Posted on 12/31/2008 10:32:22 AM PST by NYer
CAIRO - Egypt's Coptic pope has banned the faithful from confessing their sins to priests over the telephone because intelligence agents might be listening in, a newspaper reported on Friday."Confessions over the telephone are forbidden, because there is a chance the telephones are monitored and the confessions will reach state security," the independent Al-Masri Al-Yom quoted Pope Shenuda III as saying.
The leader of the Coptic minority also said confessions over the Internet were invalid because they might be read by websurfers.
"A confession over the Internet does not count as a confession, because everybody can look at it and it won't be secret," he said.
The Catholic Church's reasons for not allowing confessions over distances is rooted in her sacramental theology. Every Sacrament is a personal encounter with the Lord in and through the person of the minister. In the Gospels every act of forgiveness was personal with the person present to him (with healing this was not always so.)
The type of reasoning above overlooks the fact that a confessional booth could be bugged and there was the case where a sacramental confession heard in prison was taped. In those cases of listening in would certainly not invalidate the confession, though it is certainly sinful and those people would be bound by the seal of confession. The same goes for an especially loud penitent when you can accidentally overhear a confession while waiting in line, in that case you would be bound to the seal of confession.
The sacrament of confession, also practiced by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, is normally a very private conversation between penitent and priest.
Unlike Roman Catholic confessions, Coptic confessions are done face to face.
Well actually Catholics can confess face to face also, though they always have the right to confess anonymously behind a protective screen.
Coptic Patriarch Anba Morcos said that people have begun to phone in their confessions.
"It's a new thing; it's been happening for the past four or five years," he said.
That is rather odd that the question is just being addressed now. The Catholic Church answered the question shortly after the telephone was invented. Some people wondered again about this after the internet became popular, but the questions was really already answered. It is not about something being overheard or spied upon because you could use PGP encryption on both ends via email and have a higher chance of security than inside of a confessional. Confession like all of the sacraments is a personal encounter with Christ .
Morcos added that Pope Shenuda has also banned monks in Coptic monasteries from using cell phones.
Of course any personal telephone including a landline the monk used would be "cell" phone by definition.
Ping!
“Every Sacrament is a personal encounter with the Lord in and through the person of the minister.”
From an Orthodox pov, that is very, very bad theology but it does explain to an extent the ecclesiology of the Roman Catholic Church.
“Confession like all of the sacraments is a personal encounter with Christ.”
NYer, with all due respect, this deserves a “Barf Alert”.
What would you consider good theology?
NYer, the priest is not an Alter Christus though as the representative of the bishop in a parish, his presence signifies the presence of Christ. Whatever is done “by” a priest is in fact done through the power of the Holy Spirit. For example, in confession, the priest is the witness of the liturgical community to the confession and by virtue of ordination and experience he may counsel and guide the penitent. He does not forgive the sins of the Penitent, God does as is clear in the rubrics of confession in the Orthodox Church.
To call a sacrament a “personal encounter with the Lord” is modernist psycho-babble and basically denies the reality of theosis on the one hand and the fallen nature of this world on the other.
Of course it is God that forgives the sin but it is through the instrumentality of the priest as is clear from Sacred Scripture:
He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.The priest is more than a witness of the liturgical community but the instrumental means by which God forgive sins.
John 20:21-23
“The priest is more than a witness of the liturgical community but the instrumental means by which God forgive sins.”
Is that why the Roman priest asserts that it is HE who forgives the penitent’s sins, because he is a mere instrument of God? You know that isn’t true. The Roman priest says “I absolve you”, not God absolves you through me. This claim of power is the equivalent of the similar claim of the Roman Church that its priests rather than the Holy Spirit actually change the bread and wine on the altar into the Body and Blood of Christ. Unfortunately, these claims of super natural powers make those men look more like magicians than priests and supplicants before God.
In any event, the role of the priest is made clear in the rubrics for confession in the Orthodox Church. At the very beginning the priest says to the penitent:
“My brother, inasmuch as you have come to God and to me, be not ashamed, for you speak NOT TO ME, BUT TO GOD, before whom you stand.”
When the penitent has finished his confession, the priest says:
“”My spiritual child, who has confessed to my humble self, I, humble and a sinner, have NOT power on earth to forgive sins, but God alone (etc)”
The priest is an icon of Christ, but not an Alter Christus, much less Christ Himself. Christ is the head of The Church and His ministry within The Church is accomplished through the priests and bishops. The priest has no autonomous power at all.
That Absolvo te of the Western confession seems to me to be the height of spiritual arrogance. As I said earlier, why would a mere instrument say that?
Here’s a link to a surprisingly good article on confession from the GOA website:
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8493
And here is one to a relatively common set of rubrics for confession:
http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/spoer1930/07.html
You wrote:
“From an Orthodox pov, that is very, very bad theology...this deserves a “Barf Alert”.”
Really?
Greek Orthodox: “The mysteries ... introduce us continuously and in various ways to the transforming power of God, which communicates salvation, i.e., the cure of our fallen humanity and “the elimination of the germ of mortality.” In them we encounter Christ, in order to be Christ. We enter upon a decisively new reality: in Christ we learn to become fully conscious of what it really means to be human. Encountering God, we also see the power of evil, whose force invades, pervades and distorts the image of God in us. Allied with Christ, we share in his victory over sin and death; the power of divine love overcomes evil in us and makes us a new into children of God and heirs of his Kingdom.” http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7106
“The Role of the Sacraments:
We must further emphasize the role and purpose of the holy sacraments in attaining spirituality. In the sacraments, we receive divine grace, and in the case of the holy Eucharist, Christ himself, who aids us in waging war successfully against the satanic powers. As Fr. Sergius Bulgakov says: “The heart of Orthodoxy lies in its rites.” All the Orthodox rites and sacraments are meant to combat the powers of evil. The sacramental life of the Church is the chief means toward the attainment of spirituality and of ultimate salvation.” http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith9284
The Eucharist for the Orthodox is “Our personal encounter with the living Christ” http://www.goyouth.org.au/downloads/cyc/Catechism5.pdf
“Fr. Hilarion foregrounds St Symeon’s sacramentalism, for his was not an individualistic ‘mysticism’ in the modern sense, nor a neo-charismatic anti-sacramentalism. Christians who read this book belonging to present-day forms of ‘charismatic’ revivalism may, however, be struck to find St Symeon speaking of a ‘Second Baptism’. This is very audacious language indeed for a Father of the Orthodox Church, where it is axiomatic that there can be but One Baptism. To understand this in an Orthodox sense, Fr Hilarion argues that St Symeon, whilst never doubting the efficacy of the sacraments, wanted to stress as much as possible that sacramental life involves a personal encounter with Christ, something awesome and life-changing.”
http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/8_1
Maybe this idea is wider spread in Orthodox than we know?
The first two quotes are right on the money. This:
““Our personal encounter with the living Christ””
and this:
“Fr Hilarion argues that St Symeon, whilst never doubting the efficacy of the sacraments, wanted to stress as much as possible that sacramental life involves a personal encounter with Christ, something awesome and life-changing.””
however, also deserve a “barf alert”. Met. Hillarion (not “Father”)is a fine theologian and musical composer. He is a known authority on +Symeon the New Theologian. I find it difficult to credit that he uses the phrase “personal encounter with Christ”; its too Protestant and modernist but he is a Russian so who knows?
Happy New Year, Vlad! :)
Happy New Year!
Please do not presume to tell me what I know to be true or not true. The full formula is: "I absolve you of your sins IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT." As a lawyer I would think that you would understand the significance of these words, the priest acting as the agent of God.
That Absolvo te of the Western confession seems to me to be the height of spiritual arrogance. As I said earlier, why would a mere instrument say that?
Why, because that is the language with which our Lord described the sacrament:
Whose sins YOU SHALL FORGIVE, they are forgiven them; and whose sins YOU SHALL RETAIN, they are retained.ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀφέωνται αὐτοῖς, ἄν τινων κρατῆτε κεκράτηνται.
“As a lawyer I would think that you would understand the significance of these words, the priest acting as the agent of God.”
Because I am a lawyer I can tell you that your understanding of agency is incorrect. Stick with “instrument”, especially a non-autonomous instrument. Christ’s words are clear. The priest does not effectuate the forgiveness, God does. Christ’s sacramental ministry is accomplished through His Church acting by her the priests. Or is it your claim that God is bound by the action of a Roman Catholic priest, His “agent”?
If it were not God the Father who is significant in forgiving our sin, i.e. the forgiver, who by the Son all judgment has been given, wouldn't Scripture have been better expressed to eliminate this possibility? For example, it might still be true that God forgives those sins, which have also been forgiven by His bride, and if His bride does not forgive them, then He retains them. Meanwhile, our confession is to God, through faith in Christ by 1st John 1:9. When we turn back to God (repentance) and confess our known and unknown sin to Him, He is sure and just to forgive us that sin. I understand there might be multiple liabilities involved, between numerous persons in our trespasses, so it is still important to return to fellowship with fellow believers after we sin, where our sin may have caused disruption in the body. But our priority would still be with our relationship with God first before our relationship with other people. I tend to concur with Kolokotronis, in that our confession to return to fellowship with God is performed by God. Meanwhile, when Christ forgave sins, it was well understood by His fellow Jews that such forgiveness only came from God, not by man, but this might touch on the doctrine of kenosis, where Christ forgave our sins in His humanity, and where it was righteous justice and holy, God the Father also forgave those sins prior to the Ascension and Session.\ Is there anything in Scripture used by Catholicism to more formally express the meaning of the quoted Scripture? I still see it possible that the Divine forgiveness is still retained by God and if by man, only by the Son to whom all judgment has been given.
If it were not God the Father who is significant in forgiving our sin, i.e. the forgiver, who by the Son all judgment has been given, wouldn't Scripture have been better expressed to eliminate this possibility?
For example, it might still be true that God forgives those sins, which have also been forgiven by His bride, and if His bride does not forgive them, then He retains them.
Meanwhile, our confession is to God, through faith in Christ by 1st John 1:9. When we turn back to God (repentance) and confess our known and unknown sin to Him, He is sure and just to forgive us that sin.
I understand there might be multiple liabilities involved, between numerous persons in our trespasses, so it is still important to return to fellowship with fellow believers after we sin, where our sin may have caused disruption in the body. But our priority would still be with our relationship with God first before our relationship with other people.
I tend to concur with Kolokotronis, in that our confession to return to fellowship with God is performed by God. Meanwhile, when Christ forgave sins, it was well understood by His fellow Jews that such forgiveness only came from God, not by man, but this might touch on the doctrine of kenosis, where Christ forgave our sins in His humanity, and where it was righteous justice and holy, God the Father also forgave those sins prior to the Ascension and Session.
Is there anything in Scripture used by Catholicism to more formally express the meaning of the quoted Scripture? I still see it possible that the Divine forgiveness is still retained by God and if by man, only by the Son to whom all judgment has been given.
And who is saying that the priest is acting in an autonomous manner? For the sacrament to be valid the absolution of the priest must be accompanied by the contrition, confession and satisfaction on the part of the penitent. In thus offering absolution to such a penitent the priest is fulfilling the will of God.
Christ’s words are clear.
Christ's words are clear indeed. What is unclear is why anyone would object to the priest saying that he is forgiving sin in the name of God when our Lord describes sins being forgiven when the priest himself forgives sins. Is it your position that the action of the priest has no effect in the sacrament?
“Is it your position that the action of the priest has no effect in the sacrament?”
Beyond being an instrument of The Church and so of Christ? If so, yes. There is nothing about his priestly ordination which makes him uniquely the source of God’s forgiveness nor of the the grace we receive by the sacraments. There is absolutely nothing any priest or other spiritual father can do to transmit or not transmit God’s uncreated energies, so he can have no effect on any sacrament. Priests are not gate keepers to God. Can his presence and actions have an effect on the sufficiency of the penitent’s confession? Of course. The Church has determined that his, or in the rare case her, presence is usually necessary.
I meant to add a Happy and Blessed New Year to you, P! :)
Back to you. But how sad are we if this is how we spend New Year’s Eve, arguing about theology?
“My brother, inasmuch as you have come to God and to me, be not ashamed, for you speak NOT TO ME, BUT TO GOD, before whom you stand.”
When the penitent has finished his confession, the priest says:
“”My spiritual child, who has confessed to my humble self, I, humble and a sinner, have NOT power on earth to forgive sins, but God alone (etc)”
…
That Absolvo te of the Western confession seems to me to be the height of spiritual arrogance. As I said earlier, why would a mere instrument say that?
It would seem that not all, not even the majority, Orthodox would agree with you. From The Great Book of Needs used by the Russian Orthodox:
May our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, by the grace and compassion of His love for mankind, forgive you, child, N., all your transgression; and I, an unworthy Priest, through His power given unto me, forgive you and absolve you from all your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Sorry, but this contradicts what our Lord said. Remember that our Lord said that the priest has the power to retains sin as well as forgive. Additionally, is not the action of the priest/bishop necessary for the sacraments of the Eucharist and ordination to Holy Orders?
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.