Bad Confession Experience - Incorrect Absolution Formulas

[Dauphin]

This statement is rather far removed from your words, Dauphin:

“Revoked automatically” suggests that if they at any time use an illicit form, they are no longer able to hear confessions. Pretty strong language. Maybe wishful thinking? I saw your caveat, but these words don’t seem to afford any leeway whatsoever. Neither did I recall seeing in the article that “illicit form” renders the sacrament itself invalid, but I will look again to be sure.

I was simply presenting the argument as it was covered in the Encyclopedia. I may have misinterpreted it, but I think the article is saying that some argue that faculties are automatically withdrawn if the deprecatory form is used.

I said clearly that this was an opinion presented in the article, and that there was uncertainty.

 

[Dauphin]

I
That seems to be the essence of the OP’s post, since she asked for the sacrament to be repeated by the pastor.

He.

 

[Dauphin]

The OP did not even wait to listen to the complete wording from the priest, but blatantly interrupted him in anger. In justice, we need to hear the whole story and find out the truth.

There was certainly no anger. The priest had gone on with his prayer for about a minute before I interrupted him, and it didn’t sound like anything I had heard before. When he came to the part “I ask Christ to free you from…”, I assumed (maybe too quickly, since I was distressed) that this was his version of the absolution, and I asked for the correct absolution, which he still failed to give me.

At no point did I feel any anger or resentment towards the priest. I simply wanted absolution according to the formula given by the Church.

The only evidence of anger I’ve seen is your combative tone on this thread.

 

[Dauphin]

As today’s gospel teaches, we are to admonish, not condemn. It seems to be an act of mercy to obtain good information for the OP so that there is no animosity held against the priest, should he be innocent.

The priest is not innocent; he’s broken the law of the Church. We shouldn’t feel animosity, but he’s plainly guilty of illegally changing the form of a sacrament.

 

[Joysong]

OP:

Was I wrong to be so insistent on the proper formula of absolution? What would you have done?

Well, like it or not, you DID ask for our opinions, Dauphin (he). In order to give one, we can’t just make assumptions based on personal feelings where a sacred rite is concerned. Too many people read this forum and it is important to find out what the Church really teaches.

If it becomes evident that the priest was not giving you an inalid sacrament, would you then go back to him if he continued to use that formula? Your turn to give an answer, but I think we already have a judgment by you, guilty as charged!

The priest is not innocent; he’s broken the law of the Church. We shouldn’t feel animosity, but he’s plainly guilty of illegally changing the form of a sacrament.

You are unable to prove my tone was combative. I tried to be helpful in learning the truth, and stated that I am in the middle of two conflicting opinions. If that is combative, well, I guess that I am also guilty as YOU have judged.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please keep the discussion civil, everyone, and assume good will on the part of other posters. Thank you all.

 

[puzzleannie]

as I stated, we don’t know what form the priest described by OP would have used, had he completed what he was going to say. However he evidently said enough for OP to doubt the forumula was valid, that should never, ever happen. If it did, she was right to question him immediately, and we presume, according to her story, neither he, nor the paster, the next proper line of communication, gave her a satisfactory answer. All either one had to tell her was “yes, these words are one of the accepted formulas”. then her doubts would have been removed.

NO priest has the right to leave the laity in legitimate doubt about the validity of a sacrament, especially when the penitent legitimately and humbly has asked for clarification. There is no reason why a lay person should have memorized all of the possible choices of valid forms (as given in the extensive technical cites given by our knowledgeable posters). Esp. since so much latitude and variation is allowed now, as opposed to formerly. A reasonably catechised and observant layperson should never be put in the position OP experienced, and accused of scrupulosity for posing a legitimate concern.

 

[Joysong]

puzzleannie:

All either one had to tell her was “yes, these words are one of the accepted formulas”. then her doubts would have been removed.

Annie, in Dauphin’s own words, the pastor did tell him, but the OP did not accept it. To be charitable, the pastor administered the sacrament a second time and “admonished him not to be so scrupulous.”

I note that Dauphin’s pastor said the very same words as we read from Jimmy Akin, which seems to lend even further credibility that this IS Church teaching. I really doubted that Jimmy would have submitted that teaching without thorough research. This is what I am going to hold onto unless someone with greater resource material is able to prove otherwise.

The pastor let me in. I explained what had happened, and he argued with me, telling me that the confession was valid as long as the priest had the correct intention. I responded that the confession might have been valid (since I knew there are different formulas used in the east), but that priests are supposed to use a particular formula, and I wanted absolute certainty that my sins were absolved.

The priest then gave me a confession, using the proper formula, “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, and then admonished me not to be “scrupulous”.

Thanks for your interest and help, annie.

 

[Dauphin]

Well, like it or not, you DID ask for our opinions, Dauphin (he). In order to give one, we can’t just make assumptions based on personal feelings where a sacred rite is concerned. Too many people read this forum and it is important to find out what the Church really teaches.

If it becomes evident that the priest was not giving you an inalid sacrament, would you then go back to him if he continued to use that formula? Your turn to give an answer, but I think we already have a judgment by you, guilty as charged!

If you read through my posts, you’ll find that I’ve never said that I thought the form was invalid. I was uncertain about the validity (I still am), and so I made absolutely certain that I had been absolved. I my the first post, I even admitted that it is possible that the absolution was valid.

I intend never to return to that priest for confession, knowing how little respect he has for the sacrament. If possible, I’ll go to a more solid priest.

 

[Dauphin]

Annie, in Dauphin’s own words, the pastor did tell him, but the OP did not accept it. To be charitable, the pastor administered the sacrament a second time and “admonished him not to be so scrupulous.”

Now you’re just telling lies and attacking my character. I did accept that the confession in another form may have been valid, but I wanted a licit confession so I could be certain. As I’ve found out from the Catholic Encyclopedia, I had reason to doubt the validity of the sacrament - there are opinions that say the absolution is invalid.

If I had left with any uncertainty about the validity of my confession, that would have been the real sin.

Your tone has been nothing but combative and offensive in this thread. I posted here seeking advice, not to be slapped down again after such a humiliating episode.

I note that Dauphin’s pastor said the very same words as we read from Jimmy Akin, which seems to lend even further credibility that this IS Church teaching. I really doubted that Jimmy would have submitted that teaching without thorough research. This is what I am going to hold onto unless someone with greater resource material is able to prove otherwise.

You don’t seem to understand the gravity of the priest’s offence. Do you think that this sort of behavior is acceptable - that the faithful should just get over the abuse of the sacraments?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I don’t have access to that information. Do you? Even if the form is restricted to the exact words, “I absolve you…” it is uncertain that when another form is used, the sacrament is “invalid” rather than illicit, and therefore non-operative spiritually for the penitent.

That seems to be the essence of the OP’s post, since she asked for the sacrament to be repeated by the pastor.

Similarly, there are certain abuses that have been observed in the sacred liturgy, which are illicit, but which do not completely render the sacrifice of the mass null and void.

Since this was quoted previously in the thread, I would believe that Mr. Akin, CAF apologist, would not have misinformed us, so we have a contrary opinion that needs to be addressed.

I’m not 100% certain. But when celebrating the Sacraments in the Latin Rite the minister must use the FORM for the Latin Rite. I would think it would be valid to use the FORM from another Rite only when celebrating the Sacrament in that Rite.

 

[Dauphin]

To be charitable, the pastor administered the sacrament a second time and “admonished him not to be so scrupulous.”.

It’s not a matter of charity. I had the right to a licit confession, and he had the obligation to provide it. I was completely right in asking for the correct formula of absolution, and you’re completely wrong to criticize me for it.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I don’t have access to that information. Do you? Even if the form is restricted to the exact words, “I absolve you…” it is uncertain that when another form is used, the sacrament is “invalid” rather than illicit, and therefore non-operative spiritually for the penitent.

That seems to be the essence of the OP’s post, since she asked for the sacrament to be repeated by the pastor.

Similarly, there are certain abuses that have been observed in the sacred liturgy, which are illicit, but which do not completely render the sacrifice of the mass null and void.

Since this was quoted previously in the thread, I would believe that Mr. Akin, CAF apologist, would not have misinformed us, so we have a contrary opinion that needs to be addressed.

I hate to disagree with Jimmy, but the valid celebration of the Sacraments requires 4 things, The proper MATTER, the proper FORM, the proper INTENT and the proper Minister. If any of them is incorrect the Sacrament could be invalid, not only illicit.

 

[Joysong]

Br. Rich:

I hate to disagree with Jimmy, but the valid celebration of the Sacraments requires 4 things, The proper MATTER, the proper FORM, the proper INTENT and the proper Minister. If any of them is incorrect the Sacrament could be invalid, not only illicit.

Well I think I see three of four, but without recourse to a document on the Rite of Penance, as you suggested earlier that I research, I cannot comment further, since the Church has definitely allowed different forms in the past, albeit even in the Latin Rite. How etched in stone is the present form, I don’t know, and this is what I hoped to find out. It seems unlikely that the answer is right around the corner, so I will let this drop.

Thanks for responding.

 

[Joysong]

Now you’re just telling lies and attacking my character. I did accept that the confession in another form may have been valid, but “I wanted” a licit confession [which clearly says to me you did not accept the first one] so I could be certain. As I’ve found out from the Catholic Encyclopedia, I had reason to doubt the validity of the sacrament - there are opinions that say the absolution is invalid.

Dauphin, you are way out of line calling me a liar, because your own words are doublespeak.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is dated 1935 and as we noted together, that it has stated its uncertainty with regard to form and validity. Let’s assume our present day priests know a thing or two about their ministry. And let’s not assume I am lying, when your black and white print gives reason for the reader to believe you did not accept the first confession.

Good day.

 

[Dauphin]

Dauphin, you are way out of line calling me a liar, because your own words are doublespeak.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is dated 1935 and as we noted together, that it has stated its uncertainty with regard to form and validity. Let’s assume our present day priests know a thing or two about their ministry. And let’s not assume I am lying, when your black and white print gives reason for the reader to believe you did not accept the first confession.

Good day.

You still don’t seem to understand. Allow me to explain it as plainly as possible.

I have a right to a licit confession, and every priest has an obligation to provide a licit confession.

Therefore, I was absolutely correct to ask for a proper confession, and you’re completely out of line in criticizing me for it.

Even if there were no uncertainty concerning the validity of the absolution, the priest still has no right to change it.

 

[Dauphin]

Let’s assume our present day priests know a thing or two about their ministry.

It would be an irresponsible assumption to make considering either their ignorance of or disregard for the law of the Church.

Even if I had absolute certainty that the absolution was valid, I was completely within my rights to ask for the licit form. Why won’t you admit this?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

This is on Jimmy Akin’s web site and I sincerely doubt he’s wrong about this:

"There is no single set of words that are necessary for validity…

The council of Trent taught:

…the holy Council teaches that the form of the sacrament of penance, in which its force chiefly consists, is set down in these words of the minister: “I absolve thee, etc.”; to which indeed certain prayers are laudably added according to the custom of the holy Church. [Trent, Session 14, chapt. 3, Denzinger, 896]

 

[GailMac]

Ya know,… could we learn a little something from those who take things out of context and twist to extract a meaning from it that it doesn’t contain?

For those of you who may have be mis-informed about what Mr Akin said and think it applies to all cases of Confession, please read the item his words were taken from and understand that it only applied to that particular case! Please don’t twist his words. Father Trigilio is also an excellent man of the highest credentials. His words are Truth!

Here’s what Mr. Akin wrote: Absolution Validity
(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

I went to confession today, and when the priest said the words of absolution he left out the usual “from your sins.” So it was, instead, “I absolved you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” I take it this is valid. I’m just looking for confirmation on this.

You are correct that this would be valid (unless the priest intended to absolve you of something other than your sins–e.g., ecclesiastical censures–though that’s not in view in this case).

Isn’t the required form simply “I absolve thee” according to Trent? Thanks for your help.

Trent references the words of absolution in passing but doens’t quote them completely. It says “I absolve thee, etc.” In making these references, Trent is not attempting to specify the minimal form necessary for absolution. It is simply stressing that the absolution takes effect when the minister says the words that constitute its form. Part of the formula is provided simply to indicate when this occurs.

There is no single set of words that are necessary for validity in the case of this sacrament. Various formluas of absolution are used in different rites of the Church, though “I absolve you” is the one used in the Latin rite. It is valid as long as the priest intends to do what the Church does, even if he omits the object of absolution. His intent to do what the Church does–since the Church absolves sins in this sacrament–is sufficient.

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2005/05/absolution_vali.html

In the instance cited the priest skipped a few words, “from your sins,” but intended to include them. It wasn’t an intentional re-writing of the Sacrament, nor was it an out-lawed rite. When Mr. Akin said “this sacrament,” he meant* that particular case *not every instance of Confession. Please don’t twist his words.

Peace,

Gail

P.S. What puzzles me most about fuzzy Confessions is the fact that in this Sacrament Jesus desires to bring peace back to the soul. Kinda cheatin’ Jesus as well as the penitent if you ask me!

 

[Joysong]

Gail:

For those of you who may have be mis-informed about what Mr Akin said and think it applies to all cases of Confession, please read the item his words were taken from and understand that it only applied to that particular case! Please don’t twist his words.

I ask the same of you, Gail - please don’t twist his words. He replied clearly to that particular case in this paragraph:

Trent references the words of absolution in passing but doens’t quote them completely. It says “I absolve thee, etc.” In making these references, Trent is not attempting to specify the minimal form necessary for absolution. It is simply stressing that the absolution takes effect when the minister says the words that constitute its form. Part of the formula is provided simply to indicate when this occurs.

He then went on to explain the form IN GENERAL, and in that explanation, he did NOT refer only to the case in point:

There is no single set of words that are necessary for validity in the case of this sacrament. Various formluas of absolution are used in different rites of the Church, though “I absolve you” is the one used in the Latin rite. It is valid as long as the priest intends to do what the Church does, even if he omits the object of absolution. His intent to do what the Church does–since the Church absolves sins in this sacrament–is sufficient.

Why not write to him and obtain clarification before you infer that others are ‘twisting his words.’