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

[Aramis]

I was surprised to see this thread brought up again. But I also have noted that some Eastern Churches use “I forgive You”.

And several phrase it in the indefinite 3rd person “Your sins have been forgiven.”

If “forgiven” were invalid, it would be so for all rites, just as leaven in the bread for the sacrifice is valid for all rites, but illicit for some (like the Roman).

Still, per the closing of Redemptionis Sacramentum (¶184), illicit acts should be reported to the bishop.

 

[Bookcat]

From the Vice Pres of Theology at EWTN

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=329500&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

 

[Bookcat]

And several phrase it in the indefinite 3rd person “Your sins have been forgiven.”

If “forgiven” were invalid, it would be so for all rites, just as leaven in the bread for the sacrifice is valid for all rites, but illicit for some (like the Roman).

Still, per the closing of Redemptionis Sacramentum (¶184), illicit acts should be reported to the bishop.

As I noted above…my experience in an Eastern Catholic Rite was yes the word forgive is there in the prayer…but the words “I absolved you”* were *used…(as to the others one would have to check)

And Father David’s post above seems to indicate that in the Roman Rite it can touch on validity itself…from the Church determining what is valid here for that Rite/Church (see above for details)…I will leave that for him to explain his assertion.

This from the Vice Pres of Theology at EWTN states that it would be (at least) *probably invalid * (in other places he notes that some say certainly it seems)

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=329500&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

(and he too I would say is addressing those of the Roman Rite…)

Perhaps it is a matter of theological debate…with differing theological judgments…in any case the Priest should use the correct words of absolution …

And if it were me…I would seek absolution in the correct form…(especially if it were mortal sins involved (hopefully not!)…for venial sins can be forgiven in many ways)

 

[FrDavid96]

And several phrase it in the indefinite 3rd person “Your sins have been forgiven.”

If “forgiven” were invalid, it would be so for all rites, just as leaven in the bread for the sacrifice is valid for all rites, but illicit for some (like the Roman).

Still, per the closing of Redemptionis Sacramentum (¶184), illicit acts should be reported to the bishop.

Again, the juridic form for a different Church sui juris has no bearing on what constitutes juridic form for the Latin Church sui juris. I’ve been trying to drop the hint here with my “redundant” use of “sui juris” so let me me a little less subtle.

Look at the term itself “sui juris” (I’ll use the j from now on). Sui juris means “self” and “law” (lawgiving, lawmaking). Absolution is a juridic act. Just as the particular law for the Ukrainian (just example) Church doesn’t apply to a Latin priest, neither does the from for the juridic act of absolution. In order to pronounce a valid juridic absolution, each priest must follow the law (juris) of only his own Church sui juris.

This is not at all like the use of leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist, and the reason is very important. Consecrating the Eucharist is not a juridic act. That’s why a priest can use the “wrong” form of bread and the consecration would be “valid but illicit” (outside of emergency when it would be licit); however, a priest who fails to use the correct form of absolution acts both illicitly and invalidly.

 

[centurionguard]

No. It goes directly to validity.

Absolution is a juridic act of the Church. As such, the Church decides what constitutes valid form–each Church sui iuris decides its own form. What is a valid juridic form in one Church sui iuris, is not a valid juridic form in a different Church sui iuris.

In the Latin Church, there is only one valid form of absolution, “I absolve you…” The other forms used by other Churches have no bearing on this.

Absolution is a juridic act of the Church. As such, the Church decides what constitutes valid form–each Church sui iuris decides its own form. What is a valid juridic form in one Church sui iuris, is not a valid juridic form in a different Church sui iuris.

Father; I like the way you explained Absolution is a juridic act of the Church as opposed to the word Forgiveness in your post #50. I surmise that in my country Canada there is far more inclusive language used in liturgical text in comparison with the Catholic Church in the United States which often puts a cold aching splinter in my backside because I get irritated by inclusive language.

I sometimes wonder if I forgive you is used over the proper form I absolve you is due to inclusive language infiltrating the Church in the western world?

Peace
Chris

 

[FrDavid96]

Father; I like the way you explained Absolution is a juridic act of the Church as opposed to the word Forgiveness in your post #50. I surmise that in my country Canada there is far more inclusive language used in liturgical text in comparison with the Catholic Church in the United States which often puts a cold aching splinter in my backside because I get irritated by inclusive language.

I sometimes wonder if I forgive you is used over the proper form I absolve you is due to inclusive language infiltrating the Church in the western world?

Peace
Chris

I wouldn’t say it’s a form of “inclusive language” as such, but more a problem of “politically correct” language (less specific).

I think the problem is that there isn’t a full understanding of the difference between forgiveness and absolution. It’s a lack of understanding of what absolution actually means.
In the full form of absolution, the priest imparts both forgiveness from God and reconciliation to the Church. That’s what I quoted earlier from the Rite of Penance, #35

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.

Note that there is both forgiveness and absolution–the two parts form the whole of reconciliation. When a priest takes out “absolve” and replaces it with “forgive” he does 2 things. 1 he repeats what’s already been said ("…may give you pardon and peace…") and 2 omits an essential element “I absolve”

Back to the “politically correct” angle. I do think this is a matter of a priest trying to avoid saying the “I absolve” (first person singular) in a sort of false humility. In other words “I don’t absolve you, God does” But here, the priest isn’t being humble so much as he’s not-understanding what he is doing. God forgives, the Church absolves (of course, God also absolves). The priest is the juridic representative of the Church (a the minister-of the Church) and as such, he should indeed say “I absolve” That’s why the priest says “may God forgive you” (my paraphrase of “pardon and peace”) and also “I absolve you”