B
Bookcat
Guest
A “ad libing” in the words of the preceding part prior to “I absolve you” --is not going to make it “invalid”.
Is a person forgiven even though a Priest uses the wrong words for Absolution?
- Status
K
KimberlyAnn0218
Guest
Amen!I have heard many different responses to this question over time. I guess, personally, I look at it this way. If I go to confession, and the priest doesn’t say the exact right words of absolution, I am still absolved. I’ve never had this happen, however, I truly believe that God knows the priests, as well as my intentions. It’s not a magical incantation, and I put enough faith in or Lord to believe he is not going to hold something against me that I can’t control.
B
Bookcat
Guest
A Sacrament though does require correct matter and form. For there is either a Sacrament or not.I have heard many different responses to this question over time. I guess, personally, I look at it this way. If I go to confession, and the priest doesn’t say the exact right words of absolution, I am still absolved. I’ve never had this happen, however, I truly believe that God knows the priests, as well as my intentions. It’s not a magical incantation, and I put enough faith in or Lord to believe he is not going to hold something against me that I can’t control.
One can not baptize with motor oil. Or baptize in the name of the Parent, the child and the Bible.
If one knows that (on that rare occasion) the form of absolution was invalid --such is very different than one who does not realize that the Priest just made up the words without actually absolving…and thinks he is absolved.
D
DexUK
Guest
To be invalid, a sacrament the words used by the priest would not bear any relation to that which they should have been.
In this case, the priest - who has, by the virtue of his ordination, been given the power to loose and bind on earth as in heaven - specifically said that the sins were absolved.
If he’d said “your sins have been painted over” then clearly that wouldn’t bear any relation to “absolved” but in this case the meaning of his words was explicitly that absolution was granted. I don’t understand why anyone is even arguing this point?
In this case, the priest - who has, by the virtue of his ordination, been given the power to loose and bind on earth as in heaven - specifically said that the sins were absolved.
If he’d said “your sins have been painted over” then clearly that wouldn’t bear any relation to “absolved” but in this case the meaning of his words was explicitly that absolution was granted. I don’t understand why anyone is even arguing this point?
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Well, I’d attribute that to bad catechesis, not people being stupid or unable to learn a sentence in a foreign language. Then again, you didn’t say that, so meh.
G
GwenL
Guest
The OP was absolved; the priest said “I absolve you of your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
I had a weird confession once. I was confessing what I knew was a mortal sin. One of those mental/imagination scenarios. The priest says to me “you are being too rigid, you need to get in touch with that side of yourself.”
I should have run screaming out of the church at that moment. But I didn’t. Then he said, “Because of Jesus Christ, you are forgiven of your sins.” He made no sign of the cross. I knew that I was not absolved. I knew also that he did not intend to absolve me, because he did not think that my sin was a sin.
I had gone to this parish and seen this priest after daily Mass. Our friars at my parish were out of town at a chapter. The one orthodox diocesan priest in town had daily Mass later in the day. So I went to the loosey-goosey parish to get things taken care of as early as possible in the day. Big mistake.
After that disaster in the morning, I went to the orthodox priest at his noon Mass. I asked him about the validity of the earlier “absolution.” He said that I was not absolved, that the priest must say those minimum words. He said “do you want to do it again?” and I went through the entire confession again. He agreed that it was a mortal sin. He absolved me correctly.
I really have a hard time with priests who shorten the liturgy of the sacrament of reconciliation. That prayer is so beautiful, so packed with theology and love and mercy, why would any priest want to deny that of a penitent? It is exactly what we need to hear at that moment. Yes, I know that they can say the minimum “I absolve you…” But that saves what, 15 seconds per penitent?
I had a weird confession once. I was confessing what I knew was a mortal sin. One of those mental/imagination scenarios. The priest says to me “you are being too rigid, you need to get in touch with that side of yourself.”
I should have run screaming out of the church at that moment. But I didn’t. Then he said, “Because of Jesus Christ, you are forgiven of your sins.” He made no sign of the cross. I knew that I was not absolved. I knew also that he did not intend to absolve me, because he did not think that my sin was a sin.I had gone to this parish and seen this priest after daily Mass. Our friars at my parish were out of town at a chapter. The one orthodox diocesan priest in town had daily Mass later in the day. So I went to the loosey-goosey parish to get things taken care of as early as possible in the day. Big mistake.
After that disaster in the morning, I went to the orthodox priest at his noon Mass. I asked him about the validity of the earlier “absolution.” He said that I was not absolved, that the priest must say those minimum words. He said “do you want to do it again?” and I went through the entire confession again. He agreed that it was a mortal sin. He absolved me correctly.
I really have a hard time with priests who shorten the liturgy of the sacrament of reconciliation. That prayer is so beautiful, so packed with theology and love and mercy, why would any priest want to deny that of a penitent? It is exactly what we need to hear at that moment. Yes, I know that they can say the minimum “I absolve you…” But that saves what, 15 seconds per penitent?
A
Anna_Claire
Guest
It’s a non issue…It’s more on you! If you are sorry for your sins (act of contrition) God forgives your wrongdoings. This is not a magic formula that doesn’t work if the priest’s spoken words are not from the formula. It’s all about how sorry you are and how much you want to be reconciled. You are forgiven!
D
DarrenOglesby
Guest
Intent is what matters. Though it is advisable to follow the words provided by the church. I do not think God is going to not forgive someone if they don’t say the right formula.
What would be more invalid is if a priest said the right words and did not mean what he was saying.
What would be more invalid is if a priest said the right words and did not mean what he was saying.
B
Bookcat
Guest
A Sacrament does require correct matter and form. For there is either a Sacrament or not.
One can have all the intent in the world to baptize…and still not baptize.
One can not baptize with motor oil. Or baptize in the name of the Parent, the child and the Bible.
(now of course God can still work with the person of course who is say on his death bed…God is not bound to the sacraments…though we are…but it is not a sacrament but salvation via grace and “baptism of desire” etc)
D
DarrenOglesby
Guest
Baptism is a whole different thing, that includes matter. Confession doesn’t include matter.
Baptism is something that obviously has to be done word from word.
I wasn’t saying that a priest could make something up that had no relevance to the forgivness of sins. I was saying it wouldn’t matter if the priest said pardon instead of absolve. Although I would prefer to hear the right word. As long as the words had the same meaning and the priest had the same intent, I believe that I would be forgiven
It differs between sacraments. I am not promoting that priests use different words. I am just answering a question whether a certain persons confession was valid.
Baptism is something that obviously has to be done word from word.
I wasn’t saying that a priest could make something up that had no relevance to the forgivness of sins. I was saying it wouldn’t matter if the priest said pardon instead of absolve. Although I would prefer to hear the right word. As long as the words had the same meaning and the priest had the same intent, I believe that I would be forgiven
It differs between sacraments. I am not promoting that priests use different words. I am just answering a question whether a certain persons confession was valid.
B
Bookcat
Guest
All Sacraments involve matter and form. (matter does not have to be a “substance”…like water as in the case of baptism)
As to the form of absolution --the Priest is to use the form given by the Church. If he diverts from doing so…it may be invalid (depending on what he says). It is not that intent alone that makes it valid or not (just to note)
One can argue as to if a “particular form” is or is not valid. But invalidly does result from not using a valid form.
In the OP’s question it did not seem that the Priest used any invalid form.
C
Cristiano
Guest
I suggest reading the following article on absolution validity and ecclesia supplet.
- Status