Posted on 05/15/2004 3:10:24 PM PDT by MarMema
1. For each conscientious priest confession is without any doubt one of the most difficult and frustrating aspects of his ministry. It is here, on the one hand, that he encounters the only real object of his pastoral care: the human soul, man, as he stands sinful and miserable, before God. But it is here, one the other hand, that he realizes to what degree nominal Christianity has pervaded our Church life. The basic Christian notions of sin and repentance, reconciliation with God and renewal of life, seem to have become irrelevant. If the terms are still used, their meaning is certainly quite different from that, on which our whole Christian faith is based.
2. Another source of difficulties is the theoretical, or even theological, confusion as to the nature of the sacrament of penance. In practice a purely formal and juridical understanding of it, clearly Western and "romanizing" in its origin, coexists paradoxically with an equally doubtful reduction of confession to psychology. In the first case the man comes to the priest, confesses transgressions of Christian law, and receives absolution which entitles him to the second sacrament "of obligation" – Holy Communion. Confession proper is reduced here to a minimum, and in some churches even replaced by a general formula to be read by the penitent. All emphasis is on the priest’s power of absolution and the latter is considered "valid" regardless of the state of soul of the penitent. If the first case reveals "romanizing" tendencies, the second can be termed "protestantizing". Confession is regarded as "counseling," as helping and solving difficulties and problems and is a dialogue not between man and God, but between man and a supposedly wise and experienced advisor with ready answers to all human problems. Both tendencies, however, obscure and deform the truly Orthodox understanding and practice of confession.
3. The existing situation is due to many factors. And, although, it is obviously impossible to enumerate all of them here and to even outline the very complicated historical development of the sacrament of penance, a few remarks are necessary before we discuss possible solutions.
a) Originally the sacrament of penance was understood and practiced as reconciliation of those excommunicated, i.e., banished from the "ecclisia" – the assembly of the People of God and its fulfillment in the Eucharist which is the "Koinonia" of the Body and Blood of Christ. The excommunicated is the one who cannot offer and, therefore, cannot receive. This reconciliation was a long process and the absolution – its final seal, the sign or "image" of repentance, i.e., of the rejection and condemnation by the penitent of his sin and alienation from God, of its real confession (manifestation, recognition) as sin. The power of absolution was not thought of as a "power in itself," virtually independent from repentance. It was indeed the sacramental sign of an accepted repentance which has brought forth its fruit. The Church in the person of the Priest witnessing that there is true repentance and that God has accepted it, has "reconciled and united" the penitent with the Church. Whatever changes occurred in the practice of the sacrament, this first and essential meaning, is still the starting point of its Orthodox understanding.
b) Also from the very beginning the ministry of the Church implied the care of souls, i.e., guidance in spiritual life, help in a man’s fight with the old Adam in him. But at first, it was not included in the sacrament of penance. It was under the influence of monasticism with its highly developed theory and practice of spiritual guidance, that the latter became little by little an integral part of confession. Yet, in monasticism itself this spiritual guidance remained for a long time distinct from sacramental confession and was entrusted quite often to non-ordained monks. What made it an essential aspect of the pastoral ministry and almost the central contents of confession was the progressive secularization of Christian society. The Church after Constantine ceased to be a minority of heroically minded "faithful," she identified herself almost completely with the "world" (cf. the Russian term "mirianin" for "laikos") and had to deal with a multitude of nominal Christians in need of help, constant guidance and personal care. The significant change in the Eucharistic practice (from a corporate communion as an essential act of membership in the Body of Christ – to a more or less frequent individual communion) which occurred during the same period and under the influence of the same factors, meant a decisive transformation in the understanding of penance. From a sacrament for those cut from the Church, it became a sacrament for those inside the Church. The theological emphasis shifted from repentance to absolution, as virtually the only essential element of the sacrament.
c) The secularization of Christian society made it open and receptive to humanistic and pragmatic philosophies of life, which radically obscured the Christian idea of sin and repentance. The concept of sin as separation from God, from the only true life in Him and with Him, was progressively replaced by a sort of moral or ritual legalism in which sin means primarily the transgression of an established rule. In a man centered and self-satisfied society with its ethics of success and purely external "decency," these rules themselves underwent a radical transformation. They ceased to be regarded as absolute norms, and were reduced to a socially accepted ethical code. If an early Christian always knew that he was a sinner whose sins are forgiven and who, without any merit on his part, is introduced into the Bridal Chamber, given a new life, made partaker of the Kingdom, the modern Christian, since in the eyes of the society he is a decent man and a "nice fellow" always "feels fine" about himself and thoroughly enjoys his self admiration. His vision of life, which, in turn, shapes his understanding of religion, excludes altogether any dimension of depth, be it that of his alienation from true life (sin) or that of a new life in Christ. From time to time he commits, to be sure, certain transgressions – very common and minor! – but, after all, who doesn’t? However, when I recently happened to confess about 50 people in a typical Orthodox parish in Pennsylvania, not one admitted to have committed any sin whatsoever! Are we not told daily by the press and other media of mass communication that we live in the best possible society among the best possible people? "Christian" people have taken this affirmation quite seriously.
d) This secularism finally won the hierarchy and the priests themselves. Our Church life is simply based on a system of mutual praise and adulation. A parish is always happy about itself and requires the pastor to constantly thank his "fine" people for their contributions, efforts, help and generosity, to be the mirror in which they can admire themselves. The same spirit of success, "good-neighborhood," and external activities pervades our life from the top to the bottom. The success of the Church is measured in terms ofattendance, financial wealth and the number of "parish affairs" of all possible kinds. Where in all this is there any room for repentance? It is indeed absent from the very texture of the Church’s preaching and action. A priest can call his parishioners to ever "bigger ‘n better" achievements of material nature, he can sometimes voice his dissatisfaction with their "attendance" and "obligations," he can fight masonry and church committee, but he himself usually does not think in terms of a world which ". . . is the lust of the flesh, and the lust of eyes and the pride of life" (I John 2:16). He himself does not really believe in the Church as salvation from the despair and darkness of sin, and not an institution for the satisfaction of the "religious needs" of members "in good standing." In these spiritual conditions, in this pseudo-Christian moral situation confession cannot be but what it actually is: either another "religious duty" to be performed once a year for the satisfaction of an abstract canonical norm, a real "end in itself" with no spiritual consequences whatsoever, or, then, a discussion of one’s "problems" (not sin, for a sin, as soon as it is recognized as such, has ceased to be a "problem") which most of the time have no solution precisely because their only solution would be the conversion to real Christianity.
4. Can a truly Orthodox view and practice of confession be restored? Yes, if we have the courage to deal with the problem at its roots and not with mere externals.
The starting point of this restoration is in preaching and teaching. To some extent all Christian preaching and teaching is a call to repentance, to the metanoia, the change of mind, the reevaluation of all values in the light of Christ. There is no need to preach constantly on "sin," to judge and to condemn. It is when a man is challenged with the real "contents" of the Gospel, with its Divine depth and wisdom, beauty and all embracing meaning, that he becomes "capable of repentance," for the true repentance is precisely the discovery by the man of the abyss that separates him from God and from His real offer to man. It is when the man sees the bridal chamber adorned that he realizes that he has no garment for entering it. Too much of our preaching is in the form of abstract imperatives: the Church prescribes to do this and that; but commanding is not preaching. Preaching implies the desire to convey to people the positive, the Divine meaning, for it is only this meaning that makes "prescriptions" significant, life-giving, saving. Christian teaching should also include a deep and constructive criticism of the secularistic philosophy of life, an evaluation of the culture in which we live. Christians must always fight idols – and there are plenty of them today: "success," "materialism," "security," "money-centerdness," etc. For here again, only within such broad and truly Christian judgment of this world the notion of sin recovers its true meaning, as deviation of love and interest, as worshipping values and norms that are not truly "valuable." This implies, of course, that the priest himself is free of this identification with the world, puts eternal Truth and not the "practical considerations," in the very center of his ministry. Both preaching and teaching must have a prophetic element in them, i.e., an element of Divine judgement, an invitation to consider everything in this world with the eyes of Christ.
5. Confession, then, must be replaced in the perspective of the sacrament of penance. And each sacrament implies at least three equally essential elements: preparation, liturgical order, and fulfillment. If the whole life of the Church, but especially preaching and teaching are, as we have seen, preparation for repentance in a broad sense, there is room and need for spe cial preparation. The Church has set apart special periods of repentance: Lent, Advent, other fasts. Here the liturgy itself becomes a "school of repentance" (cf. for example the inexhaustible riches of the Lenten Triodion), and it is the proper time to center preaching on the sacrament of penance itself. The order of Gospel readings, the Psalter, the hymns and prayers supply us with abundant material, the purpose of preaching being to "apply" all this to men, to their life, to their actual situation. The goal is to provoke in them the penitential mood, to make them examine their life not only in terms of isolated sins and transgressions, but in their deepest motivations. Where is the real treasure of their hearts? What guides them in their life? How do they "feel" the precious time given them by God? What is the meaning of this rapid progression to the unescapable end? A man who questions the deep motivations of his life, who has understood, be it just once, that life in its totality can and must be referred to Christ, is on his way to repentance, which is always a conversion, a change of mind, a renewed vision, a decision to return to God (cf. my pamphlet on Great Lent). The preparation must, of necessity, include an explanation of confession, – its order, prayers, meaning.
6. The liturgical order of confession consists of A) prayers before confession, B) exhortation to penitents, C) confession proper, and D) Absolution.
Prayers before confession should never be omitted. Confession transcends the level of a human dialogue and also that of a purely rational acknowledgment of guilt. The man can say – "guilty" and yet feel no repentance. All sacraments are acts of transformation. And the first transformation in the sacrament of penance is precisely that of a human confession of transgressions into Christian repentance, i.e., into a purifying crisis of the human soul, which turns itself to God and from Him receives the vision of both – sin and the overwhelming love of God "covering" that sin. But this transformation requires Divine help and prayers before confession invoke and call for, this help. They are, therefore, an integral part of the sacrament.
After the prayers comes the exhortation. It is the ultimate invitation to true repentance. "God stands here invisibly and receives your confession . . ."
But it is essential that at this solemn moment, when the priest points to the presence of Christ, he himself would not be opposed to the penitents. One of the best forms of exhortation is an identification of the priest with all sinful men. "We have all sinned . . ." For he is neither a prosecutor, nor a silent witness. He is the image of Christ, the One who takes upon Himself the sins of the world, and it is his active charity which will move men to repentance. The Russian pastorologist, Metropolitan Antony, defined the essence of priesthood as "compassionate love." Penance is the sacrament of reconciliation, i.e., sacrament of love, not of judgment.
Confession itself has various patterns. But, since the penitent usually does not know how to begin, it is the duty of the priest to help him. The form of a dialogue is, therefore, the most practical one. And although all sins are essentially sins against God, against His truth and love, it is advisable to divide confession into three parts:
A) Relation to God: – Questions on faith itself, on possible doubts or deviations, on prayer, liturgical life, fasting etc. Too many priests narrow the whole confession to "immoral acts," forgetting that the deep root of all sins is in the weak or deformed faith, in the lack of love for God.
B) Relation to fellow man: – The basic attitudes of selfishness and self-centerdness, indifference to men, lack of attention, interest, love. All acts of actual offense must be mentioned and their sinfulness shown to the penitent. Envy, gossip, cruelty, etc.
C) Relations to one’s self: – Sins of flesh with, as its counterpart, the Christian vision of purity and "wholesome," respect for the body as an icon of Christ, etc. – Lack of serious interest, of any real effort to deepen the whole life; alcohol, cheap idea of "fun," irresponsibility, family relations. We must never forget that we usually deal with a man who is not used to examine himself, whose attitudes towards life are shaped by common standards, who is basically self-satisfied. It is the function of the confessor to shake this "petty bourgeois" attitude, to show the penitent the real Christian dimensions of perfection, to challenge him with the idea of constant conflict. The Christian vision of life is a tragical one and unless people realize it, there is simply no hope for a "Christianization" of our soft and socially centered Church life.
A final exhortation concludes this dialogue. In it the priest must call the penitent to a necessary change. God does not forgive, unless the man desires a better life, makes the decision to fight his sins, to begin an ascension towards God. What seems impossible with men, is possible with God. This last exhortation must be an act of faith: try hard and God will help for He has promised to do so . . .
And then, only then, comes the absolution – as the fulfillment of all this: – preparation and effort, preaching and meditation, exhortation and confession. Once more, from an Orthodox point of view, there can be no absolution where there is no repentance. God does not accept a man, who has not come, and "coming" is precisely repentance, an act of "conversion," a real and critical change of the whole attitude of man. To think of absolution as sheer "power," valid and efficient whenever pronounced by the priest, is to deviate from Orthodoxy into a magical sacramentalism and a "juridicism," denounced by the whole spirit and the entire tradition of the Orthodox Church.
7. Therefore, the absolution must, of necessity, be refused if a man
– is not an Orthodox Christian, i.e., openly and confessedly rejects the vital teachings of the Church;
– refuses to give up an obvious state of sin: for example, adultery, stealing, exercising a dishonest profession, etc.;
– conceals his sins or fails to acknowledge them as sins.
We must remember, however, that the refusal of absolution is not a punishment. Even excommunication in the Early Church was pronounced with the hope of healing the man. For the Church’s purpose is to save, not to judge or condemn. The priest must always contemplate the total fate of man, strive at his conversion and not simply follow a formal norm of justice. We know that the Good Shepherd leaves ninety-nine sheep in order to save just one. This leaves a great freedom to the Priest who must follow his priestly conscience, must pray before he decides anything and must never be satisfied with an external conformity, with "rules" and "prescriptions."
St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 3, Fall, 1961, pp. 38-44
come here to talk if you like
ping anyone else interested.....
An Orthodox ping.
As always, let me know if you wish to be added to or removed from my ping list via private mail.
"We must not," writes St. John Cassian, "avoid communion because we deem ourselves to be sinful. We must approach it more often for the healing of the soul and the purification of the spirit, but with such humility and faith that considering ourselves unworthy . . . we would desire even more the medicine for our wounds. Otherwise it is impossible to receive communion once a year, as certain people do . . . considering the sanctification of heavenly Mysteries as available only to saints. It is better to think that by giving us grace, the sacrament makes us pure and holy. Such people manifest more pride than humility . . . for when they receive, they think of themselves as worthy. It is much better if, in humility of heart, knowing that we are never worthy of the Holy Mysteries we would receive them every Sunday for the healing of our diseases, rather than, blinded by pride, think that after one year we become worthy of receiving them."
With regard to an equally wide-spread theory, according to which there is a difference between the clergy and laity in approaching communion, so that the former are to receive it at each Liturgy, whereas the latter are discouraged from doing so, it is fitting to quote St. John Chrysostom, who more than anyone else, insisted on worthy preparation for communion: "There are cases," writes the great pastor, "when a priest does not differ from a layman, notably when one approaches the Holy Mysteries. We are all equally given them, not as in the Old Testament, when one food was for the priests and another for the people and when it was not permitted to the people to partake of that which was for the priest. Now it is not so: but to all is offered the same Body and the same Chalice . . ."
"This practice, and I repeat once more, a natural and self-evident one in the case of infrequent, once-a-year, communion, led to the appearance in the Church of a theory according to which the communion of laity, different in this from the communion of clergy, is impossible without the sacrament of penance, so that confession is an obligatory condition — always and in all cases — for communion. I dare to affirm that this theory (which spread mainly in the Russian Church) not only has no foundation in Tradition, but openly contradicts the Orthodox doctrine of the Church, of the Sacrament of Communion and of that of Penance."
"The third and decisive factor was, of course, the influence of the Western, Scholastic and juridical understanding of penance. Much has been written about the "western captivity" of Orthodox theology but, it seems to me, that few people realize the depth and real meaning of the distortions to which this Western influence led in the very life of the Church and, above all, in the understanding of Sacraments. This is obvious in the sacrament of penance. The deep distortion consists here in that the whole meaning of the sacrament was shifted from repentance and confession to the moment of "absolution," understood juridically. Western Scholastic theology transposed into juridical categories the very concept of sin and, accordingly, the concept of its absolution. The latter stems here not from the reality, the genuine nature of repentance, but from the power of the priest. If in the initial Orthodox understanding of the sacrament of penance the priest is the witness of repentance and, therefore, the witness of the fulfilled "reconciliation with the Church in Christ Jesus . . . ," the Latin legalism puts the emphasis on the power of the priest to absolve. Hence, the practice, totally alien to Orthodox doctrine, yet quite popular today, of "absolutions" without confession. The initial distinction between sins, excommunication from the Church (thereby requiring a sacramental reconciliation with the Church), and sinfulness, not leading to such excommunicating, was rationalized by Western Scholasticism in the distinction between the so-called mortal sins and the so-called venial sins. The first ones, by depriving man of the "state of grace" require sacramental confession and absolution; the others require only an inner repentance and contrition. In the Orthodox East, however, and especially in Russia (under the influence of the Latinizing theology of Peter Moghila and his followers) this theory resulted in a simple, compulsory and juridical connection between confession and communion."
"It is ironic indeed that this most obvious of all Latin "infiltrations" is viewed by so many Orthodox as an Orthodox norm while a mere attempt to re-evaluate it in the light of the genuine Orthodox doctrine of Church and sacraments, is denounced as "Roman Catholic."
I would add here that no one is ever worthy anyway. Where the idea ever came from that confession the evening before would make you worthy the next day is beyond me. I'm going to sin the morning before liturgy for sure. If I don't while getting 4 kids ready and out the door, then I will when I get there and see some teenager in overalls at liturgy and think to myself they could dress better for church.
Finally it is clericalism to think that a few moments with a priest, and in these moments none of us ever recall every sin anyway, is going to make you worthy of the Holy Mysteries.
Those were the ideas I was referring to present in the Great Lent appendix that really, really opened my eyes.
Thanks for this ... I'll check it out as soon as I'm done with finals!
TBG
Let's not drift into the presumptious waters of Protestant mind-set where implication of ignorance or wrongdoing on the part of the Church for the past 2,000 is hinted, and where adolescent defiance becomes a norm.
Nor must we confuse our materialistic value system and think of works as more "worthy" than worship. Charity has its place, but the greatest charity a Christian can get is to intreoduced to and to live in Christ.
A serbian priest once said that we were the protestant branch of the Orthodox church. Confession is practised about monthly, but not always the night before or morning of partaking of the Holy Mysteries.
God willing, may you ace your finals.
Many members of the OCA are converts from various Protestant denominations and they invaribaly bring some of their own "flavor." But, having said that, I have seen and heard abominable things in a Greek Orthodox Church in Ft. Augustine, Florida, as well as in Ft. Myers, Florida.
Just about every denomination has undergone revision and change -- something peculiar for America and not necessarily specific to any particualr faith. It's the secular culture that guides us to believe that material charity is equal to, or even higher than spiritual charity, that we are God's chosen people to save the world, that we are in every way better and smarter than the rest of the world, that nothing we inherit or accept is as good as when we remake it to our taste and satisfaction, etc.
"Confession is practised about monthly, but not always the night before or morning of partaking of the Holy Mysteries."
Do I understand correctly that it is traditional Orthodox discipline to practise confession immediately before receiving communion?
Do those who only confess once a month only receive communion once a month?
I found the article very interesting because the same arguments are going on in the Latin Church at this time as well. Personally, I think we would have scored a major victory over satan if we could get half our congregation to go to confession once a month!
The Greeks and Americans go monthly or so instead.
There are exceptions, such as during Great Lent and other fasting periods.
"As the frequent reception of Communion became more commonplace, especially in the Orthodox Church in America, the understanding of Confession and Communion as two separate sacraments began to become clearer, to the point that the Holy Synod of Bishops noted, in a lengthy report issued in the early 1970s, that it is not necessary to observe individual Confession every time one receives the Eucharist, provided one is communing regularly, is attentive to the guidance of his or her Spiritual Father, and is properly prepared through prayer and fasting to receive the Eucharist."
It can be, but the preferred way is to have confession the evening before, and observe strict fast (water only) until confession.
However, the reality is that most people give personal confession just prior to the communion. One would hope that they observed strict fast regardless which way it's done.
While the manner of worship may vary to some extent, the OCA teaching, implicitly, deviates theologically (although it differs from the quote I posted from OCA).
There is a good reason why confession precedes communion and I have already touched upon that, so there is no need to repeat. But to put it plainly, if you don't confess and fast you are defiling the Eucharist not because you can ever be as pristine as the Body and Blood but for lack of trying.
You can fool yourself and the priest, but you cannot fool God. You don't have to take communion more often than once every month, and even that is frequent. But if one is not making a confession because it's inconvenient, that is on your conscience and not because Orthodox Catholic Faith didn't teach you better.
Now I know why that Serbian priest called OCA Orthodox "protestant."
My Serbian priest cautions us against withholding ourselves from Holy Communion. How are we living our lives (he would ask) if we believe we must do this?
That's because people don't understand that communion with God is only possible if one is cleansed of sin by forgiveness.
People rationalize that it's not necessary because it's convenient to give as little as possible to God, and ask as much as possible from Him.
All we can do is offer advice. Good Lord gave us free will to either turn to Him and worship Him as the Church teaches, or to make up our own "easy" rules and defile Good Gifts of love. We return His love with shortcuts. How much love is that?
If we truly love someone, we would be all too eager to do not only what's asked of us (which is next to nothing), but above and beyond!
Lip service and going through the motions has been the minimalist approach to salvation for many centuries and in all denominations.
The Church teaches that you should make a Confession and take a Communion no less than four times a year, and as often as possible. If you don't have any new sins betwen communions, then simply join the general confession before the Eucharist.
But there are times when forgiving someone is not easy, or because you haven't had enough time to pray and come to terms with some issues. You cannot take a Communion if you hold grudges unless you confess to them and have forgiven the person you hold the grudge against in your heart.
But all this cannot be done just with your lips. I can intellectually forgive someone, but inside I haven't really gotten over it. Again, we are only fooling ourselves by trying to fool God, and we are committing sin by returning God's love with deceit and sin.
Very good points for consideration, kosta!
One of the things that my priest has been fighting during his 40 year career as a priest is the idea that you only take Communion maybe once or twice per year. You know how this part goes: the parishioner fasts for 3 days (practically the only days they fast all year - and don't even mention fasting every Wednesday or Friday) takes confession, then communion, and they are done for the next 6-12 months.
Then they show up late for Liturgy, if at all, maybe once every 1-2 months, light a candle and leave early (Oh, there's dough-nuts today? Ok, maybe I'll stick around then.).
What the Church has always taught is a continuous cycle of fasting, communion, and, yes!, confession too! (And let's not forget the part about unceasing prayer!) What we are seeing is a very un-Orthodox pattern of pushing the inconvenient parts aside.
This was a very useful post! It certainly has me reflecting on what is expected of me.
I agree, this is also what I have been taught. I know there are some people who reject that concept and I wasn't sure where you stood on it.
But there are times when forgiving someone is not easy, or because you haven't had enough time to pray and come to terms with some issues. You cannot take a Communion if you hold grudges unless you confess to them and have forgiven the person you hold the grudge against in your heart.
Indeed, this is the most difficult, particularly when you know the person is not sorry for what they have done and would do it again. Sometimes in such a case, the best that can be achieved is that you bear no animosity towards the person but you can not trust them again.
So true. But, then it goes back to that foolish attitude that somehow we can fool God. It's human decadance and corrupt nature that has been around since the Fall -- remember that Adam blamed God for the woman He gave him. Nothing has changed.
Is it that or that their Orthodox education is lacking?
In such a case, I will have to give them the benefit of the doubt just as I would ask of anyone who observed me and had doubts.
I frequently suggest that we should focus on teaching such things more fully but too many always feel that they know what they need to know. Who knows what the reason might be?
Remember that love and forgiveness do not mean approval.
Kosta
That's when the priest needs to step in. If the priest allows practices and teachings that differ from those of the Church, his sin is worse because he knows better.
Those who are not trying to fool God because of ignorance need not to worry -- God knows of their ignorance. Sin is something we do voluntarily. Sin comes with knowledge of the right and wrong, not with innocense.
As members of the Church, clergy or lay, it is our duty to correct those brothers and sisters by politely reminding them. The rest is up to them. It's their decision.
Christ is Risen!
Marmema wrote: "It is traditional Russian practise to go just before communion. And Serbian."
I'd like to elaborate. In the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, ideally, a communicant confesses the night before during the vigil (vespers and matins served together). Even if you don't confess then, you can still confess during hours (3rd & 6th) which are read approximately 30 minutes before the commencement of the divine liturgy. The practice of confessing just before communion (after the communion of the clergy) is highly discouraged because very litle preparation is made. Furthermore, such practice is inconsiderate of those who attended vigil the evening before, because now the entire congregation has to wait for one or two people to confess. Indeed, I would recommend reading the canons to Our Savior, Theotokos and Guardian Angel on Saturday night after vigil, for those who have abstained from communion for some time. This is (was) the standard practice of the Russian Church. Also, on Sunday morning (or feast day) before communion, one should read the prayers before communion.
In Christ,
Rdr John
Thanks for all your enlightening comments.
"It can be, but the preferred way is to have confession the evening before, and observe strict fast (water only) until confession."
Interesting! This also used to be the norm in the West until a few years ago. Seems like Orthodox practice has more in common with traditional Catholic practice than I realised.
"However, the reality is that most people give personal confession just prior to the communion."
Does this entail private confession to a priest during the Divine Liturgy? If so, can this substantially prolong the liturgy?
"That's because people don't understand that communion with God is only possible if one is cleansed of sin by forgiveness."
That is so true. I preached to this effect in Lent (Great Lent) and it caused such a reaction in some people that I was undermined by my priest the following week. He said that, of course, it is only necessary to confess grave sin before receiving communion.
Still! - such is the lot of the lowly deacon.
Not that I won't preach it again at the next opportunity!!!
;)
This also used to be the norm in the West until a few years ago. Seems like Orthodox practice has more in common with traditional Catholic practice than I realized.
We are, after all, orthodox and catholic. We also fast on Wednesdays and Fridays (no meat, animal products). Our greatest divide didn't happen in 1054 but in 1870.
Also, OldCorps explained much better the issue of communion. Yes, those who choose to confess just prior to taking communion do prolong the Liturgy and some think they are inconsiderate, since there is ample opportunity to do so the night before and before the Liturgy begins.
However, there are usually not very many people who confess late, and one must assume that their late confession is not done out of inconsideration but perhaps something they did before they arrived in church.
The orthodox do not confess in a closed confessional but in the open, to the side, by kneeling next to the priest, who covers their head with his vestment and his hand.
Why? Does Roman Catholic Church teach that communion with God is possible without the confession and absolution of sins?
I have rehashed many issues with some very strong Roman Catholics and found out that, when stripped of our mutually incomprehensible theological terminology of the West and East, our differences become invisible (in essence but not on the surface).
So, I really doubt that the Latin Church would teach that confession and communion do not go hand in hand, but I could be mistaken and their reasoning would be most interesting to hear.
He said that, of course, it is only necessary to confess grave sin before receiving communion
Well, of course, but you have to remember that in the Orthodox Church the priest may not allow the sinner the communion if the sin is truly a grave one.
Not that I won't preach it again at the next opportunity
Well, Jesus told us the difference between giving truly and giving by going through the motions. He gave the example of a woman who gave her last money, indeed every ting. One gives everything only to or for something he or she truly loves. Giving God our very best is the least we can do.
"Does Roman Catholic Church teach that communion with God is possible without the confession and absolution of sins?"
Absolutely not!!! No, our theology in this is much the same as yours when you cut through the terminology and get to the essence.
This kind of reaction is due to the attitude you mentioned in an earlier post. There is a kind of legalism which sees many people looking to give the bare minimum in terms of their "obligations" towards God. Put this together with a loss of the sense of sin and the teaching of the Church not being presented plainly for a long while, then people will conjour up their own ideas of what the Church really teaches, and create their own ideas of what is, and what is not, sin.
"One gives everything only to or for something he or she truly loves. Giving God our very best is the least we can do."
Absolutely. Although strictly it is our minimum requirement that mortal or grave sin should always be repented of and confessed before receiving communion, I was trying to get people to see that any sin at all produces a defect in our relationship with God.
We should ,therefore, not wait until we think our situation is dire before availing ourselves of the sacrament and so present ourselves to the Lord as a pure and fragrant offering in the Eucharist.
My priest was worried that I would engender an outbreak of scruples in the congregation! However, as at least one of them has confided in me that they haven't confessed their sins in over a decade, I felt that a plague of scruples was the least of our concerns!!!
I would wager that those people who expressed suprise at Tantumergo's preaching were of the "cafeteria" variety of believer who think they can pick and choose what aspects of the faith they will embrace.
And that is hardly a Roman Catholic phenomenon, I can assure you!
Without any doubt. That's the most basic understanding of the meaining of the communion with God. It is only through the forgiveness of our sins that we are rendered barely worthy of partaking of the Eucharist. Anything less is profane.
It all ties in so seamlessly. If we are lying by not making the confession or if our confession is incomplete and not from the heart (repentence), we are commiting a sin by taking the communion and defiling the Eucharist.
There is a kind of legalism which sees many people looking to give the bare minimum in terms of their "obligations" towards God
People seem to forget that God does not order us to love Him. There is no obligation. There is only our choice.
As for the "cafe" faithful not being a Roman Catholic phenomenon, you don't have to convince me. I see the "cafeteria" mind-set to various degrees in every church and every denomination.
I don't think we have a single term for it as they do, but that's the Romans for you! They have a name for everything!
"but the Eastern Orthodox [still] practice it more than our Latin brethren."
That sounds the like the case to me! We still have some churches where Confession is available right up to and during the Mass, but that is the rarity nowadays. For one thing it requires that more than one priest be present at the Mass which is again becoming a rarer commodity!
Many of the more traditionally-minded Catholics still make their confession on the Saturday evening and then fast through to Sunday morning Mass.
"but the Roman Catholic concept of a "state of grace" always sounded extremely similar in concept to the Orthodox practice of a frequent cycle of confession paired with attendance at Vespers followed by receiving the Eucharist at every Liturgy attended."
Yes - it sounds very similar to me. The "state of grace" refers to the regenerate soul which is not in a post-baptismal condition of serious sin (to put it negatively!) Most commonly the term is used to refer to someone who has recently confessed their sins and/or has not committed grave sin since their previous confession.
Consequently they are in a condition capable of receiving communion - although we too would acknowledge your point that we are never really "worthy" to receive communion.
"I don't think we have a single term for it as they do, but that's the Romans for you! They have a name for everything!"
Yup! And if there isn't already a name for some reality that we want to try and pin down and define, then we'll invent one and write manuals of theology on it!!! Doesn't mean the reality is invented, mind you - just the terminology!
(I'm sure that the location of the largest Jewish community outside of Jerusalem in the first century was in Rome still has influences on the way we think!!!)
;)
Christos Anesti!
Thanks for those links. Its good to see that some bishops are still willing to defend the sanctity of the sacrament.
I'll keep praying that mine will receive the grace to do so!
Alithos Anesti!
May you be greatly blessed on this Leave-Taking of Holy Pascha.
May God have mercy on us, sinners.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.