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

[Paidiske]

We are discussing whether sincerity or lack of can invalidate a marriage and the evidence presented demonstrates it cannot in our purview.... but in defense you quote a practice that you neither agree with (as an Anglican Priest) nor is part of your church?
.

Let's go back to first principles.

First principles (in western Christian practice) are that a marriage is made by the free consent of both parties. That is the received understanding both in Catholic and in Anglican practice.

Now... if one party is not sincere in giving their commitment, they are not giving their consent to the marriage! Therefore, the marriage is not valid.

The formal recognition by the church that the marriage is not valid is an annulment process; one which remains highly important in Catholic practice (due to their refusal to recognise civil divorce), and much less important in Anglican practice (since most couples in such a situation will obtain a civil divorce and that will also be recognised by the Anglican church).

However, the practice (of a formal process of annulment), and the principles on which it rests, remain completely compatible with an Anglican understanding of marriage.

 

[FenderTL5]

Let's go back to first principles.

First principles (in western Christian practice) are that a marriage is made by the free consent of both parties. That is the received understanding both in Catholic and in Anglican practice.

Now... if one party is not sincere in giving their commitment, they are not giving their consent to the marriage! Therefore, the marriage is not valid.

The formal recognition by the church that the marriage is not valid is an annulment process; one which remains highly important in Catholic practice (due to their refusal to recognise civil divorce), and much less important in Anglican practice (since most couples in such a situation will obtain a civil divorce and that will also be recognised by the Anglican church).

However, the practice (of a formal process of annulment), and the principles on which it rests, remain completely compatible with an Anglican understanding of marriage.

It's been 40+ years ago, but a couple in the church/tradition I grew up in had their marriage annulled about two weeks after the event.

If My memory serves; the circumstance was a marriage of necessity was annulled when it was discovered that she was not, in fact, with child.

 

[rturner76]

James 5:16. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed.

It's God that forgives, a Priest is there to counsel you on how to combat your sinful ways.

 

[The Liturgist]

This is my point; Scripture does not prescribe everything, so we are free to develop our practices in keeping with Scriptural principles.

Side note: some churches certainly do have prescribed forms of vows. Writing one's own vows is not permitted in my church.

Indeed, I prefer the Anglican approach where the vows are provided by the church and not subject to customization, beyond the option as to what historical iteration of the liturgy one prefers, or more simply, whether or not in the case of Anglicanism one wants to use the traditional BCP version. This is only because when liturgy changes I don’t think changes should be forced on people, and older versions of liturgy should remain available unless they are found to be theologically wanting (for example, I think Anglican churches, with the exception of a few low church traditionalist parishes, have mostly discontinued the use of the Visitation of the Sick from the older BCP editions, with its presumption that the sick person is being punished).

 

[Paidiske]

I wouldn't willingly do an old BCP wedding these days (with the wife's vow to "obey,"), but fortunately nobody has ever asked me for it!

 

[Valletta]

Such an odd position to take on this or any matter. In essence, the argument is one the self same Protestants hear from Catholics and dismiss, namely the appeal to tradition else fathers. The assumptions are the same.... i) Such traditions cannot be inerrant ii) The fathers were in agreement. Clearly both are not possible and its, therefore, strange anyone would appeal to them as if they are some kind of authority.
.
The question is, therefore, what stops the fanciful imagination of men implementing their own ideas, traditions and practices if scripture isn't the guide? Protestants usually argue that such things have corrupted the faith in Catholicism and the bible is replete of how the clergy did likewise with religious practices of their day!

A person would think that God in his Wisdom would indeed leave some kind of guide. As a Catholic this right in with all of our beliefs. Likewise one can see the wisdom of God in confession, while I have heard a lot of people say they will just confess their sins to God, confessing sins in front of another person takes some reflection on your sins and is harder than just a quick "Sorry God" going out the door.

 

[BobRyan]

That is not what I'm saying. My argument is simply that we don't have to find a Scriptural proof text for every practice relating to marriage (or indeed confession).

We do find scriptural proof for the view that forgiving others is a mandate given to all who pray the Lord's prayer and that the "loosed and bound" context is specifically for those who "sin against you" in Matt 18 or whose sin is already known to the Church and the church is trying to get the person to repent.

These communities were living under Roman civil (secular) law as regards marriage.

Indeed but Paul says that the LAW binds the married person. And In Rom 7 the LAW Paul references is the LAW of God "Holy just and good" as he says in that chapter. It includes "do not covet" so it is specifically not the Law of the Romans.

 

[Paidiske]

Indeed but Paul says that the LAW binds the married person. And In Rom 7 the LAW Paul references is the LAW of God "Holy just and good" as he says in that chapter. It includes "do not covet" so it is specifically not the Law of the Romans.

It's not at all clear to me that Paul is making a distinction here as to how one is determined to be married (whether by secular Roman or Jewish religious law), since he's using this as an illustration for a completely different point. He's certainly not claiming that Scripture establishes any particular form of wedding observance as requisite for believers.

 

[Darren Court]

A person would think that God in his Wisdom would indeed leave some kind of guide. As a Catholic this right in with all of our beliefs. Likewise one can see the wisdom of God in confession, while I have heard a lot of people say they will just confess their sins to God, confessing sins in front of another person takes some reflection on your sins and is harder than just a quick "Sorry God" going out the door.

A person would think that God in his Wisdom would indeed leave some kind of guide.
If a person thought so they would not only be wrong but guilty of arrogance in their implied assumption they know better. Moreover, since scripture is "God breathed", "useful" to "thoroughly equip" for "every good work", God's word is clearly sufficient.

Likewise one can see the wisdom of God in confession,
I too can see the purpose and wisdom in confessing to EACH other. I can even see the rational and benefit of confessing to a Priest. What I cannot see is any scriptural support that we must confess to a Priest.

..while I have heard a lot of people say they will just confess their sins to God, confessing sins in front of another person takes some reflection on your sins and is harder than just a quick "Sorry God" going out the door.
I am saddened by anyone who takes confession to God less seriously than to a Priest. Such people cannot have a relationship with God to have such an understanding.
.
Furthermore, simply confessing to a Priest without being repentant toward God will not produce forgiveness.

 

[Darren Court]

Let's go back to first principles.

First principles (in western Christian practice) are that a marriage is made by the free consent of both parties. That is the received understanding both in Catholic and in Anglican practice.

Now... if one party is not sincere in giving their commitment, they are not giving their consent to the marriage! Therefore, the marriage is not valid.

The formal recognition by the church that the marriage is not valid is an annulment process; one which remains highly important in Catholic practice (due to their refusal to recognise civil divorce), and much less important in Anglican practice (since most couples in such a situation will obtain a civil divorce and that will also be recognised by the Anglican church).

However, the practice (of a formal process of annulment), and the principles on which it rests, remain completely compatible with an Anglican understanding of marriage.

I am stunned by the lengths you are going to equate the validity of marriage with that of confession.
.
You tried to equate freewill with sincerity, now you equate consent with sincerity.... another example of apples and oranges.
.
First principles (in western Christian practice) are that a marriage is made by the free consent of both parties. That is the received understanding both in Catholic and in Anglican practice. Yes, we're just back to freewill

Now... if one party is not sincere in giving their commitment, they are not giving their consent to the marriage! Therefore, the marriage is not valid. Again the marriage is not invalid for insincerity but rather not having given consent. It is entirely impossible to be sincere without giving consent, but is equally possible to given consent without sincerity.
.
Once again, the law, tradition and scripture do not provide for invalidity of marriage based on insincerity... you keep finding other words that are used to invalidate a marriage and then try to make those words the same as sincerity.... freewill, right might, consent, etc are not the same as sincerity.
.
Whilst I understand your position, I think it's pretty clear from the answers in this thread, that the validity of marriage is not based on sincerity whilst the validity of confession clearly is. The scriptures make it clear for one and not the other, and the law, tradition and even the church make no provision for insincerity as a basis for marriage invalidation. I think I'm done here.

 

[Darren Court]

These communities were living under Roman civil (secular) law as regards marriage.

In this you are factually wrong. The Roman civil law in regards to such matters was not applied in Israel. The law to which scripture refers is Jewish law

 

[Paidiske]

You tried to equate freewill with sincerity, now you equate consent with sincerity.... another example of apples and oranges.

If you're not sincere when you say "I will," then you aren't giving your consent to the marriage, are you? Consent is not just what we say verbally, it's a volitional state as well (what we will or choose).

Isn't this the concern that's been articulated about confession? That someone might confess without sincerity, and therefore hear that they are forgiven when they are not?

Part of my answer was, we take people at their word (unless we have serious reason not to). We do it in marriage (proclaiming them married without expressing conditionality) and we do it in confession, (proclaiming them forgiven without expressing conditionality), even though in both cases these things are in fact conditional on sincerity. And I would say that is understood by all parties, and nobody is going to walk away from confession believing they're forgiven when, in fact, their insincerity means they are not.

It is entirely impossible to be sincere without giving consent, but is equally possible to given consent without sincerity.

I wouldn't agree with that.

Whilst I understand your position, I think it's pretty clear from the answers in this thread, that the validity of marriage is not based on sincerity whilst the validity of confession clearly is.

Again, you are incorrect, at least as far as the historical/traditional understanding of consent in marriage in the Christian west.

 

[Paidiske]

In this you are factually wrong. The Roman civil law in regards to such matters was not applied in Israel. The law to which scripture refers is Jewish law

We were discussing the letter to the Romans, you know, in Rome... where Roman civil law applied. There is no reason to think that Paul didn't mean legally married according to the law that applied locally. And even if he didn't, it wasn't relevant to the point he was making, which wasn't actually about what made a legally valid marriage.

 

[Darren Court]

If you're not sincere when you say "I will," then you aren't giving your consent to the marriage, are you? Consent is not just what we say verbally, it's a volitional state as well (what we will or choose).

Isn't this the concern that's been articulated about confession? That someone might confess without sincerity, and therefore hear that they are forgiven when they are not?

Part of my answer was, we take people at their word (unless we have serious reason not to). We do it in marriage (proclaiming them married without expressing conditionality) and we do it in confession, (proclaiming them forgiven without expressing conditionality), even though in both cases these things are in fact conditional on sincerity. And I would say that is understood by all parties, and nobody is going to walk away from confession believing they're forgiven when, in fact, their insincerity means they are not.

I wouldn't agree with that.

Again, you are incorrect, at least as far as the historical/traditional understanding of consent in marriage in the Christian west.

If you're not sincere when you say "I will," then you aren't giving your consent to the marriage, are you?
The desperation to equate "consent" to "sincerity" is descending into absurdity. Your argument here is based on the complete fallacious idea that we cannot consent to something reluctantly.... and we obviously can. We can even consent THINKING we are sincere when we're not... something you accepted as a possibility right back at the start of this thread in regard to confession.

Consent is not just what we say verbally, it's a volitional state as well (what we will or choose). Consent is consent, but does not require sincerity. It just requires acquiescence.

Part of my answer was, we take people at their word (unless we have serious reason not to). You inadvertently brought up another facet of the difference between sincerity in confession and marriage. In marriage there is much teaching about the seriousness of the vows being taken to participants before and during the ceremony, such to place the onus on them to be sincere. This is why most churches insist on pre-marriage counselling so that participants understand the seriousness of their marriage before God. There is no teaching that their insincerity will invalidate the marriage either in law, tradition or scripture. Conversely, there is no such pre-confession counselling, nor any mention of seriousness of insincere confession actually in confession. There is just confession. This is because it's very easy to fix insincere confession...first through the revelation in education, in scripture reading and through the Holy Spirit then through a new confession. There is no such easy fix for insincere marriage.

We do it in marriage (proclaiming them married without expressing conditionality) and we do it in confession, (proclaiming them forgiven without expressing conditionality), even though in both cases these things are in fact conditional on sincerity. That's precisely the point I take issue with. There is nothing in marriage validity that requires sincerity be it by law, tradition or scripture. Conversely scripture REQUIRES sincerity for validity.

And I would say that is understood by all parties, and nobody is going to walk away from confession believing they're forgiven when, in fact, their insincerity means they are not. Side issue, but interesting because you accepted in the earlier stages that this is not the case. Where someone thinks they are sincere but in actual fact they are not, they would walk away thinking they were forgiven when in actual fact they were not.

 

[Paidiske]

If you're not sincere when you say "I will," then you aren't giving your consent to the marriage, are you?
The desperation to equate "consent" to "sincerity" is descending into absurdity. Your argument here is based on the complete fallacious idea that we cannot consent to something reluctantly.... and we obviously can.

I'm not talking about reluctant consent. I'm talking about faked consent. Saying "I will," when in fact you have no intention of living up to what you're saying. That makes a marriage invalid. It's not just me saying that; it's an established fact in canon law.

Part of my answer was, we take people at their word (unless we have serious reason not to). You inadvertently brought up another facet of the difference between sincerity in confession and marriage. In marriage there is much teaching about the seriousness of the vows being taken to participants before and during the ceremony, such to place the onus on them to be sincere. This is why most churches insist on pre-marriage counselling so that participants understand the seriousness of their marriage before God. There is no teaching that their insincerity will invalidate the marriage either in law, tradition or scripture.

Marriage preparation varies greatly; I think you're making some massive assumptions here about what is or is not covered.

nor any mention of seriousness of insincere confession actually in confession.

You base this claim on what? Have you read the rites in full? Including the introductory words, prayers and quotations of Scripture included?

There is nothing in marriage validity that requires sincerity be it by law, tradition or scripture.

You keep saying this, but it doesn't make it correct, as no less than two practising ordained ministers in this thread (who understand the laws governing marriage in their respective traditions) have told you.

For example, see here: What Are Grounds for Annulment? Note the comments about how someone not genuinely intending to live up to the commitments made in the marriage, invalidates the marriage!

If you wish to persist in being incorrect, I'm not sure this conversation can go anywhere constructive.

Where someone thinks they are sincere but in actual fact they are not, they would walk away thinking they were forgiven when in actual fact they were not.

I would not be so hasty to decide that God does not forgive despite a sincere, if imperfect, attempt at repentance. That's different from pretending a repentance one does not actually commit to living out.

 

[Darren Court]

I'm not talking about reluctant consent. I'm talking about faked consent. Saying "I will," when in fact you have no intention of living up to what you're saying. That makes a marriage invalid. It's not just me saying that; it's an established fact in canon law.

You are, therefore, CHOOSING to focus on one facet of consent in order to argue it's the same as sincerity. The fact is that consent and sincerity are not the same.

 

[Paidiske]

You are, therefore, CHOOSING to focus on one facet of consent in order to argue it's the same as sincerity. The fact is that consent and sincerity are not the same.

No, consent and sincerity are not the same. Nor have I said that they are.

What I am saying is that consent expressed insincerely invalidates a marriage, just as repentance expressed insincerely invalidates a confession.

 

[Darren Court]

Marriage preparation varies greatly; I think you're making some massive assumptions here about what is or is not covered.

I'm making the assumption that a church that takes marriage seriously would ensure that those who enter into a marriage inside that church would ensure that it is taken seriously... nothing more. What kind of church would not do that?

 

[Darren Court]

You base this claim on what? Have you read the rites in full? Including the introductory words, prayers and quotations of Scripture included?

No, you're mixing education and teaching outside of confession unless you are claiming such education and teaching goes on in confession... something that is entirely new to me despite being part of many different Anglican churches and discussing with hundreds of Anglicans including several Priests who are my friend over the last thirty years ,

 

[Darren Court]

You keep saying this, but it doesn't make it correct, as no less than two practising ordained ministers in this thread (who understand the laws governing marriage in their respective traditions) have told you.

...and you keep saying we told you, without seeing the irony that it doesn't make it so! If you are both correct then you both can produce evidence but have steadfastly failed to do so.