
Click for larger
Photo by The Great Roman™

Use your phone’s camera
From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
I recently made a confession (of mortal sins) where the priest used the full absolution formula, EXCEPT, he said “I absolve you OF your sins” instead of “I absolve you FROM your sins.”
Do I need to redo this confession? Last year’s story of the priest in the Archdiocese of Detroit who found out he was never validly baptized because the deacon said “WE baptize you” instead of “I baptize you” has me concerned.
Be at ease.
The official English translation of the core of the form of absolution is: “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father +, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
That said, there is not a huge gap of meaning between “I absolve you of…” and “I absolve you from…”. The difference in meaning is NOT enough to invalidate the absolution.
In short, Father is getting it wrong, but not so severely wrong that it invalidates the absolution.
You might politely ask him about it, but not in a confrontational way. He might not even realize that he is getting is slightly wrong. If he has the true heart of a priest, he will be glad to know what the correct wording is and will make a change. If this is all about him, he won’t appreciate the information.
There are some jackass priests out there who really screw around with the forms of sacraments.
If you confess to a priest who regularly does something really dodgy with the form of absolution, I would politely bring it up.
People are within their rights to have the form of absolution spoken as it is in the book. If it really bothers you, or if you ever hear something that you are pretty sure is too far off base to be admissable, ask the priest to give you absolution with the proper form. Do not be nasty or aggressive about this.
If that doesn’t help, talk to the pastor of the parish and/or the local bishop.
Remember that the priest himself cannot talk about the confession because he is bound by the Seal. Therefore, you can politely inform the the bishop about your experience of the form of absolution. You would have to include that you have been to this priest several times and that he has always done the same thing. Do not run him down. Do not add lots of observations. Do not try to teach the bishop his job or theology.
Ideally, the bishop (or pastor) would then have a chat with the priest during which the priest would be informed that word had come that he isn’t using the proper form of absolution and, if true, that should be corrected – lest in the future he receive in spades the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing.
If that doesn’t produce results, send a copy of your correspondence to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (not Divine Worship) and seek a clarification.
Fathers! Don’t fool around with the words of absolution or of any other sacrament Remember what happened when men screwed around with the form of baptism! At the minimum about are being anxiogenic! It may be that you have slipped into some variant and, over the years, don’t even realize you are doing it. REVIEW. This is the nuts and bolts of our work! And it isn’t even that hard!
As for the rest of you…
GO TO CONFESSION!
BTW….
That decision of the CDF about the form of baptism is not without its critics. However, “We” could be a substantive change to the form of the sacrament.
From VaticanNews.va in Italian:
Italy, CEI: fewer seminarians, families may be a nursery for vocations [What’s….. family?]
The data of a report by the Italian Bishops’ Conference reveal that in just ten years the decline in vocations has reached 28%: in fifty years the seminarians have more than halved. Don Michele Gianola, undersecretary of the CEI: “This situation must not make us lose hope. The attention of the Church today must be directed to all vocations, not just to the priesthood.”
Lemme stop there. In the ANSA coverage has, instead of priesthood, “il ministero ordinato…. ordained minister”. Vatican News tidied it up. “Ordained minister” is a term of art that intends to blur the disticntion of the priesthood of the priest and the priesthood of the laity. This was the B as in B, S as in S we got in seminary in the 80’s, distilled from Rahner and Schillebeeckx.
SIR, has more numbers. Alarming.
Fr. Z responds, they have systematically destroyed the terroir for vocations in Italy for decades and now they wonder that they don’t have as many now as before.
God is not calling fewer men to the priesthood, friends. It’s just that they can’t hear. They’ve been deafened.
I wonder what would happen with a radical inside the box (the new “outside the box”) approach to vocations, including preaching about the family and having sound liturgical worship.
Robert Royal has a terrific column at The Catholic Thing about the meeting of Biden with Francis. He summarized the thoughts of many.
Tastes:
[…]
The Vatican press office has not denied Biden’s account and has only said that it was a private conversation. And that it doesn’t comment on private conversations.
This already is close to an outright lie
[…]
The press office is noticeably maladroit in handling controversies like this one. During the Amazon Synod, for instance, press officials were repeatedly asked to clarify what the Pachamama was doing there. All they did was mumble that symbols have different uses in different cultures.
[…]
There’s some evidence that Biden is lying. He claims that abortion was not discussed.
[…]
The biggest problem in all of this is that Francis even met with Biden at this precise moment. It not only undercut our American bishops – by a pope who otherwise has been seeking to devolve power away from Rome and talks incessantly now about “walking together” – i.e. synodality.
[…]
And there’s this…
The editor of any publication these days knows in advance that anything you publish will result in a flurry of emotional reactions in the Inbox. Readers accuse you and all of your writers – who were chosen to present a variety of perspectives, some not your own – of all believing the same outrageously wrong thing. Or maybe the opposite wrong thing. The reactions are not always based on a close reading of the original text.
You said it, friend.
The artwork he chose for the column is spot on.
Check it out.

Excommunication ceremony (British Library Royal, 6 E VI f216v)
From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
Like Marines, I’ve heard that once you’re baptized a Catholic, you’re always a Catholic, no matter if you fall away from the faith, or don’t even practice Catholicism.
It is something that once given, cannot be taken away. Is that correct?
Are you still considered Catholic if you get excommunicated?
If you get excommunicated, do you just need to repent of your sins through Confession, or does one need to get re-baptized?
Firstly, you know from the Creed that there is ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins. A person can never be re-baptized. The sacrament, once given, imparts an ontological character to the soul that never goes away. Once baptized, you are baptized for eternity, no matter where you wind up.
You can never be a non-Catholic after you are baptized or received into the Catholic Church. Once you enter into formal membership, that’s it. You can attempt to make formal separations from the Church. You can behave as if you were never Catholic. But if something comes up that requires interaction with the institution of the Catholic Church for some reason, you will be treated as a Catholic, not as a non-Catholic. The Church still considers you bound by her laws no matter what.
Most of the time, when we sin we don’t incur a censure that would prohibit us from receiving the sacraments or, in the case of clerics, an office. Most of the time, we can just go to confession and that’s that.
Some sins incur censures. They are dealt with by getting the censure absolved AND the sin absolved.
A first principle to keep in mind is that an excommunication can only be incurred if the person commits a mortal sin. That means that all the conditions for a mortal sin must apply. It must be grave matter, known to be wrong, and willed anyway when performed. If a person truely doesn’t know any better, or is under duress or is otherwise in his or her will not giving consent to sin, then the person is not guilty of comitting a mortal sin, even though objectively he did something gravely wrong.
Examples, a woman is threatened with harm unless she has an abortion, a man is drunk when he steals a Host, a bishop is absolutely convinced in true sincerity that he must consecrate bishops for the good of the Church even if he has been begged by the Pope not to do so.
There are different ways to incur excommunication, a censure which means that you cannot receive the sacraments, even in most cases receive absolution! The censure has to be lifted first.
There are excommunications that are incurred automatically and those that are declared or imposed. The automatic ones (latae sententiae), if the sin/crime that incurred them is public, manifest, are usually then confirmed by competent authority with a declared censure (ferendae sententiae).
Most censures can be lifted by either a priest with the faculty to do so (most confessors) and diocesan bishops. Some censures, having to do with very serious sins, are reserved to the Holy See for their lifting or absolution. These very serious reserved censures have to do with violations of things that are close to the core of the life of the Church, like abuse of the Eucharist, breaking the Seal of confession, etc.
In most cases, however, if a person is aware of incurring an excommunication in a hidden, non-public way, she can usually go to a local priest who is a confessor and have the censure lifted in the context of sacramental confession. The censure is lifted and then the person can be absolved.
However, if the sin incurred an excommunication that is hidden and reserved to the Holy See, the confessor cannot lift the censure. In this case – if he knows what to do and seminaries generally don’t teach what I am about to write – he can absolve the sin, but must exhort the person to make an appointment to return after a period of a some days, perhaps ten days. In the meantime, that priest must communicate the situation to the Apostolic Penitentiary (AP) in Rome, which handles censures in the interal forum (confession). He gives the AP a generic, anonymized description of the person, circumstances, and sin and asks a judgement, the faculty to lift it if deemed opportune, and a penance. This can be sent by priest to the AP by fax. The AP always answers within 24 hours. The priest confessor would receive an envelope from the AP through the papal nuncius office and post, containing another envelope with the comments and faculty from the AP. The next time that penitent came, at the appointed day and time, the priest could then communicate the advice of the AP, the penance, and then lift the censure. At that point the penitent could freely make use of the sacraments again.
If the excommunication is a public matter, the Holy See (or bishop who imposed it) would also have to make public statements that the imposed censure was lifted.
Keep in mind that, now, there are no more reserved SINS. There are reserved CENSURES. Sins and censures are absolved separately. Think in terms of a gravely evil act being a grave sin AND a grave crime. Two steps are needed, one for the sin and another for the crime. So, while it is possible to absolve a sin in case of necessity or undue burden to the person who otherwise might have to wait, the censure can only be absolved by a priest with the faculty to do so.
NB: Virtually all priests now have the faculty to absolve the sin of abortion and the censure it incurs.
The older, traditional rite of penance, with its form for absolution was far more pastoral and merciful than the post-Conciliar modern form, because it spells out the issue of absolution of censures before the absolution of sins. Here is the older, traditional form (always in Latin but here in translation):
May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you; and I, by His authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication (suspension [for clerics only]) and interdict, in as much as I am able and you require. + Thereupon, I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Notice the two steps: censures, if any and according to the priest’s faculties, and then sins.
In the older form of absolution you know what is going on and, it being in Latin, you never have to doubt its validity.
The modern, new-fangled, post-Conciliar Ordo Paenitentiae has a form for absolution of censures, but I’ll wager that 99/100 priests who say only the Novus Ordo don’t know anything about it or have every used it, even when they should.

This is important stuff, obviously.
Holy Church is beautifully merciful in making sure that people in these delicate situations don’t have to wonder if they are absolved of sins or reconciled with the Church. The Church’s law is dripping with mercy so that people can be at ease. That is why priests need to know this stuff and also apply it in preaching and the confessional.
For further clarity, folks should have recourse to Dr. Ed Peters’ book, Excommunication and the Catholic Church.
Remember, there is no sin that we little mortals can commit that is so bad that God will not forgive,provided we confess our sins and ask for forgiveness. God’s mercy is magnificent and it is ours for the asking.
GO TO CONFESSION!
I am getting ready to say my three Masses today. A note from a priest reader prompts to post.
On two days of the year, from the calendar and law itself a priest has the privilege of saying three Masses: Christmas and All Souls. On Christmas, he can keep three stipends for the Masses. That’s the only day of the year when he can do that. On All Souls he can keep one stipend and if he celebrates the other Masses they must be for the Poor Souls in Purgatory and, traditionally, for the Intentions designated by the Roman Pontiff. More on that Intentions thing, which also impacts on the gaining of indulgences, such as those for the dead this November HERE.
When the priest says his Masses back to back, the rubrics change a little in the Traditional Mass – which every priest really ought to know.
Pace Francis and the anti-Tradition machine, if a doesn’t know how to say the Traditional Latin Mass, then, if he is a Latin Rite priest, he doesn’t know his own rite. He is incomplete and ignorant in a culpable way.
Here are some rubrical changes for saying three Requiem Masses back to back. Click for larger.

After Communion of the 1st and 2nd Masses, the priest does NOT purify the chalice as usual, but rather places it on the corporal and covers it with the pall. He says the Quod ore sumpsimus and then purifies his fingers, saying the Corpus tuum while drying them. He removes the pall from the chalice, replaces the purificator and paten with a new host to be consecrated, covers with the pall and veil and places as for Mass. He must not remove the chalice from the corporal.
If he slips and purifies the chalice as habitual, he can still celebrate the other Masses.
At the second and third Masses, if celebrated right away, after removing the veil he sets the chalice still on the corporal toward the Epistle side. It helps to have a larger corporal today (as I do). He does not wipe the inside of the chalice with the purificator before putting in wine and water and he does not use the purificator on the inside of the cup.
If his Masses are not in a row, he purifies as usual, but should use only water in purifying the chalice (so he doesn’t break his Eucharistic fast). But if he slips and uses both wine and water, he can still celebrate Mass even within the three hours (that was prescribed at the time of the 1962 Missal).

First and foremost, thank you to the reader who sent from my wishlist (‘happy birthday to me’) the wonderful “Lewis” chessmen, found on Lewis Island in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland, not at Lewes in Sussex where friends of mine labor in the Lord’s vineyard and whence came Thomas Paine, a man for our own time now. Some years back I saw the 12th c. Lewis chessmen in the British Museum, which has most of them, and found them striking. In general I prefer to play with Staunton pieces, or very similar. These special chessmen, however, are wonderful. They were discovered in 1831.
After that, their history would be the stuff of a great thriller, if someone creative could work it out.
A while back I posted an invitation to Catholic clerics who might play chess to drop me a line. I had a few nibbles. I’m patient.
I also want to send thanks out to people whom I don’t know, but who sent practical things in large and heavy boxes. You know who you are, if I don’t, and God knows you as well. May God reward you.
Thank you to all who have sent monthly donations and ad hoc contributions. Thank you to you special “200” project givers. Some have dropped by the way side, perhap others will take up the baton and keep it going.
Thank you for your prayers and notes.
I have been regularly saying Mass for the intention of my benefactors, as I did today. Today, ALL benefactors seemed appropriate for “All Saints”.
Meanwhile, in other chess news, one of you sent this amusing bit from The People’s Cube which I haven’t seen for some time.
Buy Now: Anti-racist Chess!
In traditional chess, white gets to go first. A shocking and racist beginning to anything, but pretty much what you’d expect from a game invented by white people.*
Anti-racist Chess is an updated, more equitable version of this ancient but problematic pastime.
How to Play
The rules are similar to traditional chess with these modifications to make it more fair for the Pieces of Color (PoC):
History of the game
Critical Race Theory (CRT) Professor Kincade X. Charletien noticed a disturbing trend in the game of chess in 2016. He analyzed 632 chess matches going back to 1948 and discovered this shocking fact: white wins 54.6% of the time. While most people would make this obvious example of systemic racism known by the usual methods – publication of a book, writing an expose for the New York Times, or burning down a city – Dr. Charletien decided to go a different route. Like the inventor of Monopoly, he would seek to educate the toiling masses by harnessing mankind’s natural attraction to games and puzzles.
He invented Anti-Racist Chess in 2019 and it became an instant classic, replacing ‘racist chess’ nearly everywhere in the US and selling over 87 million copies in the first year.
Makes an excellent Kwanzaa gift!
_______________
* Some people still believe chess was invented in India 1,300 years ago, but that has been shown to be an elaborate hoax: Chess was actually invented by white slave traders in 1619.
Speaking of racism and prejudice, I suppose my friends in Lewes are preparing for the annual Catholic bashing coming up on 5 November.