Father B. Jerabek, J.C.L.Birmingham, Alabama (older posts from Rome, Italy)
My Twitter ActivityMy Tweets
Recent Blog Posts
- Conga Line Lectors
- New Book Recommendation
- Notes on Trinity Sunday
- BLESS me, Father…
- For Priests: Blessings in the Communion Line
- Arnaud Beltrame, Great Hero
- Thank You
- Sermon on Fatima
- Images above Altars
- Why Do Some Sign Themselves during the Penitential Rite?
- Something You (Sometimes) See in Seminary Chapels
- Is the daily Rosary a guarantee of heaven?
I Recommend This
A kind reader sent me a book called Walking the Road to God that I had had on my wish list. The author, Father Lawrence Carney, went to the same seminary as me, a year ahead of me. I remember him well as a seminarian (though I haven’t seen him since) – and I recall how I was edified by his simplicity of life and strong faith. He is the real deal. So when I heard about his book and the interesting new endeavor that he is pursuing, I was glad to learn more about it.
Father Carney was ordained a diocesan priest in Wichita, Kansas, but in recent years has been chaplain for the Benedictines of Mary, Queen of the Apostles in Gower, Missouri (with the permission of his bishop). Each day, after fulfilling his duties to them, he goes and walks the streets of St. Joseph, Missouri, wearing his cassock and a Roman hat called a “saturno”. While walking he carries a crucifix and a rosary, while praying for the souls who will see him and talk to him along the way. The book that he wrote documents many of his experiences in this rather unique apostolate.
Jim & Joy Pinto recently had Father Carney on their show, At Home with Jim & Joy, and I recommend that in addition to considering Father’s book, you also take the time to watch this interview:
In the interview, Father talks about how he wishes to start a religious order of priests who will offer beautiful liturgy in the city and then walk the streets to draw people to God. They will be called the Canons Regular of St. Martin of Tours. Unfortunately there is no mailing address provided for Father, but they do give his email: email@example.com.
Take a look at his book, at this interview, and consider supporting Father Carney in his work! I also recommend that you get this book for priests and seminarians you know.
I am leading a pilgrimage to the Eternal City from February 1 to 11, 2018. We had a full group, but a couple of people have backed out, so we are advertising it again. If you are interested in participating, kindly contact the tour directors – contact information on the enclosed flyer. For locals, there will be an informational meeting with the tour guides next Wednesday evening, September 6 (see the flyer also). If you know of someone who may be interested, please share this with them! Although we only need a couple more participants for the tour to go on as planned, we can accommodate up to 10 more (for a maximum of 25 in the group – we are trying to keep it to a moderate size).
Is it permitted for members of the faithful to set up a chapel in their private homes?
YES. And I would like to encourage this practice, for those who can.
Of course, such chapels would NOT have the Most Blessed Sacrament in them.
I have been blessed to know several families that were able to set up beautiful chapels in their homes. For those who have the resources and the space, I heartily encourage this traditional practice. While the whole home should be a place where God is honored and loved, yet it can greatly help to have a special place set aside for this purpose. Many people accomplish this by having “prayer corners”, “prayer chairs”, “home altars”, and so forth. These are all good and holy things as well. But if you can set up a chapel? Even better.
Here is an example of one such home chapel:
Note the altar, the worthy crucifix, the candles, the kneeler (prie-dieu), and the relics. Of course, the sky’s the limit. Here is what one wealthy family in Rome built for their palazzo in the 1600s:
The sky truly is the limit for this sort of thing. And whatever is done, should be done for the glory of God and the edification of all who will visit the special place.
Now, there are some who will also scoff at this post: these people perhaps take an EITHER/OR approach to the Church and in matters like this presume that adorning a chapel (or even setting one up to begin with) basically involves depriving the poor. The money should be spent on the poor instead! I would encourage such people to read what St. John Chrysostom says on this matter. We can take a BOTH/AND approach! I have also written about St. Francis of Assisi’s approach to the furnishing of churches (here). Finally, see this post, which also addresses the issue of serving God and the poor, not in competition with each other but in complementarity.
A little over three weeks ago I published THIS POST on the formula of absolution. Since then I’ve received both some positive feedback from theologians, as well as a number of discouraging messages from people who say that they have been to confession with a priest who changed the words of the formula in some way, leaving them in doubt. We really must pray for priests a lot – I am sure that any priest who changes the words for a sacrament thinks that he is being helpful in some way, but it is the height of unhelpfulness for him to think that he can improve upon what the Church has decreed for the sacraments and the sacred liturgy. More than that, it goes against what the priest himself has promised to uphold.
With this post I wish to add greater precision to what I already wrote. Ordinarily, a priest should recite the entire formula of absolution, whether in the Ordinary Form or the Extraordinary Form – and I wrote out those formulae in my previous post. He should say all the words and not change any of them. He should especially be careful not to change or omit any of the words used in the actual declaration of absolution. In a pinch — for example, in an emergency scenario — he could just say “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
But what if he says something else? What if he leaves out some part or otherwise fudges it?
Here is what tried-and-tested theologians say on the matter: it is probably enough simply to say “I absolve you”. As long as at least that was there, then it was probably a valid absolution. (Bear in mind, a priest should NEVER do this bare minimum, and would likely sin if he did, to say nothing of causing wonderment.)
Here is an excerpt from the very useful manual known as Pohle-Preuss (third volume on the Sacraments), which explains this in greater depth – the paragraph that begins “Theologians generally hold” is the relevant part:
A further clarification about what I published before. I said that it would probably be valid if the form “I forgive you” were used instead of “I absolve you”. In fact, some traditional manuals and weighty theologians say that this is probably invalid. However, I do note that the approved translation of absolution in French is “Je vous pardonne…”, not “Je vous absous…”; in other words, French has a verb for “absolve” (absoudre), but instead they use the verb for “pardon” or “forgive” (pardonner). (‘Pardon’ and ‘forgive’ may have different nuances but they are the same etymologically.) My take-away from this is that the Vatican, if questioned on this matter, would have to come down on the side of saying that “forgive” is valid, since it is what is used in one of its approved translations. However, vaticinating about what the Vatican might say is probably not a good use of time – and what you have here is my opinion against that of weighty theologians. You decide.
Some scoffed at my last post because all of this is just so legalistic. You went to confession, the priest was nice, so who cares? To such individuals I would say: Christ gave us the sacraments precisely so that we could have moral certitude that the graces that we seek and that he wishes to give are actually conferred. The Church, using the authority given to her by Christ himself, therefore establishes set formulae so that we can know that what Jesus promised has been given. I can think of any number of other situations in life where such individuals (or any sane person) would certainly not settle for “close enough”… why allow for it in the far more serious circumstance of a sacrament?
Thanks to a kind reader who sent some books from my Amazon wish list. I don’t know who you are — but God does. Prayers!
Please note that I have written an update to this post here. You may want to read this post first, then go to the new one for some further precision on this matter.
A friend was commenting to me at dinner recently about an experience he had with a priest who did not use the proper formula of absolution when he went to confession. The formula that he used, in fact, was invalid.
I have had a similar experience on one or two occasions (incidentally, in foreign countries, though I knew the language and knew that I had not been properly absolved). Why a priest would do this is beyond me, and it is needless to enter into speculation or hand-wringing about this.
There is absolutely no good reason that a priest should be unfamiliar with the proper sacramental formula for each of the sacraments he celebrates. In other words, there is no room for non-culpable ignorance in such questions. There could be, however, simple human reasons that enter in, such as fatigue or forgetfulness. (If a priest is too tired to “do confession right”, he should probably go rest rather than force the issue, but anyway…)
So what must the priest say to give a valid absolution in the sacrament? The basic, bare minimum is:
I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father and of the Son + and of the Holy Spirit.
If a priest were only to use this short, bare-minimum form, he is probably being abusive in his administration of the sacrament. Ordinarily (like, most of the time) he should be using the full long form (which, incidentally, is printed in Catechism # 1449):
God, the Father of mercies,
through the death and resurrection of his Son
has reconciled the world to himself
and sent the Holy Spirit among us
for the forgiveness of sins;
through the ministry of the Church
may God give you pardon and peace,
and I absolve you from your sins
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit.
Of course, since in the Latin/Roman Church it is permitted also to celebrate the sacraments using the “older” books (i.e., those that were in use in 1962), a priest could give absolution in that form alternatively:
Misereatur tui omnipotens Deus,
et dimissis peccatis tuis,
perducat te ad vitam æternam. Amen.
Indulgentiam, absolutionem, et remissionem peccatorum tuorum
tribuat tibi omnipotens et misericors Dominus. Amen.
Dominus noster Jesus Christus te absolvat:
et ego auctoritate ipsìus te absolvo
ab omni vinculo excommunicationis, [suspensionis], et interdicti,
in quantum possum, et tu indiges.
Deinde ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis,
in nomine Patris, et Filii, + et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
It says in the old ritual that “for a good reason” the priest could omit the first five lines above (i.e., he would just start from the words “Dominus noster Jesus Christus”). The word “suspensionis” is in brackets because it is only used when the one being absolved is a cleric.
It’s especially important to note that in the older form, the priest would often say everything up to the word “Deinde” while the penitent was reciting his/her Act of Contrition. So, in effect, the penitent would often only hear the words, “I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father and of the Son + and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” – that is, the essential form of the sacrament.
If a priest does not say “I absolve you from your sins” and invoke the Trinitarian formula, then it’s possible that no absolution has actually been given. Here we must be careful about jumping to conclusions, because it’s possible that he changed a word or two but the formula was still valid (i.e., if its meaning was unchanged). Thus if he said, “I forgive you your sins in the name of etc…”, that is probably valid (there is not agreement among theologians on this, though). However, if he were to say something like, “I forgive you your sins in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier”, this would not be valid, because it changes its meaning so greatly, involving a Trinitarian heresy.
Priests must NOT mess around with the formulas of the sacraments!
There is much more that could be said about all of this, but let’s try to wrap this up. So what do you do if – God forbid – a priest does not use a valid formula? You ask him politely if he would use the proper formula. And if he doesn’t or won’t? Then you write a letter to his Bishop or Superior stating charitably and concisely that you went to confession with him, he did not use a valid formula (you include the formula he DID use, if possible), that you asked him to use the correct one and he declined (i.e., just the facts, no airing of dirty laundry); then you go to confession again to a priest who will do it right.
There are possibilities for further recourse if, again God forbid, recourse on the local level does not produce favorable results. However, I cannot imagine that a Bishop or Religious Superior would not take such a matter seriously. Although I can’t imagine why a priest would use an invalid formula either.
Several years ago I made recordings of the first three Eucharistic prayers in Spanish, for a brother priest (fellow native English speaker) who wanted to practice. For some English speakers who are learning Spanish, I think, it can be easier to comprehend what one is hearing better when it is read by another native English speaker. Sometimes when we are learning a language and we hear native speakers, the speed with which they speak or the particularities of native pronunciation become an obstacle to progress in learning.
I was just reminded of these audio files and thought I should make them available for the benefit of any other priest or seminarian who might be preparing to say Mass in Spanish. Of course, they still name Benedict XVI as pope and they have the name of our Bishop of Birmingham in Alabama, but those can easily be heard and substituted with “Francisco” and whatever the name of the bishop of the place is. Since I cannot embed audio on my blog, I made the files into Youtube videos and posted them there. Here they are:
Eucharistic Prayer I – The Roman Canon
Eucharistic Prayer II (with its proper preface)
Eucharistic Prayer III
Hopefully these will be of use to someone!
I’ve written on several occasions about the excellent Cloistered Dominican Sisters of St. Jude in Marbury, Alabama. Today I received their latest newsletter, and see that they are again in need of a special boost so that they can replace their clothes dryers – which are older than me! Here is their letter (click to enlarge):
Please see if you can send even a small donation their way. And please continue to pray for them and that more young ladies will consider a vocation with them!
A kind reader sent me a book from my Amazon wish list. Alas, there was no indication who sent it – I will pray for you nonetheless. Thank you!
One spring during my period of studies in Rome, I spent Holy Week at a parish in Edinburgh, Scotland and assisted with the sacred functions there. It was there that I saw, for the first time, a beautiful prayer for a confessor to say after he had finished hearing confessions. I remember feeling quite consoled and reassured by it. For whatever reason, however, I did not snap a phone photo or otherwise write that prayer down, though I did remember enough from it that I was able to find it at a later time via internet search.
Fast forward to recently: Father Z posted various prayers for before and after hearing confessions, including the one I remember reading. I took them and touched them up a bit according to my own stylistic preferences and formatted them for hanging in our two confessionals here at the Cathedral of St. Paul.
For the convenience of other interested priests or seminarians, I also want to provide a Word document with the text of these prayers, so that they can easily reformat and print as they wish. The following document includes also the prayer of absolution in English, Spanish, and Latin (all Novus Ordo).
If you enjoy a closer relationship with your priest, you might forward these prayers to him for his consideration. I personally have found them not only consoling/reassuring, as I said, but have also experienced that they help me to focus properly for the sacrament and more effectively pray for my penitents afterwards.
I recently had the opportunity to have dinner with Dr. Peter Kwasniewksi, a professor at the great Wyoming Catholic College and a distinguished writer on many topics relating to our faith — especially the sacred liturgy. His writings are regularly featured on blogs like New Liturgical Movement. He also lectures widely and is an accomplished musician besides.
While at dinner he showed us a galley proof of his latest book. Now, just a week or two later, I see that it has been published: Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness: Why the Modern Age Needs the Mass of the Ages.
Of note is the fact that this book has a foreword by the great German writer, Martin Mosebach. If you are interested in matters liturgical and have not yet read Mosebach’s book, The Heresy of Formlessness, I urge you to do so (sadly, it appears only to be available in Kindle format now).
I look forward to reading this book. (Alas, I’m not a celebrity blogger who gets advance copies of books sent to him 😉 — so I can’t say I’ve read it yet.) Here is the publisher’s description:
The traditional liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church is a highly formal ritual unfolding in layers of elaborate gesture, rich symbolism, whispered Latin, and ancient plainchants. “Experts” after the Second Vatican Council were convinced that such a ritual was irrelevant to “modern man.” To the shock of some, the delight of many, and the surprise of everyone, the old Latin Mass (and much that went along with it) has tenaciously survived during the past half-century and become an increasingly familiar feature in the Catholic landscape. What are the reasons for this revival, especially among the young? And why is this development so important for the renewal of Catholicism?
Peter Kwasniewski offers a lively account of the noble beauty and transcendent holiness of the traditional Roman liturgy, which humbles us before the mystery of God, stirs us with its pageantry, carries us into sacred silence, and bears us to a world of invisible realities. He contrasts this priceless treasure with the rationalistic reforms of the sixties, which yielded a Catholic liturgy severed from its own history, inadequate to its theological essence, unequal to its ascetical-mystical purpose, and estranged from its cultural inheritance. His conclusion: if there is to be a new springtime in the Church, the widespread restoration of the traditional liturgical rites will be at the heart of it.
Kwasniewski is a very stimulating writer and a great thinker. Take a look!