The Church's responsibility in the Sacraments

[pmcleanj]

In this post the word "Church" means "The mystical Body of Christ, which is the blessed company of all faithful people" -- that is to say, you, me, and the guy at the end of the pew who looks funny.

When my darling daughters were baptized, the congregation stood up in church, listened to the priest's question "will you who witness these vows do all that is in your power to support these people in their new life in Christ?", and answered aloud, "We will!"

The next week, and for the next 250 weeks, give or take, one or another of the ACW ladies would discretely suggest to me that actually bringing my baby/toddler(s) into Church was inappropriate behaviour and that everyone would be better off if I conformed to the norms and left my children with the child-minder in the church basement like all the other young mothers. Having a strong paedagogical foundation myself, I ignored this bad advice and kept on bringing my children where they could hear the Liturgy, see and touch the iconography, smell the incense, and taste and see that the Lord is good. The good ladies responded with harassment that ended in us worshipping elsewhere for the sake of the children.

The ironic part is that most of those ladies were there, and opened their mouths, and apparently voiced that ringing "We Will" along with every other member of the congregation.

We have seven sacraments. Although many of them seem personal or individual -- unction, reconciliation, and marriage in particular -- all the sacraments are given to the Church and intended for building up of the Church.

In another thread, Crazy Liz offered what I thought was a profoundly insightful post on the role that a divorce liturgy could play for the Church:
I'm not Anglican, but I hope this "fellowship post" might provide a little food for thought. I have often thought a divorce liturgy was needed as a way for the community of faith to acknowledge its own responsibility for a marriage that failed.

Not that the church is 100% responsible, but it shares responsibility. The refusal of churches to acknowledge this is a major contributing factor to the high divorce rate among Christians.

We similarly have the occasional rite for reaffirmation of baptismal vows by adults who are returning to the church after having "fallen away". In most Anglican jurisdictions, very little emphasis if any is placed on the "penitence" of the returning believer. But in those jurisdictions that do frame this rite as "Reception of a Penitent", commentors have similarly remarked on the need for the Church to express its penitence over the alienation or lack of nurture that caused the "lost sheep" to get lost in the first place. Whatever it was, was it not a violation of that mutual responsibility we have in Baptism, to do all that is in our power to support one another in our new life in Christ?

That both Matrimony and Baptism offer us examples of the Church's failing to fulfil our sacramental calling, begs the question of how we may be failing in our responsibility regarding the other sacraments. Certainly we can all think of examples where we have failed to support the Sacrament of Ordination, by undermining our own Priests and Bishops.

But the more important question is not, how have we failed to live up to our responsibilities; but rather, what are we called to do in order to fulfill our responsibilities to one another in the Sacraments?

[ahab]

Hi Pmcleanj,



The problem is that even though my local Anglican Church has little liturgy to hear, no concept of iconography to touch, no incense to smell we know the Lord is good.:amen:



The gifts of the spirit are given by God to build up the church. I understand that the two main sacraments, baptism and eucharist along with other rites or sacraments includes marriage.In another thread, Crazy Liz offered what I thought was a profoundly insightful post on the role that a divorce liturgy could play for the Church:

What divorce liturgy? Divorce needs no liturgy, Marriage is recognised as something that should be for life, Jesus tells us that is God’s will and purpose. The church has no business writing liturgy to divorce people. It’s a different gospel, it has no scripture, tradition or reason.

[AveMaria]

*Hoping this doesn't turn into another discussion about the unofficial divorce liturgy*


Pmcleanj, you've raised some excellent points/questions. I'll admit, I've got mixed feelings on children in church, but I've come to the realization that my contention is with poor parenting, not with the little ones. There are some children in my parish who are a delight and a joy, and whose parents actually interact with them, set boundaries, and discipline when necessary. Then, there are others, who think it's perfectly okay for their offspring to amuse themselves during the service by coloring in the pew Bibles and throwing temper tantrums because they'd rather be at McDonalds.

I've recently become involved with the Children's Chapel ministry, teaching the next generation the 'why' and the 'how' of our worship, and it's been an incredible experience. Odd thing is, I'm not particularly fond of children, but I strongly felt God wanted me to do this, both as a way of pushing my own boundaries and as a way of upholding those baptismal vows.

I, too, read CrazyLiz's post re: divorce liturgy with interest - it seems to me, that a church that recognizes and permits divorce should at least explore and dialogue the possibility of such a liturgy. It could have wonderful healing applications, particularly in a smaller parish, where both the (ex) husband and (ex) wife and any children all continue attending the same service - too often, family friends and relatives feel caught in the middle, as though they must support one member of the former couple, at the expense of the other. Perhaps a public recognition, within the religious/spiritual community framework, would be a very healthy thing?

Getting back to your question, "What are we called to do in order to fulfill our responsibilities to one another in the Sacraments?". I need to think and pray over this one a bit - interestingly enough, it's something I've been thinking about a bit, in the back of my mind. I'll be back to this thread later, I promise!

[The Lord is my banner]

But the more important question is not, how have we failed to live up to our responsibilities; but rather, what are we called to do in order to fulfill our responsibilities to one another in the Sacraments?

Maybe a liturgy would be helpful in the way you suggest, I don't know. It'd be a tough service to attend for anyparty - divorced partners, family, the priest...
Maybe it could bring healing, reconciliation, aid the grieving for the loss. i don't know.

I don't honestly know the answer to your question. It means basically getting real with each other.
Being brave enough to do it, or being compassionate enough to deal with our own discomfort when we allow people to fall apart in front of us and ask for help.
And still being brave enough to try to ask for help yet once more, offering our brothers ans sisters another chance to get it right, even when they've let us down so painfully often.

Is it possible? Not for man I'd say, and I think the evidence of experience for most of us most of the time backs me up.

But with God, all things are possible, and maybe there are churches out there who are getting it a lot nearer right than ours.

I'm sorry your little daughters were not made welcome in the services, that's particularly dreadful. Don't they remember Jesus rebuked his closest friends for just this?

Blessings, Susana

[TomUK]

Not really too relevant to this discussion, but there's a family who occasionaly come to church, and watching their little boy who is about 3 or something trying to genuflect was one of the sweetest things i ever saw.

My strongest memory of church when i was younger was resenting being taken out fo the service and made to go to Sunday school every week. I got so much out of just sitting in church, and like you say, smelling the insence, asking questions about why the men wear funny dresses etc. that i think it is a great shame when any child is deprived of such a privilege. And if any children start getting a bit a noisy, then whey do you think they give you heavy hymnals each week...? ;)

[pmcleanj]

That's once.

The problem is that even though my local Anglican Church has little liturgy to hear, no concept of iconography to touch, no incense to smell we know the Lord is good.

"Taste and see that the Lord is good" was a liturgical allustion to the phrase "Taste and see that the Lord is good. Happy are they that trust in him" used in several CCT Eucharistic liturgies, and taken from Psalm 34 verse 8. It illustrates the role of direct personal empirical experience of God in building a faith relationship with God.

What divorce liturgy?

In speaking of a divorce liturgy, I used the phrase " the role that a divorce liturgy could play". "Could" is in the conditional voice, which in English grammar indicates a situation whose existence is predicated on some other event. Crazy Liz used the phrase "often thought a divorce liturgy was needed", indicating an event occuring within the domain of thought and ideas. These phraseology indicate that we are speaking of a hypothetical liturgy which may or may not ever exist.

Divorce needs no liturgy, Marriage is recognised as something that should be for life, Jesus tells us that is God’s will and purpose. The church has no business writing liturgy to divorce people. It’s a different gospel, it has no scripture, tradition or reason.

In her post, Crazy Liz explained the function of a divorce liturgy as being "for the community of faith to acknowledge its own responsibility for a marriage that failed." I spoke of a divorce liturgy specifically in the context of its similarity to Reconciliation of a Penitent, where "commentors have similarly remarked on the need for the Church to express its penitence". We are not speaking about a liturgy "to divorce people", that is, to effect (bring about, accomplish, cause to exist) the status of "divorce" between two married persons. We are talking about a liturgy that responds to a divorce that has occurred prior to the Church's taking any action relating to the divorce.

The Church could for example respond with a Penitential service (which is scriptural, traditional, and reasonable) acknowledging the community's culpability in the divorce. Or it could respond with a Healing service (also scriptural, traditional, and reasonable) addressing the spiritual burden borne by those impacted by the divorce, or with some combination of the two.

Does your congregation have any divorced members? How does your congregation reach out to members who find themselves facing the painful reality of divorce?

[pmcleanj]

I've recently become involved with the Children's Chapel ministry, teaching the next generation the 'why' and the 'how' of our worship, and it's been an incredible experience. Odd thing is, I'm not particularly fond of children, but I strongly felt God wanted me to do this, both as a way of pushing my own boundaries and as a way of upholding those baptismal vows.

I really admire this! Having seen first-hand how easy those baptismal vows are to ignore, to see someone convicted by them to make this kind of effort, outside of her comfort zone to boot, is inspiring. (I'd quibble with the phrase "next generation" on the grounds that baptized children are as much part of the current church as adults are, but I'm so in awe of your generosity that I'm just going to sneak the quibble in as a parenthetical aside :sorry: )

I've come to the realization that my contention is with poor parenting, not with the little ones. There are some children in my parish who are a delight and a joy, and whose parents actually interact with them, set boundaries, and discipline when necessary. Then, there are others, who think it's perfectly okay for their offspring to amuse themselves during the service by coloring in the pew Bibles and throwing temper tantrums because they'd rather be at McDonalds.

It's hard for me to realize that over the twelve years since I started bucking the stream, I've become one of those redoubtable matrons who used to gall me. Of course, I started this childbearing thing late, so I got a head-start on matronhood.

I'm inclined to give those "poor parents" a lot of slack. For one thing, the prevalence of child-minding during the service, and the generally aging congregations prevalent in Canada's Anglican churches, means that in many places they have no role models for how to cope with children in church. Then too, I really believe that when the parents gave their children up in Baptism, for adoption into God's family, we the Church received those children back as "weaker brothers and sisters" to be nurtured -- not just in the faith, but in the fine art of not colouring in the pew Bibles. That's why I bring extra "pew-work" each week, so that I can slip a lectionary-based colouring sheet to disengaged children; and why the girls and I are making "baby banners" to engage the toddlers and babies who are too young for pew-work.

[pmcleanj]

I'm sorry your little daughters were not made welcome in the services, that's particularly dreadful. Don't they remember Jesus rebuked his closest friends for just this?

The theme of my retreat last weekend was "Surviving the Locusts", and being unwelcome at my own church home of fifteen years was certainly a locust time for me. But just as "God will repay you for the years the Locust has eaten", we've certainly survived the loss and flourished. Our new congregation has been a powerful spiritual home for us.

And the old congregation didn't lose much: it was a heritage congregation of "old families" then, and still is. They have few children, none of whom (even the teens) actually attend church. But the parish sustained by a continuous influx of young singles moving into the inner city where they are located, who move on again after a few years leaving the social base of the old families intact. In a few years my own daughter, who last March was catechized and sponsored for confirmation by the rector of that parish, will probably be one of those transient singles. It will be interesting to see what happens.

[CSMR]

In this post the word "Church" means "The mystical Body of Christ, which is the blessed company of all faithful people"
(This is the true church.)
-- that is to say, you, me, and the guy at the end of the pew who looks funny.
(This is the visible church, something different.)
In another thread, Crazy Liz offered what I thought was a profoundly insightful post on the role that a divorce liturgy could play for the Church:
Divorce is a problem the church has to see and recognise - it must help marriages and divorced people. The problem of a divorce liturgy would be:
- a single liturgy is unable to distinguish the cases of fault on one side or both, and therefore cannot involve repentance of the divorcing parties except in a general way
- the church is not officially expected to establish fault in any case
- the church too may or may not be at fault in some way, and therefore the church cannot be called to repent since it may not be in the wrong
I do not know what we are left with then in a liturgy except a prayer for healing which will be so general as to be indistinguishable from the asking for healing that is done in every service.

So I think that dealing with divorcees on an individual and personal basis is better than rehearsing a liturgy about divorce (not that the two things are exclusive).
We similarly have the occasional rite for reaffirmation of baptismal vows by adults who are returning to the church after having "fallen away". In most Anglican jurisdictions, very little emphasis if any is placed on the "penitence" of the returning believer. But in those jurisdictions that do frame this rite as "Reception of a Penitent", commentors have similarly remarked on the need for the Church to express its penitence over the alienation or lack of nurture that caused the "lost sheep" to get lost in the first place. Whatever it was, was it not a violation of that mutual responsibility we have in Baptism, to do all that is in our power to support one another in our new life in Christ?
The church may however be completely faultless and still have people "fall away" in some sense. If it could have done more, then certainly it is a very important responsibility to do it.
That both Matrimony and Baptism offer us examples of the Church's failing to fulfil our sacramental calling, begs the question of how we may be failing in our responsibility regarding the other sacraments. Certainly we can all think of examples where we have failed to support the Sacrament of Ordination, by undermining our own Priests and Bishops.

But the more important question is not, how have we failed to live up to our responsibilities; but rather, what are we called to do in order to fulfill our responsibilities to one another in the Sacraments?
Not everything is a sacrament. That said our support of members of the church, while not a sacrament, is an important calling which I thank you for reminding us about. I certainly have certainly been guilty of indifference here.

[ahab]

Hi Pmccleanj,

In speaking of a divorce liturgy, I used the phrase "". "Could" is in the conditional voice,When I say there isn’t any scriptural support for blessing a marriage separation its means that there shouldn’t be a divorce liturgy. So do you agree that marriage is recognised as something that should be for life, Jesus tells us that is God’s will and purpose. The church has no business writing liturgy to divorce people. It’s a different gospel, it has no scripture, tradition or reason.
Or not?
Does your congregation have any divorced members? How does your congregation reach out to members who find themselves facing the painful reality of divorce?We have cell fellowship and we do have to support some of each other in marriage difficulties. However, not just any divorce in the past, but any difficulties within marriage can be healed by Jesus. My church would not understand any concept of a divorce liturgy, and neither would most of the Anglican communion (thank God for African and Southern Cone Bishops) nor, I am sure, would they understand any useful value in such a liturgy.

[Wiffey]

Re: the OP...

I like your thoughts on community and its role in nurturing the individuals and couples within the church.

When a parish really reaches out and makes an effort to support families in their struggles and draw them into the community, it is a beautiful thing.

[pmcleanj]

That's twice.

When I say there isn’t any scriptural support for blessing a marriage separation its means that there shouldn’t be a divorce liturgy.
No, actually, it doesn't. "Isn't any scriptural support for" differs in semantic content from "there shouldn't be". Any of us can list a nearly infinite number of phenomena, from indoor plumbing to philharmonic orchestras, which lack "any scriptural support" and yet probably "should be".

Also, "blessing a marriage separation" is not equivalent to the more generic phrase "a divorce liturgy". A liturgy can indeed involve blessing. But, it can alternately involve reconciliation or healing, which is the form of liturgy that I specifically alluded to with the words "a Penitential service ... or ... a Healing service". For you to argue against a service of blessing in refutation of my speculation about a service of penitence or healing is disingenuous -- or were you sincerely confused?


So do you agree that marriage is recognised as something that should be for life, Jesus tells us that is God’s will and purpose.

The sacrament of marriage is in its outward and visible form, physical intimacy between husband and wife, and by inward and spiritual grace is the ontological union of their souls. The normative form of the marriage liturgy includes a vow for "as long as we both shall live". So yes, sacramental marriage is, doctrinally, for life.

The reality of real people's lives as actually lived out in this fallen world, is that some marriages are not for life. Some real people do screw up their lives, do suffer real hurt, do really chose divorce as the real lesser of two evils, do really struggle to continue to live and even contribute to their community, after the real-world experience of divorce. One way the Church has dealt with this divergence between doctrine, and observed reality, is to close its eyes to the real-world experiences that challenge doctrine. Unfortunately, that approach also requires that the Church close its eyes to the needs of the people who had those real-world experiences.

We have cell fellowship and we do have to support some of each other in marriage difficulties. It is very good that you support each other in marriage difficulties. How does your congregation reach out to members who find themselves facing the painful reality of divorce?Or do none of those marriage difficulties end in divorce? Are they all overcome? Or ... do some who suffer marriage difficulties that they do not manage to overcome, have to leave your congregation to find the support they need to survive divorce?

Incidentally, "it has no scripture, tradition or reason" is not a magic phrase to reinforce your arguments. You actually have to show the scripture, the tradition, the use of reason.

[pmcleanj]

(This is the visible church, something different.)
Not entirely different, but a subset, true. Though I've observed the Church Triumphant doesn't seem to be as prone to failure with regard to its responsibilities to support one another.

[CSMR]

a subset
hmm
Though I've observed the Church Triumphant doesn't seem to be as prone to failure with regard to its responsibilities to support one another.
:D

[ahab]

Hi Pmcleanj,

No, actually, it doesn't. "Isn't any scriptural support for" differs in semantic content from "there shouldn't be". Yes as far as semantics goes that is true, I would agree with you there, but what I meant was, the purpose for marriage in creation is a faithful marriage between a man and a woman. I am sorry pmcleanj, but Jesus said what God has joined together, let no man separate. That’s about as ‘no blessing of a divorce’ liturgy as I can see.
My church supports its members in marriage difficulties with prayer love and in practical ways. We look to Jesus who is our healer, a liturgy would be of no good to us, rather it would be damaging as scripture indicates God would very much not bless it. We can receive complete forgiveness and healing from Jesus and be healed and renewed in the victory He has won for us. Can I ask, has your congregation got this revelation?

[CSMR]

Jesus said what God has joined together, let no man separate.
Doesn't this apply only to the person who breaks the marriage Covenant? For instance Jesus clearly allowed divorce when one spouse is unfaithful, didn't he? If there has been no breach then divorce is wrong, but if there has, then the separation has already occured and can be recognised.

[ahab]

Hi CSMR,

Yes you are correct, but what I meant was the Jesus was showing what God's purpose actually is, as opposed to what had occured because their hearts were hard. So we aren't condemned by the law, but we are set free and live by the Spirit. Therefore, we dont try and bless something that is against God's will and purpose. :)

[pmcleanj]

Three times. Oh well

Until the internet is able to transmit pheromones and body language, we're going to have to rely on semantics in order to communicate with each other. Grammar and spelling help too. Of course, if you aren't trying to communicate, you don't need to limit yourself in that way -- but it's hard to see how "not communicating" can help build community here.

You'll see in my previous post to which you are responding, that I have already acknowledged that the Sacrament of Marriage, of which the inward and visible part is God's joining of a husband and wife, functions "as long as we both shall live". You'll also see, when you read it, that I have not been addressing a liturgy of blessing, but of reconciliation and healing.

It is never pleasant to stand in need of reconciliation and healing. It is never pleasant to face the suffering of two people whose marriage shows no evidence of God's having a hand in their joining. It's unpleasant to face the realities in our congregations that sometimes, marriage difficulties are not overcome but instead lead to divorce. I understand from repeated avoidance of my direct inquiry, that you wish to avoid these unpleasant realities, so I am dropping the question.

Can I ask, has your congregation got this revelation?
My congregation uses the same Scriptures and relies on the same Tradition as the rest of the Anglican communion; and within normal human statistical variation, as observed everywhere including on this board, has the same faculties of reason as the rest of the Anglican communion. No special revelations to anyone; no special gaps in anyone's revelation, either.

[ahab]

Hi pmcleanj,



I haven’t disagreed with the idea of healing.



This isn’t a special revelation. I guess our congregations don’t have the same revelation. Failure in divorce, but restoration, victory and healing and blessing found in Christ Jesus, not in divorce or liturgy.

:)

[Bonifatius]

Hi pmcleanj,



I haven’t disagreed with the idea of healing.



This isn’t a special revelation. I guess our congregations don’t have the same revelation. Failure in divorce, but restoration, victory and healing and blessing found in Christ Jesus, not in divorce or liturgy.

:)
Hi Ahab,

do you agree that
1. there are marriages even marriages of faithful Christians that do fail?
2. that scripture does not forbid divorce in any case but that there are circumstances when a divorce is possible (or maybe even the only way out of a hopeless situation)?

It is true that God's design is about lifelong and true marital covenant, but our human weakness sometimes fails to achieve this aim. When there is no hope of reviving a marriage (for whatever reason) a liturgy may provide a framework for the couple to deal with this situation, to seek and offer forgiveness, to let the partner go, to find ways into the future and to affirm God's presence and healing even in the midst of our own suffering and failure. The liturgy does not bless the act of divorce, that would be blessing our human failure. But it does make sense to me that a marriage that was blessed in an act of worship should also come to an end in God's presence. Maybe some friends and family could join this kind of service, but basically I think this is for the parting couple and the priest (and God, of course).

[ahab]

Hi Bonifatius,





1. there are marriages even marriages of faithful Christians that do fail?

Oh yes.

2. that scripture does not forbid divorce in any case but that there are circumstances when a divorce is possible (or maybe even the only way out of a hopeless situation)? Yes, scripture indicates a divorce may be because of adultery for example, and there are all kinds of reasons why a marriage may fail or a divorce may be inevitable.

Forgive me for being blunt but personally I cant see any possible point in a liturgy for something we can receive through what Jesus has already done. We mess up and repent and we can press on.

I dont understand what framework there is in a liturgy. We aren’t limited to a liturgy and a formal act of worship to come into God’s presence are we?:)

[AveMaria]

Getting back to the OP, what about the other sacraments? Any thoughts, anyone?

[CSMR]

Why would a marriage between faithful Christians fail?

[AveMaria]

Why would a marriage between faithful Christians fail?
General incompatibility?

[ahab]

Hi AveMaria,

CSMR is right. What do mean by general incompatibility, surely there is some general incompatibility within any relationship. However if both theh husband and the wife put Christ first, then their partner, then there won't be a failed marriage. IMO its when we don't put God first and our neighbour second we start thinking about frameworks for the failure.

[AveMaria]

Ok, let me try and expand on that.

Say, for example, two faithful Christians of very different denominations, with very different views on itopics such as infant baptism, precisely what the whole submissive wives bit is about, birth control, and ordination of women.

Or on how any resulting children should be raised and disciplined - that was the main reason my parents divorced, they couldn't find any common ground to compromise.

[ahab]

Hi AveMaria,



Yes I agreed there could be some issues that aren’t for compromise, but that would include a divorce liturgy too.:)



However, baptism is something Jesus said is required, the debate would be on whether infant or not, divorce isn’t required, so no divorce liturgy debate needed.

[Bonifatius]

However if both theh husband and the wife put Christ first, then their partner, then there won't be a failed marriage. IMO its when we don't put God first and our neighbour second we start thinking about frameworks for the failure.Why do even faithful Christians sin?
If we were already perfect we would not need to think about this. But we are not (and I hope you agree with that as well).

And please, we have tried to explain what we mean when we talk about this liturgy, so please don't call it a "divorce liturgy" in the sense of having a divorce blessed. Let's call it a "service of healing and reconciliation in the situation of a failing marriage" or whatever.

[ahab]

Hi Bonifatius,



And please, we have tried to explain what we need by the liturgy, so please don't call it a divorce liturgy in the sense of having a divorce blessed. Let's call it a "service of healing and reconciliation in the situation of a failing marriage" or whatever. I can go along more with a service of healing and reconciliation. :) Sorry but the issue isn’t just concerning the topical bizarre ‘blessing of divorce’ proposal CT exposed, but a fundamental question as to why we need a ‘liturgy' for healing specifically in the case of divorce. I am sorry but it seems we have such different theologies. To me it is like saying I am healed through a 'liturgy' rather than I am healed through Christ Jesus.

[Bonifatius]

Hi Ahab,

liturgies are no means in themselves, liturgies and rituals are channels through which we can receive and experience Jesus. When we look in the bible it is full of rites and liturgies - the whole letter to the Hebrews explains the work of Christ in liturgical images and terms. Christ and the Apostles shared in the liturgical and ritual life of the temple, even after Christ's death and resurrection. The "no liturgy - because it's not in the bible" is definitely not biblical. :-)

Bonifatius

[ahab]

Hi Bonifatius,



liturgies are no means in themselves, liturgies and rituals are channels through which we can receive and experience Jesus. I agree. Prayer, worship and service are also channels through which we can receive and experience Jesus. Say some liturgy for healing and reconciliation certainly but not for divorce. When we look in the bible it is full of rites and liturgies - the whole letter to the Hebrews explains the work of Christ in liturgical images and terms. Christ and the Apostles shared in the liturgical and ritual life of the temple, even after Christ's death and resurrection. The "no liturgy - because it's not in the bible" is definitely not biblical. :-)So where in the Bible is a rite and liturgy for divorce?
The OP point was does the church do enough to support one another in marriage, rather than has the church got enough liturgies.

[Wiffey]

If a marriage fails, isn't there the Sacrament of Confession to help bring the suffering back into full communion with the church?


"Divorce liturgy" just seems so wrong...

[pmcleanj]

If a marriage fails, isn't there the Sacrament of Confession to help bring the suffering back into full communion with the church?


Are you acquainted with the form and structure of the Sacrament of Reconciliation in Anglican practice?

Anglicans don't have a central structure with encyclicals and decrees. We have a way of thinking theologically which is generally informed by our liturgy. And our historical liturgical norm is the Book of Common Prayer, a living document rooted in the Prayer Book of 1662 (still used today in adapted form in most Provinces of the Communion), and itself rooted in the Prayer Book of 1549. And the only liturgy for Confession in the Prayer Book is the general confession used in the context of the Eucharist.

What that means is that in practice for Anglicans, outside the context of the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Reconciliation usually takes a form that is adapted to circumstances. Note, I am not saying the Sacrament changes -- the outward and visible sign of declared absolution accompanies the spiritual grace of remission of sin. The adiaphoric form surrounding this Sacrament is adapted.

Normally, an individual seeks Reconciliation when prompted by a personal awareness of sin, and makes an individual appointment. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is usually adapted to the circumstances of the individual's need by the priest's setting a time when the church will be otherwise empty (most Anglican churches don't have confessionals), providing a notecard with a suggested form (since most Anglicans go to confession irregularly and rarely -- informed the Anglican aphorism that "All may, some should, none must"), and equipping priests in seminary with at least minimal counselling skills for those situations where that skill is called for along with the sacramental power of absolution.

But sometimes sin is corporate. In situations like an alienated person's return to a congregation in which he experienced abuse or neglect, the broken relationships resulting from divorce, discord between priest or bishop and his congregation -- violations of the sacrament of Baptism, marriage, ordination -- the sin is rarely individual. Nor is it merely a matter of wrongdoing that must be addressed by repentence, but also of hurt that must be addressed by healing. And usually, it is a network of hurt and wrongdoing that build on one another -- small hurts and small wrongdoings combining to create a communal disaster of separation from God.

That the church is not able to, and not called to, discern and apportion blame in such circumstances, is irrelevant. If we are truly a Body, then we hurt as a body, and we need to be healed as a Body. I sit here typing with a pulled and spasmed left trapezious:cry:. Is it the fault of my arm, my back, my brain -- or do I just need a Robaxacet and a massage? (Or better still, brothers and sisters, perhaps a prayer or two?)

So, the question is not "can't we just use the Sacrament of Confession" (or Unction for that matter since this is not just about blame but also about pain). It is a question of "how do we adapt the administration of the Sacrament of Reconciliation or the Sacrament of Unction to this particular need", so that it reconcile and heal not just individuals, but also the relationships among the Church.

[ahab]

It is a question of "how do we adapt the administration of the Sacrament of Reconciliation or the Sacrament of Unction to this particular need", so that it reconcile and heal not just individuals, but also the relationships among the Church. Sorry but that maeans nothing to me. Why do we adapt a sacrament of reconcilliation to a sacrament of reconcilliation for divorce? Do we need a scarament of reconcilliation for every curcumstance?

[Wiffey]

Are you acquainted with the form and structure of the Sacrament of Reconciliation in Anglican practice?

Anglicans don't have a central structure with encyclicals and decrees. We have a way of thinking theologically which is generally informed by our liturgy. And our historical liturgical norm is the Book of Common Prayer, a living document rooted in the Prayer Book of 1662 (still used today in adapted form in most Provinces of the Communion), and itself rooted in the Prayer Book of 1549. And the only liturgy for Confession in the Prayer Book is the general confession used in the context of the Eucharist.

What that means is that in practice for Anglicans, outside the context of the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Reconciliation usually takes a form that is adapted to circumstances. Note, I am not saying the Sacrament changes -- the outward and visible sign of declared absolution accompanies the spiritual grace of remission of sin. The adiaphoric form surrounding this Sacrament is adapted.

Normally, an individual seeks Reconciliation when prompted by a personal awareness of sin, and makes an individual appointment. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is usually adapted to the circumstances of the individual's need by the priest's setting a time when the church will be otherwise empty (most Anglican churches don't have confessionals), providing a notecard with a suggested form (since most Anglicans go to confession irregularly and rarely -- informed the Anglican aphorism that "All may, some should, none must"), and equipping priests in seminary with at least minimal counselling skills for those situations where that skill is called for along with the sacramental power of absolution.

But sometimes sin is corporate. In situations like an alienated person's return to a congregation in which he experienced abuse or neglect, the broken relationships resulting from divorce, discord between priest or bishop and his congregation -- violations of the sacrament of Baptism, marriage, ordination -- the sin is rarely individual. Nor is it merely a matter of wrongdoing that must be addressed by repentence, but also of hurt that must be addressed by healing. And usually, it is a network of hurt and wrongdoing that build on one another -- small hurts and small wrongdoings combining to create a communal disaster of separation from God.

That the church is not able to, and not called to, discern and apportion blame in such circumstances, is irrelevant. If we are truly a Body, then we hurt as a body, and we need to be healed as a Body. I sit here typing with a pulled and spasmed left trapezious:cry:. Is it the fault of my arm, my back, my brain -- or do I just need a Robaxacet and a massage? (Or better still, brothers and sisters, perhaps a prayer or two?)

So, the question is not "can't we just use the Sacrament of Confession" (or Unction for that matter since this is not just about blame but also about pain). It is a question of "how do we adapt the administration of the Sacrament of Reconciliation or the Sacrament of Unction to this particular need", so that it reconcile and heal not just individuals, but also the relationships among the Church.
I wasn't familiar with the Anglican practice re: reconciliation, (so I was guessing that it wasn't too different from Orthodox Christians' practices) so thankyou for explaining the process to me.

[JasonV]

pmcleanj...don't be angry. I'm bumping this thread in hopes that others can contribute to the ideas presented, and to see if anyone has any practical ideas in the way of a "divorce-healing liturgy".

[higgs2]

LOL! I propose we have a "dig up your favorite old thread" competition. <off to look at history>

[pmcleanj]

:D Not at all ":mad:". Going to find a feather duster now, though, to keep the dust down from all these historic threads!

[higgs2]

:D Not at all ":mad:". Going to find a feather duster now, though, to keep the dust down from all these historic threads!

I see you found one.

[karen freeinchristman]

That was actually a great OP, Pamela! I'm glad Jason has bumped this one - I think I missed it the first time around - maybe I hadn't joined yet, even!

[norbie]

It is right to say we sometime fail in the second commandement, you shall love your neighbour. And with this I believe we do fail in supporting each other in the holy sacraments. With baptism we became members, but also missionary of Jesus church, the body of Christ. And with any sacrament we should encourage and look after each other how we are going in keeping to this sacrament. And so I think it is also with the sacrament of marriage. Long before a marriage fails and get apart there are signs of it, mostly in talks and behaviour of the couple. So if we can see that with this sacrament is something not going as it should, we should help. And here starts our thread: the church responsibility for this sacrament, to restore it, to refresh it, to find the reason behind. So what is a liturgy? a proccedure to follow. In case of marriage this would have to be done very, very careful, full of love and compassion and by well trained people in the first instance.
So I am not talking about a divorce liturgy, but about a healing liturgy. to heal the wound which could bring a couple apart. Sometime it's only a little thing which this couple just can't see.
So in response to the church duty and responsibility in the sacraments, not only for marriage, but for all sacraments, it is our job in the second commandement to look after our neighbour if he/she still 'lives' in the promise he/she gave in obtaining this sacrament. And if we pray and talk to our heavenly Father he will show us the way how to?
Love is the key of our life - Jesus is the source of it all.

[Iosias]

But the more important question is not, how have we failed to live up to our responsibilities; but rather, what are we called to do in order to fulfill our responsibilities to one another in the Sacraments?

Children ought to be welcome in the service. :)