Confession without confession when unconscious

[FrDavid96]

VC
I’m still confused. To quote the article:
The Apostolic Pardon, or Benediction, forgives temporal punishment due to our sins. If anything remains from our lives, provided we die in the state of grace, for which we have not done adequate penance is forgiven us through the Apostolic Pardon.
The words “is forgiven us” still lead me to believe that somehow the Pardon does forgive all sins.

The Roman Ritual gives 3 forms for the “Rite of the Apostolic Blessing with Plenary Indulgence at the Hour of Death”

First, the long form says that the person should first make a confession, or at least an act of contrition. The rite for the Apostolic Blessing/Pardon continues:

Next, the priest says a prayer that contains the words “…be pleased to grant him pardon and remission of all sins…” Someone else who is assisting says the confiteor.
Then the priest says the words of absolution from the rite of confession.
Next, the priest says the following
Priest: May our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave to His blessed apostle Peter the power of binding and loosing mercifully accept your confession and restore your baptismal innocence. And I, by the power given to me by the Holy See, grant you a plenary indulgence and remission of all sins; in the Name of the Father…
All: Amen
Priest: By the sacred mysteries of mankind’s restoration may almighty God remit for you the punishment of the present life and of the life to come, and may He open to you the gates of Paradise and admit you to everlasting happiness.
All: Amen.
Priest: May almighty God, Father, Son, + and Holy Spirit, bless you.
All: Amen

Thus ends the long form. (note that I’ve omitted some of it)
Alternately, if time is short:
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…
Then immediately follows that with the words of absolution from confession.

Finally, “In dire urgency, it suffices to say:
By the authority granted me by the Holy See…”

I think that asks more questions than it answers.

1. If the Apostolic blessing is not meant to absolve from all sins, why do the words appear there so clearly (in my own reading at least)?
2. Why the words “pardon” and “remission” rather than the word “absolve or absolution”? Does that indicate that it in fact in not intended to “absolve”? What’s the difference?
3. In the long form, confession comes first (with absolution) followed by the blessing, however, in the short form, the blessing comes first followed by the absolution. Why?
4. The final form given for “dire urgency” calls for only the Apostolic Blessing/Pardon but not the absolution. Again, Why?

Here’s yet something else that makes it confusing:

The Roman Ritual also says that Viaticum comes first, then anointing.
However, it does continue with a quote from The new Instruction of September 26, 1964 #68 “When anointing of the sick and Viaticum are administered at the same time, …the rite is to be arranges as follows; …the priest hears the confession of the sick person, if necessary, then administers the anointing, and then gives Viaticum, omitting the sprinkling…and the Confiteor and absolution.”
“If, however, the apostolic blessing with plenary indulgence at the hour of death is to be imparted on the same occasion, it takes place immediately before the anointing, omitting the sprinkling with its formulas and the Confiteor and absolution”

Now, why would the absolution be omitted if the Apostolic Blessing is done? Does that mean that it takes the place of the Absolution or does it mean that the confession & absolution are already part of the long form of the Blessing and that it’s only done once? I am still unsure.

All I can say from a personal perspective is that in cases of true urgency, I always say (at least) the short form of absolution followed by the Apostolic Blessing/Pardon and never the Blessing without absolution.

 

[notsmart]

What’s the ideal way for me to die in emergency now?
I am only a person who wills to be catholic, and my husband just yesterday told me he will also be a catholic.
I have a child also.
What would happen if we died tomorrow?

 

[Eucharisted]

What’s the ideal way for me to die in emergency now?
I am only a person who wills to be catholic, and my husband just yesterday told me he will also be a catholic.
I have a child also.
What would happen if we died tomorrow?

It is necessary to receive Baptism to enter into Heaven, for Original Sin deprives man of the Vision of God. There are three forms of Baptism: Baptism by water (the usual form), Baptism by desire, and Baptism by blood.

You would probably receive Baptism by desire if you were to die tomorrow, but you shouldn’t worry about tomorrow; only think about today. Pray, hope, and don’t worry. Worry is useless.

 

[notsmart]

It is necessary to receive Baptism to enter into Heaven, for Original Sin deprives man of the Vision of God. There are three forms of Baptism: Baptism by water (the usual form), Baptism by desire, and Baptism by blood.

You would probably receive Baptism by desire if you were to die tomorrow, but you shouldn’t worry about tomorrow; only think about today. Pray, hope, and don’t worry. Worry is useless.

I don’t care about myself, I am much more worried about my child.
If I went Eastern Orthodox, She could have baptism and communion at once.

Why do you deprive the little children this way?
I don’t like their schismatic pride, but I still have to ask why?
Keeping them from Jesus is not a useless worry.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

**VI. **The Necessity of Baptism
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

 

[Sir_Knight]

. . .

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)

. . .

Can I conclude from this that a person who died under such circumstances would go directly to heaven instead of having to spend time in purgatory?

 

[FrDavid96]

Can I conclude from this that a person who died under such circumstances would go directly to heaven instead of having to spend time in purgatory?

Well, let’s keep in mind that we never presume on God’s judgment. Also, everyone goes “through” purgatory–and this happens in His time, not our own so it’s still a mystery that we won’t understand in this world. How’s that for a direct answer?

 

[notsmart]

Can some of your purgatory happen here before death? I was wondering that today.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Can I conclude from this that a person who died under such circumstances would go directly to heaven instead of having to spend time in purgatory?

If the person obtained complete remission of all Temporal punishment, but we never know, if that is ever the case. So we should always continue to pray for and offer Masses for the person’s soul.

 

[FrDavid96]

Can some of your purgatory happen here before death? I was wondering that today.

Human suffering is a direct result of a disordered world caused by original sin. Therefore all suffering is in a sense, a pre-purgatory.
Sometimes the sins we comit lead directly to some sort of suffering, as a consequence of that sin.
So I think the answer to that would be yes.

 

[notsmart]

Human suffering is a direct result of a disordered world caused by original sin. Therefore all suffering is in a sense, a pre-purgatory.
Sometimes the sins we comit lead directly to some sort of suffering, as a consequence of that sin.
So I think the answer to that would be yes.

Thank you for the answer!
I was going to ask about mortification(in relation to diminishing another’s time in purgatory) but I don’t think that’s totally on topic here.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Fr. David,

I want to preface all of the following with a clear disclaimer that I am not the minister of the sacraments or rites as you are, nor do I have expertise in liturgical history. My training in sacramental theology is rudimentary. I offer the following as a ordinary laymen, attempting to help you clarify your thoughts on the matter.

VC
I’m still confused. To quote the article:The Apostolic Pardon, or Benediction, forgives temporal punishment due to our sins. If anything remains from our lives, provided we die in the state of grace, for which we have not done adequate penance is forgiven us through the Apostolic Pardon.The words “is forgiven us” still lead me to believe that somehow the Pardon does forgive all sins.

Fr., I think that might be clarified by the preceding clause “provided we die in the state of grace”. Thus is seems that the phrase “is forgiven us” is used in the generic sense of “remitted”. In this case that which is remitted is the temporal punishment.

Turning to the questions you brought up from the Roman Ritual, I’ll offer my thoughts. IMPORTANT: Fr. are you using the 1964 Roman Ritual or the later 2 volume “The Rites”? I don’t have “The Rites”, so please help me along if there is substantial departure. The following is assuming you are reading from the 1964 Roman Ritual.

1. If the Apostolic blessing is not meant to absolve from all sins, why do the words appear there so clearly (in my own reading at least)?

I don’t see them, at least not the words of sacramental absolution? Could you point them out again? I do see the “absolution” that follows the Confiteor , but that is the general liturgical absolution, right?

1. Why the words “pardon” and “remission” rather than the word “absolve or absolution”? Does that indicate that it in fact in not intended to “absolve”? What’s the difference?

I think so. The Ritual actually speaks of the priest hearing confession and then absolving (sacramentally), and later granting the Apostolic Pardon and remitting. They seem distinct in the ritual.

1. In the long form, confession comes first (with absolution) followed by the blessing, however, in the short form, the blessing comes first followed by the absolution. Why?

Is that the case? In the Roman Ritual, it doesn’t look like the words of sacramental absolution (from the sacrament of penance) come after the blessing. Does it in the current volume?

But, do you note that in the long form the confession and absolution come first only if the sick person needs or wants it? In other words if the sick person is in the state of grace, or recently went to confession, etc, etc. there is no need to have confession before the Apostolic Pardon. This supports the idea that the Pardon and the indulgence attached is directed to temporal punishment not guilt.

1. The final form given for “dire urgency” calls for only the Apostolic Blessing/Pardon but not the absolution. Again, Why?

In the 1964 Roman Ritual the “front matter” of the Apostolic Pardon, which includes sprinkling, prayers, the Confiteor, etc is done away with in the dire urgency. This speaks only to what is excised form the Apostolic Pardon. Sacramental absolution would still take place prior, if needed, and possible, I would think.

Here’s yet something else that makes it confusing:

However, it does continue with a quote from The new Instruction of September 26, 1964 #68 “When anointing of the sick and Viaticum are administered at the same time, …the rite is to be arranges as follows; …the priest hears the confession of the sick person, if necessary, then administers the anointing, and then gives Viaticum, omitting the sprinkling…and the Confiteor and absolution.”"If, however, the apostolic blessing with plenary indulgence at the hour of death is to be imparted on the same occasion, it takes place immediately before the anointing, omitting the sprinkling with its formulas and the Confiteor and absolution"Now, why would the absolution be omitted if the Apostolic Blessing is done?

I think I can clear this up. I believe that the “absolution” spoken of here is the “absolution” which follows the Confiteor. Just like the “absolution” in Mass.

Now follow the logical progression of Note 68:

1. All three rites – Anointing, Viaticum, and Apostolic Pardon – all have within them sprinkling, Confiteor and (general) absolution, so
2. If you administer Viaticum at the same time as Anointing you would omit the sprinking, Confiteor and absolution from the Viaticum, and
3. If you also administer the Apostolic Pardon would similarly omit that sprinking, Confiteor and absolution.

Basically note 68 is trying to get you not to repeat the sprinkling, Confiteor and absolution three times!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Again, I want to preface all of the following with a clear disclaimer that I am not the minister of the sacraments or rites as you are, nor do I have expertise in liturgical history. My training in sacramental theology is rudimentary. I offer the following as a ordinary laymen, attempting to help you clarify your thoughts on the matter.

Here is the clincher, I think, regarding the question of what the function of the Apostolic Pardon, the very first portion of the Rite says:

1. The apostolic blessing with plenary indulgence at the hour of death should be imparted, following the reception of the last sacraments, to those who desire it while still rational and conscious. It may likewise be granted to anyone who has given any indication of such desire, or who has seemed contrite before becoming unconscious or irrational. But it must be denied absolutely to the excommunicated, the impenitent, or those who die in patent mortal sin.

Why deny the Apostolic Pardon to those in mortal sin if it forgives sin?

Then see:

3.** If the sick person wishes to confess, the priest hears his confession and absolves him. **If not, he bids him make an act of contrition, and if time permits, briefly instructs him on the power and efficacy of this blessing.

Why does the Rite provide (in normal circumstances) for either Confession and sacramental absolution first and then the Apostolic Pardon OR just goes straight to the Pardon when there is no need to confess. It bolsters the notion that sacramental absolution and the Apostolic Pardon do two different things.

Furthermore:

    4. The priest consoles him, instilling confidence that by the divine bounty **he will receive remission of temporal punishment** and everlasting life.

Again, this restates the function of the Apostolic Pardon. The last bit “and everlasting life” doesn’t mean the revival of sanctifying grace because of the Apostolic Pardon, (since it follows the remission of temporal punishment in the sentence) but rather the immediate admission to everlasting life already merited by sanctifying grace already possessed.

What do you think?
VC

 

[FrDavid96]

Again, I want to preface all of the following with a clear disclaimer that I am not the minister of the sacraments or rites as you are, nor do I have expertise in liturgical history. My training in sacramental theology is rudimentary. I offer the following as a ordinary laymen, attempting to help you clarify your thoughts on the matter.

Here is the clincher, I think, regarding the question of what the function of the Apostolic Pardon, the very first portion of the Rite says:

Why deny the Apostolic Pardon to those in mortal sin if it forgives sin?

Then see:

Why does the Rite provide (in normal circumstances) for either Confession and sacramental absolution first and then the Apostolic Pardon OR just goes straight to the Pardon when there is no need to confess. It bolsters the notion that sacramental absolution and the Apostolic Pardon do two different things.

Furthermore:
Again, this restates the function of the Apostolic Pardon. The last bit “and everlasting life” doesn’t mean the revival of sanctifying grace because of the Apostolic Pardon, (since it follows the remission of temporal punishment in the sentence) but rather the immediate admission to everlasting life already merited by sanctifying grace already possessed.

What do you think?
VC

VC,
I have developed a bad habit of getting us off-topic. This thread is realy about “confession when unconscious” not the Apostolic Blessing/Pardon, so I’ve started a new thread on that topic (yes, with you in mind!) I think we should move this to that new thread before we cause too much of a distraction here. Hope to see you there.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=289949