Russian Orthodox Church allows confession by phone or Skype during covid-19 shutdown

[twf]

The legalism of the Latin West and her cataphatic theology lose on this particular point, for the Greek East knows experientially in her apophatic way that this one Mystery of the Church can be celebrated with efficacy from a distance.

Yet not all Orthodox bishops will permit absolution to be granted over the phone…right? So I’m not sure if its fair to simply dismiss the Catholic position as “Latin legalism” in this case. This is very new territory. Confessions over Skype were not discussed by the Fathers. The Catholic Church is very cautious when it comes to fundamentally changing the nature of the sacraments. The Orthodox Church is obviously cautious too, but I think you’re really stretching here if you’re trying to say there is a uniform Orthodox position on this issue…

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I would be interested to know when, exactly, the Church of Sweden was anything other than a schismatic Lutheran church.

Before Reformation.

True, but at that time, it wasn’t the “Church of Sweden”, it was the Catholic Church in Sweden. Two different things.

HomeschoolDad:

The Catholic Church teaches that Orthodox communions are true Churches (capital C), and it is just a historical fact that they have existed (most of them, anyway) from the very beginning of their respective nations’ conversions to Christianity. The Holy Spirit works through them, too.

Yes, I am aware. Holy Spirit works through Protestants as well though. He works through all Christians and even Non-Christians but in different way. Orthodox Communion has valid Sacraments and they hold Apostolic Faith. I am simply acknowledging there is a possibility of that changing hence automatically accepting something because Orthodox do accept it is not correct approach. For example, we don’t accept contraception at all yet Orthodox do so- and that does not change our approach.

I’m not sure to what extent the Holy Spirit works through anyone who does not maintain the Catholic Faith — which the Orthodox fundamentally do (there are only a few isolated “problem areas”, and even those are debatable) — and does not have valid sacraments. The further “out” from Catholicism you get, the fuzzier it gets — is it the Holy Spirit inspiring Oneness Pentecostals to deny the Trinity, or is it not? Is it the Holy Spirit inspiring LDS to believe that “Heavenly Father” was once a man like you or I, or is it not?

I do concede that we cannot automatically say “it’s true, or good, if it’s the Orthodox who are doing it”. Some Orthodox will accept contraception, others won’t. Patriarch Athenagoras was totally in agreement with Humanae vitae. So they may be wrong to accept the validity of confession and absolution at a distance, or even a distance in time as well as space. But they take their sacraments just as seriously as we do ours, and I wouldn’t dismiss their conclusions out of hand, just because “we don’t do it that way”. After considerable study, the Catholic Church accepted the Eucharistic Prayer of Addai and Mari as valid, even though it does not contain explicit words of consecration — just an example.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

True, but at that time, it wasn’t the “Church of Sweden”, it was the Catholic Church in Sweden. Two different things.

Well, locally speaking it was under one nation and Bishops had conference. It was Church of Sweden by that sense but of course it was not self-headed.

The further “out” from Catholicism you get, the fuzzier it gets — is it the Holy Spirit inspiring Oneness Pentecostals to deny the Trinity, or is it not? Is it the Holy Spirit inspiring LDS to believe that “Heavenly Father” was once a man like you or I, or is it not?

Holy Spirit does not inspire people in their beliefs outside Catholic Faith. He can inspire them for good actions. Anyone with valid Baptism receives Holy Spirit (so let’s say all Trinitarian Christians in the very least do).

I do concede that we cannot automatically say “it’s true, or good, if it’s the Orthodox who are doing it”.

That’s mostly my point. We are in agreement then.

So they may be wrong to accept the validity of confession and absolution at a distance, or even a distance in time as well as space. But they take their sacraments just as seriously as we do ours, and I wouldn’t dismiss their conclusions out of hand, just because “we don’t do it that way”. After considerable study, the Catholic Church accepted the Eucharistic Prayer of Addai and Mari as valid, even though it does not contain explicit words of consecration — just an example.

I see. That’s interesting concept. I was under impression that Magisterium spoke against Confessions by phone but I had time to check it now and it seems that only few local conferences of Bishops did so- claiming it violates nature of Sacrament. Since our Bishops are guardians of Catholic Faith (as Apostles in unity with Peter), for now I trust their judgment. But since it is not inerrant, there may yet be a way to recognize this… though it would be interesting if Church did this. Especially in traditional circles this might spark some controversy.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I do concede that we cannot automatically say “it’s true, or good, if it’s the Orthodox who are doing it”.

That’s mostly my point. We are in agreement then.

We are indeed.

 

[MikeInVA]

If I were a priest, and if the only way a penitent in extremis

I’m not a priest either, but I think that a priest can validly perform anointing of the sick from a distance on a person who is unable to have a sacramental confession.

 

[MikeInVA]

I don’t even take my cell phone into the confessional. It’s a one-on-one session of God (with the priest in persona Cristi) and me.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

If I were a priest, and if the only way a penitent in extremis

I’m not a priest either, but I think that a priest can validly perform anointing of the sick from a distance on a person who is unable to have a sacramental confession.

Where are you getting this? Anointing requires touching the body of the penitent and putting oil on it. That simply can’t be done unless priest and penitent are in the same place.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

but I think you’re really stretching here if you’re trying to say there is a uniform Orthodox position on this issue…

True, the Orthodox are not big on uniformity except in the Faith. Praxis is not uniform. We allow for individual Bishops to “rightly divide the word of Truth,” and make such dispensations to fit each circumstance.

 

[MikeInVA]

I’m thinking more of last rites rather than the modern anointing of the sick, and more about the requirement to confess before receiving last rites in extremis. We had a homily a few months ago where the priest said he was working with a family member to repent before he could provide last rites. The person kept saying that he was not repentant until he could no longer speak. When the priest asked him if he was repentant at that time he nodded, upon which the priest absolved him and gave him his last rites.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Those are permitted as a hearing aid because the priest and penitent are still in physical proximity and the “phone” is a dedicated line between the priest and the penitent. As such, they are not “phones”.

Exactly. A sound amplifier is not the same as a telecommunication over the PSTN or Satellite or radio.

 

[ReaderT]

Yet not all Orthodox bishops will permit absolution to be granted over the phone…right?

I don’t know the minds of all Orthodox bishops, but to be honest, confession by phone happened long before Covid. In 2013 I met a Matushka (priest’s wife) in Georgia who confessed by phone to her Spiritual Father in Boston - it isn’t a new phenomenon.

The whole point of the Sacrament is to humbly ask forgiveness of one’s sins, and to grow as a human being. One can be penitent from any distance and still “Confess sins to one another” (James 5:16)

That is for matter of being licit and such… but I imagine that if Priest found himself in any grave situation his authority as ordained Priest would allow him to consecrate bread without serving entire Divine Liturgy or without preparing it for 20 minutes. Eucharist can be valid and illicit at the same time. With regards to Confession it might work quite differently considering illicit Confession would invalidate it’s effect at least in some cases (but I am not sure about this one).

If he needed the Eucharist for an emergency, the priest would take the reserve sacrament off the Altar. But even in the Gulags the Priests recited the whole Liturgy. I don’t know of any way he could shorten it. We don’t have distinctions like “valid yet illicit” as in the West.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The whole point of the Sacrament is to humbly ask forgiveness of one’s sins, and to grow as a human being. One can be penitent from any distance and still “Confess sins to one another” (James 5:16)

I can confess to my friends and “Confess sins to one another”.

If he needed the Eucharist for an emergency, the priest would take the reserve sacrament off the Altar. But even in the Gulags the Priests recited the whole Liturgy. I don’t know of any way he could shorten it. We don’t have distinctions like “valid yet illicit”

Imagine Priest who got suspended says Divine Liturgy. Is there indeed our Lord in Eucharist of such Liturgy? Is it alright to do this for a Priest?

I am unsure how and if there is an option to shorten Mass in Western Rites for such occasions or just consecrate Eucharist without Mass. Anyhow, Priests in Gulag wouldn’t probably take 20 minutes to prepare Eucharist.

 

[dochawk]

but I imagine that if Priest found himself in any grave situation his authority as ordained Priest would allow him to consecrate bread without serving entire Divine Liturgy or without preparing it for 20 minutes.

See comments on liturgy in the Gulag in, iirc, *The Other Catholics, Faithful and True." (I can never find it online or on my bookshelves when I need to . . .).

Divine Liturgy in four minutes, using the priest’s hand for the Holy Table, a hidden scrap of bread, and wine of a hidden grape or two. And no-one paid any attention to whether the priest or faithful were Catholic or Orthodox . . .

As far as confession, I figure that we trust each church to determine the proper form of its sacraments, and leave it at that.

I would be interested to know when, exactly, the Church of Sweden was anything other than a schismatic Lutheran church.

It seems to be unique in having kept the episcopal form (Anglicanism didn’t immediately turn protestant). I really couldn’t tell you if it lost orders right away, or whether they kept enough form and understanding to keep them for a while, or how long.

Certainly by the time they got the bright idea that they could ordain female priests and bishops. But when along the way is an interesting question. Also certainly by the time, if any, that they bought into Luther’s views on clergy–but Idon’t know when that happened, either.

Some Orthodox will accept contraception, others won’t.

“Accept” is far to strong a word for anything done by Oikonomea (or however we feel like spelling it this week. ).

In 2013 I met a Matushka (priest’s wife) in Georgia who confessed by phone to her Spiritual Father in Boston - it isn’t a new phenomenon.

But who issued absolution? The Spiritual Father, or her husband.

I’ve seen reports out of Eastern Europe of her both confessing by phone to the priest in the next village, and to the “other” (as in EC or EO) priest in town, in both cases receiving absolution from her husband afterwards.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

As far as confession, I figure that we trust each church to determine the proper form of its sacraments, and leave it at that.

Fact Orthodoxy decided something does not automatically make it true. Catholic Church has ruled that Orthodox have valid sacraments but that can theoretically change. So for sake of discussion whether or not this impacts validity, we can’t play that card because at the time Catholic Church ruled about this, Orthodox praxis wasn’t such.

 

[twf]

If he needed the Eucharist for an emergency, the priest would take the reserve sacrament off the Altar. But even in the Gulags the Priests recited the whole Liturgy. I don’t know of any way he could shorten it. We don’t have distinctions like “valid yet illicit” as in the West.

This is fascinating to me. Like I said in an earlier post, in some ways the Catholic Church seems far more “permissive” than Orthodoxy…in other cases, Orthodoxy seems far more “permission” / flexible…it really depends on the topic. In the case of confession / absolution, Orthodoxy seems to be a lot more flexible. In the case of the Eucharistic sacrifice, Catholicism is far more flexible…in terms of what is absolutely essential to the Holy Sacrifice and what can be omitted under certain circumstances.

In a Gulag situation, what if the priest doesn’t have the full lectionary memorized?

 

[twf]

Divine Liturgy in four minutes, using the priest’s hand for the Holy Table, a hidden scrap of bread, and wine of a hidden grape or two. And no-one paid any attention to whether the priest or faithful were Catholic or Orthodox . . .

Interesting, this contradicts what @ReaderT’s comment that even in a Gulag scenario the Divine Liturgy can’t be shortened.

 

[ReaderT]

Interesting, this contradicts what @ReaderT’s comment that even in a Gulag scenario the Divine Liturgy can’t be shortened.

The Priest in that book, if I remember correctly, was Catholic (Fr. Walter Ciszek, right?). Please correct me if I’m wrong @Dochawk.

In a Gulag situation, what if the priest doesn’t have the full lectionary memorized?

They definitely memorized the Liturgy, but I’m not sure about the Lectionary. Here is an account written by a Russian Orthodox priest of his experience:

“Many priests knew the text of the Liturgy by heart. We could find bread even if it wasn’t wheat bread, usually without difficulty. We had no choice but to replace the wine with cranberry juice. Instead of the altar with the relics of the martyr on which Church rules require us to serve the Liturgy, we would get the fellow convict-priest among us who had the broadest shoulders to help us. He would strip to his waist, lie down, and then we would say the Divine Liturgy upon his chest. Everyone in the concentration camps of the Gulag was a martyr liable at any moment to die for Christ.”
(Everyday Saints, Pokrov Publications, pg. 253)

 

[ReaderT]

Imagine Priest who got suspended says Divine Liturgy. Is there indeed our Lord in Eucharist of such Liturgy? Is it alright to do this for a Priest?

Good question. I don’t know. I assume if the Bishop suspends the priest, he has no “power”. The Priest is somewhat an “extension” of the Bishop in Orthodox ecclesiology.

But who issued absolution? The Spiritual Father, or her husband.

I’ve seen reports out of Eastern Europe of her both confessing by phone to the priest in the next village, and to the “other” (as in EC or EO) priest in town, in both cases receiving absolution from her husband afterwards.

Not sure - I never asked her. But at least I know that Abbot Vorobiev (mentioned above) issued absolution from afar.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The Priest is somewhat an “extension” of the Bishop in Orthodox ecclesiology.

Well, in a way it works similarly in Catholic ecclesiology. But that does not mean Priests don’t hold power of their own. I guess Orthodoxy has different emphasis on such things. Well for sake of question, if Bishop gets deposed by Patriarch or anyone like that, he still remains Bishop by ordination, correct? Then if he celebrates Divine Liturgy even if he is not meant to do that, would it be celebrated validly? I get that those aren’t really things Eastern Christians concern themselves with, but to my Latin mind it seems like interesting question

 

[ReaderT]

Well for sake of question, if Bishop gets deposed by Patriarch or anyone like that, he still remains Bishop by ordination, correct? Then if he celebrates Divine Liturgy even if he is not meant to do that, would it be celebrated validly?

Since we don’t have the idea of the “indelible mark of the priesthood” in Orthodoxy, deposed clergy are returned to the state of a layman. If they do have “liturgies”, we wouldn’t recognize them as valid.