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

[GDL]

@Paidiske - @Darren Court - @BobRyan - @Guojing

The point of this thread is that we have to know what the Bible says (including on this topic) and this should inform our faith, our teaching our view of God and our view of the gospel.

Interesting discussion. FWIW, it seems pretty respectful. Heb4:12 informs the Word is very personal. One thing about those who truly view it as the authority above any person or institution is that they typically are not offended by Him when His Word says they need to change their thinking. I've been cut deeply by it and the healed condition is much better than the precut one.

@Paidiske When you hear confession, do you ever instruct the confessor what the Bible says about confessing to the person(s) sinned against or directly to God as Scripture says we are to do?

 

[BobRyan]

This certainly doesn't reflect my understanding. It's not about "powers," and it's certainly not about "sacred clergy vs profane laity."

So then the contrasts we are talking about here might not apply to your view of it since we tend to focus on someone "wihth the powers" vs those "without those powers" (using the Catholic terms in this case .. they speak specifically about powers).

In the book "A concise history of the Catholic Church" Thomas Bokenkotter states that the idea of "Sacred clergy vs profane laity" came about as a result of infant baptism where the clergy had the power to "mark the soul" of the infant in baptism even without the infant agreeing to anything. The idea was that the laity could not do it - so then the Clergy had "powers" in regard to sacraments that laity did not have, so they split the groups into "sacred" vs "profane" in their terminology.

I think giving responsibiliity for this to the clergy does two things. One is that it allows, for want of a better term, for a degree of quality control. The person hearing confessions can be trained in how to respond, and - should they abuse that position in any way - it can allow for their discipline or removal. The other is that it allows for confidence in confidentiality. If I speak to my friend who holds no particular position, and later they blab to everyone, there's no recourse; they can't be held accountable in any way. But the clergy are vowed to keep that confidential and that can allow for greater openness and trust.

In almost all Christian groups the pastors hold a certain degree of accountability when they do counseling with families or individuals and even though non-pastors can also do that --- the pastors tend to have more training and accountability for doing it.

But there are threads on this forum in the "seeking Christian Advice" section and other places where someone posts a thread of the form "I don't feel like God loves me" , "I have sinned too much God won't hear my prayers any more, God wont forgive me". And I have responded on those threads along with others who are not pastors.

But we don't say things like "I absolve you" or "I have forgiven you your sins" and it sounds like you are not saying that either in your statements that it is "God that forgives not me".

=======================================

Here is my question for you -


In Matt 18 we see "What you have bound on Earth is bound in heaven and what you loose on Earth is loosed in heaven" and in that chapter the context is obviously cases where "someone sins against you" or the case where someone's sin is already known to other people and they either refuse to repent when confronted by the group --- or they repent and are forgiven.

The two different views on the phrase in this thread are

1. That phrase only applies in the contexts we find in Matt 18
2. That phrase has a special additional application for just-the-priest where private sins are not known to anyone but are being confessed to the priest and the priest says "I forgive you " or "God now forgives you" something of that sort.

My question for you is in the second case what is the consequence of that view being wrong, what is the consequence of that view being correct and so most denominations not practicing it?

Or is your view that - given that all denominations have their pastors in some form of counseling role and have training - that its the same either way and the teaching is so minor it does not matter if it is correct or not in the way people view it.

 

[BobRyan]

Well, I have been attacked many times in such discussions too, people who have disagreed with me and have called me "following Satan, being anti-Christ, not a Christian" etc.

I simply shrug them off, like I said, its easier due to anoymomity. That is the price one pays for participating in such anonymous discussions.

I remind myself "How others choose to respond to you is on them, how you respond to their attack is on you."

Good point.

Christians should be able to look at Bible teaching - see the details in scripture and , even if they differ, still have a Christian discussion about the texts they are reading.

 

[Guojing]

Good point.

Christians should be able to look at Bible teaching - see the details in scripture and , even if they differ, still have a Christian discussion about the texts they are reading.

I think all of us should always go back to this classic picture whenever we are tempted to get personal about different bible interpretations. =)

 

[concretecamper]

St Nicholas v Arius. Sometimes talk is cheap.

 

[Lost Witness]

whereas for some of us it was deeply personal from the first post.

Just can't Wrap my head around how this thread could be 'personal"?
when it's a debate and not an attack? I'm a simple man so these things often elude me.

"The debate about forgiving -- is it just priests that forgive"​

 

[Paidiske]

@Paidiske When you hear confession, do you ever instruct the confessor what the Bible says about confessing to the person(s) sinned against or directly to God as Scripture says we are to do?

Confession is to God, so that bit is covered.

As far as to the person(s) sinned against, that's more nuanced. In general, penance would be aimed at putting right any wrong done (to the extent possible). There are situations where going to the person sinned against is actually going to compound the harm done. So there's a judgement call there.

In the book "A concise history of the Catholic Church" Thomas Bokenkotter states that the idea of "Sacred clergy vs profane laity" came about as a result of infant baptism where the clergy had the power to "mark the soul" of the infant in baptism even without the infant agreeing to anything. The idea was that the laity could not do it - so then the Clergy had "powers" in regard to sacraments that laity did not have, so they split the groups into "sacred" vs "profane" in their terminology.

He is very mistaken. Laity have always been able to baptise in Catholic understanding. In fact it was something the reformers sought to clamp down on, refusing to allow midwives to baptise babies who might not live long enough to make it to church (which had been common practice).

But we don't say things like "I absolve you" or "I have forgiven you your sins" and it sounds like you are not saying that either in your statements that it is "God that forgives not me".

I think I posted the forms of words used upthread. The emphasis is certainly on God's forgiveness (although I would not be willing to engage in a formal confession process via forum posts).

Here is my question for you -


In Matt 18 we see "What you have bound on Earth is bound in heaven and what you loose on Earth is loosed in heaven" and in that chapter the context is obviously cases where "someone sins against you" or the case where someone's sin is already known to other people and they either refuse to repent when confronted by the group --- or they repent and are forgiven.

The two different views on the phrase in this thread are

1. That phrase only applies in the contexts we find in Matt 18
2. That phrase has a special additional application for just-the-priest where private sins are not known to anyone but are being confessed to the priest and the priest says "I forgive you " or "God now forgives you" something of that sort.

My question for you is in the second case what is the consequence of that view being wrong, what is the consequence of that view being correct and so most denominations not practicing it?

I don't think the second case is worded well, as you have put it. It's not that "the phrase has a special additional application just for the priest." I don't necessarily think Christ said those words with our exact contemporary practice of confession in mind. I would say more, the church has entrusted a particular church function to the priests, and we refer to that verse to enrich our thinking about what the church understands it is doing, in doing so.

That said, I could take your question as: what is the consequence if the church is wrong to entrust that function to its priests in that way? I would say slight. As noted, I see the positive fruit of the practice. People are not denied other ways of being assured of God's forgiveness. I just don't see a significant or systemic problem here.

What are the consequences for denominations that don't practice it? They have deprived themselves of a potentially powerful pastoral tool. That is a shame, but at the end of the day, again, my observation is that most people in those denominations are able to encounter God's grace regardless (God is good!)

One thing I do find interesting is that even people who don't come from traditions which practice this form of confession, will sometimes seek it out in times of great personal crisis. I used to work for a very large, very busy, very prominent city church (a Cathedral) and we had more confession requests there every week than most churches would see in a year; because people who didn't know where else to turn would come to us. And it was a very special thing to be able to have that kind of availability to people who needed it.

Or is your view that - given that all denominations have their pastors in some form of counseling role and have training - that its the same either way and the teaching is so minor it does not matter if it is correct or not in the way people view it.

Well, first up, sadly not all denominations train their pastors. Which is something which concerns me far more than the details of confessional practice! But that said, I'm not sure it's the same either way, exactly; but it's certainly far down my list of issues of concern. A second-order issue at most.

 

[BobRyan]

Confession is to God, so that bit is covered.

As far as to the person(s) sinned against, that's more nuanced. In general, penance would be aimed at putting right any wrong done (to the extent possible). There are situations where going to the person sinned against is actually going to compound the harm done. So there's a judgement call there.

He is very mistaken. Laity have always been able to baptise in Catholic understanding. In fact it was something the reformers sought to clamp down on, refusing to allow midwives to baptise babies who might not live long enough to make it to church (which had been common practice).

I think I posted the forms of words used upthread. The emphasis is certainly on God's forgiveness (although I would not be willing to engage in a formal confession process via forum posts).

I don't think the second case is worded well, as you have put it. It's not that "the phrase has a special additional application just for the priest." I don't necessarily think Christ said those words with our exact contemporary practice of confession in mind. I would say more, the church has entrusted a particular church function to the priests, and we refer to that verse to enrich our thinking about what the church understands it is doing, in doing so.

That said, I could take your question as: what is the consequence if the church is wrong to entrust that function to its priests in that way? I would say slight. As noted, I see the positive fruit of the practice. People are not denied other ways of being assured of God's forgiveness. I just don't see a significant or systemic problem here.

What are the consequences for denominations that don't practice it? They have deprived themselves of a potentially powerful pastoral tool. That is a shame, but at the end of the day, again, my observation is that most people in those denominations are able to encounter God's grace regardless (God is good!)

One thing I do find interesting is that even people who don't come from traditions which practice this form of confession, will sometimes seek it out in times of great personal crisis. I used to work for a very large, very busy, very prominent city church (a Cathedral) and we had more confession requests there every week than most churches would see in a year; because people who didn't know where else to turn would come to us. And it was a very special thing to be able to have that kind of availability to people who needed it.

Well, first up, sadly not all denominations train their pastors. Which is something which concerns me far more than the details of confessional practice! But that said, I'm not sure it's the same either way, exactly; but it's certainly far down my list of issues of concern. A second-order issue at most.

Thank you for your responses Clara. I appreciate your taking the time to look into my question and giving a thoughtful well-reasoned response.

May God bless you.

 

[GDL]

Confession is to God, so that bit is covered.

Let me rephrase, do you ever tell them they don't need a priest to confess to God?

It seems beyond a stretch to place a priest into the language of 1John1. It's describing in legal language the acknowledgement of lawless behavior in a judicial scene and elsewhere we're told of the advocacy of Christ our Lord. Is it not the duty of those who teach and train to help raise the child into an adult who is able to conduct themself in an adult relationship with God in the way He has defined and provided?

In Matt 18 we see "What you have bound on Earth is bound in heaven and what you loose on Earth is loosed in heaven" and in that chapter the context is obviously cases where "someone sins against you" or the case where someone's sin is already known to other people and they either refuse to repent when confronted by the group --- or they repent and are forgiven.

The two different views on the phrase in this thread are

1. That phrase only applies in the contexts we find in Matt 18
2. That phrase has a special additional application for just-the-priest where private sins are not known to anyone but are being confessed to the priest and the priest says "I forgive you " or "God now forgives you" something of that sort.

My question would be, how do we even get #2 out of those verses? I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new.

The phrase you highlight must be taken in the context of the Church Judiciary it's explaining. Not only that, but the highly abused phrase in Matt18:19-20 is also in the context of the Church Judiciary.

Paul in 1Cor6 deals with the Church Judiciary and rebukes those who treat it lightly.

All of this goes back to my question to @Paidiske. Who is teaching Christians to become adults and do all the things God has established for us to do? Reminds me of the rebuke in Heb5:12.

 

[Paidiske]

Let me rephrase, do you ever tell them they don't need a priest to confess to God?

No, but given Anglican practice of confession to a priest (where the rule of thumb is, "All may, many do, some should, none must,") is not compulsory, I don't really need to. It's there if it's pastorally helpful, it's never presented as required (by God or the church).

Is it not the duty of those who teach and train to help raise the child into an adult who is able to conduct themself in an adult relationship with God in the way He has defined and provided?

I think your question rests on some premises that I don't share. Such as that an "adult" relationship excludes support and encouragement from others in the church.

My question would be, how do we even get #2 out of those verses?

And I don't think we do, directly. We get, as I noted in my answer to Bob, somewhere related to #2 by other approaches.

 

[GDL]

No, but given Anglican practice of confession to a priest (where the rule of thumb is, "All may, many do, some should, none must,") is not compulsory, I don't really need to. It's there if it's pastorally helpful, it's never presented as required (by God or the church).

Is confession of sin to God and to others as Biblically required presented to Anglicans as required by God? IOW, what are Anglican s being taught?

I think your question rests on some premises that I don't share. Such as that an "adult" relationship excludes support and encouragement from others in the church.

And I don't think we do, directly. We get, as I noted in my answer to Bob, somewhere related to #2 by other approaches.

Both children and onward through adults benefit from support and encouragement and this is not part of my question. Is this mainly what your job is - to provide support and encouragement - but not to teach or train? Do you ever get indication that people come to you because they think they're supposed to? If so, then do you guide them into Scripture for revision of their thinking and practice? I ask from ignorance of what your position includes.

My question simply rests on what I see as the Biblical premise that our Text instructs that we begin our relationship in Christ as spiritual infants and that we are required to grow to spiritual maturity - spiritual adulthood - and actually beyond. In the mature state, we not only have become learned and practiced in distinguishing both good and bad according to God's Word of Righteousness, but we have learned of basic provisions made for us - provision for direct access to God for confession, provision for direct access to the Great High Priest, Jesus Christ, for help [with sin] in our time of need, provision of wisdom through prayer in times of testing, and so on. IOW, we become learnedly able to function as God has designed for us to function and to do His will as His adult Children.

One of the things that I have observed in my experience as a Christian, is what I see as a severe immaturity and lack of learnedness among Christians no matter what denomination one is attached to. Anything that supports the continuation of such a condition is a problem IMO.

 

[Paidiske]

Is confession of sin to God and to others as Biblically required presented to Anglicans as required by God? IOW, what are Anglican s being taught?

I would say that confession is presented as required by God, but that we are not rigid as to how it must be done.

Is this mainly what your job is - to provide support and encouragement - but not to teach or train?

Each have their place. In general I would say confession is not for teaching.

Do you ever get indication that people come to you because they think they're supposed to?

For confession? No. For other things, perhaps. (Family pressure to have babies baptised, for example).

My question simply rests on what I see as the Biblical premise that our Text instructs that we begin our relationship in Christ as spiritual infants and that we are required to grow to spiritual maturity - spiritual adulthood - and actually beyond. In the mature state, we not only have become learned and practiced in distinguishing both good and bad according to God's Word of Righteousness, but we have learned of basic provisions made for us - provision for direct access to God for confession, provision for direct access to the Great High Priest, Jesus Christ, for help [with sin] in our time of need, provision of wisdom through prayer in times of testing, and so on. IOW, we become learnedly able to function as God has designed for us to function and to do His will as His adult Children.

I think all of this can be true, and it can still be appropriate for a mature person to receive these things through the gifts and ministry of others.

One of the things that I have observed in my experience as a Christian, is what I see as a severe immaturity and lack of learnedness among Christians no matter what denomination one is attached to. Anything that supports the continuation of such a condition is a problem IMO.

I don't think this is untrue, but I don't think confession is a problem here.

 

[GDL]

I think all of this can be true, and it can still be appropriate for a mature person to receive these things through the gifts and ministry of others.

All these concepts were taken from the Biblical Text, so it's not that they can be true, but they are true, Biblically. Again, the question is not that the mature cannot receive benefit from counsel and encouragement. The question is whether the Anglican at whatever stage of spiritual growth thinks they must go to a priest for confession.

I don't think this is untrue, but I don't think confession is a problem here.

I think confession can be a problem. If someone thinks they need a priest as a go-between (so to speak), then they have not understood the direct access to God that He has made available to all His Children. If someone sees the necessity of a priest for confession of sin, then their growth is stunted. We Christians have a very dynamic, personal relationship with God. A moment-by-moment walk with Him whereby His leading and guiding and teaching and training is constantly active. With this our confession to Him and His forgiveness and cleansing can also be immediate. If we can benefit from counseling, then others can help. But we have no need to call or take a trip to an intermediary for confession to Him. If we think we need an intermediary, then we're reliant on the intermediary and the system of that Church.

If you disagree, then what specifically do you disagree with?

Each have their place. In general I would say confession is not for teaching.

Again, I would disagree. All is for teaching. An active life of immediate confession correlates to an active walk with Him and His work of teaching and training us to live by His leading. If I'm led to believe by whomever or whatever that I need to go to an intermediary for confession, then my walk is not dynamic. If my priest does not help to correct my thinking, then I can be stuck in a system and process that is not Biblical.

God is not leading us and acting as our judge and our advocate without teaching and training us in the way we should live with Him. Law is ultimately instruction. As Hebrews says, we should all be teachers by now. Counseling and encouragement are teachings when they are done according to His Word by His Spirit and through the gifts you speak of.

Please don't take this personally, but I'm having difficulty understanding the extent of your job. Do you teach at all? Do you just counsel and encourage but not teach? Is there somewhere I can read the duties of an Anglican Priest? Would you explain them?

BTW, I appreciate your first-hand input. It wouldn't be much of a discussion if it was all one-sided.

 

[Paidiske]

The question is whether the Anglican at whatever stage of spiritual growth thinks they must go to a priest for confession.

And I have told you that this is not the case.

If you disagree, then what specifically do you disagree with?

I disagree with you framing something which can be pastorally helpful as needed or required.

Please don't take this personally, but I'm having difficulty understanding the extent of your job. Do you teach at all? Do you just counsel and encourage but not teach? Is there somewhere I can read the duties of an Anglican Priest? Would you explain them?

This is the ordination exhortation for Anglican priests:

"Our Lord Jesus Christ summons us all to obedience and discipleship.
In baptism we are called to be a royal priesthood,
a people belonging to God,
to make Christ known to all the world.

Now you are responding to the call of God and of the Church
to live and work as a priest, a pastor and teacher,
for God's glory and the strengthening of God's people.
You know the responsibility and significance of this office.

I now exhort you, in the name of Christ,
to take up your calling with joy and dedication.
As the Lord's messenger, proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Seek the lost, announce God's justice, warn and correct those in error.
You are to encourage and build up the body of Christ,
preaching the word of God,
leading God's people in prayer,
declaring God's forgiveness and blessing,
and faithfully ministering the sacraments of God's grace
with reverence and care.

Together with your bishop and other ministers,
you are to take your part in the life and councils of the Church.
Be a pastor after the pattern of Christ the great Shepherd,
who laid down his life for the sheep.
Be a teacher taught by the Lord in wisdom and holiness.
Lead the people of God as a servant of Christ.
Love and serve the people with whom you work,
caring alike for young and old, rich and poor, weak and strong.
Never forget how great a treasure is placed in your care:
the Church you must serve is Christ's spouse and body,
purchased at the cost of his own life.

Remember that you will be called to give account before Jesus Christ. If it should come about that the Church, or any of its members, is hurt or hindered as a result of your negligence, you know the greatness of the fault and the judgement that will follow. Therefore apply yourself with diligence and care, and fashion your life and ministry in accordance with Christ's example.

As you depend on the Holy Spirit and the grace of God,
put away all that does not make for holiness of life.
Clothe yourself with humility; be constant in prayer.
Study the Scriptures wholeheartedly,
reflecting with God's people upon their meaning,
so that your ministry and life may be shaped by Christ..."

Then it goes on into the public commitment bit. But that is the closest thing we have to a list of duties.

 

[GDL]

And I have told you that this is not the case.

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

...And then the absolution provides a human voice, set apart by the church to represent the Church to the people. The voice speaks, and the people hear audibly that God has mercy, that he forgives, and that he does so through Jesus Christ. The human conscience needs to hear that voice.

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

Absolution​

But thankfully, I get to hear these words next:

Almighty God have mercy on you, forgive you all your sins
through our Lord Jesus Christ, strengthen you in all
goodness, and by the power of the Holy Spirit keep you in
eternal life. Amen.

Do Anglicans Practice Confession? | Synonym

Types of Confession​

Anglicans can participate in two forms of confession, the general confession and the private confession. The priest and congregation perform the general confession during Holy Communion, and the Morning and Evening Prayers. An Anglican may also confess to God in the presence of a priest without any other witnesses, naming the specific sins they have committed and seeking special counsel.

Private Confession​

Private confessions are usually offered at a specific time during the week, when a priest will be available at the confessional. Anglicans can also make an appointment to see a priest at another time for private confession. The penitent should state how long it has been since her last confession, and then list the sins she has committed. The penitent should ask forgiveness from God and for “advice, penance and absolution,” from the priest. The priest will then offer advice and a “suitable penance.”


Without digging too deep, these articles came up in a quick search. I have no idea whether or not they represent Anglican practice correctly. You would be the knowledgeable one here. The first 2 were written by an Anglican Pastor it looks like.

Under the first link that seems to be talking of the general confession, the author says the human conscience needs to hear the human voice (of the priest of the Church) of absolution. Also, the author presents the voice of the Church priest having a powerful affect on freeing the conscience. Second link: The prayer of Absolution voiced by the Priest seems the voice of authority of the Church.

This is the type of dependency I have been asking about. Although the spiritually young in Christ may benefit from this process, after having been taught in early basics from Scripture our access to God for acknowledging sins and receiving His forgiveness and cleansing, and other things I've mentioned in regard to confessing sins and asking our Great High Priest for help in times of need (re: sin), I have absolutely no need to (third link) make an appointment with a priest to confess sins and ask a priest for penance and absolution and hear a suitable penance from a priest. My conscience relies on what I'm instructed from the Word of God about confession to Him and forgiveness and cleansing from Him. I think this is one of the greater practical distinctions between different systems of belief.

What might you offer as suitable penance?

I realize I'm going from general to private confession, but they seem well tied together in regard to the authority of the priest.

Again, this is not personal, it's just a view of Scripture being compared to the practice of a certain Church.

I disagree with you framing something which can be pastorally helpful as needed or required.

I don't think I'm framing something like this. I'm asking questions about confession in practice and have acknowledged the benefits of counseling and encouragement.

Thank you for the job description. I read it and will have to read it again.

 

[BobRyan]

Types of Confession
Anglicans can participate in two forms of confession, the general confession and the private confession. The priest and congregation perform the general confession during Holy Communion, and the Morning and Evening Prayers. An Anglican may also confess to God in the presence of a priest without any other witnesses, naming the specific sins they have committed and seeking special counsel.

That last sentence sounds like the same thing that happens in certain counseling session among all denominations when a person chooses to go to a pastor/priest for counseling specific to a problem that person is having and needs advice to help him/her work through it.

I don't think Catholic doctrine is talking about "counseling" - when in the past it said that a person cannot attend mass unless they went to confession that week. I don't think Anglicans tell their church member that the counseling session above is some sort of per-requisite to attend the Communion service.

 

[Paidiske]

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

...And then the absolution provides a human voice, set apart by the church to represent the Church to the people. The voice speaks, and the people hear audibly that God has mercy, that he forgives, and that he does so through Jesus Christ. The human conscience needs to hear that voice.

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

Absolution​

But thankfully, I get to hear these words next:



Do Anglicans Practice Confession? | Synonym

Types of Confession​

Anglicans can participate in two forms of confession, the general confession and the private confession. The priest and congregation perform the general confession during Holy Communion, and the Morning and Evening Prayers. An Anglican may also confess to God in the presence of a priest without any other witnesses, naming the specific sins they have committed and seeking special counsel.

Private Confession​

Private confessions are usually offered at a specific time during the week, when a priest will be available at the confessional. Anglicans can also make an appointment to see a priest at another time for private confession. The penitent should state how long it has been since her last confession, and then list the sins she has committed. The penitent should ask forgiveness from God and for “advice, penance and absolution,” from the priest. The priest will then offer advice and a “suitable penance.”


Without digging too deep, these articles came up in a quick search. I have no idea whether or not they represent Anglican practice correctly. You would be the knowledgeable one here. The first 2 were written by an Anglican Pastor it looks like.

Under the first link that seems to be talking of the general confession, the author says the human conscience needs to hear the human voice (of the priest of the Church) of absolution. Also, the author presents the voice of the Church priest having a powerful affect on freeing the conscience. Second link: The prayer of Absolution voiced by the Priest seems the voice of authority of the Church.

I don't think anything you've quoted here contradicts anything I've said. I've talked about what is pastorally helpful, and this person talks about what the conscience "needs," but I think we're talking about the same thing. It's not telling people they can't be forgiven unless they go through a formal rite of reconciliation.

This is the type of dependency I have been asking about. Although the spiritually young in Christ may benefit from this process...

Just because you don't think you'd find it helpful, don't assume it's only the "spiritually young" who do.

What might you offer as suitable penance?

It varies, but generally the aim of the penance is to put right (to whatever extent is possible) the wrong done. So, for example, if someone confessed to stealing, the penance would include returning what was stolen. It becomes more difficult when the wrong is more abstract.

I don't think Anglicans tell their church member that the counseling session above is some sort of per-requisite to attend the Communion service.

No indeed.

 

[GDL]

That last sentence sounds like the same thing that happens in certain counseling session among all denominations when a person chooses to go to a pastor/priest for counseling specific to a problem that person is having and needs advice to help him/her work through it.

I don't think Catholic doctrine is talking about "counseling" - when in the past it said that a person cannot attend mass unless they went to confession that week. I don't think Anglicans tell their church member that the counseling session above is some sort of per-requisite to attend the Communion service.

I think the statement you highlight is important. It's more the second paragraph I highlighted and statements like this:

Private confessions are usually offered at a specific time during the week, when a priest will be available at the confessional. Anglicans can also make an appointment to see a priest at another time for private confession. The penitent should state how long it has been since her last confession, and then list the sins she has committed. The penitent should ask forgiveness from God and for “advice, penance and absolution,” from the priest. The priest will then offer advice and a “suitable penance.”

"last confession" to a priest or last confession directly to God without a priest? Maybe both??

Why penance and absolution from the priest? Where's absolution in the last sentence? What's a "suitable penance"? Advice and counsel I can understand. Absolution and penance I'd like to better understand. Again, it just seems like dependency on an institution vs. dependency on God and His Word. This is why I asked questions about teaching [God's Word] even or even especially in confession. Advice and counsel should be based in the Word as much as is possible.

 

[Paidiske]

"last confession" to a priest or last confession directly to God without a priest? Maybe both??

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.

Why penance and absolution from the priest?

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

What's a "suitable penance"?

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

Again, it just seems like dependency on an institution vs. dependency on God and His Word.

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

This is why I asked questions about teaching [God's Word] even or even especially in confession. Advice and counsel should be based in the Word as much as is possible.

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.

 

[GDL]

I don't think anything you've quoted here contradicts anything I've said. I've talked about what is pastorally helpful, and this person talks about what the conscience "needs," but I think we're talking about the same thing. It's not telling people they can't be forgiven unless they go through a formal rite of reconciliation.

The priest offer of absolution as representative of a Church seems a question. I think your idea of "pastorally helpful" vs. what a conscience "needs" may or may not be aligned. Again, if one is not being trained in the Biblical practices of confession, even during confession, I think it easy to see a dependency created. Habit is an interesting reality based substantially on practice. If in any way one is customarily in "need" of a priest for absolution, it's a dependency IMO.

I've had people come to me for repeated counseling on the same matters. I advised and explained from a few different approaches from Scripture. At some point I had to break the habit and simply point out that I'd advised on the same matter several times, had answered with Scripture every time, and then asked point blank what made them think they were ever going to get a different answer from me. That seemed to be the answer that broke the dependency and began the real recovery process, which is a dependency on God, His Word, His Spirit.

FWIW, if I think God's Word contradicts you, I'll assert that. In some instances, I've done that to some degree. The offering of these excerpts was mostly to see if you agreed or would adjust them in some way. I have trouble with a few things that are stated in them. I underlined things that caused me some pause. When you essentially disassociated confession from teaching, that caused a pause - a check in my spirit. I've learned to pay close attention to these checks until I understand how the points of discussion relate to and compare to God's Word.

Just because you don't think you'd find it helpful, don't assume it's only the "spiritually young" who do.

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. I'm not past needs. I simply find them best met in prayer and study. So, this is not about me. It's about how a system compares to Scripture and to some degree why we see so many immature.

If I take this discussion to Roman Catholicism for example. Aside from some very good discussions with a few Catholics on this forum, my personal, general experience on the streets, so to speak, is one of hearing almost a complete lack of knowledge of the Biblical Text. At best the practice may have been to periodically listen to a 20-minute homily devoid of any Biblical depth. Depending upon the personality involved, I have been met with immediate hostility if I mentioned something from the Text that was perceived as being against the authority of Rome.

I've not had much of any experience with Anglicans. At best I've read some theological work by N.T. Wright.

It varies, but generally the aim of the penance is to put right (to whatever extent is possible) the wrong done. So, for example, if someone confessed to stealing, the penance would include returning what was stolen. It becomes more difficult when the wrong is more abstract.

Understood and agreed but would have to delve further into examples of the abstract, which I think is beyond this discussion.