This is definitely not true. Faculties are not required to confect the Eucharist, only the proper form, matter, intent, and Holy Orders. No matter how “defrocked,” “laicized,” or even excommunicated a priest may be, he is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek, and can (though it would be a grave sin) confect the Eucharist.
Sadly, confession has become institutionalized and formalized over the centuries and is too often a routine ritual. The absolution frequently is done in a rote fashion, also. There is something phoney about a confession of a venial sin without deeply-felt sorrow.
It's my experience that confession is rare among Catholics these days. I have a friend who recently went to confession for the first time in 20 years. Even then, she came away feeling that it was more a formula than a genuine encounter. For another thing, the confession was not in a confessional but out in the open - troubling to her because it lacked adequate privacy. No, people couldn't hear what she said but she was observed during the confession which made her uncomfortable. I doubt if she goes again - the way she talks. She is having deep doubts about Catholicism, partly because of the sex scandal, but also because she wants priests free to marry and women to play a more leading role in the leadership of the church, etc. She has been impressed by various female ministers in the area.
One other thing. Sometimes I think confession was emphasized because it gave power to the Church and its clergy. Wow! If a priest can forgive sins, what power! Like the priest, by saying the prayer of consecration, performs the mystery and miracle of transubstantiation.
Then, again, I'm inclined to think outside the box. Can we do that without sinning?but as a Catholic you still cannot receive communion from a Church not in Full Communioin with Rome
With all due respect, your post denies the very biblical basis of Confession. Jesus explicitly and clearly stated to the Apostles (as passed on to theri successors and collaborators) that:
You are also denying, as I read your post, the very words that Christ spoke to St. Peter:
If the Church, through the Successor of St. Peter, has any power, it is because it was deemed so by no less than Jesus Christ, Himself. Thus, to deny the existence of Confession and the authority of the Church is to deny Jesus, Himself, and His own Word.
No one here can definitively answer your question, since the answer is a matter of opinion. There seem to be four views here:By the way, can anyone answer my question? lol Seeng as how it’s the difference between me having to go o confession to get mortal sins re-confessed or not, I deem this kinda important.
Your absolution was valid, your sins have been forgivenBy the way, can anyone answer my question? lol Seeng as how it’s the difference between me having to go o confession to get mortal sins re-confessed or not, I deem this kinda important.
No more so than if a priest did an illicit action, such as using a Byzantine Eucharistic Prayer at Mass, would affect the validity of the Eucharist.
As we discussed earlier, there are differences in how the Church treats the Sacraments of Penance and Eucharist; the validity of the former very much depends on the scope of the faculties granted to the priest.
Correct, has the OP indicated that the local Ordinary has not granted faculites to hear confession to the priest in question?
Hello again, Brendan,
It sounds wierd. Why would the priest make such a change to the form of the sacrament.
You bring up some interesting points. Even if he says “Jesus absolves you”, he does not even seem to follow the formula for the Eastern Rites, unless, of course, each of the Eastern Rites has its own particular formula.
They do not, you will also see that refernced in CCC 1481. There are actually several formuals in the Byzantine Church alone, and it’s not unheard of for a priest to use his own.
To minister is to perform a service. The priest performs the service of hearing the confession and making the determination if absolution is warrented. The forgiveness of sins comes from Christ, because Christ is the offended party. It comes THROUGH the priest.
It’s clear that Brendan recognizes this; I don’t think you’ve proven that the Church recognizes this.
I don’t accept the equivalence of these two sacraments in your argument, since validity of the Sacrament of Penance is more easily constrained by the law than the Sacrament of the Eucharist. For instance, we have Canon 966
A happy-go-lucky priest may wander into the next town for a picnic, meet a group of local Catholics, and decide to celebrate an impromptu mass there in the park. Being concerned about the state of communicants, he may hear a few confessions behind a tree prior to the mass. There would be nothing invalid about the mass, but the Sacrament of Penance would be invalid, since he lacks faculties to hear confessions in the territory.