[Catholic Caucus] Invalid baptism leads to an avalanche of invalid sacraments

Rorate Caeli ^ | August 20, 2020 | Kenneth J. Wolfe

[piusv]

OK, so here is the Davis quote (you're really making me work here):

2. A confession may be invalid by reason of want of jurisdiction on the part of the confessor. If such a cause existed, the penitent would normally never become aware of it ; hence the importance of eliciting acts of true contrition. Again, a confessor might conceivably make a serious error in the form of absolution or not give absolution all through inadvertence. These are mere possibilities, and possible mistakes may occur in everything that depends on at human activity, but we cannot think that God would allow a bono fide penitent to die out of His grace in consequence of mistakes on the part of the confessor.

Again, this example talks about the penitent never knowing or hearing about it. I would agree with that, but we are talking about a situation where he/she will know. Therefore, he/she must confess again (in this case, to a valid priest).

[ebb tide]

The penitent has, so far as he knows, submitted to the tribunal and accepted a penance. He wasn’t absolved, and when he next confesses to an actual priest, he mis-states the length of time since his last actual confession as well as the sins since his last actual confession, because he, through no fault of his own, is unaware that his faux confession was no confession.

But my argument with you, all along, has been with the situation of those who are made aware of their invalid confessions.

It sounds like you have backed off from your assertion in your post #3. Have you?

If one confesses all the grave sins that one has committed since one’s last putative confession, the faux confession will be covered if one was not aware that it was faux. Yes his present parishioners should be notified, but that will suffice.

What did you mean by "suffice"?

[Hieronymus]

Nope. Trent and all the preconciliar authorities back up the position in post 3. One may argue about a need to pick up a penance, but Trent is clear that “forgotten” sins are absolved, even if one may benefit from picking up a penance.

The subsequent non-faux confessions are definitely valid, and I would argue that the penances from them will double as penances covering the omitted sins. I won’t necessarily go to the mat for that one, but it would take a decent argument.

By suffice, I mean that the person will have covered his moral duty, in my judgment. In the former parish, one can reasonably presume that those who go to confession regularly have been to confession since, and those who don’t go to confession regularly have bigger problems that need to be dealt with. “Bless me father for I have sinned. I thought it was only three years since my last confession, and since then I’ve done x y and z, but it turns out that it’s been ten, and as my last two confessions were invalid . . . .”

Then there are all the cases of people confessing to priests who they don’t necessarily know.

Trent takes up forgotten sins that are then remembered. I think things that end up not being confessed for even more innocent reasons, at least from the standpoint of the penitent (I’m not saying the Deacon is innocent) the council is silent on, but if the reason is even more innocent, the solution is at most equal and arguably much lighter.

I can’t see anyway any subsequent confessions to real priests could be argued to be invalid. Donatism is erroneous—and it also ended up being a huge self-contradictory mess.

[ebb tide]

Trent and all the preconciliar authorities back up the position in post 3. One may argue about a need to pick up a penance, but Trent is clear that “forgotten” sins are absolved, even if one may benefit from picking up a penance.

We're not talking about "forgotten sins". We're talking about mortal sins that one becomes aware they were confessed in invalid sacramental confessions.

[Hieronymus]

We’re talking about the effect of “ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis” and the conditions one needs to meet to receive those effects.

If one has made a decent examination of conscience, and in good faith confesses all the mortal sins that one can recall since the last time one, to the best of one’s judgment, made a good confession, is contrite for these and in general contrite for all one’s sins, and is willing to do penance, a priest pronouncing those words after confessions of the afore described sins, will, by the power of Christ acting through him, absolve you from your sins.

If sins which are omitted because of a flaw in the penitent for which the penitent’s human weakness is responsible are covered by the absolution, so much the more so those that are omitted through a weakness that is not the penitent’s (in this case the idiot of the deacon who muffed the baptism of the previous confessor).

The Church hasn’t defined absolutely everything, so no burning people at the stake for whatever side they take on this one, and I stand ready to yield if the Church pronounces something else, but I see what Trent wrote, I see what has been done with it, and think that speaking about subsequent confessions being invalid is so much nonsense.

A good doctor of souls will seek to do what is best for the penitent, and that isn’t always the same even if situations are similar. The farther apart the situation, the more likely it is that there will be a variety of diverse remedies.

Someone whose formation of conscience was poor needs to be healed in a whole whack of ways, and a good priest, led by the Holy Spirit, will give counsel that will be appropriate for the soul.

[ebb tide]

If sins which are omitted because of a flaw in the penitent for which the penitent’s human weakness is responsible are covered by the absolution, so much the more so those that are omitted through a weakness that is not the penitent’s (in this case the idiot of the deacon who muffed the baptism of the previous confessor).

The sins were not omitted by the penitent; they were sincerely confessed in an invalid sacramental confession. And the archdiocese of Detroit, and I, agree that those sins, which are mortal, need to be re-confessed in a valid confession.

[Hieronymus]

I went back to look at what Detroit said again:

That said, if you recall any grave (mortal) sins that you would have confessed to Father Hood before he was validly ordained and you have not yet been to a subsequent confession, you must bring them to your next confession explaining to any priest what has happened. If you cannot remember if you confessed any grave sins, you should bring that fact to your next confession as well. A subsequent absolution will include those sins and will give you peace of mind.

I had overlooked the line “and you have not yet been to a subsequent confession.”

Detroit’s conclusions are at one with my own.

All that said, I’d still say general confessions are a good thing, and tossing them in at the end of a confession as well.

[ebb tide]

All that said, it does not back up your assertion in your post #3.

Will you admit that?

[Hieronymus]

What I said in post 3 was:
If one confesses all the grave sins that one has committed since one’s last putative confession, the faux confession will be covered if one was not aware that it was faux.

That squares precisely with what Detroit is saying, and is in line with how Trent is expounded

If Detroit makes one aware of the faux confession before the next attempt at confession, one is then aware and then needs to mention the grave stuff from the last confession. Ditto with communal absolution under legit circumstances.

[ebb tide]

No.

You also said, "Yes his present parishioners should be notified, but that will suffice.

And mere notification does not suffice for those whose last confession was to Fr. Hood when he was not a priest according to the Archdiocese of Detroit.

But I'm aware that narcissists will never admit they are wrong.

[piusv]

It does appear that you are avoiding a portion of your post #3, so in that regard ebb is correct. Having said that, I also see now that what you have been saying does seem to agree with "Detroit's" comment.

I do not agree that you or Detroit have the correct application/interpretation of Trent or Ott or Davis. But then again, I tend to believe that it's highly probable that Novus Ordo bishops don't teach Catholic faith and morals.

[one guy in new jersey]

“...it’s important for Catholics to take a close look at anything post-Vatican II ... and that includes the changes made to the ordination and consecration rites by Paul VI”

You’ll get zero argument from me on this.

Thanks for clarifying.