Bad Confession Experience - Incorrect Absolution Formulas

[Sir_Knight]

This is what Our Lord revealed (in a Church APPROVED revelation – which means that while the faithful are not REQUIRED to follow it or believe it, it contains NOTHING which is contrary to Church teaching) to Mutter Vogel …“One should NEVER attack a priest, even when he’s in error, rather one should pray and do penance that I’ll grant him My grace again. He alone fully represents Me, even when he doesn’t live after My example!” (page 29, Mutter Vogel’s Worldwide Love, St. Grignion Publishing House, Altoting, South Germany (29.6, 1929)

“When a Priest falls we should extend him a helping hand through prayer and not through attacks! I, Myself will be his judge, no one but I! Whoever voices judgment over a priest has voiced it over me; child, never let a Priest be attacked, take up his defense.” (Feast of Christ the King, 1937)

"Child, Never judge your confessor, rather pray much for him and offer every Thursday, through the hands of My Blessed Mother, Holy Communion (for him) (18.6, 1939)

“Never accept an out-of-the-way word about a Priest, and speak no unkind word (about them) even if it were true! Every Priest is My Vicar and My heart will be sickened and insulted because of it! If you hear a judgment (against a Priest) pray a Hail Mary.” (28.6, 1939)

If you see a Priest who celebrates the Holy Mass unworthily, tell it to God! He stands by Him on the altar!

… Source.​

If these revelations to Mutter Vogel are true (and while the Church does not say that they ARE true, it DOES say that it is WORTHY of belief because it contains NOTHING in it’s message that is contrary to our Catholic faith), look at what you are doing to Jesus when you pass judgment on a priest even when he’s in error – our Lord’s heart is sickened and insulted by it.

What’s more important? Not to sicken and insult our God or our “absolute right” to have the Sacraments properly celebrated? Answer that question for yourself and act accordingly.

 

[LilyM]

This is what Our Lord revealed (in a Church APPROVED revelation – which means that while the faithful are not REQUIRED to follow it or believe it, it contains NOTHING which is contrary to Church teaching) to Mutter Vogel …“One should NEVER attack a priest, even when he’s in error, rather one should pray and do penance that I’ll grant him My grace again. He alone fully represents Me, even when he doesn’t live after My example!” (page 29, Mutter Vogel’s Worldwide Love, St. Grignion Publishing House, Altoting, South Germany (29.6, 1929)

“When a Priest falls we should extend him a helping hand through prayer and not through attacks! I, Myself will be his judge, no one but I! Whoever voices judgment over a priest has voiced it over me; child, never let a Priest be attacked, take up his defense.” (Feast of Christ the King, 1937)

"Child, Never judge your confessor, rather pray much for him and offer every Thursday, through the hands of My Blessed Mother, Holy Communion (for him) (18.6, 1939)

“Never accept an out-of-the-way word about a Priest, and speak no unkind word (about them) even if it were true! Every Priest is My Vicar and My heart will be sickened and insulted because of it! If you hear a judgment (against a Priest) pray a Hail Mary.” (28.6, 1939)

If you see a Priest who celebrates the Holy Mass unworthily, tell it to God! He stands by Him on the altar!

… Source.​

If these revelations to Mutter Vogel are true (and while the Church does not say that they ARE true, it DOES say that it is WORTHY of belief because it contains NOTHING in it’s message that is contrary to our Catholic faith), look at what you are doing to Jesus when you pass judgment on a priest even when he’s in error – our Lord’s heart is sickened and insulted by it.

What’s more important? Not to sicken and insult our God or our “absolute right” to have the Sacraments properly celebrated? Answer that question for yourself and act accordingly.

Sure, we are not to judge a priest (AS a priest, such as making disparaging remarks about their character or fitness for the vocation etc), nor to attack them in a similar way, a way which is ‘unkind’, as stated.

Pointing out that in some instances they aren’t following the GIRM is quite the contrary of being judgemental, unkind or attacking. As the Pope has stated, it is in fact both our right and our duty to do so.

If someone who knew what they were talking about said to you that there were one or two things in your job that you weren’t quite doing right, I hope you’d take it properly - as neither an attack nor a judgement on you, nor unkind. The opposite - someone who knows how to do a job has a DUTY to teach others how to do it properly, how on earth does ANYONE learn otherwise?

 

[Sir_Knight]

According to the revelation (portions of which I quoted above), if we see a priest do, what is in OUR OPINION, something incorrectly, we are to “tell it to God” because ONLY Jesus will be his judge.

As Father Larry Richards has said a number of times in his lectures and on his tapes, videos & DVDs that if one criticizes a priest, one goes to hell because the priest stands in the persona of Christ and if he is doing something wrong, we are to pray for him but never criticize him because he does not answer to us but will have to answer to Christ.

I’ve heard the same thing growing up as a child.

 

[LilyM]

According to the revelation (portions of which I quoted above), if we see a priest do, what is in OUR OPINION, something incorrectly, we are to “tell it to God” because ONLY Jesus will be his judge.

As Father Larry Richards has said a number of times in his lectures and on his tapes, videos & DVDs that if one criticizes a priest, one goes to hell because the priest stands in the persona of Christ and if he is doing something wrong, we are to pray for him but never criticize him because he does not answer to us but will have to answer to Christ.

I’ve heard the same thing growing up as a child.

Of course when I see a priest do something wrong, I tell it to God - AND to the priest as well! And I certainly do my utmost not to judge him when doing so. I wouldn’t dream, nor would any of us I think, of discussing something that was IN OUR OPINION wrong, rather we would only mention something that was BY OFFICIAL CHURCH TEACHING wrong.

The formulae and rubrics for the sacraments are officially spelt out. Any deviation is an abuse and therefore a sin. Further, without proper form (as the improper words of absolution the OP discusses) there actually IS no sacrament effected, that’s not my or anyone’s personal opinion, but Church teaching.

Do you really think Jesus meant us to be silent when a priest purports to celebrate a sacrament but in fact renders it INVALID, inoperative? Of course not.

‘When your brother sins, rebuke him …’, those are our Lord’s words - public, not private, revelation, therefore binding upon us unlike the words of Mutter Vogel. Liturgical abuse is a sin on the part of the priest, you join the dots.

Again, this is what the Pope has told us that we have a DUTY, as well as a right, to do. Again, official magisterial teaching, not non-binding private revelation. And I think His Holiness knows a little more about the matter than Fr Larry, great though Fr Larry may be.

 

[paperwight]

According to the revelation (portions of which I quoted above), if we see a priest do, what is in OUR OPINION, something incorrectly, we are to “tell it to God” because ONLY Jesus will be his judge.

As Father Larry Richards has said a number of times in his lectures and on his tapes, videos & DVDs that if one criticizes a priest, one goes to hell because the priest stands in the persona of Christ and if he is doing something wrong, we are to pray for him but never criticize him because he does not answer to us but will have to answer to Christ.

I’ve heard the same thing growing up as a child.

Just clarify, will you? Is this Fr. Larry referring only to liturgical matters? I hope so, because if he means that a priest must never be criticised for anything, that’s very dangerous.

It was the mindset that ‘Father Whoever’ couldn’t possibly do anything wrong that enabled so many ‘Father Whoevers’ to get away with child abuse.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Of course when I see a priest do something wrong, I tell it to God - AND to the priest as well! And I certainly do my utmost not to judge him when doing so. I wouldn’t dream, nor would any of us I think, of discussing something that was IN OUR OPINION wrong, rather we would only mention something that was BY OFFICIAL CHURCH TEACHING wrong.

The formulae and rubrics for the sacraments are officially spelt out. Any deviation is an abuse and therefore a sin. Further, without proper form (as the improper words of absolution the OP discusses) there actually IS no sacrament effected, that’s not my or anyone’s personal opinion, but Church teaching.

Do you really think Jesus meant us to be silent when a priest purports to celebrate a sacrament but in fact renders it INVALID, inoperative? Of course not.

Not if you accept the revelation as being true for it says that even if the priest is in error, we are not to pass judgement for Jesus alone will judge him and by bringing the matter to someone’s attention, we have already passed judgement that those actions were incorrect.

Now, if you don’t accept the revelation as being true, then that is a different story. Having been told by the Church that it is WORTHY of believe, I take it as being true.

‘When your brother sins, rebuke him …’, those are our Lord’s words - public, not private, revelation, therefore binding upon us unlike the words of Mutter Vogel. Liturgical abuse is a sin on the part of the priest, you join the dots.

Yes, Liturgical abuse is a sin on the part of the priest and he will be judged on that by Christ ALONE – not by us.

With regards to Christ’s comments about rebuking a brother who has sinned … remember that a “brother” is considered to be our EQUAL. A priest stands in the persona of Christ and can never be considered to be our equal.

Official Church teaching refers to the Pope as the Vicar of Christ and we would never think of rebuking him. The revelation says that EVERY priest is Christ’s Vicar and by declaring this revelation worthy of belief, the Church has said that there is nothing contained within it that contradicts Church Teaching. Thus … every priest is Christ Vicar … it does not contradict Church teaching … we do not rebuke a vicar of Christ – connect the dots.

Again, this is what the Pope has told us that we have a DUTY, as well as a right, to do. Again, official magisterial teaching, not non-binding private revelation. And I think His Holiness knows a little more about the matter than Fr Larry, great though Fr Larry may be.

As I said before, what’s more important? Not to sicken and insult our God or our “absolute right” to have the Sacraments properly celebrated?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Just clarify, will you? Is this Fr. Larry referring only to liturgical matters? I hope so, because if he means that a priest must never be criticised for anything, that’s very dangerous.

It was the mindset that ‘Father Whoever’ couldn’t possibly do anything wrong that enabled so many ‘Father Whoevers’ to get away with child abuse.

Purchase some of his tapes or videos. Or, better yet, go see him in person since he often tours the country and might eventually be a few hundred miles from you sometime in the future. It will be worth the trip. You will walk away in tears and your life will be forever changed.

He came to our parish a few years ago and there wasn’t a dry eye in the place. We went from being a church on auto-pilot to major renewal. Weekly novena services are well attended. We have exposition of the Blessed Sacrament 24x6 (except mass times and Sundays), etc.

Listen to him speak even if it is just on tape or video. Your life WILL be changed.

 

[GailMac]

Dear Sir Knight - Your sharing of Mutter Vogel’s words with us is kind. And since you seem to be a “believer” in them, I understand your personal conviction. However, they aren’t binding on anyone. If you choose to use them as spiritual guidance in your life that is your perrogative. It would be a misuse of them to insist everyone else bind themselves to them. No one is bound to follow “private revelations,” period, no matter how reverred some hold them. I think you’ve crossed the line in this regard by insisting that everyone be bound to follow advise from a visionary you revere. You choose to follow the advice. That is your choice. You cannot make it for anyone else.

The original OP experinced an abuse of a Sacrament and turned to the community here for understanding, support and advice. You have turned Mutter Vogel’s words into a personal attack. This to me is unacceptable.

Acknowleging that some of our priests are slothful in their administration of the Sacraments is in no way a “judgement” upon them and suggesting this is counter productive to dialog that may help correct such abuses.

No one wants to be a party to sacrilege. It is the duty of everyone in the Church to secure the dignity of the Sacraments - everyone whether he be priest, deacon, religious, layman or laywoman. We protect the Sacraments. That is part of our Christian duty. If you see “telling” on someone who is abusing the Sacraments as a “judgement,” I suggest you learn what it truely means to judge for you yourself are judging and not only judging but condemning the person telling!

Peace,

Gail

 

[Joysong]

GailMac,

Perhaps it would command more submission if we recall that these similar words were solemnly spoken by our Lord to St. Catherine of Siena, Doctor of the Church. It is wise to remember that David in the Old Testament refused to come against King Saul, solely because he was the Lord’s anointed, even though Saul was in the wrong.

What is very lamentable is that the OP was publicly detracting a priest. He did not take the matter privately to proper authorities as Jesus cautions, but saw fit to bring it to laity with whom he expected to find agreement with his indignation. His decision was already clearly made at the time of his confession, so he was not here on the forum to obtain anyone’s advice … only agreement. “What would you have done?” When a few disagreed with him, he reiterated his detraction with increasingly stronger words. trosch.org/for/scan/har-detr.htm

Nobody seems to notice the sin of the OP, but only the alleged error of the priest. Since the priest is not here to defend himself, how do we know that the OP reported his exact words, or why the priest was allegedly using a different formula, seeing that the OP did not wait for him to finish.

Dominican priests licitly use a completely different formula, yet it cannot be said that their confessors are not validly exercising the rite. We don’t have enough details to make a judgment, which is what Sir Knight was alluding to.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Thank you for clarifying my point

 

[bilop]

GailMac,

Perhaps it would command more submission if we recall that these similar words were solemnly spoken by our Lord to St. Catherine of Siena, Doctor of the Church. It is wise to remember that David in the Old Testament refused to come against King Saul, solely because he was the Lord’s anointed, even though Saul was in the wrong.

What is very lamentable is that the OP was publicly detracting a priest. He did not take the matter privately to proper authorities as Jesus cautions, but saw fit to bring it to laity with whom he expected to find agreement with his indignation. His decision was already clearly made at the time of his confession, so he was not here on the forum to obtain anyone’s advice … only agreement. “What would you have done?” When a few disagreed with him, he reiterated his detraction with increasingly stronger words. trosch.org/for/scan/har-detr.htm

Nobody seems to notice the sin of the OP, but only the alleged error of the priest. Since the priest is not here to defend himself, how do we know that the OP reported his exact words, or why the priest was allegedly using a different formula, seeing that the OP did not wait for him to finish.

Dominican priests licitly use a completely different formula, yet it cannot be said that their confessors are not validly exercising the rite. We don’t have enough details to make a judgment, which is what Sir Knight was alluding to.

I do not believe it was detraction because the OP did not name the priest.

From the Old Catholic Encyclopedia.

Detraction is the unjust damaging of another’s good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer.

No one’s name was damaged, therefore no detraction.

God Bless

 

[Joysong]

His profile presently names his parish.

From Fr. Hardon’s link:

However, since one’s reputation may reflect upon a group like an organization or class of people, criminal acts of a single member of that group should not be widely disclosed so as not to jeopardize the reputation of all the persons with whom this one individual is commonly identified [clergy]. Indiscriminate disclosure of this kind is the seedbed of class prejudice.

Haven’t we seen enough of the threads in this forum which depict priests as renegade abusers of sacraments and liturgy? Does anyone reflect on the major distrust this leads to concerning our clergy [as an entire class], such as making policemen of the laity? If one “suspects” a problem, there are places to privately bring the suspicion and have it clarified. In this example, the OP had no desire of clarifying, since his mind was already made up, and his opinion was repeated throughout the thread.
Enough said.

 

[bilop]

This is what Our Lord revealed (in a Church APPROVED revelation – which means that while the faithful are not REQUIRED to follow it or believe it, it contains NOTHING which is contrary to Church teaching) to Mutter Vogel …“One should NEVER attack a priest, even when he’s in error, rather one should pray and do penance that I’ll grant him My grace again. He alone fully represents Me, even when he doesn’t live after My example!” (page 29, Mutter Vogel’s Worldwide Love, St. Grignion Publishing House, Altoting, South Germany (29.6, 1929)

“When a Priest falls we should extend him a helping hand through prayer and not through attacks! I, Myself will be his judge, no one but I! Whoever voices judgment over a priest has voiced it over me; child, never let a Priest be attacked, take up his defense.” (Feast of Christ the King, 1937)

"Child, Never judge your confessor, rather pray much for him and offer every Thursday, through the hands of My Blessed Mother, Holy Communion (for him) (18.6, 1939)

“Never accept an out-of-the-way word about a Priest, and speak no unkind word (about them) even if it were true! Every Priest is My Vicar and My heart will be sickened and insulted because of it! If you hear a judgment (against a Priest) pray a Hail Mary.” (28.6, 1939)

If you see a Priest who celebrates the Holy Mass unworthily, tell it to God! He stands by Him on the altar!

… Source.​

If these revelations to Mutter Vogel are true (and while the Church does not say that they ARE true, it DOES say that it is WORTHY of belief because it contains NOTHING in it’s message that is contrary to our Catholic faith), look at what you are doing to Jesus when you pass judgment on a priest even when he’s in error – our Lord’s heart is sickened and insulted by it.

What’s more important? Not to sicken and insult our God or our “absolute right” to have the Sacraments properly celebrated? Answer that question for yourself and act accordingly.

Those revelations speak of “attacking” and “judging” a priest. I certainly agree no one should attack, or defame, or judge a priest.

However, they say nothing about correcting mistakes in fraternal charity. You’re making that leap yourself.

Just from last weeks’ readings we have Our Lord telling us to correct the sins of our brother (and if a priest knowingly changes the form of the Sacrament he surely sins).

Matthew 18

Jesus said to his disciples:
“If your brother sins against you,
go and tell him his fault between you and him alone.
If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
If he does not listen,
take one or two others along with you,
so that ‘every fact may be established
on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.
If he refuses to listen even to the church,
then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

And we have Ezekiel telling us will be judges for the sins of our brothers if we don’t correct them.

Ezekiel 33

Thus says the LORD:
You, son of man, I have appointed watchman for the house of Israel;
when you hear me say anything, you shall warn them for me.
If I tell the wicked, “O wicked one, you shall surely die, ”
and you do not speak out to dissuade the wicked from his way,
the wicked shall die for his guilt,
but I will hold you responsible for his death.
But if you warn the wicked,
trying to turn him from his way,
and he refuses to turn from his way,
he shall die for his guilt,
but you shall save yourself.

Add that the Redemptionis Sacramentum where the **Official **teaching of the Church tells us to complain if the Sacraments are abused.

I think Gospel, Scripture and Official Church teaching trump private revelation (which doesn’t even say what you purport).

God Bless

 

[bilop]

His profile presently names his parish.

That should be removed given his post, I agree.

 

[Joysong]

Bilop:

Those revelations speak of “attacking” and “judging” a priest. I certainly agree no one should attack, or defame, or judge a priest.

However, they say nothing about correcting mistakes in fraternal charity. You’re making that leap yourself.

Just from last weeks’ readings we have Our Lord telling us to correct the sins of our brother (and if a priest knowingly changes the form of the Sacrament he surely sins).

Matthew 18

Quote:
Jesus said to his disciples:
“If your brother sins against you,
go and tell him his fault between you and him alone.

The OP did go to the rectory to have his opinion validated, but he was advised that he was scrupulous. If he was still dissatisfied, he needs to go to the next step as the scripture passage you quoted advises. However, do you believe it is ever correct to stand on a street corner and disparage our clergy? The OP’s mind was made up, and the rash judgment made, and the critique made public. Do you see the difference?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Those revelations speak of “attacking” and “judging” a priest. I certainly agree no one should attack, or defame, or judge a priest.

However, they say nothing about correcting mistakes in fraternal charity. You’re making that leap yourself.

And how would you even come to the conclusion that a mistake needs to be corrected unless you already made a judgement.

Just from last weeks’ readings we have Our Lord telling us to correct the sins of our brother (and if a priest knowingly changes the form of the Sacrament he surely sins).

Matthew 18

And we have Ezekiel telling us will be judges for the sins of our brothers if we don’t correct them.

Ezekiel 33

When scripture speaks of correcting a “brother”, it speaks of correcting a equal. A priest stands in the persona of Christ and we should never presume to be his equal.

Add that the Redemptionis Sacramentum where the Official teaching of the Church tells us to complain if the Sacraments are abused.

I think Gospel, Scripture and Official Church teaching trump private revelation (which doesn’t even say what you purport).

Gospel and Scripture tells us to be obedient to those who have authority over us – i.e., the priests / elders who are to shepard us. I don’t recall seeing any verses telling us to go over their heads if in OUR judgement they are doing something incorrectly. Maybe I missed it. It’s entirely possible.

 

[Dauphin]

The OP did go to the rectory to have his opinion validated, but he was advised that he was scrupulous. If he was still dissatisfied, he needs to go to the next step as the scripture passage you quoted advises. However, do you believe it is ever correct to stand on a street corner and disparage our clergy? The OP’s mind was made up, and the rash judgment made, and the critique made public. Do you see the difference?

My mind was made up that I had the right to a licit confession, and I did. My actions have been validated - my right to a licit confession is not contingent on anyone’s opinion; it’s given to me by the Church.

My behavior was not rash - it was entirely correct (and you think I’m scrupulous?). In fact, I’m still convinced that to leave with anything less than certainty about my absolution would be to fail in complying with the sacrament of penance. There was still doubt as to whether that initial illicit confession was valid.

I have not made my complaint public. I have not released the name of the priest, or named the parish. I’m not dissatisfied, since I got what I was entitled to.

 

[Dauphin]

What is very lamentable is that the OP was publicly detracting a priest.

That’s a lie. There has been no public detraction of any priest. If there had been, you’d be able to tell me who that priest is, wouldn’t you?

If you’re not a liar, tell me the name of the priest who has suffered detraction.

He did not take the matter privately to proper authorities as Jesus cautions, but saw fit to bring it to laity with whom he expected to find agreement with his indignation. His decision was already clearly made at the time of his confession, so he was not here on the forum to obtain anyone’s advice … only agreement. “What would you have done?” When a few disagreed with him, he reiterated his detraction with increasingly stronger words. trosch.org/for/scan/har-detr.htm

I think I’ve successfully defeated the arguments that say I should have left the Church with uncertainty about my confession.

Again, no public detraction of a priest has taken place. This is simply calumny on your part. It might even be detraction if people knew who I was.

Nobody seems to notice the sin of the OP, but only the alleged error of the priest. Since the priest is not here to defend himself, how do we know that the OP reported his exact words, or why the priest was allegedly using a different formula, seeing that the OP did not wait for him to finish.

Again, you appear to be committing the sin of calumny. What sin is it that you accuse me of committing, and can you back it up with evidence? If not, you’ve committed calumny.

Dominican priests licitly use a completely different formula, yet it cannot be said that their confessors are not validly exercising the rite. We don’t have enough details to make a judgment, which is what Sir Knight was alluding to.

Please provide this formula.

 

[Dauphin]

This is what Our Lord revealed (in a Church APPROVED revelation – which means that while the faithful are not REQUIRED to follow it or believe it, it contains NOTHING which is contrary to Church teaching) to Mutter Vogel …“One should NEVER attack a priest, even when he’s in error, rather one should pray and do penance that I’ll grant him My grace again. He alone fully represents Me, even when he doesn’t live after My example!” (page 29, Mutter Vogel’s Worldwide Love, St. Grignion Publishing House, Altoting, South Germany (29.6, 1929)

“When a Priest falls we should extend him a helping hand through prayer and not through attacks! I, Myself will be his judge, no one but I! Whoever voices judgment over a priest has voiced it over me; child, never let a Priest be attacked, take up his defense.” (Feast of Christ the King, 1937)

"Child, Never judge your confessor, rather pray much for him and offer every Thursday, through the hands of My Blessed Mother, Holy Communion (for him) (18.6, 1939)

“Never accept an out-of-the-way word about a Priest, and speak no unkind word (about them) even if it were true! Every Priest is My Vicar and My heart will be sickened and insulted because of it! If you hear a judgment (against a Priest) pray a Hail Mary.” (28.6, 1939)

If you see a Priest who celebrates the Holy Mass unworthily, tell it to God! He stands by Him on the altar!

… Source.​

If these revelations to Mutter Vogel are true (and while the Church does not say that they ARE true, it DOES say that it is WORTHY of belief because it contains NOTHING in it’s message that is contrary to our Catholic faith), look at what you are doing to Jesus when you pass judgment on a priest even when he’s in error – our Lord’s heart is sickened and insulted by it.

What’s more important? Not to sicken and insult our God or our “absolute right” to have the Sacraments properly celebrated? Answer that question for yourself and act accordingly.

I’ve done none of these things. I have not publicly criticized a priest. If I had, you’d be able to tell me the name of the priest.

Since you cannot, you’ve come dangerously close to committing the sin of calumny, along with others on this thread.

I was correct to seek a licit confession. That’s the issue at hand, and no poster here has sufficiently refuted my action and demonstrated to my satisfaction that Catholics must be doormats, even in matters of salvation.

 

[Dauphin]

Let’s remember that it is God that forgives us our sin through the priest – if we validly confessed our sins and the priest INTENDS to forgive us, then we ARE forgiven.

That isn’t true, the council of Trent clearly disagrees and says that a form is necessary.

Can you present any evidence to support this idea?