But he does not have to repeat the confession as “ecclesia supplex” - the Church supplies. So one is still forgiven. Which is good for someone like me because I wouldn’t even notice the exact words & would simply accept what the priest says. I’d hate to think I might have unforgiven sins simply because the priest said the wrong words.
I had a similar experience where I received a “May Jesus forgive you” in lieu of legit absolution. I asked a few priests, none of whom are prone to scruples.
I was told that venial sins were covered, but any mortal sins would need to be re-confessed as they weren’t validly absolved. There is a good article by a canon lawyer on the notion of Ecclesia Supplet here: canonlaw.info/2007/02/we-need-to-be-careful-with-notion-of.html“Ecclesia supplet” means the law of the church supplies executive power of governance where it is lacking. In other words, there are certain circumstances in which a priest does not have the faculty to validly absolve, but if certain conditions are in place, the law supplies that faculty. A faculty is necessary for valid absolution, whether it is given by delegation, in virtue of office, or by the law supplying it. The law cannot, however, supply something that was missing in the action of the Sacrament. In other words, it doesn’t make up for improper form or matter, only for what the law could actually supply, namely a faculty. If a priest used Doritos for matter in the Eucharist, or said something other than “this is my Body,” the Church couldn’t supply anything because matter and form were lacking in the performance of the Sacrament. Just the same with confession. If the priest doesn’t say the proper formula or at least something with a meaning that does not vitiate the essence of the formula (e.g. the difference between saying “I absolve you from your sins” and “I absolve you from all your sins”), it is not valid and nothing the law does can make it valid. Nemo dat quod non got, as it were. The law can only supply authority where necessary for validity, it can’t supply matter and form as well.
No it is not “nit-picking”.
And how is someone like me to know the exceptions?
This is also a misunderstanding of the term “ecclesia supplet.” The Church does not supply the validity of a defective form, matter or intent. If one of these is missing, the sacrament is invalid and the Church can do nothing to supply anything to make it valid. No “ecclesia supplet” can ever make right rice cakes for the Eucharist, lack of water for Baptism, or the wrong form of absolution.
The Priest should simply do what the Church does.
As the priest at Confession is in persona Christi the words must be I absolve you…