Can an Orthodox priest forgive sins? [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

RichardWorthington

05-07-2008, 08:35 PM

I think we need to distinguish what Orthodoxy is meant to be, from the Western-influenced practices and theological ideas.

The sacrament of repentance/confession is NOT legalistic:

he who does not think at all about correcting himself confesses in vain, labors in vain, for even if the priest says, "I forgive and absolve," the Holy Spirit does not forgive and absolve him!

Metropolitan Innocent of Moscow
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/confession.aspx

The Spirit of Life is not enslaved to an earthly organisation! This is the other half of Orthodox teaching that appears to deny the idea that Christ founded a Chruch, which includes the hierarchy. The two are actually to be held in harmony.

Additionally, the Fathers of the Church (St Seraphim of Sarov, St Symeon the New Theologian - I think I can find references if required) clearly state that it is a GREAT SIN for anyone to claim to speak on God's behalf without being led DIRECTLY by the Spriit of Truth. I used to think that as confession was a sacrament that the Holy Spirit would without fail inspire the priest; one monastic priest I used to confess to made the sign of the cross over his mouth before speaking.

God does not inspire the priest during confession, any more than the same priest sees the Divine Light descending on the Holy Gifts during the Litugy.

I have sinned since I last saw my spiritual father (an Athonite priest-monk), yet do not in the slightest fear eternal damnation. Do we not have a good God who loves mankind? If we do not, then who does?!!?

The Trinity created us, and saved us, and saves us: He loves us, and even forgives when we do not even know we have sinned. If He did not forgive, then why would he give His Spirit to help us fight against sin? He gives His Spirit without measure; He works within us to help us see ours sins to properly hate them. No manner of preaching or moralising - or 'obedience to a priest' - can do this. He inspires us to ask for forgiveness out of love, not seeking a happy after-life or fearing hell. This is one aspect of the Orthodox understanding of co-operation between grace and free-will.

In other words, do NOT read a legalistic approach into the sacraments.

Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,
Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

The forgiveness of sins is properly the same as the Kingdom of God, which is the Vision of the Divine Light of the Transfiguration - see how weak is our repentance (from laity to bishops - we are all on the same level!!), and see how little Western theology (and most of 'dogmatic' Orthodox Theology - whether 'traditionalist' or 'modernist' -as it is based on Western theology) knows about Christ and the Christian life!!

If I sound controversial, I can always ask my spiritual father, but I am sure he will not only agree with me, but point to stronger things:

1Jo 3:1 How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!

Let us not deny our adoption by over-defending earthly concessions to human weaknesses!

Richard

M.C. Steenberg

05-07-2008, 09:51 PM

I don't understand most of your previous post, Richard. There are some points in it that are clearly correct (e.g. God as love, the Spirit required for forgiveness) - but these are fairly standard. I don't see what point you are trying to make on the matter of forgiveness in the sacrament of confession, being discussed.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Paul Cowan

05-07-2008, 09:59 PM

God does not inspire the priest during confession, any more than the same priest sees the Divine Light descending on the Holy Gifts during the Litugy.

Dear Richard,

I do not agree with this statement. Yes, it is possibly true that some priests do speak from their own knowledge, but I think it was was Fr. Sophrony that said he waited for guidance from the Holy Spirit before speaking to a penetent. If the person then questioned what he was told, Fr. Sophrony would get quiet because to defend what he had just said was to question the Holy Spirit and he would be talking out of his own mouth. He refused to do this.

It is I think very important that we as we confess, listen to what our spiritual fathers are telling us as if from the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, why go to them for confession at all?

As far as the divine light descending, there have been priests that have seen this and the God-child being cut up and His blood being poured into the chalice. Is it common, no; has it happened?; several times over the centuries.

I have sinned since I last saw my spiritual father (an Athonite priest-monk), yet do not in the slightest fear eternal damnation. Do we not have a good God who loves mankind? If we do not, then who does?!!?

Yes, God is a good God that loves mankind. I no longer believe He has a holy baseball bat waiting to whack me on the head if I sin. However, I sin as soon as I leave the confessional and feel it necessary to always fear eternal damnation. For me to do no less opens the door for satan to come in and wreak havic in my heart. As St. Paul says, (paraphrased) we are being saved. We are not saved until the Final Judgement and then only to God's good mercy. So because of this I think it important to know I am THE worst of sinners and to always keep hell before me yet, despair not.

I don't mean to have a spirit of fatalism here. It is not that. But fear of the Lord is the first step in wisdom. We must fear Him in Holy fear, not that of a mean god waiting to trip us up.

Obedience also covers our sins as long as we don't knowingly sin in the course of the obedience. Athonite monastics know this as a matter of living. Their's is a life of obedience. If only the rest of the world, and I, could embrace this life.

Paul

Andreas Moran

06-07-2008, 01:29 PM

Having not the slightest fear of eternal damnation does, I must say, strike a wrong chord with me. It is true that there are different approaches to working out one's salvation. There is the tough route of St Silouan and Elder Sophrony, keeping the mind in hell yet avoiding despair. This route involves enormous effort in ascesis and prayer of the heart. It is not for everyone. There is also the route of Elder Porphyrios whereby the soul is healed and purified by struggling without force and where one's concern and focus are less on sins and the passions and more on love of Christ - a different form of therapy. Yet even in following this perhaps more accessible route, it would be a mistake, I would have thought, to lose the fear of God which is the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 110:10 LXX).

Fr Raphael Vereshack

06-07-2008, 03:25 PM

Richard Worthington wrote:

The Trinity created us, and saved us, and saves us: He loves us, and even forgives when we do not even know we have sinned. If He did not forgive, then why would he give His Spirit to help us fight against sin? He gives His Spirit without measure; He works within us to help us see ours sins to properly hate them. No manner of preaching or moralising - or 'obedience to a priest' - can do this. He inspires us to ask for forgiveness out of love, not seeking a happy after-life or fearing hell. This is one aspect of the Orthodox understanding of co-operation between grace and free-will.

In other words, do NOT read a legalistic approach into the sacraments.

God has given a charism to the clergy so that they can speak to those they hear during confession.

This is a mystery- but I think it has a lot to do with the fact that by speaking to the priest, by revealing one's sins (this last is very important), one humbles oneself in a way not possible otherwise.

Thus the priest's being able to speak is actually connected very much to the fact that the person confessing is humbling themselves before God in faith.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Nina

07-07-2008, 02:24 PM

Additionally, the priest is praying while hearing confession and it is God, Who speaks through the priest's mouth.

Peter S.

10-07-2008, 12:36 AM

Additionally, the priest is praying while hearing confession and it is God, Who speaks through the priest's mouth.

I would add, yes, in the act of forgiveness God is "speaking", but not in general, ie. during the advices the priest may gives in the confession. I m sure there have been made mistakes during history.

Peter

RichardWorthington

10-07-2008, 09:38 PM

I want to know if orthodox priest by the doctrine of your church can forgive sins?
The answer is yes:

It is not that God forgives rather than the priest, but that God's forgiveness is made present in the forgiveness issuing from the priest's charism. This is exactly as it says in the scriptures: 'If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven' (i.e., by God).
… and no:

he who does not think at all about correcting himself confesses in vain, labors in vain, for even if the priest says, "I forgive and absolve," the Holy Spirit does not forgive and absolve him!
Metropolitan Innocent of Moscow
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/confession.aspx

The fact that these seem flatly contradictory is simply a part of life. Let us avoid leaning to the left of Protestantism and to the right of Rome! Some may need to hear the first more than the second (perhaps even only the first), others the second more than the first (perhaps even only the second), but generally a balance between the two is best.

(Personally, due to some very painful experiences of mine and confirmed by those I have heard, I prefer the second at this stage in my life.)

Richard

RichardWorthington

10-07-2008, 09:43 PM

Yes, it is possibly true that some priests do speak from their own knowledge, but I think it was was Fr. Sophrony that said he waited for guidance from the Holy Spirit before speaking to a penetent. If the person then questioned what he was told, Fr. Sophrony would get quiet because to defend what he had just said was to question the Holy Spirit and he would be talking out of his own mouth. He refused to do this.

I am happy to accept what you said about Fr Sophrony (although judging by what I have seen and heard, those who ‘go silent’ when challenged as if speaking from some unchallengeable Higher Source are in delusion beyond delusion: it is easy to rebuke … Merely ‘going silent’ when challenged is not a sign of the grace of God …). My qualm is in thinking that every confession should be treated like this. St Symeon the New Theologian comments:

there is one essential qualification, and one only, which empowers a person to act as confessor and to bestow forgiveness of sins; and that is the conscious awareness of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Monks who possess such awareness, even though not in holy orders, may confer absolution upon others; but anyone who lacks such awareness - even though he may be bishop or patriarch - should not attempt to do this
http://philthompson.net/pages/library/wareonhs.html
quotation from a paper presented at the European Pentecostal/Charismatic Research Conference held in Prague on 10-14 September 1997, by Kallistos Ware, Bishop (now Metropolitan) of Diokleia

Funnily enough, I somewhat doubt that more than a handful of people - whether men or women - in a million (if that!) have attained to such a gift.

It is one thing for a priest to place the stole on his neck and say, “Blessed is God, Who pours His Grace on His Priests, like the balm on the head, that ran down the beard, even Aaron's beard, down to the skirts of his garment”, and yet another for ‘tongues of fire’ to come out of his mouth! (“O Father, what a long beard you have!” “All the better to lord it over you …”)

Richard

RichardWorthington

10-07-2008, 09:48 PM

It is I think very important that we as we confess, listen to what our spiritual fathers are telling us as if from the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, why go to them for confession at all?

Going to confession and talking with our spiritual fathers are two very different things. I call up my spiritual father every-so-often, but he has actually never confessed nor absolved me. (It is far more important to ‘get on with life’ in a spiritual way than to ‘get on with being spiritual’ and leave life behind: my interpretation!)

We go to confession because in places we have to (the propaganda used during the Sourozh split involved the fear of enslavement to confession in the new MP; they actually have a darn good point, if it had not been that my emotional damage in confession had actually been caused by EP priests …)

However, lest anyone think that I do disdain the Church’s tradition please read the attached description of how I confessed to a priest in Kiev - knowing only pigeon Russian!! I still laugh when I think of it …

Richard

RichardWorthington

10-07-2008, 09:58 PM

God has given a charism to the clergy so that they can speak to those they hear during confession.

Additionally, the priest is praying while hearing confession and it is God, Who speaks through the priest's mouth.

Perhaps we should rewrite the formula of the First Vatican Council to refer to ‘priestly infallibility’:

We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Vatican Council, Sess. IV , Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Dogmatic_definition_of_1870

All this is, of course, - to use a Latin phrase - “Rubbishus Maximus”. Do we adhere to ‘deification’ or to its anagram ‘idea fiction’?! There is no created infallibility anywhere: not in scripture, not in Ecumenical councils, not in ex-cathedra, and even less in the priests! God is uncreated, and knowledge of Him is also uncreated: He is His own self-revelation, and apart from this there is no knowledge of God. Do we really believe in created grace?

“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us …”: if confession is a sacrament, then surely a council of many priests and bishops is too? So why did God not speak to whole councils of priests and bishops who split the church!?

I would add, yes, in the act of forgiveness God is "speaking", but not in general, ie. during the advices the priest may gives in the confession. I m sure there have been made mistakes during history.

I would say that only the priest is speaking: consider the words of St John Cassian

we are not to follow in the steps or embrace the traditions and advice of every old man whose head is covered with grey hairs, and whose age is his sole claim to respect, but only of those whom we find to have distinguished themselves in youth in an approved and praiseworthy manner, and to have been trained up not on self-assurance but on the traditions of the Elders. For there are some, and unhappily they form the majority, who pass their old age in a lukewarmness which they contracted in youth, and in sloth, and so obtain authority not from the ripeness of their character but simply from the number of their years.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.iv.iv.iii.xiii.html

If we are to ‘test’ (so to speak) those to whom we go to advice (whether in confession or outside of it), then how can we say that God speaks through the priest? To speak words of God is solely dependent on our love for God and our neighbour, according to the divinely-inspired ascetical life of the Orthodox Faith. Being ordained has nothing to do with it! Why did the priest St Zosimas bow down to St Mary of Egypt? “Because grace is recognised not by one’s orders, but by gifts of grace”!

Wisdom, let us attend!

Richard

PS. I heard that one leading hierarch - whether in Sourozh or the Vicariate I will not say - who described those who had been scandalised and who had left the church as merely ‘collateral damage’ … Ah! How soothing the words of the Holy Spirit speaking through the clergy are!! :rolleyes: Such a one will obviously be graced with the presence of the Deifying Spirit when speaking in confession!!

PPS. To anyone who has been emotionally injured by the Church, please read the whole of Cassian's chapter quoted above: it is beautiful, and in ways helped keep me in the Church.

RichardWorthington

10-07-2008, 10:22 PM

Obedience also covers our sins as long as we don't knowingly sin in the course of the obedience. Athonite monastics know this as a matter of living. Their's is a life of obedience. If only the rest of the world, and I, could embrace this life.

That’s funny: I read that Fr Seraphim Rose’s first words as a monk to his bishop were “Nyet! Nyet! Nyet!” - and got away with it. How many priests and hierarchs have wilfully and directly broken their vows of obedience in both sides of the Sourozh split? One rule for the clergy, one for the rest of us … As St James says, “My brethren, these things should not be so!”

I will now publicly confess a grave sin: I wilfully and knowingly not only ignored but deliberately went against the decree of my bishop. One of our local priests had been defrocked by him (the priest going over to Paris later on), and yet I deliberately in full knowledge of his defrocking ‘acolyted’ for him in the altar during the Liturgies. (The other acolytes having voted with their feet long before this …) I spit at the thought of anyone rebuking me for this: knowing the chaos that occurs during a split, should I really be so naive? (By the way, the priest was never reinstated, but his papers-thingy were given to Constantinople as a matter of course as if he had never been defrocked - aren't you glad I ignored the bishops?)

There are two types of obedience: the one to salvation, the other to emotional destruction. I quoted above from St John Cassian: if we find that a priest is destroying us, then feel free without any guilt to say so and then leave. (Personally, I would have no hesitation in saying to a priest I thought was just out to burden me with the burdens he had to put up with when he was younger - can you not see it happening? What type of ‘leaders’ are these? - I would say: “Keep your absolution! God is greater than fallen understandings of an ‘ecclesiastical organisation’!”)

We hear that we should not go from place to place, from Father to Father, but that we should change ourselves instead. True. But the other half of Orthodoxy is that we need to check to whom we speak, and can change even if initially they seem advanced and spiritual. Why is the concept of a balance so abhorrent to modern Orthodoxy?

Following Christ in His Holy Orthodox Faith has never been: “Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do and die”

Richard
PS. My 'spiritual father' is an Athonite priest-monk: from what he has told me he would laugh at such a view of Mt Athos. I have often thought that Orthodoxy tends to view Mt Athos as the "Camelot of Orthodoxy" - nothing bad can ever happen there!

RichardWorthington

10-07-2008, 10:25 PM

I almost forgot to mention this:

[quote=Paul Cowan;66362]As far as the divine light descending, there have been priests that have seen this and the God-child being cut up and His blood being poured into the chalice. Is it common, no; has it happened?; several times over the centuries.

Perhaps best to read this thread:
The Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2458

Seeing a child in the Eucharist, it seems, is very far from Orthodoxy. But the question remains: why do our leading bishops and theologians allow such foolish thoughts to linger in the minds of the faithful?

(So I am not writing anything in this thread against one one here, but against the worldliness of Orthodoxy - both ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’!)

Richard

M.C. Steenberg

10-07-2008, 10:45 PM

Dear all in this thread,

I've been reading with interest the more recent comments in this conversation. I wanted particularly to speak to the contents of one recent post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=66491&postcount=12), namely:

I want to know if orthodox priest by the doctrine of your church can forgive sins?
The answer is yes:

It is not that God forgives rather than the priest, but that God's forgiveness is made present in the forgiveness issuing from the priest's charism. This is exactly as it says in the scriptures: 'If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven' (i.e., by God).

… and no:

he who does not think at all about correcting himself confesses in vain, labors in vain, for even if the priest says, "I forgive and absolve," the Holy Spirit does not forgive and absolve him!
Metropolitan Innocent of Moscow
The fact that these seem flatly contradictory is simply a part of life. Let us avoid leaning to the left of Protestantism and to the right of Rome! Some may need to hear the first more than the second (perhaps even only the first), others the second more than the first (perhaps even only the second), but generally a balance between the two is best.

With my sincere respect to Richard, I think we need to be particularly careful what we say in this regard. Both the question of the right doctrine of the Church are under address; but so too a very pastoral question that has direct, immediate consequences for the actual living-out of the life in Christ amongst Christians in the Church.

The direct answer to the question, 'Can an Orthodox priest forgive sins?' is yes. Without qualification. This is not only a direct attestation of scripture (indeed, the words of Christ himself), but also the undisputed teaching of the Church throughout its history. Whether or not certain conditions of personality, behaviour, qualification, etc. might call this into question (e.g. that a certain priest, by some behaviour, might not be able to fulfil the mystery of the sacrament) has been the subject of all manner of heretical movements throughout history -- that which comes most readily to mind is that surrounding the Donatists in northern Africa. But at each turn the Church has responded with the same response: the mysteries of the Church are the mysteries of Christ, into which the priest is drawn as 'celebrant' by the charism of the priesthood. An priest can forgive sins, just as he can celebrate the Eucharist or perform a baptism; for these are the central mysteries (sacraments) of the Christian life, which the priest has the charism to perform amongst the people.

So I think we need to be quite clear. The answer to the question is 'yes', full stop.

The quotation provided, of Metropolitan Innocent, does not call into question this reality. Rather, that passage speaks of the relationship of forgiveness to the act of ascetical repentance. Repentance must be 'received' -- this is the manner in which the Spirit works the transformation of the heart. Should one 'confess' without repentance, one cannot receive the Spirit's working. One battles against it. In point of fact, St Innocent's comments verify the validity of the true forgiveness received in the sacrament performed by the priest. He is noting that forgiveness without reception is ineffective. 'Even if the priest says, "I forgive and absolve..."'' -- that is, the ultimate, known, experienced reality of God's forgiveness being offered and made manifest reality -- a closed heart will not receive forgiveness.

This does not question the ability of the priest to forgive in the sacrament. I re-states the ancient confession that a forgiveness granted unto a non-repentant heart, does not transform the heart.

(Personally, due to some very painful experiences of mine and confirmed by those I have heard, I prefer the second at this stage in my life.)

This reveals what I think is really behind these statements. Most people have had some manner of negative experience in confession; this is part and parcel of human interaction (and divine mysteries are incarnational: they deal human-to-human, in the midst of God, transformed by God). But to have such experiences call into question the validity of the mysteries (sacraments) is precisely what the Donatists were doing following the persecutions in Africa; and the response of the Church was emphatic.

The pastoral question of human foibles, and how to respond to those foibles manifest amongst clergy, is never able to call into question the validity of the sacraments themselves.

Yes, sins are forgiven by God, in the priest, in confession.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

RichardWorthington

11-07-2008, 12:50 AM

Most people have had some manner of negative experience in confession; this is part and parcel of human interaction (and divine mysteries are incarnational: they deal human-to-human, in the midst of God, transformed by God). But to have such experiences call into question the validity of the mysteries (sacraments) is precisely what the Donatists were doing following the persecutions in Africa; and the response of the Church was emphatic.

If “most people have had some manner of negative experience in confession”, then do you at least acknowledge the immense spiritual danger of believing that the priest says words from God? It is for God to give His Spirit to inspire words as He knows; no priest can claim an automatic right to this. The priest may think he is inspired, but God may never have spoken to him. The priest speaks from his own knowledge.

I have been gravely wounded, this is why I seek to protect others (although I know that to ‘over do’ this is in itself sinful and harmful to other others): such is my reaction to ‘priestly infallibility’ (it was from an Orthodox deacon that I heard this phrase, he using it to show how foolish we can be: why does Orthodoxy allow such heretical ideas that cause untold emotional damage to persist?).

I am not calling into question the sacraments of the church; I have been most clear on this, even giving in an attachment a delightful account of one such confession: the spiritual delight I felt (whether from God, or as is more likely, from myself due to the circumstances) can be taken that I am not disdaining the sacraments. What I am doing is to divorce Orthodoxy from the Western influence of the past 500 years! For example, the words, “I forgive and absolve” are heretical, from Roman influence. But what heretical understandings are now mixed in with Orthodoxy, even if the words were changed to the Greek original, “May God forgive”?

The direct answer to the question, 'Can an Orthodox priest forgive sins?' is yes. Without qualification. This is not only a direct attestation of scripture (indeed, the words of Christ himself), but also the undisputed teaching of the Church throughout its history.
…
So I think we need to be quite clear. The answer to the question is 'yes', full stop.

St Symeon the New Theologian does not see your full-stop. Just because Orthodoxy has in ways been teaching what is basically Roman theology for many centuries does not make it part of the Tradition.

there is one essential qualification, and one only, which empowers a person to act as confessor and to bestow forgiveness of sins; and that is the conscious awareness of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Monks who possess such awareness, even though not in holy orders, may confer absolution upon others; but anyone who lacks such awareness - even though he may be bishop or patriarch - should not attempt to do this
http://philthompson.net/pages/library/wareonhs.html

Those who have the Spirit - whether priests or not - can absolve, but here St Symeon is denying this to bishops who do not have direct awareness of the Spirit. He is NOT denying the sacrament, but only a very one-sided understanding of it. It is this one-sidedness I am challenging, not the entire. I am not a priest: I should be severely rebuked if I put on a priest’s stole!

How does St Symeon’s words affect our understanding of the sacrament of confession? And why are such words not put into our dogmatical books when the sacrament is discussed? (I have found other patristic quotations similar to the above.)

. 'Even if the priest says, "I forgive and absolve..."'' -- that is, the ultimate, known, experienced reality of God's forgiveness being offered and made manifest reality -- a closed heart will not receive forgiveness.

This does not question the ability of the priest to forgive in the sacrament. I re-states the ancient confession that a forgiveness granted unto a non-repentant heart, does not transform the heart.

I do not understand this: if the priest says “I forgive and absolve” by your statement (“Yes, sins are forgiven by God, in the priest, in confession.”) then he must be forgiven, no matter what. Or what do you mean when you say, “the ultimate, known, experienced reality of God's forgiveness being offered and made manifest reality”?

If I sin now and ask God to forgive me, according to what you have writtten He will not forgive because no priest is with me to read the prayer of absolution. This really does make God unloving, which is why initially I was writing against such a legalistic understanding. If I ask you to forgive me, but you ignore me until one of your ambassadors says, “The Moderators forgive and absolves”, what type of love is this? If I were to die now without the ‘last rites’, God by what you have said would not desire to try to forgive my sins. And what if a miserable old *^%^%^& of a priest should refuse to say the prayer of absolution? God is then a slave not to forgive such a person, even if they are contrite but unable to show it for whatever reason. Such is the reason why Evangelicals deduce that Roman Catholics and Orthodox do not know a God of love.

Why do you wish such an unloving God to be taught in Orthodoxy? If anyone dies without the absolution of a priest, according to you that person is damned for all eternity to hell. This is not love, but one-sided logic.

Richard

M.C. Steenberg

11-07-2008, 02:08 AM

Dear Richard, it is quite late so I cannot reply in full to your post at the moment; but just on one comment:
Why do you wish such an unloving God to be taught in Orthodoxy? If anyone dies without the absolution of a priest, according to you that person is damned for all eternity to hell. This is not love, but one-sided logic.
It is also not what I said, or wrote. Nor is it anything I would ever say. Nor is there any way of extracting it from what I did write.

Please don't proceed by this kind of approach. It is better that we converse in openness and honesty.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Father David Moser

11-07-2008, 03:01 AM

I am a priest - I have been for a few years now. I will share with you my experience of confession, in as much as I can, so that perhaps my experience will provide some enlightenment and clarity to this discussion.

The priesthood is no some worldly appointment as the head of a parish community, nor is it the result of my supposedly "great" virtues, nor is it anything that I sought (in fact I ran from it for many years until I could run no more). The priesthood is the result of a sacrament - the bestowal of a particular grace by the Church which effects an essential change in the recipient. At baptism, by grace a fallen man is born anew and receives new life in Christ. He is fundamentally remade by grace in a manner which enables him to participate in the life of Christ. At chrismation, by grace, the clean but empty house of the soul is filled with the indwelling life and presence of the Holy Spirit. At holy matrimony, by grace, the two are joined and made mystically one. In the same manner when a person receives the sacrament of holy orders, by grace, he receives the ability to guide the flock of Christ entrusted to him by the Church. In ordination, by grace, a man becomes an icon of Christ. When I act as a priest, whether it be in the celebration of the divine liturgy, the bestowing of forgiveness in confession, the administration of new birth at baptism, the giving of a blessing or any other priestly function it is something that is not of myself, but an act of God. By grace, I, as unworthy and unfit as I am, become a means by which God bestows His grace upon his flock.

Can I forgive sins - yes, I can. I can forgive anyone who comes seeking my human forgiveness. And as a priest, I also bestow the divine forgiveness of God upon those who come to me in confession and ask of God His forgiveness. Do I bestow this forgiveness out of my own ability, out of my own strength, out of my own store of grace. Most certainly not. God forgives and I am but the instrument by which that forgiveness is bestowed. Consider the charge given by the priest to the penitent before confession begins, "Behold child, Christ stands invisibly here before us receiving your confession. Do not be ashamed or afraid and don't conceal anything from me. I am only a witness, bearing testimony before Him of what you say to me. If you shall conceal anything from me you shall have the greater sin, take heed therefore that having come to the Great Physician (Christ) you depart unhealed." It is not my forgiveness that is given, but that of Christ - I am only His instrument.

But I too must forgive all those how have offended me. This is my duty not only as a priest, but as a Christian. Do we not say, "Forgive us our sins as WE FORGIVE those who sin against us"?

Now concerning the direction that a priest gives in confession. I find that when I speak in confession it is best to say that which first comes into my heart as though it were from God. When I do this, no matter how bland or profound it may sound, I find that it is effective. If I try to engage my own rational process and training in counseling etc, I find that my effectiveness as a priest is diminished. God speaks through me - an unworthy priest - inasmuch as I allow Him to. But my words, even in confession are not "infallible" nor are the "commands" from God, but they are directions about how best to adjust your life to avoid the sins that plague you, to fight the temptations that assail you, to prevent you from falling into the same sins again. If what I say finds a place in your heart and life, then glory to God. If you hear me and reject what I say, then Lord have mercy on us both. If I am proud and arrogant and presume to control your life, then I have sinned and become proud and you would do best to flee from me as from a great danger. But again, I know there are many times when I am personally "empty" and say things that I think are "neutral" or comforting in confession, only to find out later that what I said touched the very root and core of the sin hiding the heart of the one who is confessing. This is not me - it is God speaking through me. And believe me I am not worthy nor wise nor even moderately pious that I can take any credit for it.

There have been some comments about the so called "western influence" on our theology. I recognize that this influence is an historical fact, however, I do not believe that it is detrimental to our faith or that it has somehow tainted our faith. If we go around "throwing out" foreign influences, then once we get rid of the "western" influence, then we have to go after the "moslem influence" resulting from the years of islamic rule. After that we have to rid ourselves of the byzantine influence - when Christianity was "influenced" by being the religion of the empire. Oh and then lest we forget we must certainly eliminate the "Jewish" influence and the "pagan Greek" influence until we are left with nothing. Yes there was a "western influence" which did not pollute but which has been integrated into the Orthodox faith and which has enriched our understanding of the mercy of God towards us. It is not "evil" or "wrong" or anything else like that in and of itself. When we look at such influence and see evil, that is, imo, the result of our own fear and our own lack of trust in the providence and grace of God which protects and guides our holy mother Church. God gave us that "western influence" for the benefit of our souls and our salvation. The Church can absorb it and "digest" it and integrate it so that it becomes not a danger to be feared but an enrichment which becomes another tool for us in the working out of our salvation.

Fr David Moser (a priest of 18 years)

RichardWorthington

11-07-2008, 09:04 AM

Dear Richard, it is quite late so I cannot reply in full to your post at the moment; but just on one comment:
It is also not what I said, or wrote. Nor is it anything I would ever say. Nor is there any way of extracting it from what I did write.

Please don't proceed by this kind of approach. It is better that we converse in openness and honesty.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Dear Fr Deacon,

Sorry if I offended you; it was not my intention.
But I hope now that you can see how misundestandings can occur. What you mean by a phrase and how others understand you can be two different things. This is what I am mainly trying to get at!! To say that God's forgiveness is linked to a ritual would be interpretted by most Westerners I am sure as I have outlined.

I do not seek to offend, but to show that greater clarity and awareness is needed when teaching Orthodoxy. Copying some archaic theological formula will not work. Mr Clay B. has identified himself as a Protestant; I, as a former Protestant, am merely trying to point out some misunderstandings. (Consider how the phrase "I am saved" is interpretted by Evangelicism and Orthodoxy - there is plenty of room for misunderstandings and for people to talk past each other!)

Please, do not be offeneded. It was not my intention.

Richard
:)

RichardWorthington

11-07-2008, 09:44 AM

Dear Fr David Moser,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments. They have helped a lot!!

Now concerning the direction that a priest gives in confession. I find that when I speak in confession it is best to say that which first comes into my heart as though it were from God. When I do this, no matter how bland or profound it may sound, I find that it is effective. If I try to engage my own rational process and training in counseling etc, I find that my effectiveness as a priest is diminished. God speaks through me - an unworthy priest - inasmuch as I allow Him to. But my words, even in confession are not "infallible" nor are the "commands" from God, but they are directions about how best to adjust your life to avoid the sins that plague you, to fight the temptations that assail you, to prevent you from falling into the same sins again. If what I say finds a place in your heart and life, then glory to God. If you hear me and reject what I say, then Lord have mercy on us both. If I am proud and arrogant and presume to control your life, then I have sinned and become proud and you would do best to flee from me as from a great danger. But again, I know there are many times when I am personally "empty" and say things that I think are "neutral" or comforting in confession, only to find out later that what I said touched the very root and core of the sin hiding the heart of the one who is confessing. This is not me - it is God speaking through me. And believe me I am not worthy nor wise nor even moderately pious that I can take any credit for it.

"If I am proud and arrogant and presume to control your life, then I have sinned and become proud and you would do best to flee from me as from a great danger.": this is exactly what I have been trying to get at. Here is no uncritical obedience, but a healthy balance that I am trying to get at: both trusting and yet having to 'test' what is spoken. If such an approach was outlined and made clear then fewer people would hurt by confession. (Also, if priests were told not to judge, get angry, or be 'disappointed' then it would help ... !) You have considerably warmed my heart towards the sacrament; while trying not to go against it, yet perhaps I was over aware of its abuses. (But how many people are taught to assume only the "God speaks through me - an unworthy priest - inasmuch as I allow Him to."?!? - perhaps even ignoring the "inasmuch as I allow Him to"? Lord have mercy!! Do not some comments in this thread alarm you in their criticism of even having the possible doubt regarding the priest's words?)

There have been some comments about the so called "western influence" on our theology. I recognize that this influence is an historical fact, however, I do not believe that it is detrimental to our faith or that it has somehow tainted our faith. If we go around "throwing out" foreign influences, then once we get rid of the "western" influence, then we have to go after the "moslem influence" resulting from the years of islamic rule. After that we have to rid ourselves of the byzantine influence - when Christianity was "influenced" by being the religion of the empire.

In my local parish newsletter I was pointed to this talk where Paul Evdokimov is quoted, "In the post-Constantinian reaction, ... This was the great ‘betrayal of the laity’, a relinquishing of their priestly character. ..."
http://www.exarchate-uk.org/Archive/Conference2008/Robinson.html

I am aware of how endless questioning justs ends up tripping us over. (Why stop at the church's approach to the royal priesthood, why not the Ecumenical councils also ... ?!?) However, why are St Symeon the New Theologian's words on how absolution is a direct gift of the Holy Spirit never mentioned in theology books? Why are such quotations things that have to be scrounged from uncommon places? And if there is no 'Western influence' to unlearn, then why were there posts here criticising my own need not to have "the slightest fear eternal damnation"? If I had written "Have I even begun to be saved? Woe is me the chief of sinners!" then there would have been no comment made! Why are we in Orthodoxy today taught to be so one-sided? Both approaches can equally lead to devotion of God, and yet both equally can come from a stubborn heart! Why fear one error but not the other? Why is God allowed to be called loving, but any description of His love in action is to be viewed as dubious? Why fear the errors of Protestantism but be blind to the errors of 'High-Church-ism'? The 'Western Influence' is not that anything incorrect is said in the understanding of the speaker, but that the differing ways of interpreting it are unknown to the speaker. Hence misunderstandings and heresies abound and even grow within Orthodoxy.

But many, many thanks again.

Richard

Nina

11-07-2008, 03:14 PM

I would add, yes, in the act of forgiveness God is "speaking", but not in general, ie. during the advices the priest may gives in the confession. I m sure there have been made mistakes during history.

Peter

Geronda Porphyrios says that while we confess the spiritual father is praying to God and he is directed by God about what he says to the repentant during the Mystery of Confession. That is why it is called a Mystery. What Geronda describes is the "norm". What falls out of this I do not know because it pertains to another topic.

Father David Moser

11-07-2008, 03:16 PM

Why are we in Orthodoxy today taught to be so one-sided?

I would take issue with this. This one-sidedness of which you speak is not something that I am familiar with. I have not found it in the manner in which I was instructed from the time of my catechism onward. I do not see it in the instruction of my brother clergy. Somehow I think that your experience was not so general as you have come to believe.

Why do many people have the ideas that you point out? Perhaps it is not the teaching of the Church, but rather that they were poorly taught. I know that in North America with the seeming "wave" of new adult converts, some were very poorly catechized due to the fact that some priests were overwhelmed with their number. I know that for myself, at times, I have had to do an abbreviated catechism due to various personal circumstances. There is also the fact that in Orthodox countries, there are many people who are not taught at all with the assumption that since they grow up in an Orthodox society they just somehow absorb it. Russia particularly has a problem with untaught parishioners due to the fact that during the soviet years children were not permitted to be taught and there was an active effort to counteract anything they might have absorbed. Metropolitan Hilarion of Eastern America and NY spoke to this issue in an interview:
- If we speak of the growth of Orthodoxy, then the question of missionary activity also was raised at the Sobor. ... What, in your opinion, is important for the mission in today's world?
- First of all, an internal mission is needed. It is necessary to bring back our own Russian people to Orthodoxy: those, who still have not received Holy Baptism, who still have not come to the faith. Here there is a great work ahead of us. And our task in the West is similar, because we must work first of all with our flock. ... it happens that they gradually drift away from the Church. ... We prepare them, carry on the process of catechization, ...

I think that the presence of this type of thinking in the Church that you call "western influence" is more attributable to the tendency of people to take the easy way out and to shun the difficulty of the path of salvation. It is much easier to fulfill a rule of law than it is to change to become like Christ. Legalism is a subtle and very attractive temptation for many. The Prots. throw out the baby with the bathwater in that they throw out all the rules without addressing the fact that the problem is not in the rules, but in how people follow them. The R/Cs err on the other side, emphasizing the following of the rules but not fully addressing the issue of how to become like Christ. The Orthodox Christians, especially us converts, tend to carry baggage swaying us one way or the other from our past. The "western influence" that we see is more often than not simply our own baggage from our former confessions manifesting itself in Orthodox "clothing".

Fr David Moser

Peter S.

11-07-2008, 05:10 PM

I have been gravely wounded, this is why I seek to protect others (although I know that to ‘over do’ this is in itself sinful and harmful to other others): such is my reaction to ‘priestly infallibility’ Richard

Remember the priest has the power to bind and loose sins from Christ. The priest must answear for what he has done, and the same with you. Think of that and go forth.

Originally Posted by Peter S. http://www.monachos.net/forum/images/misc/quote_magn.gif (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=66469#post66469)
I would add, yes, in the act of forgiveness God is "speaking", but not in general, ie. during the advices the priest may gives in the confession. I m sure there have been made mistakes during history.

Peter

Geronda Porphyrios says that while we confess the spiritual father is praying to God and he is directed by God about what he says to the repentant during the Mystery of Confession. That is why it is called a Mystery. What Geronda describes is the "norm". What falls out of this I do not know because it pertains to another topic. Nina

Yes this discussion is firstly about the priest power to bind and loose sins, but remember that a confession is an experience. You can experience that your sins are forgiven or not forgiven, and you can experience wrong advices that is not inspired by the Holy Spirit, which I think is one of the things St. Symeon was thinking of:

there is one essential qualification, and one only, which empowers a person to act as confessor and to bestow forgiveness of sins; and that is the conscious awareness of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Monks who possess such awareness, even though not in holy orders, may confer absolution upon others; but anyone who lacks such awareness - even though he may be bishop or patriarch - should not attempt to do this
http://philthompson.net/pages/library/wareonhs.html

Now concerning the direction that a priest gives in confession. I find that when I speak in confession it is best to say that which first comes into my heart as though it were from God. When I do this, no matter how bland or profound it may sound, I find that it is effective. If I try to engage my own rational process and training in counseling etc, I find that my effectiveness as a priest is diminished. God speaks through me - an unworthy priest - Fr. David

This is a consideration inspired by the Holy Spirit (if I m allowed to presume that) ,taken by the priest, and it is not a guarantee that every orthodox priest in the world think in the same way during the confession, even if he sometimes knows he should. Surely not. But it is the "norm" that they should follow the inspiration by God in their advices. But this also depends on what St. Symeon says. However they have the power to bind and loose.

As for my own experiences I have been lucky with the priest I go to confession to, and he is also my spiritual father. He does not always tell me things that I "want" to hear...,during the confession. I think a priest should be strict, because this is the way of God. And he is also careful in his sayings, and knows better than me what is the right thing to do. However I know that I can't hope for a perfect man in the priest I go to confession to, but I know I have been lucky, and I know the priests are different.

And the human forgiveness and the divine forgiveness are from Christ, aren't they?

Peter

Chev. James R. Weber KGCT

12-07-2008, 07:44 AM

Just a thought as I am working through a great deal of forgiveness at this time.
To answers your questions
YES he can
No I dont
now for some elaboration and some thoughts came to mind about my current situation.

Thought:
Do these these things often in rememberence of me
Elaboration:
As I sit at my table or stand with a cup of water I remember my source Christ! As unworthy and despicable as I have been he called me and as much as I ran kicking and screaming away I now despise my will.

thought:
Go into your closet and pray allegory or Literal?
and Psalms 27:17 came to mind as it does a lot these days "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. "

Elaboration:
As I ask daily sometimes hourly, for forgiveness obviously I still need it and need to give it. I have realized that there are somethings I cannot reveal to anyone but Christ and he alone can perfect me by constantly putting me into the fire. When I confess to my priest I know he is my brother and is iron to my iron to share good countenance with me. I have felt forgiveness depart my physical self when I also felt the Holy Spirit replace it I feel like I am on cold sheets with a warm down Comforter on me.

I feel better just posting this as it reminds me to forgive someone again myself...

Yours in Christ
James

bible:

1Jn 2:12 I write to you, dear children,
because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.

Jas 5:13 Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise.
Jas 5:14 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.
Jas 5:15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.
Jas 5:16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

Heb 10:15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:

Heb 10:16 "This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds."[2]
Heb 10:17 Then he adds:
"Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more."[3]
Heb 10:18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.
Heb 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus,

Mat 6:1 "Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

Mat 6:2 "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
Mat 6:3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
Mat 6:4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Mat 6:5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
Mat 6:6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Mat 6:7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.
Mat 6:8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
Mat 6:9 "This, then, is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
Mat 6:10 your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Mat 6:11 Give us today our daily bread.
Mat 6:12 Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.[1] '
Mat 6:14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
Mat 6:15 But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

RichardWorthington

12-07-2008, 03:01 PM

Regarding one-sidedness in Orthodoxy, I have put some of my experiences in another thread:

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=66555#post66555

One-sided spirituality does influence the level of advice given in confession, but this thread is, I think, more about the sacramental forgiveness rather than priestly counsel.

Richard

Clay B.

13-07-2008, 05:33 AM

When was this sacrament introduced into the othodox church?

Father David Moser

13-07-2008, 05:45 AM

And the human forgiveness and the divine forgiveness are from Christ, aren't they?

I would suggest that human forgiveness is not necessarily from Christ, although it is certainly a Christlike act. Forgiveness is essentially an act of the will and as God has given us free will, we choose to forgive or not, it is something that God has given us the freedom to do. Acting consistently upon our choice to forgive requires the grace of God and so could be said to be "from Christ" however, the base decision to forgive is our own.

Fr David Moser

M.C. Steenberg

14-07-2008, 12:10 PM

Dear friends,

Reading back over this thread after a few days away, it seems that there is some confusion of issues underlying the conversation. The initial question was about forgiveness, and whether a priest can forgive sins in confession. I maintained before, and still maintain absolutely, that the answer to this can only be an unqualified 'yes' - else the sacrament is denied and a quasi-Donatism ensues, however it is cloaked.

However, much of the discussion has not actually focussed on this question at all, but on that of spiritual teaching, and how one is to receive words of pastoral guidance from a priest. It must be stressed that these two issues are not the same; and while pastoral guidance may often be delivered in the context of confession, which is the sacramental haven of repentance and absolution, the two are quite distinct. Conflating them is a dangerous game.

The words of St Symeon the New Theologian have been raised in the above, addressing a confusion of these issues. Of course, St Symeon addressed both. But one of the reasons that his comments on these matters are not often included in 'manuals on confession' and the like (the reason for this was asked after, above), is at least in part because his views on these particular matters were extremely controversial, in his own day and after. Rather than attempt to see St Symeon's comments as some radical 'corrective' to the widespread practices of the Church, one ought also to take considerable account of the Church's corrections of St Symeon's views on these issues. Throughout his life, his conception of precisely what it meant to receive the vision of the Spirit, and the relation of this vision to sacramental ministry, was a cause of issue -- not just between him and the ecclesiastical hierarchy, but (often much more so) within his own monstic community. Clearly, this has never called into question his sanctity and his recognition as a true theologian (he is a most remarkable saint, a true light of the faith); but the Church has always set his comments on these issues in particular, into the context of the greater testimony of its whole heritage.

Back to a division of the issues being addressed: the forgiveness of sins in confession is a sacramental charism. It is God's act, wrought incarnationally in the priest. This is a particular mystery (sacrament) of the Church, effected liturgically in a solemn rite blessed and sanctified in its ecclesial practice. Pastoral guidance is also a charism, but is a charism of ascetical obedience. It has never been exclusively linked to the priestly office, and is not bestowed sacramentally in the same manner as that of priestly office (bear in mind, the sacrament of confession is enabled by the sacrament of ordination; the one mystery gives flesh to the other).

Difficult experiences with pastoral guidance cannot be allowed to pervert or corrupt one's sense of the reality of Christ's active work in the charism of the sacred mysteries. What they show us, rather, is the need for a greater ascesis -- both amongst those charged to give spiritual, pastoral counsel, and amongst those who receive it.

Finally, I do not see how this view of the Church towards its sacraments is 'one sided', or overtly Western-influenced. What provokes such characterisations seems, to my reading at least, to be a confusion and conflation of some of the key issues at stake, which then informs a mis-reading of the Church's practices -- from which vantage point a defense of the Church's position sounds like (and would be, were this really the case) a defense of something quite confused and problematic. Part of the way forward must be the personal ascesis to discover where our own experiences and trials have caused us to mis-construe the Church's life and acts, and to receive a right vision of them, so that we can be brought into a fuller understanding.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Alice

14-07-2008, 12:44 PM

Dear Father David,

Bless.

Thank you for a beautiful post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=66500&postcount=21). Each word and thought was a blessing.

Humbly,
Kissing your right hand,
Alice

Andreas Moran

14-07-2008, 01:04 PM

There have been some comments about the so called "western influence" on our theology. I recognize that this influence is an historical fact, however, I do not believe that it is detrimental to our faith or that it has somehow tainted our faith.

I would be grateful for some actual examples of western influences which have been beneficial for Orthodoxy. (This is a genuine question, not a veiled polemic!)

Father David Moser

14-07-2008, 04:21 PM

I would be grateful for some actual examples of western influences which have been beneficial for Orthodoxy. (This is a genuine question, not a veiled polemic!)

I'm not sure whether I actually said that these "influences" were beneficial to Orthodoxy or not. What I should have said was that these influences are beneficial to Orthodox Christians in the working out of their faith. I would actually be hard pressed to give you examples of "beneficial influences" since I rarely hear any specific examples of bad influences - just a generic condemnation of "western influences" especially when some convert wants to criticize the hierarchal or liturgical nature of the (especially the Russian) Orthodox Church.

I have a good friend (also an Orthodox priest - but who went to seminary in Syria, was converted in Iraq after watching the martyrdom of an Iraqi Christian bishop by the Moslems in Saudi Arabia for celebrating the Divine Liturgy) with whom I would have this debate frequently. I guess the only general theme that I got out of all this is that anything that evoked a sense of guilt and fear in Orthodoxy is the result of "western influence" while anything that evoked a sense of joy is the genuine faith. I generally agree with him that guilt and fear have no place in Christianity. Certainly we sorrow for our sins - but we must not confuse sorrow with guilt. And fear (being afraid but not being in awe of) is a sign of a lack of love for God (perfect love casts out all fear) and trust in His providence (what is there to fear when all that God gives is good). Fear comes out of pride and self love. I think that the so called "western influence" is actually the result of those who look at profound sorrow for sins and repentance and misunderstand it seeing only guilt. Or it comes from those who see sobriety and cannot see the joy that is at its foundation because they confuse "joy" with "happiness". Or it comes from those who are still bound by their own fears and thus see that fear everywhere (the evil one is particularly good at this kind of temptation).

Some say that the westernization of iconography that occurred around the turn of the 2th century was detrimental to Orthodoxy - but then St Tikhon of Zadonsk had such an icon of the crucifixion in his cell and it was before this "westernized" icon that he prayed - was it detrimental to his Orthodoxy? The Russian typicon has added a prayer to the absolution in confession wherein the priest says "May our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ through His compassion and love for mankind forgive you and I an unworthy priest through the power given to me by Him do forgive and absolve you from all your sins" This is often cited as an example of "western influence" but tell me how is hearing that one's sins are forgiven and absolved by the power of Christ detrimental to Orthodoxy. Or take for example the spiritual classic, Unseen Warfare, It was written by a Roman Catholic monastic (L. Scupolli) and was read and copied and revised by Nikodemous of the Holy Mountain and again by Theophan the Recluse. Is this spiritual classic with its origins in Rome detrimental to Orthodoxy? I just don't see this huge threat of "western influence" in Orthodoxy that some people talk about. I see things that have been incorporated into the Church from the west that are no less Orthodox than those thing incorporated into the Church from the Greek philosophers. They have been taken in by the Church, assimilated, digested, processed and made Orthodox.

Fr David Moser

Ken McRae

15-07-2008, 12:51 AM

What do you think this means?

And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” (John 20:22-23)

When was this sacrament introduced into the othodox church?

Hi there Clay B. Let's make a deal: You answer Herman's question for us, first, which he asked you way back on page 1; and then, if you want, I'll take a crack at answering your question (as quoted above). If you have, in fact, already answered his question, then I missed it. In that case, though, I could use a little memory jogging, if you care to help with that.

Herman Blaydoe

15-07-2008, 01:06 AM

When was this sacrament introduced into the othodox church?

When was the sacrament of baptism introduced? How about healing? The Eucharist? You might as well ask, when was forgiveness introduced to the Church?!

Perhaps a better question might be when did the form of the sacrament of confession take its present form?

Herman

Ken McRae

15-07-2008, 06:34 PM

Perhaps I have misunderstood in the past, but I have heard it occasionally stated by the Orthodox that the theology of seven sacraments, and no more or no less, is a Western convention, if not a scholastic one. To be honest, I could never really make any sense of that kind of statement; nor does it fare any better with me even today.

I suppose the reason for that, in part, is that the Monophysites, who seperated from the Church in the fifth century, have seven and only seven sacraments. Someone please correct me on this if I'm wrong, but if this is true, that they had seven sacraments before they broke away from the Church, in the middle of the fifth century, then that would seem to refute the above claim about the so-called "Scholastic origin" of the seven sacraments. Would'nt it? (But as I say, perhaps I'm missing something very fundamental or core to the "argument".)

Now, I know this for a fact, that the Protestant Reformers, in general, (but especially Calvin) openly recognized and confessed that the first 500 years of the history of the Church were the purest, in terms of doctrine and practice; compared to any period subsequent to that; and so it would seem a significant observation that the Coptic Church, which broke away during that "golden age", (according to Reformers,) had seven sacraments, and only seven.

In addition to that, I am completely unaware of a single juridiction anywhere in the universal Church, during the first 500 years of her history, that recognized only two sacraments. Nor can I recall, off-hand, ever reading anything anywhere, at any time, in the Reformers, to that effect. Hence, not only is Scripture clearly against them on this, but so is Holy Tradition. Feel free to correct me, but I would like to see evidence to support your claims.

Herman Blaydoe

17-07-2008, 12:56 AM

I'm on the road wihout access to my resources, but I do recall at least one Father of note who does only name two sacraments, baptism and the Eucharist. Of course there are seven sacraments. We Orthodox simply acknowledge that there are other sacraments as well. Seven is an arbitrary number. Any time the Holy Spirit acts in a perceptable manner through His instrument the Church within the space time continuum we ironically call "reality" a sacrament happens.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain

Herman the Pooh

Ken McRae

18-07-2008, 03:03 AM

I'm on the road wihout access to my resources, but I do recall at least one Father of note who does only name two sacraments, baptism and the Eucharist.

Thanks. It is important to know this, for sure. I suspect you might be referring to St. Justin the Martyr, but when you're back home, more information on this would be appreciated.

If it is St. Justin, though, I seem to recall reading somewhere that while he may have been something of a great, great fore-runner of the Slavophiles, he was not a priest, let alone a bishop. So I would be reluctant to pit his authority against anyone holding the power of the keys, in their hands.

Besides, holding no power, his word cannot possibly be taken as definitive and juridicial, in terms of defining the Church, or any of its jurisdictions. St. Justin's writings would be akin today, in authority and importance, to those of a Khomiakov, perhaps, or a Kireevsky. It is his great antiquity and proximity to the Apostolic fathers, really, that merit his being ranked or thought of as a "holy father."

Still, I find it difficult to believe St. Justin would not have recognized any other of the seven (arbitrarily speaking, of course,) mysteries; and most especially holy orders, given the very clear Scriptural witness to this holy mystery, and the apostolic tradition of apostolic succession. That is why I'm just a little curious about the precise language and expression(s); and whether or not he says there are "only two" and "no more."

Of course there are seven sacraments. We Orthodox simply acknowledge that there are other sacraments as well. Seven is an arbitrary number.

Arbitrary, in which sense, though? When I here arbitrary, I have to admit that a lot of varying impressions pour into my mind; practically all at once, when I read or see that. Among them is this idea, that if the Protestants ever said to you, there are two only, and everything else is completely arbitrary, you might just want to take issue with that. They might even say (hypothetically) they totally agree with your sacramental theology, in principle that is, but take issue only with your "arbitrary" numbering system. How would that fit you?

Any time the Holy Spirit acts in a perceptable manner through His instrument the Church within the space time continuum we ironically call "reality" a sacrament happens.

Let's say (hypothetically speaking,) there is a group of Protestants who whole-heartedly agree with and receive your sacramental theology, in principle; but who adamantly refuse to define and administer more than two only; or who refuse to formally define and administer any at all, for this very same reason, that any number (at all) would be entirely arbitrary, I think you might be tempted to have a problem with that, if even a little bit. But what would be the basis of your objection, if you please?

We Orthodox simply acknowledge that there are other sacraments as well.

Having said all that, though, I'm very interested in pursuing some discussion of these other sacraments "so-called", over and above the seven "arbitrary" ones. Do they have "conventional" name tags? Are they universally received? If possible, I would even like titles of some Orthodox writings which flesh out this mystery in some depth, from the standpoint(s) of both Scripture and Tradtion.

John Litster

18-07-2008, 08:06 AM

RichardWorthington

18-07-2008, 10:28 AM

Just curious re: can an Orthodox priest forgive sins? If through the sacrament of confession we receive forgiveness of our sins from the Almighty via the priest, what we're implying is that God has changed his disposition toward His creature.

Basically, if God is changeless, aren't we saying that when we are forgiven by Him something about God changes in relation to us?

Before He forgives us, He must regard us as "unforgiven", right? After He forgives us, His disposition toward us is somehow different than it was before and that's because something we have done has changed Him. This means that God changes. Is that possible?

This is why I was trying to point out that the phrase "God forgives via the priest in the sacrament of confession" can be misunderstood in a juridical way: I think Fr Deacon Matthew and myself are closer on this issue than he thinks! :) (You, Fr Deacon, talk about someone who is unrepentant not receiving the forgiveness, I use the terminology that he is not forgiven.)

There is no change in God's disposition towards us: it is we who change. Does the earth orbit the sun, or the sun orbit the earth? From a simple perspective the sun orbits the earth, but we know that it is the earth and planets which orbit the sun. Does God change, or we change? We change so that we can receive the manifestation of God's forgiveness.

As Christ said:

Jhn 12:47 "And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.
Jhn 12:48 "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

God does not judge us - whether 'forgiven' or 'unforgiven', for He is the saving God who loves mankind. It is we who open up or close ourselves to Him.

Richard

RichardWorthington

18-07-2008, 11:54 AM

If it is St. Justin, though, I seem to recall reading somewhere that while he may have been something of a great, great fore-runner of the Slavophiles, he was not a priest, let alone a bishop. So I would be reluctant to pit his authority against anyone holding the power of the keys, in their hands.

Besides, holding no power, his word cannot possibly be taken as definitive and juridicial, in terms of defining the Church, or any of its jurisdictions. St. Justin's writings would be akin today, in authority and importance, to those of a Khomiakov, perhaps, or a Kireevsky. It is his great antiquity and proximity to the Apostolic fathers, really, that merit his being ranked or thought of as a "holy father."

According to the above words, St Anthony the Great and St John of Damascus - neither of whom were priests, let alone bishops - should not be referred to as ‘holy fathers’!!

Now will you listen to me when I quote from St Symeon the New Theologian about bishops who lack the awareness of the Spirit can not forgive sins - not as a "radical 'corrective' to the widespread practices of the Church", but as pointing out the reality of deification and to the uncreated manner of grace!

"the power of the keys"?!!? Used in this context this is a clear denial of the presence of the Holy Spirit Who is the Deifying Uncreated Light of God the Father. To deny this is to fall into the concept of ‘created grace’, something that the bishops of the church can apply or use at will, and something that is by nature estranged from the laity.

Our fathers clearly can apply the power of binding and loosing to the non-ordained who have St Symeon’s awareness of the Spirit:

Because of such an abundance of love towards his neighbour, he [St Barsanuphius of Gaza, 6th century, a lay-monk] was given, directly from God, power to bind and loose sins (Answer 207), which constitutes the perfection of gifts as St. Barsanuphius himself says: "The perfection of gifts is to forgive sins, to free souls from darkness, and to lead them to the light" (Answer 207).

"The Life of our Holy Fathers Barsanuphius and John" by St Nicodemus of Mount Athos, chapter 5; found in "Saints Barsanuphius and John: Guidance Toward Spiritual Life", tr. Fr Seraphim Rose, St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1990, page 27. (In chapter 7, Answer 181, Matthew 18:18 is directly attributed to him.)

"to lead them to the light": see the reality of deification, of becoming Light as God is Light and "uncreated by grace", to quote from St Gregory Palamas!

All this is not to disdain the church’s sacraments, but only to give a better understanding: as the priest Zosimas said to St Mary of Egypt, "Grace is recognized not by one’s orders, but by gifts of the Spirit, so give me your blessing for God’s sake, for I need your prayers." Can it be that the blessing of a lay person is greater than that of a priest who has the "power of the keys"?

Richard
PS Would someone be able to provide the writings of some saints who have corrected St Symeon the New Theologian’s views?

Nina

18-07-2008, 01:22 PM

Herman Blaydoe

18-07-2008, 06:44 PM

Herman Blaydoe

18-07-2008, 07:01 PM

Having said all that, though, I'm very interested in pursuing some discussion of these other sacraments "so-called", over and above the seven "arbitrary" ones. Do they have "conventional" name tags? Are they universally received? If possible, I would even like titles of some Orthodox writings which flesh out this mystery in some depth, from the standpoint(s) of both Scripture and Tradtion.

I don't really care what the Protestants say or do, I used to be one and have said goodbye to all that. When pressed, I don't argue, but simply say: "this is what the Orthodox Church teaches about that..." and let it go.

As to sources, how about here for starters: The Sacraments (GOARCH) (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7105.asp)

The OCA talks about at least nine sacraments here:
The Sacraments (OCA) (http://www.oca.org/OCIndex-TOC.asp?SID=2&book=Worship&section=The%20Sacraments)

I would add the Blessing of Waters to be a sacrament as well although I haven't really seen anything "official" to back it up.

Beyond that I woould only say that while some may only recognize two, five or seven sacraments, I think by and large the Orthodox Church "recognizes" that there are other "less recognized" sacraments as well. Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

John Litster

19-07-2008, 07:08 AM

Maybe, but how does this answer the question as to whether God is changeless? It's my understanding that according the Fathers of the Church, God is both changeless and all-loving. Being "offended" is a fallen human emotion, of which God is obviously neither human nor fallen.

I think what Mr. Worthington said is eminently true - we are the ones who change, not God. Therefore, does God forgive us, when it's not in His nature to be offended in the first place? And if so, why must we confess to a priest?

I think there is a simple way of explaining what is confusing, if you read St. Nectarios' book on repentance. St. Nectarios states that sin is a great offense towards God and our neighbor. We thus (by sinning) become debtors. God forgives our debt - when we repent - during the Mystery of Confession through the priest.

Andreas Moran

19-07-2008, 07:53 AM

We thus (by sinning) become debtors. God forgives our debt - when we repent - during the Mystery of Confession through the priest.

I wonder if Nina had in mind here the words from the Lord's Prayer in which we ask God to forgive us our debts (of sin). I'm also put in mind of Christ's extracting Peter's three-fold confession of love to cancel the debt of his three-fold denial. We do tend to speak about God as if He had human characteristics - though Christ gave us the words 'forgive us' in the Lord's Prayer - but that's because we cannot know God outside our own limitations. We mustn't be like westerners and think that by investigations we can discover everything. Western Christian confessions such as the Anglican communion are in the state there're in because they lost (maybe never had) the sense of mystery.

why must we confess to a priest?

It is enough for me that confession is a central part of the Holy Tradition of the Church which knows better than I.

John Litster

19-07-2008, 09:00 AM

Yes, but the idea of forgiveness of sins has to translate into real everyday life. I would think it would be important to understand whether or not God is angry, disappointed, and so forth over our actions.

It seems that the idea behind this entire thread, namely the forgiveness of sins by priests, has to do with the idea that God is upset on one level or another over our actions and that He requires that amends be made (through confession) in order for... what? to fully accept us again? To love us again? To be placated? This seems to be a God of fallen human attributes, rather than one of transcendent love.

Andreas Moran

19-07-2008, 09:58 AM

As I said, we are limited in the ways we can speak of God, and even in her prayers, the Church talks of angering God by our sins. I think the teachings of St Silouan and Fr Sophrony may help in this as when they write about the approach and withdrawal of grace according to our spiritual condition.

M.C. Steenberg

19-07-2008, 11:55 AM

Dear friends,

The problem I see with several comments in the above posts, on whether God forgives or man is forgiven, is that they proceed from a very juridicial conception of what forgiveness is, which then 'traps' the theological discussion in the confines of a misplaced conception of God's immutability.

Forgiveness is not an 'act' of judgement, or a fiat of changed disposition. Forgiveness is a relationship. It can be assigned wholly to neither God nor man. God must forgive, man must receive forgiveness: the reality of the mystery is the relationship.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

M.C. Steenberg

19-07-2008, 12:24 PM

Neither God's immutability, nor is impassibility, indicate a static God who neither moves nor feels. This is the classic perversion of both doctrines that has been behind many misunderstandings to have emerged over the centuries, attempting to read definitions of their meaning into the theological confession from some abstracted philosophical starting point. But for Christians, these confessions are theological. God's immutability and impassibility are consistently proclaimed by the Church as indicating the right limits of human expression of God's eternally good and eternally powerful, active nature.

The ultimate application of an external view of immutability is to proclaim that God can never do anything, since all doing is changing; but this is to go precisely against the reason the Church has proclaimed God's immutability, which is to safeguard confessions of how he acts - not to challenge whether he does.

Similarly, the ultimate application of an external view of impassibility is to proclaim that God never feels anything, since all feeling is passive control of a subject by some external agent or condition; but this is to go precisely against the reason the Church has proclaimed God's impassibility, which is to safeguard confessions of how God feels and wills - not to challenge whether he does.

It may seem tidier and easier, from a philosophical, abstract position, to argue that God as impassible and immutable does not feel anger, does not judge, does not forgive in an active sense; but this is not to confess the God of the scriptures or the Church's experience. The scriptures and the liturgy proclaim a God of anger as well as joy; of judgement met in love (these can not be pitted against each other: a God who does not judge does not love); of a God who actively hears, responds, and alters his disposition in the economy (the word used of God in the scriptures is the same used of 'repentance' amongst men: metanoia - see e.g. Jonah 3.10 LXX). These the Church confesses and must confess, even as she proclaims - as she has always proclaimed - that God is impassible and unchangeable. That mystery is what lies behind an incarnational God borne up in man and proclaimed in human confession. It is terribly hard to comprehend, not so hard to know through experience; but it cannot be diminished without utterly destroying everything core to the Christian confession.

To bring this back to the proper topic of this thread: God forgives actively in the bond of confession. Forgiveness is a relationship, a 'bond' (stressed in Christ's own comments, that what is bound on earth will be bound in heaven), and the mystery of sacramental confession is that God's forgiveness of the sinner is made a present, personal reality in the forgiveness offered by the priest. The person must receive this forgiveness for the relationship to grow; but this receiving, and the need for it, does not diminish the active forgiveness offered by God. Forgiveness is not simply an alteration of our human disposition; it is a relationship of both God and man.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Andreas Moran

19-07-2008, 01:06 PM

The latter part of Fr Dcn Matthew's post articulates what I believe Christ was doing with St Peter in His thrice-asked, 'lovest thou me?' By thus restoring the relationship between them in its fulness, Christ was then able to say to Peter, 'feed my sheep'. God forgives because we need His forgiveness which is, as Fr Dcn Matthew points out, the way the fractures we cause in our relationship with God by our sins are mended. I would suggest that this is also the way authentic human relationships work; my wife and I forgive each other, not in order to balance some ledger of emotions and achieve parity of egoistic feelings but to recover the fulness of our relationsip of love.

Nina

19-07-2008, 02:36 PM

In addition to what Fr. Dcn. Matthew said (and he explained it so well) let see something from the book of St. Nektarios. I highly recommend it because it is truly a patristic guiding light for us about the Mystery of Repentance and Confession.

According to Saint John of Damaskos, repentance is a return from the unnatural to the natural state and from the devil to God through ascesis and toil.St. Nektarios calls repentance a "disposition to compensate Divine Righteousness"; "complete reunification of one's own will with the Divine Will (i.e. the Divine Law)"; "an ethical rebirth of man";

About the main topic that this thread discuses St. Nectarios gives a full explanation and dedicates an entire chapter. It is very important to mention that St. Nektarios ties the forgiveness of sins -or as he calls it 'the power to bind and loose given to the Church by Christ'- with the apostolic mission of the Church. And furthermore:

The authority to bind and loose [given by Christ to the Church] is and will be the power that maintais the Church holy and immaculate. This is why the Church has not ceased excercising this great authority since the apostolic years.Repentance and Confession by Saint Nektarios

Herman Blaydoe

19-07-2008, 03:54 PM

It is simple really.

God forgives us to teach us to forgive each other.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

Ken McRae

19-07-2008, 05:57 PM

I don't really care what the Protestants say or do, I used to be one and have said goodbye to all that. When pressed, I don't argue, but simply say: "this is what the Orthodox Church teaches about that..." and let it go.

Well, it appears I may not have articulated my thought(s) in the clearest possible manner. I guess what I was really trying to say is that membership in the Orthodox Church ultimately requires a formal confession and acceptance of seven "major" sacraments; and nothing less. Now, you might view that as an "arbitrary" decision, made by the Orthodox Church, but I do not; not yet, at least. My present tendency is to think the Orthodox Church, in her purity, does nothing "arbitrarily," strictly speaking, but is guided in all her actions by her own Living Tradition.

Now, the OCA website makes the distinction between "major" and "minor" sacraments, which is a similar distinction made in formal RC theology. Concerning the "so-called" nine sacraments of the OCA, the OCA website makes the following brief, but important qualifications: 01) "The funeral service in the Orthodox Church, although not considered as specifically sacramental, belongs among the special liturgical rites of the People of God." 02) "Although not considered as one of the sacraments of the Church since it is not essential to the Christian life as such and is not a necessary element for the very existence of God's People, monasticism has played an important role in Christian history and is highly valued by the Orthodox Church."

On the basis of those qualifying statements, it appears clear to me that the OCA website recognizes only seven "major" sacraments, and no more; and I get the very same impression from the GOARCH website; but I see absolutely nothing "arbitrary" about that, at least not yet. That all the actions of the Apostolic Church, though, whether major or minor, are mysterious means of grace, and therefore sacramental by their very nature, is a position I am perfectly content with, for the most part.

I would add the Blessing of Waters to be a sacrament as well although I haven't really seen anything "official" to back it up.

Yes, I can see your point, but according to the OCA, it would be a "minor" sacrament (not to be confused with the "major" sacraments). As indicated above, the RC's would designate this action as a "sacramental," as a way to "formally" distinguish it from the seven "major" sacraments.

Beyond that I woould only say that while some may only recognize two, five or seven sacraments, I think by and large the Orthodox Church "recognizes" that there are other "less recognized" sacraments as well.

This statement is not entirely clear to me; and whether or not this "some" is referring to the Orthodox, or not, but as I stated earlier, I have never read of, nor heard about any jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church, during the first 500 years of her history, (a period which the Protestant Reformers universally recognize as the purest era of the Church, in terms of doctrine and practice,) that "formally" recognized and approved two "major" sacraments only; or denied the "sacramental" nature of the remaining five in question, whether one wishes to classify them as "major" or "minor" in nature. It goes without saying that I remain open to correction(s), but some evidence to back up said "corrections" would be helpful to the discussion. Thanks.

Father David Moser

19-07-2008, 08:05 PM

Since the discussion here has turned to the nature of sacraments in general I would like to share this excerpt from Protopresbyter Michael Pomozansky's text book on Dogmatic Theology (http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/dogmatics_pomazansky.htm):

The Mysteries or Sacraments.

The inward life of the Church is mystical (or sacramental). (The word "mysteries" (Greek mysteria) is the term used in the Orthodox East; "sacraments" (Latin sacramenta), the term used in the Latin West. Since the latter term was used in the West before the schism of the Roman Church, there is nothing wrong with its usage by Orthodox Christians of the West, especially since few people around them are familiar with the word "mysteries;" but Orthodox people often prefer to use the Greek term. The adjectival form "mystical," used in the East, has of course a rather different and more inward connotation than the Western adjective "sacramental," which refers more specifically to the outward rites of the Mysteries.) It does not at all coincide with the history of the Church, which shows us only the outward facts of the Church’s existence, and especially its coming into conflict with the life of the world and the passions of the world. The inward life of the Church is the mystical cooperation of Christ as the Head, with the Church as His Body, in the Holy Spirit, by means of all mutually strengthening ties: "This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church, instructs the Apostle" (Eph. 5:32).

Therefore when the Apostles called themselves "stewards of the mysteries of God," saying, "Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God" (1 Cor. 4:1, in Greek, oikonomous mysterion Theou), they have in mind various forms of their ministry and stewardship, as for example: a) preaching, b) the baptism of those who have come to believe, c) the bringing down of the Holy Spirit through ordination, d) the strengthening of the unity of the faithful with Christ through the Mystery of the Eucharist, and e) the further deepening of the hearts of the faithful in the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, the deepening of the more perfect among them in "the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom" (1 Cor. 2:6-7).

Thus the activity of the Apostles was full of mystical elements (mysterion). Among them the central or culminating place was occupied by sacred rites. Therefore it is entirely natural that in the Church’s life the series of special and most important moments of grace-given ministry, the series of sacred rites, gradually acquired preeminently the name of "mysteries." St. Ignatius the God-bearer, an immediate disciple of the Apostles, writes concerning deacons that they likewise are "servants of the mysteries of Jesus Christ" (Epistle to the Trallians, par. 2). These words of St. Ignatius overturn the assertion of Protestant historians that in the ancient Church the concept of "mysteries" or "sacraments" was supposedly never applied to the Church’s sacred rites.

The sacred rites called "mysteries" are, as it were, peaks in a long mountain range composed of the remaining rites and prayers of the Divine services.

In the Mysteries, prayers are joined with blessings in one form or another, and with special acts. The words of blessing accompanied by outward sacred acts are, as it were, spiritual vessels by which the grace of the Holy Spirit is scooped up and given to the members of the Church who are sincere believers.

Thus, "a mystery (sacrament) is a sacred act which under a visible aspect communicates to the soul of a believer the invisible grace of God."

The name of "mystery" has become established in the Church as referring to seven rites: Baptism, Chrismation, Communion (the Eucharist), Repentance, Priesthood, Matrimony, and Unction. (In the Orthodox East, one may say, seven is not regarded as the "absolute" number of the Mysteries, as it tends to be regarded in the Latin West. Most commonly, it is true, only seven Mysteries are spoken of, but certain other sacred rites, such as the monastic tonsure, might also be considered, informally, as "Mysteries.") The Longer Christian Catechism thus defines the essence of each Mystery:

"In Baptism man is mystically born into spiritual life. In Chrismation he receives grace which gives growth and strengthens. In Communion he is spiritually nourished. In Repentance he is healed of spiritual diseases (sins). In Priesthood he receives the grace spiritually to regenerate and nurture others, by means of teaching, prayer, and the Mysteries. In Matrimony he receives grace which sanctifies marriage and the natural birth-giving and upbringing of children. In Unction he is healed of diseases of the body by means of a healing of spiritual diseases."

For the life of the Church itself as a whole, both as Body of Christ and as the "courtyard of the flock of Christ," the following are especially important and stand in the chief place: a) the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ, or the Eucharist; b) the Mystery of the sanctification of chosen persons to the service of the Church in the degrees of the hierarchy, or ordination, which gives the indispensable structure of the Church; and together with these, c) the Mystery of Baptism, which sees to the increase of the numbers of the Church. But the other Mysteries also, which are appointed for the giving of grace to individual believers, are indispensable for the fullness of the life and sanctity of the Church itself.

One must distinguish the "efficacy" of the Mystery (that is, that in itself it is an authentic grace-giving power) from the "effectiveness" of the Mystery (that is, the extent to which one who receives the Mystery is vouchsafed its grace-giving power). The Mysteries are "means which unfailingly act by grace upon those who come to them," as is said in the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs. However, the fruitfulness of their reception by believers — their renewing and saving power — depends upon whether a man approaches the Mystery worthily. An unworthy reception of it can draw upon oneself not justification, but condemnation. Grace does not interfere with the freedom of man; it does not act upon him irresistibly. Often people, making use of the Mysteries of faith, do not receive from them that which they could give; for their hearts are not open to receive grace, or else they have not preserved the gifts of God which they have received. This is why it happens that baptized people not only do not fulfill the vows given by them or by their sponsors at baptism, and not only are deprived of the grace of God already given to them, but often, to their own spiritual perdition, they become the enemies of God, deniers, unbelievers, "apostates."

By these facts of life the dignity of the Mysteries is by no means decreased. The great attainments of sanctity, righteousness, the ranks of martyrs for the faith, confessors, ascetics and wonderworkers, who even on earth became "earthly angels and heavenly men" — attainments unheard of outside of true Christianity — are the action of the invisible grace of God, received in baptism and chrismation, kept warm through repentance and communion of the Holy Mysteries, and preserved in the humble and trembling awareness that in every Christian "Christ is the One Who fights and conquers, and He is the One Who calls on God and prays and gives thanks and is reverent, and seeks with entreaty and humility. All this Christ does, rejoicing and being glad when He sees that in each Christian there is and remains the conviction that Christ is He Who does all of this" (St. Symeon the New Theologian, Homily 4).

I believe that this speaks to some of the questions about the "number" of the sacraments as well as their place in the greater scheme of things (I especially like how he calls the sacraments "peaks in a long mountain range composed of the remaining rites and prayers of the Divine services.")

As this is already quite a long post, I will stop here and sesnd a separate post with some of Fr Michael' comments on confession.

Fr David Moser

Father David Moser

19-07-2008, 08:13 PM

Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky (in his text ) also speaks more specifically about each sacrament. Here are some of his comments about the sacrament of repentance (confession):

Repentance.

The Mystery of Repentance is a grace-giving sacred rite in which, after the faithful offer repentance of their sins, the remission of sins is bestowed by the mercy of God through the intermediary of a pastor of the Church, in accordance with the Saviour’s promise.

In the Mystery of Repentance the spiritual afflictions of a man are treated, impurities of soul are removed, and a Christian, having received forgiveness of sins, again becomes innocent and sanctified, just as he came out of the waters of Baptism. Therefore, the Mystery of Repentance is called a "spiritual medicine." One’s sins, which draw a man downward, which dull his mind, heart and conscience, which blind his spiritual gaze, which make powerless his Christian will — are annihilated, and one’s living bond with the Church and with the Lord God is restored. Being relieved of the burden of sins, a man again comes to life spiritually and becomes able to strengthen himself and become perfected in the good Christian path.

The Mystery of Repentance consists of two basic actions: 1) the confession of his sins before a pastor of the Church by the person coming to the Mystery; and 2) the prayer of forgiving and remitting them, pronounced by the priest.

This Mystery is also called the Mystery of Confession (even though the confession of sins comprises only the first, preliminary part of it), and this indicates the importance of the sincere revelation of one’s soul and the manifestation of one’s sins.

Confession — that is, pronouncing aloud — is the expression of inward repentance, its result, its indicator. And what is repentance? Repentance is not only awareness of one’s sinfulness or a simple acknowledgement of oneself as unworthy; it is not even contrition or regret (although all these aspects should enter into repentance). Rather, it is an act of one’s will for correction, a desire and firm intention, a resolve, to battle against evil inclinations; and this condition of soul is united with a petition for God’s help in the battle against one’s evil inclinations. Such a heartfelt and sincere repentance is necessary so that the effect of this Mystery might extend not only to the removal of sins, but so that there might also enter the opened soul a grace-giving healing which does not allow the soul again to become immersed in the filth of sin.

The very uttering aloud of one’s spiritual afflictions and falls before a spiritual father — the confession of sins — has the significance that by means of it there are overcome a) pride, the chief source of sins, and b) the despondency of hopelessness in one’s correction and salvation. The manifestation of the sin brings one already near to casting it away from oneself.

Those who approach the Mystery of Repentance prepare themselves for it by an effort of prayer, fasting, and entering deeply within themselves, with the aim of uncovering and acknowledging their sinfulness.

The mercy of God goes out to meet the repenting Christian, testifying, through the lips of the spiritual father, that the Heavenly Father does not reject one who comes to Him, just as He did not reject the prodigal son and the repentant publican. This testimony consists in the words of the special prayer and the special words of remission which are pronounced by the priest.

Note the comments concerning the significance of confessing aloud before the spiritual father/priest. In this section he is using the term "spiritual father" to denote a person of priestly rank. Further on in his chapter he talks about spiritual guidance from a spiritual father who is not necessarily a priest.

One must distinguish from the Mystery of Confession the moral guidance of a spiritual father, something widespread in antiquity and now in use especially among monastics. Often this is fulfilled by persons who are not consecrated, that is, who do not have the priestly rank, when upon them lies the duty of guiding their spiritual children. The confession of one’s thoughts and acts before a spiritual guide has an immense psychological significance in the sense of moral upbringing, for the correction of evil inclinations and habits, the overcoming of doubts and waverings, and so forth. But such spiritual guidance does not have the significance of a Mystery of a grace-giving sacred action.

Fr David Moser

Herman Blaydoe

19-07-2008, 08:32 PM

Well, it appears I may not have articulated my thought(s) in the clearest possible manner. I guess what I was really trying to say is that membership in the Orthodox Church ultimately requires a formal confession and acceptance of seven "major" sacraments; and nothing less.

Not to be coy but no. I am not sure why you are trying to get legalistic here, but there is nothing in the Creed that says anything about SEVEN and only SEVEN sacraments. Yes, we believe there are AT LEAST seven, but as Father has shown, the actual number turns out to be a "mystery". I know it tends to drive some Roman Catholics crazy, but we Orthodox don't worry too much about figuring things out to the nth degree or defining things so rigidly. I have yet to see anything by any Orthodox theologian of note saying that exactness is a virtue. Sorry if that is irksome, but it is what it is, at least to this bear of little brain.

And if anything I have posted is in conflict with Fr. David's posts, I gladly acquiesce.

Herman the Pooh

Ken McRae

19-07-2008, 09:54 PM

I have yet to see anything by any Orthodox theologian of note saying that exactness is a virtue.

Gen. 17:1 - "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect."

Matt. 5:48 - "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Eph. 5:15 - "See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise."

The term "circumspectly," as employed by St. Paul, is a synonym for "exactly" or "precisely;" the Apostle, then, exhorts us to walk "exactly," or "precisely," which accords fully with Gen 17:1 and Matt. 5:48, to name but two other scriptures within the same vein of teaching.

I am not sure why you are trying to get legalistic here,

To me there appears to be a world of difference between being "perfect," as commanded by Moses, Christ and the Apostle; and being 'legalistic', as you style it; but to answer your question, it is because I know only too well that many Protestants argue and firmly believe that the Church, prior to the First Ecumenical Council, recognized and administered just two sacraments, (regardless of whether one chooses to define them as "major" or "minor",) and this based, in part, upon their erroneous reading and interpretation of some Patristic writings.

Andreas Moran

19-07-2008, 10:53 PM

I would suggest that a coronation rite is a sacrament. The coronation of monarchs here cannot count as an Orthodox rite since the schism but the rite devised by St Dunstan (+AD 988) (and used for the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II who, we might remember, is the anointed sovereign of all the UK, Canadian and Australian members on this site) was modelled on the rite for the coronation of Byzantine emperors. If the news is correct that the Patriarch of Georgia is to announce who will be king of Georgia soon, we may see such a rite.

By the way, in liturgies in Canada and Australia, is Her Majesty the Queen prayed for as head of state? She is, after all, Queen of Canada and of Australia (and of several other countries besides) quite independently of her position as Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Matthew Panchisin

20-07-2008, 03:48 PM

Dear Ken,

I would tell the OCA website that there is for centuries now a rather strong tradition within the Orthodox Church of monastics in the desert simply making the sign of the cross to drive away the demons. I sincerely doubt that they saw or thought that such an action was a minor sacrament
when the hoards of demons disappeared and they ceased being attacked.

Surely it would be a major sacrament for them irrespective of what the GOARCH and the OCA websites have to say, as understood by others?

How long would you last in the desert if you got that one wrong as you consider it to be in the minor league?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Matthew Panchisin

20-07-2008, 08:02 PM

Dear Ken,

My present tendency is to think the Orthodox Church, in her purity, does nothing "arbitrarily," strictly speaking, but is guided in all her actions by her own Living Tradition.

Now, the OCA website makes the distinction between "major" and "minor" sacraments, which is a similar distinction made in formal RC theology. Concerning the "so-called" nine sacraments of the OCA, the OCA website makes the following brief, but important qualifications: 01) "The funeral service in the Orthodox Church, although not considered as specifically sacramental, belongs among the special liturgical rites of the People of God." 02) "Although not considered as one of the sacraments of the Church since it is not essential to the Christian life as such and is not a necessary element for the very existence of God's People, monasticism has played an important role in Christian history and is highly valued by the Orthodox Church."

Nevertheless Ken, we can still see the serpent still has a head and a underbelly, both move around together. The idea of 7 sacraments is rather new coming from western Christian thinking it seems.
If it is accepted in Orthodoxy I suppose our bishops and theologians will have to make several adjustments. I'm not so sure why it is important for them to go that way though.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with saying there are 7 chief sacraments but saying such should not reduce the significance of the other sacraments (I would be uncomfortable calling them sacramentals or lessor sacraments) hence my mentioning the importance of the sign of the cross, a motion that is part of everyday Orthodox Christian life, to each his own?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

M.C. Steenberg

20-07-2008, 08:46 PM

Dear friends,

For those who wish to discuss further the question of the nature of the sacraments, and in particular that question of 'seven sacraments' (or other numbers), might I suggest visiting one of the threads that exists here in the Discussion Community on such themes, and carrying on the discussion there. The most obviously relevant thread is:

'Seven sacraments' (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1637) - 22 posts

Let us reserve the present thread for its topic: the question of forgiveness, confession and priesthood.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Olga

21-07-2008, 01:09 AM

It is simple really.

God forgives us to teach us to forgive each other.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

A small post, but perfectly formed. Well done!

Olga

21-07-2008, 01:18 AM

By the way, in liturgies in Canada and Australia, is Her Majesty the Queen prayed for as head of state? She is, after all, Queen of Canada and of Australia (and of several other countries besides) quite independently of her position as Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Andreas, it varies from church to church, though in my experience the most common petition is a generic one, along the lines of "for this land, its authorities and armed forces", without being more specific. One priest I know who conducts English-language services uses the following petition, which is rather good: "For our sovereign the Queen, the parliaments and people of this Commonwealth".

Ken McRae

23-07-2008, 06:38 PM

If it is accepted in Orthodoxy I suppose our bishops and theologians will have to make several adjustments.

As will we all, I might add.

At the end of the day, I fully realize and accept that I know nothing, but that which has been freely given me to know; and if that amounts to nothing, then it is no one's fault but my own. But this one other thing I know, (or am deluded into thinking so,) is that the Orthodox Church receives nothing but that which she has always known to be her own universally received and living tradition, from the beginning.

The fact that she has universally recognized and defined "at least" seven sacraments, (among the undefined body or number of other Orthodox rites,) is proof to me that she believes these seven are universally received apostolic traditions; and to some extent even critical to the life, order and unity of all her many parts; in every part of the world.

In other words, I do not believe she would join herself to any "other" communion that did not formally recognize and approve the universal administration of "at least" seven sacraments; and specifically those seven which she herself has formally recognized and received as apostolic traditions. In other words, it is highly unlikely she will receive anyone into her communion who rejects any of her "seven" sacraments.

Would she, for example, take communion with anyone who did not formally recognize and receive the sacrament of holy orders? It is unlikely, if not completely unthinkable. And so, from this I would say these "seven" sacraments are completely "non-negotiable" apostolic traditions, received from the beginning, in one form or another, as Herman intimated earlier. Seven absolutely essential sacraments, though, and completely non-negotiable, in terms of their universal acceptance.

Anything beyond these "seven" seems to be negotiable, based on how I'm reading (understanding) this thread. That seems to imply that while a majority of her members might believe in a specific number higher than seven, there is no universality in any number beyond these "seven," in question. That these seven specifically are universally received is proof of their apostolic origin.

That these "seven" are of apostolic origin would seem to disprove the claim of a scholastic (or medieval) origin, in terms of the actual number of "seven" itself. Perhaps that scholastic convention was more in terms of limiting the total number to seven only. However, I wish to carefully distinguish that from the fact of the undisputed and universal recognition of these "seven" as authentic apostolic traditions, instituted and exercised, in one form or another, from the beginning. They are her Living Tradition.