Invalid confession?????

[mosher]

Mosher,

I still don’t follow you. What am I not getting?

See Aquinas (III. 74, 4)

Thoughts?
VC

In the article that you cite from the Summa it goes on to say that if a priest of either rite uses the other rites matter that priest sins. The question here is what St. Thomas meant when he said that they sin when doing this. It is unclear if he is only speaking of a disciplinary sin or if by sin he means malady which could have the connotation of a grave error that affects the very intrinsic stability of the Sacrament.

It seems to me that in his treatment when he speaks about necessity he is speaking in the universal according to the whole Church and not just particular usage and the validity from that perspective. Likewise when he is treating on suitability he is still addressing validity but under the usage of each rite while making a distinction between the universal and particular. I think that this particular issue is one that would make a very good doctoral dissertation based around his usage of the word sin in the Summa pertaining to sacramental theology.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Mosher,

Again, I’m afraid we have to part ways here. St. Thomas is saying that when a priest knowingly and willingly consecrates illicit matter (without grave reason) then he has sinned.

That’s it.

The sacrament is still VALID, and the real presence is still real. There is no sin qua sin that affects the validity of a sacrament. A priest in mortal sin can consecrate, baptize, absolve, and a Bishop in mortal sin can ordain, etc. The sacraments work apart from the holiness of the minister.

I am wondering if it is possible that we are using terms differently? Classically the word LICIT/ ILLICIT refers to whether or not a liturgical action or a sacrament is in accordance with liturgical rules, i.e. does the minister have permission to do X in this way at this time. VALID / INVALID refers to whether or not the sacrament is actually administered. It is possible to have a ILLICIT but VALID sacrament (say by consecrating leavened bread in the Latin Rite) and it is possible to have a ILLICIT and INVALID sacrament (say by attempting to consecrate a donut), and of course we hope that the majority of sacraments are LICIT and VALID.

You seem to want to argue that an illicit action (say by omitting the Trinitarian formula in absolution, or by using a deprecative statement) would consequently give rise to an invalid sacrament. This is not the case, that I know of, for ANY of the sacraments.

The key question is what is VALID or not. And the issue that I am trying to work out is what is the bare minimum necessary for the form of absolution to be valid. If it works like the other sacraments (and I have found no indication that it doesn’t) then any valid absolution (meaning any form that was valid in the 2nd century, or in the Eastern Churches, etc) would still be valid today.

But what seems very interesting about the form of absolution is that there are indications that there is no hard and fast set of “words” that make it valid or not. From what I can gather there is a current in sacramental theolgy that holds that absolution must contain the person absolving, the person to be absolved, and the thing absolved from. So it would include some form that express “I absolve you from your sins” or “May God absolve you from your sins”.

“I absolve you”, or “May God absolve you” would include the implicit understanding of “from your sins”. That’s why Jimmy Akin points out that in such a case, as long as the minister is “intending to do what the Church does” then that absolution is valid.

Also there is strong argument that the word “forgive” and “absolve” are materially equivalent. Therefore “I forgive you your sins.” would also seem to be valid.

The point of all this is that I don’t think you can accurately say that the essential form is “I absolve you from your sins in the Name of the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit”. This seems to be overstating the position. Rather perhaps we should say that the Rite of Penance mandates this form. Any deviation would be illicit. And there is no good excuse to ever deviate from that given form and call in to question the validity of the absolution.

But this is NOT to say that any deviation is per se an invalid absolution.

As to the original post, and the form used: well, I simply don’t know. Again, awalt’s advice seems the most prudent and sound: “talk to your pastor”.

Thank you for the discussion and (name removed by moderator)ut,
God Bless you,
VC

 

[mosher]

Again, I’m afraid we have to part ways here. St. Thomas is saying that when a priest knowingly and willingly consecrates illicit matter (without grave reason) then he has sinned.

That is exactly what I am questioning. I am not sure that is what he means based on the construction of his phrase and the use of the term sin. I am well aware that the sacraments work ex opere operato and what licit/illicit and valid/invalid mean. My position comes from being a student of Thomas knowing that he is a master of using term equivocally that we only use univocally today. Also, Halligan states that it must be of unleavened bread not stopping to qualify that it is only an issue of being licit and not validity but rather he uses the strong word - must. Must implies necessity.

You seem to want to argue that an illicit action (say by omitting the Trinitarian formula in absolution, or by using a deprecative statement) would consequently give rise to an invalid sacrament. This is not the case, that I know of, for ANY of the sacraments.

No, that is not the basis of my argument at all as I have stated earlier.

The key question is what is VALID or not. And the issue that I am trying to work out is what is the bare minimum necessary for the form of absolution to be valid. If it works like the other sacraments (and I have found no indication that it doesn’t) then any valid absolution (meaning any form that was valid in the 2nd century, or in the Eastern Churches, etc) would still be valid today.

Thomas answers this question. The bare minimum is “I absolve you,” which Trent echos. which all of Sacramental Theology echos. However, you idea that “any valid absolution (meaning any form that was valid in the 2nd century, or in the Eastern Churches, etc) would still be valid today” is not correct. Perhaps the Eucharist was a bad example but the point is that all the Sacraments do not work the same way under the same principles. Perhaps matrimony is a better example of this as there is the imposed canonical form for validity only for Catholics and the minister is different in the East than in the West. Or that if a significant separation from legitimate authority is present then Matrimony and confessions can be invalid while all the other sacraments would still be valid. What I am trying to express here is that it is a little more messy then you think.

“I absolve you”, or “May God absolve you” would include the implicit understanding of “from your sins”. That’s why Jimmy Akin points out that in such a case, as long as the minister is “intending to do what the Church does” then that absolution is valid.

This is where he is completely wrong. Just as if a priest intended to confect the Eucharist but used the wrong words even if they nearly meant the same thing the sacrament would not be confected. As with confession if all four necessities are not intact then no sacrament happens.

Also there is strong argument that the word “forgive” and “absolve” are materially equivalent. Therefore “I forgive you your sins.” would also seem to be valid.

Only in colloquial speech. However, the precision of the words must be maintained for the integrity of the Sacrament.

The point of all this is that I don’t think you can accurately say that the essential form is “I absolve you from your sins in the Name of the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit”. This seems to be overstating the position. Rather perhaps we should say that the Rite of Penance mandates this form. Any deviation would be illicit. And there is no good excuse to ever deviate from that given form and call in to question the validity of the absolution.

I am wondering if you have read all that I have wrote? I revoked the Trinitarian necessity quite a ways back. That is itself not necessary in the Sacrament of Penance but rather what is essential is “I absolve you” as has been discussed.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

My position comes from being a student of Thomas knowing that he is a master of using term equivocally that we only use univocally today. Also, Halligan states that it must be of unleavened bread not stopping to qualify that it is only an issue of being licit and not validity but rather he uses the strong word - must. Must implies necessity.

Mosher, I have to admit that Fr. Halligan gives me pause, not only on the issue of the Eucharist but on the Absolution. But Fr. Halligan aside, I think you might be reading to much into St. Thomas’s article here. Thomas’ statement “It is not, however, necessary for the sacrament that the bread be unleavened or leavened, since it can be celebrated in either.” seems pretty clear to me that both leavened and unleavened bread is valid matter. I know you know this as well (see also The Council of Florence: “We have likewise defined that the body of Christ is truly effected in unleavened or leavened or wheaten bread; and that priests ought to effect the body of our Lord in either one of these, and each one namely according to the custom of his Church, whether that of the West or of the East”) Florence’s “truly effected” seems to me only one thing, that both are valid matter. But either can be illicit according to one’s rite.

I think Fr. Halligan’s use of the word must in this case refers only to a juridical necessity, and goes to liciety not vlaidity.

mosher:

Thomas answers this question. The bare minimum is “I absolve you,” which Trent echos. which all of Sacramental Theology echos.

Hmmm. I wonder. How about the deprecative form, “May God absolve you”?

mosher:

However, your idea that “any valid absolution (meaning any form that was valid in the 2nd century, or in the Eastern Churches, etc) would still be valid today” is not correct.

Ah, yes, I admit that I resorted to an inartful use of hypoerbole there. I shouldn’t have said “valid absolution”. I shouldn’t have linked it to absolution at all. What I meant to convey was that, generally, valid matter, once admited as valid, usually remains valid, or has the possibility of being valid. The same seems true, generally, for old forms. I can’t think of a case where the Church has said that at one time this matter was valid and now it is not.

mosher:

Perhaps the Eucharist was a bad example

I agree.

mosher:

Perhaps matrimony is a better example of this as there is the imposed canonical form for validity . . Or that if a significant separation from legitimate authority is present then Matrimony and confessions can be invalid while all the other sacraments would still be valid.

Ah ha! That is exactly what I was trying to get at. Thank you for expressing it this way. Perhaps the best example would be absolution that is invalid not due to invalid form or invalid matter but due to the reservation of certain sins to the Bishop, or the priest lacking sufficient faculties (i.e. out of his jurisdiction).

mosher:

What I am trying to express here is that it is a little more messy then you think.

But I did think it was messy. And I have been engaging in this conversation in order to understand what you have been trying to express.

mosher:

This is where he is completely wrong. Just as if a priest intended to confect the Eucharist but used the wrong words even if they nearly meant the same thing the sacrament would not be confected.

Jimmy completely wrong?! ; ) I think you might be misunderstanding Jimmy’s point. He is not advocating that the minister’s intention overrides the necessary form. . . but this is really a side issue. I just didn’t want Jimmy to be charged with being completely wrong without someone rising to his defense.

mosher:

I am wondering if you have read all that I have wrote?

Hmmmm. Perhaps not as carefully as I should have? I apologize for that.

I think I was focusing too much on you satement “In the west a priest must for validity [use] just unleavened wheat bread”, which I still don’t understand, and I think you might be in error here. A priest in the Latin rite can consecrate leavened bread. If it can be consecrated than it is valid matter, no?

Anyway Mosher, thank you for the discussion. Your insight regarding impaired faculties, or as you put it “significant seperation from legitimate authority”, hit the nail right on the head for me, and helped me to think more clearly regarding the form of absolution (and other sacraments).

Thanks again for the discussion, it was excellent,
God Bless you,
VC

 

[mosher]

Mosher, I have to admit that Fr. Halligan gives me pause, not only on the issue of the Eucharist but on the Absolution. But Fr. Halligan aside, I think you might be reading to much into St. Thomas’s article here. Thomas’ statement “It is not, however, necessary for the sacrament that the bread be unleavened or leavened, since it can be celebrated in either.” seems pretty clear to me that both leavened and unleavened bread is valid matter. I know you know this as well (see also The Council of Florence: “We have likewise defined that the body of Christ is truly effected in unleavened or leavened or wheaten bread; and that priests ought to effect the body of our Lord in either one of these, and each one namely according to the custom of his Church, whether that of the West or of the East”) Florence’s “truly effected” seems to me only one thing, that both are valid matter. But either can be illicit according to one’s rite.

And again perhaps talking in circles (which means we need another bit of evidence) this does not mean that they are speaking of the particular suri juri Church but rather the more universal issue of if both traditions were valid. However, Florence and Trent for that matter do not go so far as to speak of such a particular and Thomas only hints at it.

I think Fr. Halligan’s use of the word must in this case refers only to a juridical necessity, and goes to liciety not vlaidity.

Even so, is it not possible that such as a positive addition for validity as canonical form is for Matrimony. All my sacramental training agrees with the necessity of unleavened bread in the west for validity.

Hmmm. I wonder. How about the deprecative form, “May God absolve you”?

According to Thomas who I will always assume is correct unless a fully sufficient arguement to the contrary is made teaches that such a form is invalid.

I think I was focusing too much on you satement “In the west a priest must for validity [use] just unleavened wheat bread”, which I still don’t understand, and I think you might be in error here.

It will not be the first time nor the last if that is the case but I will have to consult some further authorities on this point.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Ok Mosher, thank you for your reply.

I encourage you to pursue this, since it seems quite an important aspect of Eucharistic sacramental theology. Interestingly, all my sacramental training leads me to suspect that it is the opposite.

It doesn’t mean either of our training is deficient, just that one of us might not be representing the whole truth, and I am sure that either of us will willingly admit our error when we find out what the authentic teaching is.

Let me know what you find out.
God Bless,
VC

 

[Ace86]

The essential form is:

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

I had a priest the last time say “I absolve you of all of your sins in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

Is that valid? I think it might be illicit, but I’m not sure. But I’m not sure if it was valid or not.

 

[Polishman]

As there are many Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome that constitute the Catholic Church the Eastern Catholic Churches have a different though just as valid formula of absolution as is mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I quote: "1481 The Byzantine Liturgy recognizes several formulas of absolution, in the form of invocation, which admirably express the mystery of forgiveness: “May the same God, who through the Prophet Nathan forgave David when he confessed his sins, who forgave Peter when he wept bitterly, the prostitute when she washed his feet with her tears, the publican, and the prodigal son, through me, a sinner, forgive you both in this life and in the next and enable you to appear before his awe-inspiring tribunal without condemnation, he who is blessed for ever and ever. Amen.”

 

[mosher]

As there are many Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome that constitute the Catholic Church the Eastern Catholic Churches have a different though just as valid formula of absolution as is mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I quote: "1481 The Byzantine Liturgy recognizes several formulas of absolution, in the form of invocation, which admirably express the mystery of forgiveness: “May the same God, who through the Prophet Nathan forgave David when he confessed his sins, who forgave Peter when he wept bitterly, the prostitute when she washed his feet with her tears, the publican, and the prodigal son, through me, a sinner, forgive you both in this life and in the next and enable you to appear before his awe-inspiring tribunal without condemnation, he who is blessed for ever and ever. Amen.”

Exactly, I’ve been to confession under the Byzantine Rite and this is why it is very important to note that what is valid under one rite is not necessarily valid under another rite but at the same time both are valid in their proper context.

 

[mosher]

I had a priest the last time say “I absolve you of all of your sins in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

Is that valid? I think it might be illicit, but I’m not sure. But I’m not sure if it was valid or not.

Yes, I don’t see how that would be invalid.