Ecumenical Councils III

For those not keeping track of the ongoing discussion, Mike Liccione has responded to my previous post over at his blog Sacramentum Vitae. His response was as always, both cordial and thought provoking. There are now over 100 comments between the thread at Cathedra Unitas and Mike’s thread over at SV. Thank you to everyone who has commented. Given the large number of comments many of the counterpoints which I had intended to make in reply to Mike’s post have inevitably already been addressed. Also in a couple of cases Mike appears to be repeating questions and concerns which I raised in my aforementioned post. However I do think it desirable to very briefly amplify some of my previous comments and respond to a few items he raised.

First, I want to correct what may be a misapprehension. My previous post was not intended as a declaration that I think we are on the verge of restoring communion with Rome. Nor was it intended to lay out a blue print for that process to occur. Rather it was an observation that there is some peculiar wording in the joint declaration from the most recent discussions between the various Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church on some of the theological issues dividing us. Specifically I was referring to a phrase which I thought rather inconsistent with the customary understanding of the Latin position vis a vis their take on the councils of the Roman Church post 1054. It appears to be a very slight hedging on their part. A half step if you will back from the usual line that those councils are true ecumenical councils whose declarations are binding upon the Church Universal. I noted there, and wish to reiterate, my skepticism that Rome sees the wording in that light. Mike’s own response has much strengthened that skepticism.

However on the off chance that I am wrong, I opined that this would be a significant move on the part of the Western Church that could open the door to a much more serious discussion. But to be honest I must join many of the Roman Catholic commenters over at SV as also Owen the Ochlophobist in expressing my profound pessimism at the prospect of restoration of communion. But if there is any chance of it happening this is probably how it would start. At present I tend to see the annual meetings between our churches as useful for building personal good will and better understanding. But beyond that I think they are of limited use. Unless the terrain on which we are all dancing shifts there is a limit to what these discussions can accomplish.

To whit in a recent discussion over at SV Mike and I had an interesting and almost amusing exchange. He had been arguing that Orthodoxy need not cease to be, and become Catholic (large ‘C’) in order for communion to be restored. This has been a recurring theme on his part and one that I (and Owen) have generally been skeptical of. Prompting the following…

Mike,
For clarification, does your vision of restored communion between Orthodoxy and Rome include acceptance on the part of the Eastern Churches of the post schism doctrinal definitions of the Western Church?

ICXC
John
Ad Orientem | Homepage | 11.04.07 - 11:33 am | #

---

John:

I've often answered that question before. But before I resurrect that horse, I have a question for you: would healing the schism between the EOs and the OOs require the latter to accept the Christology of Chalcedon?

Best,
Mike
Mike L | Homepage | 11.04.07 - 1:34 pm | #

---

Mike,
Yes.

ICXC
John
Ad Orientem | Homepage | 11.04.07 - 5:03 pm | #

---

John:

Yes.

Best,
Mike
Mike L | Homepage | 11.04.07 - 6:00 pm | #

---

The premise of my previous post is based on Mike’s above answer becoming a “no.” A true Ecumenical Council aimed at reconciliation must in my opinion, begin from the idea that there has not been a true council whose definitions are binding on The Church since before the schism. (We shall for the moment ignore the question of the dating of the schism which Dr. Tighe has written about extensively.) This is what I meant when I asked if Rome was prepared to take the risk of walking into such a council. It would have to be one, whose outcome was not limited to two possible scenarios, acceptance of the western doctrinal developments or failure. In the current discussion over at SV, I noted that if the lack of a dogmatic anathema from Orthodoxy was the basis for the Western Church’s dreams of a restored communion then it is precisely the fact that Rome has dogmatized certain beliefs which must be reduced to theologumen in order for such a council to even have a chance of ever meeting that constitute the greatest barrier. If the purpose of such a council is for us to simply show up and rubber stamp the West’s dogmas they can save themselves the postage for the invitations.

Even beyond the monumentally improbable agreement of Rome to such a premise there are as I see it a whole series of other challenges to this scenario further adding to my profound skepticism. Mike raised the specter of a number of obstacles mostly relative to our side. Not only do I concede the existence of these obstacles, I actually wrote about many of them in my below post. Any serious attempt at a meeting with the Roman Catholic Church for the avowed purpose of restoring communion will absolutely spark schisms within Orthodoxy and it will lend weight to some that already exist. Being frank there is some occasional frustration in belonging to a church whose ecclesiology makes one despair of a great council being able to agree on a bathroom break without provoking another schism. But I think that if Rome announced it was backing off its dogmatic claims of authority for the Western Church councils it would be almost impossible for the Orthodox not to show up. (Yes, even the Russians.) This of course does not mean that we should expect Rome to show up and denounce the theogumen of their church as heretical before we finish the introductions. That would be just as unreasonable as the reverse scenario which I have already noted would be a nonstarter. But any council must begin with the premise that nothing is carved in stone for either church that has not been dogmatized by the decrees of the first seven councils. This might not only be challenging for the RCC but also for us since many (perhaps most) Orthodox recognize nine ecumenical councils the last two of which are most definitely NOT recognized by Rome.

In fairness I think many Roman Catholics enormously underestimate the deep opposition that would arise in their own church to such a move. Liberal Catholics would do almost anything to sabotage such a council and probably at least some would break off in schism over it. They would know with absolute clarity the danger posed to their ambitions by an Orthodox Catholic rapprochement. Personally I don’t see many orthodox Catholics shedding a lot of tears over that. But then you have to address the subject of the Traditionalists. These will oppose any concession to Orthodoxy beyond a willingness to let us kneel and kiss the Pope’s ring. Those who doubt this should take a look at some of the responses over at Rorate Caeli on the rare occasions I comment there. These people, who are already highly suspicious of Rome’s commitment to all manner of what they define as tradition ranging from the Tridentine Mass to ecumenism will bolt in large numbers if they think Rome is yielding even an inch. They are the Western equivalent to our Old Calendarists.

Yet another challenge posed to such an undertaking was noted by Owen, my favorite Ochlophobist. He points out in an extensive comment at SV that the absence of dogmatic anathemas are moot since many of the Western Church’s dogmatic developments are expressly repudiated in the words of our liturgy. This in itself opens a whole new can of worms. I refer the reader to his comment which should be read in its entirety.

And if all this is not enough, yet another interesting challenge that Mike throws out is the very definition of what is an ecumenical council.

In Orthodox terms, a given council counts as "ecumenical" only if the participating bishops represent the Church as a whole and its decrees are received by the Church as a whole. In that usage, the term "ecumenical" is primarily empirical rather than normative. It tells us what is, or would be, the case, and that is logically distinct from what ought to be the case, which is what Rome's usage ostensibly tells us. Now from Rome's standpoint a given council would count as ecumenical in the normative sense ('ecumenical-N') if, in fact, it counts as ecumenical in the empirical sense ('ecumenical-E'). For a council that would count as ecumenical-E, in both Catholic and Orthodox terms, would entail Rome's assent and ratification, which from Rome's standpoint would suffice to make it ecumenical-N. And even if the Orthodox faithful as a whole did not "receive" the decrees of such a council because of Rome's assent and ratification, such a council would in fact count as ecumenical in Orthodox terms, i.e. as ecumenical-E. By common consent, any council that is ecumenical-E would also be ecumenical-N.

As he notes in Roman Catholic ecclesiology a council is ecumenical if the Pope says it is. Ignoring the remarkable convenience of such a position and the questions this raises about the eighth council (879-880) and Rome’s assent (withdrawn in the eleventh century in favor of the Robber Council) it once again places the Orthodox in the position of being in a meeting for the sole purpose of rubber stamping the decrees of the Latin Church. Again such a proposition is a nonstarter. To borrow Mike’s terminology, in Orthodoxy a council that wishes to be Ecumenical N must also be Ecumenical E. The Latin approach negates the very concept of a council as understood in Orthodoxy.

If however the stars are all in alignment and thousands of saints are praying at once for a miracle, maybe something could actually happen. One very likely outcome of such a hypothetical council (presuming its success) would be a more developed ecclesiology on the part of the Orthodox Church. I have argued for a long time that Orthodoxy has greatly devalued the role of primacy over the last thousand plus years. This has been due to a number of factors including at least on some level a certain knee jerk reaction to the ultramontane decrees emanating from the West. I also think we might see a deeper appreciation for a less rigid ecclesiology on the part of the Roman Church. Exactly what the final form would take is purely speculative and I am content to leave that for others to dream about.

But in the end; this is all just some ruminations based on a weird choice of words stuck almost accidentally it seems, in an otherwise relatively bland document from the latest set of discussions that I tend to think of as the clerical equivalent to congressional junkets. A great excuse to travel and go to some nice cocktail parties. To move beyond that we will need some true miracles on both sides of this gulf.

[Note: This post has been slightly edited for grammar.]

Ecumenical Councils II

Continuing the discussion on the subject of the previous post I just posted this over at CU. In order to preserve a coherent discussion please make any replies there.

I am on record as being more than slightly skeptical about the chances for any form of restoration of communion between East and West. One of the things which I have always seen standing in the way of the reunification are the dogmatic definitions of the Latin Church post 1054 (most especially but certainly not limited to Vatican I). Many Roman Catholics have attempted to assert the possibility of reunion on the basis of the fact that Orthodoxy has never dogmatically anathematized the various doctrinal developments/innovations of the Latin Church.

Mike Liccione is one of the great champions of that line of reasoning. The counter which I always raised was that it boiled down to an acceptance that Rome is in fact THE CHURCH and that we are wrong. That is of course a nonstarter since both East and West independently affirm that they are the One True Church. From an Orthodox perspective therefore it is not possible for the Roman Catholic Church to make true dogmatic definitions.

However Mike is correct on an important point which does lend some small hope. Since Orthodoxy for whatever reasons (I would opine there are many) has not held an oecumenical council since 880 AD, and therefore has not formally condemned the Latin innovations, they could be treated as theologumen. Granted, I think there is far greater unanimity among the Orthodox hierarchs and the lay faithful that many Western doctrines are heretical, than there is support for some of them among the Roman Catholic faithful. But it still boils down to theologumen on our side. But if you remove Rome’s carved in stone claim that those doctrines are infallible truths binding on all of the faithful, then we may move back to square one.

This would not of course end the schism or restore communion. But it would have the effect of saying both sides have strongly held contrary OPINIONS of great import that need to be resolved. On that basis it might be possible to convene a Great Council of The Church to begin the process of sorting things out and resolving them one at time.

By no means is this any guarantee that we would succeed. Florence failed. But I think it is quite probably the only way true and lasting communion could ever be restored. Also I think this would not be something that could be resolved in a year or two. I am thinking decades on the conservative side, but more likely centuries. The mere act of sitting in the same room with the Pope at what might eventually claim to be an ecumenical council would spark schisms within Orthodoxy, and very probably among Roman Catholic traditionalists as also liberal Catholics who would understand the mortal threat to their dreams posed by the prospect of restored communion between Rome and Orthodoxy. And then there is the fact that Ecumenical Councils don’t just happen and get rubber stamped in Orthodoxy. They take years and sometimes centuries to gain acceptance.

Now if you think getting the Orthodox to agree to anything like this is going to be hard then just consider the idea of Rome entertaining, even for a millisecond, the idea that there has not been a true and binding ecumenical council in well over a thousand years. If you like those odds, I have some Enron Stock I would like to sell you at the bargain price of $100.00 per share. Saying that this would be messy and downright ugly would be the understatement of the year. The bottom line is that this is one of the most unlikely ideas ever floated. But I also think it might be the only way that will really work. I do not see communion ever being restored without a Great Council.

Rome claims two very key things. First that all of the Latin dogmas proclaimed post 1054 are correct, and secondly that the Orthodox Churches are true and particular churches that are a part of the One True Church, if imperfectly. In support of this they note (repeatedly) that we have never formally anathematized those doctrines. Assuming for the sake of discussion those two claims are correct then Rome should have nothing to fear from putting it all on the table. Let a true Great Council of The Church be convened and hammer it all out. The worst that happens is it fails and we are back to where we stand today (with a few dozen more schisms on the side). That might indeed be the result. I suspect it is quite likely. The odds against agreement are staggering. But maybe, just maybe, we would see a miracle. I think the possibility of living to see a concelebrated liturgy with all of the Orthodox Patriarchs and the Pope of Rome is worth the risk. But it really comes down to this; how confident is Rome of its position? Are they willing or even able to take such a leap? What say my Roman brothers and sisters, is restored communion worth such a risk?

On Ecumenical Councils

39. Unlike diocesan and regional synods, an ecumenical council is not an “institution” whose frequency can be regulated by canons; it is rather an “event”, a kairos inspired by the Holy Spirit who guides the Church so as to engender within it the institutions which it needs and which respond to its nature. This harmony between the Church and the councils is so profound that, even after the break between East and West which rendered impossible the holding of ecumenical councils in the strict sense of the term, both Churches continued to hold councils whenever serious crises arose. These councils gathered together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or, although understood in a different way, with the See of Constantinople, respectively. In the Roman Catholic Church, some of these councils held in the West were regarded as ecumenical. This situation, which obliged both sides of Christendom to convoke councils proper to each of them, favoured dissentions which contributed to mutual estrangement. The means which will allow the re-establishment of ecumenical consensus must be sought out.

From the final document of the Orthodox-Catholic theological discussions held at Ravenna. I think the above reference to the impossibility of holding true ecumenical councils could be (heavy emphasis) a very significant phrase. It might open a whole bunch of doors which I (and most Orthodox and Roman Catholics) have long presumed shut. Where will this go? No where right away. But let's see what happens in the future. Maybe this was what is sometimes called a trial balloon to gauge reaction. If so it would probably get a warm reception from the East. Then again it is entirely possible that I am reading way too much into this. Thoughts?

A big hat tip to Cathedra Unitas for posting the entire document and Wei Hsien for catching the interesting choice of wording noted above. Please comment over at CU.

The Pope's Revolution

Two and a half years after the name "Josephum" came booming down from the balcony of St Peter's, making liberal Catholics weep with rage, Pope Benedict XVI is revealing his programme of reform. And it is breathtakingly ambitious.

The 80-year-old Pontiff is planning a purification of the Roman liturgy in which decades of trendy innovations will be swept away. This recovery of the sacred is intended to draw Catholics closer to the Orthodox and ultimately to heal the 1,000 year Great Schism. But it is also designed to attract vast numbers of conservative Anglicans, who will be offered the protection of the Holy Father if they covert en masse.

The liberal cardinals don't like the sound of it at all.

Read the rest here.

Islamic justice: Get raped and get 200 lashes

Via FOX News:

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia —
A 19-year-old female victim of gang rape who initially was ordered to undergo 90 lashes for "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape," has been sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail for telling her story to the news media.

The new verdict was handed down by Saudi Arabia's Higher Judicial Council following a retrial, the Arab News reported.

The court last year sentenced the six heavily-armed men who carried out the attack against the Shiite woman to between one and five years for committing the crime.

But the judges had decided to punish the woman further for "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media," a court source told the Arab News.

The new verdict issued on Wednesday also toughened the sentences against the six men to between two and nine years in prison.

Saudi Arabia enforces a strict Islamic doctrine that forbids unrelated men and women from associating with each other, bans women from driving and forces them to cover head-to-toe in public.

The case has angered members of Saudi Arabia's Shiite community. The convicted men are Sunni Muslims, the dominant community in the oil-rich Gulf state.

This is simply barbaric.

Georgia Patriarch a Voice for Calm

Catholicos-Patriarch Ilia II

TBILISI, Georgia, Nov. 14 — When Georgia’s short democratic experiment seemed near collapse last week amid a commotion of flying tear gas canisters, rocks and rubber bullets, the nation’s leaders, their opponents, and the Georgian people looked to Catholicos-Patriarch Ilia II, head of Georgia’s Orthodox Church.

The patriarch addressed the nation on television, calling for an end to the violence and opening the churches as a refuge. And when the violence subsided, he offered his services as mediator between the government and the opposition.

“If there is anything in this country that can be a guarantor of security, it is the patriarch,” Tina Khidasheli, of the opposition Republican Party, said in an interview days after a government-imposed state of emergency shut down independent media and curtailed political rights. “No one else has any authority anymore.”

As leader of a near 2,000-year-old religious tradition, the patriarch has been a unifying force through 30 years of political turmoil, poverty and war, even as one revolution after another, peaceful or otherwise, has toppled the nation’s political leaders.

Read the rest here.

The last Armistice Day

I have blogged a couple of times on the rapidly disappearing veterans of the First World War. Now Richard Rubin in a piece for the NY Times reports that we are down to the last American soldier who served in France, Frank Buckles. He opines in his melancholy essay that this is likely to be the last year we celebrate Armistice Day with a living veteran of the Great War. Oddly this seems to have drawn almost no attention in the United States. Overseas the passing of the last veterans of that war has been carefully watched for some years now. France has prepared plans for a full blown state funeral when its last Word War I veteran dies.

One would think we might at least pause briefly and tip our hat to the memory of all those Americans who fought to make the world safe for democracy. That they failed in no way diminishes the noble character or glorious conviction which motivated an entire generation to march off to war, truly believing that if they fought hard enough there would never be another. In the history of our country its quite possible that there has never been a generation as idealistic as that one, nor one as ill used.

May their memory be eternal.

Viva el Rey!

H.M. King Juan Carlos I of Spain

In a moment which warmed my occasionally monarchist heart H.M. King Juan Carlos (Bourbon) of Spain gave a brief but firm rebuke to Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez last night in Santiago Chile. The heated exchange occurred at a summit of Spanish and Latin American leaders after Chavez delivered one of his infamous ad hominem attacks, this time directed at former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar a close ally of the United States. He repeatedly described Aznar (who has been out of office for three years) as a fascist, and inferred that he was less human than a snake.

The current Spanish PM Zapatero (himself a socialist) reproved Chavez in his own address for his undiplomatic language in reference to a democratically elected representative of the Spanish people. During Zapatero's remarks the Venezuelan bully repeatedly attempted to interrupt him until King Juan Carlos turned to him and said "Hugo. Why don't you just shut up?" Adding further weight to the sharply worded rebuke from a royal sovereign to another head of state, the King chose to address Chavez using the very informal "por qué no te callas" vs. formal "por qué Ud. no le calla." In Spanish this is rather the equivalent of speaking sharply to a child or servant.

It's good to be the king.

Hugo... Would you like a little Bourbon with that dressing (down)?

And then there was one...

The Titanic sailing from Southampton

10 April 1912

Barbara West Dainton (96) the second to the last living survivor of the Titanic disaster has reposed. This leaves only one known survivor of the epic catastrophe still among the quick. Ms. Dainton was traveling to America with her family at the time and making the passage on the maiden voyage of the world's largest ocean liner must have been seen as quite a treat for the family. She was too young to recall the accident and always avoided discussing it later in life. However various family sources report that after the ship hit an iceberg her father behaved in exactly the manner expected of an English gentleman of that era. He put his family into a lifeboat and waived goodbye from the deck of the sinking liner. His body was not recovered. More than 1500 people were lost in the ice cold waters of the North Atlantic when the Titanic sank a little over two hours after hitting the berg.

The ship was a marvel of luxury and modern engineering at the time. She was almost 900 feet long and 13 stories from her keel to the top deck. Her three massive propellers could mover her at a very respectable speed of around 22 knots. She boasted such amenities as a French style sidewalk cafe, squash and racquetball courts, an indoor swimming pool and electric elevators. Her 16 watertight compartments that could be closed off from each other by reinforced steel watertight doors were thought to make the ship virtually unsinkable. However the watertight bulkheads did not extent to the top deck. While the ship was said to be able to float with any two or three of her compartments flooded (a worst case scenario in the minds of her builders) the collision opened up her first five compartments to the sea. Tragically the ship carried only enough lifeboats for a little over a thousand people. Even given this terrible discrepancy many of the early boats launched left with room to spare. Of the 2200+ passengers and crew aboard only 705 survived.

Since childhood I have had something of a fascination with the doomed liner. Because her service life was so very short and given the age she was built in there are relatively few pictures of the Titanic around. Many photos of her nearly identical sister ship the Olympic are occasionally mistaken for the Titanic. For those interested I am going post some of the few known pictures of the Titanic below. You may click on any of the photos to see it full sized.

The Titanic dressed in holiday regalia for Good Friday 1912 four days before sailing on her maiden voyage. This is the only known photograph of the ship with all her flags and pennants up.

The starboard boat deck probably taken during the passage from Cherbourg to Queenstown Ireland (modern day Cove)

Titanic's propeller shaft under construction in Belfast N. Ireland

The Titanic's propellers while under construction in Belfast N.Ireland

The Titanic on the stocks while under construction

Titanic fitting out at Harland & Wolfe after her launch. The forward section of her promenade deck would eventually be glassed in (see the picture at the top of the post) to protect passengers during inclement weather. This was one of the few features distinguishing her from Olympic.

The Grand Staircase made famous in the romantic film drama with Leonardo DiCaprio. The elaborate wood carving around the clock was supposed to represent Honor and & Glory crowning Time.

The top of the Grand Staircase under the stained glass dome over the First Class Foyer. The windows look out onto the boat deck.

The First Class Smoking Lounge. Men only of course...

The First Class Lounge

The Palm Court a popular place for afternoon tea

The French style Cafe Parisean

One of only three known photographs of the massive Jacobin style First Class Dining Saloon

This is believed to be the only existing photograph of the Titanic's First Class Dining Room during a meal. Given what appears to be daylight it is likely that it was taken during the lunch served on the 11th of April en route to Queenstown.

First Class dinner menu (almost certainly a reproduction but included to provide some flavor)

The Turkish baths. This is one case where the black & white really does not do the subject justice. The baths were incredibly gaudy and would have fit in well with any Rudolph Valentino movie set.

The gymnasium with its electric rowing and riding machines. There was a large map on the wall that was updated daily with the Titanic's position for passengers keep track of. The odd looking riding machine in the far corner was an electric camel.

Stateroom B-57

Bedroom of stateroom B-58

Stateroom B-59

The bedroom of stateroom B-64

The Second Class lounge

Second Class dinner menu.

The 3rd class (steerage) common room. Compared to most other steamers of the period the 3rd class accommodations in the Olympic class ships were considered quite decent. Of course the standard steerage ticket covered meals but not access to the lifeboats in case the ship sinks. The loss of life among the poor immigrants in steerage was appalling.

The 3rd class dining room.

Paying for Capital Punishment

The New York Times has an interesting story which supports points 2 & 7 in my recent apology against the death penalty. The State of Georgia is beginning to discover that a system of capital punishment that provides for truly competent legal council cannot be run on the cheap. Needless to say they are not happy. While I expect the Supreme Court to affirm lethal injection as a permissible means of execution I also expect the court to continue its slow trend in raising the often abysmal standards for legal council in capital cases.

Some reflections on the occasion of the birthday of Her Majesty the Queen

Queen Elizabeth: A stranger in her own country

By A.N WILSON

Next month, she will become Britain's oldest monarch. But in this provocative essay a historian argues that while her reign has seen more social advances than even Victoria's, it is also the age in which Britain stopped being British

As an historic milestone, it will merit little fanfare.

Yet it is an astonishing truth that in a few weeks' time, Her Majesty the Queen will have outlived even her most illustrious regal forebear, Queen Victoria, making her the oldest monarch in our nation's history.

In fact, it will be on December 22 that Queen Elizabeth II passes the age at which Queen Victoria died on January 22, 1901, aged 81 years, seven months, four weeks and one day.

True, Victoria is still - thus far - our longest-reigning monarch. (She came to the throne younger and reigned for more than 63 years, whereas our Queen has not yet managed 56 years.)

But already, the reign of Elizabeth II has encompassed so much change and has witnessed so many remarkable achievements that it makes her seem almost a time-traveller, spanning not just six decades, but whole centuries.

The Britain of the early Fifties is so utterly different from Britain in 2007 that it is bizarre to think that we have the same head of state as we did when rationing was still in force and Churchill was Prime Minister.

But has this Queen's reign, like that of Victoria, been a time of British success, or of failure?

Will this, the second Elizabethan era, compare favourably with that of her great-great-grandmother?

Read the rest here.
Hat tip to Bill (aka The Godfather)

Repentance & Confession

By John Chryssavgis

Confession is in decline and repentance is misappre­hended. The decline and the misapprehension cannot be easily qualified, but they are unmistakable at least inasmuch as they are considered to be no more than incidental prac­tices in the life of the Church today. The "traditional" way of thinking of sin and forgiveness has collapsed among a growing number of Christians. Nothing less than a theo­logical and pastoral renewal is necessary in order to redis­cover the living meaning of repentance and confession.

The degeneration is often attributed to secularization. Yet secularization should not be seen, in a scapegoat fashion, as merely an external enemy. It acts from within the Church. Even those actively involved in church life suffer from for­malism caused by the established patterns of religious prac­tice. There is a need to appeal to the deepening of repen­tance and confession as spiritual realities rather than their imposition as obligatory customs. It is only in a realization of the nature of sacramental life that repentance acquires its significance as a way of renewal and reconciliation in Christ.

Repentance is indeed an act of reconciliation, of reintegra­tion into the Body of Christ, which has been torn asunder by sin. For "if one member suffers, all suffer together" (1 Corinthians 12.26). "Therefore, confess your sins to one another ... that you may be healed" (James 5.16). The whole Church expresses a search for repentance in the repeated words of the Psalmist, commonly known as the "miserere" (Psalms 50). It is through the faith of the community that the individual is readmitted and forgiven. "When Jesus saw their faith he said, 'man, your sins are forgiven' " (Luke 5.20; cf. Matthew 9.2 and Mark 2.5). "Justification" in the New Testament does not mean a transaction - a kind of deal; and repentance defies mechanical definition. It is a continual enactment of freedom, a movement forward, deriving from renewed choice and leading to restoration. The aim of the Christian is not even justification but a re-entry by sinner and saint alike into communion in which God and man meet once again and personal experience of divine life becomes possible. Both prodigal and saint are "repenting sinners."

Repentance is not to be confused with mere remorse, with a self-regarding feeling of being sorry for a wrong done. It is not a state but a stage, a beginning. Rather, it is an invitation to new life, an opening up of new horizons, the gaining of a new vision. Christianity testifies that the past can be undone. It knows the mystery of obliterating or rather renewing memory, of forgiveness and regenera­tion, eschewing the fixed division between the "good" and the "wicked," the pious and the rebellious, the believers and the unbelievers. Indeed, "the last" can be "the first," the sin­ner can reach out to holiness. Passions are conquered by stronger passions; love is overcome by more abundant love. One repents not because one is virtuous, but because human nature can change, because what is impossible for man is possible for God. The motive for repentance is at all times humility, unself-sufficiency - not a means of justification for oneself, or of realizing some abstract idea of goodness, or of receiving a reward in some future life. Just as the strength of God is revealed in the extreme vulnerability of His Son on the Cross, so also the greatest strength of man is to embrace his weakness: "for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I render glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me" (2 Corinthians 12.9). To be flawed is the illogical, perhaps supernatural characteristic of humanity in which one en­counters God.

The Greek term for repentance, metanoia, denotes a change of mind, a reorientation, a fundamental transforma­tion of outlook, of man's vision of the world and of himself, and a new way of loving others and God. In the words of a second-century text, The Shepherd of Hermas, it implies "great understanding,"1 discernment. It involves, that is, not mere regret of past evil but a recognition by man of a dar­kened vision of his own condition, in which sin, by sepa­rating him from God, has reduced him to a divided, auto­nomous existence, depriving him of both his natural glory and freedom. "Repentance," says Basil the Great, "is salva­tion, but lack of understanding is the death of repentance." [2]

It is clear that what is at stake here is not particular acts of contrition, but an attitude, a state of mind. "For this life," states John Chrysostom, "is in truth wholly devoted to repen­tance, penthos and wailing. This is why it is necessary to re­pent, not merely for one or two days, but throughout one's whole life."[3]

Any division within oneself or distinction between the "time to repent" and the "rest of one's time" is, in the lan­guage of the Church, attributed to the demons. The role of these demons is extortionate, offensive - "diavallo," the root of the word "devil," means to tear asunder.[4] We cannot be deprived of true repentance or diverted from its path by the deception of demons. Yet the demons can work through virtue, working to produce a kind of spurious repentance. By nature we are destined to advance and ascend spiri­tually, but the demons divert the course by simulating ad­vance in the form of a fitful movement, a wobbling from side to side, like crabs. One can test the quality of repen­tance by ascertaining whether it is fleeting or fluttering. In­constancy and inconsistency are a danger signal; lastingness is auspicious. One is being tempted by the demons when one is caused "at times to laugh, and at other times to weep."[5]

THE TWO DIMENSIONS OF REPENTANCE
Divine Initiative

Repentance is not a self-contained act: it is a passing over, a Pascha from death to life, a continual renewal of that life. It consists of a reversal of what has become the normal pat­tern of development, which is the movement from life to death. To experience this reversal in repentance is to have tasted of the glory and beauty of God; it is the mark of man's presence before God in the abundance of His mercy and of God's presence before man in the abyss of his weakness: "Set Your compassion over against our iniquities, and the abyss of Your lovingkindness against our transgression."[6] It is the awareness of God's beauty that makes one realize the chasm that separates one from His gratuitous grace. The ini­tiative belongs to God, but presupposes man's active accep­tance, which is a way of perpetually receiving God within the heart, of God being embodied within man, of divine in­carnation. Here God calls man, and man responds to God and in doing so gains salvation and life abundant: "sorrow working repentance to salvation not to be repented of" (2 Corinthians 7.10). In repentance it is man's total limita­tion and insufficiency that is placed before God, not sim­ply particular wrongdoings or transgressions.

The "dialectic" of beginning and end underlying repen­tance is important. Every manifestation of life has an escha­tological dimension, even while, paradoxically, repentance gives rise to restoration, to a return to man's original state. Everything tends towards and expects the "end," even while being a matter of the here and now. To repent is not merely to induce a restoration of lost innocence but to transcend the fallen condition.[7] Indeed the greater the fall, the deeper and more genuine the repentance and the more certain the resurrection. Man is "enriched" by his experience even if it has been crippling and tormenting. The Fathers appear to express greater love - almost a preference - for the more sinful person, inasmuch as thirst for God increases in proportion to the experience of one's debasement and abase­ment (Romans 5.20).

The word for "confess" in Greek (ἐξομολογοῦμαι, ὁμολογῶ) does not bear the contemporary meaning peculiar to it. When we say "confess" we imply that we accept, recognize or witness an event or fact. But this is not the original mean­ing. The point is not of admitting, more or less reluctantly, a hitherto "unrecognized" sin, but an acceptance of and sub­mission to the divine Logos (exomologesis) beyond and above the nature and condition of man.[8] It is this Logos, the Word of God, that man seeks to regain, or rather to com­mune with. To confess is not so much to recognize and ex­pose a failure as to go forward and upward, to respond from within to the calling of God. Created in the image and likeness of God, man bears before himself and in himself that image and likeness. In repenting he does not so much look forward as reflects and reacts to what lies before and beyond him.

However, repentance is also a way of self-discovery: "Open to me the gate of repentance."[9] Metanoia is the gate­way to oneself, to one's fellowman, and to heaven. It leads inwards, but it also leads outwards by leading inwards. The world ceases to rotate round the self and begins to gravitate towards the other - the divine and the human other. Sin has the opposite effect. It blocks the way both inwards and outwards. To repent and to confess is to break out of this restriction, "to accept with joy," in Isaak the Syrian's words, "the humility and humiliation of nature," to transcend and to recover oneself. The world thereupon ceases to rotate around "me" and begins to gravitate towards the other, cen­tering on God. Then, everyone and everything no longer exist for myself but for the glory of God, in the joy of the Resurrection. One is then able to comprehend more clearly the positive dimension of even sin, suffering, death, the devil and hell. Then, one discovers the depth of love crucified, the presence of the Lord in our midst - even "when the doors are shut" (John 20.19,26). One is not, however, demanded to love God from the outset, but rather to know that "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son" (John 3.16). Nevertheless, the love of God is implicit in His very nature. God Himself is the Archetype of divine love. When John the Theologian says that "God is love" (1 John 4.8,16), love is seen as an established ontological category of both divinity and humanity in His likeness. In fact, the beauty and loving freedom of the human person is, in the words of Nicholas Berdiaev, God Himself. It is He, "the crea­tor of all ... who out of extreme erotic love moves outside Himself ... burning with great goodness and love and eros." It is He who is "the fullness of erotic love."[10] And it is this supreme love that moved God to create human nature in His image and likeness. "As Lover, He creates; and as Loved, He attracts all towards Him."[11] "As a mad Lover He desires His beloved human soul," says Saint Nilos.[12] "Herein is love, not that we loved God but that He loved us (1 John 4.10).

The response to this ineffable outpouring of love is none other than its acceptance. Repentance thereby acquires a different dimension to mere dwelling on human sinfulness, and becomes the realization of human insufficiency and limitation. Repentance then should not be accompanied by a paroxysm of guilt but by an awareness of one's estrange­ment from God and one's neighbor. Why, after all, does one not partake of Holy Communion after committing sin? Not for punishment, but surely because sin itself is a denial of communion. The paradox of God's love is that one is only saved again through communion. Although God is constantly being chased away by humanity, yet He returns day after day in the Liturgy;[13] in the words of the Psalmist, "the mercy of God runs after us all the days of our lives ... for His mercy endures forever" (Psalm 22.6, and 135). God is not only at the end of the journey of repentance but also at the beginning (Revelation 1.8), and Christ is the Way (John 14.6). One seeks, then, Him whom one already possesses; and the voyage is an unceasing arrival as well as a never ending departure. Man in all his sinfulness is loved by God if he can just keep moving towards God. When one does fall, if one only cries out with confidence, the fall is not into noth­ingness but into the arms of God stretched open once and for all on the Cross.

Human Response

"Penthos" is the conditioned sorrow of a repentant soul, adding sorrow upon sorrow each day, like a woman suffer­ing in childbirth."[14]

Repentance, as has been noted, is not a mere incident or stage through which one passes and then leaves behind; rather it is an attitude which colors one's whole life and for which, at the same time, one must struggle continually. It is a way of life, and as such a way of transfiguration, in which man's heart and mind continuously receive illumina­tion by the Holy Spirit. It is a continuous pathway, at least in this life, a perennial striving, an all-embracing motion and not merely an occasional emotion. Repentance is ultimately a gift of the Holy Spirit who transforms the heart of the human person, and not a fruit of individual effort or anguish.

Whether related to this continuity and endurance or to the depth of moral sensitivity involved, for the Fathers of the Church there is an intimate link between repentance and tears. There are other criteria,[15] but grief is para­mount, and its intensity is proportionate to the depth of repentance. "Truly you are blessed, Abba Arsenios, for you wept for yourself in this world! He who does not weep for himself here below will weep eternally hereafter; so it is impossible not to weep, either voluntarily or when com­pelled through suffering."[16] Gregory the Theologian be­lieved that everyone must weep. He even identified repen­tance with tears, whatever other ways of expressing it there may be: "All must shed tears, all must be purified, all must ascend."[17] Symeon the Theologian is even more definite: "Remove tears and with them you remove purification; and without purification no one is saved."[18]

The word penthos (mourning) has the same root as pathos (passion): both stem etymologically from the verb "to suf­fer." A Christian speaks of worthy suffering, of subsuming suffering in God, just as passion and mourning are subsumed in God. There is suffering in compunction (katanyxis = pricking), which also causes tears.' 'Joyful sorrow" trans­figures this suffering and pain through grace. Penthos con­sists in mourning for the loss of God's presence; it makes for sorrow at His absence and thirst for Him. "Passion or suf­fering for God gives rise to tears."[19] Man is in a state of be­reavement, and the Church Fathers and liturgical hymnology speak of Adam sitting opposite paradise in mourning over his bereavement and estrangement from God. The Makarian Homilies say that man must "weep his way back" to para­dise.[20] But tears - a concomitant and a culmination of re­pentance - are also a turning point in homecoming, a pledge of return, and a firstfruit of its joy. The longing for return from exile is also an anticipation of the glory to come. Tears demonstrate the frontier between the present and the future.

The tradition of the Christian East gives special promi­nence to the "gift of tears."[21] The tradition can be traced to the New Testament, through the Desert Fathers, to John Kli­makos, through to later times, with Symeon the New Theo­logian standing out as one of its most important witnesses. "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted" (Matthew 5.4). Tears are primarily "up to God," and only derivatively "up to us." There is a thirteenth-century French tale "Le chevalier au Barizel" according to which the knight was supposed to fill up a barrel with water; he travels all over the world to do this, but the water always passes through the barrel. Seeing that his efforts achieve nothing, he weeps, and one teardrop is sufficient to fill the barrel. Tears bespeak a promise, and they are also proof of hope fulfilled, of sins forgiven. But there is a time to weep and a time to rejoice, although the one flows into the other. There is a kairos, "a season and a time" (Ecclesiastes 3.1) for each divine gift, and this kairos is the time in which God acts, calling us to participate in His action. Tears are a way and a consequence of purification through repentance; the ulti­mate goal is transcending light and delight.

THE SACRAMENT OF CONFESSION

A Christian, at any rate an Orthodox Christian, views re­pentance as a dynamic act of responsibility to God, but also to other men. It is not pining away in narcissistic self-reflection, even while implying self-knowledge and self-examination. Sin itself is a relational act - a break in the "I-Thou" relationship. It concerns my relationship with another person. When the prodigal son "came to himself" in the Gospel parable (Luke 15), he did so in relation to his father: "I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and before You" (v. 18). We repent in the face of God; and we repent in communion with others, in the Church. Repentance in the early Church was in fact a solemn public act of reconciliation, through which a sinner was readmitted into church membership. Even in Buddhism, monks regularly confess their sins publicly before Buddha and the congregation; the phenomenology is the same as in the Church, even if the theology or ideology is different. Sin (and evil) divides, repentance conciliates, confession affirms the conciliation. Outside the community, outside the Church repentance would settle into guilty gloom, dulling the spirit or even driving to despair: metanoia turning into paranoia.

Confession, too, takes place within the Church. It is not a private procedure, a treatment of some guilt-ridden indi­vidual on an analyst's couch. It is not based on an admis­sion of guilt and certainly cannot be reduced to a feeling of guilt, of liability for conduct contrary to norms and laws which render a person subject to punishment. It is related to what is deepest in man, to what constitutes his being and his relation with other human beings as well as with God. It is a sacrament - "the visible form of an invisible grace" (Saint Augustine), re-establishing a bond of union between God and man, between man and man. This is why confes­sion also takes place within prayer because it is there that a personal relationship in all its intensity is realized both with God and the entire world. As such, confession and prayer are not merely technical terms but means and op­portunities offered by the Church for overcoming sin and death. Repentance is indeed the cause and consequence of prayer, being the highest and fullest foundation for and form of prayer. "True prayer," according to Saint Anthony, "is that in which one forgets that one is praying,"[22] and genuine re­pentance enables one to forget oneself and simply long for God, who is present in the very depth of repentance. For it is 'before Him alone that one sins" (Psalm 50.3-4) - this is the personal or relational aspect of both sin and repentance.

The supreme act of communion is the eucharist, the com­munal sharing of bread and wine, symbolizing sacrament­ally the reconciliation to come and the reconciliation already achieved in the here and now. Repentance and confession as sacrament seals man's change of direction from disruption to reconciliation. An examination of the early forms of con­fession shows that they are derived from community ser­vices and even liturgies. Origen explicitly stresses the signif­icance of the eucharist for the forgiveness of sins.[23] Later services for confession developed undoubtedly from com­munity rites closely related to the eucharistic celebration, or else to the monastic offices of matins or compline.[24] Since forgiveness of sins involves reconciliation in and through the eucharist, the eucharistic prayer contains peni­tential elements as immediate preparation for communion.

In early Christian times the exhortation of James served as a foundation for the sacrament of repentance: 'Therefore con­fess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed' (5.16). Confession was regarded as a form of re­pentance and regeneration (Matthew 3.6; Mark 1.5; Acts 19.18). The actual ritual aspect of repentance was a direct result of such apostolic testimony, at first in the form of confession be­fore the entire Church and, subsequently, before a spiritual fa­ther.[25] Nevertheless, the earliest order of confession is of rela­tively late origin (tenth century, and is ascribed to John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople.[26] This text may well be the source of later Greek and Slavonic services of confession. The communal, sacramental aspect of confession was more apparent in the early Church when penance constituted a public act rather than an individual episode. It was only after the fourth century that private confession was more widely practiced. But even then penance did not have the legalistic and clericalistic character which it acquired later. In fact, very few Church Fathers refer even to absolution as a formal procedure, although such silence does not necessarily mean that absolution in some form or other did not exist. It is the reduction of sin to a punishable legal crime, an act of law­breaking inviting a penalty that is almost wholly absent in patristic literature.[27] "Have you committed a sin?," asks Saint John Chrysostom, "then enter the Church and repent of your sin ... For here is the Physician, not the judge; here one is not investigated but receives remission of sins."[28]

Unfortunately confession at times undermines and even replaces the genuine inner repentance of a Christian: peo­ple feel "entitled" to communion after confession. This con­tradicts the true nature of repentance. It is a result of the sacrament being narrowly and juridically reduced to "abso­lution." Scholarly theology tended to transpose the concept of sin, repentance and forgiveness into a forensic idiom, and placed the emphasis on the power of the priest to absolve. In the Orthodox Church, the priest is seen as a witness of repentance, not a recipient of secrets, a detective of speci­fic misdeeds. The "eye," the "ear" of the priest is dissolved in the sacramental mystery. He is not a dispenser, a power­wielding, vindicating agent, an "authority." Such a concep­tion exteriorizes the function of the confessor and of con­fession which is an act of re-integration of the penitent and priest alike into the Body of Christ. The declaration "I, an unworthy priest, by the power given unto me, absolve you" is unknown in the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is of later Latin origin and was adopted in some Russian liturgical books at the time of the domination of Russian Orthodox theology by Latin thought and practice .[29] The idea served to bring confession into disrepute, turning it into a procedure of justification and exculpation in respect of particular pun­ishable offenses. Forgiveness, absolution is the culmination of repentance, in response to sincerely felt compunction. It is not "administered" by the priest, or anybody else. It is a freely given grace of Christ and the Holy Spirit within the Church as the Body of Christ.

A word must be said about "general" confession, as dis­tinct from a face-to-face confession between penitent and priest. General confession, in certain circumstances, could be a living model of repentance as a communal act, involv­ing the whole body of the Church and as such manifesting the very essence of confession.[30] But it is not strictly a sub­stitute for personal confession, involving intimate self-exami­nation on the part of the penitent and possible guidance on the part of the confessor. Altogether, the function of the priest should not be ignored or minimized. "All who have experienced the blessing of having as their confessor one imbued with the grace of true spiritual fatherhood," writes Bishop Kallistos Ware, "will testify to the importance of the priest's role. Nor is his function simply to give advice. There is nothing automatic about the absolution which he pro­nounces. He can bind as well as loose. He can withhold ab­solution - although this is very rare - or he can impose a penance (epitimion), forbidding the penitent to receive Com­munion for a time or requiring the fulfilment of some task. This, again, is not very common in contemporary Orthodox practice, but it is important to remember that the priest pos­sesses this right ... Not that the penitence should be re­garded as punishment; still less should it be viewed as a way of expiating an offense ... We do not acquire 'merit' by fulfill­ing a penance, for in his relation to God man can never claim any merit of his own. Here, as always, we should think primarily in therapeutic rather than juridical terms."[31]

The most significant effect of confession is indeed due neither to the penitent nor to the priest, but to God who heals our infirmities and wounds. It is not a matter of a let­off, a clearance; it has the force of healing, of making the penitent whole. As such it is a gift from God which man must be open to receive, and learn to receive: "Let us apply to ourselves the saving medicine of repentance; let us ac­cept from God the repentance that heals us. For it is not we who offer it to Him, but He who bestows it upon us." [32] It is significant that the Greek for confession, exomologesis, im­plies not only confession but also thanksgiving (cf. Matthew 11.25; Luke 10.21): "I shall confess/give thanks to the Lord with my whole heart, and tell of all His wonders" (Psalm 9.1).

Reference has already been made to the cloud of guilt which at times shrouds the sacrament of confession. It is by no means a theoretical question, for guilt is part of the tragedy experienced by many people, whether in their per­sonal lives or in the face of the appalling sufferings and misery - mental, physical, social - which afflict the world at large today and for which we all share the responsibility and the guilt. But in the specific context of repentance and confession, guilt is a highly misleading concept, largely fostered by Western thinking.[33] It originates in a hyper­trophied individualistic, self-regarding view of sin and sal­vation, and indeed of repentance with its attendant legalis­tically oriented penitential system. Orthodoxy always re­sisted legalism, whether in repentance or in confession, eschewing both undue confidence in man's achievement or merit and the overwhelming sense of guilt, which is the negative aspect of being centered on oneself and seeking for some means to propitiate God's wrath. By contrast with this God is seen to declare His love for men at their most unac­ceptable. It is God's identification with man and His loving acceptance of the worst that men can do that makes repen­tance and confession a way of rediscovering God and one­self, and thereby of being set on the road to full and loving relationship with God and with other men. There is no men­tion in Scripture of the word "guilt" (ἐνοχή), although there is the adjective "guilty" (ἔνοχος). Instead of "guilt" there is "sin" (ἁμαρτία) - failure, loss, a break-up in relations, result­ing in a kind of false consciousness. Even "ἐνέχομαι" implies keeping fast within, cherishing, sharing, as distinct from be­ing ashamed in the face of God who inflicts retributive punishment.

Break in communication or communion can lead to path­ological forms of guilt. But there is guilt born of a sense of responsibility for others as well as for oneself, leading one to an awareness of other people. The Christian view of man is largely a social one. Where there is a breakdown in per­sonal love, or a rise in institutionalism, one finds a thicken­ing of the atmosphere of guilt. Its antidote is collective con­fession, communal prayer to "our Father." A saint might con­fess daily without fear of neurosis, because he is in constant communion with God and man. Acknowledgment of one's limitations leads to personal communion with God who alone can erase sin: "I acknowledged my sin to You, and I did not hide my iniquity.... Then You did forgive the iniquity of my sin" (Psalm 32.5).

Through the forgiveness of sins in confession, the past is no longer an intolerable burden but rather an encourage­ment for what lies ahead. Life acquires an attitude of expec­tation, not of despondency; and confession becomes the way out of the impasse caused by sin. In this respect, repentance is also an eschatological act, realizing in our very midst, here and now, the promises of the age to come. Looking back­wards would seem to imply the fate of Lot's wife (Genesis 19.26); 'No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God" (Luke 9.62). God Him­self is revealed before us and walks in front of us. "One thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead" (Philippians 3.13).

NOTES
1 Mandatum, IV, ii, 2.
2 De Perfectione spirituali 4 PG 31:636B.
3 De Compunctione I, i PG 4,7:395 and I, ix :408.
4 Abba Isaias, Logos 29,4.
5 John Klimakos, Ladder 26:iii, 30 PG 88:1088C.
6 First prayer of Kneeling Vespers at Pentecost.
7 Cf. John Klimakos Ladder 4:125 PG 88:725D and 5:19 PG 88:780B.
8 Cf. Archbishop Stylianos Harkianakis, 'Repentance and Con­fession' (in Greek: Ahropolis Newspaper, Athens 10-4-80), p.6.
9 Hymn of Great Lent.
10 Dionysios, De Div. Nom. 4, 2 PG 3:712AB and Maximus, Comm. in Div. Nom. 4, 17 PG 4:269CD.
11 Maximus, ibid. and De Amb. PG 91:1260.
12 PG 79:464.
13 De Charitate 3, 2 in Philocalia, vol. 2.
14 John Klimakos, Ladder 7:60 PG 88:813D.
15 Cf.John Klimakos Ladder, 7:25 and 48 PG 88:805C and 809D.
16 Apophth. Arsenios 41 PG 65:105CD.
17 Oration 19,7 PG 35:1049D-1052A.
18 Catechesis 29.
19 Theodoret of Kyrrhos, Philotheos Historia XXX, Domnina 2 PG 87:1493AB.
20 15, 17. Cf. Kontakion and Oikos of Cheesefare Sunday in Trio­dion Katanyktikon (Rome 1879, p. 105. Cf. also the prose-poem by Staretz Silouan in Archim. Sophrony, Wisdom from Mt Athos (London 1974), pp. 47-55.
21 The doctrine regarding the 'gift of tears' is by no means unknown in the West, but it seems to have been accorded a higher place in the East, probably on account of the greater emphasis on the heart as a vessel of the Holy Spirit.
22 In Cassian, Conferences 9, 31. Cf. also Evagrios, De Oratione 120 PG 79:1193B.
23 De Oratione 28 PG 11:528-29.
24 Cf. F. Nikolasch, 'The Sacrament of Penance: Learning from the East,' in Concilium 1, 7 (1971), 65-75.
25 Apostolic Constitutions 8, 8-9; Gregory of Neocaesarea, CanonXII. For confession before a spiritual father, cf. Socrates, Ec­clesiastical History 5, 19 and 7, 16; John Chrysostom, Sermon 4 on Lazarus PG 48:1012.
26 For a detailed description of this order, see N. Uspensky, Evening Worship in the Orthodox Church (S.V.S.: New York 1985), p. 227f.
27 Cf. J. Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical and Doctrinal Themes (London 1974), pp. 195ff.
28 De Poenitentia 3, 1 PG 49:292.
29 Cf. A. Schmemann, Confession and Communion: A Report (New York 1972), pp. 13-16.
30 St Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain (d. 1809) underlines the fact that it is God, not the priest, who forgives: Cf. Exomologetarion (9th ed. Venice 1885), pp. 77-78.
31Bishop Kallistos Ware,. 'The Orthodox Experience of Repen­tance,' in Sobornost/Eastern Churches Review 2:1 (1980), 24-25.
32 John Chrysostom, De Poenitentia 7, 3 PG 49:327.
33 Timothy Ware, Eustratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule (Oxford, 1964), p. 20 ff.

Originally published in 1990 by Holy Cross Orthodox Press.

Quote of the day...

...I do ask that Anglicans recognize when they have changed Anglican doctrine, and my argument runs thus

Major Premise: Changing the doctrine on the ordination of women is a departure from “biblically faithful, traditional Anglicanism.” Call it what you will, but the decision to ordain women was an innovation and a departure from the received teaching of Anglicanism on the Sacrament of Orders.

Minor Premise: Changing the doctrine on the marriage of homosexual persons is a departure from “biblically faithful, traditional Anglicanism.” Call it what you will, but the decision to marry homosexual persons is an innovation and a departure from the received teaching of Anglicanism on the Sacrament of Marriage.

Conclusion: Those Anglicans who accept the ordination of women have no standing to reject the marriage of homosexual persons.

Both decisions are radical innovations in Christian doctrine, totally rejected as unbiblical and untraditional by the vast majority of Christians of every time and place (including almost all Anglicans until this generation), and those who accept the first change cannot give a coherent argument from Scripture or Tradition for rejecting the second change. Either doctrine can be changed by majority vote of the General Convention, or it cannot. The doctrine on the ordination of women was changed by majority vote, and even the party of resistance in TEC (represented by Nashotah and Trinity) accepts the legitimacy of that change; on what basis, then, is a change on homosexual marriage by majority vote rejected by those who accepted the first change?

The only possible answer is, We approved of the first change, but we don’t approve of the second change. And that is simply the Will to Power, not an argument about the proper role of authority in the Church. To provide an adequate rejection of homosexual marriage (which I believe must be done by faithful Christians), it is also necessary to admit that the ordination of women was an illegitimate innovation in the life of the Church. And that’s not a Catholic argument; that’s just the operation of right reason and ruthless honesty.

-Fr Jay Scott Newman (Roman Catholic)

From a wide ranging discussion at T-19.