Confession ...

[New Legacy]

The falling away was when the RCC and Orthodox churches started to teach confessing to clergy. I was never a Biblical instruction.
The Bible tells us to confess or agree with God what IS sin in our lives and it instruct us to confess or agree with others when what we do effects them directly or indirectly, AFTER we confess it to God.

The NT tells us to confess our sins to one another, that whatever sins are forgiven and what is retained is retained.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Back on confession, I have a question, if anyone can tell me an answer? (and if I get anything wrong in my summary, please let me know, and I apologize in advance)

I hope there is an answer, and not something that would be disputed.

One of the biggest questions seems to be who we confess to.

If the Orthodox church has maintained its tradition, and from outside sources I've heard quoted - then the early church confessed among its members, and at some point began confessing to the leadership. Private confession to God is also possible.

In the Catholic church, there is confession to priests for absolution. Private confession to God is also possible, under certain circumstances (not too serious a sin?).

Luther (and other reformers I'm guessing? but it's Luther I know at least a little about) - established Protestantism. The Lutheran church held and still holds confession to clergy for absolution, and private confession to God is also possible.

Now, still within Protestantism, as far as I know, the evangelicals in some cases promote "confession" to others in the congregation - either in groups or to accountability partners. Absolution is not involved, unless it is forgiveness for wrongs against a person or group. Private confession to God is seen as the way to have sins forgiven.

(except for those who believe all sins are already forgiven)

My question is: at what point did confession move away from being to the clergy? I would have thought it would have been the Protestant reformation, but since Lutheran churches hold confession, that must not be the case (at least not in the US???). So how did this happen, and whose idea was it? Do they give reasons why?

This is the tradition I come from, and I can't even figure out where it started, or why? No Scripture has ever been given me except for 1John (if we confess, He is faithful and just to forgive us) and even there who we confess to seems to be implied.

I would really, really like to know this?

Thanks if anyone can help.

Thanks for the answers.

I'm not looking to argue, but that's not the part of history I'm looking for?

According to Scripture, if the church was obedient, there must have been general confession.

James 5
14 Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. 16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.

And at some point in time, that moved to confession to clergy, either as well as congregational confession, or in place of.

The part I'm looking for, is who said it was wrong, and when, and why?

I had assumed it would be Luther, but Lutherans can be confessional.

The evangelicals don't confess, as far as I can tell. So I think the answer is in there, but I'm not sure.

I was hoping someone would know?

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Matt 23:8-9 is about spiritual teaching and fathering, not actual teaching and fathering. I am a father and am called as such.

So a teacher of Israel was not a spiritual teacher?

 

[Mama Kidogo]

The falling away was when the RCC and Orthodox churches started to teach confessing to clergy. I was never a Biblical instruction.
The Bible tells us to confess or agree with God what IS sin in our lives and it instruct us to confess or agree with others when what we do effects them directly or indirectly, AFTER we confess it to God.

Orthodox confess before the clergy but confess to God. The priest then prays. God absolves.
There is Biblical instruction and authority given to the apostles.You don't think they took it with them do you?
So at what date did we fall away IYHO?

 

[Chesterton]

And at some point in time, that moved to confession to clergy, either as well as congregational confession, or in place of.

What I've heard is that yes, early on, confession was congregational or general, but it was simply embarrassing, and could create scandal, because, well, you know how we humans are with our gossip and judgment. So at some point it was decided it was better to confess to the priest in private, lest people shy away from confessing at all. In theory I suppose one could still confess to any fellow Christian, because of course, only God forgives, not the priest.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Orthodox confess before the clergy but confess to God. The priest then prays. God absolves.

There is Biblical instruction and authority given to the apostles.You don't think they took it with them do you?

So at what date did we fall away IYHO?

When Jesus said "Go and make disciples ...." at the end of saint Matthew's gospel there's no difficulty transferring those words to Christians today as "the great commission" and when Jesus said to the apostles "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" there is no difficulty transferring that to Christians today as the promise of his presence with his people. In truth there are dozens of places in the gospels where Jesus addresses the apostles or the wider circle of disciples and no difficulty is raised about receiving his words as words addressed to Christians today yet when it comes to John 20:19-23 all the ancient churches following the same principle see it as applicable to those Christians whose role it is to hear and forgive in God's name but some Christians from other traditions cannot see it as applicable to any Christians today. It gives every appearance of inconsistency.

 

[Albion]

Thanks for the answers.

I'm not looking to argue, but that's not the part of history I'm looking for?

According to Scripture, if the church was obedient, there must have been general confession.

And at some point in time, that moved to confession to clergy, either as well as congregational confession, or in place of.

That's right. And remember how I pointed out that one of the main themes of the Protestant Reformation was that no man should be standing between God and Man? That has many ramifications, but this is one of them.

The part I'm looking for, is who said it was wrong, and when, and why?

I had assumed it would be Luther, but Lutherans can be confessional.

Given that there are forerunners to the Reformation and it, like all great movements in history, was growing for many years before it finally broke out in full force, the individual who should get that credit is hard to identify with certainty. But Luther is a contender. He did initially think that "Penance" (i.e. Confession) was rightly one of the sacraments, but he ultimately decided against it; and Lutherans do not practice private confessions or consider the practice to be a sacrament. They do use a general confession as has already been explained.

By the way, there are Lutherans on these forums who like to use the term "Confessional Lutheran" but this doesn't refer to a confession of sins. They mean that their branches of Lutheranism adhere to the historic Lutheran statements of faith that are called "confessions." We'd probably call them declarations or manifestos if we were doing it today.

I was hoping someone would know?

Private confessions are confined to the various catholic churches--RC, EO, the few Anglican churches that fancy themselves "Anglo-Catholics," and a handful of others. Clearly Protestant churches simply don't practice private, sacramental confession like Catholics do.

 

[Thekla]

To note that the priest who hears the confession to God represents the community. As was previously said, the confession is to God. Also, "where two or three are gathered ..." - in this way, the weak and young in the community are not scandalized but the community agrees that one will represent the entire. Following the confession, the priest and confessor pray together. (And it is typical for a discussion to happen, ie confession is not always just an ennumeration of failings and prayer ...)

 

[~Anastasia~]

When Jesus said "Go and make disciples ...." at the end of saint Matthew's gospel there's no difficulty transferring those words to Christians today as "the great commission" and when Jesus said to the apostles "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" there is no difficulty transferring that to Christians today as the promise of his presence with his people. In truth there are dozens of places in the gospels where Jesus addresses the apostles or the wider circle of disciples and no difficulty is raised about receiving his words as words addressed to Christians today yet when it comes to John 20:19-23 all the ancient churches following the same principle see it as applicable to those Christians whose role it is to hear and forgive in God's name but some Christians from other traditions cannot see it as applicable to any Christians today. It gives every appearance of inconsistency.

You do raise an interesting particular Scripture to address this point.

Jesus breathed on the disciples and told them the sins they forgave would be forgiven, and yet Thomas was not with them. When later the Lord saw Thomas, there is no record that He breathed in the same way on Thomas and told him the same thing? Do we assume then that Thomas did not have the same authority of the other apostles? I don't think that makes sense. If we don't accept that, then we must accept that either it is simply not mentioned that Jesus told Thomas the same thing, or else the authority was transferred from the other apostles to Thomas.

Just something I noted in reading over the passage.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[~Anastasia~]

But Luther is a contender. He did initially think that "Penance" (i.e. Confession) was rightly one of the sacraments, but he ultimately decided against it; and Lutherans do not practice private confessions or consider the practice to be a sacrament. They do use a general confession as has already been explained.

By the way, there are Lutherans on these forums who like to use the term "Confessional Lutheran" but this doesn't refer to a confession of sins. They mean that their branches of Lutheranism adhere to the historic Lutheran statements of faith that are called "confessions." We'd probably call them declarations or manifestos if we were doing it today.


Private confessions are confined to the various catholic churches--RC, EO, the few Anglican churches that fancy themselves "Anglo-Catholics," and a handful of others. Clearly Protestant churches simply don't practice private, sacramental confession like Catholics do.

Ah, then maybe I have misunderstood. Yes, I know about the general confession, but I had thought I had heard from some Lutherans that they practiced confession to a priest, and that was in place. It had me really confused about how and when this came about in church history.

OK, thank you for the reply. If that is the case, then it all makes much more sense to me.

I hadn't looked into it specifically, but I was thinking Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, etc. were possibly all churches that practiced confession to the priest, and I couldn't figure out how the current evangelical church's position came about in that case.

Thanks again.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The falling away was when the RCC and Orthodox churches started to teach confessing to clergy.

What century would that be? Anything specific, beyond speculation?

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[~Anastasia~]

And thank you to the others who replied.

From what I see of the Orthodox view particularly (which I believe the other replies were to represent) ... I can understand the reasons why one would be chosen to represent the congregation, and as long as it is not required to confess to one particular person for forgiveness (I have also been told Orthodox may pray for forgiveness to God for themselves) ... then I see it as akin to the Protestant practice of having someone for accountability, albeit a stricter sense of that word.

When my husband and I were engaged, our pastor knew that we were subject to temptation, and yet determined to "wait until marriage". Each time he saw either of us, he would ask us about that situation, counsel us and make suggestions, and so on. Also, as I'm sure "accountability" is intended to do, it made us more able and determined to resist temptation, as failure would be not only before God but would have to be admitted to our pastor.

I understand several benefits to the idea.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Obviously you are a man of few words, and that is not always a good thing.
Maybe you can actually explain yourself instead of having it dragged out of you?

Forgive me for my short answers. I work online. I am watching 104 servers and reading posts most of the time from 6am-3pm CST.

I don't mean for my responses to be curt. And I do try to consider my answers before posting. (It doesn't always work that way.)

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

What century would that be? Anything specific, beyond speculation?

God be gracious to me a sinner.

It's my question as well. I'm not so sure he understands the implication toward himself and his own community of believers if his assertions were true. It would nullify scripture and the Church completely, making hell the victor.
I mean it's not like people began confessing before a priest (who is a part of the
"one another") yesterday.

 

[Albion]

It appears to have begun around the Seventh Century. A previous poster described how this was a monastic practice that was picked up by the church at large.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

It appears to have begun around the Seventh Century. A previous poster described how this was a monastic practice that was picked up by the church at large.

With just a quick search I found earlier history from the sixth century Nomocanon (577). So I'd presume the practice had began before that to cause this to be brought up. And yes, St. John Climacus wrote on it explaining why before 649.

 

[Albion]

With just a quick search I found earlier history from the sixth century Nomocanon (577).

OK, I did indicate that it was an approximation.

Sixth Century, Seventh Century, we're on the same page as far as I'm concerned. One complication is that some sort of penance for grievous sins is even older, but that wouldn't be the private confession system to a priest we're talking about, and certainly not about the practice being considered a sacrament. That absolutely didn't happen for many more centuries.

 

[Thekla]

A bit brief and may not wholly clarify the matter, but did find this - St. Basil the Great (4th c.):

977 [288] "It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God's mysteries has been entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist; but in Acts they confessed to the Apostles, by whom also all were baptized."[see Acts 19:18; James 5:16; 2 Cor 2: 10]
St. Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.) - Catholic Faith and Reason

 

[concretecamper]

A few hundred years before 600-700........



"For if any one will consider how great a thing it is for one, being a man, and compassed with flesh and blood, to be enabled to draw nigh to that blessed and pure nature, he will then clearly see what great honor the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests; since by their agency these rites are celebrated, and others nowise inferior to these both in respect of our dignity and our salvation. For they who inhabit the earth and make their abode there are entrusted with the administration of things which are in Heaven, and have received an authority which God has not given to angels or archangels. For it has not been said to them, 'Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.' They who rule on earth have indeed authority to bind, but only the body: whereas this binding lays hold of the soul and penetrates the heavens; and what priests do here below God ratifies above, and the Master confirms the sentence of his servants. For indeed what is it but all manner of heavenly authority which He has given them when He says, 'Whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain they are retained?' What authority could be greater than this? 'The Father hath committed all judgment to the Son?' But I see it all put into the hands of these men by the Son." John Chrysostom, The Priesthood, 3:5 (A.D. 387).

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks so much. I see there are still things to put together and understand. You are all being very helpful, and I appreciate it.

I think next I must make sure I understand exactly how confession as a sacrament differs from confession in general.

A sacrament is something that delivers grace, and/or something with an invisible reality in addition to what is seen? I'm thinking then for example, that communion with belief in the Real Presence would be a sacrament, while communion as "symbolic only" would not?

So then confession as a sacrament - is a means of bestowing grace? Not the same as whether or not absolution is given? Is it like a "credit" (forgive me for being crude, but I don't know how to ask?) in some way, or somehow increases a person's "level of grace"? (yes, I know, very crude, and I am sorry)

Whereas if one takes confession as being a way of being held accountable, or being transparent, as I suppose the Protestant church would, is not a sacrament then, and of no real credit to the soul, though it may be helpful?

I'm sorry, I think maybe this is very poorly asked, but I'm not sure I understand the different ways of looking at it?

Thank you so much for the replies.