Validity. Those words are absolutely necessary to confect the Sacrament of Penance in the English Language according to the approved rite. Form in a sacrament is not general in any instance of any of the Sacraments. They are all very precise.
It was not valid- I would find someone else to go to- and pray for that priest- he commited sacrilige by doing that!
The teaching of St. Thomas is found in Trent as you cite. in III, q 84, a 3 he state, “the most fitting form of this sacrament [is] I absolve thee.” He relates this to baptism as the in baptism the same effect is being made in that it is removing of something and that a Sacrament accomplishes what it signifies. Thus, just as in baptism the words “I baptize you” are used so to are the words “I absolve you” used in penance. Further, we know that the trinitarian formula is necessary for baptism so it would seem that the trinitarian formula is also necessary for penance. Yet, this aside we know from St. Thomas that the form must be “I absolve you.”
) .
I still don’t see this as very clear. You said that “it would seem” that the Trinitarian Formula is necessary. . . but although you may have a persuasive argument, that turn of phrase seems to indicate you don’t think it is definitive. And although St. Thomas indicates that the form must be “I absolve you”, that in itself would not be enough for us to establish the essential form, right? (By essential form, I mean the absolute bare minimum necessary for validity.)
For instance Jimmy Akin makes this point:
Jimmy seems to be pointing out that in the current Latin rite the formula is “I absolve you”. . . but there may be other formulas that are valid.
And yet an article by Fr. Nicholas Halligan, O.P. in This Rock magazine states:
Is it possible that there is not an absolute (again pardon the pun) set of words for a valid absolution? Is it possible that validity is “doing what the Church intends”? Or is it possible as Fr. Halligan seems to be saying that the validity is derived from the use of the current lawful formula? Fr. Halligan says the priest MUST pronounce the devlarative words. . .but Fr. Most points out that in the past the words were deprecative, “May God absolve you. . .”.
VC
It can be argued that there were many other forms for the confecting of every sacrament in the early Church. However, as the Church began to understand itself more and more she found that some of the forms that were used by some communities (who claimed them from apostolic times) were deficient and invalid. It would seem (sorry about the vague term but it is a Thomistic usage) that no matter the formula the Trinitarian formula was present in all in accordance with the mandate from Christ. The first half of the words of absolution are the issue of debate. While I would accept that there is a possibility of multiple forms spread out among the Churches in the Church it cannot be that this leads to ambiguity in the form of Confession for the Latin Rite. Just as in Matrimony even the minister is different between east and west and so too the matter of the Eucharist, Holy Oil for the use of Chrismation and Anointing etc it is not incorrect to say that in the west the words (the form) of the Sacrament of Penance must be and is “I absolve you, etc.”Hmmmmmm.
I think awalt in post #4 admirably sums up the question:
For instance Jimmy Akin makes this point:
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2005/05/absolution_vali.html
Jimmy seems to be pointing out that in the current Latin rite the formula is “I absolve you”. . . but there may be other formulas that are valid.
This seems to square with Fr. William G. Most:
catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=187
And yet an article by Fr. Nicholas Halligan, O.P. in This Rock magazine states:
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9401fea1.asp
Is it possible that there is not an absolute (again pardon the pun) set of words for a valid absolution? Is it possible that validity is “doing what the Church intends”? Or is it possible as Fr. Halligan seems to be saying that the validity is derived from the use of the current lawful formula? Fr. Halligan says the priest MUST pronounce the devlarative words. . .but Fr. Most points out that in the past the words were deprecative, “May God absolve you. . .”.
Any thoughts on this folks?
As far as the original question posted (Hi Purgation Road), and given the above quotes, perhaps awalt’s words of wisdom are again appropriate.
In the rest of the article on the issue this is addressed. St. Thomas explicitly states that the form “I absolve thee (you)” is the essential form and the trinitarian formula is not part of that necessary action. So, I must correct myself. The invocation of the Trinity is only to express the divine work of God in the action of the Sacrament. St. Thomas says of this, “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.” (ST III q 84 a 3, Reply #3)
Not exactly. If a latin priest were to use leavened bread it would not just be illicit but it would be invalid. So, my statement is to respect authentic apostolic tradition. However, there were in history some alleged apostolic tradition that was reprobated such as one church had the practice of adding honey to the bread. This was deemed invalid matter. As it relates to this the phrase “I absolve you” is necessary for at the least all latin priests to effect absolution.
You are correct here as I explained above.
It depends on what he means. If he is looking for a universal among all rites and usages or if he is speaking of the Latin Church. If he is speaking about a trans-rite set of words he is correct. If, however, he is referring to only the Latin Church then he is incorrect as given in the full article by St. Thomas which treats on all of the mentioned objections in some way.
Mosher,
Hmmm. Well this would follow given what I believe to be your contention that something illicit would make a sacrament invalid. But I don’t think that is the case generally.
I am not opposing illicit matter for validity. Rather, it is invalid matter in the west and not illicit as there can not be illicit matter. Just because it is valid under one rite and not another does not mean that is valid but illicit in the other rite but rather that it is invalid matter in the other rite. In the west a priest must for validity just unleavened wheat bread and in most eastern rites it must be leavened for validity not just licisitude.
The only mischaractarization is that I am arguing that something illicit will by necessity cause invalidity. This is not my position but rather what I described above. From everything that I have read from the entry of St. Thomas on the matter, to Fr. Halligan, to the council of Florence in Inaestimabile Donum. The only lack that I find in strictly restricting validity of matter to each rite is in the Catholic Encyclopedia and in Ott’s Book. This is not because they say the contrary but rather because they are not clear.
Mosher,
Thoughts?