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

[The Liturgist]

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.

On the contrary you just described two potential scenarios for annulment in the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Darren Court]

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.

Surely you're not referring to any Anglican Church?

 

[Darren Court]

On the contrary you just described two potential scenarios for annulment in the Roman Catholic Church.

Are you endorsing their process here or just diverting?

 

[The Liturgist]

Anyone can say "I absolve you from your sins" including the 8 year old - but only the priest/pastor as 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"???

That’s right, because only the Presbyter or Bishop exercises the Apostolic office and has been ordained as a Pastor of the Church which gives him or her the ability to do this, to consecrate the Eucharist, to perform marriages, and certain other sacraments or sacramentals.

 

[Paidiske]

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?

Let me turn that around. What is there in Scripture to say that we must practice marriage the way we currently do? With both secular legal and ecclesial observances? With consent and vows? With prayers and blessing? None of that is prescribed in Scripture!

Scripture gives us a great deal of freedom in how we order these things. We have found that it is good that we do order them, but (as noted in the thread) even so, different communities in east and west have developed very different ways of doing so.

None of this is a matter of right and wrong.

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 again, you are incorrect, as @The Liturgist and I are telling you.

 

[The Liturgist]

Are you endorsing their process here or just diverting?

Not endorsing, I prefer as said the Eastern / Oriental theology of marriage which I am not going to get into as it would as @Paidiske said further confuse the conversation. What I am rather doing is saying Paidiske is correct.

 

[BobRyan]

That’s right, because only the Presbyter or Bishop exercises the Apostolic office and has been ordained as a Pastor of the Church which gives him or her the ability to do this

Do you have a Bible text supporting that idea when it comes to statements like "I absolve you" or "confess your sins to one another" or "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us" Matt 6 or "How many times shall my brother sin against me and I still forgive Him" matt 18 or "what you loose on Earth is loosed in heaven" Matt 18 ??

 

[BobRyan]

Let me turn that around. What is there in Scripture to say that we must practice marriage the way we currently do? With both secular legal and ecclesial observances? With consent and vows? With prayers and blessing? None of that is prescribed in Scripture!

We can't use that detail to then claim every power imaginable as being the domain of the proverbial 8 year old since it too is not mentioned in the Bible. I think you would agree that we can't have 8 year olds dissolving marriages or performing them and the idea that is of the form "Well other things are also not mentioned in the Bible" would not justify doing so even in that case.

Rom 7:
For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

And John 2 makes it appear to be a formal occasion for believers.

 

[The Liturgist]

Do you have a Bible text supporting that idea when it comes to statements like "I absolve you" or "confess your sins to one another" or "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us" Matt 6 or "How many times shall my brother sin against me and I still forgive Him" matt 18 or "what you loose on Earth is loosed in heaven" Matt 18 ??

We are going in circles. The fact that the clergy of the Church can pronounce absolution on behalf of the Body of Christ does not remove the obligation of members of the Body to forgive one another, and everyone else who has trespassed against them.

You are confusing two different things. Sacramental absolution is not the same as the forgiveness we are obliged to grant each other.

 

[Paidiske]

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"???​

Not exactly. More like,

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. When doing so, the church looks to Jesus' words that "whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven," as an assurance of the reality of God's forgiveness which is being proclaimed.

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.

Lay people don't usually offer one another absolution, although they may reassure one another of God's forgiveness. It's understood that the formal proclaiming of absolution is a function which the church entrusts to its office holders.

Surely you're not referring to any Anglican Church?

I'm not aware of any such instance in an Anglican church, because our acceptance of civil divorce means most people don't also go through ecclesial annulment processes. It would be interesting to me to know how it played out if someone were to do so, because in principle that should be the case.

 

[The Liturgist]

We can't use that detail to then claim every power imaginable as being the domain of the proverabial 8 year old since it too is not mentioned in the Bible. I think you would agree that we can't have 8 year olds dissolving marriages or performing them and the idea that is of the form "Well other things are also not mentioned in the Bible" would not justify doing so even in that case.

8 year olds can’t dissolve or perform marriages because they are below the minimum canonical age for ordination to presbyter or equivalent in every church I know of, although they can be tonsured as acolytes, Psaltis or readers or choristers in several churches, and I also know of a Baptist church with a Black congregation where an eight year old preached in several churches around ten years ago, and one commonly hears eight year olds read scripture lessons (and when they do a good job by rehearsing I really like it; I saw a liturgy via YouTube at St. Peter’s Anglican Cathedral in Tallahassee, Florida, where a boy working as an altar server who I reckon to have been around ten or eleven did a good job reading the second of three scripture lessons using the RCL with the 2019 BCP).

 

[Paidiske]

We can't use that detail to then claim every power imaginable as being the domain of the proverabial 8 year old since it too is not mentioned in the Bible. I think you would agree that we can't have 8 year olds dissolving marriages or performing them and the idea that is of the form "Well other things are also not mentioned in the Bible" would not justify doing so even in that case.

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

Rom 7:
For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

And John 2 makes it appear to be a formal occasion for believers.

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

 

[The Liturgist]

Not exactly. More like,

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. When doing so, the church looks to Jesus' words that "whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven," as an assurance of the reality of God's forgiveness which is being proclaimed.

Lay people don't usually offer one another absolution, although they may reassure one another of God's forgiveness. It's understood that the formal proclaiming of absolution is a function which the church entrusts to its office holders.

I'm not aware of any such instance in an Anglican church, because our acceptance of civil divorce means most people don't also go through ecclesial annulment processes. It would be interesting to me to know how it played out if someone were to do so, because in principle that should be the case.

Exactly. You put it better than I did, although I have the excuse of probably still being slightly radioactive from the Technetium injections at the hospital (actually unlikely at this point, but it was amusing to hear from the radiologist, who retired the day I was discharged that after inhaling Xenon-135 and being injected with technetium that I was emitting enough gamma rays to cause a Geiger counter to chirp like a firecracker).

 

[Darren Court]

Let me turn that around. What is there in Scripture to say that we must practice marriage the way we currently do? With both secular legal and ecclesial observances? With consent and vows? With prayers and blessing? None of that is prescribed in Scripture!

Well, that again is diversionary! I freely accepted that Scripture does not give us all the precise details on most things but it does wholeheartedly give us all the principles..... marriage most definitely included. Moreover, the ONLY requirement in terms of vows are those set out by law not by the church and indeed many people write their own vows.

 

[Paidiske]

Well, that again is diversionary! I freely accepted that Scripture does not give us all the precise details on most things but it does wholeheartedly give us all the principles..... marriage most definitely included. Moreover, the ONLY requirement in terms of vows are those set out by law not by the church and indeed many people write their own vows.

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

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

 

[Darren Court]

Once again, you are incorrect, as @The Liturgist and I are telling you.

No, you both quote things like freewill and not being in mentally fit state to equate to sincerity, when neither is comparable... and as stated but you ignored, "sincerity" is never used as word explicitly else in principle to invalidate a marriage, by law, by tradition or scripture.

 

[Paidiske]

No, you both quote things like freewill and not being in mentally fit state to equate to sincerity, when neither is comparable... and as stated but you ignored, "sincerity" is never used as word explicitly else in principle to invalidate a marriage, by law, by tradition or scripture.

No, lack of sincerity in and of itself would invalidate a marriage (as we have both told you).

 

[Darren Court]

I'm not aware of any such instance in an Anglican church, because our acceptance of civil divorce means most people don't also go through ecclesial annulment processes. It would be interesting to me to know how it played out if someone were to do so, because in principle that should be the case.

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

 

[Darren Court]

No, lack of sincerity in and of itself would invalidate a marriage (as we have both told you).

You have both told us, but neither of you can point to such precedent else practice in YOUR OWN church, something you freely acknowledged!
.
..and since there is no such direction, rules or process in YOUR OWN CHURCH to invalidate a marriage purely on the basis of insincerity, it seems you simply don't want to admit the fact that at best your example was poor.

 

[Darren Court]

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

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

Marriage vows are like many things in the Anglican Church, fluid as there are Anglican Churches that do!