Valid absolution

[TMC]

I agree with you to a certain extent. I don’t think the recipient’s (mis)understanding of what the priest says can invalidate a sacrament, only his or her true contrition for their sins (since that is the matter of the sacrament and up to the penitent). However, stumbling over some words accidentally is entirely different than completely changing the words. I think we can agree that a priest couldn’t say “I don’t absolve you of any of your sins” but then afterwards say “Well, I meant to absolve you as the church intends, so the sacrament was valid.” That wouldn’t be true. Words have specific meanings, and we don’t get to make up their definitions on the fly. "if the priest were to say “I ablove thee” because he got tongue tied, it probably is still valid, since the intent to recite the proper form would be evident.

However, I think the whole thing is so easily resolved - say the words like you were instructed to Father! And if you mess up, or “slip”, start over and do it right. I mean, it takes a significant suspension of disbelief to accept that a priest with faculties for confession doesn’t know the correct form of the sacrament. Who can’t memorize “I absolve thee”? Certainly it is something the faithful should presume a priest of Christ’s Church is capable of memorizing.

That’s why I think that the presumption leans more towards invalid if the form is changed, since if the priest intends to do as the Church does, should he not also do it in the manner the Church provides? To use his own words implies a rebellion against Church authority, and if he doesn’t care about the little, easy things, what about the big, hard things?

Its not that form is not important, its that the correct form revolves around what the priest and penitent intend to do, not over the exact words chosen.

What is required is for the penitent to confess in sincere good faith and for the priest to absolve the penitent with the same sincerity. The reason why the “wrong words” may bring validity into question is that it makes it hard to tell if the priest and penitent are doing their parts in good faith. If the priests says, “OK whatever, NEXT!” then I think there is good reason to question whether he was meaning to absolve the pentitent in good faith. But if the priest says something that communicates that he is doing what the Sacrament is intended to do, then the Sacrament is valid, even if illicit.

People are saying that changing even one word invalidates this (or any) Sacrament. Is there any authority for that position? I have never seen any teaching of the Church that says this. The Canon doesn’t say that, and neither does the Catechism. The apologists that I have read (like Akin) all say that the precise choice of words effects licitness, but not validity.

 

[Timothysis]

I do not think that anyone here regards the form of a sacrament as inconsequential; I know I certainly don’t. In fact, I think that the form is of the utmost importance and that all priests should use the correct form as the Church requires and as they’ve been taught. There is no argument here.

However, I think that people sometimes get too caught up in the technicalities of “did he say this word or that” when it comes to the celebration of the sacraments. While baptizing “in the name of the creator, of the redeemer and of the inspirer” is fundamentally outside of the Catholic faith we shouldn’t get too caught up if someone perceives that the priest did not say “in the name of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Spirit.” The attitude around here seems to be that when in doubt, one should throw a yellow flag and ask for a redo. I remember reading here once that in the confessional, the penitent did not recognize the rite of absolution and so interrupted the priest and asked him to use the correct form. Not surprisingly, the priest got a bit miffed.

Put yourself in the role of the priest. Would you want a bunch of armchair theologians pouring over your every act and action, ready to haul you on the carpet at the slightest deviation? That is a very high place to put oneself. As someone once told me, the Church is only as small as one tries to make it.

 

[pickguard1]

Its not that form is not important, its that the correct form revolves around what the priest and penitent intend to do, not over the exact words chosen.

What is required is for the penitent to confess in sincere good faith and for the priest to absolve the penitent with the same sincerity. The reason why the “wrong words” may bring validity into question is that it makes it hard to tell if the priest and penitent are doing their parts in good faith. If the priests says, “OK whatever, NEXT!” then I think there is good reason to question whether he was meaning to absolve the pentitent in good faith. But if the priest says something that communicates that he is doing what the Sacrament is intended to do, then the Sacrament is valid, even if illicit.

People are saying that changing even one word invalidates this (or any) Sacrament. Is there any authority for that position? I have never seen any teaching of the Church that says this. The Canon doesn’t say that, and neither does the Catechism. The apologists that I have read (like Akin) all say that the precise choice of words effects licitness, but not validity.

I’m not advocating that changing one word *per se *automatically invalidates a sacrament. Changing one “specific” word can, though. “This is My Body” This one would be hard to change any words without invalidating it. There isn’t really another way to say it. One might be able to add a word without invalidating it, such as This bread is My Body. Illicit, but still conveys the same meaning, since the word “This” is an adjective which implies the subject “bread.” However, in Baptism, changing I baptize “thee” to I baptize “you” isn’t really changing the words - thee and you are the same word, just different forms. But as a previous poster said, if the words of baptism change from "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Ghost) to, Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier, it’s invalid, not just illicit. Likewise, “I baptise you, in the name of the Trinity”, doesn’t work. For confession, it’s a bit different since the form isn’t strictly based on specific words of Christ. So “I absolve thee” or “I forgive thee” are the same in meaning, whereas, “you are forgiven” starts to skirt the edge, because the actor is changed. It could still mean “you are forgiven (by me, through the power of God)” - still valid, but it could also mean “you are fogiven (because you are sorry)” or “you are fogiven (because Christ already forgave all your sins, past, present and future.)” - both invalid. So the validity is now dubious. “Whatever, next” is obviously invalid.

I don’t think we could address in our lifetimes all the variations that could occur and still remain valid, though illicit, on this thread. The best advice I have is to ask the priest to use the proper form, if he doesn’t. If that doesn’t work, find another priest, and write the bishop.

 

[Shin]

Actually these are the sorts of things priests say who like to break the rules and do their own thing. Sure there’re people who don’t know what they are doing and pester priests… and there are priests who don’t too!

A priest instead should be happy his parishioners know how things should be done, and to instruct them further when they make mistakes. Parishioners -should- know how the sacraments are properly performed and what is allowed and what isn’t. It matters for their eternal salvation… and to the priest’s, because he needs to have people who can catch him and help -him- when -he- slips up. Something he can appreciate!

When a priest goes bad and starts fiddling, because of pride in their selves and pride in their studies they are -very- hard to bring back to God.

Love must go up as well as down.

 

[pickguard1]

However, I think that people sometimes get too caught up in the technicalities of “did he say this word or that” when it comes to the celebration of the sacraments. While baptizing “in the name of the creator, of the redeemer and of the inspirer” is fundamentally outside of the Catholic faith we shouldn’t get too caught up if someone perceives that the priest did not say “in the name of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Spirit.”

Exactly, I don’t think the word “and” changes anything, as it is a grammatical construct that is automatically implied if left out.

The attitude around here seems to be that when in doubt, one should throw a yellow flag and ask for a redo. I remember reading here once that in the confessional, the penitent did not recognize the rite of absolution and so interrupted the priest and asked him to use the correct form. Not surprisingly, the priest got a bit miffed.

Understandably so - I think the key is, that it should be readily apparent that the priest is using a form that leaves doubt as to whether he intends to do as the church does. If I am attending a church that uses a different rite - such as the Byzantine one I posted, I wouldn’t recognize it, but I would expect it to be different since I’m in a different rite than what i’m used to (latin rite). I think that some of the concern may come from a bit of scruples, and what bilop said regarding having faith that Chirst (even extra-sacramentally) wouldn’t withold His mercy if the penitent went to confession in good faith and had doubt (but not certainty) of the validity.

Put yourself in the role of the priest. Would you want a bunch of armchair theologians pouring over your every act and action, ready to haul you on the carpet at the slightest deviation? That is a very high place to put oneself. As someone once told me, the Church is only as small as one tries to make it.

I agree, any time this subject is broached, caution, humility, and charity need to be the forerunners. Fortunately for me, I have never had a priest deviate from the proper form, so I’ve never had to think about this outiside of a theoretical construct.

 

[Timothysis]

Actually these are the sorts of things priests say who like to break the rules and do their own thing. Sure there’re people who don’t know what they are doing and pester priests… and there are priests who don’t too!

A priest instead should be happy his parishioners know how things should be done, and to instruct them further when they make mistakes. Parishioners -should- know how the sacraments are properly performed and what is allowed and what isn’t. It matters for their eternal salvation… and to the priest’s, because he needs to have people who can catch him and help -him- when -he- slips up. Something he can appreciate!

When a priest goes bad and starts fiddling, because of pride in their selves and pride in their studies they are -very- hard to bring back to God.

Love must go up as well as down.

Yet, you assume that anytime something is not done or said the way YOU think it should, then the priest is going "bad and starts fiddling, because of pride in their selves and pride in their studies they are -very- hard to bring back to God."

You also say "A priest instead should be happy his parishioners know how things should be done, and to instruct them further when they make mistakes." I’m sure that you would just love someone always being at your elbow, telling you when you’ve made “mistakes.” Perhaps, sometimes, a person such as yourself may be wrong in their interpretation of an event. Do you really think that it is profitable for someone to always be putting their nose in places where it probably doesn’t belong? There used to be a word for people like that; it was “busy body.”

 

[pickguard1]

A priest instead should be happy his parishioners know how things should be done, and to instruct them further when they make mistakes. Parishioners -should- know how the sacraments are properly performed and what is allowed and what isn’t. It matters for their eternal salvation… and to the priest’s, because he needs to have people who can catch him and help -him- when -he- slips up. Something he can appreciate!

Very well said. Sometimes the best respect a person can be shown for his authority is the questioning of it in good faith. It lets the person know there is someone out there who cares. A good leader is able and willing to accept charitable correction of mistakes, and you are right, we as parishoners should know how the sacraments are properly done.