Absolution

[atsheeran]

A priest on the ewtn.com Q & A said that if a priest in the sacrament of reconciliation says
“I absolve you from all your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”
rather than
“I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”
then the absolution is invalid ! I was shocked. I hear the absolution forumula with the addition of “all” very frequently. Was this priest correct?

 

[atsheeran]

bump

Anyone have an opinion on this?

 

[_veritas]

Very likely he is, yes. The Church teaches that for a sacrament to be valid there must be valid “matter,” “form,” and “intention.”

For the Eucharist, the matter is the wheat bread, the form is the words “This is my Body”, and the intention is the priest’s intention to confect the sacrament as the Church intends.

For confession, the matter is the priest in persona Christi (in the person of Christ, by virtue of his ordination), the form is the words “I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” and the intention is on the part of the penitent who comes to the sacrament with repentence and a firm conviction to keep from sinning.

The issue of “form” is the one most discussed in relation to the validity or invalidity of a sacrament… There have been many cases of invalid Masses because the priest changes some (seemingly small, at least to him) word during the consecration, thereby using an invalid form. In addition, there have been many cases where baptisms are deemed invalid due to improper form (in Australia, a recent high profile case was where a pastor was baptizing kids “in the name of the Creater, Redeemer and Sanctifier” – the bishop there declared all his baptisms invalid).

In light of all of this, it follows that the words used for the sacrament of penance are also of the utmost importance, for these words are also the form.

The Church has had a long history of discussion on what constitutes valid form for the sacrament of penance, much of that is detailed in the Catholic Encyclopedia (but it is very dense reading… very complicated and using advanced theological/philosophical language).

I do not have any further citations for you, but I belive that since the Church has determined that the only formulation it can be sure is valid is the “I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” then any divergence (no matter how “slight” it seems) is questionable and is an offense to the integrity of the sacrament. I did check the Code of Canon Law quick and did not find an explicit description of the proper form for absolution, but I am sure it is in the rubrics for the rite of confession.

In any case, yes, I agree with the EWTN priest on this matter.

Any time I encounter a priest during confession who changes the words of absolution even slightly, I politely ask him to repeat it using the correct form…

+veritas+

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This was Fr. Serpa’s reply to a similar question (the priest in this case said “I forgive,” rather than “I absolve”):

Your Confession was valid, but illicit. The Church gives leeway here with the matter of validity for the benefit of the penitent. However, the priest does not have the authority to deviate from the proscribed formula.

 

[drforjc]

Veritas,
I agree in general with your observations about correct form-- I’d like to add, though, that exactly how far one may deviate from it and not invalidate it has been debated for many years. For example, I’ve read that for a valid Consecration, the words “This is My Body…” and “This … is My Blood” (in English) are necessary, but some minor additions or deletions (such as … the cup of …) might not invalidate it as long as that minimum is there.
So whether the word “all” in this specific case would a sufficient deviation from proper form is to invalidate the absolution is probably debatable. You might get different answers depending on the theologian you ask.
The article cited seems to say that a simple “I absolve you.” would be valid:

and theologians teach that absolution would be valid should the priest use, “Absolvo te”, “Absolvo to a peccatis tuis”,

That being said, the rest of your observations about the need for correct form are spot on.

 

[_veritas]

drforjc:

Veritas,
I agree in general with your observations about correct form-- I’d like to add, though, that exactly how far one may deviate from it and not invalidate it has been debated for many years. For example, I’ve read that for a valid Consecration, the words “This is My Body…” and “This … is My Blood” (in English) are necessary, but some minor additions or deletions (such as … the cup of …) might not invalidate it as long as that minimum is there.
So whether the word “all” in this specific case would a sufficient deviation from proper form is to invalidate the absolution is probably debatable. You might get different answers depending on the theologian you ask.
The article cited seems to say that a simple “I absolve you.” would be valid:

That being said, the rest of your observations about the need for correct form are spot on.

Thanks DrforJC - good points and I agree with you entirely. I have discussed the debate over “how much is too much” tampering with the form of a sacrament with my Theology profs – sticky subject…

I did see that part in the Encyclopedia about the proposed minimum, “I absolve you,” but decided it was too much to try to explain here so I chose to simply say that by changing the words the validity was “questionable” and an “offense to the integrity of the sacrament,” which I reaffirm.

There is, of course, no way that one ever really knows that a particular sacrament was absolutely invalid, with no grace granted through it, for we must always acknowledge that while the normative way for us to receive grace is through the proper celebration of the sacraments, God is not bound by the sacraments and dispenses grace where He wills. However – it is a serious issue when priests attempt to presume upon God and change things from what has been determined by the Church to be the only sure way to know that the will of God regarding the sacrament is being followed and grace will be dispensed to all faithful participants whose souls are able to receive the grace.

In any case, the majority of the burden of “fault” regarding the validity of proper form rests on the priest who is celebrating the sacrament, to obey Christ and to act in communion with the Church. No one is condemned for something they have absolutely no culpable fault for. In the case of an unknowing penitent, even if their last sacrament of penance was invalid, should they die thinking that it was valid, the Church will never say that they were not forgiven by God and denied salvation – because they had no culpable fault in the matter, and presumably they were sorrowful for thier sins and desired the grace of the sacrament.

+veritas+

 

[atsheeran]

Thanks, guys.

I actually had read the Catholic Encyclopedia article to which you refer. The speculation that “absolvo te” could be sufficient for validity did give me a little bit of hope. But more than that it shed light on just how unsettled an issue this is.

I have found researching this topic to be very frustrating because, as it has been pointed out, there is not really much agreement as to how much deviation constitutes invalidity. I had also noticed the discrepancy between Fr. Serpa’s opinion (that replacing “forgive” with “absolve” renders the sacrament illicit, but not invalid) with that of the EWTN priest (that even the minor change of adding “all” renders the sacrament invalid). I just wish that there was some authoritative church document that stated how much deviation is too much.

I have read elsewhere things along the lines of what Father Serpa said (that “the church gives leeway here with the matter of validity for the benefit of the penitent”), but I wish I could find some authoritative documentation for that.

Because I hear the addition of the word “all” so much, I am thinking of writing a letter to my bishop to inform of this. If priests in his diocese are causing their sacraments to be invalid, he should know!

Anyway, thanks again for your responses. Unfortunately, I’m pretty much in the same place I was before in terms of anxiety over this issue. But I do appreciate everyone chiming in.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This dinking around with the wording of the rites and rituals is something I wish all priests would stop doing, either in the confessional or at the altar. It’s like they’re thinking,“I can do this better than the Church does it,” or they’re stamping it with the colors of their own ego. The words are there for a purpose.