I have always been troubled when confession and absolution are omitted, regardless of season. Do they think we stop sinning based on the time of the year? 🥺
Speak for yourself ...
Sorry, Enoch - I should have said (and thanks Nick) - I am indeed in the Scottish Episcopal Church, and we use the liturgy from 1982 (unfortunately).
I have always been troubled when confession and absolution are omitted, regardless of season. Do they think we stop sinning based on the time of the year? 🥺
Isn't it marvellous how different we are from each other?
I don’t know what our theology/ecclesiology differences may be, so I don’t know if I’d consider them “marvelous” or not. I follow what I believe because I believe it’s true. And certainly, especially after struggling with some kind of terrible sin in the past, to go to church and have that absolution and assurance denied was excruciatingly painful. It’s less rough now—this was really bad when I was younger, and before certain things in my life had been resolved, but for me, it was horrible when they’d leave it out, so certainly not “marvelous” from my point of view.
Happily, individual Confession and Forgiveness is always available.
Not out of the blue right after the service in most Episcopal churches.
And again, I don’t see these differences in belief as intrinsically “marvelous.” I don’t understand that concept when it comes to different ideas about reality. I want to understand what’s true in someone’s beliefs, but once I do, then technically it’s no longer a difference in belief, since I would share it.
I have always been troubled when confession and absolution are omitted, regardless of season. Do they think we stop sinning based on the time of the year? 🥺
Isn't it marvellous how different we are from each other?
I don’t know what our theology/ecclesiology differences may be, so I don’t know if I’d consider them “marvelous” or not.
I think what is marvelous is that we don’t all have to do things exactly the same way, or fit into the same mold.
If regular confession and absolution in the context of the Eucharist are important to you, then it’s good you have found a place to worship where the liturgical norms meet your needs.
But not everyone has the same needs, or even preferences, that you do. I think it’s pretty marvelous that they too can find places to worship where the liturgical norms meet their needs.
I do expect that everyone in every denomination, with or without liturgy, has various beliefs about what are needs, preferences, true or false doctrine, and the like, absolutely. And I’m absolutely glad that we don’t have one required religion or church as people did in the past, in presumably all of the regions Shipmates hail from. I’m not sure what to add there; I suppose what counts as “marvelous” is one of those differences in belief. I do believe that freedom of thought and religion is indeed “marvelous,” if that’s what everyone means.
(Again, I’m not in the same state I was in decades ago, when the lack of confession and absolution was genuinely painful and scary—now it just annoys me, if that happens at all, which thankfully it doesn’t do at the church I go to now—but I would never, ever leave it out of a Eucharistic service the way some priests have at some churches I’ve been to in the past.)
I have always been troubled when confession and absolution are omitted, regardless of season. Do they think we stop sinning based on the time of the year? 🥺
Isn't it marvellous how different we are from each other?
I don’t know what our theology/ecclesiology differences may be, so I don’t know if I’d consider them “marvelous” or not. I follow what I believe because I believe it’s true. And certainly, especially after struggling with some kind of terrible sin in the past, to go to church and have that absolution and assurance denied was excruciatingly painful. It’s less rough now—this was really bad when I was younger, and before certain things in my life had been resolved, but for me, it was horrible when they’d leave it out, so certainly not “marvelous” from my point of view.
Happily, individual Confession and Forgiveness is always available.
Not out of the blue right after the service in most Episcopal churches.
And again, I don’t see these differences in belief as intrinsically “marvelous.” I don’t understand that concept when it comes to different ideas about reality. I want to understand what’s true in someone’s beliefs, but once I do, then technically it’s no longer a difference in belief, since I would share it.
What differences in belief or different ideas about reality are involved here? I think you’re the only one here talking about a difference in belief being implicated, unless it’s a belief that every celebration of the Eucharist must include confession and absolution. I think everyone else is talking about a difference in practice/praxis.
I have always been troubled when confession and absolution are omitted, regardless of season. Do they think we stop sinning based on the time of the year? 🥺
Isn't it marvellous how different we are from each other?
@Nick Tamen, this was the comment I was originally responding to, specifically about my being troubled to (randomly) not be able to receive absolution in the Eucharistic liturgy. Especially given my sad/pitiful emoji, which wasn’t meant humorously, I have no idea how this is “marvelous” in any way.
I don’t think it’s only about practice—if one specifically believes that priests and bishops, ordained in Apostolic Succession, can give absolution, and I don’t know what @Leaf believes in that regard—they may or may not believe that, then that’s a significant doctrinal difference vs. those who don’t believe that way.
I’m inclined to think (but I don’t know) that those clergy, even in my own Episcopal communion, who leave it out—since that’s a pretty big deal if true—don’t regard absolution by a priest as very important. Again, no idea. It probably depends on the person, but if one believes in this, I can’t see what I consider a valid reason to leave it out, right before Communion, under any usual circumstances.
Again, I don’t expect everyone to believe as I do. But yes, to a degree this is about belief. As you say here,
unless it’s a belief that every celebration of the Eucharist must include confession and absolution
I have always been troubled when confession and absolution are omitted, regardless of season. Do they think we stop sinning based on the time of the year? 🥺
Isn't it marvellous how different we are from each other?
@Nick Tamen, this was the comment I was originally responding to, specifically about my being troubled to (randomly) not be able to receive absolution in the Eucharistic liturgy. Especially given my sad/pitiful emoji, which wasn’t meant humorously, I have no idea how this is “marvelous” in any way.
I don’t think it’s only about practice—if one specifically believes that priests and bishops, ordained in Apostolic Succession, can give absolution, and I don’t know what @Leaf believes in that regard—they may or may not believe that, then that’s a significant doctrinal difference vs. those who don’t believe that way.
I’m inclined to think (but I don’t know) that those clergy, even in my own Episcopal communion, who leave it out—since that’s a pretty big deal if true—don’t regard absolution by a priest as very important. Again, no idea. It probably depends on the person, but if one believes in this, I can’t see what I consider a valid reason to leave it out, right before Communion, under any usual circumstances.
Again, I don’t expect everyone to believe as I do. But yes, to a degree this is about belief. As you say here,
unless it’s a belief that every celebration of the Eucharist must include confession and absolution
Exactly.
@Leaf can answer for herself, but given that she is a Lutheran pastor, I suspect we might be able to guess her position on these things.
I’m not sure how the position that every celebration of the Eucharist must include confession and absolution, particularly if one adheres to a certain view of the authority of priests and bishops in apostolic succession, squares with practices of the RCC or the Orthodox. The Roman Mass has a confession but doesn’t include a positive absolution, having instead the prayer “May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life.” Likewise, the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, to the best of memory, contains no form of confession at all, the assumption being that confession and absolution will have been dealt with individually prior to the Liturgy. Both those traditions most certainly believe in apostolic succession and the authority of priests to absolve, yet neither have a full-blown confession and absolution in their liturgies for the Eucharist. (I trust Catholic or Orthodox shipmates will set me straight if I’ve gotten their liturgical understandings and practices wrong.)
And I do note that the rubrics for both Rite I and Rite II of the Holy Eucharist in the Episcopal Church’s 1979 prayerbook say “On occasion, the Confession may be omitted.”
On the other hand, my tradition most definitely does not believe that priests and bishops ordained in apostolic succession have any authority to absolve that is not shared by all the baptized or by the church as a whole. But as I noted above, we tend to insist on confession and pardon. (We generally don’t use the word “absolution.”) So a practice of always including confession and absolution/pardon can be totally unrelated to belief in the authority of priests and bishops in apostolic succession
FWIW, the theory/justification I have heard for omitting the penitential rite on Easter is that Lent has essentially been one-long period of confession, while the Eucharist proclaims forgiveness, as does the Thanksgiving for Baptism, if observed.
Indeed, but RC and EO also emphasize individual confession in a way that the Episcopal church, in my experience, does not. There have never been, in my experience, set times for confession in any Episcopal church I’ve been to (not here in Florida, nor in northern Virginia where I lived for seven years).
And yes, I know that Lutherans don’t hold the same views of clergy. That would indeed be one difference in belief right there.
I generally know the reasoning behind not doing the confession and absolution that you mention (that Lent is penitential enough—not that the Eucharist confers absolution—I recall being told years ago at one church that Easter is a time of joyfulness, so that was why they dropped anything penitential)—as I suggested above, it’s not like we stop sinning just because it’s the season of Easter.
I know that the 1979 rubrics say that. I could say either “that doesn’t mean I agree with those rubrics” or “that doesn’t mean it’s wise to do so except in very rare, perhaps emergency, circumstances.”
But all of this is, indeed, an area in which we can all disagree. I don’t really know what else to add to that. (Well, that I don’t see the “marvelous” thing about disagreements in beliefs—which I guess is itself a disagreement in belief.)
But all of this is, indeed, an area in which we can all disagree.
Indeed it is.
I don’t really know what else to add to that. (Well, that I don’t see the “marvelous” thing about disagreements in beliefs—which I guess is itself a disagreement in belief.)
The marvelous thing is that what unites us in Christ, as the source and center of our unity, is much stronger and more fundamental than our differing understandings and beliefs about the details, whether details of belief or practice. And that when we engage with one another rather than standing in judgment over differences, we grow and come closer to living out our unity in Christ.
I have always been troubled when confession and absolution are omitted, regardless of season. Do they think we stop sinning based on the time of the year? 🥺
Isn't it marvellous how different we are from each other?
@Nick Tamen, this was the comment I was originally responding to, specifically about my being troubled to (randomly) not be able to receive absolution in the Eucharistic liturgy. Especially given my sad/pitiful emoji, which wasn’t meant humorously, I have no idea how this is “marvelous” in any way.
I don’t think it’s only about practice—if one specifically believes that priests and bishops, ordained in Apostolic Succession, can give absolution, and I don’t know what @Leaf believes in that regard—they may or may not believe that, then that’s a significant doctrinal difference vs. those who don’t believe that way.
I’m inclined to think (but I don’t know) that those clergy, even in my own Episcopal communion, who leave it out—since that’s a pretty big deal if true—don’t regard absolution by a priest as very important. Again, no idea. It probably depends on the person, but if one believes in this, I can’t see what I consider a valid reason to leave it out, right before Communion, under any usual circumstances.
Again, I don’t expect everyone to believe as I do. But yes, to a degree this is about belief. As you say here,
unless it’s a belief that every celebration of the Eucharist must include confession and absolution
Exactly.
@Leaf can answer for herself, but given that she is a Lutheran pastor, I suspect we might be able to guess her position on these things.
I’m not sure how the position that every celebration of the Eucharist must include confession and absolution, particularly if one adheres to a certain view of the authority of priests and bishops in apostolic succession, squares with practices of the RCC or the Orthodox. The Roman Mass has a confession but doesn’t include a positive absolution, having instead the prayer “May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life.” Likewise, the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, to the best of memory, contains no form of confession at all, the assumption being that confession and absolution will have been dealt with individually prior to the Liturgy. Both those traditions most certainly believe in apostolic succession and the authority of priests to absolve, yet neither have a full-blown confession and absolution in their liturgies for the Eucharist. (I trust Catholic or Orthodox shipmates will set me straight if I’ve gotten their liturgical understandings and practices wrong.)
And I do note that the rubrics for both Rite I and Rite II of the Holy Eucharist in the Episcopal Church’s 1979 prayerbook say “On occasion, the Confession may be omitted.”
On the other hand, my tradition most definitely does not believe that priests and bishops ordained in apostolic succession have any authority to absolve that is not shared by all the baptized or by the church as a whole. But as I noted above, we tend to insist on confession and pardon. (We generally don’t use the word “absolution.”) So a practice of always including confession and absolution/pardon can be totally unrelated to belief in the authority of priests and bishops in apostolic succession
FWIW, the theory/justification I have heard for omitting the penitential rite on Easter is that Lent has essentially been one-long period of confession, while the Eucharist proclaims forgiveness, as does the Thanksgiving for Baptism, if observed.
I don’t think I’ve heard of Thanksgiving for Baptism until now, but after poking around, I think it’s Lutheran rather than Episcopalian.
I’ve not heard that the Eucharist proclaims forgiveness in that way—I mean, we’re told that if we eat or drink it unworthily, we’re eating and drinking judgement on ourselves, though I’ve basically said when worried about that, “Okay, God, I’m in Your Hands,” and trusted that any “judgement” in whatever form it comes will do me spiritual good even if it’s painful, like Purgatory. But I prefer to be able to simply receive the absolution in the part of the service where it normally is given, rather than fret and struggle in an unexpected moment of spiritual existential crisis in the middle of the service.
(Again, I don’t worry the way I used to. My life is a lot less fraught with stress and anguish than back in those days (yes, really—there’s just no comparison). But if I ever were in charge of a service for some reason (doubtful, lol), I’d remember the years of struggle and keep in mind that there may be parishioners going through the same in that service, and not deny them the reassurance of formal absolution before receiving Communion.)
But all of this is, indeed, an area in which we can all disagree.
Indeed it is.
I don’t really know what else to add to that. (Well, that I don’t see the “marvelous” thing about disagreements in beliefs—which I guess is itself a disagreement in belief.)
The marvelous thing is that what unites us in Christ, as the source and center of our unity, is much stronger and more fundamental than our differing understandings and beliefs about the details, whether details of belief or practice. And that when we engage with one another rather than standing in judgment over differences, we grow and come closer to living out our unity in Christ.
I think I’d have to chew on some of what that means. There are even clergy in my own denomination whom (based on what they’ve specifically said about their beliefs) I don’t think are actually Christians in the first place (and of course lots of people in other churches whom I have spiritual agreement with even if there is much doctrinal/ecclesiological disagreement). I do agree about trusting and loving Jesus, and loving our neighbors, mattering more than those other things, even in some more extreme cases than some might allow for. So we may wholly agree on that.
It’s found among Lutherans, Presbyterians, United Methodists and others. Lutheran shipmates, who’ve mentioned omitting the confession and absolution in Easter, have also specifically mentioned the option of Thanksgiving for Baptism as an alternative, which is why I mentioned it,
I’ve not heard that the Eucharist proclaims forgiveness in that way—I mean, we’re told that if we eat or drink it unworthily, we’re eating and drinking judgement on ourselves, though I’ve basically said when worried about that, “Okay, God, I’m in Your Hands,” and trusted that any “judgement” in whatever form it comes will do me spiritual good even if it’s painful, like Purgatory. But I prefer to be able to simply receive the absolution in the part of the service where it normally is given, rather than fret and struggle in an unexpected moment of spiritual existential crisis in the middle of the service.
Regarding the bolded, I’m sure you see the difference between “I prefer” and a matter of that should be binding on all.
With regard to the Eucharist proclaiming forgiveness of sins, you might take a look at the Catechism of the Episcopal Church in the ‘79 prayerbook, pp. 859–60:
Q. What are the benefits which we receive in the Lord’s Supper?
A. The benefits we receive are the forgiveness of our sins, the strengthening of our union with Christ and one another, and the foretaste of the heavenly banquet which is our nourishment in eternal life.
I think it’s also reasonable to cite St. Paul: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” For Paul, proclaiming forgiveness of sins is, I think, part of what proclaiming the death of Christ means.
There were times when I really appreciated getting a break from ritual confession during Eastertide. Didn't the ancient church omit confession during Easter services?
It’s found among Lutherans, Presbyterians, United Methodists and others. Lutheran shipmates, who’ve mentioned omitting the confession and absolution in Easter, have also specifically mentioned the option of Thanksgiving for Baptism as an alternative, which is why I mentioned it,
I’ve not heard that the Eucharist proclaims forgiveness in that way—I mean, we’re told that if we eat or drink it unworthily, we’re eating and drinking judgement on ourselves, though I’ve basically said when worried about that, “Okay, God, I’m in Your Hands,” and trusted that any “judgement” in whatever form it comes will do me spiritual good even if it’s painful, like Purgatory. But I prefer to be able to simply receive the absolution in the part of the service where it normally is given, rather than fret and struggle in an unexpected moment of spiritual existential crisis in the middle of the service.
Regarding the bolded, I’m sure you see the difference between “I prefer” and a matter of that should be binding on all.
With regard to the Eucharist proclaiming forgiveness of sins, you might take a look at the Catechism of the Episcopal Church in the ‘79 prayerbook, pp. 859–60:
Q. What are the benefits which we receive in the Lord’s Supper?
A. The benefits we receive are the forgiveness of our sins, the strengthening of our union with Christ and one another, and the foretaste of the heavenly banquet which is our nourishment in eternal life.
I think it’s also reasonable to cite St. Paul: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” For Paul, proclaiming forgiveness of sins is, I think, part of what proclaiming the death of Christ means.
I understand that for the catechism, at least; whether St. Paul meant forgiveness of our specific, recent sins by the action of receiving Communion, I don’t know.
I’m not particularly saying what churches other than my own do or should do, with their varied beliefs about confession, absolution, the clergy/priesthood, or Communion. And again, the question of preparation for receiving the Body and the Blood is relevant.
It’s okay to disagree about these matters. We do. And again, it doesn’t affect me the same way now as it did before—but I’m sure there are those whom it does, who are suddenly not sure if they should receive if the absolution is skipped, those who are struggling with things they may not be able to talk about easily, for whom it’s an abrupt moral dilemma. For those people’s sake, I would never skip it in the Communion service.
I should add that I'm sorry if I've been cranky here--this was something that caused me genuine torment years ago, to feel unshorn and uncertain about whether I'd been forgiven of various things, and to be silently going through this sort of moral/spiritual crisis during the service when I'd been ready for the relief of hearing those words of absolution, and running through things in my head about desperately casting my fears onto Christ and hoping that would be enough--it was horrible going through that. Again, I think I handle things better now, decades later, but at the time, it was really, really rough. But I haven't meant to be rude here to anyone who follows a different array of beliefs about these matters.
At the risk of prolonging the possible tangent, I’d like to note that the absolution offered in the Eucharistic service of the ‘79 BCP isn’t quite an absolution, although it’s also not quite not an absolution. But if you compare the absolution given during the service with the absolution given during the Reconciliation of a Penitent (auricular confession, in more words basically) the absolution in the Eucharistic service is less forceful than that offered in Confession. Fr Matthew Olver, a professor of liturgy at Nashotah House Theological Seminary, has thought a lot about this and has an article coming out soonish about the differences between these two absolutions and what they may mean theologically.
Part of the Anglican patrimony of the Episcopal Church is the belief that we can directly confess our sins to God and receive absolution through that direct presentation. So if you’re concerned about the lack of confession during the Eucharistic service, as I am sometimes, then just confess directly on your way to receive the Sacrament.
I should add that I'm sorry if I've been cranky here--this was something that caused me genuine torment years ago, to feel unshorn and uncertain about whether I'd been forgiven of various things, and to be silently going through this sort of moral/spiritual crisis during the service when I'd been ready for the relief of hearing those words of absolution, and running through things in my head about desperately casting my fears onto Christ and hoping that would be enough--it was horrible going through that. Again, I think I handle things better now, decades later, but at the time, it was really, really rough. But I haven't meant to be rude here to anyone who follows a different array of beliefs about these matters.
When I was very young, I remember my parents going to the pastor's office about four times a year. They said they were going to announce their intentions to go to communion. It was much later, when I was in seminary, it dawned on me what they were actually doing was going to have a time of individual confession and absolution (Lutherans might say forgiveness),
Between the time I was that young kid and when I was in seminary, that practice had all but fell away in the churches I attended. While Lutherans would say Confession and Absolution is not a sacrament, it is sacramental in that it gives one the chance to have the grace of God address the particular concerns bothering the individual.
As I said previously, every contemporary Lutheran hymnal has the rite for individual confession and absolution/forgiveness in them.
I actually found myself using it a lot when I was a chaplain in the military, not only with those who were brought up with the practice, but also with many who came from a Baptist background, especially young airmen/women who were raised in strict homes suddenly finding themselves in a world that seemed to have no rules.
Even as a civilian minister I found myself using it with a number of teens and young adults who were finding their preconceived notions seemed to conflict with what was going around them.
There is value in being able to seek individual confession and absolution, I think. I know it seems every winter I go into a period of self-doubt and struggle with the faith. Often times I seek individual confession and absolution during those times. I now know I am going through a period of seasonal affective disorder, and I have learned a number of other coping mechanisms, but individual confession and absolution is still on the top of the list.
It’s found among Lutherans, Presbyterians, United Methodists and others. Lutheran shipmates, who’ve mentioned omitting the confession and absolution in Easter, have also specifically mentioned the option of Thanksgiving for Baptism as an alternative, which is why I mentioned it,
<snip>
The Church of England’s Easter Liturgy may include Baptism, but if not it will/should still include Renewal of Baptismal Vows. As far as I can see the same is true of the US Episcopal Church.
For RCs there is a significant difference in the wording of the absolution at Mass "May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life," and the wording used in individual confession, "I absolve you from your sins in the name of Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
The first is worded as a wish, the second as an effective act, though dependant on penitence, a real desire to change and the performing of a penance.
How is the public absolution in the Eucharist worded in other traditions?
The most recent church of England “standard” words of forgiveness are:
Almighty God,
who forgives all who truly repent,
have mercy upon you,
pardon and deliver you from all your sins,
confirm and strengthen you in all goodness,
and keep you in life eternal;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
How is the public absolution in the Eucharist worded in other traditions?
As I noted above, “absolution” per se, isn’t really part of Presbyterian vocabulary, and what we’d typically call the declaration of forgiveness or of pardon isn’t usually going to be worded either in terms along the lines “I pronounce that you are forgiven” or “may God forgive you.” We tend to approach it as a proclamation of the Gospel. So, the confession will be preceded with words along these lines:
If we say we have no sin,
we deceive ourselves,
and the truth is not in us.
But when we confess our sins,
God who is faithful and just
will forgive us our sins
and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Trusting in God’s grace,
let us confess our sin.
Then a declaration along these lines will be said after the confession:
Who is in a position to condemn?
Only Christ, and Christ died for us,
Christ rose for us,
Christ reigns in power for us,
Christ prays for us.
Anyone who is in Christ is a new creation.
The old life has gone; a new life has begun.
Know that you are forgiven
and be at peace.
The PC(USA)’s liturgical resources recommend that the confession and pardon be led from the baptismal font, as a way of grounding confidence in forgiveness in baptismal identity. Water is often poured into the font in connection with the declaration of forgiveness, in which case those words might make an explicit baptismal reference, like this:
Because we were buried
with Christ in these waters,
we are also raised to life with him.
Believe the gospel! [or Believe the good news!]
In Jesus Christ we are forgiven.
We don’t have a set liturgy, so these are examples of what might be said, but they are pretty standard examples.
They’re very similar in form to the 1662 BCP’s Comfortable Words which always seem to me to have been intended to calm the consciences of this previously used to auricular confession
COME unto me all that travail and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you. St. Matthew 11.28
So God loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, to the end that all that believe in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. St. John 3.16
Hear also what Saint Paul saith.
This is a true saying, and worthy of all men to be received, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. 1 St. Timothy 1.15
Hear also what Saint John saith.
If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins. 1 St. John 2.1
The most recent church of England “standard” words of forgiveness are:
Almighty God,
who forgives all who truly repent,
have mercy upon you,
pardon and deliver you from all your sins,
confirm and strengthen you in all goodness,
and keep you in life eternal;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Yes, CofE is almost always liturgically the priest doing it *to* the congregation (for want of a better expression), hence noticeable in lay led non-Eucharistic services like what I lead, where it’s all *we* asking for it.
The Reformed is neither but encouraging those present to be assured their sins are forgiven on the basis of the Gospel by using the words of scripture.
The Reformed is neither but encouraging those present to be assured their sins are forgiven on the basis of the Gospel by using the words of scripture.
That’s an interesting way of doing it, from a direction I know very little about. Food for thought.
The Reformed is neither but encouraging those present to be assured their sins are forgiven on the basis of the Gospel by using the words of scripture.
That’s an interesting way of doing it, from a direction I know very little about. Food for thought.
It is not unusual among American Presbyterians for the congregation to voice that assurance itself rather than hearing the minister do it. So a slight variation of one of the examples I gave above (with bolded text being words spoken by all) might go:
Because we were buried
with Christ in these waters,
we are also raised to life with him.
Beloved in Christ, believe the good news! In Jesus Christ we are forgiven.
Alleluia! Amen!
The legal CofE position for lay led services according to the BCP (and without even a lay reader the BCP is the one you can do with the minimum of authorisation), is that after the confession you say together the collect for the 21st Sunday after Trinity:
Grant, we beseech thee, merciful Lord, to thy faithful people pardon and peace; that they may be cleansed from all their sins, and serve thee with a quiet mind; through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.
One Lutheran format triples the grounds for assurance of forgiveness:
P: If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
C: But if we confess our sin, God, who is faithful and just, will forgive our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
P: Let us then confess our sins unto God our Father.
All: Most merciful God, we confess ... For the sake of Your Son, Jesus Christ, have mercy on us. Forgive us, renew us, and lead us, so that we may delight in Your will and walk in Your ways to the glory of Your holy name. Amen.
P: Almighty God in his mercy has given his only Son to die for you and for his sake forgives you all your sins. As a called and ordained servant of Christ, and by his authority, I therefore forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
c: Amen.
As you can see, the first is based on 1 John 1:8-9 which is a promise that gets fulfilled right then and there as we confess.
The second ground which gets brought up multiple times is the central and most important ground, namely that Jesus died and rose for us.
The third is "As a called and ordained servant of Christ, and by his authority" which goes back to Luke 24, where Jesus gave his gathered disciples the authority to forgive sins.
Basically the idea here is to give distressed sinners as many grounds as possible for them to be sure that God has in fact forgiven them, so that they can be at peace and continue in worship with a peaceful and joyful heart.
Interestingly perhaps, as I've been reading this thread I'm struck more by the similarities than the differences.
Most of us who have posted on this thread, whether highly sacramental or otherwise, come from traditions where confession/absolution or acknowledgement of such forms part of the proceedings.
That might not be the case in 'non-denominational' settings for instance, although that doesn't mean there isn't a focus on repentance and forgiveness of course.
I'll start a thread about sacramental or auricular confession at some point but for the time being it strikes me that we are all coming ro the same destination in principle albeit from different directions in terms of praxis - whether Anglican, Lutheran, RC or Reformed.
Sure, some of us have a more 'sacerdotal' and sacramental approach than others but that doesn't mean we can't appreciate the prayers and scriptural texts deployed in those traditions which take a different approach.
I've enjoyed reading them and finding out more about them.
Comments
Speak for yourself ...
Sorry, Enoch - I should have said (and thanks Nick) - I am indeed in the Scottish Episcopal Church, and we use the liturgy from 1982 (unfortunately).
Not out of the blue right after the service in most Episcopal churches.
And again, I don’t see these differences in belief as intrinsically “marvelous.” I don’t understand that concept when it comes to different ideas about reality. I want to understand what’s true in someone’s beliefs, but once I do, then technically it’s no longer a difference in belief, since I would share it.
I do expect that everyone in every denomination, with or without liturgy, has various beliefs about what are needs, preferences, true or false doctrine, and the like, absolutely. And I’m absolutely glad that we don’t have one required religion or church as people did in the past, in presumably all of the regions Shipmates hail from. I’m not sure what to add there; I suppose what counts as “marvelous” is one of those differences in belief. I do believe that freedom of thought and religion is indeed “marvelous,” if that’s what everyone means.
@Nick Tamen, this was the comment I was originally responding to, specifically about my being troubled to (randomly) not be able to receive absolution in the Eucharistic liturgy. Especially given my sad/pitiful emoji, which wasn’t meant humorously, I have no idea how this is “marvelous” in any way.
I don’t think it’s only about practice—if one specifically believes that priests and bishops, ordained in Apostolic Succession, can give absolution, and I don’t know what @Leaf believes in that regard—they may or may not believe that, then that’s a significant doctrinal difference vs. those who don’t believe that way.
I’m inclined to think (but I don’t know) that those clergy, even in my own Episcopal communion, who leave it out—since that’s a pretty big deal if true—don’t regard absolution by a priest as very important. Again, no idea. It probably depends on the person, but if one believes in this, I can’t see what I consider a valid reason to leave it out, right before Communion, under any usual circumstances.
Again, I don’t expect everyone to believe as I do. But yes, to a degree this is about belief. As you say here,
Exactly.
I’m not sure how the position that every celebration of the Eucharist must include confession and absolution, particularly if one adheres to a certain view of the authority of priests and bishops in apostolic succession, squares with practices of the RCC or the Orthodox. The Roman Mass has a confession but doesn’t include a positive absolution, having instead the prayer “May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life.” Likewise, the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, to the best of memory, contains no form of confession at all, the assumption being that confession and absolution will have been dealt with individually prior to the Liturgy. Both those traditions most certainly believe in apostolic succession and the authority of priests to absolve, yet neither have a full-blown confession and absolution in their liturgies for the Eucharist. (I trust Catholic or Orthodox shipmates will set me straight if I’ve gotten their liturgical understandings and practices wrong.)
And I do note that the rubrics for both Rite I and Rite II of the Holy Eucharist in the Episcopal Church’s 1979 prayerbook say “On occasion, the Confession may be omitted.”
On the other hand, my tradition most definitely does not believe that priests and bishops ordained in apostolic succession have any authority to absolve that is not shared by all the baptized or by the church as a whole. But as I noted above, we tend to insist on confession and pardon. (We generally don’t use the word “absolution.”) So a practice of always including confession and absolution/pardon can be totally unrelated to belief in the authority of priests and bishops in apostolic succession
FWIW, the theory/justification I have heard for omitting the penitential rite on Easter is that Lent has essentially been one-long period of confession, while the Eucharist proclaims forgiveness, as does the Thanksgiving for Baptism, if observed.
And yes, I know that Lutherans don’t hold the same views of clergy. That would indeed be one difference in belief right there.
I generally know the reasoning behind not doing the confession and absolution that you mention (that Lent is penitential enough—not that the Eucharist confers absolution—I recall being told years ago at one church that Easter is a time of joyfulness, so that was why they dropped anything penitential)—as I suggested above, it’s not like we stop sinning just because it’s the season of Easter.
I know that the 1979 rubrics say that. I could say either “that doesn’t mean I agree with those rubrics” or “that doesn’t mean it’s wise to do so except in very rare, perhaps emergency, circumstances.”
But all of this is, indeed, an area in which we can all disagree. I don’t really know what else to add to that. (Well, that I don’t see the “marvelous” thing about disagreements in beliefs—which I guess is itself a disagreement in belief.)
The marvelous thing is that what unites us in Christ, as the source and center of our unity, is much stronger and more fundamental than our differing understandings and beliefs about the details, whether details of belief or practice. And that when we engage with one another rather than standing in judgment over differences, we grow and come closer to living out our unity in Christ.
I don’t think I’ve heard of Thanksgiving for Baptism until now, but after poking around, I think it’s Lutheran rather than Episcopalian.
https://www.reddit.com/r/elca/comments/1bpmjp4/history_of_the_thanksgiving_for_baptism/
I’ve not heard that the Eucharist proclaims forgiveness in that way—I mean, we’re told that if we eat or drink it unworthily, we’re eating and drinking judgement on ourselves, though I’ve basically said when worried about that, “Okay, God, I’m in Your Hands,” and trusted that any “judgement” in whatever form it comes will do me spiritual good even if it’s painful, like Purgatory. But I prefer to be able to simply receive the absolution in the part of the service where it normally is given, rather than fret and struggle in an unexpected moment of spiritual existential crisis in the middle of the service.
(Again, I don’t worry the way I used to. My life is a lot less fraught with stress and anguish than back in those days (yes, really—there’s just no comparison). But if I ever were in charge of a service for some reason (doubtful, lol), I’d remember the years of struggle and keep in mind that there may be parishioners going through the same in that service, and not deny them the reassurance of formal absolution before receiving Communion.)
I think I’d have to chew on some of what that means. There are even clergy in my own denomination whom (based on what they’ve specifically said about their beliefs) I don’t think are actually Christians in the first place (and of course lots of people in other churches whom I have spiritual agreement with even if there is much doctrinal/ecclesiological disagreement). I do agree about trusting and loving Jesus, and loving our neighbors, mattering more than those other things, even in some more extreme cases than some might allow for. So we may wholly agree on that.
Regarding the bolded, I’m sure you see the difference between “I prefer” and a matter of that should be binding on all.
With regard to the Eucharist proclaiming forgiveness of sins, you might take a look at the Catechism of the Episcopal Church in the ‘79 prayerbook, pp. 859–60:
I think it’s also reasonable to cite St. Paul: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” For Paul, proclaiming forgiveness of sins is, I think, part of what proclaiming the death of Christ means.
I understand that for the catechism, at least; whether St. Paul meant forgiveness of our specific, recent sins by the action of receiving Communion, I don’t know.
I’m not particularly saying what churches other than my own do or should do, with their varied beliefs about confession, absolution, the clergy/priesthood, or Communion. And again, the question of preparation for receiving the Body and the Blood is relevant.
It’s okay to disagree about these matters. We do. And again, it doesn’t affect me the same way now as it did before—but I’m sure there are those whom it does, who are suddenly not sure if they should receive if the absolution is skipped, those who are struggling with things they may not be able to talk about easily, for whom it’s an abrupt moral dilemma. For those people’s sake, I would never skip it in the Communion service.
Part of the Anglican patrimony of the Episcopal Church is the belief that we can directly confess our sins to God and receive absolution through that direct presentation. So if you’re concerned about the lack of confession during the Eucharistic service, as I am sometimes, then just confess directly on your way to receive the Sacrament.
When I was very young, I remember my parents going to the pastor's office about four times a year. They said they were going to announce their intentions to go to communion. It was much later, when I was in seminary, it dawned on me what they were actually doing was going to have a time of individual confession and absolution (Lutherans might say forgiveness),
Between the time I was that young kid and when I was in seminary, that practice had all but fell away in the churches I attended. While Lutherans would say Confession and Absolution is not a sacrament, it is sacramental in that it gives one the chance to have the grace of God address the particular concerns bothering the individual.
As I said previously, every contemporary Lutheran hymnal has the rite for individual confession and absolution/forgiveness in them.
I actually found myself using it a lot when I was a chaplain in the military, not only with those who were brought up with the practice, but also with many who came from a Baptist background, especially young airmen/women who were raised in strict homes suddenly finding themselves in a world that seemed to have no rules.
Even as a civilian minister I found myself using it with a number of teens and young adults who were finding their preconceived notions seemed to conflict with what was going around them.
There is value in being able to seek individual confession and absolution, I think. I know it seems every winter I go into a period of self-doubt and struggle with the faith. Often times I seek individual confession and absolution during those times. I now know I am going through a period of seasonal affective disorder, and I have learned a number of other coping mechanisms, but individual confession and absolution is still on the top of the list.
The first is worded as a wish, the second as an effective act, though dependant on penitence, a real desire to change and the performing of a penance.
How is the public absolution in the Eucharist worded in other traditions?
Then a declaration along these lines will be said after the confession:
The PC(USA)’s liturgical resources recommend that the confession and pardon be led from the baptismal font, as a way of grounding confidence in forgiveness in baptismal identity. Water is often poured into the font in connection with the declaration of forgiveness, in which case those words might make an explicit baptismal reference, like this:
We don’t have a set liturgy, so these are examples of what might be said, but they are pretty standard examples.
and perhaps the most classic one from the URC
Yes, CofE is almost always liturgically the priest doing it *to* the congregation (for want of a better expression), hence noticeable in lay led non-Eucharistic services like what I lead, where it’s all *we* asking for it.
That’s an interesting way of doing it, from a direction I know very little about. Food for thought.
Because we were buried
with Christ in these waters,
we are also raised to life with him.
Beloved in Christ, believe the good news!
In Jesus Christ we are forgiven.
Alleluia! Amen!
Grant, we beseech thee, merciful Lord, to thy faithful people pardon and peace; that they may be cleansed from all their sins, and serve thee with a quiet mind; through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.
P: If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
C: But if we confess our sin, God, who is faithful and just, will forgive our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
P: Let us then confess our sins unto God our Father.
All: Most merciful God, we confess ... For the sake of Your Son, Jesus Christ, have mercy on us. Forgive us, renew us, and lead us, so that we may delight in Your will and walk in Your ways to the glory of Your holy name. Amen.
P: Almighty God in his mercy has given his only Son to die for you and for his sake forgives you all your sins. As a called and ordained servant of Christ, and by his authority, I therefore forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
c: Amen.
As you can see, the first is based on 1 John 1:8-9 which is a promise that gets fulfilled right then and there as we confess.
The second ground which gets brought up multiple times is the central and most important ground, namely that Jesus died and rose for us.
The third is "As a called and ordained servant of Christ, and by his authority" which goes back to Luke 24, where Jesus gave his gathered disciples the authority to forgive sins.
Basically the idea here is to give distressed sinners as many grounds as possible for them to be sure that God has in fact forgiven them, so that they can be at peace and continue in worship with a peaceful and joyful heart.
Most of us who have posted on this thread, whether highly sacramental or otherwise, come from traditions where confession/absolution or acknowledgement of such forms part of the proceedings.
That might not be the case in 'non-denominational' settings for instance, although that doesn't mean there isn't a focus on repentance and forgiveness of course.
I'll start a thread about sacramental or auricular confession at some point but for the time being it strikes me that we are all coming ro the same destination in principle albeit from different directions in terms of praxis - whether Anglican, Lutheran, RC or Reformed.
Sure, some of us have a more 'sacerdotal' and sacramental approach than others but that doesn't mean we can't appreciate the prayers and scriptural texts deployed in those traditions which take a different approach.
I've enjoyed reading them and finding out more about them.