Not a priest but the form that is important is the term 'absolvo', technically he could say absolvis or absola and it would still be valid though a sin for him.I'm looking for some advice from valid not heretical priests or anyone who cares and is goodwilled:
Hello Father,Sometimes when I go to confession it seems that the priest does not give absolution. But he does not say he is not giving absolution. It is very disappointing to me. I travel a long way, and humiliate myself and the priest does not even raise his hand in absolution (indulgentium, deinde ego te absolvo, of course no passio domine nostri either as is to be done apart from extraordinary circuмstances), but merely says "go in peace". Should I question the priest when he does that?I know priests can withhold absolution, and do not have to tell the person they are withholding in rare cases, but it is a disappointing feeling to travel all that way not to hear the consoling words of absolution after humiliating myself with a sincere Confession. Perhaps because I confess grievous sins matter-of-factly and it gives the impression that I am not sincere. And telling me you are not absolving me may scandalize me. There was no inaudible mumbling of words as I made my contrition, just silence. I was glad, because I thought that after my act of contrition, I would get to hear the words of absolution like I do with some good priests.I would not have wasted the trip if I was not truly sorry and had a true purpose of amendment.I mention this to you because you are the priest that did this to me and will send me scattering to the SSPX.Do you have any advice?
Not a priest but the form that is important is the term 'absolvo', technically he could say absolvis or absola and it would still be valid though a sin for him.Also he might just be saying it silently though I'm not sure if it needs to be audible.
Not sure about english or other languages.
I'm pretty confident that if the priest were going to refuse you absolution, he would tell you so, and not just remain silent.
I wouldn't worry about it.
I second this, it seems very hard to believe that a priest would refuse absolution without letting you know and telling you why. If absolution is refused, it is so you can correct the problem and come back, which you can't do if you aren't informed anything.I third this. Did he assign you your penance? If not, don't go that priest ever again.
If the priest doesn't *SAY* "I absolve you..." there's no absolution. He can say it quietly, even whisper it, but it cannot be truly inaudible-- because then it isn't said.
This is setting aside the question of NO orders.
Thank you for the responses. They can deny absolution without telling you. And there can be legitimate reasons to do so, I think I read this in the Raccolta or some official work. If you are willing to accept the fact you could actually be wrong on something you have obviously not studied then do the research, otherwise think as you will.
What would be a legitimate reason to deny absolution without telling you? If you were not absolved, you'd need to confess those sins again in your next confession. As for not receiving penance, that isn't even technically necessary. A lot of Byzantine Rite Catholic priests don't even prescribe a penance.Indeed, you would likely receive communion without having had mortal sins absolved.
Indeed, you would likely receive communion without having had mortal sins absolved.If the person is not willing to give up the sin and keeps confessing the same sin but would be so scandalized for not being absolved that he would abandon the faith. Something off the top of my head.
Indeed, you would likely receive communion without having had mortal sins absolved.You would not be guilty of the sin if you thought you were absolved.
If the person is not willing to give up the sin and keeps confessing the same sin but would be so scandalized for not being absolved that he would abandon the faith. Something off the top of my head.
Simple fact that they can withhold absolution and do not have to tell you they are not withholding it. I know, if this is hard for you to accept you will simply deem it as untrue. But I'm content with the facts. Grow some humility and do your own research, if you really want to get to the bottom of it. Or just reassure yourself that what I say cannot be true if you would rather be comfortable than right.
I’ve read guide to confessors so I’m aware of the fact that priests can sometimes deny absolution but I’ve never heard of a priest being able to not even tell the penitent they are doing that. When would that be allowed or right and what’s the source?They can withhold the intention for the integrity of the sacrament when one is not ready to give up the sin and could lose the faith if notified, he is not being absolved.
They can withhold the intention for the integrity of the sacrament when one is not ready to give up the sin and could lose the faith if notified, he is not being absolved.But ignorance does not excuse sin.
It may be in "ROMAN RITUAL + SACRAMENTS AND PROCESSIONS". I read it from an authentic source which is why it stuck in my head. Because it was news to me as well until I understood the reasoning behind it. Sometimes it can be better for the soul in the long run to keep them in ignorance.
It comes down trivializing the sacrament for non-repentant sinners by absolving; or scandalizing them out of the faith by telling them you cannot absolve them; the third option is to keep them in their ignorance, so they will not be guilty of further sin by sacrilegious confessions or communions or losing the faith, better to keep hope alive so God can work in them rather than risk putting them in position where they will cut themselves off. Legitimate cases for it will be rare.
If someone finds the contrary in an official work, please share. I'm always open to learning and being corrected. Maybe I forget or misunderstood what I read.
They can deny absolution without telling you. And there can be legitimate reasons to do so, I think I read this in the Raccolta or some official work. If you are willing to accept the fact you could actually be wrong on something you have obviously not studied then do the research, otherwise think as you will..
They can withhold the intention for the integrity of the sacrament when one is not ready to give up the sin and could lose the faith if notified, he is not being absolved.
It may be in "ROMAN RITUAL + SACRAMENTS AND PROCESSIONS". I read it from an authentic source which is why it stuck in my head. Because it was news to me as well until I understood the reasoning behind it. Sometimes it can be better for the soul in the long run to keep them in ignorance.
It comes down trivializing the sacrament for non-repentant sinners by absolving; or scandalizing them out of the faith by telling them you cannot absolve them; the third option is to keep them in their ignorance, so they will not be guilty of further sin by sacrilegious confessions or communions or losing the faith, better to keep hope alive so God can work in them rather than risk putting them in position where they will cut themselves off. Legitimate cases for it will be rare.
If someone finds the contrary in an official work, please share. I'm always open to learning and being corrected. Maybe I forget or misunderstood what I read.
Thank you for the responses. They can deny absolution without telling you. And there can be legitimate reasons to do so, I think I read this in the Raccolta or some official work. If you are willing to accept the fact you could actually be wrong on something you have obviously not studied then do the research, otherwise think as you will.Not sure what you read, but you must have misunderstood what you read. This bothered me enough to ask my priest (SSPX - 34 years) if this is permitted, allowed or is/ was practiced, his answer: NO.
Of course they can't deny you absolution without telling you. Their entire role is to determine whether you should receive absolution, make a judgment about your dispositions and then decide to absolve or not absolve. They're not there to satisfy their curiosity. If they were to withhold absolution without telling you, they'd be responsible for the individual approaching Holy Communion while not being in a state of grace. In addition, individuals are required to confess all unabsolved mortal sin, including past unconfessed sins once they remember them, so these individuals would not be in a position to be able to comply, since they would have mistakenly thought thy had been absolved for them. This is absurd.Absolutely, well said. "This is absurd!"