Talk:Economia

Attention!

Help... I am very interested in the subject of economia, but know nothing about it. --Sophroniscus 22:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but now the can of worms has been opened!

Yes, I like doing that. --Sophroniscus 22:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Hrm. I was thinking of a certain contingent generally to be found among smaller schismatic Orthodox groups (but also occasionally in the mainstream Churches) who fancy themselves amateur canon law experts and who argue for akrivia in every case. They have a habit of dramatically "walling themselves off" from bishops they believe apply economia inappropriately. Yes, I have someone in particular in mind here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

---

This is a huge, huge subject.

Great! It should take little effort to expand on the little stub I created. --Sophroniscus 22:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

In its broadest sense, all of salvation history is spoken of as the Lord's economia as in "The Economy of Salvation". It's intended in almost the same sense when it comes to canon law: The point of canonical penalties isn't punitive in the sense of a justice system where penalties are imposed to "balance the scales", but to bring individual souls to salvation. They must therefore be applied with discretion and economia in every case. That may mean strictly, or according to akrivia in many (or perhaps even most) cases, but in others not. Therefore, economia in the canonical sense is applied for strictly pastoral reasons.

But since I'm very far from expert in this subject, I'm pretty sure I can't contribute usefully to this article. ASDamick is more qualified to comment since, unlike me, he is actually undergoing a seminary education and has a wider array of resources available to him. The Late Vocations program I'm taking is, of necessity, not as broad or deep. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah well, no one knows everything. Thanks for your thoughts. --Sophroniscus 22:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Penance

Help! Being a Roman Catholic, I need help understanding the relation between economia and Penance. I understand that in the Early Church one was required to do Penance only for the most serious sins (murder, adultery, apostasy). Now days, though, the Roman Church considers almost all sins to be mortal sin and to require confession. How is it in the Eastern Churches? --Sophroniscus 22:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Epitemia, or penance, is prescribed at the discretion of the elder or confessor for spiritual medicine as he considers it necessary for the salvation of the individual. Economia must therefore be applied in all cases. In Orthodoxy, penance generally consists of a temporary period of excommunication and intensified prayer and fasting. The exact type of sin involved here doesn't really signify. Although some sins are obviously more serious than others and might be taken to indicate the degree of spiritual sickness in the sinner, any judgment of how much penance is necessary to steer any particular soul back to a Godly life isn't something that can be strictly encoded in a canon.

Is it entirely fair to say that Rome considers all sins mortal?

No, it isn't. You expect me to be fair? Oh, I do what I can in articles, but on Talk pages?... --Sophroniscus 22:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it perhaps more the case that venal sins tend to get ignored more now than formerly, at least among some of the laity? I'm just guessing here, and of course it's impossible to say without being present in the confessional oneself, but I'd find it difficult to believe that, say, flipping someone off in traffic could be considered a mortal sin even though it's clearly sinful.

For the Orthodox, all sins of whatever degree need to be mentioned in confession, although it's a rare confessor who wants to hear them in all details. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

That must make for long confessions... It seems to me that assigning trivial penances tends to trivialize the Sacred Mystery. I don't know how it is among the Orthodox but Catholics get more than their share of jokes directed at them because of such Hail Mary penances. As I said above, in the Early Church only the most serious sins required confession. But the penances assigned for those sins were far from trivial. That seems appropriate. the penance should fit the crime. But when each and every sin must be confessed, it is simply impossible for many, if not most people ever to do their penances unless the priest assignes trivial ones. So it seems that the rule that every sin be confessed results in the trivialization of the whole process. --Sophroniscus 22:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Repentence is not trivial even for apparently minor sins, and it is the Mystery of Confession that puts the seal on it. It is therefore necessary, but as I said, it's not often done that every sin is enumerated in detail. People generally confess by category, only mentioning particular instances when they're unusually significant or by way of example. The assignment of a penance is fairly unusual even so. You'll even find those Orthodox who claim that they're never given out, which is not true.

This is not the early Church. It was also the practice in those days for sins to be confessed to the whole congregation: it was the Church who forgave the sin. It still is, but in the person of the priest who acts as a witness on behalf of the Church. (The Western-influenced Russian formula with its "I...forgive and absolve" is commonly acknowledged as efficacious but erroneous.) Obviously it's not practical for everyone to stand up and confess all sins in this way. In even a moderate sized congregation you'd be there all day doing this and still not get any praying done. I think here we have to acknowledge the guidence of the Holy Spirit to the present practice as, perhaps, more suitable for current conditions. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Economy of Salvation

It looks like I've stepped in it again: See Economy of Salvation...