The debate about forgiving -- is it just priests that forgive?

[Paidiske]

If in any way one is customarily in "need" of a priest for absolution, it's a dependency IMO.

If it helps, I've never heard the same person's confession twice.

In my experience, in Anglican practice, people tend to come for confession when there is some particular issue, some crisis, some "big" sin, and it's bothering them beyond what is "normal" in their experience. There would be vanishingly few Anglicans who practice private confession "customarily."

The offering of these excerpts was mostly to see if you agreed or would adjust them in some way.

They haven't necessarily explained things as I would, but my main interest here is defending confession as a practice in general; not splitting hairs over how other people may or may not understand or practice it.

I've acknowledged to you more than once my agreement that counseling and encouragement can be of benefit to some no matter their level of maturity.

But then you go back to the idea that these things are only for the immature and "dependent." Which is a position I find deeply problematic.

 

[GDL]

This is a very Roman Catholic take on confession. It is not how the Anglican rite I'm familiar with is structured, nor is it how I have been taught to hear confessions.

So, differences within Anglicanism it seems. Another in the reality of variations on a theme. Thank you for your clarification.

Because absolution is the point. That's what you come to confession for; to be assured of God's forgiveness.

This still causes me to pause. Do you offer an/or provide absolution as a priest - a representative with authority in the Church? Or do you simply provide advice and assurance that God forgives? Even in the assurance are you not seen as an authority that can be mistaken as the path to absolution?

As I said above, penance is generally aimed at putting right whatever wrong was done.

Is this not instructional and based upon what is put forth as God's instruction concerning what puts things right?

I'd say that's a misreading of the intent and the way it functions in practice.

The rubric in the rite says: "The priest may offer guidance, counsel and encouragement." This might, in general, include: exploring why the person sinned in this way, and how that might be avoided or overcome in future; helping the person accept God's forgiveness and exploring what might be helpful in restoring their relationship with God; and putting right whatever harm has been done.

Advice and counsel is tailored to those aims. It's not a Bible lesson for its own sake.

It may not be a Bible lesson in your view, but it sounds like one in mine. Guidance and counsel should be Word based. Encouragement as well. And confession. I once heard a tongue-in-cheek statement about Paul - something to the effect one could ask Paul about a peanut butter sandwich, and he would be able to turn it into a lesson on Christ. We're not Paul, but certainly our guidance is to be Theocentric. And, again, this turns the attention to where it should be, to God and His Word and His Spirit.

 

[Paidiske]

Do you offer an/or provide absolution as a priest - a representative with authority in the Church? Or do you simply provide advice and assurance that God forgives?

Absolution as a priest is assurance that God forgives.

Even in the assurance are you not seen as an authority that can be mistaken as the path to absolution?

I hope not. I think the way this is done in practice helps to avoid this.

Is this not instructional and based upon what is put forth as God's instruction concerning what puts things right?

I think that's a very simplistic take on what can be very complex pastoral issues.

It may not be a Bible lesson in your view, but it sounds like one in mine. Guidance and counsel should be Word based. Encouragement as well.

Here's an example. Perhaps someone confesses to drug use. Part of the guidance and counsel, in that case, would probably include referral to a doctor for support in managing issues relating to addiction or potential addiction.

That is not directly "teaching" Scripture, although I would argue it certainly has solid foundations in Scriptural principles.

 

[GDL]

If it helps, I've never heard the same person's confession twice.

In my experience, in Anglican practice, people tend to come for confession when there is some particular issue, some crisis, some "big" sin, and it's bothering them beyond what is "normal" in their experience. There would be vanishingly few Anglicans who practice private confession "customarily."

It does help, even not knowing the duration of your experience and experience in one congregation. Hopefully the vanishing ones are still confessing to God and one another as needed.

BTW, I once had a visiting second or third generation missionary and his wife - nondenominational as I recall - sit in on one of my studies. They were not young. Additionally, the missionary was previously a Pastor for some years. When we touched on an explanation of acknowledging sins and receiving forgiveness and cleansing per 1 John 1, the wife blurted out excitedly something to the effect, "Is that what that means!? I've so often wondered about it." IOW, it's back to being unlearned and used to some system that keeps one there. It's a widespread problem in my experience.

They haven't necessarily explained things as I would, but my main interest here is defending confession as a practice in general; not splitting hairs over how other people may or may not understand or practice it.

I wouldn't characterize anything we've discussed as splitting hairs. I don't see attempting to understand any congregational structure or practice in comparison to the Word of God in such a light. The thread title about priests and forgiveness is still being discussed as I see it.

But then you go back to the idea that these things are only for the immature and "dependent." Which is a position I find deeply problematic.

I think you misread me. I tend to make a foundational statement and the foundation stands. From there I'm simply adding to the foundation. For me, confession & counseling & encouragement do not have to be united. So, I can see the benefit of counseling and encouragement for anyone no matter the level of maturity. I can even understand how you view the confession practice and join them all. I can also see how the practice of the priest involvement as being a normal practice can create a dependency and even a misunderstanding about the necessity of the priest. For me and the way I've taught, I teach what Scripture says and explain our access to God and our Lord for confession of sins. As I said, I was taught these things in basics. I've never been to a priest for confession. I'm satisfied I'm confessed at any given moment I sense a need to acknowledge something to God. I go to Him. I go to my Lord & Great High Priest for help in the time of need especially at the thought level.

 

[GDL]

Absolution as a priest is assurance that God forgives.

Maybe for Anglicanism or your understanding or part of Anglicanism, but it's not the basic definition of absolution. So I would expect that you would not find it odd to explain how Anglicans define and practice it.

I hope not. I think the way this is done in practice helps to avoid this.

Me too. Possibly so.

I think that's a very simplistic take on what can be very complex pastoral issues.

You're welcome to your opinion. The more wisdom the less complexity. Then comes another level test. I'm sure you've experienced this.

Here's an example. Perhaps someone confesses to drug use. Part of the guidance and counsel, in that case, would probably include referral to a doctor for support in managing issues relating to addiction or potential addiction.

That is not directly "teaching" Scripture, although I would argue it certainly has solid foundations in Scriptural principles.

Understood. At another time I might be interested to see how you use Scripture to argue that. I'll bet you could come up with some Scripture that can be used to say that drug use or addiction is not right per God's Word, so this would be morally instructional. If not, then why would it be wrong? Ultimately are we not to be learning and doing His will and assisting others to do the same?

 

[Paidiske]

So I would expect that you would not find it odd to explain how Anglicans define and practice it.

I literally typed out the forms of words used upthread.

I'll bet you could come up with some Scripture that can be used to say that drug use or addiction is not right per God's Word, so this would be morally instructional.

That's not the point. In this scenario, the person knows that. That's why they're confessing it! They don't need a lecture on the morality of drug use, but they might need medical advice on dealing with the medical issues. That's what I mean when I say it's not primarily an occasion for teaching Scripture; it's generally much more pragmatically pastoral than that.

 

[GDL]

I literally typed out the forms of words used upthread.

My meaning was from time-to-time as you have been doing here. With respect, your collar and practices are an oddity to a great segment of Christianity in this time. Some I'm sure couldn't separate you from a Roman Catholic by your photo or the fact that congregants come to you for confession. Some I'm sure question your role as a priest based upon your gender. Such are our times, and these times are in the area of one-half millennia aged now. Surely you are used to many questions especially in a thread with "debate" in the title in a multi-denominational forum.

FWIW, I respect your willingness to discuss your faith and you have answered a few questions about it helpfully.

That's not the point. In this scenario, the person knows that. That's why they're confessing it! They don't need a lecture on the morality of drug use, but they might need medical advice on dealing with the medical issues. That's what I mean when I say it's not primarily an occasion for teaching Scripture; it's generally much more pragmatically pastoral than that.

Understood. Good point, but for the "lecture" comment. Then again, from what it sounds like as you explain it, the confession is more of a counseling session and plea for assistance and assurance - a discussion rather than an approach to the Church for forgiveness - more Protestant counseling than Catholic confession. But, then again, the look and the title of priest is more Rome. Maybe it shouldn't be called confession.

Re: "lecture" on morality. A spiritual check-up does not have to be conducted or characterized as a lecture. A few well-placed and well-worded questions can provide answers and induce thoughts. You're a spiritual adviser and then also a fellow human being who may be able to refer to a Dr. or another professional per your example. An example from my end, maybe not the best example, but I'll use it anyway: Over the years I have become more and more aware and concerned with what people think is the Gospel. I've come to think that there is a foundational problem with people's view of what the Christ is. So, one of the things I began doing in discussions is checking foundations by asking simple questions about the word "Christ". It actually became very interesting to see the number of dear-in-the-headlights responses. Some wise investigation and instruction are rarely out of place IMO. It does not have to be a lecture. I'm sure you know this in the role you have.

 

[Paidiske]

Surely you are used to many questions especially in a thread with "debate" in the title in a multi-denominational forum.

Sure. But in this thread I feel I am answering the same basic matters over and over again. Hence being a bit exasperated when I have literally provided the words used, at being asked how we practice absolution!

Then again, from what it sounds like as you explain it, the confession is more of a counseling session and plea for assistance and assurance - a discussion rather than an approach to the Church for forgiveness - more Protestant counseling than Catholic confession.

No, I would say not. The whole point of confession is to be assured of God's forgiveness. Not that the counselling or discussion is entirely absent, but it sits within a rite of reconciliation. Otherwise we could just have a pastoral conversation.

But, then again, the look and the title of priest is more Rome. Maybe it shouldn't be called confession.

Maybe we don't need to tailor our practices to pander to the ignorance of those outside our tradition.

Re: "lecture" on morality. A spiritual check-up does not have to be conducted or characterized as a lecture.

No, but telling someone who's already confessing to a sin, how sinful what they've done is, is probably redundant. And the sort of example you give is out of place in confession.

 

[GDL]

Sure. But in this thread I feel I am answering the same basic matters over and over again. Hence being a bit exasperated when I have literally provided the words used, at being asked how we practice absolution!

Your patience is appreciated. Some of your repetition is due to your misunderstanding or misrepresenting what has been said. This is probably the exasperation coming through.

No, I would say not. The whole point of confession is to be assured of God's forgiveness. Not that the counselling or discussion is entirely absent, but it sits within a rite of reconciliation. Otherwise we could just have a pastoral conversation.

"Assured of God's forgiveness" [by a priest] sounds like potential dependency on the priest instead of dependency on God per Scripture. Kind of a round & round discussion, isn't it. With respect, you sound a bit self-contradicting. I seem to recall you making a bigger case for counseling and encouragement earlier. I may be wrong. I'm not going to backtrack to check.

Maybe we don't need to tailor our practices to pander to the ignorance of those outside our tradition.

A little more exasperation it seems. Some think your traditions are based in error, a.k.a. ignorance, as well as assuming and presenting authority you may not have.

No, but telling someone who's already confessing to a sin, how sinful what they've done is, is probably redundant. And the sort of example you give is out of place in confession.

You add words to the discussion to force a view on another of desiring to beat someone up with their sin. Discussing the sin and possibly attempting to get to the root of it is not saying "how sinful what they've done is." Nor is it redundant to discuss the sin from Scripture. "how sinful" is an exaggeration of what we've been discussing.

The example I gave and of which I proactively stated it may not be the best example, has to do the foundation of our Faith - who and what Jesus Christ is. Sin is lawlessness, unrighteousness, offense, violation, in the end disobedience to God. IMO it never is out of place to make it clear that disobedience is parallel to unbelief in Christ - the one with all authority in Heaven and on earth - God. Such teaching and counseling can be done gently and with wisdom while gaining immediate feedback on how the process is going. Again, I think I've put such concepts forward.

I'll use this as a sign off. Thank you for the discussion. I am unconvinced re: the tradition of priests and confession, albeit the tradition is possibly helpful at times depending upon the priest and the matter at hand. I do think you have made it clear that it is not just priests who forgive - the OP of this thread.

 

[BobRyan]

Excerpted from: The Confession of Sin - Anglican Compass Highlights are mine:

Why does it have to be a priest? While it is true that any brother or sister in Christ can affirm to us that we are forgiven through Christ. But our conscience is often disturbed. We just aren’t sure it we have accepted forgiveness. And the voice of one who is set apart to represent, not himself, but the Church, has a powerful affect on freeing the conscience.

Confession of Sin: Things Left Undone - Anglican Compass

In that highlighted section we have the answer to the title of this thread - for the Anglican church. The answer appears to be that everyone in the church can engage in that affirmation that God is a loving and forgiving God.

Sure. But in this thread I feel I am answering the same basic matters over and over again. Hence being a bit exasperated when I have literally provided the words used, at being asked how we practice absolution!

Based on that quote above - it looks like we have a clear affirmative on the question for this thread title in the case of the Anglican church.

 

[Paidiske]

"Assured of God's forgiveness" [by a priest] sounds like potential dependency on the priest instead of dependency on God per Scripture.

"Sounds like potential." But as the person actually on the ground involved in it, you don't believe me when I tell you that's not the case.

With respect, you sound a bit self-contradicting.

I am coming to the conclusion that if you want to learn about this, a forum discussion is not a good way to do it. Actually experiencing it may be far better.

I seem to recall you making a bigger case for counseling and encouragement earlier.

It's part of what happens. But it's not the point of confession.

Some think your traditions are based in error, a.k.a. ignorance.

Perhaps. But it behoves them to understand those traditions before condemning them.

You add words to the discussion to force a view on another of desiring to beat someone up with their sin.

No. I said nothing about desire or beating someone up. I said "lecture," and that's what I meant. Nobody, coming to confess a particular sin, needs Scriptural proof texts as to why what they did was sinful.

Discussing the sin and possibly attempting to get to the root of it is not saying "how sinful what they've done is."

But nor is it a matter of a Scripture lesson.

Nor is it redundant to discuss the sin from Scripture.

Perhaps. It's not something I've needed to do in that context.

"Possibly helpful" is all the claim I've been trying to make for the practice of private confession.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

(staff edit)

According to the Bible, in the New Testament, Jesus gave the power to forgive sins to his apostles and their successors, the priests of the Catholic Church. In John 20:23, Jesus says to his apostles, "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." This passage is often understood as Jesus granting the apostles the authority to forgive sins in his name. This belief is also supported by Matthew 18:18 in which Jesus says, "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This is understood as referring to the power of the apostles to forgive sins and retain them.

The Catholic Church teaches that priests act in persona Christi, or "in the person of Christ," when they forgive sins in the sacrament of penance. The priest, as a representative of Christ, absolves the penitent from their sins and reconciles them with God and the Church. This doctrine is based on the belief that Jesus established the Church as a means of salvation and gave the apostles and their successors the authority to act in his place.

 

[Darren Court]

Because absolution is the point. That's what you come to confession for; to be assured of God's forgiveness.

From a biblical viewpoint I cannot see any justification for linking penance and absolution. Can you direct me to the scriptures that do?

 

[Paidiske]

From a biblical viewpoint I cannot see any justification for linking penance and absolution. Can you direct me to the scriptures that do?

Basically, penance is about putting right whatever wrong you've done. And I'd say you haven't truly repented if you say "I'm sorry," but you're not willing to actually put things right. If that makes sense?

 

[Darren Court]

Basically, penance is about putting right whatever wrong you've done. And I'd say you haven't truly repented if you say "I'm sorry," but you're not willing to actually put things right. If that makes sense?

If we're talking about all sins then I've got to believe that by far the largest majority cannot be put right... for example the millions of thought sins. I'm, therefore, not sure why the conversation would on penance would be limited to the smaller number that could possibly be put right.
.
Irrespective of this, aren't we talking about confession of sins in seeking God's forgiveness? One could argue that a person shouldn't even be in confession until they had put things right with their brother as Christ commanded. Mt 5.
.
... but the problem here is the very word "penance" and it's meaning and more importantly that it needs scriptural support that I cannot find and you do not offer, despite my request for same.
.
The same is true of absolution... i.e. meaning and scriptural support.

 

[Paidiske]

If we're talking about all sins then I've got to believe that by far the largest majority cannot be put right... for example the millions of thought sins. I'm, therefore, not sure why the conversation would on penance would be limited to the smaller number that could possibly be put right.

In general, when people come to confession, although they might confess their sins in a general way, there's usually something in particular for which they want to resolve their sense of guilt. That ends up being the focus of penance... and there's always something that can be done.

Even in cases of thought sins, there are actions we can take, habits we can form, which will make relapsing into those thought sins less likely.

... but the problem here is the very word "penance" and it's meaning and more importantly that it needs scriptural support that I cannot find and you do not offer, despite my request for same.

I am suggesting that the Scriptural support lies in the concept of repentance. They're even linguistically related words.

.The same is true of absolution... i.e. meaning and scriptural support.

Absolution is just declaring God's forgiveness. There's plenty of Scriptural support for that!

 

[Darren Court]

In general, when people come to confession, although they might confess their sins in a general way, there's usually something in particular for which they want to resolve their sense of guilt. That ends up being the focus of penance... and there's always something that can be done.

Even in cases of thought sins, there are actions we can take, habits we can form, which will make relapsing into those thought sins less likely.

I am slightly puzzled by this response.
.
Scripture instructs us to confess our sins to one another but does not limit which sins. Is it Anglican teaching that the only sins we confess are those that are against others where "something can be done"?
.
I think I also need you to define clearly what is meant by the word "penance" in Anglican teaching because I fear we have moved away from it.

 

[Darren Court]

I am suggesting that the Scriptural support lies in the concept of repentance. They're even linguistically related words.

This seems to evade the subject, unless you are claiming that penance and repentance are the same. If that be the case, I would ask for scriptural support because again I cannot see it.

 

[Paidiske]

Scripture instructs us to confess our sins to one another but does not limit which sins.

No, but practically speaking, we aren't able to enumerate every single sin.

The rite has this:
"The penitent makes a confession of sins in his/her own words or using the following form.
Loving and merciful God,
I confess to you and your Church
that I have sinned in thought, word, and deed
through my own fault;
and especially have I sinned in this way...
For these sins I am truly sorry,
and by your grace firmly intend to amend my life.
I ask your forgiveness,
for Jesus' sake. Amen."

So people will get off their chest whatever sin is particularly plaguing their conscience in that fill-in-the-blank bit.

Is it Anglican teaching that the only sins we confess are those that are against others where "something can be done"?

No, as above.

I think I also need you to define clearly what is meant by the word "penance" in Anglican teaching because I fear we have moved away from it.

I don't think I can offer you that. There would be a range of ideas in Anglicanism and there is not, to my knowledge, one authoritative definition. I can only tell you how I understand it; and that is that "penance" is action aimed at putting right what wrong one has done, as part of a formal process of reconciliation.

 

[Darren Court]

Absolution is just declaring God's forgiveness. There's plenty of Scriptural support for that!

I don't think there is because in essence we cannot ABSOLUTELY declare God's forgiveness unless we are so clearly directed by the Holy Spirit. You even agreed that we can, in effect, only declare God's forgiveness conditional to the confession and repentance being sincere (something we cannot know). Indeed the reality is that the word, absolution itself (from Latin absolvere) nor it's concept are found in the bible except from God Himself.

I don't think I can offer you that. There would be a range of ideas in Anglicanism and there is not, to my knowledge, one authoritative definition. I can only tell you how I understand it; and that is that "penance" is action aimed at putting right what wrong one has done, as part of a formal process of reconciliation.

That's more than a little problematic. If we have no set definition of penance or rather people have different definitions of it, how can Priests advise upon it. Moreover, how can someone actually be deemed to have made penance if one Priest says one thing and another says another?
.
This also evades the reality that if we're going to claim that such penance is part of the process of confession, then we ought to have scriptural support for our view of what penance is or we're simply making stuff up that we think should be.
.
Again I point to the scripture of leaving the gift at the altar as actual scriptural evidence that penance cannot be "putting right the wrong" because we are instructed to right that wrong before going to church.