Priestly attire in a confessional

[acadian]

When I came back to church after years away, I finally decided I was going to confession one day before daily Mass at the parish of a priest I had a past history with. I was very nervous, but also very much looking forward to it. I ASSSUMED (or saw what I wanted to see when I looked for confesson times in the bulletin) that he heard confessions before daily Mass. I got there early, and waited in the back near the confessional. No priest. Finally one of the “church ladies” came over and asked me if I was waiting to go to confession. I said “yes” and she asked if I would like for her to go get father. Again I said “yes”.

He showed up wearing a nice sweater. What he was wearing mattered SO little. It was Jesus I was talking to, and I don’t know what HE was wearing. One of the best experiences of my life - priestly attire or not.

I think sometimes we focus on the unimportant.

 

[Rosella]

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.

The priest MUST wear a stole to hear confession. Is the Sacrament “Valid” without it? Well, I don’t know, I mean the question would really be is absolution valid? It may not be, but then will God withhold his mercy because of the mistake of the priest? That is an issue that seems like needs clarification from the GIRM or an official document.

But to demonstrate the importance of the stole…I can tell you one time I was in an unusual situation, out in the woods with a group hiking, and got talking with a priest and really wanted to go to confession right then. He did not have his stole with him (left in car, which was hard to get to at that moment), but insisted on at least borrowing a long knit scarf from someone so he could use it as a stole. He was adamant about having that symbol of his priestly authority to absolve my sins. Interesting…

 

[LilyM]

Sir Knight;714521:

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.

The priest MUST wear a stole to hear confession. Is the Sacrament “Valid” without it? Well, I don’t know, I mean the question would really be is absolution valid? It may not be, but then will God withhold his mercy because of the mistake of the priest? That is an issue that seems like needs clarification from the GIRM or an official document.

But to demonstrate the importance of the stole…I can tell you one time I was in an unusual situation, out in the woods with a group hiking, and got talking with a priest and really wanted to go to confession right then. He did not have his stole with him (left in car, which was hard to get to at that moment), but insisted on at least borrowing a long knit scarf from someone so he could use it as a stole. He was adamant about having that symbol of his priestly authority to absolve my sins. Interesting…

Of course both the sacrament and the absolution are valid without a stole. All any valid sacrament requires is proper matter (in the case of Penance, your sins) and form (in the case of penance, the words ‘I absolve you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit’).

Vesture doesn’t enter into whether it is valid. It does, however, as a previous poster has pointed out, make it illicit, which however doesn’t mean you’re not truly absolved.

 

[BritishCatholic]

Rosella;2602105:

Of course both the sacrament and the absolution are valid without a stole.

Right you are.

However, if a stole is accesible, then the priest should use it.

 

[Johndigger]

In fact, as to the OP’s situation, even if the man was NOT in fact a priest, the confession would still be valid, if the penitent reasonably assumed he was and meant to make a valid confession. The sacrament works ex opere operato.

Is this true? You can have a valid sacramental confession without a Priest!?

JD

 

[Dandelion_Wine]

Is this true? You can have a valid sacramental confession without a Priest!?

JD

I can’t believe that’s true! "ex opere operato" doesn’t apply like that. That would mean that ANYONE can confect the Eucharist as long as the one receiving it believes that the one confecting it has the faculties.

 

[Johndigger]

Yeah, let’s hope so. I think “ex opere operato” is more referring to it doesn’t depend on the holiness of the Priest whether the confession is valid or not.

But they still have to be validly ordained and have faculties granted by local ordinary.

JD

 

[porthos11]

I gotta say I was a bit surprised by your responses otjm and porthos. If a person came up to you and told you he was a cop and you should get in his car would you? No uniform? No badge? It wouldn’t be appropriate to ask to see his badge?

Yes. But then, there is no such thing as a “stole number”.

Nevertheless, you don’t equate a priest and a cop. The guy was already sitting in the confessional, and he already said that he was a priest. Unless you had probable cause that he was lying, in which case you had the moral obligation to report him to the bishop (did you?), then you had no place disrespecting him by calling him “sir”. That’s a far cry from the deacon because the deacon made no claims to being a priest. He was dead wrong of course about the faculties.

I respect the office of priesthood- I just don’t respect the guy who presented himself to me as a priest that day. I wonder if he respects the priestly office and if he is a priest and does respect the office, why doesn’t he bother to wear a collar or a stole while he’s ministering?

It doesn’t matter if he didn’t. You, on the other hand, had the opportunity. St. Francis would give us a great example.

And why didn’t he attempt to stop me from leaving if he was concerned about ministering to me?

No priest would ever stop anyone, stole or no.

You had the option and right of leaving the confessional. But the priest deserved the benefit of the doubt and your calling him “sir” and lecturing to him was a sign of disrespect to his office and to the man himself.

 

[FrCorey]

wow, undercover priests?

 

[mystified]

“Sir.”
While it is not now customary, at one time priests in the United States were addressed as “Sir.”
And Fr. Gerald Manley Hopkins, a Catholic writer and poet, even addressed God in this manner in one of his poems.
Those of us brought up to address those our senior as Sir or Ma’am, do so from force of habit. I remember a nun who was always amused when someone said, “Yes, Ma’am,” instead of “Yes, 'ster.”

 

[richwmiller]

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.

Valid or licit ?
Valid means it was a real confession
Licit means all the rules were followed

 

[richwmiller]

Is this true? You can have a valid sacramental confession without a Priest!?

JD

not quite. you need the official absolution.

 

[Trevelyan]

Is this true? You can have a valid sacramental confession without a Priest!?

JD

No, it is not true.

The fact that the sacraments work ex opere operato does not mean you don’t need a priest for confession.

That’s just plain ridiculous; ex opere operato does not mean the sacraments just ‘do’ themselves.

Ex opere operato means the sacraments are confected ‘from the work having been worked’ (regardless of the holiness or sinfulness of the minister). That is, they are confected VALIDLY - from the right form (words) having been said by the right minister using the right matter. (and regardless of what the minister is wearing - stole or no stole; that and other external things beyong matter, form and minister are matters of LICAITY)

In the case of confession, the sacrament is confected ex opere operato when a validly ordained priest says the words of absolution and the matter is “the acts of the penitent, namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction” (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 3)

There is something called ecclesia supplet, which means in some circumstances ‘the church supplies’ the validity of a sacrament. I heard Fr Trujilio on EWTN say that an example of this is if a penitent confessed a mortal sin to a layman - who was pretending to be a priest and hearing confessions - and then went out and got hit by a bus, the church supplies the validity of that particular confession because the salvation of his soul depended on the validity of it, and it was no fault of his as he thought he had confessed validly.

 

[Johndigger]

I heard Fr Trujilio on EWTN say that an example of this is if a penitent confessed a mortal sin to a layman - who was pretending to be a priest and hearing confessions - and then went out and got hit by a bus, the church supplies the validity of that particular confession because the salvation of his soul depended on the validity of it, and it was no fault of his as he thought he had confessed validly.

This is really fascinating, I must look into it more.

So, the Church can supply jurisdiction for anyone to grant absolution in cases where it is absolutely neccessary and the penitant doesn’t know any better…?

JD

 

[porthos11]

This is really fascinating, I must look into it more.

So, the Church can supply jurisdiction for anyone to grant absolution in cases where it is absolutely neccessary and the penitant doesn’t know any better…?

JD

This is the principle of ecclesia supplet, where the Church supplies Jurisdiction, not Validity.

In the case of the poor penitent confessing to an impostor, ecclesia supplet won’t apply, because there was no sacrament at all. If he finds out that he had in fact confessed to an impostor, he would be obligated to go back to Confession.

But if he never finds out and he dies immediately thereafter, I am of the firm belief that God will use extrasacramental means to save him, because he turned to the Church with repentance, and to the best of his ability did what the Church wanted him to do.

 

[richwmiller]

This is the principle of ecclesia supplet, where the Church supplies Jurisdiction, not Validity.

In the case of the poor penitent confessing to an impostor, ecclesia supplet won’t apply, because there was no sacrament at all. If he finds out that he had in fact confessed to an impostor, he would be obligated to go back to Confession.

But if he never finds out and he dies immediately thereafter, I am of the firm belief that God will use extra sacramental means to save him, because he turned to the Church with repentance, and to the best of his ability did what the Church wanted him to do.

There was a case in California of an impostor saying mass hearing confession and marrying . He had all the requisite papers and recommendations. It was on TV recently
He was good preacher too

 

[Trevelyan]

This is the principle of ecclesia supplet, where the Church supplies Jurisdiction, not Validity.

In the case of the poor penitent confessing to an impostor, ecclesia supplet won’t apply, because there was no sacrament at all. If he finds out that he had in fact confessed to an impostor, he would be obligated to go back to Confession.

But if he never finds out and he dies immediately thereafter, I am of the firm belief that God will use extrasacramental means to save him, because he turned to the Church with repentance, and to the best of his ability did what the Church wanted him to do.

Thanks for that explanation, Porthos.

Obviously a layman could never be given jurisdiction and the sacrament can’t be valid without the right minister. I suppose the point is that the penitent is in God’s friendship after his contrition and confession to the imposter.

I may have remembered wrongly what Fr Trujilio said, but he did say that ecclesia supplet is involved, somehow.

 

[richwmiller]

Thanks for that explanation, Porthos.

Obviously a layman could never be given jurisdiction and the sacrament can’t be valid without the right minister. I suppose the point is that the penitent is in God’s friendship after his contrition and confession to the imposter.

I may have remembered wrongly what Fr Trujilio said, but he did say that ecclesia supplet is involved, somehow.

ecclesia supplet, as you have said, gives** jurisdiction** to a priest who does not have it. That is all.
But we can hope on the mercy of God in those strange cases of an impostor moments before death similar to the case of a baby who dies before baptism.