Why is Anglicanism typically less guilt-ridden than Roman Catholicism?

This friar says sins can be forgiven without going to confession, but that confession is an important aid and a gift. I'd be interested to read your thoughts.



Of course, Anglicans can go to confession too. Does Anglican confession itself differ from RC confession?

 

Sorry to butt in.

My archdiocese published an online pamphlet on its website that explains how to do a spiritual confession during time of pandemic.

Think of Isaiah: “sins scarlet, white as snow”.

It’s not silly or stupid, who knows maybe tomorrow someone could die.

 

Yes Anglicans do have confession. We have the general confession every service and it is just as valid as private Roman confession or Anglican confession. We do have a rite of private confession but it is only if you need to quite your conscious for some reason and the general confession is not doing that for you.

 

A common saying in Anglicanism concerning private confession is:
All may
Some should
None must

 

To the best of my knowledge Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have all attended joint services with archbishops of Canterbury. I have also frequently seen local Roman Catholic clergy at various Anglican services. Two frequent ones come to mind. The churching of the Mayor and Remembrance Sunday. Yes, Roman Catholics can attend Anglican services. What they cannot do is have Roman Catholic clergy concelebrate the Eucharist with Anglican clergy and no Roman Catholic can receive Communion at an Anglican Eucharist.

 

I have read in quite a number of places that to do these things wouldn't require permission. For example, a Roman Catholic could pray an Anglican form of the Divine Office. If he were to do this the Roman catholic Church would consider he were doing a private devotion. It wouldn't count as liturgy. If the Roman Catholic were under obligation to recite the Divine Office he wouldn't fulfil that obligation with an Anglican form.

 

It's nice of the RCs to have changed their teaching.

As recently as 1928, Pius XI stated in the 1928 encyclical Mortalium Animos, "[the] Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics." For centuries a RC could passively attend a non-RC church service, but even the simple acts of reciting a psalm or singing a hymn in unison with a non-RC congregation were deemed sins against the RC faith.

Of course the RCC can't admit that its doctrines ever change, so a RC theologian will tie himself in knots to explain why the change is not really a change.

 

I do not know when the teaching changed. I suspect it is probably a result of Vatican II. There the RCC changed its attitude to non-Catholic Christians, the Jews, other non-Christians and non-believers. I'm not sure if they would have a problem explaining this because of their concept of the ongoing development of theology.

 

This also looks like a change in Discipline rather than Doctrine. The former can be altered; the latter cannot. It would seem that a variety of different approaches are compatible with extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and would came out of VCII was simply more lenient than what had been standard practice before. I don't see something like that as an essential change, though I have no doubt it was confusing for many at the time.

 

I think there has been an essential change. The phrase extra Ecclesiam nulla salus was used to by the Roman Catholic Church to clearly mean that Ecclesiam was the Catholic Church. Since Vatican II they now include in Ecclesiam the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches and the Church of the East. Even we Anglicans are no longer completely in error. They consider the Orthodox churches to be canonical churches, with apostolic succession and valid sacraments, including the Eucharist and Holy Orders. Other Christians, such as Anglicans, are classed as ecclesial communities lacking apostolic succession, having no ordained sacred ministers and most of our sacraments are considered to be invalid.

 

FWIW, I found an article, written by a well-educated RC priest, which addresses the subject of RCs attending and participating in non-RC services as well as in 'ecumenical' services. I thought it was interesting.
http://christendom-awake.org/pages/thomas-crean/praying-with-non-catholics.htm

A bit off that particular topic, I noted a statement by Fr. Crean on the subject of why he thinks people go to church: "Let us consider what a human being, whatever his religion, seeks by engaging in a religious act. He is seeking to put himself or to maintain himself in a right relation with the Deity: that is what makes his act religious." Having been RC, I can say that this is a fair statement based on RC doctrine. The RC Mass is viewed as an actual and propitiatory sacrifice, to which attendance is both mandatory (in a general sense, since exceptions are made for illness, etc.) and efficacious for the impartation of saving grace. But I think it is improper and incorrect for a person to "seek to put or maintain himself in right relation" through a religious work such as attending church; rather, we should view church attendance in other ways, some of which include love for God, obedience to His wishes, a desire to glorify and magnify Him, the need for fellowship with like-minded believers, and to serve our fellow parishioners.

 

Rexlion,

This statement really resonates with me. Attending Mass because I need to get myself right with God or because I fear damnation seems to be a very Catholic perspective and there is often guilt attached to it. But attending for the reasons you stated seem to make so much more sense. When I left the Catholic Church, I stopped attending Mass, obviously, and I didn't step inside any church for years, despite the initial feelings of guilt and fear of retribution. All during that time however, I felt my relationship with God was ok, and He understood what was happening to me.

When I finally decided to chose a different religion, and to start attending services again, it was not out of a need to 'get right with God' or to appease Him or to do good works - but simply for love of God and a desire to be with others of like mind. I really enjoy attending church now and am so glad that I can praise Him in company with others without fear or guilt.

 

And auricular confession is great for just that reason… when you really need it, when your conscience is deeply grieved. When you don’t so desperately need it, it can easily become the scrupulocity carousel.

I think weekly, monthly, even quarterly confession, perhaps, is best suited to the spiritually mature. I know for myself, as a spiritual toddler, it just causes more problems than it solves.

 

I think auricular confession is most needed by "young in faith" Christians who do not yet know enough about God's grace and forgiveness (which we learn from scriptures such as Romans 8:1; Romans 5:1; and John 5:24) and who need assistance with overcoming overly-strong, persisting feelings of guilt and condemnation. Those who are more matured in their walk of faith with the Lord are less likely to need reassurance of God's love, forgiveness, and ready acceptance of one's repentance.

 

we dont have confessionals

 

Reassurance isn’t the only reason to seek a confessor, however. I see that popes and religious (as in monks and nuns) go to the confessional very frequently but I don’t think it’s for want of spiritual maturity.

there are those who find in confession an opportunity to draw closer to Jesus and they leap at the chance. Me, I couldn’t do it without giving myself a head-case, but if I had had twenty years of intense formation I could see how it could be otherwise.

 

i mean we dont have those boxs we have the sacrement of reconcelliation

 

As a Benedictine monk, I can say that frequent confession is part of our formation. The norm when we start out is once every three weeks then moving to more frequent confession as you go (a lot of the older monks go every week if not more often). It's not that we "need" to go to confession that frequently or that we need the reassurance of forgiveness. What happens is that humans by our fallen nature like to make excuses, and we like to think we can hide our sins from each other and even from God. Going to confession on a regular basis even for the seemingly small sins breaks you of that drive to hide from God or shift the blame. It reinforces our dependence on God's mercy and goodness and helps us to learn to hold nothing back.

There's no reason that the sacrament of reconciliation should cause anyone to feel overwhelming guilt or shame. If viewed properly it should be a freeing experience where we bring our baggage and leave it with God so we can follow Him unhindered. Where we recognize that we're all in the same boat, dealing with the same things, and all depending on God's mercy.

 

We can do the same thing alone with God. Personally I think it becomes more of a problem when there is another person (Confessor) involved.

 

I guess my question is this: why do so many view it improperly? Why are so many Catholics wracked with such intense anxiety when it comes to Confession? I have been on a number of Catholic forums and it is painful to me to see how many people are overwhelmed with the fear that they are forever condemned for this or that, or that their confession wasn't "good enough."