Urgent Question

[zab]

Are you sure that we’re giving contradictory answers?

Think about it, please. Re-read my posts and his post if necessary. Now, admittedly I have written quite a bit more than he did (his answers are brief because that’s the nature of the ask-an-apologist section, after all).

Are you sure he said that?
In all seriousness: Are you certain that Father S. said that, or perhaps do you just think that he said that?
Don’t answer hastily here. It’s very important. Did he actually write that?

What Fr. Serpa did not say was " Rather, it was valid but illicit". That was Fone Bone 2001 summary of what Fr. Serpa wrote.

What Fr. Serpa did say was “The Church accepts most variations of the formula as valid for the sake of the penitents…” and that is the part that seems to be contradictory to the answer from the priests on this thread.

 

[FrDavid96]

I meant that it does come across as contradictory when one priest says that the confession was “valid…” and the two on this thread say that it was “invalid…” and it was pointed out that something can’t be valid and illicit at the same time.

also

What Fr. Serpa did not say was " Rather, it was valid but illicit". That was Fone Bone 2001 summary of what Fr. Serpa wrote.

What Fr. Serpa did say was “The Church accepts most variations of the formula as valid for the sake of the penitents…” and that is the part that seems to be contradictory to the answer from the priests on this thread.

Once again, I’ll call your attention to Father S’s exact words.

You say “that is the part that seems to be contradictory [to my posts]”

What you say is very important “seems to be…”

Do you see what I’m driving at here?

What you think you are reading in Father S’s post is one thing. The words he actually wrote are something else.

Let me try that another way:

Here’s a quote of the words you wrote in the first post of yours that I’ve quoted in full above.
one priest says that the confession was “valid…” (ie Fr S)

Please quote the exact sentence where Fr. S says exactly what you just paraphrased him as saying.

 

[FrDavid96]

Ah, sorry - I don’t remember if I was trying to imply that you did disagree - if so, sorry for misinterpreting you; if not, sorry for giving the wrong impression.

Please, friend. Enough of this. I am not (I assure you not at all) offended.
There’s nothing wrong with implying, or stating outright, that I and Fr S. disagree.
The whole purpose of these threads is an exchange of ideas.
The point here in this discussion is for posters and readers alike to gain a better understanding of a Sacrament. There’s nothing wrong with differing opinions (so long as they’re reasonable). I’m merely saying that Fr. S and I do in fact agree more than many posters here seem to realize. I’ll address this again in more detail in just a bit…

This claim presupposes that his answer does, in fact, contradict the teachings of the Church. That is precisely what is in dispute here, so assuming it as a premise begs the question. …

It is incomplete. It leaves out certain necessary statements, and by that omission, causes people to think they’re reading one thing, when in reality they’re reading something else.

Well… obviously not, since we have different eastern-rite formulas whose validity is unquestioned and which do not use that phrasing.

This is what I keep trying to explain.
What constitutes a valid juridic act under one code of canon law (and one code of “particular” canon law), namely the Eastern Codes, does not constitute a valid juridic act under a different code of canon law, namely the Latin.

Yes, the validity of the Eastern formulas for absolution is valid without question, but not without the qualifying statement that these formulas are valid only in those Churches sui iuris, whose laws define them as valid juridic acts.

If Akin’s explanation - which you haven’t addressed - of what Trent is saying is correct, then he and the Church’s teachings are in full accord.

Again, the explanation is incomplete. While he does say (paraphrasing) that the Church does not define a single set of words for valid absolution, the part that’s missing is that the Latin Church does indeed define a single set of words which are absolutely necessary for a valid absolution within the context of the Latin Church. The absence of this qualifier causes the reader to think that there are no necessary words in the Latin usage.
Now the reason I’m somewhat avoiding this is because I don’t want to seem to be ascribing some kind of motivation that is probably not there.
You see, I also mis-read the words several times. What I “thought” was being said was not. The way it’s written though, it does cause a person to come away with the wrong understanding of what the Church has to say about the necessary words of absolution—this is true even though after a very careful reading of the words, one might say “what I thought was being said is not actually there.”

They’re the essential words in the approved Latin Church formula. Again, the eastern rites prove that in different formulas, a different part might constitute the essential words.

While that’s true, you must understand what I keep repeating here. What constitutes a valid juridic act in the Eastern Churches is not necessarily a valid juridic act in the Latin Church.
You keep repeating the point about the Eastern Churches, but what you’re not seeing is that the point itself, while true, has no bearing on what happens in the context of the Latin Church (not in the subject that is at-hand).

Remember the parallel example I cited concerning the Holy See’s recognition of the validity of the Liturgy of Addai and Mari? In our rite’s approved texts, “This is my body” is essential. The Liturgy of Addai and Mari doesn’t quote that statement, yet it’s still a valid Eucharistic anaphora.

Again, true, but simply not relevant to the discussion at-hand.
Absolution is a juridic act of the Church. Consecrating the Eucharist is not a juridic act of the Church.
The criteria that makes the Consecration a valid act is not the same criteria that makes absolution a valid act (even though there is much overlap, such as the necessity of a priest).

The person who submitted the question specifically cited that the priest to whom he went to Confession said, “May God forgive you,” etc., as his words of absolution.

So the priest who heard the questioner’s Confession did not say “I absolve you,” yet Father Serpa reassured him of his absolution’s validity anyway.

Again, I’ll ask you to read Fr. S’s post very very carefully. If you do so, you’ll see that he did not actually do what you stated here that he said. He did not say that—you merely think that he said it. I’ve posted this quite a few times now, but it doesn’t seem to be getting across. You see, what’s happening is that you think he’s saying something in particular, and so you insist that you’re reading it, but if you look at his exact words very carefully, you will notice that what you thought all-along you’ve been reading is not actually there. It’s like one of those “optical illusion” puzzles in the Sunday paper. You’re so convinced that you’re seeing one thing, that you don’t realize that in reality it’s not actually there.

continued in next post…

 

[FrDavid96]

Okay, I understand. Why does an absolution formula’s juridical status concern Sacramental validity rather than licitness? I mean, “juridical” comes from the Latin word meaning “law.”

Fair question. And that’s what I’ve been trying to explain. The very reason why the “formula’s juridical status” determines validity is because it is a juridic act in the first place. You are correct: juridical means law/legal. In order for a legal act to be valid, it must necessarily be legal. If a (attempt at) legal act is illegal, then it is likewise invalid.

I wouldn’t think to claim that ad libbing alternative word of absolution is licit… I’m asking why such illicitness in this case also renders the absolution itself null and void - with forgiveness not occurring, grace not imparted, etc.?

Again, with other Sacraments like the Holy Eucharist, the Church’s teachings make a distinction between validity and licitness. Why not here?

Once again, because we’re discussing a juridic act, such an act must be legal/lawful/licit in order to be valid.
Any legal act must be legal to be valid.
How (in the world!) can a legal act be illegal (illicit) and yet valid at the same time?
Even the sentence doesn’t make any sense: “a legal act can be illegal but valid” simply defies logic.

 

[FrDavid96]

I would like to use an illustration here to explain a point that I keep trying to make, but apparently I’m not doing a very good job…

Let’s say that I go to an ice cream shoppe. The sign in the window says “41 flavors.”

I walk into the shoppe and ask the employee “do you have chocolate?”

Response: “We have 41 flavors.”

I automatically say “I’d like a scoop of chocolate please.”

Response “we don’t have chocolate.”

Me “what do you mean you don’t have chocolate?, you just told me you do.”

“No, I didn’t. You asked me if we have chocolate, I told you we have 41 flavors, and you merely assumed that my answer indicated that we have chocolate.”

The exact same thing is happening when people are reading Father S—'s posts.

Readers are looking at his response and assuming that he is saying something that he is not in-point-of-fact saying.

I will urge readers here, once again, to read the exact words that the good Father wrote. Read them very carefully. If you do so, you will hopefully notice that what so many people are assuming he said, he never actually said it.

Thank you.

 

[FrDavid96]

Absolution is a juridic act, but it’s not merely or exclusively a juridic act, right? It’s supernatural as well, right?

Yes. Absolution is much more than only a juridic act. It’s much much more than that. However that still doesn’t alter the fact that it is juridic nevertheless.

Also, I see your point that it’s nonsense to say that an act can be “legal” but “illegal” at the same time, but Akin’s argument doesn’t state this. With a Latin priest ad libbing a formula like “May God absolve you,” why can’t it be true that the act is legal (assuming that priest has faculties from his bishop) while the verbal formula is illegal?

The reason is because the laws of the Latin Church do say that in order to be a valid act, the proper, necessary words must be used. The most recent and clear example of this is the Rite of Penance from 1973 (I quoted it earlier) which states that the words “I absolve you” are essential.

The absolution can be valid and licit even though it might be surrounded by an illicit use of words. If I substitute “God Who led the people from Egypt” for the words “God the Father of Mercies” in the full prayer of absolution, that would be illicit, but so long as I say the essential words of absolution “I absolve you” that part would make the absolution valid. In this example, the essential part is valid, but omitting the non-essential part “God the Father of Mercies” is illicit.

The verbal formula “I absolve you” is exactly and precisely what the law defines and necessary for validity. That’s the answer to your question “why can’t it be true that the act is legal…while the verbal formula is illegal?”

A fair question, Father!

He reassured the questioner with the sentence, “The Church accepts most variations of the formula for absolution as valid for the benefit of the penitents” after the questioner explicitly stated that the priest who was hearing his confession did not use the phrase “I absolve you” in his formula of absolution…

In reality, he did no such thing.
The reality is that he never answered the question.
It was a yes/no question. He responded to the question, but he never said “yes or no.”
Readers think that he said it because that’s what they want to see, but no such statement is there in the actual response.

 

[zab]

also

Once again, I’ll call your attention to Father S’s exact words.

You say “that is the part that seems to be contradictory [to my posts]”

What you say is very important “seems to be…”

Do you see what I’m driving at here?

What you think you are reading in Father S’s post is one thing. The words he actually wrote are something else.

Let me try that another way:

Here’s a quote of the words you wrote in the first post of yours that I’ve quoted in full above.
one priest says that the confession was “valid…” (ie Fr S)

Please quote the exact sentence where Fr. S says exactly what you just paraphrased him as saying.

Where do I begin to answer this when you have diverted from my post in response to yours. The reason that I wrote “seems”, “comes across as”, and high lighted “as valid” is that I happen to believe that what Fr. Serpa wrote may in fact not be contradictory at all. I think that FrStephenJones said it best in post #18
I was giving you the opportunity to explain that.

 

[FrDavid96]

Where do I begin to answer this when you have diverted from my post in response to yours. The reason that I wrote “seems”, “comes across as”, and high lighted “as valid” is that I happen to believe that what Fr. Serpa wrote may in fact not be contradictory at all. I think that FrStephenJones said it best in post #18
I was giving you the opportunity to explain that.

Well, when you
1 quote Fr S’s words, and you put the word valid in bold-type, especially when my posts present the position of “invalid”
2 follow that with the words “that is the part that seems to be contradictory to the answer from the priests on this thread”
which is what you do here:

What Fr. Serpa did not say was " Rather, it was valid but illicit". That was Fone Bone 2001 summary of what Fr. Serpa wrote.

What Fr. Serpa did say was “The Church accepts most variations of the formula as valid for the sake of the penitents…” and that is the part that seems to be contradictory to the answer from the priests on this thread.

You certainly are making the impression that you see a contradiction between my words and those of Fr. S.

What ELSE is one to think?

I mean, really, what else are we to think? It’s very difficult indeed to read what you’ve written here and even imagine that what you’re trying to say is that Fr S and I agree with each other.

Whatever it is you’re trying to say here, by all means, please just say it. I’m willing to read what you have to say, but you’re making it very difficult for anyone to understand just what point you are trying to make.

I’m listening. What is your point exactly?

 

[zab]

Let me say right out- I don’t know the answer to the “seeming contradiction” to what Fr Serpa wrote and what FrStephenJones and FrDavid96 wrote.

Even thoughh FrStephenJones wrote that if a person knew that the confession was “invalid” that they would have to confess it again, whereas, Fr.Serpa only says that the Church accepts it as valid for the sake of the penitent, but does not make it understood that they must confess again.

I hope that my post will be received in the manner in which it is given and not be picked apart and judged for something it is not.

 

[zab]

Well, when you
1 quote Fr S’s words, and you put the word valid in bold-type, especially when my posts present the position of “invalid”
2 follow that with the words “that is the part that seems to be contradictory to the answer from the priests on this thread”
which is what you do here:

You certainly are making the impression that you see a contradiction between my words and those of Fr. S.

What ELSE is one to think?

I mean, really, what else are we to think? It’s very difficult indeed to read what you’ve written here and even imagine that what you’re trying to say is that Fr S and I agree with each other.

Whatever it is you’re trying to say here, by all means, please just say it. I’m willing to read what you have to say, but you’re making it very difficult for anyone to understand just what point you are trying to make.

I’m listening. What is your point exactly?

Sometimes the message gets lost when there has been so many posts that have been picked apart and sometimes diverted from the post in which one was responding to. I will only say that my post was in response to you post that was questioning the post of another. I agreed with the other poster that it did come across as contradictory. I was not attacking you.

 

[FrDavid96]

Let me say right out- I don’t know the answer to the “seeming contradiction” to what Fr Serpa wrote and what FrStephenJones and FrDavid96 wrote.

Even thoughh FrStephenJones wrote that if a person knew that the confession was “invalid” that they would have to confess it again, whereas, Fr.Serpa only says that the Church accepts it as valid for the sake of the penitent, but does not make it understood that they must confess again.

I hope that my post will be received in the manner in which it is given and not be picked apart and judged for something it is not.

Fr. S— did not say that the Church accepts what was described to him as valid.

You’re reading into his words something which is not there.

He makes a generic statement that the Church (as a whole) accepts various forms of absolution as valid.

He never, not at any point, actually says that the particular situation which was described in the original question was a valid absolution.

He never says “yes that was a valid absolution.”
People only think that he said it–he never did.

 

[mafh]

Ok, so we know that absolution is a matter of church law. What does that imply?

First of all, the church can make any laws it wants about it’s own procedures. If it made a law that no absolution was valid unless it contained the word ‘smurf’, then it would be so. It doesn’t make ‘smurf’ a magic word (as was suggested by a poster very early in this thread), it just is a legal requirement. Just like you wouldn’t really be married if you said ‘I don’t’ instead of ‘I do’, even if the ceremony proceeded to the end.

Second, if it is just a matter of law, then the church can make different laws for different jurisdictions. So, there is no problem that the laws governing absolution are different for one rite than for another. It’s just a matter of law, just like how laws may be different in one state versus another.

Third, law is typically complicated and different experts in the law can have different interpretations of the law. In civilian life, for example, there would be no need for the Supreme Court if the law was so clear that all experts always agreed upon every question. So, it should come as no surprise that three different experts disagree in this case, if in fact they do disagree (which I believe is in dispute).

Fourth, in interpreting any law, context and details matter a great deal. So, for example, it is entirely possible that omitting “for your sins” from the absolution is quite a different matter from omitting “I absolve you”. If I understand the case correctly, the situation Fr Serpa was responding to was the former, while the situation being discussed on this thread is the latter.

Fifth, it is entirely possible that Fr. Serpa and the other good priest who responded on this thread were really taking about forgiveness when they are talking about the validity rather than a legal requirement of absolution. This might be my most dubious (and arguable) point here, but let me explain. Perhaps an experienced priest realizes that the typical lay person doesn’t really understand the difference between forgiveness and absolution, and they are trying to answer the question the lay person really means to ask “Am I forgiven?” rather than the one they are appearing to ask “Am I absolved?”. This might be because they know that a typical person in this situation might perceive it to be a spiritual emergency of sorts and really freak out, and their primary motivation is to reassure them, not to explain church law in detail. As I said, this one might be really dubious and incorrect, but even if this point isn’t valid, surely my other four points have some validity.

So, from my perspective, the above addresses all the remaining arguments on this thread. What do you think?

 

[Evan]

Ok, so we know that absolution is a matter of church law. What does that imply?

Do we know that, or is it a sacramental matter? For sacraments can be valid without being licit (cf marriage, eucharist, baptism).

Is a confession (and forgiveness) then valid, while the absolution is in question of validity or are we only speaking of illicitness. I know there is confusion in my mind. For the Church often teaches that the effects of the sacrament occur even if someone is not subscribing to all the requirements of Canon Law. For example, a baptism by a Catholic parent when no need is present. Is the baptism valid and illicit? If the child should die on the way to mass in a car accident, is the child guarenteed a place before the heavenly thrown? or does the illicitness cancel the sacrament?

I don’t know the canon law on all sacraments, so do I need to educate myself so I know if any of my confessions were valid? Is there a requirement for penance? Does he need to make the sign of the cross?
I assume all that is needed is done. But I am not going to research how things are done, I also assume the Church or Christ (in whose person the priest is acting) makes up for any defect or error on the part of the priest.

 

[zab]

Fr. S— did not say that the Church accepts what was described to him as valid.

You’re reading into his words something which is not there.

He makes a generic statement that the Church (as a whole) accepts various forms of absolution as valid.

He never, not at any point, actually says that the particular situation which was described in the original question was a valid absolution.

He never says “yes that was a valid absolution.”
People only think that he said it–he never did.

1. I am not reading into what he said
2. You don’t know what I and others think
3. I am getting tired of having to defend every post I make as if it was meant to be a personal attack against you.

It is not my intention to pick apart everything that Fr. Serpa said in order to prove that you are mistaken. But I have the right to defend myself and come to the defense of others who have been treated wrongfully. Fr. Serpa did not refer to “various forms of absolution” rather he wrote, “variations of the formula”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=90325&highlight=absolution+formula+valid

 

[FrDavid96]

Do we know that, or is it a sacramental matter? For sacraments can be valid without being licit (cf marriage, eucharist, baptism).
…

:banghead:

Absolution is a juridic act of the Church.

It is a legal act of the Church (although that’s only the beginning of the definition of the word)

In order for a legal act to be valid, that legal act must be carried-out in accord with the law.

If an attempt at a legal act is itself not in accord with the law (not-legal or illicit), then it is by its very nature not valid.

 

[FrDavid96]

1. I am not reading into what he said
2. You don’t know what I and others think
3. I am getting tired of having to defend every post I make as if it was meant to be a personal attack against you.

It is not my intention to pick apart everything that Fr. Serpa said in order to prove that you are mistaken. But I have the right to defend myself and come to the defense of others who have been treated wrongfully. Fr. Serpa did not refer to “various forms of absolution” rather he wrote, “variations of the formula”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=90325&highlight=absolution+formula+valid

Well, for crying out loud, would you kindly tell us what you do think and tell us just what point you are trying to make? Please.

Over and over again, you keep saying that there’s a conflict between my posts and Fr. S. but you haven’t made any attempt to explain that–you just keep repeating it.

At this point, I cannot tell whether I agree with your point or disagree because you have yet to actually make any point.

I’m trying to dialogue with you here, but unless you actually say just what it is you are trying to say, no one (certainly not I) can engage you in conversation.

What I am trying to tell you is that I WANT very much to listen to what you have to say, but in order to make that happen, you have to say it.

I’m listening…

 

[Ohana]

I would like Fr to answer this one…

So, what happens to those who fail to realize that their confession isn’t valid due to lack of form and so do not confess everything again? Is it a correct presumption that the person is still in a state of mortal sin? Or do these mortal sins fall under the “sins I’ve forgotten and therefore have not confessed” category? Can this affect where one spends eternity???

Yikes, I am glad I am only a little scrupulous! Found myself wondering if my most serious sins were forgiven - and I have had a long life.

I fall in the camp that says function over form. If your intent was to make a valid confession, then if the priest responded with anything like absolution, your confession was valid. He may have a problem, I think you do not. If you happen to see him again however, you might mention it to him. You know, maybe he was up all night with sick calls, comforting a family, and/or one or several other things our priest do in pastoring us.

 

[mafh]

Do we know that, or is it a sacramental matter? For sacraments can be valid without being licit (cf marriage, eucharist, baptism).

Unless I misunderstand what a sacramental matter is, we’ve been over this before. See, for example, posts 53 and 54.

I’m not sure that this situation is really comparable to those three cases. It depends on how the church defines validity and licitness (is that a word?) with respect to confession, right? Besides, even in the cases you mention, the sacrament could be invalid, if for example the minimum criteria weren’t met. (For example, the illicit baptism would be invalid if it didn’t invoke the trinity, right? I seem to recall that this was why Mormon baptisms were considered invalid.)

 

[zab]

Well, for crying out loud, would you kindly tell us what you do think and tell us just what point you are trying to make? Please.

Over and over again, you keep saying that there’s a conflict between my posts and Fr. S. but you haven’t made any attempt to explain that–you just keep repeating it.

At this point, I cannot tell whether I agree with your point or disagree because you have yet to actually make any point.

I’m trying to dialogue with you here, but unless you actually say just what it is you are trying to say, no one (certainly not I) can engage you in conversation.

What I am trying to tell you is that I WANT very much to listen to what you have to say, but in order to make that happen, you have to say it.

I’m listening…

When we have priests on the thread, I think it is best that the answers come from them. When someone has a question, I think they should be treated with respect. If one looks hard enough they will see that you actually led us to believe that you and Fr. Serpa disagree, but that got lost in the multiplication of words. A simple admission in the beginning would have been best, in my opinion.

 

[FrDavid96]

When we have priests on the thread, I think it is best that the answers come from them. When someone has a question, I think they should be treated with respect. If one looks hard enough they will see that you actually led us to believe that you and Fr. Serpa disagree, but that got lost in the multiplication of words. A simple admission in the beginning would have been best, in my opinion.

I have been saying that we agree.

If you look through the thread, you will see for yourself that you, not I, are the one who keeps saying that we disagree.

I never led anyone to believe that we disagree. Rather, I’ve been trying over-and-over again to show that we agree, every time you post that we don’t.