Fake Confessions

[LeroyCRHP]

Chatter163;

I looked and could not find where it said faking a legitimate Priest who can hear confessions in the confessional is a sin. I’m sure it is, just my limited search tools to find this were unsuccessful. I would like to see what the church says about this officially. I’m sure it is very strong.

Thanks
Leroy

 

[LeroyCRHP]

Thanks for the clarification FrDavid96. I’m sure I did not state this as clearly as I was told by our great Priest!

This gets into some tricky vocabulary here. The Sacrament isn’t valid. Forgiveness occurs (assuming everything else is there like contrition, etc.), but there’s no valid Sacrament because there’s no valid priest. The penitent however is still forgiven because as you said, it’s not up to the penitent to check the “credentials” of a priest hearing confessions–unless of course it’s obvious or the penitent otherwise knows that he isn’t a real priest, or doesn’t have faculties.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you Fr. David.

I understand your explanation of why you want to use the phrase Ecclesia Supplet, and what meaning you give it.

I think what I was trying to say was that if is the basis for saying something is a case of Ecclessia Supplet, then any time God acts in a direct way in the life of person in order to impart grace, in a case where the person should have or could have received the grace mediately through the sacraments, it would be, under your view, be a case of Ecclesia Supplet.

That seems to me to turn the utility of the phrase on its head. For instance, I’ve never seen anyone ever mention the term Ecclesia Supplet in connection with “Baptism by desire”. Another example: even though extra-sacramental forgiveness through perfect contrition is never considered apart from the actual sacrament of penance (to which is must refer by implicit or explicit intention), I’ve never seen that described as a case of Ecclesia Supplet. Maybe I’ve just never encountered it! But your view would seem (unless I misunderstand your explanation) to invoke the term Ecclesia Supplet in these cases.

I wouldn’t invoke it in those cases either. I would say that it only applies if there is something lacking which has the appearance of being there, or every effort is made but something external stands in the way. That might be by way of deception (like an imposter priest) or by way of accident (the vintner accidentally labels cherry wine as “altar wine”) or a priest who celebrates Mass in a concentration camp and uses the only bread available even though the validity is questionable. These are just some “typical” examples. I’m not saying that all graces received apart from valid and licit sacraments are “Ecclesia supplet.” I’m only saying that if the appearances of a Sacrament are there and we know that graces are imparted, then the way we describe this is to say “Ecclesia supplet.” But like I said earlier, the situation happens first, and only when we look back upon it and try to understand it can we use the phrase.

But that’s just my personal view of it. My understanding is that what you have been expressing is just your view of it, is that correct? Or is this something that is current in Ecclesiology/ Sacramental Theology, etc? Is it common wisdom? Or is it your personal view on it? (Not to say your take isn’t valuable or wise!).

Again, as I said earlier, I don’t think there is “one” definition of the term. It’s a principle, not a legal phrase as such (even though it can sometimes be used as one).

I hope I haven’t come across as argumentative. I was struggling to understand your position.

And that leads me to a really, really important point. I want to echo pnewton and say that I greatly appreciate your presence on this forum and all the time and (often heroic) effort that you put in. I want to sincerely thank you.

Prayers for you and your ministry this Christmas Eve night!
VC

Thanks. Signing-off until after Christmas. Merry Christmas to all!

 

[cameron_lansing]

Chatter163;

I looked and could not find where it said faking a legitimate Priest who can hear confessions in the confessional is a sin. I’m sure it is, just my limited search tools to find this were unsuccessful. I would like to see what the church says about this officially. I’m sure it is very strong.

Thanks
Leroy

At the level of moral theology, it is a grave sin against religion and against the truth.

It is considered sufficiently serious that a person, if a Catholic who does this, is subject to a penalty in Church law.

c. 1378 §2. The following incur a latae sententiae penalty of interdict or, if a cleric, a latae sententiae penalty of suspension: . . . 2º . . . . a person who, though unable to give sacramental absolution validly, attempts to impart it or who hears sacramental confession.