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

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Since we don’t have the idea of the “indelible mark of the priesthood” in Orthodoxy

Wow… I wasn’t aware of that. Interesting. Thanks for clarification.

 

[dochawk]

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

Just can’t remember. It’s not on the list of books on his wikipedia page, but while trying to check my shelves again, remembering that it’s red, I found Sounder, two copies of Of Mice and Men (I have twins), Campbell’s, Arthur C. Campbell’s The Dark Planet Passes (which I managed to resist adding to the stack of waiting books on my nightstand).

 

[twf]

This is getting even more interesting to me! You said that the East doesn’t have the Latin concept of “valid but illicit”, and I acknowledge that to be true, but there is still obviously a spectrum of what can be dispensed in extraordinary situations while still legitimately offering the Holy Sacrifice. In the example you gave, the entire text of the liturgy was still recited, but there was no proper holy table, and even more extraordinarily, non-wheat bread and no wine! From a Latin perspective, most of the liturgical texts could be dropped in a pinch, but never could wheat bread and wine be substituted with something else.

 

[dochawk]

on further review, it seems to be Fr. Joseph P. Bonchonksy, *The Other Catholics: Obedient and Faithful."

 

[ReaderT]

You’re right, that is very interesting - and a big difference. I’m not judging the West if they have a different understanding of their services. It has caused misunderstanding though - I remember being shocked when I taught at a Catholic high school, and the administrators were reworking the schedule to try to “fit a Mass” into a 40 minute study-hall period. That probably wouldn’t work for Orthodoxy. To insert a liturgy into whatever opening we carve out for it would be seen as disrespectful. We go to the Liturgy; it doesn’t come to us. (Again, not judging different views though!)

Also, to receive Communion on Sunday, one must:

• fast from Midnight
• Have had a recent confession
• Not engage in physical acts with one’s spouse on Saturday night
• Recite the Three Canons or Prayers of Preparation (this is not universal for Orthodox faithful, but fairly common)

 

[twf]

I think if we are to understand it from an Eastern perspective, it would be close to the concept of economy…just applied in different ways. The Latin Church would never allow absolution over the phone…but the Orthodox Church does in some cases as an act of economy. The Latin Church would never consider the Eucharist valid if celebrated with, say, rye bread and cranberry juice, but apparently in extreme circumstances some Orthodox do see this as “valid” as an act of economy. On the other hand, the Orthodox Church has no concept of a “low Mass”…every divine liturgy is the “full deal”. I think that’s very commendable…we’ve just taken a more practical approach in this sense. The question is, in the modern busy world, is it better that professionals take in a 30 minute Mass on a Monday morning before work, or that they don’t go to Mass at all? I guess the Orthodox answer would be better not to go at all (and perhaps do some other shorter prayers instead), but the Latin answer is “the abbreviated Mass is offered for pastoral reasons even if a longer, more solemn, more dignified, and ideally sung Mass is the ideal”. To use the pre-Vatican II terminology, the sung “High Mass”, with all the bells and whistles, was always the liturgical ideal…but there’s always been a pastoral place for the abbreviated “low Mass”.

 

[AlNg]

Imagine Priest who got suspended says Divine Liturgy. Is there indeed our Lord in Eucharist of such Liturgy?

Yes it is. Near the beginning of SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre and his priests were suspended and yet their Sacraments were valid.

 

[dochawk]

The RCC follows the Augustinian view that ordination is an indelible mark, and thus not lost.

The East, though, follows the (older) Cyprianic view, that Orders come from the relation and communion with the church, and cease to be when out of communion with his church, thus @ReaderT’s answer.

Also, I’m not sure that there’s an exact Orthodox equivalent to what the RCC means by suspension, so the question may not even be possible.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

ReaderT:

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”

…

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.

Consecrating the Eucharist outside of Mass, regardless of necessity, is absolutely forbidden. Canon Law says “nefas est” (CIC 927), which is the strongest condemnation possible. There would have to be at least some kind of “bare-bones” liturgy, and if it had to be done quickly to elude prison guards, I think Our Lord would not mind the prayers being said super-fast, and cutting out everything that does not absolutely have to be there. But just consecrating the Eucharist alone, outside of Mass, can’t do it.

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 think that’s an excellent plan, and I agree wholeheartedly. To make reunion of East and West as easy as possible, I am all in favor of recognizing the inherent right of the Orthodox to run their own affairs entirely, including making decisions on liturgy and sacraments. (Divorce and remarriage without declaring the previous marriage null and void ab initio, however, that’s a problem.)

HomeschoolDad:

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. ).

So what would be a more apt word? Is “reluctantly tolerating for the good of souls” more accurate? (Though it is hard to see how contraception could ever be seen as “good for souls”.)

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

I think the mercy of Our Lord could tolerate improvising in this case. It is not a doctrine of the Faith that this Scripture reading, or that one, be used at any one particular Mass/Divine Liturgy.

The Latin Church would never consider the Eucharist valid if celebrated with, say, rye bread and cranberry juice, but apparently in extreme circumstances some Orthodox do see this as “valid” as an act of economy.

I really, really want to believe that such a minor deviation would be accepted by Our Lord in those drastic circumstances. I can’t prove it, but it seems more reasonable to believe it, than not to believe it. Yet in this, as in all things, I ultimately submit to the judgment of the Catholic Church in union with blessed Peter.

 

[AlNg]

(Divorce and remarriage without declaring the previous marriage null and void ab initio , however, that’s a problem.)

Would it be a problem if, upon digging deep enough and looking hard enough, you could always find a reason to annul any marriage?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

(Divorce and remarriage without declaring the previous marriage null and void ab initio , however, that’s a problem.)

Would it be a problem if, upon digging deep enough and looking hard enough, you could always find a reason to annul any marriage?

Yes, it would.

It’s not unheard of, for a couple simply not to be able to get an annulment.

That said, it’s not unreasonable to think, when a marriage deteriorates, that there was something intrinsically wrong from the outset, otherwise it wouldn’t have deteriorated. That’s not iron-clad proof, but it is an indication. Some marriages that do not “end” (from a secular point of view) in divorce may be invalid too, but there’s no way to know, because tribunals don’t even take up cases, unless a civil divorce has taken place first. The presumption is always in favor of validity unless proven otherwise.

 

[AlNg]

It’s not unheard of, for a couple simply not to be able to get an annulment.

How often does that happen?

 

[twf]

Well we would distinguish between the objective sacramental reality and a subjective experience rooted in faith. We don’t recognize the Anglican Eucharist as valid, for example, but that doesn’t mean Christ can’t be present to them, in some manner, when they receive their communion in sincere and true faith.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Yes it is. Near the beginning of SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre and his priests were suspended and yet their Sacraments were valid.

Yes I know it is like that in Catholicism, but I wasn’t sure if it applies in Orthodoxy.

The East, though, follows the (older) Cyprianic view, that Orders come from the relation and communion with the church, and cease to be when out of communion with his church, thus @ReaderT’s answer.

Wasn’t Cyprianic view somewhat condemned? In the controversy, St. Cyprian wanted to re-baptize people validly baptized by heretics and that was condemned. I get that Orthodox view isn’t really Cyprianic but Semi-Cyprianic (they don’t believe Sacraments are not real but that their effect isn’t real while one is outside the Church). It’s quite interesting, considering that Church at the time accepted view of Pope rather than view of St. Cyprian.

How often does that happen?

Depends where. In Slovakia annulments aren’t very common thing.

I think if we are to understand it from an Eastern perspective, it would be close to the concept of economy…just applied in different ways.

I get your point but problem with that is what does economy even allow someone to do. It allows for remarriage, contraception, confessions over the phone,

Consecrating the Eucharist outside of Mass, regardless of necessity, is absolutely forbidden.

Interesting. Thank you for information.

I think that’s an excellent plan, and I agree wholeheartedly. To make reunion of East and West as easy as possible, I am all in favor of recognizing the inherent right of the Orthodox to run their own affairs entirely, including making decisions on liturgy and sacraments.

Same way divorce and remarriage is a problem, some sacramental changes might be. It isn’t that East can’t run their own affairs, it is that there needs to be some sort of line one does not cross. Trust but verify… for good of both sides (if indeed unity is to come). This approach of “East did it so it’s ok” is totally foreign to any Church tradition for two reasons- firstly, that you are entrusting someone outside Church communion to handle their own Sacraments without checking whether they aren’t departing from Truth… and secondly, because even if there was perfect communion in pre-Schism Church, Churches would check those kinds of things and intervene on universal level if they thought that this wasn’t correct process (so it wasn’t complete blind trust either).

(Though it is hard to see how contraception could ever be seen as “good for souls”.)

Funnily enough, Church Father whose views on contraception I encountered the most was St. John Chrysostom, author of Liturgy that Orthodox Church uses.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

It’s not unheard of, for a couple simply not to be able to get an annulment.

How often does that happen?

I don’t have figures, but it does happen. Quite frankly, not that often.

As Pope Francis himself has said, many marriages can have their validity called into doubt because people don’t really have a concept of “marriage for life” — even if they think they do. (I use the NCReporter merely as a news source, not as a spiritual or apologetical guide.) Our Lady of Fatima said many marriages are not good, not of God, and do not please Our Lord. She wasn’t any more specific than that. Think about it. You are asking two people, who are giddy in love, in today’s world probably sleeping together or even living together, hugely concerned with social expectations, to be the ministers of a sacrament to each other. That’s a pretty tall order. I have to wonder, as the Holy Father himself does, whether modern people are always up to fulfilling something like that.

Well we would distinguish between the objective sacramental reality and a subjective experience rooted in faith. We don’t recognize the Anglican Eucharist as valid, for example, but that doesn’t mean Christ can’t be present to them, in some manner, when they receive their communion in sincere and true faith.

I don’t deny that Our Lord can give graces to people who are properly disposed, and who in good faith receive an invalid Eucharist, or don’t have the same understanding of “the Body and Blood of Christ” as we do. But that does not, and cannot, make their sacrament valid.

twf:

I think if we are to understand it from an Eastern perspective, it would be close to the concept of economy…just applied in different ways.

I get your point but problem with that is what does economy even allow someone to do. It allows for remarriage, contraception, confessions over the phone,

If East and West are ever to reunite, the whole concept of economy (economia) needs to have a good, long, hard look taken at it. It is outrageous to suggest that the Church could ever “give people permission to sin”, or could change divine law (as opposed to canon law) to accommodate a pilgrim soul in the wayfaring state (that would be you and me), but — and I hate to say it — that’s how economia could come across to the casual observer.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

This approach of “East did it so it’s ok” is totally foreign to any Church tradition for two reasons- firstly, that you are entrusting someone outside Church communion to handle their own Sacraments without checking whether they aren’t departing from Truth… and secondly, because even if there was perfect communion in pre-Schism Church, Churches would check those kinds of things and intervene on universal level if they thought that this wasn’t correct process (so it wasn’t complete blind trust either).

Agreed entirely.

HomeschoolDad:

(Though it is hard to see how contraception could ever be seen as “good for souls”.)

Funnily enough, Church Father whose views on contraception I encountered the most was St. John Chrysostom, author of Liturgy that Orthodox Church uses.

What would be some of those views, in a nutshell? Just curious.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

What would be some of those views, in a nutshell? Just curious.

In nutshell it is view that Pope Paul VI shared. I haven’t really gotten into issue of contraception myself too much- it wasn’t one of those tenets of faith I found to be deciding factor between my choice of Church… but I did encounter St. John Chrysostom’s views in articles about love and marriage (it is quite interesting how his view of marriage changed over his life). From those, St. John Chrysostom seemed to be strongly opposed to contraception other than what one might call NFP.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

What would be some of those views, in a nutshell? Just curious.

In nutshell it is view that Pope Paul VI shared. I haven’t really gotten into issue of contraception myself too much- it wasn’t one of those tenets of faith I found to be deciding factor between my choice of Church… but I did encounter St. John Chrysostom’s views in articles about love and marriage (it is quite interesting how his view of marriage changed over his life). From those, St. John Chrysostom seemed to be strongly opposed to contraception other than what one might call NFP.

Glad to know that. I didn’t know SJC’s views and was apprehensive that some (not you) might distort them to defend contraception.

I haven’t really gotten into issue of contraception myself too much- it wasn’t one of those tenets of faith I found to be deciding factor between my choice of Church…

I came into the catechumenate (mid-1970s) with the same default views on contraception as anyone else in modern secular society has — good modern medicine to keep people from having more children than they want. As I studied, I became convinced that the Church has supreme authority to teach on matters of faith and morality, and that you can’t “pick and choose” — you have to accept all of it. I thought this business of “dissent” and leaving people alone about it, not mentioning it from the pulpit, not reminding them of the eternal consequences, not denying them communion and absolution, was wrong then, and I think it is wrong now.

 

[AlNg]

You are asking two people, who are giddy in love, in today’s world probably sleeping together or even living together, hugely concerned with social expectations, to be the ministers of a sacrament to each other. That’s a pretty tall order. I have to wonder, as the Holy Father himself does, whether modern people are always up to fulfilling something like that.

Does God want people to enter into a union which is very possibly not a Sacramental marriage or would He prefer that people be more sure that their marriage is valid? It seems like the latter, no? Then does this not show that the Eastern Orthodox Church is more pleasing to God since in the Eastern Orthodox Church it is the priest who is the minister of the marriage, not the couple as in the Roman Catholic Church. So you can’t just go back after 20 years of marriage and several children and say, Oh, I forgot to mention but at the time of the marriage ceremony I did not have full consent so can you give me an annulment so I can marry my new boyfriend.

If East and West are ever to reunite, the whole concept of economy ( economia ) needs to have a good, long, hard look taken at it.

But

I thought this business of “dissent” and leaving people alone about it, not mentioning it from the pulpit, not reminding them of the eternal consequences, not denying them communion and absolution, was wrong then , and I think it is wrong now .

Isn’t this just the western version of economia?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

You are asking two people, who are giddy in love, in today’s world probably sleeping together or even living together, hugely concerned with social expectations, to be the ministers of a sacrament to each other. That’s a pretty tall order. I have to wonder, as the Holy Father himself does, whether modern people are always up to fulfilling something like that.

Does God want people to enter into a union which is very possibly not a Sacramental marriage or would He prefer that people be more sure that their marriage is valid? It seems like the latter, no? Then does this not show that the Eastern Orthodox Church is more pleasing to God since in the Eastern Orthodox Church it is the priest who is the minister of the marriage, not the couple as in the Roman Catholic Church. So you can’t just go back after 20 years of marriage and several children and say, Oh, I forgot to mention but at the time of the marriage ceremony I did not have full consent so can you give me an annulment so I can marry my new boyfriend.

Of course Our Blessed Lord would prefer the latter that you describe. But I don’t think “who” confers the sacrament makes any difference. If the priest confers it, it is certainly his responsibility to ensure that the couple is marrying validly. But even if the spouses confer it upon each other, it is still the priest’s responsibility, or the Church’s, however you want to look at it, to ensure that this couple is capable of conferring this sacrament, that they understand completely what they’re doing, and that there is moral certainty the marriage will be valid.

Of course, “the facts on the ground” are that this couple wants to marry, there is no legal or moral reason they cannot, and they appear to be at least minimally properly disposed. It would be the relatively rare couple who would come to the rectory and say “Father, we have both prayed over this, sought spiritual direction, have studied the Church’s teachings on marriage and family life, seek to do nothing other than God’s Will for us, and we have discerned that marrying one another is the best way for both of us to help one another to heaven, if this is what God asks of us”. No, the scenario usually isn’t that elaborated. In our culture, you have two people, silly in love with each other, they have their cap set to get married, they are so powerfully attracted to one another that they can’t stand themselves, and many of them — I won’t hazard percentages or adjectives other than “many”, that never ends well — are already living in some version of a de facto marriage. Tell them “I don’t think you’re quite ready yet”, and chances are, they’ll just find some other way, and they won’t be back to your parish (or possibly any parish) anytime soon. Truly, as in so many things today, “the tail wags the dog”. It would be a rare couple who would say “you know, Father, you’re right, what we want isn’t the bottom line, we need more time to discern”.