Mortal and Venial sin is a Roman innovation but yes the general confession is just every bit as effective as auricular confession. If you go back to the 1549 BCP it exhorts us not to be upset with anyone or to judge anyone by which type of confession they use because they are both equal and valid. The 1662 moves even beyond that it makes the general confession standard because it is very much valid and just as good as aricular confession and aricular confession is only for those who can't for some reason quite their conscious.
I agree, it's not clear. More to the point, the actual effect of the pronouncement of absolution is not clear. The RCC and a good many Anglicans think that a priest's absolution has definite effect in cleansing one from sin (although the RCC would add that the cleansing is conditioned upon performance of whatever acts of penance the priest orders). Some Anglicans, and perhaps some other Christians, think that the pronouncement is beneficial in easing the conscience of those who receive the absolution; it helps them to see their state of having already been forgiven by God. I would include myself in this latter camp. In OT days it was universally recognized among God's people that God alone had the power to forgive sins. When Jesus forgave a man of his sins, the scribes who were present thought it was blasphemy for a man to presume to forgive sins. Mat 9:2-6 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth. And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. What does the Bible say about confessing sins? The foremost scripture on this subject probably is 1 John 1:9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. This verse does not specify whether the confession is made to God or to some other man. It is, however specific in saying that God is the one who forgives us and cleanses us from all unrighteousness. Therefore, if one is to assume from other scriptures that Jesus gave men actual authority to exercise the power of forgiving (and of non-forgiving), we still have to distinguish between "authority" (agency to act in Jesus' stead) and "power" (dunamis), the latter of which is possessed only by God. In other words, Jesus didn't give men power to forgive and cleanse, but He may have delegated authority to forgive (although we have no specific statement that men have been given authority to cleanse). Now let's look at the pertinent scripture that seem to pertain to the delegation of authority to forgive. John 20:19-24 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. Some people have pointed out that these words of Jesus were for all disciples, not just the Apostles. They note that "the disciples were assembled", so they think that all disciples were breathed upon and addressed by Jesus. Since we know that receiving the Holy Spirit was meant to be for all disciples (believers), both then and thenceforth, it could be argued that any authority to remit or retain sins also was meant for all disciples. However, a number of Greek scholars believe that Jesus was telling them something a little more nuanced about remitting and retaining of sins. They base this on the verb tense utilized in this passage. Thus, several Bible translations line up similar to the NASB's rendition: If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained (as in, they have previously or already been forgiven or retained by God). The Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology explains the perfect tense as follows: “The verb tense used by the writer to describe a completed verbal action that occurred in the past but which produced a state of being or a result that exists in the present (in relation to the writer).” This instruction from Jesus was given in conjunction with the mention of the indwelling Holy Spirit (whom they were yet to receive, on Pentecost). In other words, Jesus may have been saying that if a Spirit-led Christian holds someone's sins as either forgiven or unforgiven, that will be a reflection of what God has already done and what the Spirit has revealed to the Christian. If this is accurate, then Jesus was not delegating authority to forgive or retain sins when He said those words; rather, it seems likely that the disciples were being instructed to declare to all hearers, as an integral part of the Gospel, upon what terms God would forgive sins: believe in Jesus and receive forgiveness, or refuse Him and be condemned. This would mean that Christians are authorized (and expected, and enabled by the Holy Spirit) to speak out against sin in absolute terms. We are to state without equivocation that acts defined as sin by the word of God can only be forgiven by the means God has laid out for all: i.e., by trusting in Jesus Christ. Is there a scripture that counsels us to make verbal confession? Yes, but it doesn't say to do so for absolution. James 5:16 says, Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. We often have need of emotional healing. Also, sinning can lead to physical ailments (consider the man Jesus forgave in Matt. 9). Instead of seeking absolution as an instantaneous dispensation of God's cleansing, this verse teaches us that when someone confesses sins it should lead the hearers to pray for that person's healing and restoration in the hope and belief that God will respond favorably and help the person. When we look at confession and absolution as it is practiced today, whether it be the private version or the general one, I think we would be hard-pressed to find any evidence of such a practice in the early church. I am under the impression that by the 7th Century formalized confession was still quite rare and priestly absolution was yet unknown within the church.
If you earnestly repent you of your sins, then you are already forgiven and should accept the absolution by faith. If you are unrepentant you have not even any right to feel forgiven but stand self condemned. Bear in mind though that what others tell you is sin and even what you may think is sin yourself, might not be. It is God who defines what sin is, not man. It was of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that the two thought would confer on them 'knowledge'. It didn't, as any study of human history has proven. .
When I was a RC, I always found the concept of "mortal sin" to be quite strange because it involved three things. Firstly, the sin had to be grave (serious) and secondly the person committing the sin had to KNOW that it was a grave or serious sin, and thirdly the person, with full knowledge of this grave sin, had to willingly and without coercion of any kind, choose to commit the sin, knowing that it would separate them from God's grace. Ok, that makes sense in that such a person, committing such a sin with full knowledge and consent, would obviously not be repentant over it, and therefore, they couldn't be forgiven, and were in a state of mortal sin. But to fulfill all three of these conditions should be a very difficult thing to do. And yet the RCs seem to be focusing on mortal sins all the time! I mean, what Christian person would even want to commit a sin so heinous as to separate them from the love and grace of God, knowing full well they are doing it and the consequence of doing it? I guess that's why the RCC had to start defining mortal sins - so that the person would not have the excuse of 'not knowing' that it was a mortal sin. After all, they must have reasoned, if we don't tell them it is a mortal sin, then they don't have full knowledge, so it isn't a mortal sin. So this is where they lost me. Not going to Mass on Sunday is a mortal sin, even if the person went EVERY other day of that week. And if one is in mortal sin from missing Mass, and doesn't go to confession before receiving Communion again, then they have committed yet another mortal sin, despite the fact that receiving Communion should include a general confession that makes it ok. If a priest isn't around for confession then theoretically the person can perform an 'Act of Perfect Contrition' (privately to God) with the express intention and promise of going to individual confession as soon as possible. But this get dicey when one can't get to confession any time soon, and the mortal sins just keep piling up. And because the list of mortal sins for RCs goes on and on and on, one can end up experiencing scrupulosity, or focusing on sins too much (a bit like obsessive compulsive disorder). As far as I am concerned, a sin is a sin. If the act separates one from God, then it is an offence and needs to be confessed to God (but general confession is fine as far as I am concerned). And if one purposely goes around committing grave sins with full knowledge and consent frequently, then they most aren't likely aren't the type of person to be worrying about individual confessions or consequences anyway!
Yup. Whereas I think God wants us to focus on His grace and mercy, because He provided redemption through Christ as a gift to us! (Maybe we need a smiley that is cheering and throwing confetti in the air, because the Gospel is GREAT news!)
I find myself frequently in the position in a Sunday Morning Service, during the general confession, of not being able to recall any actual, serious enough, sins, commited during the previous week, to be so sorry about that I need to confess them to God. My solution to this problem is to consider myself part of a congregation of people who may actually HAVE serious sins to be forgiven of, and to be corporately responsible to God for the condition of the human race, i.e. we often are blissfully unaware what sins we may have committed against God and against our neighbour. It is a great relief that even these unbeknown sins we unknowingly may commit are also forgiven by God. The sins of ommission, the things we may not have done, which we SHOULD have done, which, this week, have partially prevented His Kingdom from fully being ON EARTH, as it is in heaven. Thus instead of making this world a better place, we have, by our lack of sensitivity to the leading of His Holy Spirit, left it unaltered and still in it's imperfect unKingdom state. All this at the beginning of the Eucharist service. At the end we pray that we may be sent out in the power of The Holy Spirit to live and work to God's praise and glory. And so another week begins. .
The parable of the prodigal son comes to mind. When the son returned he apologized humbly, but the father would have none of it and celebrated his son's return. The father never said, "I want you to remember at least once per week how bad your behavior has been." Instead, he showered his son with love and cherished their time together.