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.