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

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

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?

No, in this, too, “the tail wags the dog”. Let’s just say there would be repercussions.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Mary888]

This practice is valid through their Holy Orders. The Bishops and the Patriarch warrant for it. It is a decision in itself for any other Bishop or Patriarch to allow or not allow this.
Recognizing validity in a Sacrament does not mean the Bishop who did the recognition will allow the practice in his territory.

 

[AlNg]

Let’s just say there would be repercussions .

Private revelations are not part of official Roman Catholic theological teaching. No?

 

[TK421]

Does the Roman Catholic church recognize the validity of confession by phone?

The Sacraments can’t be validly celebrated remotely, so a Confession over the phone would be invalid.

Until a person can celebrate the Sacrament, they should make an act of perfection contrition and then be at peace. If they find themselves questioning whether or not they made an act of perfect contrition, they should pray to God for the grace to become perfectly contrite and then be at peace knowing that God grants us whatever we ask (or he prepares something even better). God desires our salvation and happiness more than we desire it ourselves.

Peace.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Let’s just say there would be repercussions .

Private revelations are not part of official Roman Catholic theological teaching. No?

My Fatima graphic was meant to highlight some very general revelations given by Our Lady. She didn’t mention contraception. I am happy she did not, for the children’s sake — they would have had no idea what she was talking about, and this would have destroyed just a little bit of their innocence.

Private revelations are not part of the deposit of faith, true, but they do not contradict that deposit, in fact, they reinforce it.

I have mused that Our Lady of Fatima at no time mentioned the necessity of being an actual, visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation. By her saying that sins of the flesh — not sins against faith — send more people to hell, this actually gives me hope that some material heretics, schismatics, and non-believers are indeed saved. It militates against the stricter interpretations of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Father Feeney et al).

 

[Xarto]

Dangerous, what’s to stop it from being recorded?

 

[dochawk]

So what would be a more apt word?

maybe, “make allowance for a complicated situation”? Even that might bee to strong, though.

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

It would make a rather compelling case for the priest to author a liturgy, I suppose. (“The Divine Liturgy of St. Joseph of the Gulag”?)

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

as noted by @ReaderT, it does not apply in Orthodoxy.

Wasn’t Cyprianic view somewhat condemned?

given that the entire Orthodox world seems to follow it, I would hazard a guess that his view on orders was not . . .

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.

Even if true, that doesn’t necessarily mean thatEast, rather than West, is the one that needs to adjust . . .

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

Although growing up, and talking to a Holy Ghost Father who was kicked out of the same African country multiple times, yet still hung out in the brush celebrating Mass, I learned that the Mass can be reduced to very short when needed. He said that there are four mandatory components (Consecration, the priest receiving th Eucharist and I forget the other two, but it doesn’t include the liturgy of the word, which is what brought it up).

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

So what would be a more apt word?

maybe, “make allowance for a complicated situation”? Even that might bee to strong, though.

The entire concept of economia fascinates me, as you may have gathered by now. Would I be correct in understanding that Eastern Christianity does not always draw a black-and-white distinction between divine law and church law? That there is some kind of “gray area” where there is some overlap, or where one “shades into” the other, so that you can’t really tell where divine law leaves off and ecclesiastical law begins?

I have in mind what I see, as a practical matter, in the West. For instance, priestly celibacy comes across as being “not quite a doctrine, but a little more than just a discipline”. Many rank-and-file Latin Catholics are so horrified by any relaxation of the discipline, that they really can’t even discuss it rationally. Another would be the Sunday Mass “obligation”. The Third Commandment is not up for debate. However, some people worry themselves sick over missing Mass even when there is a clear reason that they are not obliged. There could even be circumstances where it would be morally imperative not to go to Mass. A few months ago, my own mother took very ill right before I was getting ready to go to Mass (Sunday evening, the last one of the weekend). She thought she might be having a stroke. My father is disabled as well. So I stayed home with her. I could have always said “well, we had a scare a few minutes ago, but she seems well now, so I’ve got to go to Mass, you know, call me if you need me, but I’ve got to go”. No, I stayed home with her and missed Mass. I was totally at peace with that choice.

As I said, “not quite a doctrine, but a little more than just a discipline”. Hard to see how this would apply to contraception, though. Apples and oranges.

HomeschoolDad:

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

Although growing up, and talking to a Holy Ghost Father who was kicked out of the same African country multiple times, yet still hung out in the brush celebrating Mass, I learned that the Mass can be reduced to very short when needed. He said that there are four mandatory components (Consecration, the priest receiving th Eucharist and I forget the other two, but it doesn’t include the liturgy of the word, which is what brought it up).

Interesting to learn that. If I had to guess, I would say that one of those remaining two mandatory components would be the penitential rite. If we are talking about the Traditional Latin Mass, the entrance rite (Introibo ad altare Dei…) might be the fourth one.

 

[dochawk]

Would I be correct in understanding that Eastern Christianity does not always draw a black-and-white distinction between divine law and church law

Oh, I think you could have stopped with, “Would I be correct in understanding that Eastern Christianity does not always draw a black-and-white distinction”

The deposit of faith is more important than the details ,. . .

I would say that one of those remaining two mandatory components would be the penitential rite. If we are talking about the Traditional Latin Mass, the entrance rite ( Introibo ad altare Dei… ) might be the fourth one.

neither of those would surprise me, nor would the dismissal.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I would say that one of those remaining two mandatory components would be the penitential rite. If we are talking about the Traditional Latin Mass, the entrance rite ( Introibo ad altare Dei… ) might be the fourth one.

neither of those would surprise me, nor would the dismissal.

I managed to dredge this up, though they never really do answer the question of what is mandatory (aside from the consecration and the priest’s communion, which you cited) and what is not:

Minimum components required for a mass to occur Liturgy and Sacraments

Pope Pius XII indicated the priest’s communion as an element integral to the sacrifice - “But, as all know, the integrity of the sacrifice only requires that the priest partake of the heavenly food. Although it is most desirable that the people should also approach the holy table, this is not required for the integrity of the sacrifice.” (Mediator Dei, 112) vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.html That is not to say it’s required for th…

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

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 was quite aware of what Church teaches about that even before I became Christian. When I did, I accepted that teaching by default. I wasn’t even aware that some denominations teach something else. After I became convinced that Catholic Church is True Church there was little need to go and prove every single teaching. I trusted authority of the Church just like you did

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.

That would constitute an abuse. God knows the Truth. Church officials might be deceived by someone but then annulment wouldn’t really apply same way Confession wouldn’t. Anyway logic behind annulments is that we do not break what our Lord told us -to not separate what God has joined. Divorce means disobeying our Lord’s words. Outcome might be similar but way it is achieved matters tremendously…

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 .

I agree. I think that from spiritual view it is counterproductive.

This practice is valid through their Holy Orders.

Holy Orders don’t automatically make one authority over Sacraments. If any Bishop started baptizing with sand it wouldn’t be valid just because he is Bishop.

Even if true, that doesn’t necessarily mean thatEast, rather than West, is the one that needs to adjust . . .

As a Catholic I’d follow inerrant unchanging practice of Rome over Russian innovation any day. Of course provided there is contradiction.

The entire concept of economia fascinates me

I am quite uncomfortable with Priests allowing anything because of convenience. I know there is some sort of logic behind it but way it is presented is that Priests can nullify almost anything if they say economia. Eastern Catholics in Slovakia actually have annulments and their Bishops decided to not implement divorce neither dispense from Divine Law. There may be exceptions but they exist in the law not outside it.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

“The Divine Liturgy of St. Joseph of the Gulag”?

Not that there is anything wrong with name of our Lord’s fatherly figure on Earth but choice of name “Joseph” in reference to Gulag is somewhat ironic

 

[Isaac14]

way it is presented is that Priests can nullify almost anything if they say economia

Who is presenting economia in this way?

I am quite uncomfortable with Priests allowing anything because of convenience.

That’s good, because what you describe is not what the exercise of economia is about. Economia is a relaxing of a specific rule by the Priest (perhaps in consultation with his brother Priests, or even the Bishop depending on the issue at hand) for an individual with the goal of helping that person achieve salvation. It is never for sake of “convenience” nor is it a magic word a Priest can just speak to nullify anything. Even when an individual Bishop or the entire Synod of Bishops allows economia for certain issues, a Priest still has to apply that to an individual and their specific circumstances to help them achieve salvation.

To me, this exposes a difference in Eastern vs. Western approach to “Law.” The East seems to prescribe the ideal; everyone works toward that ideal, while not (yet) always being able to live up to it. The West, however, seems to me to prescribe the bare minimum that all Christians must do. One of the most obvious examples of this is the Eucharistic fast. In the East, we fast from everything from the night before until we receive the Eucharist, while in the West the requirement is to only fast for one hour before receiving.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

That’s good, because what you describe is not what the exercise of economia is about.

That’s a good thing. I understand that way economia works is not to allow Priests to do anything but still, are there any lines economia can’t cross?

It is never for sake of “convenience”

I find it hard to believe one can’t access salvation unless they get remarried. It seems more like convenience. I understand it helps attain salvation but it isn’t a necessary step.

To me, this exposes a difference in Eastern vs. Western approach to “Law.” The East seems to prescribe the ideal; everyone works toward that ideal, while not (yet) always being able to live up to it. The West, however, seems to me to prescribe the bare minimum that all Christians must do.

There is ideal described in Latin law too, but as encouragement not as law. After all that is meaning of law. Byzantine law was Eastern yet it did not prescribe ideal when it came to taxation. West has of course dispensations and such, but they work inside law not outside of it.

One of the most obvious examples of this is the Eucharistic fast. In the East, we fast from everything from the night before until we receive the Eucharist, while in the West the requirement is to only fast for one hour before receiving.

Traditional western discipline was the same. I know that it no longer is, but traditionally this does not seem like West vs East issue.

 

[Isaac14]

I find it hard to believe one can’t access salvation unless they get remarried. It seems more like convenience. I understand it helps attain salvation but it isn’t a necessary step.

I never said “access.” I said “help achieve.” If marriage or remarriage didn’t help people achieve salvation, I don’t think annulments would be such a big deal either, right?

Byzantine law was Eastern yet it did not prescribe ideal when it came to taxation.

What does taxation have to do with salvation?

I know that it no longer is, but traditionally this does not seem like West vs East issue.

I didn’t say it was an issue. I used this example to describe the differences in approach.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

What does taxation have to do with salvation?

It wasn’t Eastern philosophy to prescribe ideal neither to not define everything clearly. It was later development based on theological approach. Law itself relies on theology but it has historically (pre-schism at least) been quite clear to be law.

I didn’t say it was an issue. I used this example to describe the differences in approach.

I am simply saying there isn’t as much difference in some regards between East and West as some make it to be.

I never said “access.” I said “help achieve.” If marriage or remarriage didn’t help people achieve salvation, I don’t think annulments would be such a big deal either, right?

They do not exist for salvation directly. They exist to recognize that Sacrament was not conferred validly. There can be invalid marriage even between partners who deeply love each other. In such case they should validate their marriage and continue with it.

To put it simply, as of now it seems to me that economia has no boundaries. One can theoretically use it for anything with proper approval (Bishop should be enough, right?).

 

[Isaac14]

It wasn’t Eastern philosophy to prescribe ideal neither to not define everything clearly. It was later development based on theological approach. Law itself relies on theology but it has historically (pre-schism at least) been quite clear to be law.

Honestly, I don’t even know how to respond. All I’m trying to say is that the Eastern mindset seems to be to strive for an ideal while the Western mindset seems to be do describe minimums that must be met. I’m fully aware that there is all sort of nuance and exceptions and whatnot that make it more complicated, but I don’t think I’m far off when speaking very broadly.

And I still don’t see how the laws regarding taxation from a long ago empire should inform the Eastern Christian theological approach today.

To put it simply, as of now it seems to me that economia has no boundaries. One can theoretically use it for anything with proper approval (Bishop should be enough, right?).

Theoretically, sure. But we don’t live in a theoretical world. Priests and Bishops have to deal with real world situations that don’t fit neatly in a box. Economia is one tool they have to help them deal with the messiness of real life situations in a merciful way.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I don’t think I’m far off when speaking very broadly.

I was speaking more historically. I didn’t want to deny that this is approach today.

But we don’t live in a theoretical world. Priests and Bishops have to deal with real world situations that don’t fit neatly in a box. Economia

Depends on what kind of box. Earlier you go, clearer Church law was and hence situations that arose were judged by that. Law itself develops as consequence of needs and practices that come.

Economia is one tool they have to help them deal with the messiness of real life situations in a merciful way.

Fact nothing constitutes what Economia actually entails means it is by default prone to abuses. However, in case of Economia nothing can be called abuse because by definition Economia allows for it. I just don’t like circular reasoning of that. I am far from one whose opinion on the topic matters, but fact something is Orthodox exercise of economia does not make said thing valid in Catholic eyes. If it is exercise of Orthodox law (which as of now is accepted as not constituting doctrinal abuses) then that’s a different story because we are bound to recognize that. So for sake of discussion of whether something is or is not correct one can not use economia as argument from Catholic viewpoint (of course, not that it should matter to Orthodox what we think).

 

[Isaac14]

Ultimately what you’re saying is that the Orthodox (and Eastern Christians in general) are wrong for not defining everything.

Fact nothing constitutes what Economia actually entails means it is by default prone to abuses. However, in case of Economia nothing can be called abuse because by definition Economia allows for it. I just don’t like circular reasoning of that.

Bishops still need to maintain communion with all the other Bishops in the world. This provides a great restraining force on what can or can’t be done - stray too far, and there will be consequences. I know this mindset is unsatisfactory to you as it doesn’t provide a clear law to follow.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Ultimately what you’re saying is that the Orthodox (and Eastern Christians in general) are wrong for not defining everything.

No, not really. There is stuff that’s fine to not define. I simply have problems of not defining boundaries for humans who are clearly all fallible. Plus not all Eastern Christians in general do that.

Bishops still need to maintain communion with all the other Bishops in the world.

“Need” is an overstatement. Russia at the moment does not need to maintain communion with Constantinople. Plus if faith were endangered, faith precedes communion. If other Bishops are wrong (view of Mark of Ephesus for example), communion is undesirable.

I am not quite educated on how economia works in practice and only know what little of theory there is (and even that is probably limited). I am grateful for our discussion but at this point I feel like I am being more annoying than learning anything, so I’ll end it here. I apologize if I offended you or anyone else. I will try to educate myself more. My point was largely that argument that “it is exercise of economia” doesn’t make something right by itself.