Particular Confession

  • Thread starter Thread starter East02West
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

East02West

Guest
Actual ecumenical query that doesn’t revolve around the Filioque (LORD have mercy!) or Petrine primacy (Theotokos save us! Tone 4):
Given that all Apostolic Christian confessions are obliged to profess that from its inception our LORD Jesus Christ instituted within His Church seven Sacraments, how do we progress forward in ecumenical dialogue with those confessions which do not honour this being the case, or who confess a distinct set in their enumeration?
While I do not desire to engage with the particulars of what does and does not constitute a sacrament, I pose the query in relation to one sacrament in particular,particular confession/penance. Given the Patristic distinction between mortal and venial sins (with the former requiring absolution from an ordained minister of the Church to be reconciled to the Body of Christ), how does this effect reception of the Eucharist amongst individuals within those confessions who may be guilty of grave sin? Is the person absolved through the general absolution granted at the liturgy or are they absolved due to ignorance/not held accountable?

Lastly, were said person to be received into the Church, would it be demanded of them that they do a general confession of sins through an ordained minister of the Church? I cite in this particular instances those Christians whose Trinitarian baptisms we honour as valid and who are thus received through the confessional/via Chrismation.

The reason for my question is that I was informed by a priest of the Ancient Church of the East that his church does not have the practice of private confessions. Rather they do a general absolution at some point in the liturgy.

Perhaps there was a communication problem, but it’s also not the first time that I’ve heard variance in the enumeration of the sacraments of the Assyrian church, which at times are at odds with the rest of the Apostolic churches.
 
East02West said:
Actual ecumenical query that doesn’t revolve around the Filioque (LORD have mercy!) or Petrine primacy (Theotokos save us! Tone 4):
Given that all Apostolic Christian confessions are obliged to profess that from its inception our LORD Jesus Christ instituted within His Church seven Sacraments, how do we progress forward in ecumenical dialogue with those confessions which do not honour this being the case, or who confess a distinct set in their enumeration?
While I do not desire to engage with the particulars of what does and does not constitute a sacrament, I pose the query in relation to one sacrament in particular,particular confession/penance. Given the Patristic distinction between mortal and venial sins (with the former requiring absolution from an ordained minister of the Church to be reconciled to the Body of Christ), how does this effect reception of the Eucharist amongst individuals within those confessions who may be guilty of grave sin? Is the person absolved through the general absolution granted at the liturgy or are they absolved due to ignorance/not held accountable?

Lastly, were said person to be received into the Church, would it be demanded of them that they do a general confession of sins through an ordained minister of the Church? I cite in this particular instances those Christians whose Trinitarian baptisms we honour as valid and who are thus received through the confessional/via Chrismation.

The reason for my question is that I was informed by a priest of the Ancient Church of the East that his church does not have the practice of private confessions. Rather they do a general absolution at some point in the liturgy.

Perhaps there was a communication problem, but it’s also not the first time that I’ve heard variance in the enumeration of the sacraments of the Assyrian church, which at times are at odds with the rest of the Apostolic churches.
Click to expand...
I met a priest of the Armenian Orthodox Church and he also said that they do not have private confessions.

The Assyrian Church of the East (est. 500,000 members) does have private confession for serious sins. The Ancient Church of the East (est. 100,000 members) resulted from a split in the 1960s. There is currently an effort to reunite.

The approach would be to clarify what is meant by sacrament by each, and then show that there is a common understanding in some way of how the Holy Spirit manifests.
With the Assyrian Church of the East, there is a sacrament that is not present in the other Christian churches: Holy Leaven (Malkā). There are differences in marriage between several of the Christian apostolic churches.
 
In the case of the Armenians, do they confess their sins publicly and receive absolution, or do they confess in their hearts and receive absolution during the general absolution?

The history of Assyrian Church of the East and Ancient Church of the East has a much older schism in between it.

The Assyrian Church of the East entered into communion with Rome once, to then fall out of communion with Rome anew. The Ancient Church of the East had a portion which entered into communion with Rome, which provided the foundation for the Chaldean church of today.
 
East02West said:
In the case of the Armenians, do they confess their sins publicly and receive absolution, or do they confess in their hearts and receive absolution during the general absolution?

The history of Assyrian Church of the East and Ancient Church of the East has a much older schism in between it.

The Assyrian Church of the East entered into communion with Rome once, to then fall out of communion with Rome anew. The Ancient Church of the East had a portion which entered into communion with Rome, which provided the foundation for the Chaldean church of today.
Click to expand...
It is done two different ways that I know of: traditional and USA.

Traditional in Armenia and elsewhere the confession is read in its entirety before the Divine Liturgy begins (about ten minutes) which has priest responses, then finally the absolution. The USA method the confession is shortened and sometimes even occurs directly before Holy Communion.

I never saw mention of the Ancient Church of the East before with regard to the Chaldean Catholic Church. The sources that I have read indicate that the Chaldean Catholic Church was first established in 1552 in Babylon, and “The situation finally stabilized only on July 5, 1830, when Pope Pius VIII confirmed Metropolitan John Hormizdas as head of all Chaldean Catholics, with the title of Patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans, with his see in Mosul.”

cnewa.org/default.aspx?ID=59&pagetypeID=9&sitecode=HQ&pageno=1
 
Perhaps I overstated my case when I said I did a write up, but this is my understanding of the case:

The successors of Mar Shimun broke off with Rome in 1692. The faction of the line of Eliya which entered into communion with Rome in 1671 was that of Mar Jospeh I which is what became the Chaldean Church.

It was the line of Mar Shimun III Denha which initially broke off from the Nestorian church and had a rival patriarchate installed under Rome. Up until 1692 they were what the Chaldeans are today.

Until that point there were two bodies, the Assyrian Catholics and the Assyrian Nestorians. Post 1692, the Assyrian Catholics of Mar Shimun III Denha broke with Rome again whilst keeping their rival patriarchate.

In the 1670s a portion of the Assyrian Nestorians lead by Mar Joseph I entered into communion with Rome. It is from that line that the Chaldeans of today belong to.
To my understanding, the post 1692 schism of the ex Assyrian Catholics never resulted in them being reabsorbed into their mother church (the Nestorian church) anew.
 
East02West said:
Perhaps I overstated my case when I said I did a write up, but this is my understanding of the case:

The successors of Mar Shimun broke off with Rome in 1692. The faction of the line of Eliya which entered into communion with Rome in 1671 was that of Mar Jospeh I which is what became the Chaldean Church.

It was the line of Mar Shimun III Denha which initially broke off from the Nestorian church and had a rival patriarchate installed under Rome. Up until 1692 they were what the Chaldeans are today.

Until that point there were two bodies, the Assyrian Catholics and the Assyrian Nestorians. Post 1692, the Assyrian Catholics of Mar Shimun III Denha broke with Rome again whilst keeping their rival patriarchate.

In the 1670s a portion of the Assyrian Nestorians lead by Mar Joseph I entered into communion with Rome. It is from that line that the Chaldeans of today belong to.
To my understanding, the post 1692 schism of the ex Assyrian Catholics never resulted in them being reabsorbed into their mother church (the Nestorian church) anew.
Click to expand...
It is quite complicated. When I studied the lineage from the WIKI site I came up with this simplified list of the three currents:
  1. Church of the East, Eliya and Shem’on Lines from 1553
  2. Chaldean Catholic Church - 1681 (from Eliya Line) / Mar Louis Raphael I Sako
  3. Assyrian Church of the East (Shem’on Line called**)** from 19th century - hereditary line ended in 1975 - non-hereditary from 1976 (vacant See)
  4. Ancient Church of the East (from Shemʿon Line) - 1964 / Mar Addai II Giwargis
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top