Bad Confession Experience - Incorrect Absolution Formulas

[Dauphin]

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.”

In true protestant form, you fail to put this in the context of sacred tradition and magisterial teaching. The Church clearly says that a form is necessary, and you’ve now made your disagreement with Catholic doctrine clear.

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.

What I did was exercise my right as a Catholic, and I owe no apology for it.

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.

You’ve accused me of a sin I did not commit. That’s calumny.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Your arguments are getting more disconnected from reality. I never told the priest how to do his job

I’m not the one who is changing the story around. Did you or did you not say in your opening post …

I interrrupted the priest, and asked him to use the correct formula

… Who are you to tell someone, who stands in the persona of Christ, how to do his job? Now, if you would have waited until he was done and asked him if what he did was a church acceptable means of forgiving sins, I would have no issue with your actions.

If you doubted his reply and wrote to the Bishop ASKING for clarification, I still would have had no issue with what you did. But to ask the priest to do his job a different way from the way that he was doing it was incorrect.

That my opinion – which you asked for … and I stand by it.

 

[Dauphin]

I’m not the one who is changing the story around. Did you or did you not say in your opening post …

I interrrupted the priest, and asked him to use the correct formula
… Who are you to tell someone, who stands in the persona of Christ, how to do his job? Now, if you would have waited until he was done and asked him if what he did was a church acceptable means of forgiving sins, I would have no issue with your actions.

If you doubted his reply and wrote to the Bishop ASKING for clarification, I still would have had no issue with what you did. But to ask the priest to do his job a different way from the way that he was doing it was incorrect.

That my opinion – which you asked for … and I stand by it.

I wouldn’t do that. It’s not a very good opinion.

I exercised my right to a licit confession. It was not my intent to teach or instruct, but to receive a licit confession. The priest was using a form which I knew was illicit, and, although I could have had more tact in doing so, I was entirely correct to exercise my right as a Catholic.

 

[notsmart]

I guess the moral to this story is you better not think of the priest as Christ, because Christ would have sent you to a Bishop if you were confused about what he said to you, if it was in conflict with everything else he told you to that point.



Yeah, I understand the In Persona Christi thing, likely better than some here.

You should be able to talk to the priest FIRST, with your concern.

If you can’t, then Matthew (the writer of) was a liar.

 

[notsmart]

I wouldn’t do that. It’s not a very good opinion.

I exercised my right to a licit confession. It was not my intent to teach or instruct, but to receive a licit confession. The priest was using a form which I knew was illicit, and, although I could have had more tact in doing so, I was entirely correct to exercise my right as a Catholic.

I think you should have offered up his neglect of your spiritual condition for the sake of the souls without baptism.
If I were you that is.

 

[Sir_Knight]

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!

You focus on the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. That is clear from your comments. And, as I said, that is a mindset that Christ condemned.

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.

You are being legalistic by insisting that if something isn’t exactly as spelled out, it will not work.

 

[notsmart]

Is his concern it “will not work”? or is his concern “He ought to represent Christ and take this job seriously”?

A person who actually even goes to confession in this day and age ought not be discouraged to go and expect what the Church claims they do in this sacrament.

Is anything holy anymore?

 

[Dauphin]

You focus on the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. That is clear from your comments. And, as I said, that is a mindset that Christ condemned.

You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. I believe that a perfect act of contrition brings the forgiveness of sins, but that it must always involve a full compliance with the sacrament of penance. That’s not legalistic - it’s precisely what the Church teaches.

Someone walking to confession who gets hit by a car will go to heaven.

You are being legalistic by insisting that if something isn’t exactly as spelled out, it will not work.

Complete nonsense. In my first post, I said that the absolution may have been valid. It’s the fact that doubt exists which justifies my position - a position entirely consistent with the doctrine of the Church.

I was completely correct in seeking a licit confession.

 

[notsmart]

I would agree that this experience is not what I invision for my first confession.

I am starting to wonder with a thread about a person who has a priest saying God does not care about sin, in a homily and now this-

And the “shocked” people about the priest in chicago selling Cocaine, that any of this is even worth it!

Then there are others saying they are right to be in SSPX.



I give up.

This is Mass Confusion. No pun intended.

The poor guy wanted absolution. Is that such a hard thing to get today the right way?

Why does the Church insist on so many things to be done the “right way” yet in practice does not?

 

[Sir_Knight]

What I did was exercise my right as a Catholic, and I owe no apology for it.

Dauphin:

I exercised my right to a licit confession. It was not my intent to teach or instruct, but to receive a licit confession. The priest was using a form which I knew was illicit, and, although I could have had more tact in doing so, I was entirely correct to exercise my right as a Catholic.

You’re very big on your “rights”. I’ve got a newsflash for you … salvation is not a RIGHT but a GIFT from God. No one has a RIGHT to claim it. We ASK for it with our head bowed. We do not demand it as our right with our head held high.

 

[Sir_Knight]

You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. I believe that a perfect act of contrition brings the forgiveness of sins, but that it must always involve a full compliance with the sacrament of penance. That’s not legalistic - it’s precisely what the Church teaches.

Someone walking to confession who gets hit by a car will go to heaven.

Are you aware that perfect contrition, according to church scholars, is very rare and that one does not need perfect contrition to have their sins forgiven in confession.

Complete nonsense. In my first post, I said that the absolution may have been valid. It’s the fact that doubt exists which justifies my position - a position entirely consistent with the doctrine of the Church.

I was completely correct in seeking a licit confession.

Not the way that you did it by telling the priest how to do his job.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Dauphin:
You’ve accused me of a sin I did not commit. That’s calumny.What SIN did I accuse you of and where did I do this?

 

[notsmart]

You’re very big on your “rights”. I’ve got a newsflash for you … salvation is not a RIGHT but a GIFT from God. No one has a RIGHT to claim it. We ASK for it with our head bowed. We do not demand it as our right with our head held high.

Catholics do have rights. Please consider the fact that canon law provides for these rights you think are optional.

Not to mention the bible does.

Unless you are of the mind that no priest can ever be held accountable for his actions or lack of.

You would be forgetting that in doing so, you can never complain about Pelosi, or Gulliani, or Biden or Kerry or Kennedy.

Because there is a priest out there, or a Bishop out there that paved their road to perdition. Up until recently that is, due to the public outcry re: Pelosi.

Still, she is not excommunicated formally.

Yes, blindly trust them.
That’s the way!

 

[Dauphin]

What SIN did I accuse you of and where did I do this?

You’ve accused me of public detraction and judgment of my confessor. It’s simply untrue.

 

[Dauphin]

You’re very big on your “rights”. I’ve got a newsflash for you … salvation is not a RIGHT but a GIFT from God. No one has a RIGHT to claim it. We ASK for it with our head bowed. We do not demand it as our right with our head held high.

I know that very well, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Church has granted me the right to a licit confession. I exercised the right precisely under the conditions the Church anticipates, and I have nothing to apologize for.

 

[Dauphin]

Are you aware that perfect contrition, according to church scholars, is very rare and that one does not need perfect contrition to have their sins forgiven in confession.

I’m well aware of that. You don’t seem to be aware that valid sacramental absolution is essential without a perfect act of contrition. You seem to be willing to treat the sacrament flippantly, telling me it’s “legalistic” to get my sins absolved with certainty.

 

[Sir_Knight]

You’ve accused me of public detraction and judgment of my confessor. It’s simply untrue.

1. I did not accuse you of public detraction.
2. I did say that you were guilty of passing judgment on your confessor based on your comments here — he started doing the confession in a way that you determined was not proper and you rebuked him for it by asking him to do it the way that you wanted. You passed judgement on him that the way that he was doing it was not correct.
3. Nowhere did I say that this action was a sin but now that I think of it, it MIGHT be but I’m not sure which one.

 

[Walking_Home]

]
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 — do you think the form does not matter. What happened when the form for baptism was changed to “Creater, redeemer, sanctifier”. The ones responsible “intended” to baptise–yet the form made the baptisms invalid. Form matters. It is gravely dangerous to mess with the forms for the sacraments.

 

[Dauphin]

1. I did not accuse you of public detraction.
2. I did say that you were guilty of passing judgment on your confessor based on your comments here — he started doing the confession in a way that you determined was not proper and you rebuked him for it by asking him to do it the way that you wanted. You passed judgement on him that the way that he was doing it was not correct.
3. Nowhere did I say that this action was a sin but now that I think of it, it MIGHT be but I’m not sure which one.

Just more calumny and lies. Dig yourself a deeper hole.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I’m well aware of that. You don’t seem to be aware that valid sacramental absolution is essential without a perfect act of contrition. You seem to be willing to treat the sacrament flippantly, telling me it’s “legalistic” to get my sins absolved with certainty.

Are you telling me that if you walked into the confessional with a mortal sin and you confessed that mortal sin but did not have perfect contrition and the priest didn’t get th form correct but obviously had every intention of forgiving you and you walked out and had a massive heart, God would send you to hell for that mortal sin?

Is that what you believe?