Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: Former OCA clergy will they be accepted in the Moscow Patriarchate

Expand Messages
  • DDD
    On Wed, 31 May 2006 20:37:21 -0700 (PDT), michael nikitin wrote: MN: Subject of confession was discussed already. The Serbs,Bulgarians  and Greeks partake of
    Message 1 of 52 , Jun 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wed, 31 May 2006 20:37:21 -0700 (PDT), michael nikitin wrote:
      MN: Subject of confession was discussed already. The Serbs,Bulgarians �and Greeks partake of the Holy Gifts at each Liturgy and they go to �confession but not very often.

      DD:
      FAQ Server: Bulgaria:
      "Our Guide Lines for Holy Communion

      Orthodox Christians are expected to take Confession before Holy
      Communion. Let us prepare ourselves with prayers and fasting from the night
      before."
      http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~radev/cgi-bin/faqserver.cgi?orthoreligion

      St. Basil of Ostrog Serbian Orthodox Church: "Preparation [for Holy Communion] includes fasting and confession"

      Frequency of Confession as regards to Holy Communion is one thing (in the Russian Church it is the norm to *always* goes to Confession before Communion); but with Brookline, Absolution is given *without* a confession of sins. This is an abuse and mockery of confession, the purpose of which is to do just that: confess one's sins to Christ through the priest.
      Between infrequent confession and receiving "absolution" without even confessing one's sins, with Brookline there would be much chance for a person to receive unworthily.... It's aberrations like this that lead one to the conclusion that it's a moot issue anyway, for how can one "receive worthily" when in a schism, and exactly what is it that one is receiving?

      Russians were under the influence of �Roman Catholics because many bishops received their education in Roman �Catholic seminaries. Many things crept into Russian practices and �continue to stay. Roman Catholics since then changed their practice �about communion, confession and Holy Unction, etc...

      Michael N

      DD: The old "under the influence of Roman Catholics" red herring. You have in no way answered for your incorrect practice of group absolution without confession of sins.


      --Dimitra Dwelley
    • myhrr101
      I ve just found this on a chronological list of RCC doctrines: AD 1215 - Auricular confession of sins to a priest, instead of to G-d, is instituted by
      Message 52 of 52 , Jun 27, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        I've just found this on a chronological list of RCC doctrines:

        AD 1215 - Auricular confession of sins to a priest, instead of to
        G-d, is instituted by Innocent III in the Lateran Council

        Will have a look at the council tomorrow, there could be an
        explanation of it.

        Myrrh



        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "myhrr101" <myhrr101@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Archpriest David Moser"
        > <moserd@> wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "myhrr101" <myhrr101@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > > There appears a squiggly line running through the history of
        the
        > > > Church in which bunches of bishops decide all kinds of stuff
        > beyond their remit - isn't the insistence of confession before
        > communion one such example? Like the spoon feeding idea.
        > >
        >
        > > I disagree with this premise. No matter to origin of our
        > traditions, they have been adopted by the Church as a recognized
        > part of Tradition. No one condemns the practice of confession
        > before every communion, but neither is it required - it is
        accepted
        > by the whole Church as a legitimate working out of the Faith. The
        > use of the spoon for giving the mysteries has an even wider
        > acceptance as the "standard practice" although again there are
        > exceptions (the communion of the clergy or the liturgy of St James
        > for two examples). The point is the Church has embraced these
        > practices as true and faithful expressions of Holy Tradition.
        Thus
        > I find that it is not profitable to try and find excuses to
        > denigrate our tradition by criticizing where it came from (the
        same
        > thing applies to the complaint by some that the Russian Church was
        > somehow tainted or infected with Roman practices born of Roman
        > theology. One could just as easily say that the Byzantine Church,
        > the Ante-Nicene Church in fact, was "tainted" and "infected" with
        > the ideas of classical Greek philosophy and so the writings of
        > > such luminaries as the Cappadocian fathers (Basil the Great,
        > Gregory the Theologian, Gregory Nanzianzen) and St John Chrysostom
        > must be examined by us to makes sure that they are truly
        Orthodox.
        > Nonsense!
        > >
        >
        >
        > Don't hold back on account of me, I enjoy a good rant, but you've
        > just rubber stamped such accepted usage as papal supremacy so
        you'll
        > have to excuse me but I reject the premise that the Holy Spirit
        > leads to such truth where 'ignorance' and 'might is right' are
        > included as guiding principles for the Church.
        >
        > One can argue that all canons are uncanonical which break Christ's
        > rule "It shall not be so among you" in their creation. I assume
        some
        > arose out of "sobornost", but for the most part the rules and regs
        > have been imposed from above and certainly there's no intrinsic
        > respect due to any which are contrary to authentic tradition in
        Holy
        > Tradition, such as the canon which rules against married bishops,
        or
        > to the particular bunch of celibate bishops who devised the rule,
        no
        > matter how long it's been an established practice or how
        > successfully objection is put down by admonition for lack of piety
        > or deflected by accusations that questioning such practices is
        > denigrating the Orthodox Church.
        >
        > But I think you've just cracked the ecumenist's problem in
        > establishing one Church.
        >
        > The Development of Doctrinites are really saying the same thing as
        > the Organic Growthines, it's only ever been a problem of semantics
        > and so of course anything goes as long as it can be enforced or
        made
        > to stick long enough. Well, pass the popcorn, are you sitting
        > comfortably? then let's watch the organic development in the
        Battle
        > of the Bishops for Supreme Authority in the Universal Church.
        >
        > Does the anarchic fold Christ put in place still exist anywhere?
        > Thank God with us for the bishop who still dares teach that Christ
        > is the supreme authority in the Church.
        >
        > Now, I've read somewhere that the spoon feeding came into general
        > use in the 10th century, but I can't find anything more detailed
        > about it, any ideas where to look? By the time of the Council of
        > Trent communion of one species only for the masses was already
        > established in the West - are these two ideas, spoon feeding and
        > separation of clergy from laity in communion, connected somehow?
        In
        > the minutes of the council there's a long eulogy on the sacred
        > wonder of communing in both species followed by an amusing list of
        > excuses for forbidding full communion to the oiks. I don't know
        > which is sadder, the bishops who contrived this for themselves or
        > the laity I've heard piously defending enthralment to the practice.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > > But enough of the tirade, on to the question:
        > >
        > > >how does this differ from the other Orthodox
        > > > churches?:
        > > >
        > > > "In the Slavic ritual a Latin-inspired and juridical form of
        > > > personal absolution was introduced by Peter Mogila,
        metropolitan
        > of
        > > > Kiev (17th century)."
        > >
        > > The difference lies in the prayers of absolution said by the
        > > priest/confessor over the repentant person. In the Russian
        > tradition the final prayer contains the statement, "and I an
        > unworthy priest through the power given me do forgive and absolve
        > the servant of God..." To some people this formula is too
        Catholic
        > in that it implies that the priest is doing the forgiving instead
        of
        > God - but that would completely ignore the phrase, "through the
        > power given me" which makes it clear that the priest is only
        acting
        > as the minister of the sacrament of forgiveness - not its source.
        >
        >
        > Doesn't make it clear at all, the immediate source is the
        difference
        > between Orthodox and Latin form of absolution and in the Latin use
        > the immediate source is the priest which is what these
        words "Power
        > given me" say, the personal power of that priest. And in the Latin
        > church there are particular concepts attached to this.
        >
        >
        > For a start this page gives a general idea of the differences;
        > http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Confession
        >
        >
        >
        > It says of the RCC:
        >
        > "Catholics believe that no priest, as an individual man, however
        > pious or learned, has power to forgive sins. This power belongs to
        > God alone; however, God can and does exercise it through the
        > Catholic priesthood. Catholics believe God exercises the power of
        > forgiveness by means of the sacrament of reconciliation.
        >
        > The basic form of confession has not changed for centuries,
        although
        > at one time confessions were made publicly. Colloquially speaking,
        > the role of the priest is of a judge and jury; in theological
        terms,
        > he acts in persona Christi and receives from the Church the power
        of
        > jurisdiction over the penitent. ......
        >
        > Absolution in the Roman rite takes this form:
        >
        > God the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of
        his
        > Son, has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit
        > among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the
        > Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from
        > your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
        Holy
        > Spirit.
        >
        > The essential words, however, are "I absolve you.""
        >
        >
        > It says of the Orthodox:
        >
        > "The Eastern Orthodox sacrament of confession, or repentance,
        > includes prayer to God and confessing ones sins to God, typically
        in
        > the presence of an icon of Jesus Christ and also with a priest
        > nearby to bear witness. The priest will typically add his own
        > prayers, may add counsel or assign some form of penance, and will
        > usually announce God's forgiveness of sins. In Orthodox
        > ecclesiology, the priest is not an intermediary between God and
        the
        > penitent. The confession is to God in the presence of a priest,
        not
        > to a priest in the presence of God."
        >
        >
        >
        > Utterly different from each other, the one based on the premise
        that
        > Christ is absent and the other that Christ is present. What does
        it
        > mean then when the Orthodox use the latin form? How does it affect
        > the users of this service?
        >
        > Myrrh
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > And again, both forms of the sacramental formula - Greek and
        > Russian - are accepted by the whole Church.
        > >
        > > Archpr David Moser
        > > St Seraphim of Sarov Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
        > >
        >
        > If by "whole" Church you mean the Orthodox, why?
        >
        >
        > Myrrh
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.