Ship of Fools: Anglican Confession

Thread: Anglican Confession Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028703

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

I have been visiting a fairly Kocher Sydney Anglican church, no prayer book service, just stuff on overheads etc, no lectionary readings, all preach through a book of the bible with readings and books chosen by the Presbyter. All the usual stuff anyway,

What I find strange though is that every service, whether there is communion or not they say/read off the whiteboard a corporate confession that is more or less in the format of the traditional confession,...so they all say it and then immediately move onto the bible readings or sing a hymn, there is no absolution or acknowledgement that our sins are forgiven. I guess the idea is that it would be wrong for the Presbyter to be seen to be acting in the place of God, who is the only one who can forgive sins.

It just seems strange to me to be left hanging after the confession though. Wondering about thoughts from people who are more versed in the liturgy and rubrics, is it a strange thing to do? Even if the Minister doesn't say "your sins are forgiven" couldn't he at least say something-even a jab at penal substitutionary atonement would be better than nothing "Christ died to set you free from your sins" kind of thing.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

The Collect for the Twenty First Sunday after Trinity is described in the Book of Common Prayer.1662 as being "Absolution in the Absence of a Priest".
It's quite lovely (what isn't in the BCP, 1662).
Read or memorise it to yourself perhaps?

[ 29. September 2014, 03:59: Message edited by: Galilit ]

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

I'm afraid this is par for the course with Sydney Anglicans. I would find a different church. I went to a service in Sydney where the congregation was invited to help themselves to bread and wine as they left the church! There are a few churches in Sydney that are traditional Anglican.

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

When you read about all those strange or weird customs in the Diocese of Sydney, you have to conclude that this Diocese has already left the Anglican Communion.
In they should should better start a new church.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

This could be an interesting thread on the use of Confessions in Anglican liturgy and praxis. Can we try to avoid derailing it with discussions of whether Sydney Anglicans are or should be 'real' Anglicans thank all very much!

(Yes, I know this topic arouses many passions...)

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
When you read about all those strange or weird customs in the Diocese of Sydney, you have to conclude that this Diocese has already left the Anglican Communion.
In they should should better start a new church.

Sydney (as far as the Anglican Church goes) is a very strange place. I lived there for 13 years, having grown up in Melbourne, where it was a far different scene. Sydney, under its former ++ Jensen, might almost fit the picture you paint, although I get the feeling you have never been there. It almost seemed in the interest of two competing parties, the Cathedral and "the alternative Anglo-Catholic 'cathedral' down the road Christ Church St Laurence (CCSL)" to put out there was this enormous gap and nothing between. This was patently untrue.There were many Anglican churches which were Low Church or Liberal Evangelical in the English sense. St Anne's Strathfield was then "High" rather than Anglo-Catholic. I think the current Archbishop is more conciliatory than ++ Jensen. That being said, Sydney has a long way to go.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Even if they're concerned about the idea "that it would be wrong for the Presbyter to be seen to be acting in the place of God, who is the only one who can forgive sins", surely there could be some Scriptural assurance that our sins have been forgiven? The Comfortable Words spring to mind but there are many, many more.

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :

As a Reader, I am not permitted to pronounce absolution using the 'you' forms. However, most of the prayers in Common Worship have a 'we' form for use by such as myself.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Even if they're concerned about the idea "that it would be wrong for the Presbyter to be seen to be acting in the place of God, who is the only one who can forgive sins", surely there could be some Scriptural assurance that our sins have been forgiven? The Comfortable Words spring to mind but there are many, many more.

And in Cranmer, despite it being called an 'absolution' and not to be used by Readers, it is quite clear that Christ forgiveness sins, not the priest - 'HE pardonneth....'

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Even if they're concerned about the idea "that it would be wrong for the Presbyter to be seen to be acting in the place of God, who is the only one who can forgive sins", surely there could be some Scriptural assurance that our sins have been forgiven? The Comfortable Words spring to mind but there are many, many more.
And in Cranmer, despite it being called an 'absolution' and not to be used by Readers, it is quite clear that Christ forgiveness sins, not the priest - 'HE pardonneth....'

Well quite - a previous church of mine, very like Sydney Anglican churches in many ways (and subscribed to Matthias Media which I think is Sydney-based) had no issue using the absolution for this reason.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
As a Reader, I am not permitted to pronounce absolution using the 'you' forms. However, most of the prayers in Common Worship have a 'we' form for use by such as myself.

I like the first person plural.
It is so inclusive and non-hierarchical, even when pronounced by a person of the hierarchy. I think that it places the emphasis on
the assurance of forgiveness to us all for everything ...I am getting all warm inside just thinking about it

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

If you look at what you find jarring or too personal in Common Worship and go back to Cranmer IME you find that Cranmer got it right [Smile]

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Hence the phrase "Cranmer's matchless prose" as one of God's favourite languages (along with Hebrew and Latin/chant)...

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

His prose might have been okay but he wasn't the life of the theological party. The words miserable and git come to my liturgical mind.

I'm strictly a second person plural type myself, whether I'm up the front or kneeling in the pews. The priest is effectively enacting the words of God, and representing God's authority to pull me out of the quicksand. If the words of absolution are spoken from within the quicksand I tend to think we're all up the creek without a paddle.

But with Cranmer as soon as you've heard words of absolution you're back grovelling in the faeces again, so the Eucharist ceases to be a foretaste of the eschatological Reign and becomes instead the torture imposed by a miserable but Divine Righted court.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
I'm strictly a second person plural type myself, whether I'm up the front or kneeling in the pews. The priest is effectively enacting the words of God, and representing God's authority to pull me out of the quicksand. If the words of absolution are spoken from within the quicksand I tend to think we're all up the creek without a paddle.

Pretty much as we think, and it mirrors the words of APBA Second Order (so long since I heard anything else, I can't remember it).

Evangeline, I thought you went to Enmore. If you want something rather more in an Anglican tradition than you're getting, go to Anglicans Together and I think you'll find somewhere suitable and convenient. I'm not sure about Granville at the moment, and the new Rector is trying to drag South Hurstville into the Moore College group. There are many others where you might be comfortable as well, but I'm not sure what part of Sydney you live in or to which you might have easy access.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

Thanks all for the comments.

Not Enmore GeeD. although I have visited there on occasion. I am aware of who's who in the Parishes zoo and would happily participate in a DH discussion on the peculiarities of Sydney Anglicanism but am genuinely interested in just this one aspect of confession on this thread.

What is the point of the corporate confession, seems without absolution it makes one dwell on one's failures. Is there a theology of the confession?

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

I want to echo the recommendation of the Collect for the 21st Sunday after Trinity. I use that in my personal daily office after confession.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Thanks all for the comments.

Not Enmore GeeD. although I have visited there on occasion. I am aware of who's who in the Parishes zoo and would happily participate in a DH discussion on the peculiarities of Sydney Anglicanism but am genuinely interested in just this one aspect of confession on this thread.

What is the point of the corporate confession, seems without absolution it makes one dwell on one's failures. Is there a theology of the confession?

I think it better to leave things as they are - otherwise the police, with no knowledge of Sydney or of the remainder of Australia - would be around with ex cathedra statements. There seems an assumption by many that Sydney is nothing but the Moore College group, and that Australia nothing but Sydney.

As to St Anne's Strathfield - I have no direct and up-to-date knowledge of the churchmanship there, but reading the web-site suggests that it is still reasonably high. I have not seen that distinction in years Sir Pellinore, but understand it well.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

That's a bit weird.

I'd somehow imagined, from what I heard on the Ship, that Sydney's claim was that as the true successor of the Reformation, it had remained faithful to the Church of England at the time of first settlement, between 1788 and say 1820.

Obviously, I've got the wrong end of the stick. Omitting any absolution does not fit that.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

What is the point of the corporate confession, seems without absolution it makes one dwell on one's failures. Is there a theology of the confession?

In my understanding we are all corporately acknowledging our participation in humanity's web of sin. We may have done naughty things (I haven't had time this morning) but we are a naughty people even if we have not. Therefore as priests, lay or ordained, we ALL offer our prayer, acknowledging our participation and all humanity's participation in the web of sin, and hearing the presider-presbyter speak the words that God has made possible for us and all humanity to hear in Christ: "You are forgiven. In Christ." Whatever that might be interpreted to mean.

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

Not to mention we are so naughty, we do naughty things and refrain from doing good things and are not even aware of it.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

As a description of life as we experience it, these once familiar words can hardly be bettered,

quote:
We have left undone those things which we ought to have done: and we have done those things which we ought not to have done;

None of the forms of general confession since have got anywhere near its calibre.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Spot on. And it's in the right order, too, which subsequent confessions (mostly?) aren't: putting the things that we haven't done first.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

What is the point of the corporate confession, seems without absolution it makes one dwell on one's failures. Is there a theology of the confession?
In my understanding we are all corporately acknowledging our participation in humanity's web of sin. We may have done naughty things (I haven't had time this morning) but we are a naughty people even if we have not. Therefore as priests, lay or ordained, we ALL offer our prayer, acknowledging our participation and all humanity's participation in the web of sin, and hearing the presider-presbyter speak the words that God has made possible for us and all humanity to hear in Christ: "You are forgiven. In Christ." Whatever that might be interpreted to mean.

Thanks Zappa, I guess I my problem is trying to explain theologically why it's wrong to have a corporate confession without the absolution.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Because we're left in hell?

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

No, we're left here and now.
Stuck.
Been there done that...NO T-Shirt!

All the things we corporately did/were involved in (by definition of being one of the 7 billion humans here) are not forgiven us who are individually sitting or kneeling at that moment.

Structural sin is a bas*ard at the best of times - worse when you aren't even forgiven. You walk out the door and start all over again just by breathing.

Of course some are more sensitive to this and take it more personally than others...guess which camp I fall into?

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :

In the APBA(not sure about AAPB) liturgies for morning and evening prayer, there is a quasi-absolution that goes

quote:
God desires that none should perish,
but that all should turn to Christ and live.
In response to that call, we acknowledge our sins.
God pardons those who humbly repent, and truly believe the good news. Therefore we have peace with God, through Jesus Christ.

Even if one has a theological concern about the officiant's role as pronouncer of absolution, the above could be both a)theologically acceptable and b)an authorised liturgical form.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

But have we repented humbly enough? And is our belief really, truly, true? Isn't this faith as works?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

No, it's faith as faith: repentance and belief.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Then why the intensifiers?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Why not?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jugular:
In the APBA(not sure about AAPB) liturgies for morning and evening prayer, there is a quasi-absolution that goes ...

What do these two mysterious sets of initials stand for please? When I tried to find out, I got the American Power Boat Association and the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback. I don't imagine either of them are into forms of Absolution.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Anglican Prayer Book for Oz.
Btw, I Googled the acronym also and got some amusingly irrelevant things, then I saw it woz Oz and being from "nearby" worked it out for myself.

Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :

An Australian Prayer Book = AAPB

http://www.epray.com.au/Files/AAPB_2011_text_no_trims.pdf

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

AAPB - An Australian Prayer Book. This was published in the late 70's and is basically a modern language 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

APBA - A Prayer Book for Australia. This came out in 1995, and is not only in modern language but also takes account of the changes in liturgical studies from the early 60's on. The Second Order of Holy Communion is basically the standard throughout Australia, save for Sydney - the AAPB is the most common "traditional" service here.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

it seems quite conservative and I note that there is no resources for the Assumption on August 15th.

Also little explicit prayer for those who have died.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Leo, your "it" is ambiguous. Are your referring to AAPB or APBA?

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Also little explicit prayer for those who have died.

I suspect the Diocese of Sydney - while we're not discussing them per se - would have exercised their influence to ensure no such nastiness sullied an official publication of the church, AAPB or APBA. Likewise that nasty papish thing about "he that cometh in the name." Because he doesn't cometh. Or not then, at any rate.

Come to think about it, the rite of auricular confession only scraped past the attention of Sydney in the 1978 AAPB by means of a pastoral office back door. But General Confession was alright with Sydney as long as you didn't really mean to confess, just to convert. Or something. [Ultra confused]

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
AAPB - An Australian Prayer Book. This was published in the late 70's and is basically a modern language 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

Except fairly radically different in its Second Order. But I digress.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thank you Zappa. I am being tempted along this tangential line by a host. My excuse and I'm sticking to it.

That's the first time I've ever heard that comment about AAPB, but bow to your knowledge and training.

What is strange is not just the unusual treatment of the Benedictus in APBA 2nd Order but the complete omission of the Agnus Dei - the stranger because the standard Dudman setting includes it and at every service using that Order it has been either sung or said.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Leo, your "it" is ambiguous. Are your referring to AAPB or APBA?

Both - they are bound together in the pdf linked to.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What is strange is not just the unusual treatment of the Benedictus in APBA 2nd Order but the complete omission of the Agnus Dei

Maybe because Cranmer omitted both in 1552 and they didn't come back in 1662.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Leo, your "it" is ambiguous. Are your referring to AAPB or APBA?
Both - they are bound together in the pdf linked to.

A difficult link to negotiate, but it only refers to AAPB in the link name, and I am unable quickly to find any of the APBA ion opening it.

Posted by Barnabas Aus (# 15869) on :

Gee D is correct. This is only the AAPB text. I use the website when preparing our parish pew bulletins. It has PDFs of all three prayer books as well as the Hymn books commonly used.

A Prayer Book for Australia is also published in an interactive form on the site. It contains material for August 15 which happens to be the feast of title for one of our centres, but under the title Mary Mother of the Lord rather than the Assumption, perhaps to assuage the feelings of some of the more evangelical diocese in the Australin church.

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas Aus:
It has PDFs of all three prayer books as well as the Hymn books commonly used.

Barnabas, the epray site doesn't mention the hymn books directly - as it included in the general subscription or is it an add-on?

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And in Cranmer, despite it being called an 'absolution' and not to be used by Readers, it is quite clear that Christ forgiveness sins, not the priest - 'HE pardonneth.... '

Yet things aren't quite so clear cut when we read The Visitation of the Sick, and it says;

Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to his Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences: And by his authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

The idea of whether a priest can forgive sins has long been a bone of contention between Catholic and Protestant, but I don't think any priest , not even the Pope, would ever claim any personal power to forgive sins. When a priest, by the chrism of his ordination, acts in persona Christi, he may use the words "I absolve" but he will always be aware that it's Christ who is absolving. I think the confusion within the BCP best illustrates that we can get too hung up on words. The Reader must use the Collect for 21 Trinity because he has no power invested in him to pronounce God's forgiveness. The priest has.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Thanks Zappa, I guess I my problem is trying to explain theologically why it's wrong to have a corporate confession without the absolution.

Because the absolution (or the Declaration/Assurance of Pardon/Forgiveness, as it would be called in my tradition) is the proclamation of the Gospel. Omit it, and the church fails to proclaim the Gospel.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

Thank-you Nick Tamen for that succinct summary, most helpful.

I wonder if the minister reads SOF as over the last few weeks they seem to be proclaiming that we are forgiven because Jesus died for us.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

I think it might be safe to do so. I have suspicion that my supervisor reads Ship of Fools and not just that and knows who I am. That last bit is not hard to do if you know me well enough in real life.

Jengie

[ 06. November 2014, 08:14: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Barnabas Aus (# 15869) on :

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas Aus:
It has PDFs of all three prayer books as well as the Hymn books commonly used.
Barnabas, the epray site doesn't mention the hymn books directly - as it included in the general subscription or is it an add-on?

My apologies EmLi,
I have been away from home quite a bit in the last few weeks, and missed your post.
The website has the public domain words from Together in Song and An Australian Hymn Book available from links on the front page. The previous CD version of epray had access to other resources, so I was probably a little vague in my previous post.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0