Have just found this on a chronological list of RCC doctrines, haven't checked it:
AD 1215 - Auricular confession of sins to a priest, instead of to G-d, is instituted by Innocent III in the Lateran Council
Myrrh wrote:Myrrh wrote:Νικολάος Διάκ wrote:Dear Myrhh,
..that the bishops do not have the God-grated power to loose and bind on earth and heaven,
Matthew 18
15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
This idea that only the bishop has the power to bind and loose doesn't make any sense in the above if you're going with the idea that this is an authority given to bishops only.
The problem with the direction Russian Orthodoxy took with Peter the Great's interference is particularly noticed in the addition of Peter Moghila's absolution formula which he got from the Roman Catholics, it was introduced into the Slavonic in the 18th century.
It is a Western idea that the priest represents Christ, Orthodox is that the priest is an ikon of Christ, because, for the RCC Christ is absent.
We do not confess to a priest as do the RC, we confess to God and the addition of the Latin absolution from the priest is totally out of place in our theology of confession, it makes nonsense of it. It doesn't exist in the Greek Church.
The unfortunate collorary of using it is that is confuses the priest who now assumes that he somehow has been given the power to absolve sins as if Christ our God is absent. I posted something on this recently, I'll have a look for it.
Myrrh
This was an exchange with a ROCOR priest on the Moghila addition, which research showed that it introduces a subtle and profound difference to Orthodox confession:
In the Slavic ritual a Latin-inspired and juridical form of personal absolution was introduced by Peter Mogila, metropolitan of Kiev (17th century).
RP: "The difference lies in the prayers of absolution said by the priest/confessor over the repentant person. In the Russian
tradition the final prayer contains the statement, "and I an
unworthy priest through the power given me do forgive and absolve
the servant of God..." To some people this formula is too Catholic
in that it implies that the priest is doing the forgiving instead of
God - but that would completely ignore the phrase, "through the
power given me" which makes it clear that the priest is only acting
as the minister of the sacrament of forgiveness - not its source."Doesn't make it clear at all, the immediate source is the difference
between Orthodox and Latin form of absolution and in the Latin use
the immediate source is the priest which is what these words "Power
given me" say, the personal power of that priest. And in the Latin
church there are particular concepts attached to this.For a start this page gives a general idea of the differences;
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/ConfessionIt says of the RCC:
"Catholics believe that no priest, as an individual man, however
pious or learned, has power to forgive sins. This power belongs to
God alone; however, God can and does exercise it through the
Catholic priesthood. Catholics believe God exercises the power of
forgiveness by means of the sacrament of reconciliation.The basic form of confession has not changed for centuries, although
at one time confessions were made publicly. Colloquially speaking,
the role of the priest is of a judge and jury; in theological terms,
he acts in persona Christi and receives from the Church the power of
jurisdiction over the penitent. ......Absolution in the Roman rite takes this form:
God the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his
Son, has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit
among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the
Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from
your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit.The essential words, however, are "I absolve you.""
It says of the Orthodox:
"The Eastern Orthodox sacrament of confession, or repentance,
includes prayer to God and confessing ones sins to God, typically in
the presence of an icon of Jesus Christ and also with a priest
nearby to bear witness. The priest will typically add his own
prayers, may add counsel or assign some form of penance, and will
usually announce God's forgiveness of sins. In Orthodox
ecclesiology, the priest is not an intermediary between God and the
penitent. The confession is to God in the presence of a priest, not
to a priest in the presence of God."Utterly different from each other, the one based on the premise that
Christ is absent and the other that Christ is present. What does it
mean then when the Orthodox use the latin form? How does it affect
the users of this service?Myrrh
...................
Deacon I think the questions in the last paragraph are important. What are your thoughts on this?
Myrrh