Is a Confession Valid if the Priest Doesn't Know Your Language?

[Hoosier_Daddy]

As you directed the question to me: I am not engaged here in dialogue. There is really nothing to dialogue about.

The principles of sacramental theology provide a theologian with the criteria to analyze an individual celebration of the sacrament against the measure articulated in theology while accounting for the prescriptions in canon law. The conclusion one will reach is essentially binary. Yes or no. In each instance, Father David has answered the points correctly. If the light switch is on and a person responded that no, in fact it is not, the only response is “that answer is wrong.” There is nothing about which to substantively dialogue.

The critique Father David has posted is also exactly correct.

Not here to engage in dialogue?

Ok.

 

[FrDavid96]

Is it your position that because the church does not explicitly say it that it is not the case? It’s my position that it is inferred that the two people in communication have to communicate…

My position is that the Catholic Church (not you or anyone else) gets to define what is a valid sacrament and what is an invalid attempt.

Anyone (yes, anyone) who claims that such-and-such a situation makes a sacrament invalid* must show where the Church actually and clearly articulates that either a certain condition must be met for validity or that a certain condition renders the attempt invalid.

So, again I will point out that nowhere does the Church attach the condition of a common language as a requirement for a valid sacrament of Confession.

---

• there is no such thing as an “invalid sacrament” it is either valid or it is an invalid attempt. Nevertheless, the words “invalid sacrament” are part of our online vocabulary.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Is it your position that because the church does not explicitly say it that it is not the case? It’s my position that it is inferred that the two people in communication have to communicate…

It is you who have asserted a thesis that “communication” is central to the celebration. In fact, it is the Church which articulates what is central to the celebration of the sacrament…and she does so. Your position is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the Church prescribes.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Not here to engage in dialogue?

Ok.

On this thread and in the answering of these points, there is nothing to engage in dialogue about. One applies a measure, from theology and canon law, and one has a result. These sorts of questions do not admit of a multiform answer. As I said before, the answer will be one or the other of two choices. Only one of them can be correct.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

My position is that the Catholic Church (not you or anyone else) gets to define what is a valid sacrament and what is an invalid attempt.

Anyone (yes, anyone) who claims that such-and-such a situation makes a sacrament invalid* must show where the Church actually and clearly articulates that either a certain condition must be met for validity or that a certain condition renders the attempt invalid.

So, again I will point out that nowhere does the Church attach the condition of a common language as a requirement for a valid sacrament of Confession.

---

• there is no such thing as an “invalid sacrament” it is either valid or it is an invalid attempt. Nevertheless, the words “invalid sacrament” are part of our online vocabulary.

Well of course I don’t think the church is saying what you think it’s saying. Either way it seems as if there is some agitation. I will respectfully bow out without agreeing with you.

Though we disagree, I am grateful for your vocation and the time you spend on the boards…

 

[Lormar]

Well of course I don’t think the church is saying what you think it’s saying. Either way it seems as if there is some agitation. I will respectfully bow out without agreeing with you.

Though we disagree, I am grateful for your vocation and the time you spend on the boards…

The agitation might be coming from your disrespectful posts.