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

[Paidiske]

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).

Ugh, this again. I don't know why people get so hung up on this.

Sure, declaring absolution rests on sincerity. But so do so many other things! We don't say, in a marriage ceremony, "I declare you to be husband and wife, if you really mean what you just said." We don't say, at an ordination, "take authority to exercise this office, if you were sincere in the vows you just made." The need for sincerity is understood; we don't need to qualify everything we say on that basis in every situation.

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.

It is not so problematic for Anglicans. We are used to a broad church where there is a plurality of views on many topics. We are able to exercise common sense and pastoral wisdom in relation to the people in front of us.

Moreover, how can someone actually be deemed to have made penance if one Priest says one thing and another says another?

Nobody checks, you know. I give a penance, but I don't come along a week later to make sure the penitent has done it. That's ultimately between them and God.

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.

Before attending public worship, perhaps. But confession might be part of getting to that point.

 

[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 -- they do not limit it to "just priests". Interesting because it means that an 8 year old child could be affirming that you are fully forgiven.

but the term "Absolution" in the quote above brings up the question of how every member of the church is given the ability to offer "absolution" to any/all other members of the church.

============================ defining terms


Absolution:

1. formal release from guilt, obligation, or punishment:
"absolution from the sentence"

2. an ecclesiastical declaration of forgiveness of sins:
"the priest administered absolution"
How do you define "absolution" or "practicing absolution"? A thing that any and all members can do for other members.

Example:

Absolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The offices of the earliest Books of Common Prayer contained an absolution that read both as assurance of pardon, placing the agency with God ("He [God] pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent"), and as priestly mediation (God "hath given power and commandment to his ministers to declare and pronounce to his people...the absolution and remission of their sins"). The following is the form of absolution for the sick in the Book of Common Prayer: "OUR Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to his Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences: And by his authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

If that document were the Bible - then there would be some good support for what they are claiming above. It is not the Bible. I suspect that no one here would argue that an 8 year old telling fellow church members "I absolve thee from all thy sins" is actually accomplishing much. So then not an "every member" function and in the Matt 18 model not even a feature of forgiving those who have commited an offense against you personally.

 

[Darren Court]

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.



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 -- they do not limit it to "just priests". Interesting because it means that an 8 year old child could be affirming that you are fully forgiven.

but the term "Absolution" in the quote above brings up the question of how every member of the church is given the ability to offer "absolution" to any/all other members of the church.

============================ defining terms


Absolution:

1. formal release from guilt, obligation, or punishment:
"absolution from the sentence"

2. an ecclesiastical declaration of forgiveness of sins:
"the priest administered absolution"
How do you define "absolution" or "practicing absolution"? A thing that any and all members can do for other members.

Example:

Absolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The offices of the earliest Books of Common Prayer contained an absolution that read both as assurance of pardon, placing the agency with God ("He [God] pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent"), and as priestly mediation (God "hath given power and commandment to his ministers to declare and pronounce to his people...the absolution and remission of their sins"). The following is the form of absolution for the sick in the Book of Common Prayer: "OUR Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to his Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences: And by his authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

If that document were the Bible - then there would be some good support for what they are claiming above. It is not the Bible. I suspect that no one here would argue that an 8 year old telling fellow church members "I absolve thee from all thy sins" is actually accomplishing much. So then not an "every member" function and in the Matt 18 model not even a feature of forgiving those who have commited an offense against you personally.

I think the reality is that such things are "fluid" in the Anglican church such that there is no clear definition of terms like penance, absolution, etc. and each Priests interprets and applies differently! Not surprising because the terms even the concepts are not actually found in scripture!

 

[BobRyan]

Sure, declaring absolution rests on sincerity. But so do so many other things!

Agreed that God declares absolution to those who confess and repent and so it depends on the heart/sincerity of the one confessing his/her sins to God.

We don't say, in a marriage ceremony, "I declare you to be husband and wife, if you really mean what you just said." We don't say, at an ordination, "take authority to exercise this office, if you were sincere in the vows you just made." The need for sincerity is understood;

Agreed and in those two examples the person in the office making the declaration actually has the authority to do what they are claiming and they are "Changing something" -- making a change - that happens with their declaration. So then - the marriage is confirmed at that point no matter if the couple was fully committed in their mind/heart or not. same goes with ordination - the person is ordained with the completion of that ceremony whether they were fully sincere in their mind or not. Either way - the change still occurs. That is not the case with confession of sins to God and repentance. In that case - as you note above - it is between God and the person and that person is not forgiven at all if God judges that their heart is not really in the repentance and confession. It is fully between the individual and God.

 

[Darren Court]

Sure, declaring absolution rests on sincerity. But so do so many other things! We don't say, in a marriage ceremony, "I declare you to be husband and wife, if you really mean what you just said." We don't say, at an ordination, "take authority to exercise this office, if you were sincere in the vows you just made." The need for sincerity is understood; we don't need to qualify everything we say on that basis in every situation.

The problem here is that you are arguing from a purely rational viewpoint and ignoring biblical reality.
.
The fact is that nowhere are we warned that if we don't mean our marriage or ordination vows then we are not married or ordained. Thus if you were to admit you were not sincere in such vows, it would make no difference to your station... you would be married or ordained. It might confer other problems but from God's viewpoint you are married or ordained, and the inference is clear, whether you meant your vows or not. That is why there is warnings about making such vows and rightfully education as to what they mean, etc. Clearly the emphasis is on making sure those about to make such vows are sincere, but sincerity is not a requirement for marriage or ordination, and insincerity does not negate the vows taken.
.
This is not true for confession. Forgiveness is entirely dependent on sincerity. The bible is pretty explicit on this.
.
Perhaps you can find a biblical example where sincerity is required?

 

[GDL]

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.

That quote was written as I recall by an Anglican Priest who refers to himself as Pastor. It refers to policy but does not quote it.

I'm not versed in Anglicanism. I was asking @Paidiske questions to attempt to know what Anglican policy is. I can't even tell you that the following information is applicable to @Paidiske because I don't know what Anglican group she is affiliated with and if they all abide by the same policy. It is however this type of policy that I was hoping to receive and not have to look for.

Regarding this thread, the answer seems to be that the Anglican Priest is not needed, but a Priest may absolve. It also seems there is counseling, advising & teaching that can and even should take place in personal confession to a Priest.

A few points of interest from just glancing through this and a few other areas of these and other sites. Personally, this seems like other code books in that it takes a lot of moving around within the code to understand its terminology and references. My sense is that I'm just scratching the surface.

• It's the duty of all the baptized to confess to God
• Priests are to be trained in absolution and function under guidelines of the House of Bishops
• Priests seem to be under other ministers in regard to absolution in some cases
• There seems to be some interaction with civil law in certain cases
• Under Authorized Absolutions there seems to be a mixture of [the Priest] absolving or praying for absolution. The way I understood @Paidiske the Priest does not absolve.

Section B | The Church of England

B 29 Of the ministry of absolution*​

1. It is the duty of baptized persons at all times to the best of their understanding to examine their lives and conversations by the rule of God's commandments, and whereinsoever they perceive themselves to have offended by will, act, or omission, there to bewail their own sinfulness and to confess themselves to Almighty God with full purpose of amendment of life, that they may receive of him the forgiveness of their sins which he has promised to all who turn to him with hearty repentance and true faith; acknowledging their sins and seeking forgiveness, especially in the general Confessions of the congregation and in the Absolution pronounced by the priest in the services of the Church.

2. If there be any who by these means cannot quiet his own conscience, but requires further comfort or counsel, let him come to some discreet and learned minister of God's Word; that by the ministry of God's holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness.

3. In particular a sick person, if he feels his conscience troubled in any weighty matter, should make a special confession of his sins, that the priest may absolve him if he humbly and heartily desire it.

4. No priest shall exercise the ministry of absolution in any place without the permission of the minister having the cure of souls thereof, unless he is by law authorized to exercise his ministry in that place without being subject to the control of the minister having the general cure of souls of the parish or district in which it is situated: Provided always that, notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of the Canon, a priest may exercise the ministry of absolution anywhere in respect of any person who is in danger of death or if there is some urgent or weighty cause.

The Guidelines | The Church of England

Reconciliation​

3 They are to teach and to admonish, to feed and provide for his family, to search for his children in the wilderness of this world’s temptations, and to guide them through its confusions, that they may be saved through Christ for ever. They are to call their hearers to repentance and to declare in Christ’s name the absolution and forgiveness of their sins.

3.1 The ministry of reconciliation, as an extension of Jesus’ own ministry, lies at the heart of this vocation. It is to be exercised gently, patiently and undergirded by mutual trust. It may include spiritual or godly counsel as appropriate and as requested by those concerned; it may include mediation between those who have found themselves at enmity with one another.

3.2 Where it is freely sought by a penitent, a priest may exercise the formal ministry of absolution as described in Canon B 29.

3.3 The ministry of absolution may only be exercised by the minister who has the cure of souls of the place in question or by another priest with that minister’s permission, or by a priest who is authorized by law to exercise ministry in that place without being subject to the control of the minister who has the cure of souls (e.g. a priest who is licensed to exercise ministry under the Extra-Parochial Ministry Measure 1967). This rule is subject to an exception that permits a priest to exercise the ministry of absolution anywhere in respect of a person who is in danger of death or if there is “some urgent or weighty cause” (See Canon B 29.4)

3.4 Before undertaking the ministry of absolution a priest should receive appropriate training and be familiar with any guidelines published by the House of Bishops that relate to the exercise of this ministry.

3.5 A clear distinction must be made between pastoral conversations and a confession that is made in the context of the ministry of absolution. Where such a confession is to be made both the priest and the penitent should be clear that that is the case. If a penitent makes a confession with the intention of receiving absolution the priest is forbidden (by the unrepealed Proviso to Canon 113 of the Code of 1603 GDL INSERTION: EXTRA-PAROCHIAL MINISTRY MEASURE 1967 (No. 2)) to reveal or make known to any person what has been confessed. This requirement of absolute confidentiality applies even after the death of the penitent.

3.6 If, in the context of such a confession, the penitent discloses that he or she has committed a serious crime, such as the abuse of children or vulnerable adults, the priest must require the penitent to report his or her conduct to the police or other statutory authority. If the penitent refuses to do so the priest should withhold absolution.

3.7 The canonical duty of absolute confidentiality does not apply to anything that is said outside the context of such a confession. In particular, if information about abuse that was disclosed when seeking the ministry of absolution is repeated by the penitent outside that context the priest must follow the established procedures for reporting abuse of children or vulnerable adults.

3.8 However confidentiality extends far beyond the specific situation of the ministry of absolution. People have to be able to trust clergy with their stories, their fears, and especially their confidences. The duty of confidentiality relating to the ministry of absolution sets a standard for our ministry against which all other instances should be set and judged. Those to whom we minister must know that they can depend upon us not to disclose information which they have shared with us in confidence.

Note: The text of this section reflects the current legal position in relation to the ministry of absolution, arising from the unrepealed proviso to Canon 113 of the Code of 1603. In September 2014 the Archbishops’ Council decided to commission further theological and legal work to enable it to review, in consultation with the House of Bishops, the purpose and effect of the proviso to the Canon of 1603, with a view to enabling the General Synod to decide whether it wished to legislate to amend it.

For further information in that connection, please see GS Misc 1085 here.

Reconciliation and Restoration: Recovering Baptism | The Church of England

¶ Authorized Absolutions​

suitable for use with individuals

1

Our Lord Jesus Christ,

who has left power to his Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him,

of his great mercy forgive you your offences:

and by his authority committed to me,

I absolve you from all your sins,

in the name of the Father,

and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Amen.

2

God, the Father of mercies,

has reconciled the world to himself

through the death and resurrection of his Son, Jesus Christ,

not counting our trespasses against us,

but sending his Holy Spirit

to shed abroad his love among us.

By the ministry of reconciliation

entrusted by Christ to his Church,

receive his pardon and peace

to stand before him in his strength alone,

this day and evermore.

Amen.

3

Almighty God, our heavenly Father,

who in his great mercy

has promised forgiveness of sins

to all those who with heartfelt repentance and true faith turn to him:

have mercy on you,

pardon and deliver you from all your sins,

confirm and strengthen you in all goodness,

and bring you to everlasting life,

through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Amen.

4

Almighty God,

who forgives all who truly repent,

have mercy upon you,

pardon and deliver you from all your sins,

confirm and strengthen you in all goodness,

and keep you in life eternal;

through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Amen.

5

The Lord enrich you with his grace,

and nourish you with his blessing;

the Lord defend you in trouble and keep you from all evil;

the Lord accept your prayers,

and absolve you from your offences,

for the sake of Jesus Christ, our Saviour.

Amen.

6

The almighty and merciful Lord

grant you pardon and forgiveness of all your sins,

time for amendment of life,

and the grace and strength of the Holy Spirit.

Amen.

 

[The Liturgist]

The problem here is that you are arguing from a purely rational viewpoint and ignoring biblical reality.

No she’s not. Matthew 16 entirely backs up her position.

Also, Anglicanism is based on Scripture, Tradition and Reason, which I think we can all agree is preferable to non-Scripture, Innovation and Irrationality, which I think accurately describes the Jehovah’s Witnesses cult.

 

[Darren Court]

No she’s not. Matthew 16 entirely backs up her position.

Also, Anglicanism is based on Scripture, Tradition and Reason, which I think we can all agree is preferable to non-Scripture, Innovation and Irrationality, which I think accurately describes the Jehovah’s Witnesses cult.

If you're going to make the claim Mt 16 supports her position, perhaps you'd like to explain how?

 

[The Liturgist]

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

On this point its basically a Western Church tradition. I’ve gone to confession in OCA, ROCOR and Coptic Orthodox churches and have never been penanced, whereas the one time I went to confession in a Western church I was, but that consisted merely of saying the Act of Contrition, which I did not know, since my experience up to that point had only been with Eastern churches and also Protestantism where auricular confession was in some cases available but never required, like in Anglicanism or Greek Orthodoxy.

 

[The Liturgist]

If you're going to make the claim Mt 16 supports her position, perhaps you'd like to explain how?

Because it grants the Apostles the authority to bind and loose; there are equivalent verses elsewhere on forgiving and retaining sins, and then there is Galatians 1:8-9 which allows for heretics to be anathematized.

 

[Paidiske]

but the term "Absolution" in the quote above brings up the question of how every member of the church is given the ability to offer "absolution" to any/all other members of the church.

We do make a distinction between what any one person may say to another privately, and what may be said officially as a representative of the church, whether privately or in public worship. Anyone may assure another of God's forgiveness of sins; but not everyone may do so officially as a spokesperson for the church, exercising the authority of the church.

Agreed and in those two examples the person in the office making the declaration actually has the authority to do what they are claiming and they are "Changing something" -- making a change - that happens with their declaration. So then - the marriage is confirmed at that point no matter if the couple was fully committed in their mind/heart or not. same goes with ordination - the person is ordained with the completion of that ceremony whether they were fully sincere in their mind or not.

Actually, no. In marriage it is not the minister who makes the change; it is the free consent of the couple which makes the change. And if consent is impaired the marriage has not really happened (it is invalid), and there are grounds for annulment.

So, for example, if one party is coerced into marriage, or if one party is under the influence of mind-altering substances, the marriage is not valid (in the understanding of my church, and indeed by civil law, at least where I live).

The declaration that these two are now married rests on the implicit assumption that their vows were given freely, sincerely, and with unimpaired consent. So it's not a bad comparison at all.

The fact is that nowhere are we warned that if we don't mean our marriage or ordination vows then we are not married or ordained.

As above. A marriage entered into by deceit is invalid.

@GDL you seem to have found an English resource, and while I am in Australia and some small details differ, on the whole that reflects the practice where I am reasonably well.

 

[Darren Court]

nathematize

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[ loosed in heaven." If this truly gives the Apostles power to bind and loose, as is so often misinterpreted, then Christ has abdicated and given the power of entry into heaven into such hands! Unless you wish to argue that there people in heaven who are bound?
.
The problem here is the context... "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.... " is the setting for binding and loosing but unless you know what the "keys" are then you are bound to misinterpret binding and loosing. Furthermore, you would misunderstand binding and loosing unless you understand Judaic views of the wording here.... all of which go to demonstrate the Apostles were not being given authority here but rather direction.
.
Galatians? "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!" Where is there any authority being given here? At best Paul is expressing his desire that those who preach a different gospel should be cursed by God. There is neither authority nor instruction being given here!

 

[Darren Court]

As above. A marriage entered into by deceit is invalid.

Again the problem here is one of rational thought as opposed to scripture! There is no such thing in scripture as invalid marriage because one of the parties wasn't sincere. At best it is the duty of those presiding over the wedding to ensure that both parties are actually sincere because there is NOTHING I can see in scripture to suggest that vows, howsoever made, are not valid.
.
Conversely scripture is really clear that forgiveness is NOT obtained UNLESS the person is sincere in their repentance.
.
I am merely pointing out that church practice else your argument here that sincere vows in marriage are required for valid marriage when the bible does not make that point explicitly or implicitly, whilst scripture does make that point for confession and forgiveness.

 

[Paidiske]

Again the problem here is one of rational thought as opposed to scripture! There is no such thing in scripture as invalid marriage because one of the parties wasn't sincere. At best it is the duty of those presiding over the wedding to ensure that both parties are actually sincere because there is NOTHING I can see in scripture to suggest that vows, howsoever made, are not valid.
.
Conversely scripture is really clear that forgiveness is NOT obtained UNLESS the person is sincere in their repentance.
.
I am merely pointing out that church practice else your argument here that sincere vows in marriage are required for valid marriage when the bible does not make that point explicitly or implicitly, whilst scripture does make that point for confession and forgiveness.

As far as marriage goes, it is defined by more than Scripture. Secular law, local custom and tradition, and so on, all impinge on our understanding and practice of marriage. (For example, the giving of vows at all is something which comes originally from Roman secular law and which has been retained in western practice).

My point stands; there are multiple contexts where a person's sincerity affects what is happening, and yet we don't feel the need to make every relevant statement conditional. I would argue that in confession the need for sincerity is understood without a conditional phraising of absolution.

 

[Darren Court]

As far as marriage goes, it is defined by more than Scripture. Secular law, local custom and tradition, and so on, all impinge on our understanding and practice of marriage. (For example, the giving of vows at all is something which comes originally from Roman secular law and which has been retained in western practice).

That's odd because as far as I'm aware there is nothing in law, custom or tradition that allows for marriage invalidity if the marriage vows were not said in sincerity.

 

[Darren Court]

My point stands; there are multiple contexts where a person's sincerity affects what is happening, and yet we don't feel the need to make every relevant statement conditional. I would argue that in confession the need for sincerity is understood without a conditional phraising of absolution.

Your point stands only on the rational thought you apply to it, but not on scripture. A point I have been at pains to state and repeat, yet one you do not seem to accept or provide scriptural evidence for.

 

[Paidiske]

That's odd because as far as I'm aware there is nothing in law, custom or tradition that allows for marriage invalidity if the marriage vows were not said in sincerity.

I see. And have you studied the topic? Have you, for example, noted that coercion of one party is usually a legal reason for a marriage to be considered invalid (leaving aside what the church may think)? If the sincerity of the parties doesn't matter, then why would coercion be grounds for a legal annulment?

Your point stands only on the rational thought you apply to it, but not on scripture. A point I have been at pains to state and repeat, yet one you do not seem to accept or provide scriptural evidence for.

As @The Liturgist pointed out to you, Scripture is not the only consideration in Anglican thought.

 

[BobRyan]

We do make a distinction between what any one person may say to another privately, and what may be said officially as a representative of the church, whether privately or in public worship. Anyone may assure another of God's forgiveness of sins; but not everyone may do so officially as a spokesperson for the church, exercising the authority of the church.

Ok so just to clarify -- the 8 year old in the scenario I gave may say "I absolve you" - and it would be equal to anyone else in terms of the outcome or truth of it - but the person hearing the 8 year old say it might "for some reason" not feel as confident about it. Even though they know that the 8 year old has as much authority/power to make that statement as anyone else.

 

[Paidiske]

Ok so just to clarify -- the 8 year old in the scenario I gave may say "I absolve you" - and it would be equal to anyone else in terms of the outcome or truth of it - but the person hearing the 8 year old say it might "for some reason" not feel as confident about it. Even though they know that the 8 year old has as much authority/power to make that statement as anyone else.

Nobody's going to go around policing what eight year olds say in private. What freight anyone places on what the eight year old says is, I guess, up to them. But the eight year old isn't going to pronounce formal absolution in a church service, or hear someone's confession in a formal sense; they don't have that authority as a representative of the church.

 

[Darren Court]

I see. And have you studied the topic? Have you, for example, noted that coercion of one party is usually a legal reason for a marriage to be considered invalid (leaving aside what the church may think)? If the sincerity of the parties doesn't matter, then why would coercion be grounds for a legal annulment?

Why would you try to make this personal? Have you studied extensively into the matter of sincerity from a legal, ethical and psychological perspective in order to question me?
.
Putting that aside, why would you find it necessary to divert away from the topic of sincerity? Has anyone been coerced into confession to make the analogy fit? The fact is that anyone coerced into marriage does not do so of freewill and sincerity of vows is the least of it. No, what we refer to here is simply the sincerity of willing parties, like that of confession.