On Repentance #
What is the Sacrament of Repentance? #
The sacrament of repentance is the erasure of sin that arises from the violation of the vow made at baptism, which includes the renunciation of the devil and all his works, all his vanity, and all his service; and the promise to Christ and faith in Him. Faith in Christ is expressed in the observance of the Gospel commandments. Therefore, every violation of these commandments is a sin and a submission to the devil. And when a person, having sinned after baptism, confesses their sins before a priest, they then receive proper absolution from him.
The Great Catechism states: “Repentance is the second plank after the shipwreck of baptism, and it is the necessary mystery for those who have sinned, in which the forgiveness of sins for the penitent is sought, and it is granted by God through the priest” (Chapter 78, On the Sacrament of Repentance).
Simeon of Thessalonica says: “Repentance, after baptism, is both the beginning of salvation for all the faithful, and another purification, and a second baptism, accomplished through confession and contrition, with corresponding labors and tears” (Part 1, Chapter 215, p. 314).
What Does Repentance Consist Of, and Who Should Repent? #
Simeon of Thessalonica writes that repentance consists in constantly feeling contrition, acknowledging and considering oneself a sinner, and turning to confession… For who can boast of having a pure heart? Or who is clean from impurity, as it is written, even if they have lived only one day on earth (Job 14:4-5), since everyone is sinful either from original sin or, after the enlightenment of baptism, immediately and involuntarily, in some way, falls into sin. For it is easy to sin accidentally against someone—a parent, a friend, or a relative, which is impossible to avoid: even if this happens without the conscious thought of an infant, it still becomes a cause of sin, and immediately impurity and sin are transmitted. And every person, despite having received grace, as soon as they are born, desires fleshly things foolishly and ignorantly, and this is a consequence of the original transgression (of the ancestors): hence, one sins as soon as they are born, even without understanding, because, according to David, they are conceived in sin (Psalm 50:7). Therefore, it is necessary for everyone to repent: laypeople, monastics, clerics, priests, and bishops, and no one should exclude themselves from repentance because everyone has sinned and continues to sin, and thus, everyone must repent (Part 1, Chapters 216 and 217, pp. 315 and 316).
Before Whom Should One Confess Sins? #
Before a bishop or a priest. For, according to Simeon of Thessalonica, preaching repentance was the very mission of the Savior and the apostles, and it is primarily the duty of bishops and priests… For repentance is one of the sacraments, and it is the responsibility of bishops to perform it for the faithful. And they must strive for this, and along with the bishops, those who have received this ministry with episcopal permission should also work towards it (Part 1, Chapters 218 and 219).
The Great Catechism divides repentance into three parts. The first part is the contrition of the heart or the sorrow of the soul for sins… The second part is the confession of sins before God and His priest… The third part is satisfaction or the penance and self-punishment received from the spiritual father to produce fruits worthy of repentance… And the completion of the mystery of repentance is marked by the words spoken by the priest when absolving the penitent: “Child, Christ invisibly forgives you, and I, a sinner, by His will and command, and by the power and authority of the Life-Giving Trinity” (Chapter 78).
In the Evangelist on the words spoken by the apostle Peter to Christ: “Lord, how many times shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” Jesus said to him: “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven” (Matthew 18:21-22); the interpreter explains: Peter is asking how many times he should forgive his brother if he sins and then repents and asks for forgiveness. To the words “if he sins,” he added “against me.” This is because if someone sins against God, I, as a mere man, cannot forgive him; only a priest who holds the divine office can forgive that. But if someone sins against me and I forgive him, then he will be forgiven, even though I am just a man, not a priest (Evangelist, in Russian translation).
In Son of the Church, it is written: The priestly rank is great, for it is the apostolic inheritance, for which reason authority is given from God over human souls, to bind and loose them. Therefore, various names were given to them (the priestly rank): Light of the world, Salt of the earth, Guide to the erring, Teacher of the ignorant. Guardian and Shepherd of Christ’s flock. House of mysteries, Priest of offerings. Spiritual trumpet. Source of living water, Mouth of God, Giver of peace to the world, Steward, Eye of the Church. Way and Gatekeeper, Key-holder of ancient gates, and others. You, having heard this, should not live without them. If you sin before God, come to him and confess, and he will be your intercessor before God; he will release you from the bonds of sin. Without him, do not live; no one else can release you (Chapter 63 and 64).
Nikon of Black Mountain testifies: that confession should be made to priests who perform sacred duties, and not to others, all divine scripture says. However, this is explained in the book of interpretations of the commandments of Christ (see Words 51, 55, and 56). Here are some stories that have happened in our time, which we will mention for our understanding… In the famous city of Antioch, there was a prince who, being ill unto death, confessed to a priest, but then hesitated, being wise and virtuous, and thought to himself that although I have confessed, I did so while near death. God, however, in His goodwill, granted me recovery from illness, so it is fitting that I make my confession properly and as is appropriate. Thus he reasoned well but did not know that it was right to confess to priests. Having faith in a certain monk, he called him, though he was not a priest, and confessed to him, explaining that it was due to the fear of death. The monk, having understanding, said: I do not dare because I do not have the priestly rank. The prince replied: I confessed to a priest, but being near death, I now do this as a precaution. The monk, upon hearing this, pondered and, after reflecting, returned the next morning and said to the prince what he had seen and learned. He said: I saw someone in the image of my spiritual father giving me a very thin rod, on which there was already something bound, and he said to me: take this and unbind it, and then bind it again. When I took it and could not untie it, I gave it back to him. And he said to me: you should know that you cannot untie or bind it; but tell the one who confessed to you that he should do what is necessary, and call a priest and confess his sins, and the priest should say the Gospel words that Christ said to the holy apostle Peter: `Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,’ and so on. Upon hearing this, the prince did as instructed and confessed to another elder. This elder confessed what he had done in his monastery, saying: as divine scriptures teach us, so now we learn from this that it is proper to confess to priests who perform sacred duties. They have the power to bind and loose, and not from themselves, as some think, but according to the divine scriptures, and not according to their own desires (Taktikon, Word 14, p. 72).
Nikon also quotes sayings of the ancient holy fathers—Basil the Great: “It is not proper to confess sins to a simple man, but to a priest, for he is called an earthly angel and a heavenly man.” — Athanasius the Great: “Just as a man, baptized by a priest, is enlightened by the grace of the Holy Spirit, so when confessing, he receives forgiveness by the grace of Christ through the priest” (Nikon of Black Mountain, Word 55, p. 455).
What is the Meaning of the Phrase in the Nomocanon: “The Confession to an Elder is Accepted”? #
The mentioned phrase is merely a marginal note, but such notes are not made by the authors of the books themselves, rather by diligent readers of these books. The authors of the books do not take responsibility for the accuracy of these notes, and therefore each person must judge them for themselves. The mentioned note in the Nomocanon was made against the following question and answer:
Question: If there are monks who are priests but are not skilled in receiving thoughts, and others who are not priests but are skilled in this matter, is it proper for them to receive the thoughts of some people or not?
Answer: Those who receive thoughts are like skilled physicians who know how to apply appropriate remedies to the sick. If a priest is not skilled, but another non-priest is skilled in spiritual work, it is more appropriate for the latter to receive thoughts rather than the priest and to correct them properly. However, monks who are not priests, especially those who are unskilled, should know that if they receive thoughts from some people and bind or loose them, they do so contrary to the rules, and it is of no effect. For the holy fathers do not even allow priests to reconcile penitents without the permission of the bishop, as explained in the 6th and 43rd canons of the Council of Carthage (Nomocanon of Kiev, p. 126).
In this question and answer, there is no indication that ordinary elders can bind and loose those who confess to them; on the contrary, this is explicitly denied. Therefore, the marginal note accompanying this question and answer, “The confession to an elder is accepted,” cannot be interpreted as referring to the sacrament of confession, through which the forgiveness of sins is granted. Instead, it should be understood as referring to a type of confession through which only thoughts are corrected.
This is precisely what was asked in the question related to this answer, asking: “Is it proper for such a one to receive thoughts from some people?” This refers to the monastic practice when novices, beginning to adopt a passionless life, encounter a whole host of various passionate thoughts that require great skill to overcome, and very few without experience can withstand their onslaught. Therefore, the holy elders established that each monk should have a spiritual father and advised novices, if possible, to confess their thoughts to him both morning and evening. These spiritual fathers, judging largely based on their own struggles with these thoughts, give novices guidance on how to overcome them.
Thus, this question was asked specifically about the confession of thoughts and whether it is better to confess them to a skilled elder who is not a priest rather than to an unskilled priest. The answer, recognizing that in this case what is needed is not the forgiveness of sins (which have not yet been committed), but guidance on how to withstand the onslaught of passionate thoughts, preferred skill over priestly rank. However, if passionate thoughts are quickly repelled, they do not defile a person and are not counted as sin to him; but if they linger in the heart, they do defile it, and even without the actual commission of the deed, they are already counted as sin to that person.
If some elders, who are not priests, while receiving the thoughts of others and beyond giving guidance on how to repel them, attempted to bind or loose in matters of thoughts that defile those who confess, this answer states that they do so contrary to the rules and that it is of no effect.
The fact that this question does not pertain to the sacrament of confession of sins and repentance is also demonstrated by the following question, which asks: “Is it proper for a non-priest monk or an ordained one to receive confessions voluntarily, or not?” If the previously discussed question concerned the sacrament of confession of sins, this question would be a mere repetition, intolerable for the respondent. But the answer to this question makes no mention of the similarity to the previous one and responds to it as if encountering it for the first time, saying:
Answer: The Lord said to His apostles, the preachers of God: “You are the salt of the earth; whatever you bind and whatever you loose on earth shall be bound in heaven.” Therefore, it has been established by our holy fathers that even for those who confess, the reconcilers should be bishops who have received the apostolic position from God. An ordained monk, much less an unordained one, cannot reconcile a penitent to God without the bishop’s will.
At the end of the above-mentioned response from the Nomocanon, it is written: “Those who are consecrated by the command of the bishop should accept human confessions; but to the non-priest monk, discipline and his expertise grant the power of reconciliation, provided he keeps himself blameless, and he should reconcile those confessing to God.” How should this be understood? #
This expression is written very obscurely and confusingly, and this obscurity, as is noticeable, arose through the translator. For in ancient manuscripts of the Nomocanons, it is expressed as follows: “Those who are consecrated by the bishop’s command accept human confessions, but to the non-priest monk, neither does his discipline nor his expertise give him the power of reconciliation. Those who keep themselves blameless and reconcile those confessing to God are mentioned.” And when one and the same thing is expressed differently in different books, it is clear that there was confusion in translation. Unfortunately, the final edition is not clearer than the first. Such obscurities are determined according to the following rule: first, the writer should be reconciled with himself, and then with other fathers of the Holy Church. Therefore, it cannot be accepted, as some assert, that the non-priest monk’s discipline and expertise (meaning his good knowledge and experience) give him the power to reconcile sinners with God through the Sacrament of Confession. For such an assertion directly contradicts the same response, which states: “A consecrated monk, much more so a non-priest, cannot reconcile the one confessing to God through the will of the bishop.” It also contradicts the responses of the holy council to the questions of John the Monk, which say: “Question 14. Should spiritual children be accepted by one who is not a priest? Response. And indeed, we say that it is worthy to accept and bind spiritual children and to release them, those who have received the power from spiritual grace, which are firstly bishops, and then presbyters, having received this command from the bishop. For these are the most notable leaders and the most astute in discerning thoughts: for by them, forgiveness of sins occurs through confession; but to him who is not worthy, it is not fitting to grant forgiveness, for it is in vain that such a confession occurs.” And the Great Basil also says in Chapter 51 of the Monastic Books, that it is necessary to confess sins to those to whom the administration of the mysteries of God is entrusted (Kormchaya, ch. 54, l. 581).
It would also contradict what the blessed Simeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica, says: “I have heard that some archbishops give monks the right to accept confessions. But I have previously expressed, and I will now express my opinion, which I hope is also the opinion of the fathers, that this is a matter of the priesthood and should be performed by archbishops or priests, but under no circumstances by laypeople. If some need, in the absence of a priest, compels with the permission of the archbishop to perform this act, let it be done by a reverent and knowledgeable monk who understands the sacred canons (rules): but let him perform it only by accepting a single confession and passing it on to the bishop or giving some spiritually beneficial advice, but not forgiving or absolving. Otherwise, without priesthood, he could also perform the sacraments, baptize, bless, and perform other duties, which is alien to the Church” (Simeon of Thessalonica, ch. 2, p. 162). And furthermore, those who have received the bishop’s letters (rights to hear confession) are obliged to inquire in which cases they can fully exercise their right of absolution; what then can be said about those who have not received such a right? All the more so, for those who are not consecrated. Therefore, together with those who perform sacred rites without ordination, they will be subjected to judgment (ibid., p. 149).
By the force of that apostolic statement to the Corinthians: “Was I vacillating when I wanted to do this? Or do I make my plans according to the flesh, ready to say ‘Yes, yes’ and ‘No, no’ at the same time? As surely as God is faithful, our word to you has not been Yes and No” (2 Corinthians 1:17-18). We must in no way allow such a contradiction in the teachings of the Holy Church, where in one place the right to perform the sacrament of confession is completely denied to the non-ordained, and in another, it is permitted. And if the right that Christ preached to the apostles is attributed to the episcopate: “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18). Or: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld” (John 20:23): then it must be denied that laypeople have this right. But if, on the contrary, apart from episcopal ordination, the ability is attributed to laypeople, through some education or piety, to claim this right, then it must be said that in the successive ordination from the holy apostles there is no grace, and in that case, we must completely reject the priesthood entrusted by Christ and thereby take upon ourselves the condemnation contained in the following statement of Christ to the apostles chosen by Him: “The one who hears you hears Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me” (Luke 10:16).
Therefore, to avoid this terrible prejudice, we must in no way allow the notion that mere discipline and expertise, apart from episcopal ordination, grant the right to bind and loose sins, as some interpret the expression in your question, but rather we should frankly acknowledge its obscurity and lack of clarity, or explain it in the sense that it refers only to the confession of thoughts and not to the sacrament of absolution of sins, as we have shown in more detail in the previous response. Or else, due to some necessity, an unconsecrated person, having heard even the confession of sins and given the penitent appropriate instruction for correction, sends it for absolution to a priest, as is noted from the aforementioned words of Simeon of Thessalonica, and even confirmed by a similar case in the life of the venerable Luke of Hellas, in whose life the following is written: He had a sister living in a monastery, who sometimes came with her novices to her brother (in the desert) and served him, if there was anything necessary. Sometimes she cultivated his garden, planting and weeding herbs: once the venerable one said to her and those with her: a man is coming to us, bearing a great and heavy burden on his shoulders, and laboring much; having said this, he left them and went up the mountain. They did not understand what had been said, and, marveling, they wondered what this word meant that the venerable one had spoken, who was burdened, and with what burden. And lo, after a short time, a man came, bearing no burden, nor carrying anything, and asked about the venerable one: where is holy Luke, he said, I have a certain urgent need. The saint’s sister answered him: he is not here now, he has gone into the desert for a while, and if you wish to see him, then wait until he returns. That man said: I will not leave until I see him, and he waited near the cells for seven days, waiting for the saint. On the seventh day, the venerable one came down from the desert mountain, and seeing that man, he immediately looked at him more sternly than usual and cried out in a loud voice: why have you come to this desert? Why have you left the cities and withdrawn to the mountains? Having despised the shepherds and priests of the church, you have come to us, simple and unlettered. How did you dare to come before our eyes, without fear of God’s vengeance, being guilty of enormous lawlessness? These words of the saint frightened the man, and he wept with tears flowing from his eyes and could not say a single word out of fear. The saint said to him again: Why do you remain silent, until you confess your deed and reveal the murder you committed, so that by confessing your iniquities, you might at least slightly appease God? Then the man, hardly able to say anything through his tears and sobbing, began to speak: what more, O man of God, do you wish me to tell you, when you, taught by the grace of God dwelling in you, have already told my grave sin before my confession; for nothing, as I see, is hidden from you of what I did in secret: however, I will do as you command, I will declare openly my iniquity. And he began to speak before everyone in detail how, where, and for what reason he killed his friend on the road, confessing this with much weeping and humility, falling at the feet of the saint and begging him not to leave him to perish, entangled in the devil’s snares. The saint, after much chastising him and instructing him to repentance, sent him away, commanding him to go to the priests (Lives of the Saints, February 7th). And if such a venerable father, who foresaw the future and the hidden, did not dare to absolve the one who confessed to him from his sins, but only gave him instruction for salvation and sent him to the priests for absolution, it is clear that discipline and experience do not grant simple monks the right to reconcile to God those confessing their sins to them. And all the more, it is impossible to assert this, as against this, in the same Nomocanon, such a prohibition is laid down: If anyone dares to accept thoughts and confessions without the command of the local bishop: such a one will receive punishment according to the rules, as a violator of divine rules, for he not only ruins himself, but those who confessed to him are not confessed: and those whom he bound or loosed are not corrected according to the 6th rule of the Council of Carthage and the 43rd (Kiev Nomocanon, l. 3). And again, the same Nomocanon says: St.@ Ignatius writes, who says: what is more established, even if he were a virgin, even if he performed miracles, even if he prophesied, let him be considered a wolf in sheep’s clothing, causing the destruction of the sheep (ibid., l. 152).
Is it possible for someone to repent directly to the Lord God, without confessing before a man, as Saint John Chrysostom teaches, saying: “Repentance, confession, a contrite heart, tears, sighs from the depths, and compassion are great goods; therefore, I beseech you, brethren, confess to God alone, and reveal your transgressions to Him… let us show our sins to our Lord, who neither shames nor despises but rather shows mercy and heals… let us confess purely to the Lord, that we may receive mercy from Him” (Commentary on the Gospel, Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee, at the end). #
Repenting for our sins is possible, and indeed we must always do so before our Lord God, but we cannot receive forgiveness and absolution without confessing them to a priest. Nikon of the Black Mountain, commenting on the same words of Chrysostom, cites the following saying: “If a man sins and falls into sin, even if he mortifies the flesh of his body and weakens the marrow of his bones with fasting and weeping, it will profit him nothing. But if he confesses his sins to a man, to a priest, at the shame of himself, for this reason, he will be justified. For the enemy knows well that God greatly forgives the sins of those who come to Him with warm faith and forgives those who confess to Him with tears, therefore the enemy hastens to prevent them from confessing” (Homily 51, l. 411). From this, it is clear that confession to God is understood to include confession to His priest. Therefore, the instruction about confessing to God, written in the Commentary on the Gospel about the Publican, does not exclude that confession which is made according to God’s command to a priest, for even through the priest, confession is also made to God. However, to expand on all the details of this in this moral teaching would be inappropriate, because receiving mercy from Him is understood as receiving the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which, according to the apostle’s saying, cleanses us from every sin (1 John 1:7): yet even this is not mentioned in detail here due to the brevity of this moral teaching. Therefore, such general statements about the sacraments of the Church in no way negate those details that the Holy Church includes in their performance. Repentance is offered to the Lord God in all our prayers, not only in private but even during public gatherings in the church: but in addition to this, the Holy Church, as the Small Catechism writes, commands that confession be made four times a year; though those who are more devout may do so more frequently, no one should fail to confess at least once a year; for such a person is under a curse and excommunication from the Church (l. 27). For human sins, as Chrysostom says, are like a garment that has not been washed for a long time, which, having become blackened, cannot be quickly cleansed: so also a sinful person, if he does not repent for a long time, his soul becomes darkened (3rd Sunday of Lent, Homily 26). And if a Christian dies without repentance (meaning without confession to a spiritual father), then it is not fitting for a priest to sing over him or to offer the Eucharist for him, for he has not fulfilled the law of God and the Christian faith (Service Book, l. 168).
If we do not receive confirmation of the forgiveness of sins without confession to a priest, then how did God Himself miraculously pronounce the forgiveness of sins to the paralyzed man who confessed directly to Him in the church where the body of John Chrysostom lay, as is written in the Prologue on January 27? #
Many miraculous signs occur for various reasons in such cases, which are not according to the general tradition of the Church, but these cannot be accepted as a rule to weaken or, even more so, to overthrow the universal tradition of the Holy Church. For Matthew the Ascetic, at the end of the 3rd chapter of his composition, states: “What occurs against the rules is not brought forth as a model or an example,” and Theodore Valsamon, in his commentary on the 18th rule of the Council of Sardica, says: “It is a lawful rule that states: what is not according to the rules should not be used as an example.”
As for the paralyzed man you mentioned, it cannot be definitively said that he, after receiving a sign from God of the forgiveness of his sins, did not later declare them to his spiritual father. For we know that Cornelius the Centurion, who was still an unbaptized Gentile, received the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is granted only to the baptized, but did not refuse to be baptized afterward (Acts 10). Likewise, this paralyzed man could not have received God’s mercy if he had been contrary to God’s law; and if he was not contrary to it, how could he, being in the church, not have had a spiritual father, whom the Holy Church obliges every Christian to have, as she commands her ecclesiastical son in such an instruction: “Honor the priest everywhere and always, especially your spiritual father; and if you do not have a spiritual father, seek one and call upon him, and do not be without him.” It is written in the Christian law: “If anyone lives in the world and does not have a spiritual father, he is not a Christian.” And again: “Woe to the man living in the world who dies without a spiritual father; it would have been better for him not to have been born” (Son of the Church, ch. 61).
The holy prophet speaks to God: “If You, Lord, should mark iniquities, who could stand?” (Psalm 129:3). Therefore, he prays to Him, saying: “Turn Your face away from my sins and blot out all my iniquities” (Psalm 50:11), and blesses the one “to whom the Lord does not impute sin” (Psalm 31:1). But whose iniquities does the Lord mark, and from whom does He turn His face, and to whom does He not impute sin? There is an approximate answer to this in the following question-answer of the Larger Catechism:
Question: It is written that at the second coming of Christ, the books will be opened, and all our sins will be revealed: will all our sins be written in these books, including those for which we have received forgiveness and absolution in the Holy Church?
Answer: Only those sins will be written there which a person did not completely correct in this life through perfect repentance and cleansing by the blood of Christ, as is fitting for Orthodox Christians to cleanse their transgressions. But those who received forgiveness of sins in their present life through their sincere repentance, tears, and other virtues that contribute to the healing of sin, as well as through the cleansing of the body and blood of Christ, about which the godly John says: “The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). Such sins are not written in these books, for the Lord Himself said to the apostles: “If you forgive men their sins, they are forgiven them.” However, they are written in these books because many have led a negligent life and departed without repentance (Larger Catechism, ch. 23, l. 104).
Similarly, it is written in the life of Saint Basil the New. When the soul of Theodora was led through the tollhouses, she asked the holy angels leading her, saying: “O my lords! Will every sin that a person commits be examined as we pass through here?…” And the angels responded to her: “Not all sins are thus examined, but only those who did not confess… If you had confessed to your spiritual father without shame and had received a command from him, succeeded in correcting it, and received forgiveness from him, you would have passed through all these evils unhindered, without a single tollhouse being able to examine you for even a single sin; but since you did not wish to confess to your spiritual father without shame, you are examined here in these.” But it also helps that you ceased from your sins and did not continue in them. And if someone, while still alive, ceases from sin and diligently strives for repentance, God will forgive him his sins, and he will be found free from all, receiving forgiveness invisibly. The evil spirits at the tollhouses have the sins written down, and when they quickly open their records, they find nothing written there, for the Holy Spirit invisibly covers them. And seeing this, the demons, realizing that all these sins have been erased through confession, grieve over their failure… But if someone abstains from sin and ceases from the evil he was doing but does not confess his previous sins to a spiritual father, hoping that mere abstention is sufficient for salvation, then if he is ashamed to confess them for a long time, it will be of no use to him unless he confesses as is fitting: such a person will be thoroughly tested here (at the tollhouses), as you see (Tollhouse 13).
Is every absolution of sins by a priest to the penitent valid? #
Every priestly absolution of sins should indeed be valid, provided that the priest is of the Orthodox faith, has the blessing of the bishop to hear confessions, and absolves the penitent according to the rules of the holy fathers. The Small Catechism writes about the necessity for both the penitent and the priest to be of the Orthodox faith in the following statement: “First, the penitent should be an Orthodox Christian, for without good faith, no repentance can be effective. Secondly, no one can absolve the penitent except an Orthodox priest, for outside the Church there is no salvation or absolution” (l. 36).
As for the requirement that the priest should only hear confessions with the blessing of the bishop, this has been sufficiently demonstrated in previous responses.
Regarding the obligation of the priest to absolve sinners according to the rules of the holy fathers, Simeon of Thessalonica says the following: “Let every [spiritual father] firmly resolve to do nothing contrary to the determinations and rules of the fathers, for they were established by various God-bearing men, and they are fitting, being in harmony with the Spirit, and are very effective in healing every passion and fully curative… Therefore, all should judge according to the Church’s rules and pay no attention to anything else, composed not according to these rules, for grace is passed down through succession: for from the source of grace, our Lord and Savior, it passed to His apostles, from the apostles to the fathers, and from our fathers to us. So, if we adhere to the rules of the fathers, then the succession of grace will be in us, and our judgment will be firm; otherwise, if you act not according to their determinations, then our judgment will not be firm” (ch. 1, sec. 219, p. 323). Similarly, it is written in the Nomocanon from the words of Theodore the Studite: “The authority of the leaders is not given to violate the rules in anything but only to diligently adhere to what is established, and to follow what has been handed down, and to bind and loose not indiscriminately, but as seems to be in accordance with truth, and with the canon, and with the rule of the highest law” (Kiev Nomocanon, l. 152).
Even the demons themselves confessed to fearing only those prohibitions that are made according to the rules of the holy fathers, as is shown in the following story:
A certain priest, having come from the island of Cyprus, told us the following story, saying: There was a certain woman involved in sorcery and witchcraft, who, being urged by another, attempted to use her craft on someone to attract him to her will. Engaged in this evil, she immediately sent two demons to him to carry out her plans. But these foul demons, having gone, soon returned without accomplishing anything. When questioned by the one engaging in evil as to why they had failed, they replied that they found him under the command of such a person that they did not dare to approach. For he had confessed to the aforementioned priest and received a command of prohibition from him, as the divine rules require. Then the woman asked them: “Is this the case for all those who receive commands?” They replied to her, “No, but only for those to whom this priest gives commands, for he teaches from God’s law and the Scriptures, and it is from these that he gives commands, and for this reason, we do not dare approach them, but we fear God’s law. But those who teach from themselves or give commands from themselves, we neither fear nor avoid in any way.” Hearing this from the unclean demons, the woman, placing her hope in the priest’s teaching, soon came to him, confessed everything about herself, and sought a command. The priest, being merciful to her, did not impose on her the severe and just command according to the law. But she pleaded, saying, “Do not have mercy on me at all, but judge me according to God’s law and the divine Scriptures. For it is these that the demons fear.” The priest gave her the command, and from that time she was made whole by the grace of Christ. This was told by that priest, who had gained experience in such matters: from then on, the priest, having confirmed and assured himself, and also being more cautious, taught and commanded more strictly from the divine Scriptures, and not according to his own will (Prologue, March 24).
Saint John Chrysostom, in his homily on the confession of sins, says: “If there is someone whose mind the devil tempts by saying to him, `You can keep your thoughts to yourself, and do what is written, just as the holy fathers have commanded, and so you can act on your own.’ Do not listen to this thought, and do not delay in confessing your sins so that you may be forgiven in this life and in the next” (Prologue, September 30).