Confessions in the Anglican Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Krisdun
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Krisdun

Guest
Does the Anglican church offer the sacrament of confession to its followers?
 
Yes. With the usual caveat as to generalizing about Anglicans. Corporate confession within the Mass, individual auricular confession as requested.

Anglicans vary, though.
 
That is usually addressed to individual auricular confession. Corporate confession and absolution is a part of generic Anglican services.

Remember that I never generalize about Anglicans, save to say that they are …motley.
 
benedictinehopeful said:
Their confession is not valid regardless, because Anglicans sacraments are null and void.
Click to expand...
Two can play this game. The Roman Catholic Church no longer have valid sacraments because the Medieval RCC abandoned the Catholic Faith, once delivered to the Saints; One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. (Yes, I believe that the RCC has valid sacraments).

Confessional Anglican and Lutherans have valid private confession and absolution.
 
Last edited:
Yep. So say we’uns.

Apostolicae Curae has been a hobby of mine for over 20 years.
 
Doesn’t bother me. Hobbies, you know. I got an Imperial tonne of them.
 
V.D.M.A said:
40.png
benedictinehopeful:
Their confession is not valid regardless, because Anglicans sacraments are null and void.
Click to expand...
Two can play this game. The Roman Catholic Church no longer have valid sacraments because the Medieval RCC abandoned the Catholic Faith, once delivered to the Saints; One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. (Yes, I believe that the RCC has valid sacraments).

Confessional Anglican and Lutherans have valid private confession and absolution.
Click to expand...
If that is the case then Christ’s promise that even the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church turned out to be false … and we all need a new Savior …

For the record, I do not beleive this to be the case, not by a long shot.
 
I’m concerned only with the teaching of the RCC, which is that Anglican orders are null and void. I’m sorry if this offends you.
 
benedictinehopeful said:
I’m concerned only with the teaching of the RCC, which is that Anglican orders are null and void. I’m sorry if this offends you.
Click to expand...
It does not often me at all. Anyone, who reads Mat 16:18 in context knows the “Rock” is Christ, not St. Peter. RCC Eisegesis, the heck out of this verse, even the Orthodox agree.
 
Last edited:
Some Church Fathers say it refers to Peter, some say Christ, some say Peter’s confession. There wasn’t consensus in the early Church. Of course Anglicans and Orthodox won’t take the position that it refers to Peter, because that would undermine their position, but that doesn’t mean there’s no basis for it being Peter or that the RCC position is novel.
 
Yes, no, it depends and all points in between. There is a great diversity of praxis in the Anglican Communion. As a very general rule Anglo-Catholics consider it to be a sacrament and they do confessions. At the other end of the Anglican spectrum Evangelicals would reject it being a sacrament and probably do not use it.

It always surprises when I learn that many Anglicans think confession is something those Catholics do. Yet they have provision for it or, at least, the Church of England does. I cannot say with certainty for the others. I do know the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer makes provision for confession. It does not provide a rite for confession but it does tell the laity they can approach a priest for confession.
 
Anglicans, as I often say, are variegated; your first para is spot on. The Episcopal 1979 prayer book has a format for individual auricular confession, one of the few points I like in that book.

And while little in the motleydom of Anglicanism surprises me, that there would be many Anglicans who think confession is alien to their breed would be one of them. Unless there are many Anglicans whose liturgy does not include the corporate confession and absolution.
 
V.D.M.A said:
even the Orthodox agree.
Click to expand...
Not historically. Church Fathers certainly do not agree- they say both Christ and Peter are Rocks in their own regards. Why would Simon’s name even be changed to Peter if that’s the case? Why call Rome successors to Peter upon whom Church was built? Oh well…

Christ is foundation of faith but to Peter keys were given and upon him Church was built. Prince of Apostles whose faith shall not fail.
 
Last edited:
It does, as a part of the overall service, spoken by the altar party as it approaches and at the foot of the altar.

Remember what I’ve taught you and many about Anglicanism.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top