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

  • Thread starter Thread starter fermat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fermat said:
Interesting. I total agree with the Latin comment. He could say, ‘Vestri matris gero exercitus tabernus’ and I wouldn’t know the difference.

p.s. It’s ‘Your mother wears army boots’ (or is supposed to be…)
Click to expand...
Cool. I’ll have to memorize that one!

In my youth, the priest rattled off the Latin formula so fast he might have been saying “Lord deliver me from any more penitents such as this!” for all I knew. Not only that, I was saying the act of contrition at the same time, so even if I’d been a good Latinist I couldn’t have caught it.
 
For many years after the Council, I would ask the priest to give me absolution in Latin. It only sounded like it was being rattled off by those who did not know Latin. I do not trust translations. Nowadays I go to confession either in a Syro-Malabar or a Syro-Malankra church and get abolved either in Malayalam or Aramaic (the language of Jesus).
Instead of worrying about trifles, I would be a lot more worried by the invented words the the Latin rite priests say after “I absolve you”.
 
Sir_Knight said:
So you are saying that a CAF Apologist is wrong? Do you have support church references to support your position? Because absence of that, we can’t be sure who is correct and I personally would like to know as well.
Click to expand...
I’m saying that anyone who understands the form and matter of a sacrament knows that the only allowed translation of “ego te absolvo” is “and I ABSOLVE you”. I don’t need to quote church references beyond the defined form and matter of the sacrament of penance.

Think of it in the same terms of baptism. If you say, “and I baptize you in the name of the creator, redeemer and sanctifier” the baptism is invalid. It’s not just illicit, it DID NOT happen. Please refer to catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801159.htm

The Catholic Church does not allow a minister to “make up” their own formula, which is why it is precisely a formula. Otherwise we would have priests in the confessional saying, “and I free you from the errors of your ways, in the name of the Trinity, and me, Father Joe, and the good people of this parish”. The Church rightly insists that formula be followed.

[Edited]
 
fatherwannabe said:
cf. - the result of NOT following formula in the Novus Ordo! (Balloons, dancing girls, and clown masses…)
Click to expand...
Here we go again! Have you personally witnessed these abuses? Or can you quote the names of churches, dates etc when they occurred?

Otherwise, these ckaims are merely urban legends, and shouldn’t be quoted to denigrate the Novus Ordo Mass and those who celebrate and attend it week by week.
 
fatherwannabe said:
Think of it in the same terms of baptism. If you say, “and I baptize you in the name of the creator, redeemer and sanctifier” the baptism is invalid. It’s not just illicit, it DID NOT happen. Please refer to catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801159.htm

The Catholic Church does not allow a minister to “make up” their own formula, which is why it is precisely a formula.
Click to expand...
Well, be careful there. For starters, its not a formula like in chemistry. Priests are not wizzards who say the proper words and zap! there’s a sacrament.

Secondly, you should note the reasoning behind why “creator, redeemers, and sanctifier” is considered invalid. The reason is because the words are not clearly Trinitarian, thus the theology is called into question. There is no such theological confusion between “absolve” and “forgive.”
 
fatherwannabe said:
I’m saying that anyone who understands the form and matter of a sacrament knows that the only allowed translation of “ego te absolvo” is “and I ABSOLVE you”. I don’t need to quote church references beyond the defined form and matter of the sacrament of penance.
Click to expand...
Anyone who knows? And how does one come to KNOW? Through the process of osmosis? If you can’t provide church references to support your position, then you are merely expressing an OPINION and that OPINION carries no more weight than the opinion of somebody that disagrees with you.
 
Sir_Knight said:
Not exactly …
“Whose soever sins YOU forgive, they are forgiven, and whose soever sins you retain, they are retained”.* - John 20:12, 22-23*
Click to expand...
St. Thomas Aquinas, Shorter Summa #146
“God alone can forgive sin. For only the one against whom an offense is directed can forgive the offense…only God can effect a change in the will. Consequently he alone can forgive sins.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Catechism Penance
The form of this Sacrament is the words of absolution which the priest speaks when he says: “I absolve thee” (“Ego te absolvo”)

Council of Trent Catechism, Penance:
“Now the form is: I absolve thee.”

Laus Deo
 
JimG said:
Yes. Father Serpa indicates in his answer here that the use of “forgive” in place of “absolve” while illicit, is valid. It does not invalidate the confession.

Sometimes I miss the days when the absolution was recited in Latin by the priest. I don’t recall many who second-guessed validity in those days.
Click to expand...
Some of the Eastern Catholic translations use Forgive. It’s valid.
 
DorianGregorian said:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Shorter Summa #146
“God alone can forgive sin. For only the one against whom an offense is directed can forgive the offense…only God can effect a change in the will. Consequently he alone can forgive sins.”
Click to expand...
Are you taking the word of a Saint OVER the words of the Son of God as recorded in John 20:12, 22-23?
 
How do we feel about “I absolve you of your sins” vs “I absolve you from your sins” ?

Does this slip of the tongue invalidate a confession?
 
Thank you 👍 Now we know that “absolve” is required. Now, the question is – what happens if it wasn’t said?
 
DorianGregorian said:
At the least, it makes it gravely illicit.
Click to expand...
Kaffee: Was Private Santiago’s confession, in your estimation, illicit?
Jessup: Yes.
Kaffee: Gravely illicit?
Jessup: Is there any other kind, Lieutenant?

Sorry, couldn’t help myself. 😃
 
=fatherwannabe;5367399]No, this was not a valid confession/absolution on the part of the confessor. You will need to go to confession again and tell the confessor that your prior confessor did not give valid absolution.
Click to expand...
For the record:

If the Confessor and the person confessing were sincere in their intents; the Confession in God’s view in valid.

The person may wish to make an appointment with this priest to discusss his choice of words?
 
Sir_Knight said:
Thank you 👍 Now we know that “absolve” is required. Now, the question is – what happens if it wasn’t said?
Click to expand...
Elementary, my dear Knight…

If it wasn’t said, then the penitent wasn’t absolved.

There’s a reason why the Church says that the necessary formula is “I absolve you…”

The Church does not say that the sacramental formula is optional or open to variations by individual priests.
 
PJM said:
For the record:

If the Confessor and the person confessing were sincere in their intents; the Confession in God’s view in valid.

The person may wish to make an appointment with this priest to discusss his choice of words?
Click to expand...
So under that logic, would somebody who sincerely confesses their sins to a layperson (assuming they don’t know that their confessor is not a Priest) have a valid confession in God’s view?

If everything is right because it “feels” right, we might as well get rid of Doctrine and the Priesthood.

Oh wait, I think they tried that in the 1530s. (Not directed towards you, only making a general point).
 
There must be something, somewhere that gives an allowance for this situation. I only caught the error because I spend too much time trolling CAF…

If someone believes they have recieved a valid absolution, I am sure that God has in His stores of Mercy something to make that confession effectively valid, if not actually valid. This is where hope comes into play.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top