Validity of confessions in Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches

[benhur]

i did not understand.

Yes we need some discernment when we come to the Table, but threads like this one show we have gone to far with our “Table” theology, nitpicking like the good ol’ Pharisees.

 

[truthseekerjay]

If I walked into a confessional and said, “Forgive me Father, for I have sinned; this is my first confession (since I am really a pagan and don’t really believe in Jesus)”, then (I sure hope that!) the priest would have a nice discussion with me about faith in Jesus and about forgiveness of sins, and then send me on my way without absolution. After all, baptism is the gateway to all the other sacraments, and none of the other sacraments may be validly received without it.

On the other hand, if (in my pagan-ness) I walked into the confessional and pretended to be a Catholic, then the priest might say the words, but what really would be happening in that case would be an act of deception: I’d be (implicitly) deceiving the priest into believing that I was a Catholic who has the ability to approach the sacraments. The priest could say the words all he wants, and he might think that he validly absolved me of my sins… but God would know better. Remember: Catholicism isn’t magic! It’s not that we have the magic words of incantation and through these words we can trick God into doing something that He doesn’t want to do!

My concern is that the Buddhist may (in his mind) NOT be purposely trying to deceive the RC priest AND STILL leave out the information about being Buddhist. I can actually give you a personal example. As I’ve told you in previous conversations, I use to view God similar to how I would view a traffic court judge. I could care less who that judge was. I just wanted the minimum punishment. Throughout my early years of college, I would confess to an RC priest NOT because I really worshipped Jesus, but only because I hadn’t really explored any other religions at that time. I didn’t care who took me out of eternal punishment. It could have been Allah, Krishna, Osiris, etc. In retrospect, I didn’t really care to see Jesus in heaven. All that mattered was that I was in heaven.

The situation you presented above in which the Buddhist disclosed his situation may not happen. I didn’t tell the RC priest during confession that I didn’t care who got me out of hell and that this was the only option that I know about right now. In retrospect, I see the error in that and would have disclosed that information, but I can honestly say right now that I wasn’t trying to deceive the priest. I honestly didn’t even think that it was an issue and that’s why I didn’t bring it up. From talking to practitioners of Asian religions and reading about them, it seems as if they could easily blend religions. This is hard for me to understand coming from a background of Abrahamic religions, but they somehow make it work and this is why I feel it’s possible for them to confess without being deceptive.

WHAT IS TRUE for both me and the hypothetical Buddhist is the fear of eternal punishment and this is TRULY driving us to find ANY method possible (including confessing to an RC priest) to avoid it. Although I truly had respect for Jesus, I didn’t worship Him. If anything, I worshipped the idea of heaven and ANY BEING who would allow me to enter. However, I was truly fearful of punishment and to an extent, I was sorry for the things I confessed about. I said the proper words and the RC priest said the proper words. Do you think absolution happened?

Now that I think about it, it’s not the RC priest that’s being deceived. The Buddhist and I are actually deceiving ourselves about our true alliance. I wonder how many other people are doing the same thing right now.

 

[Jack007]

If you don’t mind me butting in, I’m going to take a hack at this…

I would answer that no, the priest’s absolution is not valid in this case. However, that does not (necessarily) mean that the pagan’s sins are not absolved. (I know, it sounds confusing… but bear with me.)

Blessings,
G.

the absolution is valid, just not licit, and the priest can refuse absolution.

confession is in one sense, magic, as our sins are forgiven.

 

[Gorgias]

the absolution is valid, just not licit, and the priest can refuse absolution.

Please answer me this question: can an unbaptized person receive any of the other six sacraments? (And, I mean this in a non-trivial way: certainly, a non-Christian can sneak into a communion line and thus “receive the Eucharist”, but I’m talking about receiving the graces which the sacraments impart. Can an unbaptized person receive the graces of any sacrament, apart from baptism?)

confession is in one sense, magic, as our sins are forgiven.

It depends on whom you mean by “our”. Do you mean Catholics? Then yes, our sins are forgiven through the sacrament of reconciliation. Do you mean non-Catholic Christians? Then yes, under certain circumstances, it is licit for them to approach sacramental confession and receive absolution.

Do you mean a non-Christian, though? Then no – there’s no ‘magic’ involved; although they certainly can be forgiven their sins* by God*, there’s not the opportunity to approach the sacrament of reconciliation. As canon law reminds us, “*n the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a legitimate minister, are sorry for them, and intend to reform themselves obtain from God through the absolution imparted by the same minister forgiveness for the sins they have committed after baptism and, at the same, time are reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by sinning” (c. 959, emphases mine). The unbaptized are not referred to in canon law as “the faithful”; having not been baptized, they cannot be absolved of sins “committed after baptism”; and, having never been joined to the Church (through baptism), they are not “reconciled with the Church” via reconciliation.

And, I would strenuously disagree with even a casual use of the term “magic” in the context of the sacraments. Magic means that a person has wrested control of some force that (should be) beyond his power to control, and has performed some ritual in order to assert his control over that force. The sacraments are supernatural, but they’re not magical. In fact, quoting Presbyterorum ordinis, the Catechism asserts, “[t]he confessor is not the master of God’s forgiveness, but its servant. The minister of this sacrament should unite himself to the intention and charity of Christ” (CCC, 1466).*

 

[Gorgias]

My concern is that the Buddhist may (in his mind) NOT be purposely trying to deceive the RC priest AND STILL leave out the information about being Buddhist.

Agreed; that’s why I also mentioned the case of a non-Christian who approaches sacramental confession without deception in mind. I asserted, in that case, that God may forgive him, but that the forgiveness, per se, is not sacramental, regardless of the words of a priest who mistakenly thought the person to be Catholic. Hence the mention of ‘magic’: sacraments aren’t magic; they don’t work because the priest says magic incantations – they work in the way that Jesus intended them when He instituted them. Sacramental reconciliation was given to us as a means by which a (Catholic) Christian may receive forgiveness for post-baptismal sin. God, himself, may certainly forgive a person’s sins; but the normative means by which a Catholic seeks forgiveness is through sacramental reconciliation. More to the point: a Catholic who receives sacramental absolution knows that his sins are forgiven him; a person who prays to God hopes on God’s mercy. That person hopes that he isn’t simply crying out “Lord, Lord!”, as Jesus warns in Luke 6, hoping that he doesn’t one day hear Jesus respond, “I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.”

WHAT IS TRUE for both me and the hypothetical Buddhist is the fear of eternal punishment and this is TRULY driving us to find ANY method possible (including confessing to an RC priest) to avoid it.

Fear of eternal punishment is what the Church means by the phrase “imperfect contrition.” Certainly, there is value in imperfect contrition; it is a means through which a person may be led to Christ. However, there’s a difference between “I’m going to do whatever it takes to be led to the Truth and attain to heaven” and “I’m going to perform ritual A and ritual B and ritual C in church X and church Y and church Z, hoping that, among these attempts, I’ll chance upon the one that actually works.” That approach is what Jesus was warning against when He said, “do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words” (Mt 6:7).

I said the proper words and the RC priest said the proper words. Do you think absolution happened?

You were Catholic at the time? You were expressing imperfect contrition? Then yes, absolution happened. If a non-Christian did the same thing, though, then I’m asserting that no, it could not be sacramental absolution, although I could not rule out the possibility that God himself forgave, in a way that only He can.

Now that I think about it, it’s not the RC priest that’s being deceived. The Buddhist and I are actually deceiving ourselves about our true alliance.

That’s quite an amazing insight!

 

[Jack007]

Please answer me this question: can an unbaptized person receive any of the other six sacraments? (And, I mean this in a non-trivial way: certainly, a non-Christian can sneak into a communion line and thus “receive the Eucharist”, but I’m talking about receiving the graces which the sacraments impart. Can an unbaptized person receive the graces of any sacrament, apart from baptism?)

all sacraments have effects. in qurbana, the effect is transubstantiation, not grace in communion.

he cannot receive confirmation or thirupattom, whatever it is called in english. he can validly but illicitly receive all sacraments, except matrimony.

 

[truthseekerjay]

You were Catholic at the time? You were expressing imperfect contrition? Then yes, absolution happened. If a non-Christian did the same thing, though, then I’m asserting that no, it could not be sacramental absolution, although I could not rule out the possibility that God himself forgave, in a way that only He can.

I was Catholic by name, just like many people identify with a particular religion, but don’t really practice/believe it. Although at the time I thought I worshipped Jesus, in retrospect, I didn’t really. I was really a non-Christian carrying the the RC identity. Just to clarify, does simply identifying as Christian make you Christian or is worship of Christ required? Is it really any different from the hypothetical Buddhist? If anything, the hypothetical Buddhist (although confused) is at least honest about being open to a deity other than Jesus, while I tried to deny my lack of complete allegiance.

 

[Gorgias]

all sacraments have effects. in qurbana, the effect is transubstantiation, not grace in communion.

The effect of the Liturgy is transubstantiation; however, despite the effect of the Liturgy, do all receive grace equally? Please note: I wasn’t asking what the Liturgy does – after all, a valid Eucharist is a valid Eucharist – but what a person may do. Validly consecrated Eucharist, consumed by a non-believer, remains Eucharist; but, the question is, what effect – what graces – does that person receive?

he cannot receive confirmation or thirupattom, whatever it is called in english. he can validly but illicitly receive all sacraments, except matrimony.

Doing a quick Google search, I found that thirupattom is ‘holy orders’. It’s valid for a non-Christian to receive reconciliation in your church, even if he has not received baptism/chrismation/First Communion? Hmm…

CCEO 720 §1 states, "ndividual and integral confession and absolution constitute the ordinary way by which the Christian faithful who is aware of a serious sin is reconciled with God and the Church." It does not state that absolution is available to the non-Christian.

 

[Gorgias]

I was Catholic by name, just like many people identify with a particular religion, but don’t really practice/believe it. Although at the time I thought I worshipped Jesus, in retrospect, I didn’t really. I was really a non-Christian carrying the the RC identity.

Actually… no. If you were a validly baptized Catholic, then you were – are! – a Catholic. Therefore, regardless of how well you understood or followed Catholic teachings, you are still Catholic. This means, then, that your attempts at sacramental reconciliation in the Catholic Church were both valid and licit. Therefore… absolution.

Just to clarify, does simply identifying as Christian make you Christian or is worship of Christ required?

Valid baptism makes you Christian. Therefore, there’s a distinct and concrete difference between you and the ‘hypothetical Buddhist’. You’ve received the graces of baptism.

If anything, the hypothetical Buddhist (although confused) is at least honest about being open to a deity other than Jesus, while I tried to deny my lack of complete allegiance.

This only means that you were a Catholic in need of conversion, not that you were in the same boat as a person who had never accepted Christ (even if you accepted Him imperfectly).

 

[Jack007]

The effect of the Liturgy is transubstantiation; however, despite the effect of the Liturgy, do all receive grace equally? Please note: I wasn’t asking what the Liturgy does – after all, a valid Eucharist is a valid Eucharist – but what a person may do. Validly consecrated Eucharist, consumed by a non-believer, remains Eucharist; but, the question is, what effect – what graces – does that person receive?

actually, we should not compare absolution and grace by communion(fruit). absolution is the effect, power not to sin is the fruit. disposition affects fruit, but never effect.

Doing a quick Google search, I found that thirupattom is ‘holy orders’.

it is the sacrament used to make priests and bishops and deacons.

It’s valid for a non-Christian to receive reconciliation in your church, even if he has not received baptism/chrismation/First Communion? Hmm…

as i keep saying, the priest should refuse absolution. even if the priest hypothetically absolves, it illicit. i know not whether t would be blasphemy, another sin, for both to do so.

 

[Jack007]

CCEO 720 §1 states, "ndividual and integral confession and absolution constitute the ordinary way by which the Christian faithful who is aware of a serious sin is reconciled with God and the Church." It does not state that absolution is available to the non-Christian.

see the intent behind writing this.

and also, this is what my sui juris church teaches

A sacrament may be administered validly, but illicitly, if a condition imposed by canon law is not observed

 

[truthseekerjay]

Actually… no. If you were a validly baptized Catholic, then you were – are! – a Catholic. Therefore, regardless of how well you understood or followed Catholic teachings, you are still Catholic. This means, then, that your attempts at sacramental reconciliation in the Catholic Church were both valid and licit. Therefore… absolution.

Sorry if I’m straying slightly from the main topic, but I do want to understand this idea better. I know that in certain parts of the world that pagan traditions have fused with traditional RC. This may have been done deliberately to help convert colonized people or the colonizers may just have failed to get rid of all the native elements. For example, a people may place statues of their harvest god in their fields to promote a bountiful harvest, but now they use a statue of Jesus to serve the same purpose. For whatever reason, it seems as if the RC clergy haven’t really tried to stop these practices alongside the traditional RC practices of baptism and reconciliation. Here’s an example of syncretism: youtube.com/watch?v=qZkpRaw1Irw

Since there are genuine RC churches that are tied to Rome in these countries, I would assume that these people are receiving valid baptisms and absolutions from confession. However, these people are ESSENTIALLY still worshipping their old gods. Just because they replaced the statue in the field doesn’t mean that they actually replaced the god in their hearts and minds. Would you say that these people are still Catholic and are still receiving absolution due to their fear of eternal punishment?

Note: In syncretic religions such as Santeria, most of the practitioners KNEW that they were still worshipping the old gods and were purposely deceiving the RC colonizers. The situation that I’m describing above is one in which the practitioners are essentially confused about the focus of worship and aren’t being deceptive.

 

[Jack007]

Sorry if I’m straying slightly from the main topic, but I do want to understand this idea better. I know that in certain parts of the world that pagan traditions have fused with traditional RC. This may have been done deliberately to help convert colonized people or the colonizers may just have failed to get rid of all the native elements. For example, a people may place statues of their harvest god in their fields to promote a bountiful harvest, but now they use a statue of Jesus to serve the same purpose. For whatever reason, it seems as if the RC clergy haven’t really tried to stop these practices alongside the traditional RC practices of baptism and reconciliation. Here’s an example of syncretism: youtube.com/watch?v=qZkpRaw1Irw

Since there are genuine RC churches that are tied to Rome in these countries, I would assume that these people are receiving valid baptisms and absolutions from confession. However, these people are ESSENTIALLY still worshipping their old gods. Just because they replaced the statue in the field doesn’t mean that they actually replaced the god in their hearts and minds. Would you say that these people are still Catholic and are still receiving absolution due to their fear of eternal punishment?

Note: In syncretic religions such as Santeria, most of the practitioners KNEW that they were still worshipping the old gods and were purposely deceiving the RC colonizers. The situation that I’m describing above is one in which the practitioners are essentially confused about the focus of worship and aren’t being deceptive.

if water is used in baptism, the formula is used, the baptist has intent, it is valid

 

[Gorgias]

Sorry if I’m straying slightly from the main topic, but I do want to understand this idea better. I know that in certain parts of the world that pagan traditions have fused with traditional RC. This may have been done deliberately to help convert colonized people or the colonizers may just have failed to get rid of all the native elements. For example, a people may place statues of their harvest god in their fields to promote a bountiful harvest, but now they use a statue of Jesus to serve the same purpose.

This isn’t syncretism, though: syncretism means that you’re blending religions – some of this one and some of that one. In your example, though, there’s no blending: the people are used to calling upon someone to bless them in their harvest – and Catholics advise them to call upon Jesus for this blessing. Can you see that this isn’t syncretism, but rather, drawing upon Christianity in places in which they would have drawn upon pagan idols?

For whatever reason, it seems as if the RC clergy haven’t really tried to stop these practices alongside the traditional RC practices of baptism and reconciliation. Here’s an example of syncretism: youtube.com/watch?v=qZkpRaw1Irw

Again, no: St Anthony is being prayed to – for intercession, ostensibly – rather than to a Mayan deity. This ‘Gaspar’ they mention, I assume, is a St Gaspar, to whom they pray for intercession for success in business. Not syncretism. Are you looking at the depictions – which are in the Mayan style – and presuming that they’re depictions of Mayan gods? This woman herself – and we have to admit, we have no idea who she is and cannot say that she represents the Church! – says that it’s St Anthony to whom the people come, in lieu of approaching a pagan god.

However, these people are ESSENTIALLY still worshipping their old gods.

That’s quite a stretch, wouldn’t you say? If they’re praying to Jesus, how can you simply say “nope; they’re praying to their idol”???

Just because they replaced the statue in the field doesn’t mean that they actually replaced the god in their hearts and minds.

No – what it means is that they continue to reach out for help in those everyday contexts that are part and parcel of their lives. Instead of reaching out to idols, however, now they’re reaching out to Jesus. How are you concluding that they’re really just reaching out to their old idols? That’s quite a presumption!

Note: In syncretic religions such as Santeria, most of the practitioners KNEW that they were still worshipping the old gods and were purposely deceiving the RC colonizers. The situation that I’m describing above is one in which the practitioners are essentially confused about the focus of worship and aren’t being deceptive.

You’re presuming that they’re confused. We aren’t seeing anything that suggests that this is the case, however.

 

[truthseekerjay]

That’s quite a stretch, wouldn’t you say? If they’re praying to Jesus, how can you simply say “nope; they’re praying to their idol”???

You’re presuming that they’re confused. We aren’t seeing anything that suggests that this is the case, however.

I’m not saying they’re ALL confused, but for those WHO ARE, is absolution happening?

I can give you an example where confusion can occur. I had Filipino friends growing up and some of them have Buddha statues in their house, but they were baptized in an RC church. They will identify as Roman Catholic and will claim not to worship the Buddha, but then you find offerings next to the Buddha statues. I read about the Philippines, which is a predominantly Catholic nation, so I was surprised that they would have this practice, but it just goes to show that sometimes, religion can be a fluid thing for certain people.

Also, I know many people who become practitioners of a particular religion due to social pressure or to please a significant other. I don’t know about other religious institutions, but I do know that the requirements for the sacraments of initiation can vary between RC churches. My parents’s church wasn’t too particularly strict and getting confirmed was relatively easy for me. Anyway, I can see how a person who didn’t really have the right motivation can breeze through the requirements in the more lax churches without really knowing who Jesus is. I could see the possibility of them A) still holding on to pagan deities due to their own and the local clergy’s irresponsibility, B) having a true fear of eternal punishment, and C) being somewhat sorry for their sins. Aren’t all three possible together?

 

[Jack007]

I’m not saying they’re ALL confused, but for those WHO ARE, is absolution happening?

I can give you an example where confusion can occur. I had Filipino friends growing up and some of them have Buddha statues in their house, but they were baptized in an RC church. They will identify as Roman Catholic and will claim not to worship the Buddha, but then you find offerings next to the Buddha statues. I read about the Philippines, which is a predominantly Catholic nation, so I was surprised that they would have this practice, but it just goes to show that sometimes, religion can be a fluid thing for certain people.

Also, I know many people who become practitioners of a particular religion due to social pressure or to please a significant other. I don’t know about other religious institutions, but I do know that the requirements for the sacraments of initiation can vary between RC churches. My parents’s church wasn’t too particularly strict and getting confirmed was relatively easy for me. Anyway, I can see how a person who didn’t really have the right motivation can breeze through the requirements in the more lax churches without really knowing who Jesus is. I could see the possibility of them A) still holding on to pagan deities due to their own and the local clergy’s irresponsibility, B) having a true fear of eternal punishment, and C) being somewhat sorry for their sins. Aren’t all three possible together?

how many times must i say this, a confession is valid if there is form,matter and intention.

 

[Gorgias]

[A non-baptized person] cannot receive confirmation or thirupattom, whatever it is called in english. he can validly but illicitly receive all sacraments, except matrimony.

This is not true. Canon 842 §1 states, “a person who has not received baptism cannot be admitted validly to the other sacraments.” The CCEO states, “Only by the actual reception of baptism is a person made capable for the other sacraments” (c. 675 §2).

Therefore, an unbaptized person might go to confession; he might hear words of absolution; but it is not possible for him to validly receive absolution. This is a matter of validity, not liceity.

On the other hand, for a baptized Catholic Christian, regardless of the fervor or intensity of his belief, absolution in the sacrament of reconciliation is valid.

 

[Jack007]

This is not true. Canon 842 §1 states, “a person who has not received baptism cannot be admitted validly to the other sacraments.” The CCEO states, “Only by the actual reception of baptism is a person made capable for the other sacraments” (c. 675 §2).

Therefore, an unbaptized person might go to confession; he might hear words of absolution; but it is not possible for him to validly receive absolution. This is a matter of validity, not liceity.

On the other hand, for a baptized Catholic Christian, regardless of the fervor or intensity of his belief, absolution in the sacrament of reconciliation is valid.

so if unbaptised people marry, is it invalid? does that make them do adultery?

 

[Gorgias]

so if unbaptised people marry, is it invalid? does that make them do adultery?

No. If unbaptized people marry (or if a Christian and an unbaptized person marry), it’s a valid marriage – it’s just not a sacrament.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m not saying they’re ALL confused, but for those WHO ARE, is absolution happening?

Yes. Validity of the sacraments doesn’t depend on how ‘good’ of a Catholic you are, but simply that you are a baptized Catholic.

but it just goes to show that sometimes, religion can be a fluid thing for certain people.

A person’s practice of religion may be fluid, from one person to another, but the religion itself isn’t fluid. Important distinction.

Also, I know many people who become practitioners of a particular religion due to social pressure or to please a significant other.

This is an important consideration, which might require a good bit of discussion to suss out. Since it doesn’t have to do with the validity of the sacrament of reconciliation, maybe we should start up a different thread?

I don’t know about other religious institutions, but I do know that the requirements for the sacraments of initiation can vary between RC churches.

Just to be more precise: it’s not that “the requirements for the sacrament of baptism varies between Catholic Churches”, it’s that some parishes are lax in adhering to the requirements for Catholic baptism. It’s important to make this distinction, I think, since it points to the fact that, what some parishes are doing, isn’t what the Church has in mind. It may or may not affect the validity of the sacrament, but it sure does affect the liceity!

I could see the possibility of them A) still holding on to pagan deities due to their own and the local clergy’s irresponsibility, B) having a true fear of eternal punishment, and C) being somewhat sorry for their sins. Aren’t all three possible together?

Yes, this is possible – even when the pagan deities are “the almighty dollar” or “NFL football on Sunday”.

Yet, the fact remains: a baptized Catholic, regardless of their knowledge of the faith, the perfection of their contrition, or their shortcomings in religious practice… still validly and licitly receive absolution in the sacrament of reconciliation.