When Jesus gave the apostles authority to forgive sins, he also gave them authority to retain sins. It occurred to me that the general confession of the Anglican Mass could be absolving sins that should be retained. I understand that Anglican Church offers private confession as well and would encourage those with serious sins to confess privately ("some should"), but there surely are people who aren't sufficiently penitent but incorrectly rely on general confession ("none must"). What's the Anglican position on this? Does it just come down to a matter of personal responsibility? Thanks!
Any sin that is confessed, gets pardoned. The formula of confession is so comprehensive that anyone who says all of it, and means it, leaves no room for the sins to remain with them. And if he doesn’t mean some or all of it, then the absolution does not apply to him. As for purposefully retaining sins, since the formula of confession is so comprehensive as I said, there aren’t many ways to formally prevent confession and absolution. Perhaps the bishop could order that whole part of the liturgy to be omitted, if he saw fit.
The great caveat to withholding absolution is found in the Lord's Prayer. Forgive us our trespasses and we forgive those who trespass against us.
It is not to be confessing serious sins but as the 1662 BCP says it is to quite the conscious. The general confession is good enough for a murder just as it is sufficient for a person who had sinful thoughts. The idea about sufficiently penitent is an absurd notion like perfect contrition is. We all are sinful and have a sinful nature. As long as we truly want to turn our life around and want to flee from our sins when we hit our knees and say the general confession the absolution works.
The absolution given stipulates that one must be penitent, so it's not a blanket/magical statement of absolution that sweeps away everything without regard for individual faith. As for the intentional retention of sins, we do have excommunication. If a priest is concerned about stubborn wickedness he can confront a person about it and even refuse them Communion (and notify the bishop within a fortnight).
Where does Jesus do this? I thought forgiving sins was God's/Jesus' prerogative. I can understand this. But I assume Stalwart is refering to confessing to a person. Why does or should there be another person involved in confessing sins? Isn't it just a matter between you and God. Again we can understand that you have been absolved of your sins (by God) by why does it take or is necessary for a priest to read God's mind? Just a cautionary note, confession to a priest is not protected by law ( in the UK) as your conversation with a doctor or lawyer is, although I suspect if push came to shove your Priest would claim (correctly) an appeal to a higher authority.
Thank you for your replies. I was thinking in the Roman Catholic terms of venial and mortal sins, but it seems Anglicans don't see the distinction the same way the RCC does. Here's the the full passage: “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. And when he said this, he breathed on them , and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven: if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20: 21-23) Jesus does give them the power forgive sins. I'm not familiar with why sins would be retained, but I assume it would be because the person isn't penitent.
Let’s not overlook that the “power to retain” is only attested at one point in a single Gospel (John 20:23), which is not one of the Synoptics. Given the poor attestation and late occurrence of the pericope, the likelihood that the historical Jesus uttered these words would appear to be small, and it would be unwise to try to erect a system of mandatory ecclesiastical discipline upon it, as the Roman Church has done. The normal biblical - indeed, Abrahamic - pattern is to: 1) sincerely repent, 2) confess contrition to God, 3) resolve not to commit the same sin again, and 4) trust in God’s forgiveness. No ecclesiastical mediation is necessary to do this, as such would presume to limit the omnipotence of God.
“All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (II Cor. 5:18). What is the ministry to reconciliation if not some form of confession. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.Mathew 18:18 Seems to me just from those two verses that confession is in the Bible and priests do how the power to retain sins.
“Binding and loosing” in Second Temple Judaism referred to a trained scholar’s ability to give authoritative interpretations of the Torah on legal matters. “Ministry of reconciliation” could be read any number of ways. With respect, I think you’ve read what you wanted to find in the text rather than letting the original historical context guide the interpretation. The Gospel of Mark also makes it clear that forgiving sins against God is itself an inalienable divine prerogative (note that Jesus does not dispute the assertion of “the scribes” here): The only solid evidence we have that the disciples of Jesus were ever granted the authority to forgive sins on their own is thus the aforementioned passage from the Gospel of John, with all the historical problems attendant upon reliance on that one passage.
I am not reading what I want to find in the text I am doing the Anglican thing. I am reading the text and looking at how the church has historically interpreted these passages and also using the Gospel of John, which is authoritative divinely inspired scripture, to further support my interpretation. I am not sure how you can question what should be in the Bible and reject parts of it without rejecting the entire tradition?
I am not seeing any classical anglican sources cited… just a bunch of personal opinions, deciding sacred doctrine, acting like the Pope, in our armchairs thats not anglican
ALMIGHTY God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Chri, who desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness and live; and hath given power and commandment, to his Miniers, to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins: He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel. Wherefore let us beseech him to grant us true repentance, and his Holy Spirit; that those things may please him which we do at this present, and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure and holy; so that at the la we may come to his eternal joy; through Jesus Christ our Lord. How is that for a source? The 1662 BCP.
Origen of Alexandria c. 244 AD Homily on Leviticus 2:4 In addition to these [kinds of forgiveness of sins], albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance…when he [the sinner] does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine….In this way there is fulfilled that too, which the Apostle James says: “If, then, there is anyone sick, let him call the presbyters [where we get priests] of the Church, and let them impose hands upon him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him [James 5:14-15].” t. Cyprian of Carthage 250 AD The Lapsed 15:1-3; 28 The Apostle likewise bears witness and says: ….”Whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” [1 Cor 11:27]. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest…they do violence to his body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him. St. Basil the Great 330 – 379 AD Rules Briefly Treated 288 It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries [i.e. the Sacraments] is entrusted [i.e. priests]. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist [Matt 3:6]; but in Acts they confessed to the Apostles, by whom also all were baptized [Acts 19:18].
I could go on and on but I think you get my point. I am reading these passages as the church fathers did and not some modernist thought. That is the way of the Anglican Church.
That’s fine. Looking at what the Tradition has to say is a legitimate part of the process. But, so is the exercise of Reason, and there is nothing wrong with inquiring into how this or that saying or event might have been understood by the original intended audience. The idea that “binding and loosing” historically referred to sacramental confession simply does not hold water. It’s an anachronism. This doesn’t mean the Church should abolish sacramental confession. It means that it should be understood as something optional or even beneficial (for some), but not essential. Since that’s more or less the traditional Anglican view anyway, what’s the problem? That’s not at all what I’m doing. I simply do not assume plenary verbal inspiration, or scriptural inerrancy. It’s perfectly legitimate to treat the various historical claims in the Bible the way one would for any other work of literature. Otherwise, one is merely engaging in circular reasoning, and thus not gaining any real insight into the scriptures themselves.
I hate to say it Invictus but- let’s not overlook the “claim that Jesus carried his own cross” is only attested at one point in a single Gospel (John 19:17), which is not one of the Synoptics. Given the poor attestation and late occurrence of the pericope, the likelihood that the historical Jesus carried his own cross would appear to be small, and it would be unwise to try to erect a system of Easter reinactments upon it, as the Roman Church has done. Ditto for
No the more or less traditional Anglican view is that we do have sacramental confession, as I posted with the 1662 BCP. It is just in the general confession form and not the auricular form.
I agree with this, i.e., the content rather than the intent if your post. The Synoptics have Simon of Cyrene carrying it rather than Jesus. John and the Synoptics also don’t agree on the date of the crucifixion, for that matter. John’s date seems intrinsically more likely, but the better attested date is what’s stated in the Synoptics. I was referring primarily to auricular confession, obviously, but in fairness the lone Scriptural support for sacramental confession makes no such distinction. I therefore understand the absolution formula in the liturgy to be declarative rather than effective. The notion of a general absolution is kind of a Western invention anyway; the East knows no such practice, and it is not uncommon for Orthodox clergy to understand the absolution formula (in auricular confessions) to be declarative. Any Anglican interested in the fulness of the catholic tradition must take into account how absolution is understood in the other apostolic Churches, at the very least. Part of the point of having a ‘common’ prayer book at all is for everyone to agree on the language even if there may be some diversity of understanding as to what it means. I’m no more suggesting the text of the BCP be altered than I am the words of the NT. Attempts to turn Anglicanism itself into its own iteration of fundamentalism are themselves profoundly anti-traditional. No thanks.
I was referring primarily to auricular confession, obviously, but in fairness the lone Scriptural support for sacramental confession makes no such distinction. I therefore understand the absolution formula in the liturgy to be declarative rather than effective. The notion of a general absolution is kind of a Western invention anyway; the East knows no such practice, and it is not uncommon for Orthodox clergy to understand the absolution formula (in auricular confessions) to be declarative. Any Anglican interested in the fulness of the catholic tradition must take into account how absolution is understood in the other apostolic Churches, at the very least............. General Confession is practiced and is the main form of confession in the Armenian and Assyrian Churches of the East