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

[BobRyan]

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.

I don't think that works. Two people may meet at a bar and say they are fully determined/committed to marriage - but when they leave the bar - they are still not married and it does not matter how sincere or what words they say to each other at the bar. They are still not married either legally or in the eyes of the church.

And if consent is impaired the marriage has not really happened

That is changing the context. Forgiveness is not made void "because the one confessing has impaired reasoning" - the issue as we have seen all along on this is whether they are sincere in their confession. so we are back to a person who is less than sincere at the wedding event - yet with the saying of the words by the pastor/priest/magistrate they are married nevertheless.

(it is invalid), and there are grounds for annulment.

I have never seen anyone get a marriage annulled by saying "in my mind I was not fully sincere on my wedding day".

So, for example, if one party is coerced into marriage,

Again that does not match the scenarios we are mapping to confession. nothing in this entire thread addressed the case of "someone coming to confession because they were coerced/forced to do it". An interesting scenario but not something that aligns with any context for it we have been talking about so far.

or if one party is under the influence of mind-altering substances, the marriage is not valid

So one could say for confession - but that is not what we are discussing.

The declaration that these two are now married rests on the implicit assumption that their vows were given freely, sincerely, and with unimpaired consent

It does not have the ability to "measure the heart felt mental sincerety" of each one in the marriage - the license has no measure of it and does not really care if one them says two years later "my heart was not fully commited or sincere at the time". As long as no mind altering drugs or weapons of force are involved, that less-than-100% commitement does not change the standing of the marriage -- they would still have to go through a "divorce" process to destroy the marriage. but the less-than-sincere element does change the forgiveness result with God if that sort of thing were true for the confession between that person and God.

 

[The Liturgist]

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.

This approach is not how Anglicans, Lutherans or traditional Protestants interpret Sola Scriptura. Indeed even though he disliked tradition, Karl Barth did not entirely discount it, and he certainly used reason very heavily in order to make sense of Scripture and produce his massive work of Neo-Orthodox Reformed systematic theology, Church Dogmatics. And John Calvin quoted the Fathers too much in his Institutes to be considered hostile to tradition.

 

[Darren Court]

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

You may find reference to scripture pedantic else non-exclusive in such matters, but I find that position somewhat strange when we are discussing matters of church authority and action. Indeed I would ask if scripture isn't our guide in such matters, what is there to prevent all manner of fanciful rules, traditions and actions being introduced?

 

[Paidiske]

Why would you try to make this personal?

Because when I told you something informed by a professional knowledge of relevant secular and canon law, you brushed it off by saying you're not aware of it. So I was asking what had informed your awareness of relevant considerations.

Putting that aside, why would you find it necessary to divert away from the topic of sincerity?

I don't see it as a diversion at all. The argument was made that we cannot pronounce absolution unconditionally since we don't know whether the penitent is sincere. My response was that the need for sincerity is understood, and that this is consistent with our practice in other settings where the need for sincerity is understood. That is, this is not remarkable or exceptional or particularly a problem.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

This is not about "policing eight year olds" -- it is about the claim that every member in the church has the same authority/authorization/power to offer "absolution" as the priest and the only difference being the level of confidence that any given member may 'feel' when one person does it vs another.

What freight anyone places on what the eight year old says is, I guess, up to them.

You placed a lot of value on that issue of "freight" in your prior posts when you say that a doubting person might be applying more freight when they hear the pastor/priest says it -- but that pastor/priest has no more power/authority to say "I absolve you" than any other member given that it is valid for either of them to give that assurance to a fellow member.

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.

So they would have the same authority to say "I absolve you" but cannot 'hear confession'?

 

[Darren Court]

This approach is not how Anglicans, Lutherans or traditional Protestants interpret Sola Scriptura. Indeed even though he disliked tradition, Karl Barth did not entirely discount it, and he certainly used reason very heavily in order to make sense of Scripture and produce his massive work of Neo-Orthodox Reformed systematic theology, Church Dogmatics. And John Calvin quoted the Fathers too much in his Institutes to be considered hostile to tradition.

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!

 

[Darren Court]

Because when I told you something informed by a professional knowledge of relevant secular and canon law, you brushed it off by saying you're not aware of it. So I was asking what had informed your awareness of relevant considerations.

Where did you do this?

 

[BobRyan]

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.

This is an important point - as was noted earlier. Scripture has no "I absolve you" statements from anyone to sinful human - other than Christ saying it. So the sola scriptura test for that is key.

Every chapter of scripture we have looked at dealing with "forgive others their sins" is of the Matt 6 and Matt 18 form where the person has 'Sinned against you'.

This approach is not how Anglicans, Lutherans or traditional Protestants interpret Sola Scriptura.

I don't think that matters in this case - we are just talking about what we see written in scripture.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't think that works. Two people may meet at a bar and say they are fully determined/committed to marriage - but when they leave the bar - they are still not married and it does not matter how sincere or what words they say to each other at the bar. They are still not married either legally or in the eyes of the church.

However, legally and in the eyes of the church, it is the free consent of both parties which makes the marriage. The law requires documentation and the church requires witnesses to establish the fact, but at its heart, that's what makes the marriage.

My point was that although the marriage being real and valid rests on the intention of the parties to the marriage, we don't pronounce them married conditionally.

Forgiveness is not made void "because the one confessing has impaired reasoning" - the issue as we have seen all along on this is whether they are sincere in their confession. so we are back to a person who is less than sincere at the wedding event - yet with the saying of the words by the pastor/priest/magistrate they are married nevertheless.

No; that's the point. If they're not sincere; if they're lying; it's not a valid marriage, and it is open to formal annulment.

You may find reference to scripture pedantic else non-exclusive in such matters, but I find that position somewhat strange when we are discussing matters of church authority and action. Indeed I would ask if scripture isn't our guide in such matters, what is there to prevent all manner of fanciful rules, traditions and actions being introduced?

And I would answer that Scripture does not prescribe everything we might need or find helpful. It gives us boundaries, and it gives us principles, but we then develop those in our church communities in ways which seem good to us and to the Holy Spirit. And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Darren Court]

I don't see it as a diversion at all. The argument was made that we cannot pronounce absolution unconditionally since we don't know whether the penitent is sincere. My response was that the need for sincerity is understood, and that this is consistent with our practice in other settings where the need for sincerity is understood. That is, this is not remarkable or exceptional or particularly a problem.

Unfortunately you side stepped the issue to avoid seeing the diversion. Let me paint the analogy as you presented it....

• Sincerity is required for validity of confession and pronouncement of absolution
• Freewill is required for validity of marriage and pronouncement thereof

Since freewill can be present without sincerity, they are clearly not the same thing.
I repeat there is no scriptural evidence that sincerity is required for marriage validity and I would now extend that to tradition and legality.

 

[The Liturgist]

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.

Minor nitpick, which you probably knew I would raise: what you say is entirely correct in Western Christianity, including Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, but in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian churches, the liturgy of Holy Matrimony consists of two components, a betrothal service and crowning, which is the actual marriage, and the sacramental theology of these churches is that in the Crowning (or Coronation I suppose we could call it; interestingly the liturgy for the Coronation of the Russian Czars and other Orthodox monarchs looks a lot like the Marriage Liturgy) the Priest actually performs the sacrament of matrimony on the bride and groom.

This is I believe also in contrast to Judaism, which is similiar to Western Christianity in terms of how marriage works, the chief differences being minor aesthetics such as the use of the chuppah (although in the west a canopy called I think a care cloth used to be standard in Catholic marriages), and a few other ritual aspects, for example, the breaking of the glass (historically present to symbolize, in theory, lamentation at the destruction of the Second Temple).

Now I personally theoretically prefer the Eastern approach as you know, and I think you and I once had an epic debate about the two theologies. But setting that aside due to our mutual respect, I feel obliged to support your post that I am replying to, in that in your debate with other members you are entirely correct, as always, concerning the Western church which they are a part of, but you happen to be an ordained priest in.

I don't think that works. Two people may meet at a bar and say they are fully determined/committed to marriage - but when they leave the bar - they are still not married and it does not matter how sincere or what words they say to each other at the bar. They are still not married either legally or in the eyes of the church.

What Paidiske said is accurate - in the Western church the couple perform the sacrament of Holy Matrimony on each other “With this ring I thee wed”, and the minister, pastor or priest is there as a witness on the part of the Church. This is why the BCP Solemnization of Matrimony liturgy begins “Dearly Beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony;”

 

[Paidiske]

This is not about "policing eight year olds" -- it is about the claim that every member in the church has the same authority/authorization/power to offer "absolution" as the priest and the only difference being the level of confidence that any given member may 'feel' when one person does it vs another.

Well, I don't think that's quite accurate. Anyone may offer reassurance of God's forgiveness, as one fellow-Christian to another. But speaking as a representative of the church, with the church's authority, is a different thing.

Where did you do this?

When I explained that a marriage entered into by deceit is invalid.

 

[Paidiske]

Unfortunately you side stepped the issue to avoid seeing the diversion. Let me paint the analogy as you presented it....

• Sincerity is required for validity of confession and pronouncement of absolution
• Freewill is required for validity of marriage and pronouncement thereof

Since freewill can be present without sincerity, they are clearly not the same thing.
I repeat there is no scriptural evidence that sincerity is required for marriage validity and I would now extend that to tradition and legality.

It's not just free will but also sincerity which is required for the validity of marriage. If you freely say the vows but have no intention of keeping them, that's not a valid marriage.

Minor nitpick, which you probably knew I would raise: what you say is entirely correct in Western Christianity, including Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, but in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian churches, the liturgy of Holy Matrimony consists of two components, a betrothal service and crowning, which is the actual marriage, and the sacramental theology of these churches is that in the Crowning (or Coronation I suppose we could call it; interestingly the liturgy for the Coronation of the Russian Czars and other Orthodox monarchs looks a lot like the Marriage Liturgy) the Priest actually performs the sacrament of matrimony on the bride and groom.

I know, but we're discussing the western understanding here and it's probably going to over-complicate an already complicated discussion to try to unpack that (and whether or not marriage is a sacrament is definitely going to take us off topic).

 

[The Liturgist]

I repeat there is no scriptural evidence that sincerity is required for marriage validity and I would now extend that to tradition and legality.

On this point you are mistaken. The reason why the Anglican Church and other Western churches used to announce marriages in advance (the C of E still does, I think) using the Banns, published every few weeks before the wedding, was so that if anyone had an objection to the marriage, that is to say, if the groom was lying about being single and was actually already married and was attempting to engage in bigamy for example, those objections could be heard. This is also why the Anglican marriage liturgy features the celebrant saying to the couple, “I require and charge you both, as ye will answer at the dreadful day of judgement when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, that if either of you know any impediment, why ye may not be lawfully joined together in Matrimony, ye do now confess it. For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God's Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful.”

 

[BobRyan]

However, legally and in the eyes of the church, it is the free consent of both parties which makes the marriage.

No doubt that is important -- but as the "Two people speaking at a bar" example shows - the marriage does not exist if that is the only component.

The law requires documentation and the church requires witnesses to establish the fact,

Indeed it is both legal and it is a matter of public witness even in churches.

but at its heart, that's what makes the marriage.

My point was that although the marriage being real and valid rests on the intention of the parties to the marriage, we don't pronounce them married conditionally.

In fact it is unconditional - at that point - because once it is determined that they are both there of their own free will - no effort at all is made to measure/quantify/certify the degree of commitment in the heart. They will be married at the end of that ceremony no matter that they had some doubts at the time leading them to feel less than fully committed.

Forgiveness with God is not subject to such hidden elements. He knows exactly what is going on and forgiveness with Him is 100% accurate with all the hidden thoughts of the heart fully known at the time - to Him even if it is not known to others.

No; that's the point. If they're not sincere; if they're lying; it's not a valid marriage

That does not work legally and it does not work in the church. If a couple shows up 2 years later and says "hey Joe claims he was only 76% committed at our wedding -- so are we still married" the church says "you sure are". And if they say "Mary says she was only 24% committed two years ago" it changes nothing. They would need to go through process of "divorce" and if it turns out that Mary had an affair with another person during that two years - the church would call it adultery since in the eyes of the church she was legally married to Joe at the time -- no matter her "less than" fully committed secret intent of the heart two years ago.

 

[Darren Court]

And I would answer that Scripture does not prescribe everything we might need or find helpful. It gives us boundaries, and it gives us principles, but we then develop those in our church communities in ways which seem good to us and to the Holy Spirit. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I think we have a different understanding of scripture!
.
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
.
THOROUGHLY equipped for EVERY good work.
.
Sure that doesn't mean every detail or rather every nuance of application is provided but it certainly does mean that ALL PRINCIPLES are given.
.
Let's put it this way, what is there to stop the church developing the idea that we do need to ensure marriage vows are sincere by applying some kind of re-commitment of vows on a regular basis for the marriage to be valid? Who is to say there is something or nothing wrong with this?... or for that matter any of man devised scheme?
.
...but, this is again getting away from the point. The fact is that there is NOTHING in law, tradition or scripture that invalidates a marriage simply because one or both of the parties were insincere! Once marriage vows are made and declaration given, the marriage stands unless there are extenuating circumstances such as coercion (not freewill). Indeed if we need evidence of this, we only need to look at the terminology for such marriage invalidity and as far as I can see, "insincerity" isn't even mentioned!

 

[The Liturgist]

It's not just free will but also sincerity which is required for the validity of marriage. If you freely say the vows but have no intention of keeping them, that's not a valid marriage.

I know, but we're discussing the western understanding here and it's probably going to over-complicate an already complicated discussion to try to unpack that (and whether or not marriage is a sacrament is definitely going to take us off topic).

Indeed, you know I just had to nitpick there. But you are of course quite right and I am really surprised why people are not accepting your explanations, which I know to be correct from my training and experience. I mean in Divinity School one does not just study contemplative theology, there is a lot of practical material, the whole pastoral theology and pastoral care component.

 

[Paidiske]

That does not work legally and it does not work in the church. If a couple shows up 2 years later and says "hey Joe claims he was only 76% committed at our wedding -- so are we still married" the church says "you sure are".

Not every church. If a couple shows up years later and one says, "I didn't mean my vows when I said them," some would recognise that as grounds for annulment.

 

[BobRyan]

Well, I don't think that's quite accurate. Anyone may offer reassurance of God's forgiveness, as one fellow-Christian to another. But speaking as a representative of the church, with the church's authority, is a different thing.

So would you qualify the statements on this so far like this --

Anyone can say "I absolve you from your sins" including the 8 year old - but only the priest/pastor has the "power" "Authority" to say it as one who is speaking with the authority of the church and this is the authority that is being specifically referenced when the Bible says "what you have loosed is loosed in heaven"???​

Because I would argue that a Buddhist or Hindu could "say" those words... so it is true that if the issue is "who is able to say those words" then fine atheists, agnostics etc all have the ability to speak those words.

But I thought the text we were looking at claimed that the power/authority/reality of the absolution is every bit as good no matter what member of the church says it to another - and only the perceived "confidence level" of the one hearing is affected by having a priest say it instead of the 8 year old.

 

[Darren Court]

On this point you are mistaken. The reason why the Anglican Church and other Western churches used to announce marriages in advance (the C of E still does, I think) using the Banns, published every few weeks before the wedding, was so that if anyone had an objection to the marriage, that is to say, if the groom was lying about being single and was actually already married and was attempting to engage in bigamy for example, those objections could be heard. This is also why the Anglican marriage liturgy features the celebrant saying to the couple, “I require and charge you both, as ye will answer at the dreadful day of judgement when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, that if either of you know any impediment, why ye may not be lawfully joined together in Matrimony, ye do now confess it. For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God's Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful.”

Sorry that's not what we're talking about here! I even said earlier that's incumbent upon the parties involved to ensure that they did partake freely and with sincerity, which is what all of that's about.
.
..But it's not the issue here. The issue is whether the marriage if valid because the participants are not sincere... and there is nothing in law, tradition or scripture to say that any marriage is invalid simply because one or both of the parties was not sincere!