Urgent Question

[fred_conty]

Just for the sake of argument, why would a priest by intention use the wrong words?

Because he got D- in his sacramental theology course or was not paying attention. Or maybe he is just a priest with little faith, or with little respect for the power of the Church. Or maybe he was tired that day or maybe he read something that misinformed him.

In any case, it is the bishop who gives the right to hear confessions, and it is the church which says what must be done for a good confession, both for the priest hearing and the pentitent going.

We have many rites in the catholic church, not just Roman. So it is up to that particular rite to say what the words of forgiveness must be. In the Roman rite, it is “I absolve you…” in latin or english or vernacular. In some other rite, other words may be used if this is approved by that rite. But the approved words of any particular rite must be used. I believe that to be reliable according to Church Law.

What must be done if the wrong words were used? If you know for sure, go back to confession to another priest. Are those sins forgiven(mortal) by the incorrect confession? If it were me, I would not take that chance.

But as someone else asked, what condition am I in if I don’t confess them again, and are they never forgiven? I would say that a person who thought the confession was ok, then when they made their next confession those sins, tho not confessed again, would be forgiven. My reason for saying this it that when a person makes a good confession of what they think is all of their unconfessed sins, then those confessed sins which were not forgiven, are also forgiven too. For forgiven means forgiven, and not just those that are known to the penitent.
For a good confession absolves all grievious sin, unless the pentitent is knowingly hiding grievious sin. This includes also serious sin they don’t recognize as serious, those sins too are forgiven.

Is it still possible that even tho the wrong words were used for absolution that the sins are still forgiven? Possible, for anything is possible with God. But as I said, if it were me, I would not take that chance.

Be at peace.

---

“Father into your hands I commend my spirit.” Jesus

 

[Veronica_Anne]

Just for the sake of argument, why would a priest by intention use the wrong words?

Um. Hmmm… “for the sake of argument,”

Er. Do we even need to cause or further an argument of this nature?

Okay. My response to your question is this —>

“Because all of us are human – even priests – and so we make mistakes for whatever reason we make them – intentionally or unintentionally.”

Another reason which I am not sure is the best yet it came to mind – is this →

“Because we all are subject to being tempted to commit the sin of Pride – even priests.”

I’m just glad that FrDavid96 who has answered posts on this thread has done so.

I know that “forgiveness” and “absolution” are two different, although related, things. And that sometimes those words tend to be used as if one was the same thing as the other. They’re not.

The rite of the Sacrament of Confession (i.e., “Reconciliation”) is the “normative” way Jesus commanded. This of course does not mean that anybody HAS to “go to Confession” for them to confess their sins and their repentance for Jesus (i.e., God) to forgive their sins.

It’s by His very mercy that Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Confession (i.e., “Reconciliation”). He knows that we as humans really DO benefit from this Sacrament where we are told by His priest that our confessed and repented sins are not only forgiven, but absolved. Otherwise, we tend to wrassle in our minds to realize “for sure” the sin that we have confessed straight to Jesus (rather than straight to the priest who is “persona Christi”) HAS actually been forgiven.

This is the struggle that I think I’m reading about from some posts here.

I’m somewhat clumsy in my attempt to describe all this.

My suggestion that I thought at first to offer to the OP was for the OP to print out the exact, official Rite of Confession (“Reconciliation”) and bring it to that same priest the next time they happened to go to Confession. To humbly mention to that priest that you were a bit confused and hoped that he could inform you what YOU should do because since the words he used the last time you went to Confession were different from what the official text of the Rite.

However, FrDavid96 posted here the answer that truly shows that HE is ordained and formed for giving the answer in his post to the OP. Not me.

Thank you, again, Father for recommending that the OP speak to another priest whom the OP is sure is “in line” with how is best for the OP to address this situation.

 

[Wampa]

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!

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

No. It is not the “normative, licit formula.”
It is the essential forumla required for a valid absolution. An important difference.

Other Catholic rites have different forms because they have their own particular laws with regard to what constitutes a valid absolution. The laws are different, therefore the form necessary for that juridic act of absolution will likewise differ. What constitutes a valid juridic act under one code of laws does not constitute a valid juridic act under a different code (unless of course, the forms are coincidentally the same).

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.

Regarding the same question asked by the OP, Father Vincent Serpa stated on the link that you provided: “The Church accepts most variations of the formula for absolution as valid for the benefit of penitents. However, no priest has the authority to change the formula in any way.” There is a big difference between the priest saying “I absolve you…” and “May God the Father absolve you…” The priest uses “I” because he is acting “in persona Christi” in the person of Christ. I really don’t see a difference between saying “I absolve you” or “I absolve thee”

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.

The question that Jimmy Akin was responding to had to do with the omission of the words “…from your sins” which is understood. It could be that the priest was saying them in his mind but didn’t make it to his lips. I would think that this is of lesser concern than the question posted by the OP.

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.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Just for the sake of argument, why would a priest by intention use the wrong words?

No idea. But it happens, unfortunately. It would save a lot of people a lot of stress if they would just stick to the correct formula.

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!

Father Vincent Serpa, here on CAF, is a priest in good standing, too. Did you read his answer? Please see the link to his answer just above in the reply right before this one.

 

[zab]

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

I did not disagree with either Father Serpa or Jimmy Akin.

 

[FrDavid96]

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:
…
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.
…

I’ll break this down into pieces.

1. JA’s web-blog does not trump the teachings of the Church. I find it amazing here on CAF that some members want to insist that it does.
   For more than 4 centuries now, the Latin Church has stated unequivocally that the words “I absolve you” (again, I’ll stick to English here) are the essential, necessary words of absolution. I, and others, can quote you one source after another that this is the Church’s teaching. (and in fact, I’ll provide one from Paul VI)

So we have on the one hand the consistent teaching of the Church for 400+ years, and on the other hand, one person’s internet posting. Which one are we to believe?

See the Rite of Penance approved by Pope Paul VI in 1973:
#19 "the priest…pronounces the formula of absolution, in which the essential words are ‘I absolve you…’ "

Now, look at that sentence. “The essential words” means just that “essential words.” It doesn’t mean something else. It doesn’t mean that the words are not-essential.

Now, I look at Fr. S’s words very carefully.
I’ll quote him here
“It is valid as long as the priest intends to do what the Church does, even if he omits the object of absolution”

Let’s look at that sentence, shall we? The key words are “even if he omits the object of absolution.” I agree 100% with Fr S. (surprised?)

You see, Father S. is talking about “omitting the object of absolution.” What does that mean? Well, it means that the priest omits the words “from your sins” since, after all that is the “object of absolution” or simply the “object” in the sentence.

Now, the Church, going back at least to the days of St Thomas Aquinas (see this link newadvent.org/summa/4084.htm#article3 ) has likewise said the same thing. The essential words are “I absolve you”, yet the words “from your sins” and “in the name of the Father…” are added to the formula, but are not strictly necessary for absolution. A concrete example of this is that if death is absolutely imminent, a priest need only say the words “I absolve you.” (period) and the juridic act of absolution occurs. The rites for Confession from the 1950s, 60s and 70s all state this quite clearly in the rubrics. Should the priest still add the other words? Yes, he should. But the Church still holds the position that the essential words are “I absolve you” but the other words like “from your sins” or “from censure, excommunication, interdict” (extraordinary form) should be added, but are not strictly necessary for absolution.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

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.
…

This really needs to be addressed because the argument appears often here on CAF:
The notion that because different Rites of the Church use different forms of absolution, they are all valid (if illicit).
While on its face, that argument might seem to have merit, in fact, it does not. Allow me…

Remember that absolution is a juridic act of the Church. Yes, I keep repeating it, but that’s because it is such an essential point.

You see, what constitutes a valid juridic act under one code of laws is not necessarily a valid juridic act under a different code of laws. Allow me to illustrate:

I recall seeing an illustration in a Sherlock Holmes book where one character grabs the “bad guy” and says “I arrest you in the name of the Queen!” Now, I don’t know if this is legally binding, but for the sake of discussion, let’s just say that it is, ok? In England the words “I arrest you in the name of the Queen” means that a legal act (a juridic act) has just occurred. Now, if that story were to happen in the US, the words “I arrest you in the name of the Queen” would have no force of law—none whatsoever. Why? because the laws of one country, defining a legal act, are different from those of another. Do you see the point here?

A New York City police officer can say “I arrest you in the name of the Queen!” all day long, but the criminal is still not under arrest. In NYC, the laws of England defining a juridic act have no effect. A NYPD officer must use whatever juridic formula has force-of-law within that jurisdiction–otherwise, the bad guy can say “go pound salt” and walk away free and clear.

The same applies in the Church. The formulas necessary for other Sacraments (like Consecration of the Eucharist) are all valid across the Catholic Churches sui iuris; again, valid but illicit. However, because absolution is a juridic act, the priest must (again, must) use the proper form of absolution as defined by the particular law of that specific Church sui iuris. That’s the essential point here. Each code of laws defines what constitutes that juridic act.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m going to address a pervading issue here.

I’ve seen quite a few posts which speak of an absolution being “valid but illicit.”

With regard to absolution, that is impossible.

Since absolution is by definition, a juridic act of the Church, it is a legal act of the Church. Remember that “licit” and “legal” mean the same thing.

Let’s re-word the sentence, substituting synonyms as we go along, shall we?

Absolution can be valid but illicit.

A juridic act of the Church can be valid but illicit.

A legal act of the Church can be valid but illicit.

A legal act of the Church can be valid but illegal.

Now wait!!!

How can we say that an act can be “legal” but “illegal” at the same time? (no sophistry, please, thank you very much!)

You see friends, it just doesn’t make any sense.

Because absolution is a juridic act of the Church, it must always be done licitly (ie, according to the applicable law). If it’s illicit, then it is, by definition, not valid either.

 

[zab]

I’ll break this down into pieces.

1. JA’s web-blog does not trump the teachings of the Church. I find it amazing here on CAF that some members want to insist that it does.
   For more than 4 centuries now, the Latin Church has stated unequivocally that the words “I absolve you” (again, I’ll stick to English here) are the essential, necessary words of absolution. I, and others, can quote you one source after another that this is the Church’s teaching. (and in fact, I’ll provide one from Paul VI)

So we have on the one hand the consistent teaching of the Church for 400+ years, and on the other hand, one person’s internet posting. Which one are we to believe?

See the Rite of Penance approved by Pope Paul VI in 1973:
#19 "the priest…pronounces the formula of absolution, in which the essential words are ‘I absolve you…’ "

Now, look at that sentence. “The essential words” means just that “essential words.” It doesn’t mean something else. It doesn’t mean that the words are not-essential.

**Now, I look at Fr. S’s words very carefully. **
I’ll quote him here
"It is valid as long as the priest intends to do what the Church does, even if he omits the object of absolution"

Let’s look at that sentence, shall we? The key words are “even if he omits the object of absolution.” I agree 100% with Fr S. (surprised?)

You see, Father S. is talking about “omitting the object of absolution.” What does that mean? Well, it means that the priest omits the words “from your sins” since, after all that is the “object of absolution” or simply the “object” in the sentence.

Now, the Church, going back at least to the days of St Thomas Aquinas (see this link newadvent.org/summa/4084.htm#article3 ) has likewise said the same thing. The essential words are “I absolve you”, yet the words “from your sins” and “in the name of the Father…” are added to the formula, but are not strictly necessary for absolution. A concrete example of this is that if death is absolutely imminent, a priest need only say the words “I absolve you.” (period) and the juridic act of absolution occurs. The rites for Confession from the 1950s, 60s and 70s all state this quite clearly in the rubrics. Should the priest still add the other words? Yes, he should. But the Church still holds the position that the essential words are “I absolve you” but the other words like “from your sins” or “from censure, excommunication, interdict” (extraordinary form) should be added, but are not strictly necessary for absolution.

For clarification, it was Jimmy Akin, not Fr. Serpa who was speaking about "words of omission.

 

[FrDavid96]

For clarification, it was Jimmy Akin, not Fr. Serpa who was speaking about "words of omission.

OK

It still doesn’t change what I wrote earlier, though.

1. The object can be omitted in the sentence. “I absolve you from your sins” can be “I absolve you” and it’s still a valid absolution.
2. The consistent teaching of the Church for at least 4 centuries is that the words “I absolve you” are absolutely necessary and essential for the juridic act of absolution to occur (in the Latin Church). There’s simply no denying this.

 

[zab]

OK

It still doesn’t change what I wrote earlier, though.

1. The object can be omitted in the sentence. “I absolve you from your sins” can be “I absolve you” and it’s still a valid absolution.
2. The consistent teaching of the Church for at least 4 centuries is that the words “I absolve you” are absolutely necessary and essential for the juridic act of absolution to occur (in the Latin Church). There’s simply no denying this.

It is just that your previous post came across as a slight when you said:* **JA’s web-blog does not trump the teachings of the Church. I find it amazing here on CAF that some members want to insist that it does. ** *
I haven’t read every post about Jimmy Akin on this CAF but I certainly did not see any post on this thread in which a person insisted that JA blog triumphs the Church. In fact Fone Bone 2001 even stated Jimmy Akin “could be wrong”. And as it turned out, even you agreed with Jimmy Akin,

 

[mafh]

Absolution can be valid but illicit.

A juridic act of the Church can be valid but illicit.

Father,

Is this the basic idea? What the penitent really cares about is forgiveness, from God, for his sins. Absolution is a legal act of the church by which this forgiveness can be administered. If the absolution by the church’s representative (the priest, who is simultaneously standing in for God) is not legally correct, then the absolution is not granted. However, this doesn’t mean that the penitent isn’t forgiven by God, since God isn’t limited to the legal laws of the church. It could be that God grants forgiveness anyway, and presumably does so if the penitent really was repentant and went to confession with the aim of receiving absolution. So, as far as the state of the penitent’s soul is concerned, everything is probably ok and God likely has forgiven him.

However, reception of the Eucharist has a legal requirement by church law that the recipient currently be absolved from any mortal sin, in accordance with church law. Even though the penitent may be forgiven, if the absolution was unfortunately deficient in a serious way, even though it is due to an error by the priest, the legal requirement is not met. So, the penitent should not receive communion, even though it is likely that God has forgiven him. The remedy is to talk to a priest, and if necessary, re-confess those previous sins during the next confession. This now meets the legal requirement. So, it’s more on the order of a bit of an administrative nuisance for the penitent rather that something that seriously jeopardizes their soul. (I know that administrative nuisance doesn’t really cover the emotional anguish Catholics must feel when denied the Eucharist, but the point is that their soul isn’t in any real danger.)

Is this understanding correct?

 

[FrDavid96]

Father,

Is this the basic idea? What the penitent really cares about is forgiveness, from God, for his sins. Absolution is a legal act of the church by which this forgiveness can be administered. If the absolution by the church’s representative (the priest, who is simultaneously standing in for God) is not legally correct, then the absolution is not granted. However, this doesn’t mean that the penitent isn’t forgiven by God, since God isn’t limited to the legal laws of the church. It could be that God grants forgiveness anyway, and presumably does so if the penitent really was repentant and went to confession with the aim of receiving absolution. So, as far as the state of the penitent’s soul is concerned, everything is probably ok and God likely has forgiven him.

However, reception of the Eucharist has a legal requirement by church law that the recipient currently be absolved from any mortal sin, in accordance with church law. Even though the penitent may be forgiven, if the absolution was unfortunately deficient in a serious way, even though it is due to an error by the priest, the legal requirement is not met. So, the penitent should not receive communion, even though it is likely that God has forgiven him. The remedy is to talk to a priest, and if necessary, re-confess those previous sins during the next confession. This now meets the legal requirement. So, it’s more on the order of a bit of an administrative nuisance for the penitent rather that something that seriously jeopardizes their soul. (I know that administrative nuisance doesn’t really cover the emotional anguish Catholics must feel when denied the Eucharist, but the point is that their soul isn’t in any real danger.)

Is this understanding correct?

As to your first paragraph: absolutely yes.
You win the kewpie doll!

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.

Finally, yes. As you said, the solution is to talk to a qualified priest who has faculties to hear confessions, and especially one who can be trusted not to mess around with the form of absolution. Whatever the circumstances, that priest will know what to do, and will do it.

 

[FrDavid96]

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:

Are you sure that we’re giving contradictory answers?

Think about it, please. Re-read my posts and his post if necessary. Now, admittedly I have written quite a bit more than he did (his answers are brief because that’s the nature of the ask-an-apologist section, after all).

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.
…

Are you sure he said that?
In all seriousness: Are you certain that Father S. said that, or perhaps do you just think that he said that?
Don’t answer hastily here. It’s very important. Did he actually write that?

 

[Wampa]

Father Vincent Serpa, here on CAF, is a priest in good standing, too. Did you read his answer? Please see the link to his answer just above in the reply right before this one.

Without a doubt he is and I did read it! I did not mention him because he didn’t post in this thread, but I definitely appreciate his answers, too

In the link provided, I find his particular answer there less helpful due to its brevity. I’d love to have seen him say more.

BTW, my reference to unhelpful opinions was not in reference to your posts, but more thinking about the string of opinions posted early in the thread that are along the lines of “God knows our intention and forgives us no matter what the priest says”. That’s more of an “I hope it’s this way” opinion that doesn’t really shed any light on the topic, IMO.

 

[zab]

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:

It does come across that way.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I did not disagree with either Father Serpa or Jimmy Akin.

Ah, sorry - I don’t remember if I was trying to imply that you did disagree - if so, sorry for misinterpreting you; if not, sorry for giving the wrong impression.

I’ll break this down into pieces.

1. JA’s web-blog does not trump the teachings of the Church. I find it amazing here on CAF that some members want to insist that it does.

This claim presupposes that his answer does, in fact, contradict the teachings of the Church. That is precisely what is in dispute here, so assuming it as a premise begs the question. I agree without reservation that someone’s blog cannot trump Church teaching; I have yet to be convinced, however, that his position isn’t faithful to the Church’s understanding.

For more than 4 centuries now, the Latin Church has stated unequivocally that the words “I absolve you” (again, I’ll stick to English here) are the essential, necessary words of absolution.

Well… obviously not, since we have different eastern-rite formulas whose validity is unquestioned and which do not use that phrasing.

So we have on the one hand the consistent teaching of the Church for 400+ years, and on the other hand, one person’s internet posting. Which one are we to believe?

If Akin’s explanation - which you haven’t addressed - of what Trent is saying is correct, then he and the Church’s teachings are in full accord.

See the Rite of Penance approved by Pope Paul VI in 1973:
#19 "the priest…pronounces the formula of absolution, in which the essential words are ‘I absolve you…’ "

Now, look at that sentence. “The essential words” means just that “essential words.” It doesn’t mean something else. It doesn’t mean that the words are not-essential.

They’re the essential words in the approved Latin Church formula. Again, the eastern rites prove that in different formulas, a different part might constitute the essential words.

Remember the parallel example I cited concerning the Holy See’s recognition of the validity of the Liturgy of Addai and Mari? In our rite’s approved texts, “This is my body” is essential. The Liturgy of Addai and Mari doesn’t quote that statement, yet it’s still a valid Eucharistic anaphora.

Now, I look at Fr. S’s words very carefully.
I’ll quote him here
“It is valid as long as the priest intends to do what the Church does, even if he omits the object of absolution”

Let’s look at that sentence, shall we? The key words are “even if he omits the object of absolution.” I agree 100% with Fr S. (surprised?)

You see, Father S. is talking about “omitting the object of absolution.” What does that mean? Well, it means that the priest omits the words “from your sins” since, after all that is the “object of absolution” or simply the “object” in the sentence.

The person who submitted the question specifically cited that the priest to whom he went to Confession said, “May God forgive you,” etc., as his words of absolution.

So the priest who heard the questioner’s Confession did not say “I absolve you,” yet Father Serpa reassured him of his absolution’s validity anyway.

This really needs to be addressed because the argument appears often here on CAF:
The notion that because different Rites of the Church use different forms of absolution, they are all valid (if illicit).
While on its face, that argument might seem to have merit, in fact, it does not. Allow me…

Remember that absolution is a juridic act of the Church. Yes, I keep repeating it, but that’s because it is such an essential point.

You see, what constitutes a valid juridic act under one code of laws is not necessarily a valid juridic act under a different code of laws. Allow me to illustrate:

… Now, if that story were to happen in the US, the words “I arrest you in the name of the Queen” would have no force of law—none whatsoever. Why? because the laws of one country, defining a legal act, are different from those of another. Do you see the point here?

A New York City police officer can say “I arrest you in the name of the Queen!” all day long, but the criminal is still not under arrest. In NYC, the laws of England defining a juridic act have no effect. A NYPD officer must use whatever juridic formula has force-of-law within that jurisdiction–otherwise, the bad guy can say “go pound salt” and walk away free and clear.

The same applies in the Church. The formulas necessary for other Sacraments (like Consecration of the Eucharist) are all valid across the Catholic Churches sui iuris; again, valid but illicit. However, because absolution is a juridic act, the priest must (again, must) use the proper form of absolution as defined by the particular law of that specific Church sui iuris. That’s the essential point here. Each code of laws defines what constitutes that juridic act.

Okay, I understand. Why does an absolution formula’s juridical status concern Sacramental validity rather than licitness? I mean, “juridical” comes from the Latin word meaning “law.”

I wouldn’t think to claim that ad libbing alternative word of absolution is licit… I’m asking why such illicitness in this case also renders the absolution itself null and void - with forgiveness not occurring, grace not imparted, etc.?

Again, with other Sacraments like the Holy Eucharist, the Church’s teachings make a distinction between validity and licitness. Why not here?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I’m going to address a pervading issue here.

I’ve seen quite a few posts which speak of an absolution being “valid but illicit.”

With regard to absolution, that is impossible.

Since absolution is by definition, a juridic act of the Church, it is a legal act of the Church. Remember that “licit” and “legal” mean the same thing.

Let’s re-word the sentence, substituting synonyms as we go along, shall we?

Absolution can be valid but illicit.

A juridic act of the Church can be valid but illicit.

A legal act of the Church can be valid but illicit.

A legal act of the Church can be valid but illegal.

Now wait!!!

How can we say that an act can be “legal” but “illegal” at the same time? (no sophistry, please, thank you very much!)

You see friends, it just doesn’t make any sense.

Because absolution is a juridic act of the Church, it must always be done licitly (ie, according to the applicable law). If it’s illicit, then it is, by definition, not valid either.

Absolution is a juridic act, but it’s not merely or exclusively a juridic act, right? It’s supernatural as well, right?

Also, I see your point that it’s nonsense to say that an act can be “legal” but “illegal” at the same time, but Akin’s argument doesn’t state this. With a Latin priest ad libbing a formula like “May God absolve you,” why can’t it be true that the act is legal (assuming that priest has faculties from his bishop) while the verbal formula is illegal?

AAre you sure he said that?
In all seriousness: Are you certain that Father S. said that, or perhaps do you just think that he said that?
Don’t answer hastily here. It’s very important. Did he actually write that?

A fair question, Father!

He reassured the questioner with the sentence, “The Church accepts most variations of the formula for absolution as valid for the benefit of the penitents” after the questioner explicitly stated that the priest who was hearing his confession did not use the phrase “I absolve you” in his formula of absolution…

Without a doubt he is and I did read it! I did not mention him because he didn’t post in this thread, but I definitely appreciate his answers, too

In the link provided, I find his particular answer there less helpful due to its brevity. I’d love to have seen him say more.

BTW, my reference to unhelpful opinions was not in reference to your posts, but more thinking about the string of opinions posted early in the thread that are along the lines of “God knows our intention and forgives us no matter what the priest says”. That’s more of an “I hope it’s this way” opinion that doesn’t really shed any light on the topic, IMO.

I agree. The argument is a valid one, and generalized reassurances about God’s forgiveness don’t actually address it.

It does come across that way.

Then I apologize to Father David.

Father David, I apologize if I showed disrespect. If I did, it was unintentional. I didn’t mean “I mean no disrespect” as sarcasm; rather, I said it because I know it can be justly irritating when someone argues with you when you’re sure you’re right.

Your patience and thoroughness are appreciated, Father, and I am sorry if I’ve been exasperating you in any way. I keep responding not out of a desire to do so - far from it! - but because I’m honestly convinced of both the truth and the importance of the position I’ve adopted on this matter…

 

[zab]

It does come across that way.

I meant that it does come across as contradictory when one priest says that the confession was “valid…” and the two on this thread say that it was “invalid…” and it was pointed out that something can’t be valid and illicit at the same time.