to promote eucharistic communication by the laity (ie, there will have been a confession, so that "justification" that had been used by some would drop away if most of the parish had a general confession). I'm not sure how it has worked. The General Confession services that I have attended have all been fairly well-attended (more than at a typical Vespers service), but at the same time frequent communion has become a norm in the OCA parishes I have visited, whether or not they have general confession. Therefore I'm not sure whether the service is really serving the goal it was intended to serve ... but perhaps it's too early to draw up a balance sheet on that.

I still prefer individual auricular confession, as it is done in the Orthodox tradition, to the General Confession services, but if it is true that attendance at General Confession can encourage people to make an individual confession more frequently (ie, at least during the four fasts), then this seems appropriate to me.

Brendan

Dear Brendan the Theologian,

You are ALWAYS a sight for sore cybernetic eyes, esteemed Servant of Christ and thank you for anointing us with your wisdom once more!

So is the form of General Confession in the OCA similar to what RC's have had?

And is it "sacramentally effective" as well without private auricular confession?

What would be a good frequency of confession (assuming that one doesn't have to go to confession EACH TIME one goes to Communion) in order to go to Communion every Sunday and Holy-day?

Alex

Well what a wealth on information in those last few posts - and I have to say that the comment made by Byzinroswell is one that I have heard here as well.

ND Hoosier's is still being absorbed but I think I have got there

Brendan's - well now that has opened my eyes somewhat. General Absolution Service that way is something that makes sense and yes I can see that will lead people back to individual Confession. Pity that was not the way it was 'done' in the Latin Church.

I must say that I wish it was accepted practice in the Latin Church that Confession was before an Icon of Christ - I frequently take one with me and tend to place it on the table in front of me. Fortunately Fr understands my reason for this.

I only hope that others are getting as much from this thread as I am - thank you all for the help you have given me

Dear Angela,

Yes, Our Lady's Slave, yes, everyone else's posts on this subject have been insightful and excellent . . .

But don't forget who started this thread!

Alex
Teaser-in-Chief

"So is the form of General Confession in the OCA similar to what RC's have had?"

No, it's different from what I remember in the RCC. The Orthodox service is more penitential, and there is individual absolution.

"And is it "sacramentally effective" as well without private auricular confession?"

It's sacramentally effective with the absolution -- that is, the individual absolution one receives at the end of the General Confession service is a sacramental absolution. One is told that one must still attend private auricular confession (that is, one cannot substitute G.C. for it -- one should do both), ,but that doesn't deprive the G.C. absolution of its sacramentality.

"What would be a good frequency of confession (assuming that one doesn't have to go to confession EACH TIME one goes to Communion) in order to go to Communion every Sunday and Holy-day?"

A good guideline would be to confess at least once during each fasting season (ie, now for those of you who are on the New calendar), and at other times when you are in serious sin.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Excellent - I think the OCA service is the one for other Churches to emulate then!

It's pastorally responsible and viable without taking away from the significance of private confession in our spiritual life.

God bless,

Alex

In my OCA Cathedral which was the former Cathedral of now Metropolitan Herman we have General Confssion once a month DURING NON LENTEN PERIODS. It does not replace private Confession in any way shape or form. Private Confession is still offered to all those who want it. Usually after Vespers on the second to the last Saturday of the month our priest will give General Confession.
This is from my files. It is a posting I made on an Orthodox List awhile back. Glad I was able to find it rather than having to retype it all-

--------------------------------

In the Orthodox Church I belong which is part of the OCA (Orthodox Church In
America) we partake of 'Private' Confession similiar to what SLKAssoc
describes.
Private Confession is a must during Lenten periods and major feast days. We
also have 'General' Confession which is usually after Vespers on a Saturday
when the priest announces it. The priest will come out from behind the Iconostasis and in front of the Icon of Christ recite a series of 'Forgiveness Prayers'.
Then he will proceed with 'General Confession'.

At 'General Confession' the entire congregation kneels and
recites the following from the 'Full Confession of St. Demetrius of Rostov)
Which goes-

"I confess to the Lord my God and before thee, venerable father, all my
countless sins, committed by me unto this very day and hour, in deed, word or
thought. I sin daily and hourly by mine ingratitude toward God for His Great
and countless blessings and benevolent providence over me, a sinner.
I have sinned through: idle talking, judging others, stubborness, pride,
hard-heartedness, envy, anger, slander, inattention, negeligence concerning my
salvation, carelessness, indifference, impertinence, irritability, despondency,
rendering evil for evil, bitterness, disobedience, complaining,
self-justification, contradicting others, self-will, being reproachful,
gossiping, lying, light-mindedness, tempting others, self-love, ambition,
gourmandizing, eating and drinking to excess, vanity, laziness, entertaining
unclean thoughts, acquisitiveness, impure glances, absence from Divine
Services, because of laziness and carelessness, absentmindedness at prayer
both in church and at home; I have sinned in deed, word, thought, in sight,
hearing, smell, taste, touch and the rest of my mental and physical senses; of
all my sins I repent and beg forgiveness.

(At this point there is about a five minute silence. Here one should mention privately to God specifially any other sins which may be burdening the soul).

Forgive and absolve me, venerable father, and bless me to commune of the holy
and life-creating Mysteries of Christ unto the remission of sins and life-everlasting."

Amen!

At this point each individual person will go to the priest and receive absolution in the
manner that SLKAssoc has described.

In our parish approximately 95% of the people who go to Communion on any given
Sunday do so every Sunday. Usually when there is a Liturgy during the week the
priest will be there a half hour prior to the start of the Liturgy. If you
stand in front of the Iconostasis he will come out. He will ask if you have
any sins to confess and proceed to give you confession and/or absolution
(depending on how you reply). Our priest is very strict and knows
his parishioners (even to the kind of car we drive). If you come up and he
knows you have not received confession or absolution he will not give you
communion. We all know enough not to even attempt it!
On any given Sunday well over 75% or more of the congregation partake of
communion which usually takes bout 15 to 20 minutes.

Dear Friends,

Orthoman has raised an important point here, that being that the daily Orthodox prayers contain a formula of personal absolution that should be recited daily.

The Jordanville prayerbook has a ready text for this at the end of the Evening Prayers. The Ukrainian Saint Dmitry Tuptalenko (of Rostov) also had a well-known personal confession of sins.

It is interesting that the OCA would adopt St Dmitri's form.

It is, after all, based on an old Roman Catholic form St Dmitri found and adapted for Orthodox usage.

Ah, the spiritual overlap!

Alex