The Passio Domini prayer IS one of the options to conclude Confession in the revised form. It's just one of way too many options and only a trad friendly priest would think to use it.
The fact that the Rite of Penance actually *went out of print due to lack of demand* prior to the new translation tells you that it was effectively vetoed by priests.
I am a recent convert so I don’t even know, but I can say forcefully that I have been so appreciative of those parishes that still have the screen and the box that at least permits me to believe in the preservation of my anonymity. I am in a small area and it’s all NO and some of them are open rooms. You’re just face to face! With someone who knows your family. Which can be deeply embarrassing if your sins pertain to them at all.
If I lived in a bigger area I’d *always* choose a parish other than the one I attend with the box and the screen
It’s actually your canonical right to have a fixed screen, and obviously very important for the priest as well. Besides the reasons you mention, the scope for abuse and false accusations is limitless!
This is making me grateful to be in a more conservative part of the country; all the churches in my area have a screen or curtain - something! - in the confessionals. Some are retro-fitted because churches here were also torn up in the 70s, but I would say it’s the norm to have something there to preserve at least the idea of anonymity.
Vatican II was a travesty; but as always, God makes everything good. Pope Francis and the rabid suppression of the old ways has helped many recognize the beauty and importance of them.
I'm 19 and still in college, so can't pay for a subscription to T&S. I was very sad when I saw Dr. Kwasniewski post this article on a Monday, because as much as it scares me sometimes, I love the traditional rite of Confession. I haven't been to a NO confession in nearly two years now, and I don't think I can go back. It's too formless -- too... meh. I don't even feel like I can ask the priests a question when I need to. Like the NO itself, it doesn't work. I'll take the Hollywood, old-fashioned rite of confession anytime!
With all due respect, I don't know why you feel you can't ask the priest a question. It is totally normal for a penitent to say, "Father, I have a question" or "Can you clarify for me?", etc. I'm not aware of anything within the Order of Penance that would dissuade or discourage that. So, I don't mean to invalidate your perception, but I don't think that it is a fair criticism of the rite.
Yes, you are not wrong. Let me clarify what I mean. In 2023, the ritual book was updated/edited. "The Rite of Penance" is the old edition while "The Order of Penance" is the current edition.
Since I made my first confession in the very early 1970s, I’ve confessed regularly. Only once, in all that time, have I encountered the NO rite as the book says it is to be celebrated. The only difference I’ve experienced is the use of the revised words of absolution (form of the sacrament). Neither, in my years as a priest, have I ever celebrated the sacrament “by the book.”
The N.O. Rite is horrible. Clearly it’s the work of people who didn’t celebrate the sacrament on either side of the screen. It’s overly verbose. It makes hearing more than two or three confessions in the half hour allotted on Saturday afternoon impossible. After a while people gave up on waiting since they might not get their turn. Once out of the habit of regular confession they aren’t coming back. The use of a “confession room” is a further deterrent. People don’t like it. They prefer the traditional confessional for a variety of reasons—anonymity and safety being primary. As a priest I will only hear confessions outside the box when there’s no alternative. Today you can’t be too careful. Besides, Confession is not a time for spiritual direction other than answering a question or a terse word of advice about the confessed sins. There’s no need for “face-to-face”.
What is needed in my opinion is for priests to preach about sin and its consequences and ugliness; how to celebrate the sacrament including preparation, necessary acts; and drive home that penance is not an option but a divine command that must be acted on daily. Further, the need to be generous with scheduling times for Confession all week long at times when people can attend. The average Catholic isn’t going to call the rectory to make an appointment. They just aren’t.
The primary work of priests is the salvation of souls which is achieved first and foremost through the celebration of the sacraments and prayer. Everything else is secondary including time off! The salvation of souls demands this.
All you say is correct. But the abandonment of the richness of the old rite has to be examined. Peter Kwasniewski offers a good analysis of what we are missing (embedded article) and I can affirm that for an ambivalent pew-sitter, the assurance that one wouldn't have to make it up as one went along would be very helpful!
Watch the video -- it's really crazy how it only increases the anxiety that one would be caught not doing the right thing!
Oh, I’m not defending the N.O. It cannot be defended. It’s utterly deficient in everything even if it is valid. I apologize for not being clear about that. The N.O. needs to be consigned to the ash heap of history. And I’ve read Dr. Keasnewski’s article and seen the video.
And a word on the use of the word “form” when referring to the sacraments: form has a specific meaning and without it the sacrament is invalid. In the article the word is used, I think, to mean structure or schema or process. The form of the Sacrament of Penance is “I absolve you…” It is not the structure or schema or process one follows in the celebration of the sacrament.
Yes, that is a good distinction. You are right, I am talking about the form of the rite as a whole, and not "the matter of the sacrament" which as I affirm, is done validly in the NO.
But speaking generally and in the vein of Martin Mosebach who writes about the formlessness of the NO, a form or structure is what is missing and contributes to people's reluctance -- and the video I'm referencing only serves to underscore the problem!
The Passio Domini prayer IS one of the options to conclude Confession in the revised form. It's just one of way too many options and only a trad friendly priest would think to use it.
The fact that the Rite of Penance actually *went out of print due to lack of demand* prior to the new translation tells you that it was effectively vetoed by priests.
I am a recent convert so I don’t even know, but I can say forcefully that I have been so appreciative of those parishes that still have the screen and the box that at least permits me to believe in the preservation of my anonymity. I am in a small area and it’s all NO and some of them are open rooms. You’re just face to face! With someone who knows your family. Which can be deeply embarrassing if your sins pertain to them at all.
If I lived in a bigger area I’d *always* choose a parish other than the one I attend with the box and the screen
It’s actually your canonical right to have a fixed screen, and obviously very important for the priest as well. Besides the reasons you mention, the scope for abuse and false accusations is limitless!
Well that’s actually really good to know!
https://www.olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMUPBFeI5Hc
One of our priests uses that prayer at the end of confession - he's the first one I have ever had use it. He was just ordained last year.
This is making me grateful to be in a more conservative part of the country; all the churches in my area have a screen or curtain - something! - in the confessionals. Some are retro-fitted because churches here were also torn up in the 70s, but I would say it’s the norm to have something there to preserve at least the idea of anonymity.
Vatican II was a travesty; but as always, God makes everything good. Pope Francis and the rabid suppression of the old ways has helped many recognize the beauty and importance of them.
I'm 19 and still in college, so can't pay for a subscription to T&S. I was very sad when I saw Dr. Kwasniewski post this article on a Monday, because as much as it scares me sometimes, I love the traditional rite of Confession. I haven't been to a NO confession in nearly two years now, and I don't think I can go back. It's too formless -- too... meh. I don't even feel like I can ask the priests a question when I need to. Like the NO itself, it doesn't work. I'll take the Hollywood, old-fashioned rite of confession anytime!
With all due respect, I don't know why you feel you can't ask the priest a question. It is totally normal for a penitent to say, "Father, I have a question" or "Can you clarify for me?", etc. I'm not aware of anything within the Order of Penance that would dissuade or discourage that. So, I don't mean to invalidate your perception, but I don't think that it is a fair criticism of the rite.
She's saying something it would be well for priests to understand... see if you can look between the lines and get it.
If I may offer a small point of correction/clarification: The current ritual for confession is entitled "The Order of Penance."
My reference is to the book, which is called "The Rite of Penance" -- the priest is holding it up and I can see what the title is.
Yes, you are not wrong. Let me clarify what I mean. In 2023, the ritual book was updated/edited. "The Rite of Penance" is the old edition while "The Order of Penance" is the current edition.
Since I made my first confession in the very early 1970s, I’ve confessed regularly. Only once, in all that time, have I encountered the NO rite as the book says it is to be celebrated. The only difference I’ve experienced is the use of the revised words of absolution (form of the sacrament). Neither, in my years as a priest, have I ever celebrated the sacrament “by the book.”
The N.O. Rite is horrible. Clearly it’s the work of people who didn’t celebrate the sacrament on either side of the screen. It’s overly verbose. It makes hearing more than two or three confessions in the half hour allotted on Saturday afternoon impossible. After a while people gave up on waiting since they might not get their turn. Once out of the habit of regular confession they aren’t coming back. The use of a “confession room” is a further deterrent. People don’t like it. They prefer the traditional confessional for a variety of reasons—anonymity and safety being primary. As a priest I will only hear confessions outside the box when there’s no alternative. Today you can’t be too careful. Besides, Confession is not a time for spiritual direction other than answering a question or a terse word of advice about the confessed sins. There’s no need for “face-to-face”.
What is needed in my opinion is for priests to preach about sin and its consequences and ugliness; how to celebrate the sacrament including preparation, necessary acts; and drive home that penance is not an option but a divine command that must be acted on daily. Further, the need to be generous with scheduling times for Confession all week long at times when people can attend. The average Catholic isn’t going to call the rectory to make an appointment. They just aren’t.
The primary work of priests is the salvation of souls which is achieved first and foremost through the celebration of the sacraments and prayer. Everything else is secondary including time off! The salvation of souls demands this.
All you say is correct. But the abandonment of the richness of the old rite has to be examined. Peter Kwasniewski offers a good analysis of what we are missing (embedded article) and I can affirm that for an ambivalent pew-sitter, the assurance that one wouldn't have to make it up as one went along would be very helpful!
Watch the video -- it's really crazy how it only increases the anxiety that one would be caught not doing the right thing!
Oh, I’m not defending the N.O. It cannot be defended. It’s utterly deficient in everything even if it is valid. I apologize for not being clear about that. The N.O. needs to be consigned to the ash heap of history. And I’ve read Dr. Keasnewski’s article and seen the video.
And a word on the use of the word “form” when referring to the sacraments: form has a specific meaning and without it the sacrament is invalid. In the article the word is used, I think, to mean structure or schema or process. The form of the Sacrament of Penance is “I absolve you…” It is not the structure or schema or process one follows in the celebration of the sacrament.
Yes, that is a good distinction. You are right, I am talking about the form of the rite as a whole, and not "the matter of the sacrament" which as I affirm, is done validly in the NO.
But speaking generally and in the vein of Martin Mosebach who writes about the formlessness of the NO, a form or structure is what is missing and contributes to people's reluctance -- and the video I'm referencing only serves to underscore the problem!