Auricular confession

[Mourad Mankarios]

I was just wondering how confession is practised within other churches...In many churches confession is a necessary condition for salvation which is in some cases militantly enforced or imposed upon all, therefore unless the believer tells a priest all of their sins and receives absolution from him they cannot go to heaven...This seems to be a stumbling block for many people and for many reasons, namely because it creates a middle wall or partition between people and God, because of a lack of cordial relations between the priest and the people, fear of a priest meddling in personal problems, simply in many cases the priest can be insensitive and lacks wisdom and is not the elder, staretz or geron that is traditionally known within monastic circles, because of the value of respect of privacy especially in modern times...However, it seems to be most burdensome when an individual may be prevented from communion because of a lack of frequent confession or when an almost direct relationship is proposed between confession and communion...

For some it seems that the patristic record indicates that what is commonly practised as a one-to-one private confession that is required of all the faithful was in ancient times practised publicly and only for certain grave offences (such as murder, adultery, abortion, etc), that is, those who had been excommunicated from the church were only allowed full communion again through a confession of their sin and an absolution provided by the clergyman...

I understand that their have been times when certain patriarchs within the Coptic church have tried to eliminate the practise altogether...

So I was just wondering what your thoughts on all of this is, especially if the current practise of confession is a true reflection of ancient practise...

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Dear Mourad,

Sadly I must say I disagree with all my heart with what you outline.

Your view is strongly Protestant.

Priests are forbidden to 'pass on' to others, including their wives (if so be the case), that which is revealed in Confession.

It takes HUMILITY and BELIEF in the Orthodox Christian Faith to embrace this Sacrament.

Confession, itself being a Sacrament of our Orthodox Church.

Confession alone to God leaves a vast gap between what may or not be true confession.

Simple trust and faith in your Parish Priest is the TRUE test of your faith in this Sacrament, and your human ability to reveal to what may appear as a man like unto yourself.

This is to judge your Priest - itself, a certain road leading downwards. Regardless of your opinion of your Priest, it remains, as you present it, a fallen opinion.

To judge your Priest, monastic or lay, regarding the Sacrament of Confession, places you in the hopeless camp of the Protestant Churches, which, plainly seek their own fallen human 'easy way out'.

The Sacrament of Confession is a Sacrament of our Church. To put yourself in a higher, judgemental situation, is itself a perfect example to confess to a 'mere' man.

Taking this prideful state, is itself, reason to run to your Priest and humble yourself.

[Mourad Mankarios]

Thanks for your reply and sharing your opininon, however, while my reflections may have seemed to be subjective they were not meant to be; I'm simply trying to be as objective as possible and try to understand the truth of the matter as it was taught by the fathers and practised by the early church...

From what I've researched I've found that the one-to-one tradition of confession that is practised today did not exist in ancient times but is most likely the fruit of scholastic theology...Confession and absolution was provided for those who had been excommunicated from the church ofr some grave offence, hence this was their back into the Orthodox fold...

Therefore, I suppose the question is seeking to know as to whether this was really a tradition of the ancient church or a mere latinization or other later development...

Again, I'm not trying to present a personal view here but rather an objective one based on facts and patristic teachings...

Here's a link that may be of some help as well:

http://www.oca.org/DOCencyclical.as p?SID=12&ID=3 (http://www.oca.org/DOCencyclical.asp?SID=12&ID=3)

[M.C. Steenberg]

From what I've researched I've found that the one-to-one tradition of confession that is practised today did not exist in ancient times but is most likely the fruit of scholastic theology...Confession and absolution was provided for those who had been excommunicated from the church ofr some grave offence, hence this was their back into the Orthodox fold...

Dear Mourad,

I'm curious of your comment that this was 'the fruit of scholastic thoelogy'. Do you have some evidence in mind that links the practice to the scholastic movements or period in particular?

INXC, Matthew

[Mourad Mankarios]

Dear Mourad,

I'm curious of your comment that this was 'the fruit of scholastic thoelogy'. Do you have some evidence in mind that links the practice to the scholastic movements or period in particular?

INXC, Matthew


Dear Matthew,

Much of the thoughts that I have in mind are outlined in a report by Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann to the holy synod of the OCA given in the link above. Here is an extract from that report relevant to our discussion:

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 few people realize the depth and the real meaning of the distortions to which Western influence led in the life of the Church and, above all, in the understanding of sacraments. This is especially obvious in the Sacrament of Penance. Here the distortion consisted in that the whole meaning of the sacrament was shifted from repentance and confession to "absolution" understood juridically. Western Scholastic theology transposed into juridical categories the very concept of sin and, accordingly, the concept of absolution, as dependent not so much on the reality of repentance, but on 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 (which because they excommunicate from the Church require a sacramental reconciliation with her) and sinfulness (not leading to excommunication) 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.

From the above it seems that the growing scholastic trend and legalistic interpretations of salvation such as that proposed within the Anselmian doctrine of "satisfaction" caused much of the mystery and dogma of the church to shift from more of a mystical, spiritual and healing function to one of juridical categories and the great emphasis of the power of absolution invested within the priesthood in all aspects of worship.

Here's a short passage which also provides some more information:

http://www.holycrossbarrie.ca/index_files/Page322.htm

In terms of actual references on the sacrament itself, although I've been searching much, the only text I've been able to come across thus far is the following: A History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences in the Latin Church by a Henry Charles Lea.

Personally, I think that confession practised as a direction of souls within a particular parish is invaluable. However, attaching such rigid juridical understandings to the mystery I believe is counterproductive, nor does it seem to represent the spirit of the fathers.

I would love to know your thoughts about the topic as well Matthew.

[Peter Farrington]

My understanding is that 'private' confession in the West developed in the Irish monastic tradition and spread across Europe as a result of Irish influence.

I have copies of many 6th-10th century Irish Penitentials which were guides for Confessors.

Nor were these only for monastics as many entries refer to lay people and to sins which might be common among lay people. I don't believe it developed under any Latin influence at all, certainly not in terms of origin, and it would be interesting to see how the Coptic Orthodox influence on Irish monasticism might have played a part. We know that there were Coptic Orthodox monks who visited Ireland and British Christians who visited the Coptic Orthodox shrine of St Mena.

Peter

[Mourad Mankarios]

My understanding is that 'private' confession in the West developed in the Irish monastic tradition and spread across Europe as a result of Irish influence.

I have copies of many 6th-10th century Irish Penitentials which were guides for Confessors.

Nor were these only for monastics as many entries refer to lay people and to sins which might be common among lay people. I don't believe it developed under any Latin influence at all, certainly not in terms of origin, and it would be interesting to see how the Coptic Orthodox influence on Irish monasticism might have played a part. We know that there were Coptic Orthodox monks who visited Ireland and British Christians who visited the Coptic Orthodox shrine of St Mena.

Peter

I think these pentitentials reflect more the ascetical nature and tradition of monastic life rather than the rigid sacramental notion of priestly absolution which is emphasised to a much greater extent nowadays...

[Peter Farrington]

Yes I agree Mourad, that was not their intention, and they were in any case books of guidelines and examples, not rigid rules.

But we humans tend to refer rules and so it often ends up that we are bound by them as you describe, in a system which does not do what it was meant to at the beginning.

Peter