Eastern Catholic vs. Roman Catholic views

[DJLake]

? So tell me, do Western Catholics refrain from saying prayers like the “Hail Mary” (“pray for us sinners”), the Confiteor (“through my fault, through my fault, through my most grevious fault”), the Memorare (“to thee do we come, before thee we stand, sinful and sorrowful”), etc., after going to Confession, because hey, you’re no longer aware of having committed any sins so the words don’t apply to you any more?

Roman Catholics do indeed say these prayers, but there is a difference between acknowledging a general state of sinfulness which takes into account all past sins, and accusing oneself of a particular sin within a partciular interval of time, usually a short time between confessions if one confesses frequently.

 

[theistgal]

Roman Catholics do indeed say these prayers, but there is a difference between acknowledging a general state of sinfulness which takes into account all past sins, and accusing oneself of a particular sin within a partciular interval of time, usually a short time between confessions if one confesses frequently.

Bingo, that “general state of sinfulness” is exactly what the Eastern Catholics are talking about. Congratulations, now go outside and enjoy the fresh air and sunshine for a while!

 

[jcld]

Yes, we are all sinners, but I’m talking about a particular interval of time in which, it is possible to be unaware of having committed a particular sin.

Do you mean this portion of the Confiteor ?

The Confiteor

“I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned
in my thoughts
and in my words,
in what I have done,
and what I have failed to do.
through my fault,
through my fault,
through my most grievous fault,
therefore, I ask blessed Mary ever virgin,
all the angels and saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters
to pray for me to the Lord, our God.”

ALSO… during the examination of conscience every end of the day
Source : “The Handbook of Prayers by Socias & Belmonte”

“Short Examination of Conscience”
Make a short examination of conscience before going to rest at night. Two or three minutes are enough. Follow these steps:

1. (Humble yourself) in the presence of God. Tell him: “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.”
2. (Ask for light) to acknowledge your defects and virtues, and to see the dangers and good occasions surrounding you. Ask for repentance, amendment and encouragement.
3. (Examine) your conscience briefly on these points:

• What have I done wrong? With God, with my neighbor, with myself?
• What have I done right?
• What could I have done better?

1. (Sorrow.) Ask pardon from our Lord. Tell him: “A contrite and humber heart, O God, you will not despise” or “Lord, you know all things, you know that I love you.” You may say the Act of Contrition, the Confiteor, or Psalm 50 (Miserere).
2. (Resolution.) Make a very concrete resolution for tomorrow.

• avoid some specific faults
• staying away from danger
• exerting special effort to practice some virtue
• taking advantage of some occasion of improvement.

 

[jcld]

Bingo, that “general state of sinfulness” is exactly what the Eastern Catholics are talking about. Congratulations, now go outside and enjoy the fresh air and sunshine for a while!

Cool man ! Well folks… that goes to show Mysticism wins this bout over Pragmatism… Mysticism has something that Pragmatism does not… Indeed the other way around may also be true hehehehehe That makes (both) Mysticism and Pragmatism fill-in for what the other may lack … Hence, complementing each other in the end

 

[Filii_Dei]

Do you mean this portion of the Confiteor ?

The Confiteor

“I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned
in my thoughts
and in my words,
in what I have done,
and what I have failed to do.
through my fault,
through my fault,
through my most grievous fault,
therefore, I ask blessed Mary ever virgin,
all the angels and saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters
to pray for me to the Lord, our God.”

As much as I am inclined to agree with theistgal on the perspective of sin, this particular line in the Confiteor is not proper evidence for it. It refers to a sin of inaction, as opposed to a sin of action, not whether it was consciously or unconsciously done. One can actively perform a sin and not be aware of it, which actually fits “in what I have done” more than “what I have failed to do”.

ALSO… during the examination of conscience every end of the day
Source : “The Handbook of Prayers by Socias & Belmonte”

“Short Examination of Conscience”
Make a short examination of conscience before going to rest at night. Two or three minutes are enough. Follow these steps:

1. (Humble yourself) in the presence of God. Tell him: “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.”
2. (Ask for light) to acknowledge your defects and virtues, and to see the dangers and good occasions surrounding you. Ask for repentance, amendment and encouragement.
3. (Examine) your conscience briefly on these points:

• What have I done wrong? With God, with my neighbor, with myself?
• What have I done right?
• What could I have done better?

1. (Sorrow.) Ask pardon from our Lord. Tell him: “A contrite and humber heart, O God, you will not despise” or “Lord, you know all things, you know that I love you.” You may say the Act of Contrition, the Confiteor, or Psalm 50 (Miserere).
2. (Resolution.) Make a very concrete resolution for tomorrow.

• avoid some specific faults
• staying away from danger
• exerting special effort to practice some virtue
• taking advantage of some occasion of improvement.

An examination of conscience is a process of recollection to recall and identify sins which one can at least remember doing. The person must either remember the sin or have it recorded in some part of one’s memory, and the examination of conscience then seeks to recall and bring it to the front of our consciousness. While it helps to list sins that one may actually or potentially remember, it is not useful as evidence that a person may commit sin if they are unaware of it in any way, shape or form. After all, it fundamentally requires the person to have been aware of it in order for them to remember it.

Cool man ! Well folks… that goes to show Mysticism wins this bout over Pragmatism… Mysticism has something that Pragmatism does not… Indeed the other way around may also be true hehehehehe That makes (both) Mysticism and Pragmatism fill-in for what the other may lack … Hence, complementing each other in the end

You’re a very happy person, aren’t you.

 

[DJLake]

As much as I am inclined to agree with theistgal on the perspective of sin, this particular line in the Confiteor is not proper evidence for it. It refers to a sin of inaction, as opposed to a sin of action, not whether it was consciously or unconsciously done. One can actively perform a sin and not be aware of it, which actually fits “in what I have done” more than “what I have failed to do”.

An examination of conscience is a process of recollection to recall and identify sins which one can at least remember doing. The person must either remember the sin or have it recorded in some part of one’s memory, and the examination of conscience then seeks to recall and bring it to the front of our consciousness. While it helps to list sins that one may actually or potentially remember, it is not useful as evidence that a person may commit sin if they are unaware of it in any way, shape or form. After all, it fundamentally requires the person to have been aware of it in order for them to remember it.

You’re a very happy person, aren’t you.

Yes, this is what I am saying. In the Western tradition, I am unaware of unknown sins. Perhaps these are objective sins for which someone may not be held accountable or incur guilt due to ignorance?

 

[theistgal]

Well look, we’re probably all missing a major point here, which is that AFAIK, in neither the Eastern nor the Western church are you REQUIRED to go to confession, unless you’re aware of a sin that needs to be absolved.

You’re ENCOURAGED to go more often than that but whether you do or not is entirely up to you.

If you want to go on a regular basis, say once a week, then you’re going to have the problem set out by the OP, that of always having “matter” (i.e. specific sins) to confess.

If this is becoming a problem, perhaps you should just go once every two weeks, or once a month.

Though I don’t know about you but whenever I go to confession on a Saturday afternoon, by the time I fight the weekend traffic and then stand in line for half an hour waiting my turn, I have plenty of “matter”.

 

[Aramis]

Well look, we’re probably all missing a major point here, which is that AFAIK, in neither the Eastern nor the Western church are you REQUIRED to go to confession, unless you’re aware of a sin that needs to be absolved.

There is a requirement in most Byzantine churches that you go to confession at least twice a year - during Lent or the Easter season, and during St. Phillip’s Fast (Advent).

It is capital T Tradition.

 

[theistgal]

There is a requirement in most Byzantine churches that you go to confession at least twice a year - during Lent or the Easter season, and during St. Phillip’s Fast (Advent).

It is capital T Tradition.

Really? No one told me that and I’ve been going to a Byzantine church for almost 7 years. I really don’t think it’s “capital T Tradition”.

It is a requirement that EVERY Catholic (not just Byzantines) receive Holy Communion at least once a year, and since that may require confession, there’s no denying that priests tend to exhort people more about this during Lent or Advent (hence the “C&E Catholic” syndrome ).

However, Canon 989 states:

“After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is obliged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year.”

Note it does not say when during the year - that’s left up to the individual.

 

[Aramis]

Really? No one told me that and I’ve been going to a Byzantine church for almost 7 years. I really don’t think it’s “capital T Tradition”.

It is a requirement that EVERY Catholic (not just Byzantines) receive Holy Communion at least once a year, and since that may require confession, there’s no denying that priests tend to exhort people more about this during Lent or Advent (hence the “C&E Catholic” syndrome ).

However, Canon 989 states:

“After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is obliged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year.”

Note it does not say when during the year - that’s left up to the individual.

It’s even mentioned by St. John, at least if 3 different pastors quotes were accurate…

 

[Stephen_Korsman]

Really? No one told me that and I’ve been going to a Byzantine church for almost 7 years. I really don’t think it’s “capital T Tradition”.

It would be a tradition with a small t. Tradition with a capital T is the deposit of the faith, and is shared by East and West. Confession is capital T; frequency and formula of confession/absolution are small t and differ legitimately between Churches sui iuris. Some small t traditions may well be very important to the members of each Church, and importance, even without it being an essential part of the faith, can be capitalised, and I think that’s what Aramis meant. Likewise, we in the west would consider priestly celibacy or unleavened bread for the Eucharist to be very important traditions, important enough to capitalise the T at times, but they are not actually part of the Tradition that forms part of the deposit of the faith, and apply only/mostly in the Latin Rite. Those in the East who do not have compulsory celibacy for all priests, or who use leavened bread for the Eucharist, still do so legitimately, and indeed with equal legitimacy to the Western practice. (Although not technically the right way to distinguish small tradition and capital Tradition, if differences legitimately exist, one can safely say it’s a small t and not a big T. It even works on dogma - the Assumption is capital T, but whether or not Mary died prior to the Assumption is a small t, to the best of our current knowledge, as it has not been universally defined either way, and both positions legitimately exist within the Church.)

However, Canon 989 states:

“After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is obliged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year.”

That’s the Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite and isn’t applicable in this case. The 1990 Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches here], as far as I can tell, doesn’t specify frequency. I would therefore imagine that frequency is up to the leadership of each Church sui iuris.

 

[theistgal]

It’s even mentioned by St. John, at least if 3 different pastors quotes were accurate…

I don’t know if the pastors’ quotes are accurate, but I do know what Canon Law said, as I quoted it above.

You are not required to go to Confession at any time unless you intend to go to Communion, which you ARE required to do at least once a year to remain a Catholic in good standing.

When you go to Confession is entirely up to you.

 

[Zekariya]

Yes, this is what I am saying. In the Western tradition, I am unaware of unknown sins. Perhaps these are objective sins for which someone may not be held accountable or incur guilt due to ignorance?

I am pretty certain that there are sins that we commit without knowing that it was a sin. Plenty of people find out that such-and-such is a sin that they have committed for a while didn’t know about it. There are also sins that we commit and forget about. Having no recollection of it would place in the category of unknown sins.

 

[sirach2v4]

As a Roman Catholic, interested in the Orthodox perspective, I am wondering about the Orthodox influence on the expression of Catholic theology on Eastern Catholics. I am speaking about similarities between the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox that would be less familiar to a Roman Catholic. For example, would Eastern Catholics, like the Orthodox, tend to think of God in apophatic terms?

So far, I haven’t noticed that this question was answered.

I just read about apophatic theology of Simeon and Palamis in the classical period (shall I call it) and have no clue about the modern context.

That’s a good question whether the Eastern Catholics tend to think of God in apophatic terms like the Orthdox.

I’m reading the second volume of Yaroslav Pelikan’s History of Christian Doctrine. He died as a member of the Greek Orthodox Church.

the upshot of apophatic theology is that God is unknowable, ever. This is a mystical theology, mind you. What can be expressed in human terms is woefully inadequate to describe God. etc.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Theologically, Eastern Catholic have no difference from their Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian or Oriental Orthodox counterpart. Each individual, however, may choose to explain themselves from any tradition - Latin, scholastic, Byzantine, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Assyrian, etc or mix from any of these.

 

[valerios123]

Actually God made one Church, not many. So there will be one Church that holds the truth. Here is my point of view: bpaste.net/show/juVrCotG8E4Ajzy2d7x5/