Confession: Catholic compared with Anglican

[rightness]

For Catholics, our form of confession is a private, personal one, but (most) Anglicans view their confession and absolution to be done in their service.

Obviously, a person in an Anglican service hasn’t confessed anything to their pastor, thus not making it a confession in the first place. They do this because of the protestant line of thinking “I just ask Jesus directly for forgiveness” and Anglicans would take it half way because their pastor gives them absolution.

I emphasize the need to confess personally to a priest about each sin, but what other arguments can be brought up to defend the Catholic form of confession? I don’t think there is anything in scripture that talks about the form of Confession, only that it’s a Sacrament.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Obviously, a person in an Anglican service hasn’t confessed anything to their pastor, thus not making it a confession in the first place.

That your conclusion follows from your premise is not obvious.

They do this because of the protestant line of thinking “I just ask Jesus directly for forgiveness”

This depends on the Anglican in question. Many Anglicans do believe that the general confession and priestly absolution during the service are an actual confession, not just “I ask Jesus directly for forgiveness.” It’s a matter of debate within Anglicanism, but the idea that the priest grants absolution is pretty mainstream.

Anglicans would take it half way because their pastor gives them absolution.

I’m not sure what you mean by “take it half way.”

I don’t think there is anything in scripture that talks about the form of Confession, only that it’s a Sacrament.

Does it say it’s a Sacrament? I don’t think the word “Sacrament” appears explicitly in the Bible.

 

[Wesrock]

I don’t think the word “Sacrament” appears explicitly in the Bible.

On this point, the word sacrament is just derived from the Latin translation of the Greek mysterion, or mystery, which is in the Bible.

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

I don’t think the word “Sacrament” appears explicitly in the Bible.

On this point, the word sacrament is just derived from the Latin translation of the Greek mysterion, or mystery, which is in the Bible.

Sure, but that’s not an explicit use of the term. That’s a later clarification of what is meant by “mystery.”

I agree with the sacramental view of confession – I just don’t think it’s as cut-and-dry as OP seems to suggest.

 

[OldCAFMember]

Many High Church Anglicans, and a few not-so-high Anglicans, do confess individually to a priest. In the Episcopal Church in the USA, there is a form in the 1979 BCP, “Reconciliation of a Penitent,” for this very purpose. Private confession to an Episcopal priest was my practice, as a young “Anglo-Catholic,” before I crossed the Tiber several decades ago.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Many High Church Anglicans, and a few not-so-high Anglicans, do confess individually to a priest. In the Episcopal Church in the USA, there is a form in the 1979 BCP, “Reconciliation of a Penitent,” for this very purpose. Private confession to an Episcopal priest was my practice, as a young Anglican, before I crossed the Tiber several decades ago.

Even my ACNA, which no one would mistake for Anglo-Catholic, retains a liturgy for individual auricular confession.

 

[HopkinsReb]

To establish it as a Sacrament to the typical Anglican will take more than that, though – they may agree with it as a means of grace but disagree with it as a Sacrament. The definition of Sacrament in the XXXIX Articles requires a physical sign specified in the Bible, and none is obviously given. So you’ll either need to convince them that there is a physical sign associated with it or to revise their definition of a Sacrament.

 

[HopkinsReb]

He doesn’t say it’s a Sacrament. Unless I missed that line.

 

[rightness]

The power to forgive sins is cut and dry in the Gospels when Jesus gave the apostles the power.

We’re not discussing that here. We’re discussing the form of confession. How does a priest forgive your sins if he does not even know them?

 

[HopkinsReb]

The power to forgive sins is cut and dry in the Gospels when Jesus gave the apostles the power.

We’re not discussing that here. We’re discussing the form of confession. How does a priest forgive your sins if he does not even know them?

Why does he need to know what they are to forgive them? (I think you’re asking the right question to get to what I think is the most compelling argument for individual confession)

 

[HopkinsReb]

Now you just have to convince the Anglican that words can count as a Sacrament’s outward sign. Both of the Sacraments universally recognized by Anglicans have physical outward signs (bread, wine, water), not auditory signs.

 

[rightness]

He doesn’t say it’s a Sacrament. Unless I missed that line.

This is always a typical protestant problem. Unless Jesus specifically says something is a Sacrament, let’s not call it a Sacrament. Jesus doesn’t need to speak to make things valid. This is just purely semantics in arguing with a protestant. When Jesus makes Holy Orders a Sacrament, He does it by ordaining His apostles, and He doesn’t need to say “Hey Matthew, I know that you’re going to write down a book about what I say, so remember to write down that I specifically my ordination of you a Sacrament. A lot of people are going to be confused! Okay?”

Why does he need to know what they are to forgive them? (I think you’re asking the right question to get to what I think is the most compelling argument for individual confession)

If you’re thinking the most compelling argument is when the priest offers advice and gives penance, then that’s not relevant to why we have to confess our sins to a priest. We have to confess each sin, in detail, to a priest, who is in in persona Christi, because we need to shed our shame to another person. That’s our personal necessity in this Sacrament. Advice on avoiding sin, Penance, and Absolution are benefits, but we have to do what Adam could not, confess His sins directly to God as a being. Even David’s confession to Nathan is a prefigure of this form.

Confession doesn’t even need to be private. Historically, people confessed their sins publically and did penance publically. They just had to confess their sins at all to the priest.

 

[HopkinsReb]

This is always a typical protestant problem. Unless Jesus specifically says something is a Sacrament, let’s not call it a Sacrament. Jesus doesn’t need to speak to make things valid. This is just purely semantics in arguing with a protestant. When Jesus makes Holy Orders a Sacrament, He does it by ordaining His apostles, and He doesn’t need to say “Hey Matthew, I know that you’re going to write down a book about what I say, so remember to write down that I specifically my ordination of you a Sacrament. A lot of people are going to be confused! Okay?”

This is all true, and I agree with all this. But you want to convince an Anglican who doesn’t agree with the Catholic view of the Sacrament.

If you’re thinking the most compelling argument is when the priest offers advice and gives penance, then that’s not relevant to why we have to confess our sins to a priest.

Nope, not what I was getting at. I’m referring to this:

Jesus didn’t only give the Apostles the ability to forgive sins. He also gave them the ability to retain them. And he would only give them both of those if he intended them to use both of them. So the Apostles have to determine which sins to forgive and which to retain. But that is obviously impossible if they’re not told exactly what the sins are.

 

[Esodo]

That is a good argument thank you! I have something new to use when speaking to Protestants now

 

[HopkinsReb]

That is a good argument thank you! I have something new to use when speaking to Protestants now

Happy to help. It’s that argument that convinced me of the importance of auricular confession.

 

[rightness]

This is all true, and I agree with all this. But you want to convince an Anglican who doesn’t agree with the Catholic view of the Sacrament.

Nope, not what I was getting at. I’m referring to this:

Jesus didn’t only give the Apostles the ability to forgive sins. He also gave them the ability to retain them. And he would only give them both of those if he intended them to use both of them. So the Apostles have to determine which sins to forgive and which to retain. But that is obviously impossible if they’re not told exactly what the sins are.

Ah okay, that’s what you’re getting at. Yes, the second part of it certainly sheds that light.
I remember even St. Padre Pio, with foreknowledge of his confessors intentions, would deny them absolution even before they start.

Thanks for the insight.

 

[dochawk]

The definition of Sacrament in the XXXIX Articles requires a physical sign specified in the Bible, and none is obviously given.

“Your sins are forgiven. Oh, all right, you whiners. Get up and walk!” was a rather clear physical sign . . ,

“Confession” is the modern form of the sacrament, and does not define the sacrament.

I don’t recall any confessing of sin in the Gospels, but plenty of forgiving it . . .

hawk

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

The definition of Sacrament in the XXXIX Articles requires a physical sign specified in the Bible, and none is obviously given.

“Your sins are forgiven. Oh, all right, you whiners. Get up and walk!” was a rather clear physical sign . . ,

“Confession” is the modern form of the sacrament, and does not define the sacrament.

I don’t recall any confessing of sin in the Gospels, but plenty of forgiving it . . .

hawk

Agreed. I’m just trying to help OP see things through the eyes of a hypothetical middle-of-the-road Anglican

 

[rightness]

Agreed. I’m just trying to help OP see things through the eyes of a hypothetical middle-of-the-road Anglican

Why I call it a middle road, and maybe it’s not so middle, perhaps more slanted to mainline protestantism, is that they still believe their pastor needs to give them absolution. Mainline protestants wouldn’t even blink an eye about their sins to confess to anyone but Jesus.

I view it as more black and white. There’s either believing in the Sacrament of Confession as taught by the Catholic Church, or everything else, which is incorrect.

 

[HopkinsReb]

I just meant a via media Anglican, not a hardcore Anglo-Catholic or hardcore Reform Anglican, as the former already basically accepts the Catholic view and the latter fully rejects it.