Posted on 06/02/2008 8:01:12 PM PDT by annalex
Of course the thread is open: I chose it to be so. I simply explained that I have no interest in empty banter, will not respond to it, and urge others not to respond.
Alex
What's another word for thesaurus?
Steven Wright
“Does the Orthodox penitent know that his sin has been absolved, or is he left woandering if God heard the absolution prayer and agreed with it?”
I’ll find the non Russian rubrics and post them.
“In what way, do you think, Alter Christus is different than Icon of Christ?”
In the same way that an Icon of Christ is not “another” Christ. The whole Alter Christus concept seems a dangerous one to me and perhaps, though I hadn’t thought of this before, may explain in part the profoundly different attitudes towards the clergy and hierarchy we see between Orthodox and Latin Christians.
But the priest couldn't possibly know the true state of my heart and God isn't speaking to him and telling him to forgive or not.
I know this is true because of all the times in 5th and 6th grade we herded into lines at the confessionals and went through the motions. "Bless me Father for I have sinned.....I was mean to my brother three (dozen) times....I lied to my parents twice..." etc, etc.
Sometimes my heart was in the right place, sometimes I was bored out of my mind and just was hereded along like a sheep.
Never, never, never would it have occured to me to excuse myself from confession because I wasn't spiritually ready and I never saw any of the hundreds of other kids excuse themselves either or come out of the confessional in tears and horror for not being forgiven. I shudder to think of the wrath of Sister E. Marie unleashed on such a child.
And believe me, we compared notes. We eventually worked out the formula for penance, which varied from priest to priest and seemd to be harsher for boys
It would be good to dig into this some day.
If one asked me how Latin priests are different I'd say, celibacy. That naturally elevates the priest in the mind of the flock. I don't think "icon of Christ" is any different than "another Christ".
My intuitive understanding of it is that so long as the penitent does not deliberately lie about the sin, his contrition, or about his purpose of amendment, the sin is actually forgiven by God if and when the priest absolves, or not forgiven if he does not absolve. It is the same principle as with the Holy Eucharist: it becomes the Body, Blood and Divinity of Christ when the priest validly proclaims the Institution (Epiclesis in the East) regardless of the disposition of the priest or the communicant, but it confers grace on the communicant if he is properly disposed.
I am pinging a few among the many who know more than I on the subject, to correct me if I am wrong.
Certainly. It has its counterpart in Orthodox monasticism (hieromonks), and episcopacy. But, the point is that the Christ Himself and the Church He left behind never required it. It's a Pauline innovation.
Celibacy is no guarantee of anyone's character, intentions or likeness to Christ. But in and of itself, it is no different than Pharisaical demonstrations of piety.
Celibacy is what we call a discipline, as opposed to a dogma. In principle it can change, and there are exceptions even now. I don’t think it shoul or will ever change though. The article does a good job explaining the basics of it.
It is a sacrifice that the celibate priest makes. If he did not make it, — for example, he is of an Eastern rite, or is a married convert ordained under the “pastoral provision”, — he is still a priest all the same. Like any sacrificial giving it is no guarantee of anything, just like you say. But in our age especially it is a blessing to have a celibate priest minister to adolescents and, to that matter, adults, as it is a visible direct and complete example of sexual continence, that a married parent can be only in part.
If everyone were to become celibate what would that do to Christanity. It would literally die out. I think a married priests who serves as a role model to the young that they should wait until they are married is much more realistic. And to those who are married, that being faithful only to one wife is kepeing marriage as a sacrament. And to the parents, that placing God ahead of everything, including family, is the disicipline to follow.
You speak of self-sacrifice in celbiacy as if waiting, keeping and putting God first isn't. Like everything else we don't go around announcing that we are fasting so that others may see how devout we are. This is something between us and God. It should not be the subject of public admiration.
The answer is yes, he does. Te priest will tell the penitent that the priest has been given the authority to inform the penitent that his sins have been absolved by God.
Kosta, please... If everyone were to become Orthodox Bishop or monk, what would that do to Christianity?
Celibacy is one sacrifice among many. The question was, what if anything sets Latin priesthood apart? "Absolvo te" doesn't -- as we've seen the meaning is the same as in the East, but celibacy, possibly, does. This is all there is to it.
Very well; therefore, the Orthodox priest does make a decision to absolve or not that is efficacious; whether he verbalizes it with "absolvo te" or with some other language, or not at all, is a secondary matter.
It is not like "filioque" where the procession of the Holy Ghost is a real theological contention. It is more like the Orthodox epiclesis as opposed to the Catholic institution where the form is different but the theology is the same, and the supernatural effect is the same.
“It is more like the Orthodox epiclesis as opposed to the Catholic institution where the form is different but the theology is the same, and the supernatural effect is the same. “
I am wondering how correct this really is, in some of the corners I mean. There was a very interesting post here on FR just the other day in this regard, which frankly may merit its own thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2024026/posts?page=102#102
In the Eastern model of the Eucharist (originating with the Orthodox, and shared to some extent by the Reformed, some Evangelical Anglicans, e.g., Thomas Cranmer and John Jewel, Methodists via John Wesley), the Holy Spirit exercises a distinct mission since the ascension of Christ to the right hand of the Father. The celebrant represents the worshiping community (acting in persona ecclesiae). The Son is at the right hand of the Father and is made mediately present through the invocation of the Holy Spirit, who descends on both people and gifts as a result of the epiclesis, the request for the Holy Spirit to make the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ and to sanctify both the elements and the community.
“I haven’t got the strength to read it all.”
Find it. Its worth the read and then thinking about it.
“How accurate is this with respect to the Orthodox?”
I think it is remarkably if not completely accurate, considering the source. The priest certainly is at a certain level representing the people in the Eucharistic Community in his liturgical role and as the representative of the bishop he is also an Icon Of Christ. The description of the epiklesis is a good one and is eminently Trinitarian.
“the request for the Holy Spirit to make the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ and to sanctify both the elements and the community.”
This is almost exactly the prayer of the priest at the epiklesis.
As you may have noticed, Alex, I have felt that true Anglicans are surprisingly Orthodox in certain aspects of their theology, more so even than most Latins of the past 1000 years. In that sense I think they have preserved pieces of the original Orthodoxy of the very early Church of Britain and Scotland. It may be that this “Orthodox race memory” explains in part the ease with which most converts from Anglicanism to Orthodoxy make the transition.
I learn by arguing, so I encourage Huber to post this as an "ecumenical" thread.
The opening paragraph, especially the one I cited, grokked it for me. That is indeed a significant difference in understanding of the Liturgy and therefore priesthood. I wasn't aware of this.
“That is indeed a significant difference in understanding of the Liturgy and therefore priesthood.”
Maybe not so different after all. As the priest offering the sacrifice to God the priest is acting, at some removal, in the role of Christ as the High Priest. Remember that in Orthodoxy, the Liturgy is very, very much a Christianized Temple ceremony and so in that context the role of the priest is indeed somewhat different from the common perceptions in the Latin Church and yet if he is looked at as an Icon of Christ the Hogh Priest, not so different. And the invocation of the HS to effect the change in the bread and the wine is very consistent with Christ’s own promises about sending the HS, etc.
Huber...start a thread!
Oh, I very much agree that these eucharistic theologies are compatible, or else one of us would not have a valid Eucharist, but that explains why “alter Christus” is not the same as “icon of Christ” acting “in persona ecclesiae”.
Note that the liturgy ad orientem brings the two closer. Another instance where Vatican II innovations, despite the best intentions, drove the Churches further apart.
I have a slightly different theory. Anglicanism has often had an element of the academy and of studying the classics. Many of Rome's strongest intellectuals (Cardinal Newman and Christopher Dawson are two examples) have also had an Anglican origin. Orthodox theology has very strongly incorporated the intellectual tradition of classical Greece, and it is this marriage of both intellect and tradition that is culturally appealing to many Anglicans, as is also Scholaticism (K - I know that you shudder at the thought!)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.