E
Eucharisted
Guest
General confession may be given, as I understand it, in danger of death.
Now, what if you’re unconscious? Would your sins be forgiven?
Now, what if you’re unconscious? Would your sins be forgiven?
- Status
T
teachccd
Guest
One who is unconscious would not be able to confess his sins. So it would be my thought that the person would be left in the infinite mercy of God who would know better than that person what his/her intentions were. But as far as the Sacrament goes, one must be fully conscious in order to be contrite and to convey their sins which is the matter of the Sacrament…God Bless…teachccd
S
Seatuck
Guest
I think you mean general absolution. General confession is when you make a long confession going over many years of sins. General absolution is for emergency only such as a group or soldiers on the battle field where there is no time for confession or on a plane falling out of the sky. The priest is there but you are unable to make a normal confession. You are obligated to go as soon as possible after.
You must be conscious to participate in confession.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
Thanks for the reply
In that case, I think a prayer would come handy:
Lord Jesus Christ, I beg of You to have mercy on me. Death approches near and I deserve nothing but to go to hell for my sins. But You, O Lord, are Mercy Itself, and You are greater than all the sins in the world. I place my trust and my hope in You.
In that case, I think a prayer would come handy:
Lord Jesus Christ, I beg of You to have mercy on me. Death approches near and I deserve nothing but to go to hell for my sins. But You, O Lord, are Mercy Itself, and You are greater than all the sins in the world. I place my trust and my hope in You.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
I don’t have a reference at hand, but I think I have read that the Anointing of the Sick forgives all sin for an unconscious person. I think that they would be required to verbally confess if they recovered consciousness.
F
flameburns623
Guest
It might be noted that some seeming-comatose patients have indicated that they were conscious but unable to respond when they were stricken. Also some folks who experience NDE’s are able to report later a pretty full awareness of things happening around them, even if technically 'dead". So one might seem to be unconscious yet have enough presence of mind to make an inner repentance of some sort.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Yes, you’d have to check on the exact standard for having indicated repentance prior to losing consciousness - i.e. it cannot forgive someone who is unrepentant and thus at the very least should not be administered to those who have made their unrepentance clear - but Anointing of the Sick does forgive all sin (hence the necessity of a priest or bishop to confer the sacrament).
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Some times to the grief of those who expected to be heirs but said too much.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
I think you mean “General Absolution”.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Absolution can be given without confession.
Whether the sins are expressed aloud (the normal way) or not (such as danger of death) when the priest pronounces absolution, the actual forgiveness depends upon the person being absolved. If one has sorrow for the sins, and a desire to be forgiven, the effects of the absolution are still there even if that person is not conscious and able to speak the sins.
Your sins would be forgiven IF you are sorry for them. If you’re not sorry for them, then they aren’t forgiven. You need not be conscious to be sorry.
The Anointing of the Sick does not forgive all sins. The Apostolic Pardon at the Hour of Death which is a part of the Last Rites along with Anointing (Unction) absolves from all sins.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
Ooh, Apostolic Parden is something new to me!
E
Eucharisted
Guest
Thank you, everyone, for your answers, you are really helping me deepen my faith and knowledge!
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
The Catechism states that the Anointing of the Sick forgives sins.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Fr. David,
I was under the impression that the Apostolic Pardon (or Blessing) removed temporal punishment due to sin, and was not an absolution of guilt. I don’t quite understand how the Apostolic Pardon absolves from all sins.
My impression was the sacrament of anointing itself forgives sins (if the person is unable to receive the sacrament of penance).
Could you clarify?
Thank you,
VC
F
FrDavid96
Guest
OK This one needs some serious clarification.
The Annointing of the Sick General Introduction #6 “If necessary, the sacrament also provides the sick person with the forgiveness of sins and the completion of Christian penance”
The words of the Apostolic Pardon “By the authority granted me by the Holy See, I impart to you a plenary indulgence and the remission of all sins, in the name of the Father…” (or “full pardon and remission of all your sins” depending on the translation used)
When I posted last night, I was imagining a scenario where people would think that receiving Unction/Anointing would make confession unnecessary: in other words, I didn’t want people to think that a sick person could say to himself “skip the confession part, as I’m about to be anointed.” Key paragraph here. I was trying to avoid that misunderstanding.
Here’s what happens in the Last Rites:
Absolution (with or without auricular confession)
Apostolic Pardon
Viaticum (if possible)
Unction/Anointing
I’ve always thought of the Apostolic Pardon in terms of FIRST absolution then the words of the blessing. In a true emergency, the priest would say “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. By the authority granted me by the Holy See…”
This paragraph describes my own thought processes:
In my own mind, I see the pardon as something that “completes” (for lack of a better word) the absolution, not something that replaces it. It never occured to me when I posted last night, that something I’ve always taken for granted might not be the same thoughts that are present in everyone else’s minds. Yes, I should have realized that, but it is so ingrained in my own consciousness that I never thought to articulate it.
Before anointing, the patient should be given the opportunity for confession and Communion.
If the person is not “in danger of death” anointing might be administered without the first 2 (but they should still be offered).
In an emergency (let’s say a priest comes upon a car accident and he does not have the Oil of the Sick --OI), it would be the short form of absolution with the pardon that remits all sins.
In a situation where the priest has some time, even if there’s danger of death, what should happen is that absolution should preceed Unction. In my own mind, I cannot imagine why a priest would omit the absolution part. I can imagine it happening, but not imagine the “why” part.
The Anointing forgives all sins “if necessary” That’s what the Church says, and I don’t doubt or deny it. The part I have difficulty with is to ask “why would that ever happen?” Why would a priest anoint without first absolving? In my opinion, I think that’s what the Church is saying by “if necessary.” I think those words mean that if the absolution is not given, the Anointing “supplies” the absolution which should have been done.
Now, let’s see where that gets us…
The Annointing of the Sick General Introduction #6 “If necessary, the sacrament also provides the sick person with the forgiveness of sins and the completion of Christian penance”
The words of the Apostolic Pardon “By the authority granted me by the Holy See, I impart to you a plenary indulgence and the remission of all sins, in the name of the Father…” (or “full pardon and remission of all your sins” depending on the translation used)
When I posted last night, I was imagining a scenario where people would think that receiving Unction/Anointing would make confession unnecessary: in other words, I didn’t want people to think that a sick person could say to himself “skip the confession part, as I’m about to be anointed.” Key paragraph here. I was trying to avoid that misunderstanding.
Here’s what happens in the Last Rites:
Absolution (with or without auricular confession)
Apostolic Pardon
Viaticum (if possible)
Unction/Anointing
I’ve always thought of the Apostolic Pardon in terms of FIRST absolution then the words of the blessing. In a true emergency, the priest would say “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. By the authority granted me by the Holy See…”
This paragraph describes my own thought processes:
In my own mind, I see the pardon as something that “completes” (for lack of a better word) the absolution, not something that replaces it. It never occured to me when I posted last night, that something I’ve always taken for granted might not be the same thoughts that are present in everyone else’s minds. Yes, I should have realized that, but it is so ingrained in my own consciousness that I never thought to articulate it.
Before anointing, the patient should be given the opportunity for confession and Communion.
If the person is not “in danger of death” anointing might be administered without the first 2 (but they should still be offered).
In an emergency (let’s say a priest comes upon a car accident and he does not have the Oil of the Sick --OI), it would be the short form of absolution with the pardon that remits all sins.
In a situation where the priest has some time, even if there’s danger of death, what should happen is that absolution should preceed Unction. In my own mind, I cannot imagine why a priest would omit the absolution part. I can imagine it happening, but not imagine the “why” part.
The Anointing forgives all sins “if necessary” That’s what the Church says, and I don’t doubt or deny it. The part I have difficulty with is to ask “why would that ever happen?” Why would a priest anoint without first absolving? In my opinion, I think that’s what the Church is saying by “if necessary.” I think those words mean that if the absolution is not given, the Anointing “supplies” the absolution which should have been done.
Now, let’s see where that gets us…
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
That makes perfect sense to me, and you are absolutely correct that the idea of forgiveness of sins in the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick makes Confession even when possible, not necessary, is a very prevelant error or misunderstanding. Especially with healing Masses and dozens of people wlaking down to be Anointed, so that they do not have to go to Confession.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Joe,
What I see as the key words in the Catechism are:
“the forgiveness of sins, if the sick person was not able to obtain it through the sacrament of Penance”
I see that “if” as a huge word. As I said in my lastest post, my concern is that I don’t want people to think that Unction makes confession unnecessary. I should have been more clear. I wasn’t. Sorry for the confusion.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Thanks for the clarification Fr.
Now that I look at the passage I quoted again:
I read it the other way, “the apostolic pardon. . . absolves from all sins” (i.e. the “along with anointing” referred to the “is a part of the Last Rites.”) Do you see my confusion? (Darn commas!) I thought you meant that the apostolic pardon itself absolved the guilt of sin. But it doesn’t, right? Or am I mistaken?
By the way, I read that in the current Rite of Anointing the apostolic pardon is not mentioned at all. Is that true? What are your thoughts on that? Do priests still avail themselves of the power to give it (if they in fact do retain such power?)
Thank you!
VC
Now that I look at the passage I quoted again:
I see how one could read that as “the apostolic pardon. . .along with the annointing” absolves from all sins, which of course would be true in so far as Annointing (when confession is impossible) absolves from the guilt of sin, and the Pardon remits temporal punishment for sin. So taken together (i.e. your “along with”) makes the whole thing complete.
I read it the other way, “the apostolic pardon. . . absolves from all sins” (i.e. the “along with anointing” referred to the “is a part of the Last Rites.”) Do you see my confusion? (Darn commas!) I thought you meant that the apostolic pardon itself absolved the guilt of sin. But it doesn’t, right? Or am I mistaken?
By the way, I read that in the current Rite of Anointing the apostolic pardon is not mentioned at all. Is that true? What are your thoughts on that? Do priests still avail themselves of the power to give it (if they in fact do retain such power?)
Thank you!
VC
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Well, first of all, as I said earlier, in my own mind, I’ve never imagined the Apostolic Pardon without being preceeded by at least the short-form for the Absolution; especially since the short form takes literally 2 or 3 seconds to say.
I would make a few points:
- In the Last Rites which is all 4 of what I described yesterday, I would say that the entire rite in its totality is what forgives all sins.
- If we had to ask the question of which part of the Last Rites actually forgives sins, I would still point to the absolution/pardon rather than the Unction. Although I’d prefer that we avoid the question altogether and concentrate on #1.
- If absolution, as such, is not pronounded for some legitimate reason, then yes, clearly the Unction does forgive sins; but “all sins”? That’s a new question entirely.
As for the question of the Apostolic Pardon actually forgiving and absolving of all sins, I have to say that I’m just not sure. When we look at the actual words which are pronounced, they seem to imply (rather strongly) that they are intended to absolve from all sin. Here’s why I say that:
“I absolve you from your sins, in the Name of the Father…”
“I grant…remission of all your sins, in the Name of the Father…”
Granted, “remission” and “absolve” are two different words, but is this a “distinction without a difference”? I’m just not sure, yet I do lean toward saying that they are two ways of saying the same thing. I cannot say that I have a definite answer.
On a practical note, it’s not something I’ve ever thought about because, again, I’ve never imagined the Pardon without the short Absolution.
As for the Apostolic Pardon itself being in the current Rite here’s what I observe:
The only ritual books that I personally own for the Rite is the book Pastoral Care of the Sick. This is the “standard” green book that most priests seem to use. In fact, I’ve never seen a priest use anything else. I’m sure it’s in the big red “Rites” book, but I don’t even own that particular volume, as I’ve never had a need for it.
I have several copies of Pastoral Care
The older printings (with the purple bookmark) have 2 options for the Apostolic Pardon, the FIRST one given is a rather modern sounding version, and the second one is almost identical to the traditional formula.
In newer printings (with the gold bookmark) the only form given is the “modern” version, and the traditional version is completely absent. I have looked, but can’t even find it in an appendix.
I’ve sometimes asked myself if the publishers are trying to make some point here, or are they acting because they surveyed priests and found that few use the traditional formula? Has the traditional formula been done away with? I just don’t know. I can say that it’s the one I still use regardless of which book I have in my hand (if I’m even using the new rite which I haven’t done in over a year).
Whatever the reason for the books being published that way, though, the Apostolic Pardon (in at least one form) is still part of the new rite–that I can say with certainty. Whether or not priests actually make use of it is a different question altogether. In my personal experience, I’ve noticed that more “traditional” priests use it while more “liberal” priests do not. That’s not a matter of labeling priests, but let’s face it there are certain patterns which we all observe.
On a related note, the Moto Proprio (Art. 9) says that the pastor may grant permission for the traditional form of Anointing of the Sick, so this form is not only valid but perfectly licit.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Thank you Father David for the response and the information.
The reason I brought it up was because my understanding was that the Apostolic Pardon (Blessing) existed apart from the Last Rites, although it was a component of the Last Rites. My understanding was that the Apostolic Pardon, properly understood, was a special papal blessing which was enriched with an indulgence, although in certain circumstances others could impart the blessing (such as priests ministering to those in danger of death).
It didn’t seem to me that the Apostolic Blessing was directed at the guilt of sin but rather, since it was enriched with an indulgence, was directed at the temporal punishment due to sin.
For instance, see this entry in the Catholic Encylopedia:
The Apostolic blessing is a sacramental with which is granted a plenary indulgence (under the usual conditions), but no absolution from ecclesiastical censures. . . .A special feature of this blessing is the Apostolic benediction in articulo mortis. This blessing is given to those who are in danger of death by priests who possess the required faculty.
See also Norm 18 from the 1967 Apostolic Constitution on indulgences:
N. 18. To the faithful in danger of death who cannot be assisted by a priest to bring them the sacraments and impart **the apostolic blessing with its attendant plenary indulgence **(according to canon 468, 2 of the Code of Canon Law) Holy Mother Church nevertheless grants a plenary indulgence to be acquired at the point of death, provided they are properly disposed and have been in the habit of reciting some prayers during their lifetime.
Each time I see the Apostolic Pardon mentioned it seems to always be in connection with the indulgence that grants remission of punishment for sin. I haven’t seen it mentioned in relation to forgiveness of guilt of sin. Of course I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that traditionally the Apostolic Pardon didn’t have anything to do with guilt of sin.
Of course, like you said above, in the context of the Last Rites the Apostolic Pardon followed the sacrament of Penance, or of Anointing, or both – so it would seem that some sort of sacramental absolution is effected often in connection with the Apostolic Pardon in those case, but not because of it. This seems especially clear to me when we keep in mind that the Apostolic Pardon is also given apart from those sacraments as a “stand alone” blessing.
Here also is an interesting post from Fr. Z on his blog What Does the Prayer Really Say? regarding the Apostolic Pardon
It is all quite interesting. Does any of the above contribute to your thoughts on the matter?
VC
- Status