Bad Confession Experience - Incorrect Absolution Formulas

[Dauphin]

I went to confession today, and it definitely qualifies as the worst experience I’ve had in the confessional.

The priest used a formula of absolution other than the one prescribed by the Church. It went something like:

“I ask God to free you from all your temptations and iniquities…”

Confused by this prayer I had never heard before, and worried that I would not receive the correct formula of absolution, I interrrupted the priest, and asked him to use the correct formula. I accept that this was probably not the best approach, but I was really thrown off by this brand new prayer he had invented. After telling me how rude I was being, and after I apologized to him, the priest then offered me this absolution:

“I ask Christ to absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

I knew that this wasn’t the correct formula either, but the priest was already upset at me, so I thanked him and went to the rectory to seek a confession from the pastor.

The pastor let me in. I explained what had happened, and he argued with me, telling me that the confession was valid as long as the priest had the correct intention. I responded that the confession might have been valid (since I knew there are different formulas used in the east), but that priests are supposed to use a particular formula, and I wanted absolute certainty that my sins were absolved.

The priest then gave me a confession, using the proper formula, “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, and then admonished me not to be “scrupulous”.

Was I wrong to be so insistent on the proper formula of absolution? What would you have done?

 

[bilop]

I went to confession today, and it definitely qualifies as the worst experience I’ve had in the confessional.

The priest used a formula of absolution other than the one prescribed by the Church. It went something like:

“I ask God to free you from all your temptations and iniquities…”

Confused by this prayer I had never heard before, and worried that I would not receive the correct formula of absolution, I interrrupted the priest, and asked him to use the correct formula. I accept that this was probably not the best approach, but I was really thrown off by this brand new prayer he had invented. After telling me how rude I was being, and after I apologized to him, the priest then offered me this absolution:

“I ask Christ to absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

I knew that this wasn’t the correct formula either, but the priest was already upset at me, so I thanked him and went to the rectory to seek a confession from the pastor.

The pastor let me in. I explained what had happened, and he argued with me, telling me that the confession was valid as long as the priest had the correct intention. I responded that the confession might have been valid (since I knew there are different formulas used in the east), but that priests are supposed to use a particular formula, and I wanted absolute certainty that my sins were absolved.

The priest then gave me a confession, using the proper formula, “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, and then admonished me not to be “scrupulous”.

Was I wrong to be so insistent on the proper formula of absolution? What would you have done?

I think you were 100% correct.

I do not believe the priest’s intention is sufficient. He needs to say “I absolve you…”.

Just like a consecration isn’t valid w/o “This is My Body…This is My Blood”, regardless of intent. Likewise, the absolution is invalid w/o the key words.

Here’s an answer from Fr. Trigilio, who is on EWTN frequently, and is very orthodx.

Question from on 05-15-2007:

The priest said “I absolve you of all your sins. Father, Son and + Holy Spirit.” Was the absolution valid?

Answer by Fr. John Trigilio on 06-05-2007:

YES. The bare minimum required for validity is
EGO TE ABSOLVO A PECCATIS TUIS, IN NOMINE PATRIS, ET FILIIS, ET SPIRITUS SANCTI

(I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, AMEN.

The preceding part of the formula is required for LICEITY (licit) but is not necessary for validity.

“God, the Father of mercies,
through the death and the 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.”

catholic-bulletin.blogspot.com/2007/06/valid-absolution.html

God Bless

 

[Dauphin]

Thanks for your reply. My only worry is that I’ll be unable to get the proper formula of absolution in the future. I guess I could always try walking to a different parish (I don’t have a car).

I’m just really shaken by the prospect of not having a solid priest to confess to.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I went to confession today, and it definitely qualifies as the worst experience I’ve had in the confessional.

The priest used a formula of absolution other than the one prescribed by the Church. It went something like:

“I ask God to free you from all your temptations and iniquities…”

Confused by this prayer I had never heard before, and worried that I would not receive the correct formula of absolution, I interrrupted the priest, and asked him to use the correct formula. I accept that this was probably not the best approach, but I was really thrown off by this brand new prayer he had invented. After telling me how rude I was being, and after I apologized to him, the priest then offered me this absolution:

“I ask Christ to absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

I knew that this wasn’t the correct formula either, but the priest was already upset at me, so I thanked him and went to the rectory to seek a confession from the pastor.

The pastor let me in. I explained what had happened, and he argued with me, telling me that the confession was valid as long as the priest had the correct intention. I responded that the confession might have been valid (since I knew there are different formulas used in the east), but that priests are supposed to use a particular formula, and I wanted absolute certainty that my sins were absolved.

The priest then gave me a confession, using the proper formula, “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, and then admonished me not to be “scrupulous”.

Was I wrong to be so insistent on the proper formula of absolution? What would you have done?

I think you are 100% within your rights to ask that the priests celebrating Sacraments follow the prescribed Rites and prayers of the Church regarding those Sacraments.

 

[GailMac]

God bless you! This is a tough one. Circumcise your heart.

I once had a Priest try some of that with me and gave him a piece of my mind in the Confessional and went to another Confessional and had even more to confess to! I got labeled nuts and I’m perfectly happy being nuts! Oh well. I have a temper.

Peace,

Gail

 

[GladCatholic]

This is on Jimmy Akin’s web site and I sincerely doubt he’s wrong about this:

“There is no single set of words that are necessary for validity in the case of this sacrament. Various formluas of absolution are used in different rites of the Church, though “I absolve you” is the one used in the Latin rite. It is valid as long as the priest intends to do what the Church does, even if he omits the object of absolution. His intent to do what the Church does–since the Church absolves sins in this sacrament–is sufficient.”

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2005/05/absolution_vali.html

Note the text is referring to “I absolve thee…” but it appears to carry throughout the words of absolution.

Glad

 

[puzzleannie]

now this is an example of a true liturgical abuse (yes this sacrament is part of liturgy). the kind that should have us foaming at the mouth and charging at the bishop when the pastor does not give an adequate explanation for allowing this to happen.

now that I have finished my tea and had a chance to calm down, I will only observe, that since OP interrupted the priest before he finished, we don’t know exactly what he intended to say, so I should bite my tongue and assume in charity that at some point he would recite the valid form of absolution.

nobody should have to leave the confessional, or leave Mass, wondering if the sacraments experienced are valid.

 

[Newbie2]

now this is an example of a true liturgical abuse (yes this sacrament is part of liturgy). the kind that should have us foaming at the mouth and charging at the bishop when the pastor does not give an adequate explanation for allowing this to happen.

now that I have finished my tea and had a chance to calm down, I will only observe, that since OP interrupted the priest before he finished, we don’t know exactly what he intended to say, so I should bite my tongue and assume in charity that at some point he would recite the valid form of absolution.

nobody should have to leave the confessional, or leave Mass, wondering if the sacraments experienced are valid.

 

[Joysong]

GladCatholic:

This is on Jimmy Akin’s web site and I sincerely doubt he’s wrong about this:

"There is no single set of words that are necessary for validity in the case of this sacrament.

Originally Posted by puzzleannie
now this is an example of a true liturgical abuse …

So whom do we believe is right?

 

[Joysong]

While I am not a priest and don’t know the validity of different Forms of Absolution, and being a curious person about the discrepancy in these posts, I found this in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The form in use in the Roman Church today has not changed since long before the Council of Florence. It is divided into four parts as follows: —

(1) Deprecatory prayer. “May the Almighty God have mercy on you, and forgiving your sins, bring you to life everlasting. Amen.” Then, lifting his right hand towards the penitent, the priest continues: “May the Almighty and Merciful God grant you pardon, absolution, and remission of your sins”.

(2) “May Our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you, and I, by His authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication [suspension, in the case of a cleric only] and interdict as far as I can and you may need.”

(3) “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” (While repeating the names of the Trinity, the priest makes the sign of the cross over the penitent.)

(4) “May the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of all the Saints, what good you have done or what evil you have suffered be to you for the remission of (your) sins, growth in grace and the reward of everlasting life. Amen.”

In the light, therefore, of history and of theological opinion it is perfectly safe to conclude that the deprecatory form is certainly not invalid, if it exclude not the idea of judicial pronouncement.

newadvent.org/cathen/01061a.htm

As always, if I am not understanding this correctly, I defer to the clergy who are trained to adminster this holy sacrament.

 

[Dauphin]

While I am not a priest and don’t know the validity of different Forms of Absolution, and being a curious person about the discrepancy in these posts, I found this in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

As always, if I am not understanding this correctly, I defer to the clergy who are trained to adminster this holy sacrament.

I read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on absolution yesterday. Although the deprecatory form is usually valid, it mentions several theological opinions which say it may be invalid in the Latin Rite. It ultimately leaves the issue undecided.

What it makes clear is that the practice of using the deprecatory form is completely illicit in the Latin Rite - no priest has the right to do it:

"Theologians, however, have questioned whether or not the deprecatory form would be valid today in the Latin Church, and they point out that Clement VIII and Benedict XIV have prescribed that Greek priests should use the indicative form whensoever they absolve penitents belonging to the Latin Rite. But this is merely a matter of discipline, and such decrees do not give final decision to the theological question, for in matters of administration of the Sacraments those in authority simply follow the safest and most conservative opinions. Morinus is followed by Tournély in asserting that only the indicative form is today valid in the Latin Church (Morinus, De pœnit., Lib. VIII; Tournély, ibid., do absolutionis formâ); but many hold that if the deprecatory form exclude not the judicial pronouncement of the priest, and consequently be really equivalent to the ego te absolvo, it is surely not invalid, though all are agreed that it would be illicit as contravening the present law and discipline of the Roman Church. Some, not pronouncing judgment on the real merits of the case, think that the Holy See has withdrawn faculties from those who do not use the indicative form, but in the absence of positive ordinance this is by no means certain."
**

The last thing I want to do is play games with my salvation, or place a profound trust in likelihoods and theological opinions. I wanted the licit form prescribed by the Church, and absolute certainty that I had been absolved.

 

[Joysong]

I read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on absolution yesterday. Although the deprecatory form is usually valid, it mentions several theological opinions which say it may be invalid in the Latin Rite. It ultimately leaves the issue undecided.

There is a play on words here that may confuse the issue further. If the deprecatory form presently, and has in the past, rendered the sacrament itself to be validly received, then I fail to see how the use of it in ANY rite would render the sacrament itself “invalid.” Maybe the correct word in the article should have been illicit with respect to form, but nevertheless does not negate a ‘valid’ reception of the sacrament.

… but many hold that if the deprecatory form exclude not the judicial pronouncement of the priest, and consequently be really equivalent to the ego te absolvo, it is surely not invalid, though all are agreed that it would be illicit as contravening the present law and discipline of the Roman Church.

Since it bothers you very much, Dauphin, you need to obtain a final clarification from those in the know, especially if you do not have the liberty of confessing elsewhere.

 

[Dauphin]

There is a play on words here that may confuse the issue further. If the deprecatory form presently, and has in the past, rendered the sacrament itself to be validly received, then I fail to see how the use of it in ANY rite would render the sacrament itself “invalid.” Maybe the correct word in the article should have been illicit with respect to form, but nevertheless does not negate a ‘valid’ reception of the sacrament.

I think the argument is that faculties are revoked automatically if the illicit form is used, rendering the confession invalid. The validity of confession hinges on the priest being given faculties to absolve.

The article doesn’t make the issue certain. What is certain is that the priest has an obligation to use the licit form, and a Catholic has the right to demand it.

 

[Joysong]

I think the argument is that faculties are revoked automatically if the illicit form is used, rendering the confession invalid.

Where did you read THAT!? Can you provide the source?

 

[Dauphin]

Where did you read THAT!? Can you provide the source?

I already did. It was discussed in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on absolution.

 

[Joysong]

Ctholic Encyclopedia:

Some, not pronouncing judgment on the real merits of the case, think that the Holy See has withdrawn faculties from those who do not use the indicative form, but in the absence of positive ordinance this is by no means certain.

This statement is rather far removed from your words, Dauphin:

I think the argument is that faculties are revoked automatically if the illicit form is used, rendering the confession invalid. The validity of confession hinges on the priest being given faculties to absolve.

“Revoked automatically” suggests that if they at any time use an illicit form, they are no longer able to hear confessions. Pretty strong language. Maybe wishful thinking? I saw your caveat, but these words don’t seem to afford any leeway whatsoever. Neither did I recall seeing in the article that “illicit form” renders the sacrament itself invalid, but I will look again to be sure.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

While I am not a priest and don’t know the validity of different Forms of Absolution, and being a curious person about the discrepancy in these posts, I found this in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

As always, if I am not understanding this correctly, I defer to the clergy who are trained to adminster this holy sacrament.

The place to look for this answer is not in an Encyclopedia, or Canon Law or the Catechism even, but the RITE of PENENCE for the Latin Rite that is in force today. What does the Rite
for the Sacrament of Penence in the Latin Rite, say the priest is to say?

 

[Joysong]

The place to look for this answer is not in an Encyclopedia, or Canon Law or the Catechism even, but the RITE of PENENCE for the Latin Rite that is in force today. What does the Rite for the Sacrament of Penence in the Latin Rite, say the priest is to say?

I don’t have access to that information. Do you? Even if the form is restricted to the exact words, “I absolve you…” it is uncertain that when another form is used, the sacrament is “invalid” rather than illicit, and therefore non-operative spiritually for the penitent.

That seems to be the essence of the OP’s post, since she asked for the sacrament to be repeated by the pastor.

Similarly, there are certain abuses that have been observed in the sacred liturgy, which are illicit, but which do not completely render the sacrifice of the mass null and void.
Jimmy Akin:

There is no single set of words that are necessary for validity in the case of this sacrament. Various formluas of absolution are used in different rites of the Church, though “I absolve you” is the one used in the Latin rite. It is valid as long as the priest intends to do what the Church does, even if he omits the object of absolution. His intent to do what the Church does–since the Church absolves sins in this sacrament–is sufficient.

Since this was quoted previously in the thread, I would believe that Mr. Akin, CAF apologist, would not have misinformed us, so we have a contrary opinion that needs to be addressed.

 

[bilop]

As always, if I am not understanding this correctly, I defer to the clergy who are trained to adminster this holy sacrament.

This is a case where the laity should NOT defer to the Clergy.

I don’t really care if the alternative form of the sacrament “might” be valid. In the Latin Rite the priest is to absolve by the formula “I absolve you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”. He has **absolutely no right **to alter the sacrament. Dauphin, and all other Catholics, have an ** absolute right ** to have the proper formula used and be certain of the absolution.

If the priest refuse to use the correct formula he should be reported to his pastor. If the pastor refuses to act, he should be reported to the bishop. If the bishop won’t act, it should be referred to Rome.

No one, priest, bishop or Pope, has a right to change the Sacramental formulae.

God Bless

 

[Joysong]

I don’t really care if the alternative form of the sacrament “might” be valid.

The jury’s still out, Bilop. Let’s wait and see what transpires before stating one’s personal opinion as dogma.

As today’s gospel teaches, we are to admonish, not condemn. It seems to be an act of mercy to obtain good information for the OP so that there is no animosity held against the priest, should he be innocent.

The OP did not even wait to listen to the complete wording from the priest, but blatantly interrupted him in anger. In justice, we need to hear the whole story and find out the truth.