I don’t know how many people can access the 2003 edition. I’d suggest checking with your local library and diocese.
The previous edition you cited said nothing about the sacrament being celebrated validly by writings one’s sins down as opposed to aural confession. That’s the point. Your link to that edition really didn’t answer the question you responded to.
My comment about the edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia was made because it is not trivial for the readers of an internet thread to go and read the original article. There are so many references on line and I seriously doubt that a change in Edition would make a world of difference. On top of that it is not a binding document, independently of the edition.
In some respects, yes. In celebration of the Sacraments (and liturgy in general), no.
Why not? We are given a minimum set of requirements for the validity of the sacraments. There is usually quite some room for flexibility for things that are not spelled out.A lot has to do with disciplines associated with the sacraments and things can change at the discipline level by either dispensation or exemption.
Meaning, if one is going to add something to a liturgical celebration that is not prescribed by the Church (and of course not proscribed) then the assumption is that such is done by those with the appropriate theological education and authority.
I thought that Canon Law was quite specific in terms of what is allowed and what is not allowed in terms of Liturgy. If you give me a specific example I will be able to really understand what you mean.
The Book of Rites prescribes how the sacraments and certain other liturgical celebrations are celebrated. Similarly the GIRM and the MIssal prescrbe how Eucharist is to be celebrated.
In the case of the sacrament of Reconciliation, there is no provision given for writing one’s sins down and receiving absolution for them. The importance of aural confession is a long-standing and non-controversial part of Catholic tradition.
Completely agree with you.
While there is an exceptional case, General Absolution, that would not require individual aural confession, I really don’t see any legitimate inference that writing something on a piece of paper is a valid (or licit) way to celebrate the sacrament according to Catholic teaching.
Now you are stating in your own opinion and I am not going to argue in favor or against it.
Now, of course, there are exceptions to this, i.e. those with hearing and/or speech impediments, I could certainly imagine that in a given pastoral situation, someone who is mute can confess to a priest who does not know sign language by communicating via writing. But, those are, again, exceptions, and not the rule.
Again, if you have other sources or knowledge, please share.
*I do not have any other sources to share. Honestly I think that the vocal confession of sins is a mandatory requirement for the validity of the sacrament and that the addition of handing out a piece of paper to the priest for translation purposes does not take away anything from the validity.
I remember that once in a sanctuary a Franciscan friar refused the presence of an interpreter in the confessional and decided to go through the confession even if the penitent was not able to speak Italian. He said that the intent was there, the form was there and the fact that he could not understand German was not an hindrance to God’s forgiveness and him giving the absolution*
