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

[DorianGregorian]

There must be something

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.

Why must there be something? Is it because our human emotion tells us this? That could be the only reason I could think of. All the Scripture and Catechism would say otherwise. Christ gave the Apostles the power to forgive through his Church (Matt 16:18). Catholic & Orthodox theology from the first century A.D on all say that a valid minister is needed for a valid confession.

Now, that being said, catechism also says that once somebody has made a perfect contrition for a mortal sin, they are saved from hell, but they still must make a confession. So while even if the minister cannot validly absolve, the person is saved from hellfire, but is not yet in the state to receive Holy Communion, but if a person did they would not commit a mortal sin because they are not aware that they are not in the state of being unable to receive Communion because they thought it was valid and are unaware of their sin, thus making it not mortal because a mortal sin requires full knowledge.

To make it simple:

1. Person commits mortal sin.
2. Person makes a confession - Perfect contrition here saves them from hell.
3. Priest either makes invalid absolution or the minister is invalid - Person is not restored to the state to receive Communion; but person does not know they are not able to receive Communion.
4. Person receives Communion, they do not commit a mortal sin because they lacked full knowledge, but they do not receive the Spiritual graces of Holy Communion.

I hope I wasn’t too confusing.

Laus Deo

 

[FrDavid96]

Remember the original post?

Dear readers & posters, let us please keep in mind that forgiveness and absolution are not the same thing.

Forgiveness comes from God. Forgiveness means that the sin itself has been pardoned, remitted or removed.

Absolution is a juridic act of the Church. Absolution means that the person has been reconciled to the Church which is the Body of Christ, and returned to the ordinary life of the Church, in so far as this is necessary, depending upon the severity of the sin.

That’s why the words of absolution, the priest says “through the ministry of the Church, may God grant you pardon * and peace, and I absolve you…” The priest is in persona Christi (lest there be any confusion) but the two parts of forgive and absolve are two distinct (not separate), yet intrinsically related, elements of the complete reconcilliation by which the penitent is reconciled both to God (forgive) and the Church (absolve).

Please remember that forgiveness and absolution are not synonymous.*

 

[Sir_Knight]

Why did Jesus say that whose ever sins you FORGIVE will be forgiven?

 

[FrDavid96]

Why did Jesus say that whose ever sins you FORGIVE will be forgiven?

I don’t think anyone’s disputing that. The priest (in persona Christi) offers forgiveness to the penitent; which forgiveness comes ultimately from God, through the priest acting in His name.

I don’t understand what you’re getting at here. I’m sure you have a good point to make. Please expand upon it because I’m missing it. Thanks.

 

[JimG]

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.

Now we apparently we have a divergence of opinion between Fr. Serpa and Fr. David as to the validity of confession using “forgive” instead of “absolve.” Confusion remains, and penitents are going to go nuts trying to listen carefully to the formula recited.

 

[allhers]

…That’s why the words of absolution, the priest says "through the ministry of the Church, may God grant you pardon * and peace, and I absolve you*…" .

Well, if this helps anyone, I go to confession pretty regularly and this is the way that the Priest that I go to always say it too, just like Fr. David said. I bolded it above.)

 

[JimG]

Well, if this helps anyone, I go to confession pretty regularly and this is the way that the Priest that I go to always say it too, just like Fr. David said. I bolded it above.)

There’s no doubt that is the correct formula. The question is, does any variation cause the confession to be invalid (i.e. no sacrament takes place). Specifically, saying “forgive” instead of “absolve.”

I personally have never heard a priest of my diocese use anything other than the correct formula. I’m not sure why any priest would want to mess with the formula. But does using “forgive” invalidate the confession? If there are many priests doing that, and it does affect validity, then there ought to be an instruction from the bishop. If it illicit but does not affect validity, then penitents can relax a little.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I don’t think anyone’s disputing that. The priest (in persona Christi) offers forgiveness to the penitent; which forgiveness comes ultimately from God, through the priest acting in His name.

I don’t understand what you’re getting at here. I’m sure you have a good point to make. Please expand upon it because I’m missing it. Thanks.

If the use or misuse of one word is so CRITICAL … *

To make it simple:

1. Person commits mortal sin.
2. Person makes a confession - Perfect contrition here saves them from hell.
3. Priest either makes invalid absolution or the minister is invalid - Person is not restored to the state to receive Communion; but person does not know they are not able to receive Communion.
4. Person receives Communion, they do not commit a mortal sin because they lacked full knowledge, but they do not receive the Spiritual graces of Holy Communion.

… why are priests, who receive formal training in these matters, not extra careful to do it correctly? They could be denying people spiritual graces for the rest of their lives.

I was thinking about this subject as I went to confession this morning because I clearly remember a few confessions ago the priest saying “forgive” instead of " absolve". So, during my confession this morning, I mentioned that I suspected that an earlier confession might have been invalid because the priest did not use the required words of absolutions and began confessing, as best as I could remember, the sins from that earlier confession when the priest quickly stopped me and told me that I should have faith that my confessor knew what he was doing and before I had a chance to finish confessing the remainder of those sins, gave me my penance and absolved me on my sins.

Opinions on that, please.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Now we apparently we have a divergence of opinion between Fr. Serpa and Fr. David as to the validity of confession using “forgive” instead of “absolve.” Confusion remains, and penitents are going to go nuts trying to listen carefully to the formula recited.

+1.

I agree. Our God is NOT the God of confusion and doubt but of peace and order (see 1 Corinthians 14:33). I think that we are focusing too much on the letter of the law (forgiveness not being synonymous with absolution) instead of the spirit of the law – something that was rebuked by Christ. This is causing us to have doubt in the sacrament (“the wrong word was used … maybe my sins are retained”) and the forgiveness offered to us. Doubt is the seed of Satan. Suppose the priest used the proper form but did not INTEND to absolve us. What then? See what doubt does!

 

[mardukm]

Interesting topic. In the Coptic Orthodox Church’s Prayers of absolution, the word “absolve” is distinguished from the word “forgive.” I’ve also noticed that the Latin word for “forgive” is different from the Latin word for “absolve.”

 

[FrDavid96]

Again, dear readers, please understand that “forgiveness” and “absolution” are not interchangeable words. They are 2 different words to describe 2 distinct (yet never-forget related) realities.

Absolution is a juridic act of the Church, and therefore the words “I absolve you” are essential to the Sacrament. That’s why the Church has said over and over again that the essential (minimal) words of the Sacrament are “I absolve you…”

God, in His infinite mercy, might forgive anyone at any time. Do we believe that a merciful God would forgive a repentant sinner who seeks forgiveness & absolution, but the priest takes it upon himself to change the formula? Of course we do. Do we believe that an infinitely merciful God would forgive a repentant sinner even without recourse to the Sacrament of Confession? Again, of course.

Absolution is the ***means ***by which we receive forgiveness, through the ministry of the Church and the work of the Holy Spirit. We cannot seperate forgiveness from absolution (if one is truly absolved, then one is likewise forgiven).

Take a look at the introduction to the Rite of Penance 35c
Then the priest calls upon the grace of the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins, proclaims the victory over sin of Christ’s death and resurrection, and gives sacramental absolution to the penitent.

Please note that “forgiveness” and “absolution” are distinct: they form 2 parts of the whole of reconcilliation, yet they are distinct from each other.

See also the Catechism:
1442 Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the “ministry of reconciliation.” The apostle is sent out “on behalf of Christ” with “God making his appeal” through him and pleading: “Be reconciled to God.”

Reconciliation with the Church

1443 During his public life Jesus not only forgave sins, but also made plain the effect of this forgiveness:* he reintegrated forgiven sinners into the community of the People of God from which sin had alienated or even excluded them. A remarkable sign of this is the fact that Jesus receives sinners at his table, a gesture that expresses in an astonishing way both God’s forgiveness and the return to the bosom of the People of God.

1444 In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most notably in Christ’s solemn words to Simon Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head.”

1445 The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God.

• 1443 expresses the distinction between “forgiveness” and “absolution” (although the later word is not expressely used). Forgiveness means that God has forgiven, “reintegrated sinners into the community” refers to the absolution which goes hand-in-hand with forgiveness.

1444 likewise espresses this distinction. Not the underlined sentence. In the Sacrament the penitent is BOTH forgiven (forgiveness) and reconciled to the Church (absolution).

 

[FrDavid96]

Interesting topic. In the Coptic Orthodox Church’s Prayers of absolution, the word “absolve” is distinguished from the word “forgive.” I’ve also noticed that the Latin word for “forgive” is different from the Latin word for “absolve.”

Yes, indeed. Likewise in the Latin rite, in the complete formula of absolution, forgiveness and absolution are distinct. As I quoted earlier “…may God grant you pardon and peace and I absolve you…”

 

[Sir_Knight]

Father, you asked me to elaborate, which I did but you did not further address those comments. Additionally, please see my comments regarding confusion & doubt and their lack of place in our faith. Thank you for your time & consideration in this matter.

 

[FrDavid96]

If the use or misuse of one word is so CRITICAL … *
… why are priests, who receive formal training in these matters, not extra careful to do it correctly? They could be denying people spiritual graces for the rest of their lives.

I was thinking about this subject as I went to confession this morning because I clearly remember a few confessions ago the priest saying “forgive” instead of " absolve". So, during my confession this morning, I mentioned that I suspected that an earlier confession might have been invalid because the priest did not use the required words of absolutions and began confessing, as best as I could remember, the sins from that earlier confession when the priest quickly stopped me and told me that I should have faith that my confessor knew what he was doing and before I had a chance to finish confessing the remainder of those sins, gave me my penance and absolved me on my sins.

Opinions on that, please.

Sorry about the delay.

The use of words is very critical when it comes to Sacramental form. The Church has defined that essential form as “I absolve you…” The essential form of the Sacraments is simply not something which a priest can alter–only the Church can define these forms, and whenever those forms are changed, it always calls into question the validity of the Sacrament. I’ve chosen those words very carefully.

As to the question about why priests aren’t more careful…All I can say is that they *should *be more careful, and there is no excuse (none whatsoever) for a priest who takes it upon himself to alter the essential words.

There’s a reason why I generally do not participate in threads about confession. When it comes to an individual confession, that’s a matter for the internal forum. I decided to post in this one solely to make the point about the essential distinction between forgiveness and absolution. Since you’ve given the example of your own confession, I’ll attempt to address it. In that first confession, your sins were forgiven by God by virtue of your contrition and the fact that you did indeed confess them. Was absolution imparted? I’m not exactly sure…One might say that the intent of the confessor to “do as the Church does” would supply the absolution. On the other hand, one might also say that the priest’s intentional omission of the words “I absolve…” means that absolution did not happen. I can’t say that I’m certain which one would apply. What I can say is that in the second confession, when absolution was articulated, you did receive absolution for not only those sins which were mentioned, but also any sins of the past which might remain. I can also say that if absolution did not occur in the first confession, a merciful God would not let that stand in the way of a person’s salvation.

And finally, in response to your latest post, please remember that the root cause of doubt and confusion is the fact that the priest did not employ the essential and necessary words of absolution as defined by the Church. It’s not the distinction between forgiveness and absolution which causes the doubt. I’m merely providing the definitions of the words. When a priest takes it upon himself to alter the sacraments, any resulting doubt or ambiguity is entirely the fault of that priest.

Let me give you an example. Let’s say that you have a car and that car burns diesel fuel. You come to my service station for a fillup. I tell you that it’s fine to use gasoline because I don’t see any difference between the two. When I started working there, I was trained to always put diesel fuel into a diesel car, but I decided that I know better, and so I sell you the gasoline rather than the diesel. A few blocks away, your car stops running. Your friend in the passenger seat says “gas and diesel aren’t the same thing.” Whose fault is it? Is it your friend’s fault for making the point that gas isn’t diesel? Of course not, it’s my fault because I sold you the wrong product and told you it was the same thing. Likewise with a priest who alters the essential words of a sacrament. It’s not the fault of the person who tries to explain that altering the words might have the effect of making the sacrament invalid or illicit or whatever else. The fault lies squarely with the priest who disobeys the Church and changes the words.

 

[Leonius]

Well, that was the answer given by a Catholic Apologist on this board which, as I said earlier, is likely to be correct but is not assured to be correct without supporting Church references.

With regard to “forgive” and “absolve” not being exactly the same thing, bear in mind that Jesus is recorded in scripting as saying "Whose soever sins you FORGIVE, they are forgiven"

Christ didn’t speak English, the official Bible of the Church says “Quorum remiseritis peccata, remissa sunt eis”.

That is the sins are remitted.

 

[Leonius]

Oh my goodness. “Absolve” and “forgive” mean the same in English

P.S. Absolve is, after all not the original but a translation from the Latin.

No they don’t, they have important and distinct meanings, you can forgive someone for something without absolving them of the effects caused by that action.

Absolve - to set free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt.

Forgive - to cease to feel resentment against.

Note there is not necessarily the setting free element in merely forgiving.

I can forgive those who sin against me, but I cannot absolve them, only priests can absolve, that is the difference.

If the correct form of a sacrament is not followed the sacrament becomes invalid, the essential form of the sacrament of penance is the ego te absolvo(I absolve you) just as the essential form in the holy sacrament are the words HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM.(This is my body).

 

[Sir_Knight]

And finally, in response to your latest post, please remember that the root cause of doubt and confusion is the fact that the priest did not employ the essential and necessary words of absolution as defined by the Church. It’s not the distinction between forgiveness and absolution which causes the doubt. I’m merely providing the definitions of the words. When a priest takes it upon himself to alter the sacraments, any resulting doubt or ambiguity is entirely the fault of that priest.

Let me give you an example. Let’s say that you have a car and that car burns diesel fuel. You come to my service station for a fillup. I tell you that it’s fine to use gasoline because I don’t see any difference between the two. When I started working there, I was trained to always put diesel fuel into a diesel car, but I decided that I know better, and so I sell you the gasoline rather than the diesel. A few blocks away, your car stops running. Your friend in the passenger seat says “gas and diesel aren’t the same thing.” Whose fault is it? Is it your friend’s fault for making the point that gas isn’t diesel? Of course not, it’s my fault because I sold you the wrong product and told you it was the same thing. Likewise with a priest who alters the essential words of a sacrament. It’s not the fault of the person who tries to explain that altering the words might have the effect of making the sacrament invalid or illicit or whatever else. The fault lies squarely with the priest who disobeys the Church and changes the words.

Father, I did not mean to find fault with you for bringing this to light (i.e., shooting the messenger). If that is the way that it came out, then I apologize. I meant to find fault with ALL of us for having doubt.

 

[Sir_Knight]

No they don’t, they have important and distinct meanings, you can forgive someone for something without absolving them of the effects caused by that action.

Absolve - to set free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt.

Forgive - to cease to feel resentment against.

Note there is not necessarily the setting free element in merely forgiving.

I can forgive those who sin against me, but I cannot absolve them, only priests can absolve, that is the difference.

If the correct form of a sacrament is not followed the sacrament becomes invalid, the essential form of the sacrament of penance is the ego te absolvo(I absolve you) just as the essential form in the holy sacrament are the words HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM.(This is my body).

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.

 

[FrDavid96]

Father, I did not mean to find fault with you for bringing this to light (i.e., shooting the messenger). If that is the way that it came out, then I apologize. I meant to find fault with ALL of us for having doubt.

I didn’t take it that way at all (my little aside about the gas station was merely to illustrate the importance of the discussion we’re having). As I’ve been saying all along, my whole purpose in participating in this particular thread is to try to explain to other participants here that the two words “forgive” and “absolve” are not the same thing. In our “everyday” vocabulary, we often interchange the words. And because they are so very closely related (when we are absolved, we are also forgiven–unless God Himself has already forgiven the sin), it’s an easy distinction to miss.

It’s also important to understand it in light of apologetics. If a Protestant asks “can I be forgiven without confession?” part of the response is that yes, we can be forgiven, but absolution comes only through the Sacrament.

 

[FrDavid96]

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.

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).