In the Early Church, when Christianity was rapidly being spread, how did the few Bishops at the time hear all of the Confessions? What I mean is, weren't some Christians spread out enough as to have a difficult time to get to Confession as it seems the Bishops were few or at least not as easily accessible as today? How did these Christians compensate?

I ask this for my protestant(non-denom.) friend of mine. I told him that some of the Christians had long travels on the Lord's day to "Break Bread" with the rest of the Church, and it was before then they would have Confessions to the Bishops in front of the rest of the faithful.

But what of the ones who found it impossible to make the journeys because of persecution or the lengths of the trip alone? How did they get their Confessions heard?

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), February 16, 2005

Answers

bump

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), February 16, 2005.

In the very early centuries, the Sacrament of Reconciliation was used quite sparingly (once or a very few times per lifetime) and generally when a person repented a very serious sin (commonly, apostacy – denying the Faith under pressure from would-be persecutors). Confession was done in public, and penances were severe (eg dressing in sackcloth and fasting on bread and water for the whole of Lent).

Also you don’t have to be a bishop to hear a confession; any priest can do so.

Then as now, anyone who finds it impossible to get to a priest for confession through no fault of his own, is forgiven if he makes an act of perfect contrition and goes to confession as soon as reasonably possible. Actually this situation is probably MORE common today than it was then. In those days nearly all Christians lived in cities (the word "pagan" originally meant simply "peasant, country- dweller"). And persecution is far from a thing of the past. There have been more Christians killed for their faith in the last 100 years than in the previous 1900 years put together.

“non-denom” = “we don’t care what denomination you are we’ll convert you to our independent denomination”.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 17, 2005.

The same is true today for many Catholics. In many parts of the world and even in some parts of the United States priests are scarce and opportunities for Mass and the sacraments are likewise scarce. I know of one Catholic priest in the southern U.S. who travels over 200 miles every Sunday, saying Mass at 6 different widespread rural parishes. He says Mass at 6:00 AM in his own parish, then hits the road and doesn't return home until after 7:00 PM. In some parts of the world Catholics don't even see a priest once a month. Those of us who have priests and the sacraments readily available often take them for granted, not recognizing the treasure we have.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 17, 2005.

“we don’t care what denomination you are we’ll convert you to our independent denomination”.

Yes, we call them Crusades! We'll convert you even if it kills you!

Oh wait, since we stopped that attendance has fallen. Good thing for the Mexicans moving North to shore up our numbers.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 17, 2005.

In the very early centuries, the Sacrament of Reconciliation was used quite sparingly (once or a very few times per lifetime) and generally when a person repented a very serious sin

So are you saying more people committed less grave sins back then as compared with today?

Also you don’t have to be a bishop to hear a confession; any priest can do so.

I understand that but were they in fact called priests back in the 1st and 2nd Century?

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), February 17, 2005.

1. Would it matter what they were called?

2. Peter already mentioned the priesthood in his epistles.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 17, 2005.

1. Would it matter what they were called?

Why would it matter what they were called?

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), February 17, 2005.

Michael and DJ, I don’t really know what you’re on about but I’ll try to answer.

The Crusaders (c 1095 to 1290 AD) i.e. “Cross-aiders” were not about converting anyone, certainly not converting anyone by force, but about allowing Christian pilgrims to travel to the sacred places of the Holy Land without being murdered. They brought many other benefits including the first hostels/hotels/hospitals (originally all the same type of institution) the ideal of Christian gentlemanly chivalry, ideas which led to scientific advancement etc. I believe some some protestant groups have used the term “crusade” for their conversion campaigns, but that is purely an imitative metaphor.

“are you saying more people committed less grave sins back then as compared with today?” No, probably the number, type and distribution of sins among the Catholic population has remained pretty constant throughout history. But the frequency with which the Church used the sacrament of Reconciliation has changed with the centuries. It wasn't until quite modern times that monthly or even weekly confessions became widespread.

“were they in fact called priests back in the 1st and 2nd Century?” No. Even in the first century, the tripartite division of the sacrament of Holy Orders into Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, had been clearly established. We see this in the Biblical record.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 17, 2005.

Michael and DJ, I don’t really know what you’re on about but I’ll try to answer.

Hey steve, i just want to know all the facts as my friend asks me alot of questions.

It wasn't until quite modern times that monthly or even weekly confessions became widespread.

But wasn't it even in the didache that mentioned about confessing your sins before partaking in the Eucharist? This had to be a weekly thing then didn't it? If not, why was the importance of Confession not as frequent as it should have been?

No. Even in the first century, the tripartite division of the sacrament of Holy Orders into Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, had been clearly established. We see this in the Biblical record.

Any idea what they were called? Also, I didn't realize that they had all 3 divisions in the Biblical Record. Where can i point in Scripture to show my protestant friend? I know oliver mentioned Pauls epistles but where else?

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), February 17, 2005.

> "But wasn't it even in the didache that mentioned about confessing your sins before partaking in the Eucharist? This had to be a weekly thing then didn't it? If not, why was the importance of Confession not as frequent as it should have been?"

Answer: The weekly confession of the early church wasn't sacramental confession with a priest. It was the corporate liturgical confession that all say as part of the Mass. The sacrament of confession was reserved for mortal sins (which was a much shorter list than today's), was allowed only once in a lifetime and was done publically before the whole church. That was the model in place at the time of the Didache.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), February 17, 2005.

>"Any idea what they were called? Also, I didn't realize that they had all 3 divisions in the Biblical Record. Where can i point in Scripture to show my protestant friend?"

Answer: Here are some scriptures that refer to both bishops and deacons:

Philippians 1:1 – “Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons”

1 Timothy 3:1 - "This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work."

1 Timothy 3:2 - "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach"

Titus 1:7 - "For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre" The bishop was the one placed in charge of the local parish by the Apostles when the parish was established. He was responsible for, among other things, performing the Mass. The Didache mentions this specifically. No one else was allowed to say the words of institution originally. So the bishop was the "priest" and the deacons helped out in many ways including carrying the Eucharist to those homebound. Over time, and as the churches grew, the bishops began ordaining priests to perform the Mass in the churches since they couldn't be in all of them all of the time.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), February 17, 2005.

"“Cross-aiders” were not about converting anyone, certainly not converting anyone by force, "

Steve, This is amazing!

If I close one eye and put rose colored glasses over the other I can see it your way.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 17, 2005.

It's sad that there is so much disinformation around that you find this fact amazing, Michael. Open up both eyes, remove your glasses, and study what is said by the consensus of secular historians. You’ll find that what I said is a plain historical fact, albeit an inconvenient one for sectarians who want to paint the Church as some kind of rapacious monster.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 17, 2005.

Michael, I woidl be careful...

steve is correct.

The Crisades had nohign to do with converting anyone, but where about allowign fre passage for Christains ( and in some cases Jews) tt e Holy land. The sites where considered sacred byt had fallen to the Muhammadins as they where hten called.

Origionally the Muslms did nohtignto hinder travelers, and the Chruch elf htem alone for about 200 or so years. Pulgrems of Bothhte Jewish and Christian persuasion traveled freely to Jerusalem.

Then, under new administration, Slaughter became the Normative, and Christains and Jews where killed for their endeavours to travel.

So, the Crusades where begin.

well, almost, the firts crusade had nothign to do with Pilgrimages, but defence.

The fits crusade, ordered by Pope Innocent the 3rd, was to prevent the encroahc of he then-militant Muslims forces which threatened the Btzantine empire with invasion.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 17, 2005.

Thanks Zarove. It’s a pleasure to meet a protestant who isn’t afraid of studying history with an open mind. But you have your numbers mixed up. It was the Fourth Crusade, not the First, which was called by Innocent III.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 18, 2005.

This is what the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), February 18, 2005.

This is what the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA has to say about Confession in the Early Church:

Belief and Practice of the Early Church

Among the modernistic propositions condemned by Pius X in the Decree "Lamentabili sane" (3 July, 1907) are the following:

"In the primitive Church there was no concept of the reconciliation of the Christian sinner by the authority of the Church, but the Church by very slow degrees only grew accustomed to this concept. Moreover, even after penance came to be recognized as an institution of the Church, it was not called by the name of sacrament, because it was regarded as an odious sacrament." (46) "The Lord's words: 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain they are retained' (John xx, 22-23), in no way refer to the Sacrament of Penance, whatever the Fathers of Trent may have been pleased to assert." (47) According to the Council of Trent, the consensus of all the Fathers always understood that by the words of Christ just cited, the power of forgiving and retaining sins was communicated to the Apostles and their lawful successors (Sess. XIV, c. i). It is therefore Catholic doctrine that the Church from the earliest times believed in the power to forgive sins as granted by Christ to the Apostles. Such a belief in fact was clearly inculcated by the words with which Christ granted the power, and it would have been inexplicable to the early Christians if any one who professed faith in Christ had questioned the existence of that power in the Church. But if, contrariwise, we suppose that no such belief existed from the beginning, we encounter a still greater difficulty: the first mention of that power would have been regarded as an innovation both needless and intolerable; it would have shown little practical wisdom on the part of those who were endeavouring to draw men to Christ; and it would have raised a protest or led to a schism which would certainly have gone on record as plainly at least as did early divisions on matters of less importance. But no such record is found; even those who sought to limit the power itself presupposed its existence, and their very attempt at limitation put them in opposition to the prevalent Catholic belief. Turning now to evidence of a positive sort, we have to note that the statements of any Father or orthodox ecclesiastical writer regarding penance present not merely his own personal view, but the commonly accepted belief; and furthermore that the belief which they record was no novelty at the time, but was the traditional doctrine handed down by the regular teaching of the Church and embodied in her practice. In other words, each witness speaks for a past that reaches back to the beginning, even when he does not expressly appeal to tradition.

St. Augustine (d. 430) warns the faithful: "Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God has power to forgive all sins" (De agon. Christ., iii). St. Ambrose (d. 397) rebukes the Novatianists who "professed to show reverence for the Lord by reserving to Him alone the power of forgiving sins. Greater wrong could not be done than what they do in seeking to rescind His commands and fling back the office He bestowed. . . . The Church obeys Him in both respects, by binding sin and by loosing it; for the Lord willed that for both the power should be equal" (De poenit., I, ii,6). Again he teaches that this power was to be a function of the priesthood. "It seemed impossible that sins should be forgiven through penance; Christ granted this (power) to the Apostles and from the Apostles it has been transmitted to the office of priests" (op. cit., II, ii, 12). The power to forgive extends to all sins: "God makes no distinction; He promised mercy to all and to His priests He granted the authority to pardon without any exception" (op. cit., I, iii, 10). Against the same heretics St. Pacian, Bishop of Barcelona (d. 390), wrote to Sympronianus, one of their leaders: "This (forgiving sins), you say, only God can do. Quite true: but what He does through His priests is the doing of His own power" (Ep. I ad Sympron, 6 in P.L., XIII, 1057). In the East during the same period we have the testimony of St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 447): "Men filled with the spirit of God (i.e. priests) forgive sins in two ways, either by admitting to baptism those who are worthy or by pardoning the penitent children of the Church" (In Joan., 1, 12 in P.G., LXXIV, 722). St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) after declaring that neither angels nor archangels have received such power, and after showing that earthly rulers can bind only the bodies of men, declares that the priest's power of forgiving sins "penetrates to the soul and reaches up to heaven". Wherefore, he concludes, "it were manifest folly to condemn so great a power without which we can neither obtain heaven nor come to the fulfillment of the promises. . . . Not only when they (the priests) regenerate us (baptism), but also after our new birth, they can forgive us our sins" (De sacred., III, 5 sq.). St. Athanasius (d. 373): "As the man whom the priest baptizes is enlightened by the grace of the Holy Ghost, so does he who in penance confesses his sins, receive through the priest forgiveness in virtue of the grace of Christ" (Frag. contra Novat. in P. G., XXVI, 1315).

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), February 18, 2005.

ZAROVE-

Thanks, I am fully aware of the stated objectives of the various crusades, However to ignore the other factors involved *Within* them provides a false picture of the Whole Truth. Or as some may say the "Fullness of the Truth". (hence my one eye closed and rose colored glasses comment). Trust me some here clearly don't always want to hear the whole truth, just the good parts. (i.e) they only want to see the one hand that is clean...

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 18, 2005.

There has never been a "clean" war. There are abuses and atrocities in every war. A war must be judged on the basis of its intended purpose and its results in terms of achieving its intended purpose. The fact that atrocities were commited by some combatants is essentially irrelevant to the questions of necessity, purpose, results, and the overall justice of a particular conflict.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 18, 2005.

Paul M. In an educated society I would agree up to a certain point, depending on the methods of approach. However, the people recruited for the large part were not educated, the method of enticing to build forces and the larger unannounced political goals leave the designers culpable, which in this case is the Church. Here is a link which provides a brief synopsis of some of the events.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/lect/med15.html

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 18, 2005.

Michael, you seem to have overlooked that I was talking about what the Crusades were “about”, not everything that happened during the subsequent wars. Indeed some of the Crusaders were excommunicated for going outside the mission they had been given.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 19, 2005.

I should add that even those Crusaders who erred did so by committing murder or theft. They didn't convert anyone.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 19, 2005.