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.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, "myhrr101" <myhrr101@...>
> --- In email@example.com, "Archpriest David Moser"
> <moserd@> wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "myhrr101" <myhrr101@>
> > > There appears a squiggly line running through the history of
> > > 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
> 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.
> I find that it is not profitable to try and find excuses to
> denigrate our tradition by criticizing where it came from (the
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> Tradition, such as the canon which rules against married bishops,
> to the particular bunch of celibate bishops who devised the rule,
> 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
> to stick long enough. Well, pass the popcorn, are you sitting
> comfortably? then let's watch the organic development in the
> 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?
> 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,
> > > 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
> in that it implies that the priest is doing the forgiving instead
> God - but that would completely ignore the phrase, "through the
> power given me" which makes it clear that the priest is only
> as the minister of the sacrament of forgiveness - not its source.
> Doesn't make it clear at all, the immediate source is the
> between Orthodox and Latin form of absolution and in the Latin use
> the immediate source is the priest which is what these
> 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;
> 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,
> at one time confessions were made publicly. Colloquially speaking,
> the role of the priest is of a judge and jury; in theological
> he acts in persona Christi and receives from the Church the power
> jurisdiction over the penitent. ......
> Absolution in the Roman rite takes this form:
> God the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of
> 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
> 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
> 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
> penitent. The confession is to God in the presence of a priest,
> to a priest in the presence of God."
> Utterly different from each other, the one based on the premise
> Christ is absent and the other that Christ is present. What does
> mean then when the Orthodox use the latin form? How does it affect
> the users of this service?
> 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?