A problem with Confession

[Aquila_Lucis]

Yesterday, I went to Confession at a local Franciscan friary, which is my usual Tuesday evening habit. The priest, however, that heard my Confession was not my usual confessor. After having confessed my sins, and listening to the priest’s advice and penance, The following transpired:

*Priest: “Are you sorry for these sins and all of the sins of your former life that you cannot remember?”

Me: “Yes.”

Priest: “Then, through God the Father of Mercy, I absolve you of your sins, both these that you have confessed to me, and all those that you cannot remember, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Go in peace.”*

Now, a CAF apologist has already answered my question as to wheter or not the sacrament was valid. However, he implied, quite strongly, that it was not licit. Given that, do you think I ought to mention this episode to anyone at the friary, namely the rector (who is my usual confessor)?

Thanks so much in advance for your help,
Yours in Christ,
Michael

 

[Bookcat]

Note – any mortal sins that were forgotten (not saying you had any…) would need still to be confessed (if remembered).

 

[Aquila_Lucis]

Note – any mortal sins that were forgotten (not saying you had any…) would need still to be confessed (if remembered).

I got through my entire confession, as I had intended. And an apologist has already stated that the formula for absolution was sufficient to be considered valid.

The question I actually asked in the forum was not about validity, but rather, now that it has been made clear to me that the formula for absolution was not licit, should I say something to that priest’s superior (whom I do know fairly well) so that he (the superior) can correct the other priest and avoid this issue in the furture for any other penitents?

What I am concerned about is, if he changed the formula for absolution for me, what if he forgets an essential element of the formula in the future?

 

[Mary_Ellen]

Yes, I would say something to his superior, for just the reasons you mentioned.

 

[Bookcat]

I got through my entire confession, as I had intended. And an apologist has already stated that the formula for absolution was sufficient to be considered valid.

The question I actually asked in the forum was not about validity, but rather, now that it has been made clear to me that the formula for absolution was not licit, should I say something to that priest’s superior (whom I do know fairly well) so that he (the superior) can correct the other priest and avoid this issue in the furture for any other penitents?

What I am concerned about is, if he changed the formula for absolution for me, what if he forgets an essential element of the formula in the future?

Yes I understand. If is difficult to advise in such cases (not being there etc). A good approach would be to speak first to the Priest who added to the form. Then if he says “ok I will make sure that does not happen” then it can perhaps remain there. If he does not seem to want to change his practice – one could consider mentioning it to the Priest (superior).

It may be unlikely he will forget the essential elements of the form. His change was his trying to give emphasis. Now if he was just making something up --that would be a big red flag…

 

[Bookcat]

If one judges to approach the issue at all.

 

[onjac]

Talk to the priest about it. He’s the one who heard your confession. No one here, regardless of what we say, can resolve the matter.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I hope I can say this without lecturing or being patronising

On Tuesday evening you went to confession in a state of sin, possibly mortal sin. Several minutes later you walked out absolved of all sin, and in God’s friendship.

You were disturbed that the words he used might not have been efficaceous, and have been re-assured of that.

Just be thankful for the miracle, which you received through the ministry of this priest.

If it were me, I’d let it go and happily return to that priest. And, in fact, it has happened to me. Please, let this priest continue his ministry without having to answer an unnecessary complaint. Our priests and administrators sometimes receive unnecessary complaints which cause them grief, and distract from their jobs.

Just a word on Fr Grondin’s response. You said that the apologist strongly implied that it was not licit. My reading of his response was that he emphasised the validity of the words over their licitness. He **conceded **that it was not licit, without emphasising that it was illicit. You did ask whether you should follow up on this matter, and he was silent on that, while reassuring you that the it was valid.