Valid absolution

[Irina]

I’d appreciate your thoughts about something that’s been bothering me for some time.

In confession, I understand that that minimum form necessary for validity is “I absolve you from your sins” and arguably also “in the name of the F,S and HS”.

However, I have been to confession a number of times where the word “all” is added in … so I hear “I absolve you from ALL your sins …”

As far as I’m aware, this is not a licit variation. But does it affect the validity of the absolution?

I have tried to research this on the internet. From what I have found out, it appears that the Council of Trent said that the necessary words are “I absolve you etc”, to which additional prayers can be added. Unfortunately, my question concerns the “etc”!

My feeling is that it’s probably OK. But I don’t like relying on “probably” when it comes to a sacrament. It seems to me that one of the great things about the sacraments is the certainty they can offer.

I have been wondering about this for several years and would like to be able to resolve it. I’m in no way scrupulous (quite the opposite at times!) but I am precise, both by inclination and professional training, and I understand that little things can sometimes have large implications. I would really appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks!

 

[pickguard1]

From what I have read, there seem to have been, and still are, a wide variety of customs regarding the words of absolution. I think this is the reason for the “&c.” in Trent.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

“The form of the Sacrament of penance, wherein its force principally consists, is placed in those words of the minister “I absolve thee, etc.”; to these words indeed, in accordance with the usage of Holy Church, certain prayers are laudably added, but they do not pertain to the essence of the form nor are they necessary for the administration of the sacrament” (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 3).

To me, this means that the only thing necessary is that the Priest say “I absolve thee,” and you are absolved, provided he is has valid faculties for administering the sacrament and your interior disposition (contrition) is there to make you a valid recipient. Of course, Trent also says that certain prayers are laudable added, so you would expect more than just those three words, but I don’t think anything else is required. This of course, only pertains to the Latin Rite.

Here is another example of how different the rights/words may be and still be valid.

From the Catechism

1481 The Byzantine Liturgy recognizes several formulas of absolution, in the form of invocation, which admirably express the mystery of forgiveness: “May the same God, who through the Prophet Nathan forgave David when he confessed his sins, who forgave Peter when he wept bitterly, the prostitute when she washed his feet with her tears, the Pharisee, and the prodigal son, through me, a sinner, forgive you both in this life and in the next and enable you to appear before his awe-inspiring tribunal without condemnation, he who is blessed for ever and ever. Amen.”

 

[bostonboy23]

I’d appreciate your thoughts about something that’s been bothering me for some time.

In confession, I understand that that minimum form necessary for validity is “I absolve you from your sins” and arguably also “in the name of the F,S and HS”.

However, I have been to confession a number of times where the word “all” is added in … so I hear “I absolve you from ALL your sins …”

As far as I’m aware, this is not a licit variation. But does it affect the validity of the absolution?

I have tried to research this on the internet. From what I have found out, it appears that the Council of Trent said that the necessary words are “I absolve you etc”, to which additional prayers can be added. Unfortunately, my question concerns the “etc”!

My feeling is that it’s probably OK. But I don’t like relying on “probably” when it comes to a sacrament. It seems to me that one of the great things about the sacraments is the certainty they can offer.

I have been wondering about this for several years and would like to be able to resolve it. I’m in no way scrupulous (quite the opposite at times!) but I am precise, both by inclination and professional training, and I understand that little things can sometimes have large implications. I would really appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks!

its the same for the words of consecration."this is my body this is my blood which will be given up for you(many,all) so that sins may be forgiven.

in the bible the greek word for all is sometimes used for the greek word for many it means the same thing translation wise. its probably the same situation here. the only necessary thing for absolution is that the priest say i absolve you from your(all) sins in the name of the father son and holy spirit. if he doesn’t say f s and hs its not valid. just like baptism. the priest is invoking god so he needs to use all his names(for lack of a better word),

 

[Irina]

From what I have read, there seem to have been, and still are, a wide variety of customs regarding the words of absolution. I think this is the reason for the “&c.” in Trent.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

“The form of the Sacrament of penance, wherein its force principally consists, is placed in those words of the minister “I absolve thee, etc.”; to these words indeed, in accordance with the usage of Holy Church, certain prayers are laudably added, but they do not pertain to the essence of the form nor are they necessary for the administration of the sacrament” (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 3).

To me, this means that the only thing necessary is that the Priest say “I absolve thee,” and you are absolved, provided he is has valid faculties for administering the sacrament and your interior disposition (contrition) is there to make you a valid recipient. Of course, Trent also says that certain prayers are laudable added, so you would expect more than just those three words, but I don’t think anything else is required. This of course, only pertains to the Latin Rite.

I’m not entirely sure I’m convinced by this. The Council seems to be distinguishing two separate sets of words here: 1) words which are necessary for validity, and 2) words/prayers which are laudably added but are not necessary.

I agree that the words “I absolve you” clearly fall within 1) - ie they are necessary for validity, and that the beginning and end prayers clearly fall within 2) - ie they are not necessary for validity.

But the council does include something else within 1) which is the “etc”. Surely this clearly indicates that there is something else necessary for validity, even if exactly what that is is (helpfully!) not spelt out.

My concern is that that “something” is most likely to be the next few words “…of your sins”, and that is the part that seems so often to be altered.

What do you think?

 

[pickguard1]

I’m not entirely sure I’m convinced by this. The Council seems to be distinguishing two separate sets of words here: 1) words which are necessary for validity, and 2) words/prayers which are laudably added but are not necessary.

I agree that the words “I absolve you” clearly fall within 1) - ie they are necessary for validity, and that the beginning and end prayers clearly fall within 2) - ie they are not necessary for validity.

But the council does include something else within 1) which is the “etc”. Surely this clearly indicates that there is something else necessary for validity, even if exactly what that is is (helpfully!) not spelt out.

My concern is that that “something” is most likely to be the next few words “…of your sins”, and that is the part that seems so often to be altered.

What do you think?

Ahh, you make an excellent observation that I totally missed. I mistakenly assumed the etc. was referring to the prayers afterward. Looking at it again I would say that, objectively speaking, when the priest says “I absolve you of your sins” does he not absolve you of “all” your sins? We are taught that the absolution wipes away all mortal and venial sins, so to me, if he says “all” or not the intention and what actually occur are still in perfect alignment.
I haven’t been able to find anywhere that states what the specific valid and licit form is though. The above is just my gut feeling.

 

[pickguard1]

I would also agree on reflection that the Trinitarian ending is most likely necessary for licit (maybe even valid) absolution. Although it may not render it invalid since in the Byzantine rite I quoted above, no mention of the Trinity is made. However an explicit reference to the One True God (in vaious forms) is included to show that forgiveness comes from him through the priest.

 

[Irina]

We are taught that the absolution wipes away all mortal and venial sins, so to me, if he says “all” or not the intention and what actually occur are still in perfect alignment.

Is it true that absolution wipes away all venial sins, including those which have not been confessed and for which there is no contrition? I’d thought not, but I’m open to correction!

If it does not, however, then isn’t there a tension between what the priest says and what actually happens (as you imply)?

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut on this - I’m very grateful!

 

[pickguard1]

Is it true that absolution wipes away all venial sins, including those which have not been confessed and for which there is no contrition? I’d thought not, but I’m open to correction!

If it does not, however, then isn’t there a tension between what the priest says and what actually happens (as you imply)?

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut on this - I’m very grateful!

Yes, the absolution wipes away any unconfessed venial sins, as well as any mortal sins that may have been forgotten.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

'"**Venial sins **by which we are not deprived of the grace of God and into which we very frequently fall are rightly and usefully declared in confession; but mention of them may, **without any fault, be omitted **and they can be expiated by many other remedies" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 3). Thus, an act of contrition suffices to obtain forgiveness of venial sin, and the same effect is produced by the worthy reception of sacraments other than penance, e.g., by Holy Communion. ’

From the Catechism

“1493 One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, must confess to a priest all the unconfessed **grave sins he remembers **after having carefully examined his conscience. the **confession of venial faults, without being necessary **in itself, is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.”

And here

On forgiveness through reception of the Eucharist

"1393 Holy Communion separates us from sin. the body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion is “given up for us,” and the blood we drink “shed for the many for the forgiveness of sins.” For this reason **the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins **and preserving us from future sins:

For as often as we eat this bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the death of the Lord. If we proclaim the Lord’s death, we proclaim the forgiveness of sins. If, as often as his blood is poured out, it is poured for the forgiveness of sins, I should always receive it, so that it may always forgive my sins. Because I always sin, I should always have a remedy.227"

(This doesn’t mean “mortal sins” however as stated here)

“1395 By the same charity that it enkindles in us, the Eucharist preserves us from future mortal sins. the more we share the life of Christ and progress in his friendship, the more difficult it is to break away from him by mortal sin. the Eucharist is not ordered to the forgiveness of mortal sins - that is proper to the sacrament of Reconciliation. the Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church.”

As an after thought here is another link the the encylopedia which states what I thought earlier about only “I absolve thee” being the necessry form for valid absolution.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

Form
“It is the teaching of the Council of Trent that the form of the Sacrament of Penance, wherein its force principally consists, is placed in these words of the minister, “I absolve thee”; to which words certain prayers are, according to the custom of Holy Church, laudably added etc. (Sess. XIV, iii).”

Regardless, I think that the intent of the priest must be to do as the Church does, so If the priest is orthodox in his theology, one could presume that if he only says “I absolve thee” he means through the ministry given him by Christ and not of any power inherent in himself.

 

[Digitonomy]

But the council does include something else within 1) which is the “etc”. Surely this clearly indicates that there is something else necessary for validity, even if exactly what that is is (helpfully!) not spelt out.

My concern is that that “something” is most likely to be the next few words “…of your sins”, and that is the part that seems so often to be altered.

What do you think?

If those specific words were required for validity, I think they would have been spelled out. Without actually looking at the full quote from Trent, I’d guess they included the “etc” to make clear they weren’t establishing a simple formula of just 3 words, but that additional verbiage was permitted in section 1), even if it was not part of any prayer in section 2). I would think the “etc” could vary widely, so long as it does not contradict the Church’s teaching on the sacrament, e.g. “in the name of Beelzebub” would invalidate it.

“All your sins” reflects perfectly what is happening, so it seems like a slam dunk to me. If he said “I absolve you of a few of your sins,” that would be a trickier question - maybe pickguard1 or someone else knowledgeable in this area can provide some insight, but I would call its validity dubious.

 

[pickguard1]

If those specific words were required for validity, I think they would have been spelled out. Without actually looking at the full quote from Trent, I’d guess they included the “etc” to make clear they weren’t establishing a simple formula of just 3 words, but that additional verbiage was permitted in section 1), even if it was not part of any prayer in section 2). I would think the “etc” could vary widely, so long as it does not contradict the Church’s teaching on the sacrament, e.g. “in the name of Beelzebub” would invalidate it.

“All your sins” reflects perfectly what is happening, so it seems like a slam dunk to me. If he said “I absolve you of a few of your sins,” that would be a trickier question - maybe pickguard1 or someone else knowledgeable in this area can provide some insight, but I would call its validity dubious.

I agree with you Digitonomy, but I wouldn’t claim to be knowledgeable in this area - I’m just looking things up and offering my opinion. I would say that your are right about the “few of your sins” being of dubious validity (competely invalid IMH), because it doesn’t posess the intent of the Sacrament, which is supposed to conform to the Church - and my understanding is that it is the forgiveness of all one’s mortal sins that is the object of the Church’s intent in this Sacrament. This is due to the fact that if you’re conscious of even one mortal sin and don’t confess it, even though you confess all your other mortal sins and are truly sorry for them, the whole confession is invalid by virtue of the one known and unconfessed mortal sin. So the obvious intent for each instance of absolution is the forgiveness of all mortal sins. To indend to do ohterwise would invalidate it.

(I hope this reasoning makes sense )

 

[Brendan]

I’m not entirely sure I’m convinced by this. The Council seems to be distinguishing two separate sets of words here: 1) words which are necessary for validity, and 2) words/prayers which are laudably added but are not necessary.

I agree that the words “I absolve you” clearly fall within 1) - ie they are necessary for validity, and that the beginning and end prayers clearly fall within 2) - ie they are not necessary for validity.

But the council does include something else within 1) which is the “etc”. Surely this clearly indicates that there is something else necessary for validity, even if exactly what that is is (helpfully!) not spelt out.

My concern is that that “something” is most likely to be the next few words “…of your sins”, and that is the part that seems so often to be altered.

What do you think?

Even the 'I absovle thee" is mutable.

The standard Rutherian Catholic form uses a passive form " You are absolved…", as opposed to the Roman “I absolve”

The key elements for validity would be

Form - this has a high degree of variancy, but the key elements are that the penitents sins are absolved, and that this is done by Divine Authority

Matter - The matter, of course, are the sins themselves and the contrition thereof.

Intent - the Intent of one who is a competent minister.

 

[pickguard1]

Even the 'I absovle thee" is mutable.

The standard Rutherian Catholic form uses a passive form " You are absolved…", as opposed to the Roman “I absolve”

The key elements for validity would be

Form - this has a high degree of variancy, but the key elements are that the penitents sins are absolved, and that this is done by Divine Authority

Matter - The matter, of course, are the sins themselves and the contrition thereof.

Intent - the Intent of one who is a competent minister.

Thanks Brendan! Yeah, I think that there is considerable variance among the different rites and that human language, being what it is, can express perfectly the same thing (at least in the area - the forgiveness of sins) in a multitude of ways without the expression losing its meaning.

 

[dans0622]

For St. Thomas Aquinas’s explanation of the effect of changing the words, check this link, paying special attention to the “I answer that…” part.

newadvent.org/summa/4060.htm#article8

Also, judging from the Rite of Penance, #21, the essential words of the sacrament are “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

I do not see how adding “all” to the formula would invalidate it. That would seem to be St. Thomas’s view as well.

Dan

 

[pickguard1]

For St. Thomas Aquinas’s explanation of the effect of changing the words, check this link, paying special attention to the “I answer that…” part.

newadvent.org/summa/4060.htm#article8

Also, judging from the Rite of Penance, #21, the essential words of the sacrament are “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

I do not see how adding “all” to the formula would invalidate it. That would seem to be St. Thomas’s view as well.

Dan

-St Thomas, now THERE’s someone who’s knowledgeable in this area!

 

[Digitonomy]

So the obvious intent for each instance of absolution is the forgiveness of all mortal sins. To indend to do ohterwise would invalidate it.

Suppose the priest had a faulty understanding of the sacrament - if he simply intends to grant the absolution of the sacrament as the Church intends, but doesn’t realize that all sins are forgiven, not just the ones confessed? In other words, the priest doesn’t intend to withhold forgiveness, but doesn’t realize it’s in his power to absolve for those sins not remembered - in this situation I think the wording, while misleading, would not be an obstacle that would invalidate the sacrament.

 

[pickguard1]

Suppose the priest had a faulty understanding of the sacrament - if he simply intends to grant the absolution of the sacrament as the Church intends, but doesn’t realize that all sins are forgiven, not just the ones confessed? In other words, the priest doesn’t intend to withhold forgiveness, but doesn’t realize it’s in his power to absolve for those sins not remembered - in this situation I think the wording, while misleading, would not be an obstacle that would invalidate the sacrament.

If he said “I absolve you of that sin”, or “a few of your sins” I think that would render it of dubious validity, since, objectively he would not be intending what the Church intends. However, if his misunderstanding of the sacrament is genuine, and he believes he is intending to do what the Church intends, then I think it’s possible that what is lacking in his understanding might be supplied by the Mercy of God. Since the words “I absolve thee” are present the essential form is there, I think- the interior intent is to forgive sins (which theoretically if the penitent has only ONE sin, could mean the priest is only in fact forgiving ONE sin - same in a situation where the penitent has only THREE sins and the priest says “a few”) and the matter is the sin(s) themselves - all the elements of a valid sacrament would be there.

I would say that to find such a misguided priest who has legitimate faculties to hear confession you might have to go to another planet though. If you ever come across one, make sure you don’t let him stay in the darkness!:newidea:

 

[mysticmaven]

Hi, I went to confession this past weekend, and I believe that the priest used an invalid formula to give me the absolution. My memory is hazy, but at the time I remember thinking “ok, try to remember exactly what he said, because it sounded wrong.” I think what he said was something like: “May our Lord Jesus Christ forgive you your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” I distinctly remember thinking that sounded awfully strange. And I didn’t hear him say “I absolve you”.

Now, I have been to this priest for confession several times previously, and never once did I recall him giving me absolution in this manner. However, this week I went behind the screen for the first time, just on a whim.

I have heard about the principle of “ecclesia suppla”, meaning that “the church supplies the grace” when I am in no fault for having not received a valid absolution. However, if in fact my confession was not valid, do I now have the obligation to re-confess to a different priest?

-mysticmaven

 

[NHInsider]

Hi, I went to confession this past weekend, and I believe that the priest used an invalid formula to give me the absolution. My memory is hazy, but at the time I remember thinking “ok, try to remember exactly what he said, because it sounded wrong.” I think what he said was something like: “May our Lord Jesus Christ forgive you your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” I distinctly remember thinking that sounded awfully strange. And I didn’t hear him say “I absolve you”.

Now, I have been to this priest for confession several times previously, and never once did I recall him giving me absolution in this manner. However, this week I went behind the screen for the first time, just on a whim.

I have heard about the principle of “ecclesia suppla”, meaning that “the church supplies the grace” when I am in no fault for having not received a valid absolution. However, if in fact my confession was not valid, do I now have the obligation to re-confess to a different priest?

-mysticmaven

No. The words are not “magic” which can be invalidated by a mis-statement. The grace comes from God by the authority and promise of Jesus to the Apostles and their successors. The Holy Spirit does the work and your disposition receives the grace.

Having said that I find that this issue has been recently addressed by Zenit and they took a more stringent line than I would (no surprise) but still conclude that unless one is confessing mortal sin no repeat confession is necessary:

A: A slight lapse or omission in reciting the formula of absolution would not affect its validity, provided that the words “I absolve you from your sins” are said. While a priest should always recite the complete formula of absolution, in urgent cases, especially when there is imminent danger of death, the above essential words would be sufficient for validity.

Of course, here we are dealing with the Roman rite. Eastern Catholic Churches have other valid formulas, most of which do not contain the “I absolve you” expression.

It is a liturgical abuse to shorten the absolution formula because there are many penitents awaiting confession. It is legitimate in such cases, however, to encourage the faithful to use one of the brief acts of contrition found in the rite of penance.

As the formula of absolution is the form of the sacrament of reconciliation, the recitation of its essential part is required for validity and its complete omission would void the sacrament.

In this case God would certainly restore a sincere penitent to the state of grace in spite of the priest’s omission. But this would not remove the obligation of confessing a mortal sin again and receiving absolution. It would not be necessary in the case of venial sin.
ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur243.htm

 

[dashso40]

Jesus forgives you, that’s why the priest said in the name of Jesus…It sounds valid to me. Did the priest give you a penance, like saying a certain prayer?

 

[LilyM]

No. The words are not “magic” which can be invalidated by a mis-statement. The grace comes from God by the authority and promise of Jesus to the Apostles and their successors. The Holy Spirit does the work and your disposition receives the grace.

Having said that I find that this issue has been recently addressed by Zenit and they took a more stringent line than I would (no surprise) but still conclude that unless one is confessing mortal sin no repeat confession is necessary:

Valid form (meaning form of words) is one of the three necessities for any sacrament to be validly administered. That’s long-established official Catholic teaching. It’s not to do with the words themselves being magic, but with Christ giving the Apostles (and through them the Magisterium) power to bind and loose, including binding its priests to use certain formulas of words in administering the sacraments.

Remembering that what is bound on earth is bound in heaven. Not to say that God cannot give us absolution absent correct form, but that we cannot presume that He will.

Whether the switching of ‘I absolve you’ to ‘may Jesus absolve you’ is a sufficient change to invalidate the sacrament is uncertain, but you know the rule - if in doubt don’t presume validity. Your immortal soul is too precious to take such a risk.

And no, reconfession of venial sins isn’t necessary - because confession of them at any stage isn’t necessary either.