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

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