Priestly attire in a confessional

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dandelion_Wine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Deacon Ed:
In this case a stole is required. I’ve never heard of a priest hearing confessions in the attire you mention – I would have asked the question!
Click to expand...
:amen:
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
attended a conference last week where the participants - lay, married, religious, priests – were deliberately not identified on name tags or rosters by titles or honorifics, and only 2 priests wore clericals, and 2 nuns in habits. Most of us went around all weekend asking “are you a priest?” or “are you a nun?” especially in light of comments etc. during the classes and sessions. I am too old to go around calling priests “Bob” and “Larry” and sisters “Mary” and “Catherine”. 12 years of Catholic school leaves its mark on you.
Click to expand...
I had a friend who attended a conference and when she kept calling the priest by Fr. – he finally screamed at her, don’t call me that, my name is Bill or John or Bob or whatever. I mean…talk about “definitely different”. I was of the opinion that with the attitude he either would be made a bishop or leave altogether.
:rolleyes:
 
40.png
Primitive:
The Chaplians are officers because they have college educations as any other officer and are commisioned.
I never felt like I couldn’t confess to a priest/officer…to me, he was just a priest, and I respect them more than officers.
Click to expand...
I wondered about that comment myself as I often confessed to Ph.D’s, Doctorates, Canon lawyers, – so what? In the confessional, he’s Father, and you’re the penitent.

Brings to mind a wonderful story about a San Antonio parish some years back – due to an impending major church event one of the priests said his early Mass with only two people that he noticed in the church as he came in and was surprised to hear a voice doing the responses–nearly went into major heart failure when he finally picked out the figure responding. It was JPII and he was in San Antonio for a visit and had made his way to pray quietly before the day began. Loved that story.
 
Sir_Knight said:
I don’t know about that. I think you were right the first time – I think the stole needs to be present for all sacraments … at least, I’ve never seen a priest perform a sacrament without having one on.

Can someone help clarify this?
Click to expand...
I was taught that the stole is necessary for validity.
It could be, that in an emergency situation, it may be otherwise, but that’s not the case here.
 
Kendall said:
I was taught that the stole is necessary for validity.
It could be, that in an emergency situation, it may be otherwise, but that’s not the case here.
Click to expand...
I just cannot imagine that to be true. If it were necessary, we would see that information in the Catechism and other teaching materials about the faith. Could you please provide a source?

Plenty of priests are requested to hear confessions away from the church at odd moments. Surely not all of them carry a stole at all times. If a stole were necessary, the priest would have to refuse, and they never do.

Betsy
 
baltobetsy said:
I just cannot imagine that to be true. If it were necessary, we would see that information in the Catechism and other teaching materials about the faith. Could you please provide a source?

Plenty of priests are requested to hear confessions away from the church at odd moments. Surely not all of them carry a stole at all times. If a stole were necessary, the priest would have to refuse, and they never do.

Betsy
Click to expand...
I’m with you on this one. If emergency confessions can be validly heard without a stole, then the presence or absence of a stole is placed squarely in the realm of liceity, not validity.
 
I’ve heard priests say they’ve heard confessions in the airport, in a parking lot, etc. I’m sure they didn’t have a stole with them at the time.

My priest keeps the stole on his chair in the confessional when he leaves. I think it’s so he doesn’t forget to wear one while hearing confessions.
 
I learned in RCIA that the stole must be on in order for the confession to be valid. My first confession was with the priest who married my wife and myself. He was dressed in dockers and a button up shirt with no collar. He did, however, put the stole on prior to the confession.👍 Because I knew him, his choice of clothing didn’t bother me at all.
 
I’d like to see some evidence that a stole is necessary for absolution to be valid. If the penitent is truly sorry for their sins and the priest gives them the proper words of absolution, why should the penitent be punished because the priest didn’t wear hs stole. The Mass is still valid, even if the priest celebrates it in streetclothes. Why would Confession be any different?

My priest is often dressed in dark trousers and a dark golfshirt when he hears confessions. He always has the stole on in the Confessional, however. Then again, everyone in the parish knows that he’s the pastor, so the identifier is less of an issue. If you catch him for a private Confession appointment, whether or not he has the stole on depends on where and when you catch him.
 
I don’t think the stole has to be present and I would also like to see some documentation to back that assertion up.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
I don’t think the stole has to be present and I would also like to see some documentation to back that assertion up.
Click to expand...
The stole is necessary for the administration of the sacraments, not only confession, but all of them, and always has been. The Sacred Congregation of Rites has given a large number of decisions concerning the use of the stole. As a general the stole is used, and must be used, at a function that only a Bishop, Priest or Deacon can perform, ie: celebration of the Mass, when the Blessed Sacrament is touched,** and when the sacraments are administered),**

Sorry Kirk, it is a big deal.
 
Some members here state that they remember being told during their formation that a priest must wear a stole when celebrating the sacraments, including confession. This is completely true; they are absolutely required to wear it and it is not licit to wear it otherwise.

HOWEVER, this does not mean that the sacrament is not valid if a priest does not wear a stole. IT IS STILL VALID. A sacrament’s being licit and being valid are two completely different matters. Being** illicit** does not make a sacrament invalid. The priest will have to answer one day for his illicitness, but such negligence on his part does not, in and of itself, render the sacrament invalid. It is important not to confuse the two, which in most cases, is what I believe is occurring here when members say that they were told that a stole is necessary for validity.

Such horror stories are why I appreciate the FSSP priests in my parish, who wear a cassock (which they wear all the time, anyway), surplice and stole when in the confessional. I have even seen some visiting priests wear their birettas during confessions.
 
palmas85 said:
The stole is necessary for the administration of the sacraments, not only confession, but all of them, and always has been. The Sacred Congregation of Rites has given a large number of decisions concerning the use of the stole. As a general the stole is used, and must be used, at a function that only a Bishop, Priest or Deacon can perform, ie: celebration of the Mass, when the Blessed Sacrament is touched,** and when the sacraments are administered),**

Sorry Kirk, it is a big deal.
Click to expand...
It does NOT, however, render the sacraments invalid if it’s not worn. I’m NOT saying that they shouldn’t wear them, esp. if they’ve been ordered to do so. I didn’t say it wasn’t “a big deal.” I don’t like it when priests don’t obey.

Having said that, however, I’ve had my confession heard in oddish places (a public school classroom on an Indian reservation, for example, where a priest was visiting for a secular function and had some time, but didn’t have a stole).
 
MusicMan said:
Wikipedia claims that a stole is necessary for licity.
Click to expand...
Who wrote and edited the wiki entry?

That said, licity does not mean valid, as other have said.

As for me, if I found a strange guy in the confessional dressed as you described, I would have said, “Oh I’m sorry, you must be waiting for Father. I’ll just step out until you’re finished.”
 
OutinChgoburbs said:
Who wrote and edited the wiki entry?

That said, licity does not mean valid, as other have said.

As for me, if I found a strange guy in the confessional dressed as you described, I would have said, “Oh I’m sorry, you must be waiting for Father. I’ll just step out until you’re finished.”
Click to expand...
Yeah, what freaked me out until I realized I was getting crossed on “licity” and “validity” is that I NORMALLY (99.999999999% of the time) never see the priest. I don’t go face to face. I’ve no idea what he’s wearing, he could be starkers for all I know (the pope’s latinist likes celebrating the Mass nude, I’ve heard, though I suppose he could be nude and still have on a stole). We have some odd priests.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top