Fyi, Monsignor William Smith in his book, “Modern Moral Problems: Trustworthy Answers to Your Tough Questions” answers a question on absolution validity on page 285 of the book (outlined in full below). The book has the nihil obstat and imprimatur and is available at Amazon in both paperback and ebook here:
https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Moral-Problems-Trustworthy-Questions/dp/158617634X
Valid Absolution
Question: Once, in confession, the priest used the formula: “It is my privilege to absolve you, and I do it in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” for absolution. Another time he said. “I forgive your sins” instead of “I absolve”. Are these valid?
Answer: The teaching and practice of the Church require close attention and exact observance when exercising the valid form of sacramental absolution. The new
Rite of Penance (December 2, 1973) clearly states the essential formula in large letters: “
Et ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, et Filii, + et Spiritus Sancti.” To which the penitent responds: “Amen” (
Ordo Paenitentiae, no. 46).
The formula has undergone changes in the course of the Church’s history. The direct indicative form now employed in the Latin Rite is, of course, obligatory. The prayer that accompanies the “form” (“
Deus, Pater misericordiarum…“) is not required for validity.
Session 14 of the Council of Trent (November 25, 1551) taught that the form of the sacrament chiefly lies in the words of the minister: “
Ego te absolvo ….”, to which words by a praiseworthy custom of Holy Church some prayers are added that do not affect the essence of the form (DS 1673).
The classic textbooks of moral theology (“approved authors”) address this point in some detail. All the “approved authors” admit the validity of “
Absolvo te a peccatis tuis ” (“I absolve you from your sins”). The same authors are in near-agreement on what is probably valid but insist (1) it is not lawful to use other forms and (2) there is no reasonable excuse for permitting forms that are no more than probably valid.4
In your second example, to use the word “
forgive” instead of
“absolve” - the rest being proper -Marecellino Zalba argues these are materially equivalent words (his examples:
remitto or
condono) and are valid.5
However, of your first example, I am not so sure: “It is my privilege to absolve you, and I do it.” … Hieronymus Noldin and Albert Schmitt give careful attention to what constitutes the essence of valid absolution. Their conclusion is threefold; it must include the following: (1) the one absolving (
absolvo); (2) the one absolved (
te); and (3) what’s absolved (
a peccatis).6 The strange formula your report does mention the first two, but it does not mention the third-what’s absolved. Some might judge this probably valid; in my opinion, it’s probably invalid. We are not free to invoke “Probabilism” where the validity of a sacrament is at stake.
continued….
