Well, I specifically mentioned the Eastern Orthodox over and over again as a counterexample, among whom auricular confession did indeed develop independently of the Irish, and without any liturgical practice of "general confession/absolution". Something doesn't have to be an early practice or an explicit belief to be a legitimate development. The earliest practice was to exclude penitents from the Liturgy of the Faithful altogether. One did not simply confess "generally" and then receive absolution on the spot, as in modern Anglican practice. It's interesting to know where this stuff came from but it's pointless to look at any one era of Church history as the moment when "liturgical purity" was ascendant. The original sacrament of reconciliation was baptism. Delaying baptism until the end of life was thus an innovation; baptizing infants was also an innovation; having a sacrament other than baptism to effect reconciliation was an innovation; private absolution to effect that sacrament was an innovation; public absolution was an innovation, etc. It's indefensible to arbitrarily pick one specific stage of innovation and say "all innovations prior to this are good, all innovations after this are bad." Anglican practice developed from what came from before it and the English Reformers did as good a job as they could to adapt the institutions they inherited to their convictions and vision of the Church. I think the Anglican settlement was the healthiest possible solution under the circumstances. But it doesn't give us any window into a more perfect era that came before.
Did you read what I wrote in my following posts. I did mention who auricular confession also developed independently in Egypt in the East. All I am pushing back on is the claim that General Confession and absolution being a reformational innovation. I show that it has developed in other places in the East at different times. It might have been a one in the West but not in the history of the church and as such it is a effective and valid confession.
Interesting. It sounds like they recite a prayer in which they say they've sinned, are penitent, and will strive not to repeat those sins. It's not clear if they verbally list the sins they've committed, but I get the impression that they don't verbally list the sins. If they don't, then it's a variation of Anglican general confession.
It is. https://armenianchurchlibrary.com/files/confession.pdf I actually find it to be a more thorough general confession. I actually like it better than ours.
I was only able to skim through it, but I don't dispute the contention that some practice of general confession/absolution developed outside the context of the Reformation. But, as the link you provided to the Armenian Church made clear, the practice of auricular confession developed after general confession had been established practice, and neither replaced the other. That's a critically important point. When the Reformers altered the Roman liturgy, the general confession was meant to replace the practice of auricular confession and absolution, with one exception (viz., Visitation of the Sick). That makes the Reformation development unique. Everywhere else, auricular confession was either the default, or it existed side-by-side with a liturgical general confession, without there being any perceived conflict or incompatibility between the two. If you look at the Tridentine Rite from 1570, the confession and absolution is a dialogue between the priest and the servers: This is clearly not a sacramental absolution. Contrast this with the 1662 liturgy (sorry about the formatting):
Mille grazie for sharing this. I too like it and and am impressed by how thorough it is. I took particular notice of their confessing in the presence of Mary and the saints, and that the priest cites his authority to forgive sins by citing the "divine command that 'whatever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven'.” A comparison of Anglican and Armenian confession deserves its own thread.
By the way, Roman Catholicism also has general absolution during Mass, but it's intended for venial sins. The Church requires private confession once a year, of if the person has committed a mortal sin. I suspect some (maybe most) Roman Catholics aren't aware of the general absolution, because the mentality is that sins are forgiven in the confessional.
But, as the link you provided to the Armenian Church made clear, the practice of auricular confession developed after general confession had been established practice, and neither replaced the other. .............. What is interesting is if you look at the development of the General Confession in the Anglican Tradition you see a gradual shift towards the General Confession. I can't remember which 1500 book it is there is an exhortation to not look down on the people who use a different form of confession than you be it general or private because they are both valid. Then by the time we get to the 1662 BCP we basically only have the General Confession except in the visitation of the sick.
I attended a General Confession at a Catholic Mass once during the Christmas season (I was still a Catholic then). After the General Confession, anyone who still wanted to could attend an individual one with a priest - there were quite a few priests there for the service. I went to the individual confession (being overly scrupulous and worried that I might need to confess individually) and the priest just seemed so bored with it all. I started to confess but before I could list anything, he basically threw me out by saying, 'Yes, yes, I absolve you of all your sins so say one Our Father and one Hail Mary.' I knew that the priests were all feeling rushed and I am sure they felt that we were all absolved already by the General Confession. I'm glad to be an Anglican. Truly.
The priest actually said, "yes, yes" in an impatient tone like that? I'm sorry to hear that. It certainly isn't typical of my experience, but occasionally there is that priest (not just in the confessional) who can send somebody running for the c(C)hurch's exit.
Don't get me wrong, that priest had nothing to do with my leaving the Catholic Church. That was done slowly, over a long period of time and reflection, and was about theological practices and not personalities. That would be way too shallow a reason to take such a serious step. And it wasn't easy to leave either since the Church almost guarantees that one will be damned for doing so. That being said, I am now perfectly content with my choice and my decision. I was without a formal religion for several years but after some more serious research, I chose to become an Anglican. It was my good fortune and God's grace that I happen to be living in such a perfect parish and diocese for me, because I know the Anglican Communion covers a diverse array of viewpoints. Where I am now has been most welcoming and supportive of me, which has made the transition a lot easier.