![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Cătălin,
Citat:
1. Din punct de vedere istoric, putem spune că practica mărturisirii păcatelor și a dezlegării lor de către un urmaș al apostolilor (episcop sau un preot delegat) este de origine apostolică (sec. I) și ea a existat dintotdeauna în Biserică, numai că în decursul timpului această practică a avut înțelesuri și forme diferite. Mărturiile istorice din primele trei-patru secole sunt lacunare și confuze, dar deja din sec. IV-V atestăm existența a două tipuri total diferite de mărturisire a păcatelor, care mai târziu „au fuzionat”, rezultând practica spovedaniei de astăzi. Mai exact: a) Exista o mărturisire care se făcea doar în cazul păcatelor mari: idolatrie, apostazie, curvie, ucidere, furt și alte păcate considerate „mari” sau „de moarte” (I Ioan 5:16). O astfel de mărturisire era acceptată o singură dată după Botez (cf. Păstorul Herma, Tertulian ș.a.) sau cel mult de 2-3 ori în viață, iar creștinii care-și luau în serios viața de după Botez, deși se împărtășeau la fiecare Liturghie duminicală sau chiar zilnică, practic nu se mărturiseau niciodată. Până spre sfârșitul sec. IV, în cazul păcatelor știute de toți, această mărturisire se făcea public, iar în cazul păcatelor necunoscute comunității, acestea erau mărturisite în taină episcopului sau unui preot delegat de acesta. În urma mărturisirii, episcopul sau chiar sinoadele locale (cf. Canonul 5, Sin. I Ecumenic) hotărau oprirea de la împărtășirea cu Sfintele Taine a penitentului respectiv pentru o perioadă determinată de timp (de la câteva luni până chiar la 15-20 de ani). În funcție de pocăința penitentului, termenul de oprire de la împărtășire putea fi scurtat sau prelungit. Primirea la împărtășire se făcea automat, după expirarea termenului care a fost rânduit prin epitimie, fără careva rugăciuni sau formule speciale de dezlegare, iar în unele tradiții locale – prin punerea mâinilor episcopului sau prin ungerea cu untdelemn sfințit. Citat:
Citat:
Citat:
16. Dacă vede cineva pe fratele său păcătuind - păcat nu de moarte - să se roage, și Dumnezeu va da viață acelui frate, anume celor ce nu păcătuiesc de moarte. Este și păcat de moarte; nu zic să se roage pentru acela. 17. Orice nedreptate este păcat, dar este și păcat care nu e de moarte. De unde rezultă că păcatele care nu sînt de moarte pot fi vindecate prin rugăciunile simple, pe cînd păcatele de moarte necesită obligatoriu Spovedania. Nu încurajez pe nimeni să nu spună toate păcatele la Spovedanie, însă îi încurajez pe creștinii ortodocși activi să se împărtășească la fiecare Liturghie dacă duhovnicul le dă binecuvîntare și dacă conștiința le permite, chiar fără Spovedanie.
__________________
Să nu abați inima mea spre cuvinte de vicleșug, ca să-mi dezvinovățesc păcatele mele; Psalmul 140, 4 Ascultați Noul Testament ortodox online. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Citat:
Si un alt aspect nu crezi ca se ajunge la un formalism daca te impartasesti in fiecare liturghie??? Eu nu zic sa ne impartasim rar sau des, dar trebuie sa fie un echilibru. Cel mai bine ne intrebam duhovnicii, cum e bine , pt ca ei ne cunosc sufletele cel mai bine. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
http://www.teologie.net/2013/08/07/i...ie-preoti-bor/
in consens cu topicul.
__________________
„Nimic nu costă mai mult decât neștiința.“ Grigore Moisil |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Geo,
Citat:
Am găsit o singură referință apropo de curăția trupească: ”Sfântul Ioan Postitorul, de exemplu, în al 8‑lea Canon al său spune că cel ce s‑a întinat în somn cu scurgere (semi*nală) o zi se scoate de la împărtășanie, curățindu‑se de întinăciune, și va zice Psalmul 50 și va face 49 de metanii.” Aici nici măcar nu e vorba de cuplu, ci de accidentul poluției nocturne pentru care, iată, o singură zi se oprește de la Împărtășire. Deci pentru care motiv să fie oprit un cuplu de la facerea de copii 3 zile înainte și 3 zile după? Citat:
Formalismul împărtășirii automate, fără căință, fără lupta împotriva celui rău care încearcă să te domine, fără rugăciune, fără acordul duhovnicului și - nu sînt 100% sigur - fără spovedanie nu e deloc folositor. Dar și mai grav e cînd ești un creștin practicant care participi la Liturghie și te împărtășești din an în Paști pentru că așa face lumea în general.
__________________
Să nu abați inima mea spre cuvinte de vicleșug, ca să-mi dezvinovățesc păcatele mele; Psalmul 140, 4 Ascultați Noul Testament ortodox online. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mai Florine esti cumva sotul meu? caci gandesti la fel ca el.
![]() |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Glumeam
![]() Am avut aseara o discutie cu sotul meu si spunea acelasi lucru ca si tine... |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Părintele Alexander Schmemann vorbind despre legătura ce s-a stabilit între Spovedanie și Împărtășire de-a lungul istoriei:
From Fr. Alexander Schmemann's Report to the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America, Sunday of the Prodigal Son, 1972 (link to the full report: http://www.oca.org/DOCencyclical.asp?SID=12&ID=3). ”Eucharistic Decay and Renewal It is impossible, and even unnecessary to present in this short report the questions of lay communion in all its dogmatical and historical aspects. What is essential can be summarized as follows: It is a well-known and undisputed fact that in the early Church the communion of all the faithful, of the entire ecclesia, at each Liturgy was a self-evident norm. What must be stressed, however, is that this corporate communion was understood not only as an act of personal piety and personal sanctification but, first of all, as an act stemming primarily from one's very membership in the Church, as the fulfillment and actualization of that membership. The Eucharist was both defined and experienced as the "sacrament of the Church," the "sacrament of the assembly," the "sacrament of unity." "He mixed Himself with us," writes St. John Chrysostom, "and dissolved His body in us so that we may constitute a wholeness, be a body united to the Head." The early Church simply knew no other sign or criterion of membership but the participation in the sacrament. The excommunication from the Church was the excommunication from the eucharistic assembly in which the Church fulfilled and manifested herself as the Body of Christ. Communion to the Body and Blood of Christ was a direct consequence of Baptism, the sacrament of entrance into the Church, and there existed no other "condition" for that communion. The member of the Church is the one who is in communion with the Church in and through sacramental communion, and one early liturgical formula dismissed from the gathering, together with the catechumens and the penitents, all those who are not to receive communion. This understanding of communion, as fulfilling membership in the Church, can be termed ecclesiological. However obscured or complicated it became later, it has never been discarded; it remains forever the essential norm of Tradition. One must ask therefore not about this norm, but about what happened to it. Why did we leave it so far behind us that a mere mention of it appears to some, and especially clergy, an unheard-of novelty, a shaking of the foundations? Why is it that for centuries nine out of ten Liturgies are being celebrated without communicants? - and this provokes no amazement, no frustration, whereas the desire to communicate more frequently, on the contrary, raises a real fear? How could the doctrine of a once-a-year communion develop within the Church, the Body of Christ, as an accepted norm, a departure from which can be but an exception? How, in other words, did the understanding of communion become so deeply individualistic, so detached from the Church, so alien to the eucharistic prayer itself: "and all of us partaking of the same Bread and Chalice unite one to another for the communion of the one Spirit..."? The reason for all this, however complex historically, is spiritually a simple one: it is the fear of profaning the Mystery, the fear of unworthy communion, of the desacralization of holy things. It is a fear which is, of course, spiritually justified, for "the one who eats and drinks unworthily drinks and eats his condemnation." This fear appeared soon after the victory of the Church over the pagan Empire, a victory which transformed Christianity into a mass religion, a state Church and a popular cult. If during the era of persecution the very belonging to the Church compelled each of her members to follow a "narrow path" and set between the Christian and "this world" a self-evident dividing line, now, with the entrance of the entire "world" into the Church, that line was abolished and there appeared a very real danger of a nominal, superficial, lukewarm and minimalistic understanding of Christian life. If before the very entrance into the Church was difficult, now, with obligatory inclusion of virtually everyone into the Church, it became necessary to establish internal checks and controls; it was around the sacrament that such controls developed. One must stress, however, that neither the Fathers nor the liturgical texts can supply us with any encouragement for non-partaking of the Mysteries, nor do they even hint at such a practice. Emphasizing the holiness of communion and its "awful" nature, calling to a worthy preparation for it, the Fathers never endorsed nor approved the idea that since the Mystery is holy and awful, one must not approach it too often. To the Fathers, the view of the Eucharist as the sacrament of the Church, of her unity, fulfillment and growth, was still self-evident. "We must not," writes St. John Cassian, "avoid communion because we deem ourselves to be sinful. We must approach it more often for the healing of the soul and the purification of the spirit, but with such humility and faith that considering ourselves unworthy... we would desire even more the medicine for our wounds. Otherwise it is impossible to receive communion once a year, as certain people do... considering the sanctification of heavenly Mysteries as available only to saints. It is better to think that by giving us grace, the sacrament makes us pure and holy. Such people manifest more pride than humility... for when they receive, they think of themselves as worthy. It is much better if, in humility of heart, knowing that we are never worthy of the Holy Mysteries we would receive them every Sunday for the healing of our diseases, rather than, blinded by pride, think that after one year we become worthy of receiving them." With regard to an equally wide-spread theory, according to which there is a difference between the clergy and laity in approaching communion, so that the former are to receive it at each Liturgy, whereas the latter are discouraged from doing so, it is fitting to quote St. John Chrysostom, who more than anyone else, insisted on worthy preparation for communion: "There are cases," writes the great pastor, "when a priest does not differ from a layman, notably when one approaches the Holy Mysteries. We are all equally given them, not as in the Old Testament, when one food was for the priests and another for the people and when it was not permitted to the people to partake of that which was for the priest. Now it is not so: but to all is offered the same Body and the same Chalice..." Let me repeat once more that it is simply impossible to find in Tradition a basis and justification for our present practice of extremely infrequent, if not yearly, communion of laity; all those who seriously and responsibly have studied our Tradition, all the best Russian liturgiologists and theologians, have seen in this practice a decay in Church life, a deviation from Tradition and the genuine foundations of the Church. And the most dreadful aspect of this decay is that it is justified and explained in terms of respect for the holiness of the sacrament, in terms of piety and reverence. For if it were so, the non-communicants would experience at least some sadness during the Liturgy, a frustration, a feeling of lacking fullness. In reality, however, this is simply not true. Generation after generation of Orthodox "attend" the Liturgy totally convinced that nothing more than attendance is required from them, that communion is simply not for them. And then, once a year, they fulfill their "obligation" and receive communion after a two-minute confession to a tired and exhausted priest. To see in all this a triumph of reverence, a protection of holiness, more than that - a norm, and not a downfall and a tragedy, is indeed incredible. In some of our parishes those who expressed the desire to receive communion more frequently were subjected to a real persecution, were asked not to do it "for the sake of peace," were accused of deviation from Orthodoxy! I could quote parish bulletins explaining that since communion is for penitents, one ought not to receive it at Easter, for it "obscures" paschal joy. And the most tragic thing is that all this provokes no mystical horror, that apparently the Church herself becomes an obstacle on man's path to Christ! Truly - "when you shall see the abomination of desolation stand in the holy place..." (Matthew 24:15). Finally, it would not be difficult to show that whenever and wherever a genuine renewal of the life of the Church has taken place it has always originated with what has been termed "eucharistic hunger," In the twentieth century there began a great crisis of Orthodoxy. There began an unheard of, unprecedented persecution of the Church and the apostasy of millions of people. And whenever this crisis was understood and perceived, there was a return to communion as the "focus of Christian life." This happened in communist Russia, as is attested by hundreds of witnesses; this happened in other centers of Orthodoxy and the diaspora. The movements of Orthodox youth in Greece, Lebanon, France have all grown out of a renewal of liturgical life. All that is genuine, living, churchly has been born from a humble and joyful response to the words of the Lord: "He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood, dwells in Me and I in him" (John 6:56)
__________________
Să nu abați inima mea spre cuvinte de vicleșug, ca să-mi dezvinovățesc păcatele mele; Psalmul 140, 4 Ascultați Noul Testament ortodox online. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Nu stiu daca ai inteles, doar pacatele grave le marturiseau la episcop sau preot. Pacatele pe care le numim usoare le marturiseau in biserica, era ca spovedania din zilele noastre. De fapt era mai incomod, trebuiau sa le spuna sa le auda toti.
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Citat:
După ce s-a stabilizat Spovedania așa cum o știm astăzi, toți creștinii, de la preot la mirean și de la episcop la monah, s-au spovedit de fiecare dată înainte să se împărtășească? Mă îndoiesc. Uită-te cum astăzi practica Împărtășirii frecvente sau rare în Biserica Ortodoxă depinde de zona geografică și de ceea ce susțin părinții locului. Vorba lui Rafail Noica: observăm școala Printelui Cleopa, școala Părintelui Teofil Pîrîian sau mai știu eu care școală - vizavi de frecvența Împărtășirii. Deci nu putem avea pretenția că în BO lucrurile au fost dintotdeauna așa cum le știm astăzi și, mai ales, în toate regiunile lumii. Mereu a fost o schimbare pe ici pe colo, chiar și în ritualul liturgic. Și, ca să fim iarăși obiectivi și sinceri cu noi, cînd Pavel scrie ”să se cerceteze omul pe sine și așa să se apropie” nu se referă la actul Spovedaniei prin preot, ci la conștiința proprie care lăsa sau nu creștinul să se apropie de Potir. Nu se referă nici la faptul că nu l-ar fi lăsat pe creștin să vină la spovedit funcție de păcatele mai mari sau mai mici, ar fi absurd să credem așa ceva.
__________________
Să nu abați inima mea spre cuvinte de vicleșug, ca să-mi dezvinovățesc păcatele mele; Psalmul 140, 4 Ascultați Noul Testament ortodox online. |
|