Bad Confession Experience - Incorrect Absolution Formulas

[Dauphin]

None of that changes the fact that the sheep do not judge the actions of the shepard.

My interest wasn’t in judgement. My interest was in obtaining a valid and licit confession, which is my right.

You, and all the other calumnators and detractors on this thread are 100% off base on this issue.

 

[Dauphin]

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?

What’s most important is salvation. That doesn’t seem to be something you understand. To leave with uncertainty about my absolution would have been a failure to comply with the sacrament. It turns out that my uncertainty was justified, since there is no consensus on the validity of an illicit confession.

 

[Dauphin]

His profile presently names his parish.

From Fr. Hardon’s link:

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.

No, I don’t think it’s enough said.

My interest in posting this thread was in discovering what the Church teaches about the validity of a confession and the approved forms of the sacrament. The issue still hasn’t been resolved.

All I’ve encountered is calumnous and arrogant musings about how very innappropriate it is to seek a licit confession.

 

[Nickkname]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1449 The formula of absolution used in the Latin Church expresses the essential elements of this sacrament: the Father of mercies is the source of all forgiveness. He effects the reconciliation of sinners through the Passover of his Son and the gift of his Spirit, through the prayer and ministry of the Church:

God, the Father of mercies,

through the death and the resurrection of his Son

has reconciled the world to himself

and sent the Holy Spirit among us

for the forgiveness of sins;

through the ministry of the Church

may God give you pardon and peace,

and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

More on Confession here (it’s a pretty long section, but please be patient in reading it): vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P46.HTM

 

[bilop]

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

The “judging” that is condemned is judging a person, i.e. declaring them sinful, not judging an action to br right or wrong. We are always caused to judge action, never people.

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.

I don’t see that qualification anywhere in Christ’s words. We are ALL brothers in Christ. We should all correct our brothers if we see them err. That’s the whole point of last week’s readings. Admonishing the sinner is a spirtual act of mercy,after all.

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.

It is the judgement of Holy Mother Church that a priest errs if he intentionally alters the Sacraments from the approved form. This is NEVER to be done. If we see a priest making this mistake we may and should point it out and seek redress. Not only for our sake (having a valid and licit Sacrament), but for the sake of the priest, so that he doesn’t sin and jeopardize his soul.

A superior is only to be obeyed when he acts lawfully.

Let me ask you Sir Knight, if you saw a priest embezelling the funds from the parish school, or molesting a child, or performing Satanic rituals in the Church would you really not report him?

God Bless

 

[bilop]

No, I don’t think it’s enough said.

My interest in posting this thread was in discovering what the Church teaches about the validity of a confession and the approved forms of the sacrament. The issue still hasn’t been resolved.

All I’ve encountered is calumnous and arrogant musings about how very innappropriate it is to seek a licit confession.

God for you Dauphin for standing up for yourself. I don’t know why these people attack you.

Where did this idea come from that priests are infallible and impeccable, never to be corrected? No Church teaching I’ve ever heard of.

Sir Knight, Joysong please show me ONE Church document that says the laity can’t correct a priest if he errs?

The Holy Father has asked the laity to correct erring priests. He’s asked us to report them to their bishops and to Rome. Could it be more clear that the Pope, Vicar of Christ on earth, believes it’s is not only permissible, but laudable for the laity to insist on licit Sacraments.

God Bless

 

[jfoges]

I don’t think you have anything to worry about. The confession is still “valid” even if the priest uses different words. It’s as if you think the priest’s words themselves absolve you from your sins and not the Holy Spirit which the sacrament signifies. I think you are being very legalistic.

 

[Dauphin]

I don’t think you have anything to worry about. The confession is still “valid” even if the priest uses different words. It’s as if you think the priest’s words themselves absolve you from your sins and not the Holy Spirit which the sacrament signifies. I think you are being very legalistic.

Then the Catholic Church is legalistic, since it insists a form is necessary for absolutions. “Feelings” don’t accomplish the work of the sacrament.

There are views on both sides of the debate as to whether the particular formula used is valid, but the very fact that there’s uncertainty validates the actions I took.

Even if there was certainty that the absolution was valid, I would have been completely justified in seeking a licit confession, since the Church calls it my “right”.

 

[bilop]

I don’t think you have anything to worry about. The confession is still “valid” even if the priest uses different words. It’s as if you think the priest’s words themselves absolve you from your sins and not the Holy Spirit which the sacrament signifies. I think you are being very legalistic.

That’s not certain at all.

I have always been taught, and have read, that “I absolve you…” in the Confessional is just as essential as “This is My Body… This is My Blood” in the Mass, or “I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” in Baptism. Necessary BOTH for validity and licity.

God Bless

 

[Walking_Home]

I don’t think you have anything to worry about. The confession is still “valid” even if the priest uses different words. It’s as if you think the priest’s words themselves absolve you from your sins and not the Holy Spirit which the sacrament signifies. I think you are being very legalistic.

---

“Legalistic”—No. A sacrament can be rendered invalid via the use of wrong words.

 

[Sir_Knight]

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?

In John 20:23, Our Lord clearly says: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they ARE forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

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.

The issue isn’t the PUBLIC criticism of the priest but you TELLING the priest how he is to perform the sacrament. As I said before, the shepard does not take direction from the sheep.

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

If I have wronged you in any way, I am more than willing to extend to you a public apology and admit that I am wrong but I first need to know what I am apologizing for. Kindly explain and clarify this sin of calumny that you believe that I am guilty of.

The only thing that I see myself being “guilty” of is voicing an opinion that you do not agree with and I don’t believe that voicing an honest opinion is sinful ESPECIALLY when you asked for opinions on this matter.

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.

What’s most important is salvation. That doesn’t seem to be something you understand. To leave with uncertainty about my absolution would have been a failure to comply with the sacrament. It turns out that my uncertainty was justified, since there is no consensus on the validity of an illicit confession.

Do you honestly believe that if you confessed your sins and the priest intended to forgive you your sins, God would retain your sins because the EXACT form was not used? That shows someone who is more concerned with the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law and that is a mindset that Jesus often condemned when He walked the earth according the bible writings.

 

[Sir_Knight]

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

We’re talking about a priest acting in the persona of Christ – not any of his other actions when not acting in the persona of Christ.

If I saw our priest performing Satanic rituals in the Church, I would complain to the Bishop. If I saw what I thought was Satanic in nature performed during a Mass, I would write to the Bishop ASKING for clarification – a very minor but very important difference.

If I saw a priest give the absolution in a manner that I didn’t recognize, I would ask for CLARIFICATION – I would never presume to TELL him how to do his job as the OP did … therein is the error.

 

[Sir_Knight]

My interest wasn’t in judgement. My interest was in obtaining a valid and licit confession, which is my right.

You, and all the other calumnators and detractors on this thread are 100% off base on this issue.

If you are not interested in hearing the opinions of others, then why did you even ask this question? As others before me have already pointed out, you obviously had your mind made up before people even expressed their opinions and YOU have attacked those that have not agreed with your pre-determine conclusion.

Under such circumstances, I have no interest in continuing this discussion. May God Bless.

 

[Holly3278]

I have the same issue with a local priest of mine. Whenever he gives me absolution, he does not say the correct formula and he does not allow me to say my act of contrition during confession. So, I e-mailed my bishop and asked him if the confession was valid and he said it was valid.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I have the same issue with a local priest of mine. Whenever he gives me absolution, he does not say the correct formula and he does not allow me to say my act of contrition during confession. So, I e-mailed my bishop and asked him if the confession was valid and he said it was valid.

And that was the proper way to handle it – ASK!

 

[Dauphin]

If you are not interested in hearing the opinions of others, then why did you even ask this question? As others before me have already pointed out, you obviously had your mind made up before people even expressed their opinions and YOU have attacked those that have not agreed with your pre-determine conclusion.

Under such circumstances, I have no interest in continuing this discussion. May God Bless.

I posted this thread for the purpose of learning the Church’s teaching on the validity of confession.

I’ve criticized those with whom I disagreed, and refuted their arguments. If you have no good response, I’ll understand your desire to end the discussion.

 

[Dauphin]

And that was the proper way to handle it – ASK!

You’re wrong. The proper way to handle it is to err on the side of caution and seek a licit confession when a credible doubt of validity exists. This is a matter of salvation - it can’t be a guessing game or a gamble.

 

[Dauphin]

If I saw a priest give the absolution in a manner that I didn’t recognize, I would ask for CLARIFICATION – I would never presume to TELL him how to do his job as the OP did … therein is the error.

Your arguments are getting more disconnected from reality. I never told the priest how to do his job - I simply exercised the right which the Church gives me to a licit confession, an act for which I feel no shame.

You can play games with your salvation if you want - that’s you’re freedom, but don’t tell me to take such grave matters so lightly.

 

[notsmart]

I went to confession today, and it definitely qualifies as the worst experience I’ve had in the confessional.

The priest used a formula of absolution other than the one prescribed by the Church. It went something like:

“I ask God to free you from all your temptations and iniquities…”

Confused by this prayer I had never heard before, and worried that I would not receive the correct formula of absolution, I interrrupted the priest, and asked him to use the correct formula. I accept that this was probably not the best approach, but I was really thrown off by this brand new prayer he had invented. After telling me how rude I was being, and after I apologized to him, the priest then offered me this absolution:

“I ask Christ to absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

I knew that this wasn’t the correct formula either, but the priest was already upset at me, so I thanked him and went to the rectory to seek a confession from the pastor.

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”.

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

I would have gone to the closest parish from there at a time I could go to a priest for confession and confess my dissapointment in the way the last confession I went to transpired. I would have also confessed that I felt as if I was being ignored and brushed off. And, that I even wondered if the priest was really concerned about my welfare spiritually or not.

But, that’s me.

And, I have never gone to confession but I play in my mind all sorts of senarios that I may encounter all the time.

 

[Dauphin]

Do you honestly believe that if you confessed your sins and the priest intended to forgive you your sins, God would retain your sins because the EXACT form was not used? That shows someone who is more concerned with the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law and that is a mindset that Jesus often condemned when He walked the earth according the bible writings.

What a laughably confused and ignorant statement. You truly have no idea what you’re talking about. Compare me to a pharisee because I comply with a sacrament Christ instituted!

Christ instituted the sacrament of confession for a reason, and he commands us to use it. This isn’t one option among many. If I had left with a doubt about the sacrament’s validity, it would have been a failure to comply with the sacrament of penance.

Obviously, if I had made a perfect act of contrition and had no doubt of absolution, my sins would not be against me. Believing that a perfect act of contrition does not effect the forgiveness of sins would indeed be legalistic, but that’s not what I’ve suggested. A perfect act of contrition always involves a desire to have your sins absolved. If you leave any doubt about the validity of the absolution, then you haven’t complied with the sacrament.

You’re simply confused about the nature of a perfect act of contrition, so you call me legalistic. You treat the sacrament of confession as an option, instead of a pillar of salvation.