Skip to main content

Neither required nor encouraged: Lonsdale on private confession and absolution

In the last year of his life, 1867, John Lonsdale, Bishop of Lichfield, had to address one of the most theologically and culturally divisive aspects of Anglo-catholic practice in Victorian England: auricular confession. The promotion of auricular confession, as Nockles notes, was one of the most profound differences between the Old High tradition and the Tractarians: "Forgiveness was effectively made conditional upon the sacramental absolution administered by a priest in private confession in a way which the old High Churchmen deplored".

As recorded in The Life of John Lonsdale (1868), the Bishop was required to address the matter because of the controversy surrounding a boys' school in his diocese allowing pupils "by the permission of their parents only, to come to confession, and to receive absolution, if they are unable (as the Prayerbook says) by the usual means to satisfy their own conscience, and require further comfort or advice". Lonsdale carefully defended the practice, making it clear that it must be distinguished from the auricular confession increasingly promoted by Anglo-catholics:

Now, if the confession, which is allowed occasionally at [the school], approached at all to what is called 'auricular confession,' that is, the confession of the Church of Rome, that would at once, in my mind, be a fatal objection to my having anything to do with the place. The Church of Rome requires confession. We are met here to support a Church of England institution. The Church of England does not require confession. The Church of England, I should say, does not encourage confession; but the Church of England, under certain circumstances, permits it. Now I wish to be thoroughly understood. I am speaking to members of the Church, those who are acquainted with its formularies. The Church of England says, when persons are preparing to go to the Holy Communion, if they cannot satisfy their own minds after anxious self-examination and prayer, 'Let them go to one of its appointed ministers and open their minds to him.' This is only under the circumstance of preparation for the Holy Communion ...

The Church of England supplies it under those particular circumstances, but only as a preparation for the Holy Communion. Nothing will be done here but what the Church of England, as anybody will see by looking in his prayer book, sanctions in her formularies. 

Here we see a key Old High conviction: "the benefit of absolution" referenced in the first Exhortation in the Holy Communion was no justification for auricular confession.  No full confession of sins was required for this ministry. It was distinctly related to preparation for reception of the Sacrament. It was neither required nor encouraged. It was solely for those who could not quieten their conscience by other spiritual means. 

Once again, Lonsdale's teaching allows us to draw a similarity with what has been described as the 'low church' character of the Church of Ireland's 1878 revision of the Prayer Book.  The view expressed in the 1878 Preface, rather than being a straight-forwardly low church, evangelical position, perfectly accorded with the Old High understanding articulated by Lonsdale:

upon a full review of our Formularies, we deem it plain, and here declare that ... no power or authority is by them ascribed to the Church or to any of its Ministers in respect of forgiveness of sins after Baptism, other than that of declaring and pronouncing, on God's part remission of sins to all that are truly penitent, to the quieting of their conscience, and the removal of all doubt and scruple; nor is it anywhere in our Formularies taught or implied that confession to, and absolution by, a Priest are any conditions of God's pardon; but, on the contrary, it is fully taught that all Christians who sincerely repent, and unfeignedly believe the Gospel, may draw nigh, as worthy Communicants, to the Lord's Table without any such confession or absolution.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I support the ordination of women: a High Church reflection

A number of commenters on this blog have asked about my occasional expressions of support for the ordination of women to all three orders.  With some hesitation, I have decided to post a summary of my own views on this matter.  The hesitation is because I have sought on this blog to focus on issues and themes which can unify those who identify with or have respect (grudging or otherwise!) for what we might term 'classical' Anglicanism (the Anglicanism of the Formularies and - yes - of the Old High Church tradition).  Some oppose the ordination of women (and I have friends and colleagues who do so, Anglo-Catholic, High Church, and Reformed Evangelical).  Some of us support it (again, friends and colleagues covering a wide range of theological traditions). Below, I have organised my thinking around 5 points (needless to say, no reference to Dort is implied). 1. The Declaration for Subscription required of clergy in the Church of Ireland states: (6) I promise to submit ...

How the Old High tradition continued

Charles Gore's 1914 letter to the clergy of his diocese, ' The Basis of Anglican Fellowship ', can be regarded as a classical expression of the Prayer Book Catholic tradition.  A key part of the letter - entitled 'Romanizing in the Church of England' - addressed the "Catholic movement", questioning beliefs and practices within it which tended to "a position which makes it very difficult for its extremer representatives to give an intelligible reason why they are not Roman Catholics".  Gore provides the outlines of an alternative account and experience of catholicity within Anglicanism, defined by three characteristics.  What is particularly interesting about these characteristics is their continuity with the older High Church tradition.  Indeed, the central characteristic as set out by Gore was integral to High Church claims over centuries: To accept the Anglican position as valid, in any sense, is to appeal behind the Pope and the authority of t...

Pride, progressive sectarianism, and TEC on Facebook

Let me begin this post with an assumption that will be rejected by some readers of laudable Practice , but affirmed by other readers. Observing Pride is an understandable aspect of the public ministry of TEC.  On previous occasions , I have rather robustly called for TEC to be much more aware and respectful of the social conservatism of the Red states and regions in which it ministers. A failure to do so risks TEC declining yet further into the irrelevance of progressive sectarianism.  At the same time, TEC also obviously ministers in deep Blue states and metropolitan areas - and is the only Mainline Protestant tradition in which a majority of its members vote Democrat .* With Pride now an established civic commemoration, particularly in such contexts, there is a case for TEC affirming those aspects of Pride - the dignity of gay men and lesbian women, their contribution to civic life, and their place in the church's life - which cohere with a Christian moral vision. (I will n...