www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship The Other Sacramental Mysteries Bless me, Father...

A question to the Orthodox and likewise to Eastern Catholics who have never been Roman Catholics concerning the sacrament of Reconciliation...

How would your traditions look upon the situation of a soul who fell away from the Church for, say, a couple decades in favor of a very hedonistic life but then repented, but whom, if he had to confess all his mortal sins "in number and kind" as is said one must in the Roman Catholic Church, would be up a creek? He simply wouldn't be able to do that. He could offer a general idea of how his years have been misspent over the past two decades but if he had to list his grave sins "in number and kind" he might as well just forget about it.

What is the Orthodox approach and what is the Eastern Catholic approach to reconciliation in such a case?

Furthermore, in the Roman Catholic Church, the teaching is that if you recall a mortal sin that you forgot to confess, you are bound, once you recall it, to confess it at your next confession. It seems to me that a repentant lapsed Christian who had given himself over to a life of sins could potentially endlessly find himself returning to his past and never being able to move forward in that case.

How is that treated within Orthodoxy and within Eastern Catholicism?

Fellow Roman Catholics, please...leave this one alone. I want to hear it from the point of view of Eastern minds only.

PS: I'd be especially interested in hearing from any clergymen reading this.

I have often thought that if an unconfessed mortal sin sent one to hell Augustine might be in trouble.

This kind of thinking is meaningless in an Eastern context, because they don't have an accounting approach to sin. The most perfect confession is that of the Publican who said "Lord have mercy on me, I am a sinner."

The Roman approach to confession can lead one to pride - pride so that one thinks that one has an ability to examine one's conscience completely enough, or to bear what one would find if they actually did. In reality, all of us have such a clouded view of ourselves that we can't begin to understand the extent of our sinfulness. Acknowledging that the extent of our sin will always exceed our capacity to confess it, because there will always be something about ourselves we are hiding from and can't confront, no matter how holy we are, is the first step to acknowledging that we depend on God's mercy, and need to have faith in that rather than our ability to save ourselves.

In our Russian usage one of the very last things the Spiritual Father says to the penitent in the Holy Mystery of Repentance is "Go in peace and do not be disturbed by any evil you have done...." In this regard I would also refer our bloggers to The Confession of a Spiritual Man Leading to Repentance" from the Secon Part of The Way of a Pilgrim.

These are fascinating responses. They're on the verge of being eye opening. May I encourage you both to expand a bit upon what you've already said? I'd genuinely love to hear more.

Friend, so much of what disturbs you seems to be your own misunderstanding of Roman Catholicism, rather than Roman Catholicism itself.

I'm loath to expand in the area of contrasts, because inevitably one ends up making inaccurate generalisations when one says "the latins do this but the Russians do this". From a theological perspective, I would expand by saying the difference is that the eastern emphasis is characteristically on mercy whereas the western is on justice. One of the responses you often hear when you try to explain to Latins that in the east there is no difference between mortal and venial sin, there is just sin, is that "oh, but that is injustice, because surely X is worse than Y". In the east, our understanding of God is apophatic in the sense that we do not assume that just because something seems justifiable in human reason that it is necessarily true that God acts in the same way. Thus, for whatever reason, God may treat the person who committed "mortal sin" X more mildly than the person who committed "venial sin" Y. If the person who commits ten mortal sins of type X throws themselves upon God's mercy and says "I am wretched and cannot help it, I sin every moment of my life without being able to stop, please forgive me", to the easterner they may have understood more of the reality of salvation than the person who says "I have not committed any mortal sins that I need to confess". It's hard to set general rules beyond saying that the essence of God's mercy is that God's mercy is not just, at least in a human sense. No human being forgives an infinite number of times, but this is what God does. There are no penances given in eastern confession - there is no need to do anything to account for a sin, because God forgives infinitely. Easterners love tales like Mary of Egypt - how could she atone for her sins? Through her own work she couldn't. But God could forgive her, and by faith in this, she became regarded as a saint. Eastern confession is about asking God's mercy, not achieving satisfaction via the act itself or anything else associated with it.

Otsheylnik:

I'm glad you weren't so loathe to expand upon the subject that you were prevented from writing what you did because I found your words tremendously helpful. Thank you. I'll be meditating upon what you've shared for a good long time.

JDC:

"Friend, so much of what disturbs you seems to be your own misunderstanding of Roman Catholicism, rather than Roman Catholicism itself."

Well, if that's so I can only thank the books and clergymen whose explanations have formed my misunderstanding. "Number and kind," they say...and everytime you recall a mortal sin from the past that you forgot to confess, you've got to confess it next time you confess.

Unless you can point out to me something authoritative that shows the error of that understanding, it would seem that my "misunderstanding" is not, in fact, "my own".

From the Confession of Augsburg, A.D. 1530 chief document of what are known as the "Lutheran Confesssions"

This is one of 21 articles in which both the Lutheran and Catholic parties were in agreement.

The canon you are quoting about number and kind says "of which the person has of knowledge".

Your original question says that a person with a history may be "up the creek" because of the requirement of number and kind. You suggest that the Church has placed in the way an insurmountable barrier to sacramental grace. Any honest examiner of the question will see that this is a distortion. Humans have human memories and can only have knowledge of what they can remember.

And to the latter point? One could be endlessly plagued with the memory of sins from the past popping into one's head. Isn't there a point at which you can justly say, "Basta! I've had it! I'm not confessing anymore sins from the past; I'm sorry. I'm truly sorry for everything I've done. But I need to move beyond it, now. No more."

The latter point is nonsense. You think returning to the practice of the faith after a long period of debauchery is unique? Unmanageable?

There are only ten commandments. Consider them one by one. Estimate where necessary.

Well, perhaps it is nonsense but the fact that I have read as much and have been told as much by priests is not nonsense. For example, from the book, "Confession: A Little Book for the Reluctant" by Msgr. Louis de Segur...

"If, after absolution you remember any sin, it will not be necessary for that reason to return to Confession; above all it is not necessary to deprive yourself from Holy Communion. It will suffice, the first time you come again to confession, to say, 'Father, at my last confession I involuntarily ommitted such and such sin.'"

I have approached several priests about this and they all concur: even though all one's sins were absolved at one's last confession, one must confess at his next confession any grave sins that he happens to recall thereafter.

I don't understand that because to me absolved means absolved. How could you be absolved of a sin, only to be guilty of it, again, by not confessing it at your next confession on the chance that you happen to remember it?

At any rate, like I say, it's as if you're chained to your past for life in that respect, when it seems to me it would be God's desire that once you're freed, you truly are freed. It would make more sense to me if the teaching were, "and if you later recall a grave sin that you involuntarily omitted, forget about it; it was absolved. Never let it plague you again and move on. Look forward to the future, not backwards to the past."

Just how many mortal sins are you committing in a given week that you are forgetting as many as you remember? I just don't buy this story as a real situation applicable to anybody in real circumstances. If you want to make up fantastic scenarios to trip up the Church, be my guest.

In the case of your original scenario, it is entirely likely that a person returning to the practice of the faith after a long time might not remember every individual sin. In such a case it is necessary to estimate. That is all.


If that bothers you, wait'll you hear about some of these wildly ill-defined Eastern concepts like Oeconomia. That'll cook your noodle.

The idea is the same as the application of Canon Law in the Latin Church. Canon Law is not based on "justice" or "rehabilitation", per se, as is civil law. It is centered on "the good of the Faith". Because of this focus, certain norms can be dispensed with in individual or particular circumstances, but these dispensation may not necessarily be cited as a precedent for future general norms.

"Just how many mortal sins are you committing in a given week that you are forgetting as many as you remember? I just don't buy this story as a real situation applicable to anybody in real circumstances. If you want to make up fantastic scenarios to trip up the Church, be my guest."

JDC, I think I made it very clear that I was referencing a situation concerning one who had been away from the Church for decades. If you want to be combative I can't stop you, but...it isn't helpful. It's what I've come to expect of my own kind...rallying 'round the flag...but it isn't helpful.

I'd love to hear more from other Orthodox or Eastern Catholics though.