'I Forgive you...' v 'I Absolve you...'

[Sir_Knight]

With regard to what I’ve underlined: Has any apologist outright said that there’s no distinction? Or are some readers here under the impression that that’s what is being said? There’s quite a difference. I haven’t searched the threads, and I don’t recall ever having read where that was said (keep in mind, I haven’t been looking).

See my quote here … ‘The fact that your priests say, “You are forgiven” instead of the entire formula does not invalidate the sacrament.’

 

[Leonius]

All of this is most disturbing. Several years ago I lived in another state and the parish that I belonged to had both the pastor and the priest use “forgive”. A few weeks ago, we had a visiting priest in our parish (he’s here for the summer) who also used “forgive”.

It would APPEAR that this is something that is more wide-spread than one might think. Priests who have be formally train in these matters do not seem to remember their training or were trained incorrectly or just don’t care. Catholic Apologists on this board are under the impression that there is no difference between “forgive” and “absolve”.

As I said, all of this is very disturbing.

There was a case recently over the sacrament of baptism in Australia that links with this, the essential form of the sacrament of baptism are the words “I baptise you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”.

A Priest in Australia changed the words and as a result the Church had no choice but to declare all of the baptisms he did invalid and those baptised by him needed to be baptised again. That is how important the words which are part of the essential form of the sacrament are. (Story here: findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_1_29/ai_n8709004/)

The priests responsible for changing the words of baptisms refused to use the correct words and have since been excommunicated.

The cause of all this is the individual priests pride and/or lack of faith, whether they have decided they are free to make up their own faith or have simply never been taught the truth in the first place.

You should be disturbed, but you must also insist on your right as a Catholic to receive the sacraments of the Church correctly, to start with maybe start saying after you accuse yourself of your sins “For all these and all other sins that have escaped my memory, I am heartily sorry and humbly ask pardon of God and penance and absolution of you, Father.”

Then if he does not absolve you but only forgives you you can ask him again for absolution.

Because confession is private with no witnesses they can get away with changing the words much more than with the others and it is up to all of us as individuals to not accept it but demand the real sacrament which is our right through our baptism.

 

[FrDavid96]

Originally Posted by FrDavid96
With regard to what I’ve underlined: Has any apologist outright said that there’s no distinction? Or are some readers here under the impression that that’s what is being said? There’s quite a difference. I haven’t searched the threads, and I don’t recall ever having read where that was said (keep in mind, I haven’t been looking).

See my quote here … ‘The fact that your priests say, “You are forgiven” instead of the entire formula does not invalidate the sacrament.’

Yet those are 2 different questions:

Is/was the sacrament valid?
vs.
Are forgive and absolve synonymous words?

 

[Sir_Knight]

If the sacrament is valid, then one can safely assume that the words are synonymous. If the sacrament is not valid, then one can assume the opposite.

Yes? No?

 

[Leonius]

If the sacrament is valid, then one can safely assume that the words are synonymous. If the sacrament is not valid, then one can assume the opposite.

Yes? No?

Its not that simple as some say that God provides what is lacking in this case, making it valid despite the priests errors I’m guessing due to God’s mercy, whether they are right or not I don’t know.

The only way to be sure is for the Priest to do the sacrament as the Church has given it to us.

 

[ejb21]

If the priest slipped and said the wrong word, would it make the absolution invalid since his intention was to forgive the sins?

What are the exact words supposed to be?

“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.”

 

[FrDavid96]

If the sacrament is valid, then one can safely assume that the words are synonymous. If the sacrament is not valid, then one can assume the opposite.

Yes? No?

Not quite. B does not necessarily follow from A.

The argument that the sacrament is valid is based on the intent of the priest-confessor to “do as the Church does” and the graces of the Sacrament “supply” what was lacking in the Sacramental form–hardly an ideal situation, but one which can (in a certain manner of speaking, and in a very limited way) make-up for the deficiency in the words.

It’s not an argument based on the premise that forgive and absolve are the exact same words–at least I haven’t seen that argument made here on these forums by one who would “be in the know.” In fact, anyone who does know the difference would never try to make such an argument.

Keep in mind that in our everyday vocabulary, we all (priest included) often interchange the words. I’m not saying that we sould go around “correcting” the use of the words outside of the Sacramental formula. Whenever we are absolved, we are also forgiven, so it’s a very subtle distinction. The topic of this thread caught my eye and I saw it as an opportunity to make the point.

 

[AJV]

Not quite. B does not necessarily follow from A.

The argument that the sacrament is valid is based on the intent of the priest-confessor to “do as the Church does” and the graces of the Sacrament “supply” what was lacking in the Sacramental form–hardly an ideal situation, but one which can (in a certain manner of speaking, and in a very limited way) make-up for the deficiency in the words.

It’s not an argument based on the premise that forgive and absolve are the exact same words–at least I haven’t seen that argument made here on these forums by one who would “be in the know.” **In fact, anyone who does know the difference would never try to make such an argument. **

I would have that that would be the basis of the argument? I find the same thing, in for example, St. Alphonsus’ Theologia Moralis when applied for example, to baptism. If “forgive” was not synonymous with “absolve” then how could the form be valid? Otherwise, how could any deficiency in not using the correct words be “made up”? Also does not “Ecclesia Supplet” apply more to the concept of jurisdiction instead of the form of a sacrament?

 

[FrDavid96]

I would have that that would be the basis of the argument? I find the same thing, in for example, St. Alphonsus’ Theologia Moralis when applied for example, to baptism. If “forgive” was not synonymous with “absolve” then how could the form be valid? Otherwise, how could any deficiency in not using the correct words be “made up”? Also does not “Ecclesia Supplet” apply more to the concept of jurisdiction instead of the form of a sacrament?

Again, this gets into some very subtle distinctions. I did not say that the words “I forgive…” are a valid sacramental formula. I said that the celebration of the Sacrament itself might (again might) be valid based on the intent of the priest-confessor. I’m also not necessarily saying that I accept the argument, nor that I reject it: only that the argument might be made.

Ecclesia Supplet is not necessarily limited to matters of jurisdiction. It’s a very broad concept which has many applications. Please understand that I’m not trying to stretch this concept either.

As I keep trying to say here, we have to keep in mind that the 2 words forgive and absolve have 2 different definitions. Examples of how they might (MIGHT) be interchanged and the result would still be a valid (yet illicit) Sacrament doesn’t change the definition of the words.

For example, say that I’m in a kitchen and someone says “hand me the spatula.” I know that he means “turner” and not “spatula” so I hand him the turner. The end result is the same, but that doesn’t change the fact that the two words refer to 2 different kitchen implements. Same thing when we look at the words forgive and absolve. Just because people use the words as if they were synonyms does not make them synonyms. That’s the point I keep trying to make here.

 

[Leonius]

Bottom line is that the only way you can be absolutely sure of the validity of the sacrament is for the priest to use the correct words.

 

[AJV]

Again, this gets into some very subtle distinctions. I did not say that the words “I forgive…” are a valid sacramental formula. I said that the celebration of the Sacrament itself might (again might) be valid based on the intent of the priest-confessor. I’m also not necessarily saying that I accept the argument, nor that I reject it: only that the argument might be made.

Forgive if I’m seeming a little dense, Father, but to make sure that I’m understanding you correctly:

• the words “forgive” and “absolve” may not be synonyms
• thus IF they are not synonyms, then essentially the sacramental form has been altered in a grave direction,
• and since they are not synonyms, the form is deficient and invalid
• but based on the intent of the priest to do as the Church does, the sacrament is valid, because the Church makes up for the deficiency in the form

And also I’m confused abotu another thing:

• is it that the intent of the priest gives meaning to the word “forgive” and that is why it may be valid?
• or does the intent of the priest operate indepdantly, and even though he used a wrong word, which is not synonymous, since he intended to forgive, the Church supplies grace?

Ecclesia Supplet is not necessarily limited to matters of jurisdiction. It’s a very broad concept which has many applications. Please understand that I’m not trying to stretch this concept either.

But then how does it apply here, if a form is invalid?

For example, say that I’m in a kitchen and someone says “hand me the spatula.” I know that he means “turner” and not “spatula” so I hand him the turner. The end result is the same, but that doesn’t change the fact that the two words refer to 2 different kitchen implements. Same thing when we look at the words forgive and absolve. Just because people use the words as if they were synonyms does not make them synonyms. That’s the point I keep trying to make here.

But see Father, I’m really not getting this analogy. The way I understand it, you can’t hand him a "turner "when he says “spatula” based on what he meant. God may well decide should (God forbid) the penitent die, to forgive his sin and that would be his perogative and depdnat on his mercy. He may also provide the penitent with ways of knowing the confession was invalid and opportunities to reconfess while on earth. But to say that he forgives because the priest intends it negates the whole idea of a sacramental form in the first place (or so it seems to me). The analogy seems to suggest that should someone say “Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier” intending “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, then they get the grace of Baptism. Or should the priest say “This is my Meat”, intending “This is My Body”, the bread becomes the Body of Christ.

 

[twf]

I just came from confession, and the priest (I think a visiting priest) used “I forgive” instead of “I absolve”. It is VERY wide spread, and now I am quite terrified…

 

[fermat]

I just came from confession, and the priest (I think a visiting priest) used “I forgive” instead of “I absolve”. It is VERY wide spread, and now I am quite terrified…

I went today as well for a full do-over. Same parish, different priest. Much younger priest, too. He went through the :“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.”

I felt much better, too.

 

[FrDavid96]

Forgive if I’m seeming a little dense, Father, but to make sure that I’m understanding you correctly:

• the words “forgive” and “absolve” may not be synonyms
• thus IF they are not synonyms, then essentially the sacramental form has been altered in a grave direction,
• and since they are not synonyms, the form is deficient and invalid
• but based on the intent of the priest to do as the Church does, the sacrament is valid, because the Church makes up for the deficiency in the form

I am saying that they certainly are not synonymous (no “might”).
“Forgiveness” is an act of God.
“Absolution” is a juridic act of the Church, by which we receive God’s forgiveness (unless He has already forgiven us, which is something which we cannot know unless we’ve been absolved) and we are reconciled to the Church

Any form other than what the Church has defined as the necessary form is illicit, and calls into question the validity of the Sacrament. That’s why I’m careful to say that the Sacrament might be valid, but I only say “might” because only the Roman Pontiff can decide with certainty whether or not the words are valid. I’ve tried to be careful here about not “deciding” the validity of a Sacrament (either real or hypothetical).

And also I’m confused abotu another thing:

• is it that the intent of the priest gives meaning to the word “forgive” and that is why it may be valid?
• or does the intent of the priest operate indepdantly, and even though he used a wrong word, which is not synonymous, since he intended to forgive, the Church supplies grace?

But then how does it apply here, if a form is invalid?

It’s not the intention of the priest to forgive–it’s the intention of the priest to absolve which might possibly make the Sacrament a valid one. That is the crux of the matter. If a priest intends to “forgive” rather than “absolve” that could make the Sacrament invalid. On the other hand the priest might intend to absolve (to do as the Church does) but instead use the word “forgive” and that might make the Sacrament valid. That’s precisely the confusion.

The priest has to have the intention to both forgive (ie offer God’s forgiveness) and absolve. It’s not an either/or.

But see Father, I’m really not getting this analogy. The way I understand it, you can’t hand him a "turner "when he says “spatula” based on what he meant. God may well decide should (God forbid) the penitent die, to forgive his sin and that would be his perogative and depdnat on his mercy. He may also provide the penitent with ways of knowing the confession was invalid and opportunities to reconfess while on earth. But to say that he forgives because the priest intends it negates the whole idea of a sacramental form in the first place (or so it seems to me). The analogy seems to suggest that should someone say “Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier” intending “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, then they get the grace of Baptism. Or should the priest say “This is my Meat”, intending “This is My Body”, the bread becomes the Body of Christ.

In your text above, you’re confusing forgiveness and absolution. That’s the very point I’ve been trying to make (and I mean that with all due respect). Yes, of course God might forgive anyone at any time. And that is what makes the Sacrament necessary: because only when we have been absolved do we know with certainty that we have been likewise forgiven by God (assuming sincere contrition and everything else is also present). My example of turner vs spatula is to make the point that there are times in our everyday vocabulary when we use the wrong word to describe something–but our incorrect use of the word does not mean that the definition of the word has changed. I’m not trying to come to the defense of using the wrong form, but merely saying that it’s possible (note possible, not certain) that the wrong form could still result in a valid Sacrament (Creator, Redeemer Sanctifier is an example of when this does not happen and why that principle cannot be taken too far). For just that reason, when a priest says “forgive” rather than “absolve” the validity of the confession is questionable. I’ll not go as far as to say that it doesn’t happen, but neither would I make a blanket statement and say that it’s a valid Sacrament–only that it might be one.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’ve been looking for some “documentation” on the distinction between absolution and forgiveness. Try this quote from the Summa newadvent.org/summa/4084.htm#article3

Objection 3. Further, to absolve from sin is the same as to remit sin. But God alone remits sin, for He alone cleanses man inwardly from sin, as Augustine says (Contra Donatist. v, 21). Therefore it seems that God alone absolves from sin. Therefore the priest should say not: “I absolve thee,” as neither does he say: “I remit thy sins.”

Reply to Objection 3. God alone absolves from sin and forgives sins authoritatively; yet priests do both ministerially, because the words of the priest in this sacrament work as instruments of the Divine power, as in the other sacraments: because it is the Divine power that works inwardly in all the sacramental signs, be they things or words, as shown above (62, 4; 64, 1,2). Wherefore our Lord expressed both: for He said to Peter (Matthew 16:19): “Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth,” etc., and to His disciples (John 20:23): “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them.” Yet the priest says: “I absolve thee,” rather than: “I forgive thee thy sins,” because it is more in keeping with the words of our Lord, by expressing the power of the keys whereby priests absolve. Nevertheless, since the priest absolves ministerially, something is suitably added in reference to the supreme authority of God, by the priest saying: “I absolve thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” or by the power of Christ’s Passion, or by the authority of God. However, as this is not defined by the words of Christ, as it is for Baptism, this addition is left to the discretion of the priest.

If forgiveness and absolution were two different words for one reality, St. Thomas would not have used the words “and” & “both.” He’s actually making a distinction between forgiveness and absolution (in his response to the objection), especially by saying that the absolution is expressed in Matthew, and forgiveness in John.

We need to keep in mind that when one is absolved, one is likewise forgiven. Absolution and forgiveness together form the total reconcilliation which occurs in the Sacrament.

Is this making more sense now?

 

[twf]

Father;
When I went to confession a couple days ago (as I posted earlier in this thread), the priest (a visitor I assume) used the “I forgive” formula. At first I presumed it valid, not understanding the distinction between “forgiveness” and “absolution” (thanks for that!). After reading this thread, I went back to confession today (different priest), and was chided for “presuming” that a Catholic priest was wrong. Apparently it shows an “arrogance” on my part. I tried to explain the situation in a humble and straight forward manner, but he insisted that I shouldn’t worry about it. I was assured that the Church would supply whatever may have been lacking, and that it is not my place to second guess the priest’s wording. While I was not allowed to repeat my first confession, I still received absolution as I had “new” sins to confession as well.

 

[FrDavid96]

Father;
When I went to confession a couple days ago (as I posted earlier in this thread), the priest (a visitor I assume) used the “I forgive” formula. At first I presumed it valid, not understanding the distinction between “forgiveness” and “absolution” (thanks for that!). After reading this thread, I went back to confession today (different priest), and was chided for “presuming” that a Catholic priest was wrong. Apparently it shows an “arrogance” on my part. I tried to explain the situation in a humble and straight forward manner, but he insisted that I shouldn’t worry about it. I was assured that the Church would supply whatever may have been lacking, and that it is not my place to second guess the priest’s wording. While I was not allowed to repeat my first confession, I still received absolution as I had “new” sins to confession as well.

And that’s actually why I’m very hesitant to participate in confession threads. It’s one thing to speak about the Sacrament from an academic point of view, but quite another when it involves individual persons (like yourself) actually in confession. Take comfort in knowing that you did receive a valid absolution the second time.

No priest should be changing the words of absolution–there’s not only no reason for it, but there’s also no excuse for it. If that first priest had not changed the words, you would not have been in that position. All Catholics have a right to a valid and licit celebration of the Sacraments, and insisting on the proper formula for absolution is a part of that right.

 

[twf]

It happened again! I’m blown away. In my last four years as a Catholic, and after dozens of confessions with many different priests, I had never come across a priest using an incorect formula of absolution. Now, twice in a row, within a period of a WEEK, I have happened to confess to two different priests at two different parishes, who used the “I forgive” rather than “I absolve”. I can’t believe it happened twice in a row! I know for a fact that the second priest was a visitor from the other side of the country. He also told me “I don’t like the word penance…”

 

[Luvadoxi]

Our priests in confession say “May God forgive you” in place of “I absolve you”. Please tell me this is still valid!

 

[baltobetsy]

The phrase, “May God give you pardon and peace” is part of the form for absolution. It is followed by, “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, etc.”

Is it possible you only remember the first part, but the priest may have said the “I absolve you” part?

Betsy