Urgent Question

[zab]

I have been saying that we agree.

If you look through the thread, you will see for yourself that you, not I, are the one who keeps saying that we disagree.

I never led anyone to believe that we disagree. Rather, I’ve been trying over-and-over again to show that we agree, every time you post that we don’t.

lol, well that was my original thought until I went back over the posts and came back to post #63 and thought perhaps I missed something.
I am afraid that every point that I or others have made in questioning the statements from priest that come across as contradictory have been lost. In order for anyone to make sense of this they will have to read through pages of posts starting at page 3, post #37. That’s all. I’ve lost interest.

 

[FrDavid96]

lol, well that was my original thought until I went back over the posts and came back to post #63 and thought perhaps I missed something.
I am afraid that every point that I or others have made in questioning the statements from priest that come across as contradictory have been lost. In order for anyone to make sense of this they will have to read through pages of posts starting at page 3, post #37. That’s all. I’ve lost interest.

I’m beginning to think that you never had any interest in the first place, other than to try to stir up controversy by your repeated claims that two priests are giving contradictory answers; in spite of the fact that I keep showing that we are not.

To illustrate the point, although I’ve repeated so many times in recent posts that Fr S and I are not in-conflict, you still insist on asserting that we are (see your own text above that I’ve made bold). That’s not helping the situation.

No matter how many times you try to tell people that the priests are giving contradictory answers, it still won’t be true.

And that’s a very important point. Every priest who has expressed thoughts on the question has given answers that all complement each other, and are consistent from one to the other. All the priests say the same thing, but in different ways. That’s what Catholics need to understand. When they have a question about whether or not something was valid, go to a priest (in person) and talk to him about it.

 

[Evan]

:banghead:

Absolution is a juridic act of the Church.

It is a legal act of the Church (although that’s only the beginning of the definition of the word)

In order for a legal act to be valid, that legal act must be carried-out in accord with the law.

If an attempt at a legal act is itself not in accord with the law (not-legal or illicit), then it is by its very nature not valid.

OK, absolution is juridical, But confession a sacramental action. And the 2 are separate. No-one needs to judge to validity of a sacrament, they are assumed valid til shown otherwise. Thus forgiveness is assumed.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

I do wish that before trying to answer something, and especially before accusing people of bad motives (like calling them pharisees), that the people who do so would first get their own facts straight and actually know what they’re writing before hitting the “submit” button.

I would suggest that people learn the definitions of the words “forgiveness” and “absolution.” They are not the same thing, even though Catholics (and non-Catholics) often use the words interchangeably.

Here’s a few hints.

Absolution is a juridic act of the Church. As such, it is entirely within the Church’s powers to determine the exact form that absolution must take, and likewise, to determine that nothing other-than that exact form constitutes a valid absolution—a valid juridic act of the Church.

In the Latin Church, sui iuris, the only valid form of absolution is “ego te absolvo…” This applies to both the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms. Certainly, the approved English translation of “I absolve you…” is equally valid (as well as other approved vernaculars). Nothing else, no other words, constitute a valid absolution; a valid juridic act of the Church.

Other Catholic Churches sui iuris, have their own forms of valid absolution (some have several forms). These forms are valid within the Churches sui iuris, which have approved them as valid juridic acts; but only within those specific Churches sui iuris.

Absolution is a juridic act of the Church. I truly wish that people would first learn this, and understand what it means, before posting incorrect and misleading information.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

I mean no disrespect, Father; it’s just that you and Father Vincent Serpa give contradictory answers on this matter. From the apologist’s answer that I shared:

Q: “Most recently, we encountered a priest who seemed to have alternate words for absolution: ‘May God forgive you of your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.’ as opposed to the traditional ‘I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.’ My question: Is that alternate ‘absolution’ valid?”

Father Serpa’s answer: “The Church accepts most variations of the formula for absolution as valid for the benefit of the penitents. However, no priest has the authority to change the formula in any way.”

And Akin agrees with Father Serpa. He states:

"Trent references the words of absolution in passing but doens’t quote them completely. It says ‘I absolve thee, etc.’ In making these references, Trent is not attempting to specify the minimal form necessary for absolution. It is simply stressing that the absolution takes effect when the minister says the words that constitute its form. Part of the formula is provided simply to indicate when this occurs.

There is no single set of words that are necessary for validity in the case of this sacrament. Various formluas of absolution are used in different rites of the Church, though ‘I absolve you’ is the one used in the Latin rite. It is valid as long as the priest intends to do what the Church does, even if he omits the object of absolution. His intent to do what the Church does–since the Church absolves sins in this sacrament–is sufficient."

So Father David, how do I know whose word to trust here? Father Serpa and Jimmy Akin are pretty clear… sadly, I’ve not heard of or found an answer to this question from the Holy See.

The question Father Serpa was answering clearly stated that the priest said, “May God forgive you of your sins.” And Father Serpa didn’t say, “Hey, that’s invalid because he didn’t say ‘I’.” Rather, he said it was valid but illicit.

And some of the eastern rites use a variation of “May God absolve you,” and those priests are still validly acting in persona Christi, despite the fact that their absolution formula doesn’t include a first-person pronoun.

PLEASE NOTE that I am NOT defending it as licit or acceptable when Latin priests ad lib their absolutions. It confuses and distresses people, and it’s a terrible thing to do. But from everything I’ve read - above and elsewhere - it seems that most formulas are valid.

We’re being far too narrow here; the proper form is required for a Sacrament to be valid, but the Church is often very flexible about the individual words that a Sacrament’s form takes. Consider, for instance, the Holy See’s response to an inquiry about whether or not the Liturgy of Addai and Mari is valid when it doesn’t quote the words of institution.

The Holy See said that it is valid. As I said, I unfortunately haven’t found an answer from the Holy See specifically on confession, but I’d be highly surprised if Father Serpa and Jimmy Akin are wrong in light of the Holy See’s answer on that ancient liturgy.

No, it’s perfectly relevant to the question of what happens if the priest doesn’t say the exact words “I absolve you,” because Akin clearly states the following in the link:

**"In making these references, Trent is not attempting to specify the minimal form necessary for absolution. It is simply stressing that the absolution takes effect when the minister says the words that constitute its form. Part of the formula is provided simply to indicate when this occurs.

“There is no single set of words that are necessary for validity in the case of this sacrament. Various formluas of absolution are used in different rites of the Church, though “I absolve you” is the one used in the Latin rite. It is valid as long as the priest intends to do what the Church does, even if he omits the object of absolution. His intent to do what the Church does–since the Church absolves sins in this sacrament–is sufficient.”**

Again, he could be wrong. And Father Serpa could be wrong. But frankly, I doubt it.

You obviously didn’t read Fathers first post. He said the Confession was invalid due to the language variation and because the OP was aware of this upon his own reflection he should re-confess at his earliest opportunity.

When he received Communion then he did not know for sure, therefore it was not a wilful act. That was all that needed to be said on the topic, instead we have people talking at each other and over the top of each other and trotting out Apologists and other Priests etc.

 

[LilyM]

Maybe a better suggestion would be to ask to priest to absolve you again, and again, and again, till he gets the words right. Or you can bring him a card with the proper words and have him read it! You could help him with his pronunciation, in case he has an accent, and the words are not coming out right. Just pray he does not have a speech impediment or grew up in another country. Apparently intention is not part of the picture.

I suppose, the priest should also repeat the words of institution over each chalis and ciboria during the mass to make sure ALL the bread and wine is transubstantiated.

or maybe I’m a little scrupulous or maybe a better word is rediculous.

Intent is necessary but so is form - actually saying and doing the proper thing. The Church requires both for a valid sacrament.

It is not good enough if a doctor simply intends to remove all of your cancerous tumour but instead mistakenly removes 99% of it. All the good intent in the world won’t change the fact that you still have cancer even if you don’t know it or even if the part that is left won’t harm you for a while. If you or the doctor realise the mistake, you will need a second visit and the doctor will need to actually do the correct act and remove the remainder of the tumour.

 

[FrDavid96]

OK, absolution is juridical, But confession a sacramental action. And the 2 are separate. No-one needs to judge to validity of a sacrament, they are assumed valid til shown otherwise. Thus forgiveness is assumed.

All I can do is repeat what I’ve already typed.

I know that you mean well, but you don’t understand the vocabulary you’re using. That’s what I’m attempting to do here: explain the vocabulary so that people can actually understand what the issues are.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Ok, so we know that absolution is a matter of church law. What does that imply?

First of all, the church can make any laws it wants about it’s own procedures. If it made a law that no absolution was valid unless it contained the word ‘smurf’, then it would be so. It doesn’t make ‘smurf’ a magic word (as was suggested by a poster very early in this thread), it just is a legal requirement. Just like you wouldn’t really be married if you said ‘I don’t’ instead of ‘I do’, even if the ceremony proceeded to the end.

Second, if it is just a matter of law, then the church can make different laws for different jurisdictions. So, there is no problem that the laws governing absolution are different for one rite than for another. It’s just a matter of law, just like how laws may be different in one state versus another.

Third, law is typically complicated and different experts in the law can have different interpretations of the law. In civilian life, for example, there would be no need for the Supreme Court if the law was so clear that all experts always agreed upon every question. So, it should come as no surprise that three different experts disagree in this case, if in fact they do disagree (which I believe is in dispute).

Fourth, in interpreting any law, context and details matter a great deal. So, for example, it is entirely possible that omitting “for your sins” from the absolution is quite a different matter from omitting “I absolve you”. If I understand the case correctly, the situation Fr Serpa was responding to was the former, while the situation being discussed on this thread is the latter.

Fifth, it is entirely possible that Fr. Serpa and the other good priest who responded on this thread were really taking about forgiveness when they are talking about the validity rather than a legal requirement of absolution. This might be my most dubious (and arguable) point here, but let me explain. Perhaps an experienced priest realizes that the typical lay person doesn’t really understand the difference between forgiveness and absolution, and they are trying to answer the question the lay person really means to ask “Am I forgiven?” rather than the one they are appearing to ask “Am I absolved?”. This might be because they know that a typical person in this situation might perceive it to be a spiritual emergency of sorts and really freak out, and their primary motivation is to reassure them, not to explain church law in detail. As I said, this one might be really dubious and incorrect, but even if this point isn’t valid, surely my other four points have some validity.

So, from my perspective, the above addresses all the remaining arguments on this thread. What do you think?

I think no-one else is paying attention to what you wrote but I liked it.

A movie for this thread would be titled Lost in Translation.

 

[zab]

A movie for this thread would be titled Lost in Translation.

So true

 

[FrDavid96]

Ok, so we know that absolution is a matter of church law. What does that imply?

First of all, the church can make any laws it wants about it’s own procedures. If it made a law that no absolution was valid unless it contained the word ‘smurf’, then it would be so. It doesn’t make ‘smurf’ a magic word (as was suggested by a poster very early in this thread), it just is a legal requirement. Just like you wouldn’t really be married if you said ‘I don’t’ instead of ‘I do’, even if the ceremony proceeded to the end.

Second, if it is just a matter of law, then the church can make different laws for different jurisdictions. So, there is no problem that the laws governing absolution are different for one rite than for another. It’s just a matter of law, just like how laws may be different in one state versus another.

Third, law is typically complicated and different experts in the law can have different interpretations of the law. In civilian life, for example, there would be no need for the Supreme Court if the law was so clear that all experts always agreed upon every question. So, it should come as no surprise that three different experts disagree in this case, if in fact they do disagree (which I believe is in dispute).

Fourth, in interpreting any law, context and details matter a great deal. So, for example, it is entirely possible that omitting “for your sins” from the absolution is quite a different matter from omitting “I absolve you”. If I understand the case correctly, the situation Fr Serpa was responding to was the former, while the situation being discussed on this thread is the latter.

Fifth, it is entirely possible that Fr. Serpa and the other good priest who responded on this thread were really taking about forgiveness when they are talking about the validity rather than a legal requirement of absolution. This might be my most dubious (and arguable) point here, but let me explain. Perhaps an experienced priest realizes that the typical lay person doesn’t really understand the difference between forgiveness and absolution, and they are trying to answer the question the lay person really means to ask “Am I forgiven?” rather than the one they are appearing to ask “Am I absolved?”. This might be because they know that a typical person in this situation might perceive it to be a spiritual emergency of sorts and really freak out, and their primary motivation is to reassure them, not to explain church law in detail. As I said, this one might be really dubious and incorrect, but even if this point isn’t valid, surely my other four points have some validity.

So, from my perspective, the above addresses all the remaining arguments on this thread. What do you think?

Sorry for not responding earlier (I got a bit distracted). You put a lot of thought into that and it deserves a response.

1. Yes. Exactly.
2. Right. Each jurisdiction (each Church sui iuris) has it’s own laws and each one decides what words constitute valid absolution within that Church sui iuris.
3. Yes, but…
   While what you wrote is true; with regard to the Latin Church, it’s a settled matter that the words “I absolve you” are indeed the necessary and essential words of absolution.
4. Right. The words surrounding the essential formula “I absolve you” can, and do, change–so absolution is valid in either the Ordinary form or the Extraordinary form. A priest might change the words before-or-after or omit some of them (which the law explicitly allows under some circumstances like danger of death). So a priest might change the words before-and-after either legitimately or wrongly, but must always say the essential “I absolve you” for absolution to occur. As you’ve said though, this isn’t actually the topic at-hand.
5. Not quite. (4 for 5!) Even though a priest might hold back something in a situation like this, he would not say one thing while meaning something different. What he would do is direct the questioner to a priest who can be trusted not to mess with the essential form of absolution, and hope&pray that this happens–knowing that the priest in-person will make things right.

 

[InLight247]

Father David,

Thank you for your detailed explanation about absolution as the juridic act of the Church, the importance of the exact form for a valid absolution, and each Catholic Church (different Rite) may have her own forms of valid absolution. I have learned from your posts.

Communication is often not easy, especially on internet. People can misread, misunderstand, misinterpret…… Different people can throw in different posts to muddy the water, make a clear explanation confusing.

But you did a great job. Thank you for all your patience and help.

 

[Catholic_Wife]

Thank you, Father Jones & Father David, for posting. In a thread full of opinions, your posts provide needed information. I appreciate you taking the time to post!

I second this!!!

With regard to the 2nd paragraph:
You’re on the right track, but some subtle distinctions need to be made. In order to receive Holy Communion, the sinner must first be reconciled to God and the Church (ie forgiven and absolved). A person who makes an honest attempt at confession, even if the priest errs in failing to impart a valid absolution, would still be able to receive Communion in good conscience. If the penitent is aware of the priest’s fault, then there is still an obligation to be absolved validly.

This would be very similar to the situation of a person who is unable to confess to a priest yet makes a sincere act of contrition (canon 916). I don’t want to digress into a discussion about c 916–if anyone else would like, by all means start a thread.
Pardon me for sounding somewhat scrupulous, but now that I’m going to listen very intently to the words of absolution that the priest says, what should I (or anyone else) do if the priest says anything but “I absolve you…”? Interrupt him immediately and ask him to say “I absolve you…” instead? Thank him and go to another priest at a later time to “redo” the confession?

 

[Bklynguy]

The Church teaches dogmatically that correct form is required for sacramental validity.

That is true, but the OP obeyed the Church and went to confession. He did his part. It is the CHURCH’S responsibility to get the formula and absolution correctly, NOT his. Therefore, he shouldn’t stress whether or not the confession was valid and whether he received communion licitly.

 

[theyoungmonk]

It is fairly simple and I can understand the head banging some of the posters are doing.

in brief the 7 Sacraments are acts of the church and she decides how they are applied the Sacraments are bound to Intent, Form (/Matter) and Jurisdiction, some sacraments need more than others. for example Baptism needs only the “Intent” to do what the church intends and the “Form” which is the pouring of water and the Trinitarian formula.

For the Sacraments of Matrimony and confession to be valid then there are a few more laws of the Church which need to be obeyed to make it Valid as these Sacraments are essentially matters of the Law no matter how holy they are.
Of course Our Lord is not bound to these and could act outside of them (as he is not bound to the Sacraments at all) but we always assume that unless all has been done correctly than Our Lord has not chosen to do so. As Confession was made the “gift of the Church” by Our Lord then the church decides how it shall be distributed.

So Confession to be valid (like the fire triangle all these must be present to have the desired result)

1. There must be a valid priest who has faculties to hear confession. (or a valid priest the penitent honestly believes has faculties to hear confession)
2. The sins must be confessed, all known Mortal sins at the least being made known.
3. Valid words of absolution are then to be said by the priest this is supposed to ,in the Latin Rite, be either the formula beginning “may God the Father of mercies…” or the approved formula for the Old Rite. the essential words which are required for validity (for a confession according to the ROMAN RITE) are “I absolve you of your sins + In the name of …” this can be shortened to “ego te absolve” or in English “I Absolve you” these must be said with the intent to absolve sins as the Church intends.

If the priest made an accident and did not realise that would be most likely fine but the deliberate change of something means that the intent is not really “to do what the Church intends”.

 

[LilyM]

That is true, but the OP obeyed the Church and went to confession. He did his part. It is the CHURCH’S responsibility to get the formula and absolution correctly, NOT his. Therefore, he shouldn’t stress whether or not the confession was valid and whether he received communion licitly.

To extend my earlier analogy, it is the doctor’s responsibility to remove the whole of the cancerous tumour - however the fact remains that if he or she does not do so, the patient remains uncured. So the patient does also have the responsibility of pointing out to the doctor that he or she has not done the job properly. The patient is ultimately at fault for his or her continuing illness if he or she knows the doctor has stuffed up and does not hold the doctor to account for the fact.

 

[zab]

To extend my earlier analogy, it is the doctor’s responsibility to remove the whole of the cancerous tumour - however the fact remains that if he or she does not do so, the patient remains uncured. So the patient does also have the responsibility of pointing out to the doctor that he or she has not done the job properly. The patient is ultimately at fault for his or her continuing illness if he or she knows the doctor has stuffed up and does not hold the doctor to account for the fact.

In the analogy that you gave, at least the doctor did remove some of the cancerous tumor. A better example would be that someone went to the doctor, let’s say for an infection that would required specific medication in order to heal. But instead of the needed medication, the doctor prescribes a placebo. Now the question is? How does the patient know that he has been given a prescription for a placebo that will not cure his illness?