What is in Kelvin's Head?

The Sacraments: Reconciliation

11/08/2016

People sometimes know the sacrament of reconciliation by another name – sometimes people call it Penance and sometimes people call it Confession which, strictly speaking is only a part of what is going on. In the sacrament of reconciliation, the idea is that people are brought back into a right relationship with God and get the chance to sort out whatever it is that they have done which seems to be separating them from God and to hear afresh the news that their sins are forgiven.

There are two formal ways in which people within an Anglican/Episcopal tradition get the chance to confess sins and hear of God’s forgiveness.

During many of the liturgies of the church the people confess their sins by reciting a simple prayer. This is followed by the assurance of God’s forgiveness which is pronounced by a priest, something which is called absolution. The idea is that this gives everyone present the opportunity to call to mind those times and places where they feel they have fallen short of being the person that God might want them to be and indeed fallen short of their own best expectations too. Simply reciting the prayer without taking the chance to think of the things in life that one regrets and desires forgiveness for does not constitute the sacrament of reconciliation. The sacrament depends completely on what is happening inside a person and is not simply about the form of words that they use. In this, reconciliation is like the other sacraments – outward symbols conveying deep spiritual realities.

The other way that someone might experience the sacrament of reconciliation is by meeting with a priest on a one-to-one basis to make a confession. A common way for this to happen is for the person to make an appointment with the priest. The priest and the penitent may meet for a discussion about what is on the person’s mind before completing the sacrament with a simple liturgical invitation to name before God those sins which the person wishes to confess. Once these have been outlined by the person, the priest may give some advice and then pronounce in God’s name that those sins have been forgiven. In participating in the sacrament in this way, the priest and the penitent enter into an agreement that what is discussed there is not discussed elsewhere. This “seal of the confessional” is binding on the person seeking forgiveness as well as upon the person pronouncing God’s forgiveness.

In our tradition we have a rule about confessing sins to a priest – “All may, none must, some should”. The sacrament is available to all members of the church and indeed is sometimes sought by those who don’t belong to the church in any other way. However, there is never any compulsion that anyone must go to confession. You don’t have to make a confession at any time for any reason other than that you feel the need to do so. It is our experience as a community though that some people do need to make this a part of their spiritual practise and for them, they should seek it regularly.

All priests in the Scottish Episcopal Church are required by Canon Law to hear a confession if someone asks them to hear one or to point them towards another priest who is able to hear it if they themselves are not able to do so for some reason.

The seal of the confession is regarded as absolute. What is discussed in the course of this ministry is never discussed elsewhere.

Some people have the tradition of asking for a penance when the priest has pronounced forgiveness. A penance is not a punishment for sin – sin has already been forgiven. A penance is the chance to take on a small spiritual discipline or an activity that will remind the person that they have been forgiven and help them to reorientate their life towards God. A penance is not supposed to be arduous but to be a joyful and life-affirming reminder of why forgiveness was sought and that forgiveness was given.

Confession is about turning our lives around. One of the technical words for this is metanoia a Greek word which refers to changing one’s mind in a way that analogous to turning and facing in a new direction. Repentance is at the heart of confession and is the consequence of wanting to put things right with the world and with God. God’s forgiving love is the inevitable consequence of someone’s sincere repentance.

Frequently Asked Questions

What if a priest heard someone confess to a murder or from someone who said they were going to harm someone – shouldn’t they report it to the police
People often ask this question about confession but it is a bit of a distraction from the simple and beautiful task of restoring someone’s relationship with God which is usually a good deal less dramatic than this. The sacrament of reconciliation for almost everyone, almost all the time, isn’t about the consequences of murders.

Yes but what if…?
A priest is free to respond to this situation in the way that they feel best. One thing that they might insist on would be to make an pronouncement of absolution conditional on an act such as reporting oneself to the authorities.

Won’t I feel funny seeing the priest and knowing that they know things about me that I would rather someone else didn’t know?
Most priests who hear confessions regularly will remark that God gives them the gift of forgetting what people say in confession. The priest isn’t a scapegoat and doesn’t absorb the sins that she or he hears someone confess. Most people engaged in this kind of ministry learn how to put things out of their minds very quickly for their own good and the good of those coming for confession.

Can any priest hear confessions?
Yes, but it is wise for someone to have had a few years of priestly ministry and be instructed by a more experienced priest in hearing confessions before they do so regularly.Does

a confession have to be heard in church?
No – a confession can be heard anywhere and sometimes take place in very public places such as train stations, airports or even on the battlefield before conflict. Sometimes they take place in places like hospitals or hospices where sometimes the sacrament may become important to someone if they know that they are likely to die soon. However in our tradition, it is most common for a confession to be heard in church by prior arrangement with a priest.

Is there a confessional box at St Mary’s?
No – confessions are usually heard in a quiet side chapel

41 responses to “The Columba Declaration”

Edward Andrews

11/02/2016

As Anglicans get down to the important issue of the niceties of Theology, lets get into the broad brush situation.
The relationships between the Churches of the Celtic tradition and the Southern tradition have been fraught since the 7th Century (Whitby). Part of the whole question surrounding the war of Independence (and before with King David was teh independence of the Scottish Church.
The irony is that the present attempt is to bring the Churches of the united Kingdom together may well blow back on them. While the Kirk today doesn’t mean much in Scotland the most secular part of the UK I’m not convinsed that playing footise over Bishops is going to impress the older members – the ones who voted No.
The fact is that the Scottish Episcopal Church has the Anglican franchise in Scotland. It is an authentic Scottish Church (especially if you ignore the instances when it has gone to England for Episcopal ordination.) and to negotiate over its head about something so sensitive it at the best discourteous.
Those of the reformed tradition don’t get wound up by the antics of a few Episcopalians. We seek whatever degree of true unity is available to us, but do not see the need for uniformity. I spent some very pleasant years as a guest of the Scottish Episcopal Church when the climate of the Kirk became unattractive to me, and am grateful for the table fellowship which I received.
The site of two big boys presuming to set things up is not pleasing. For the information of those who want to get up tight about the real presence, that is what the reformed tradition believes, we are Calvinists not followers of Zwingli. I am not going to seek to discuss which Greer philosopher we get our understanding of existence from.

Reply
Father David

12/02/2016

Father Ron: let us not forget that the great Arthur Michael Ramsey was born an ecumenical baby. His maternal Grandfather was Vicar of Horbling in Lincolnshire and his paternal Grandfather was a Congregationalist Minister. His Anglican Grandfather baptised him and when in adult years he visited Horbling parish church he was deeply moved when standing by the font – the place where this great man of God began his Christian pilgrim journey. However, as a child he worshipped with his family at the Congregationalist church in Cambridge. To the great benefit of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion – the kind of High Jinks that took place next door at Little St. Mary’s proved to be an attractive magnet and so the pull of Anglo-Catholicism brought to us a spiritual giant and a contender (in company with William Temple) for the title of the greatest Archbishop of Canterbury of the 20th century and a man who yearned and longed for Christian Unity.
Edward Andrews: Even as we all long and hope for the unity of all Christians your words are wise when you point to unity not uniformity.

Reply
Keith Barber

12/02/2016

Cynic I may be, but my first response is to ask what is the hidden agenda. For I’m pretty certain there will be one, whether it’s about trying to create an ecclesiastical bulwark against disintegration of the UK or get ++Welby an ally or two in the aftermath of the huge and hostile reaction to the Anglican Primates’ decision to punish TEC (sorry Kelvin) for its moves towards inclusion of LGBT people.

Reply
1. Jeremy Bates
  
  13/02/2016
  
  Or perhaps it’s like the Easter-calendar announcement–a convenient way of changing the subject, at Synod and elsewhere.
  
  Reply
Father Ron Smith

12/02/2016

Whatever the motivation for this ‘secret’ accord with the Church of Scotland; simple courtesy would require that the Church of England promoters consult with their Episcopally governed equivalent in Scotia.

Another point is this; do the Presbyerians realise that they may have signed up to the catholic premise of recognition of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Holy Communion? Are they happy with that?

Reply
1. Edward Andrews
  
  12/02/2016
  
  Well actually the Presbyterians believe “Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.” You will see the word real is there. Don’t know what the 39 articles say you believe.
  Those of us who are big on the real presence use the Platonic rather than the Aristotelian understanding of reality.
  
  Reply
  1. Father Ron Smith
    
    12/02/2016
    
    Not believers, then, in con-substantiation? Freely translated as bread and wine ‘together with’ the Body and Blood of Christ? Note, not the more literal trans-substantiation, which would nean the disappearance of the bread and wine. (although as some of my more scientific friends would say, this is a tautology.
    
    What all must agree on, though, is that some members of the Church of England, and many of its constituent partner Churches of the Anglican Communion, do have a problem with the ‘Real Presence’ – a reality that, for me, and I suspect most Anglican Catholics, means that the substance of the bread and wine consecrated at the Eucharist is truly “The Body and Blood of Christ” in accordance with the dominical instruction: “This IS my Body, my Blood” (Not, you will notice, “this REPRESENTS my Body, my Blood”). ‘A Sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace’ – this saying sums it all up pretty well, I think
    
    Reply
    1. Kelvin
      
      12/02/2016
      
      I think it is time to draw the discussion about the real presence to a close on this comment thread. It is hardly the main point and I’ve never ever known a comment thread about transubstantiation to be constructive.
      
      Comments on the Columba Declaration welcome. Comments trying to explain what transubstantiation *really* means – not so much.
      
      Reply
      1. Edward Andrews
        
        12/02/2016
        
        Thank you Kelvin. As I see it the C of E has come poaching in your preserves. This is wrong and unhelpful. If there were going to be Anglican/Presbyterian dialogue the SEC should be the lead player. I have my own problems with the declaration as a Member of the Church of Scotland who seeks an end to the United Kingdom. However as a Catholic Christian I am in solidarity with my SEC brothers and sisters who have been left out of the loop. Both the Cof E synod and the Kirk’ General Assembly should reject the document, but I don’t suppose that they will.
Augur Pearce

16/02/2016

A contribution to the ‘establishment’ discussion: In my book the terms ‘establish’ and ‘Church of England’ both have more than one meaning. ‘Establish’, for example, can mean ‘set up, bring into existence’ (sense E1), or it can mean ‘endow, privilege’ (sense E2).

Most people who use it of the C of E use it in sense E2, and they understand the C of E (in what I might call sense C3) as an association with its own rules, distinct from the English nation but privileged by law in various ways (with some concomitant obligations).

In fact I think this describes the C of S position fairly well, but is quite wrong as regards the C of E. The C of E (I contend) is not distinct from the kingdom of England, it is that kingdom ‘wearing its spiritual hat’ (sense C1). England, as church, has various spiritual responsibilities to discharge, and in order to do so, it establishes (=creates; sense E1), by its law, a complex of specialist institutions, offices, rules, and assets which itself becomes known derivatively as the C of E (sense C2).

One clear example of how the C of E (in sense C1) and the C of S have been differently understood from very early times is found in comparing Richard Hooker’s well-known words ‘There is not any man of the Church of England, but the same man is also a member of the commonwealth, nor any man a member of the commonwealth which is not also of the Church of England…’ with the Church Act 1567, declaring those ‘quha outher gainsayis the word of the Evangell ressavit and apprevit as the heidis of the Confessioun of Faith professit in Parliament of befoir in the yeir of God 1560 … or that refusis the participatioun of the haly sacramentis as thay ar now ministrat, to be na memberis of the said Kirk within this realme now presently professit’.

The Church of England, in short, is simply England; the Church of Scotland is a privileged sectional group.

Reply
1. Seph
  
  17/02/2016
  
  If this be so, it strikes me as uncomfortably caesaropapist. This may be one of the things that makes me uncomfortable when I am down south and find myself in a C of E church.
  
  Reply