Valid absolution

[TMC]

No the form does matter. It is the form that is a core part of what makes it a sacrament. This is the teaching of the Church. Read above.

The form of some words does matter to the validity of the sacrament. Minor slips may not matter, and of course the words are different in different languages, but the key thoughts have to be expressed and the key words used.

“This is my body”, “this is the cup of my blood” are absolutely essential to the consecration of the Eucharist. Without them, it doesn’t happen.

Likewise “I baptize you in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” is essential for Baptism to actually occur. We know “I baptize you in the Name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier” is absolutely invalid.

“I absolve you” is essential for the absolution to be valid.

If he says “may Jesus Christ absolve you of your sins” (this has happened to me) in the Latin Church, there is no absolution. The priest needs to express that he is absolving the sins, in persona Christi. A vague hope that Jesus absolve you does not express that his intent matches the Church’s.

Valid form matters, along with valied intent and valid matter.

God Bless

I agree that the Church has instituted certain forms, and that they should be followed. I am not saying that a priest should say whatever he feels like saying. Departing from those forms might be disobedient and illicit. But I don’t agree that a priest must say ANY specific words for absolution to be valid. If the priest said - “Son, your sins are forgiven” would that not be good enough?

To believe that God will act if certain words are spoken, but not act if certain words are omitted, is not a Catholic belief. That is not our faith, it is some kind of magic. We don’t compel God to act through ritual, we appeal to Him for forgiveness, which He grants out of Love. We know we are forgiven because He told us we would be, not because the priest correctly recited the formula.

I don’t always agree with Jimmy Akin, but he is certainly orthodox. Here is what he has to say on this very subject:

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.

(Emphasis added) jimmyakin.org/2005/05/absolution_vali.html

 

[Shin]

I believe you don’t understand the nature of the sacrament of Confession – To my understanding to deviate from the form set for the priest by the Church invalidates it as well as makes it illicit, because of the nature of this particular sacrament – it’s a reconciliation with God through the authority given the Church, if a priest violates the form set by the Pope, or even tries to absolve someone outside of his jurisdiction or outside of the rubrics, it’s not only illicit but also invalid.

Also, to deviate from the form shows the intent NOT to do what the Church intends.

This is not something like baptism, it is a different sacrament, with different particulars.

It’s just like if someone Catholic tries to marry outside the Church – illicit and invalid, no sacrament. Doesn’t matter that only the couple are required for vows.

 

[TMC]

I believe you don’t understand the nature of the sacrament of Confession – To my understanding to deviate from the form set for the priest by the Church invalidates it as well as makes it illicit, because of the nature of this particular sacrament – it’s a reconciliation with God through the authority given the Church, if a priest violates the form set by the Pope, or even tries to absolve someone outside of his jurisdiction or outside of the rubrics, it’s not only illicit but also invalid.

Also, to deviate from the form shows the intent NOT to do what the Church intends.

This is not something like baptism, it is a different sacrament, with different particulars.

It’s just like if someone Catholic tries to marry outside the Church – illicit and invalid, no sacrament. Doesn’t matter that only the couple are required for vows.

I have never seen anything that suggests that the form controls validity of a Sacrament. I’ll take a look for any authority either way. Do you have any? Not a challenge, as I don’t have any either. But I have a general understanding of how the Sacraments function, and I don’t believe that strict form effects the validity of any of them.

 

[TMC]

I have never seen anything that suggests that the form controls validity of a Sacrament. I’ll take a look for any authority either way. Do you have any? Not a challenge, as I don’t have any either. But I have a general understanding of how the Sacraments function, and I don’t believe that strict form effects the validity of any of them.

This is what the Canon says:

Can. 959 In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a legitimate minister, are sorry for them, and intend to reform themselves obtain from God through the absolution imparted by the same minister forgiveness for the sins they have committed after baptism and, at the same, time are reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by sinning.

 

[Shin]

I have never seen anything that suggests that the form controls validity of a Sacrament. I’ll take a look for any authority either way. Do you have any? Not a challenge, as I don’t have any either. But I have a general understanding of how the Sacraments function, and I don’t believe that strict form effects the validity of any of them.

This is something interesting to delve into.

I thought about what you said and went to the Summa: newadvent.org/summa/4060.htm

See article 7, and the surrounding articles.

“If he who corrupts the pronunciation of the sacramental words–does so on purpose, he does not seem to intend to do what the Church intends: and thus the sacrament seems to be defective. But if he do this through error or a slip of the tongue, and if he so far mispronounce the words as to deprive them of sense, the sacrament seems to be defective.”

It has to do with ‘intend to do what the Church intends’, to change the words is to intend not to do it, because you change the interior meaning that the form declares necessary.

Now, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.’ has a much different interior meaning than ‘I absolve you’, which clearly uses the powers given the priesthood to perform the sacrament, rather than as the first simply declare something has already happened somehow or other.

(I would be very upset if I priest ever tried that one, personally, btw.)

So that would be one strike against the form change. This still doesn’t look thoroughly at the other ways form changes are against authority, and could cause problems.

It’s interesting to delve at the interior of a sacrament like this, but in the end the issue of validity is solved by simply priests being obedient and performing the sacrament as instructed rather than dabbling with men’s eternal souls for their own peculiarities sakes. When tradition is respected even when it is not understood thoroughly, these things don’t happen. And that’s faith.

[Edit]

Reading back on this discussion, which I really should have done more thoroughly earlier there is even more to this than I first thought. Eastern Rites are not my specialty.

 

[pickguard1]

I would also point out that Christ gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom -“Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, whatsoever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven.”

If the Church requires a certain form for the validity of a sacrament, then so does God.
Whether a specific form or forms are necessary for the validity of absolution is what needs to be figured out here.

I agree with Shin that, since words can be twisted to mean all kinds of things, the intent has to be the same. This is why the Church instituted specific forms for specific sacraments - to remove any doubt about the intent of the minister. While the minister may indeed intend to do as the Church does, to alter the form is an act of disobedience to the legitimate authority of the Church. Such disobedience lends itself to wondering what else the minister is disobedient in.

While the sacrament may be valid, it is a grave sin that occurs when it is performed illicitly, and it is not just that a minister of the sacraments should leave a single member of the faithful doubting the validity of those sacraments.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

The posts discussing the immortality of the soul have been moved to a new thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=338075. Please stay on topic in this thread, everyone. Thank you.

 

[Irina]

See page 50 of ‘The Theory and Practice of the Confessional’ for a discussion of this subject.

Thanks! Another interesting resource.

 

[Timothysis]

To believe that God will act if certain words are spoken, but not act if certain words are omitted, is not a Catholic belief. That is not our faith, it is some kind of magic. We don’t compel God to act through ritual, we appeal to Him for forgiveness, which He grants out of Love. We know we are forgiven because He told us we would be, not because the priest correctly recited the formula.

Bravo, my friend. For several months now I have been railing against this notion that the words of the liturgy and the sacraments are some type of “magic spell” that is efficacious, not through the power and mercy of God, but because certain words were said or spoken in a certain way. While form and matter are certainly important, we must never assume that the efficacy of the sacraments are “forced” by using the “magic words.” As I’ve read before, the Church is bound by Christ but Christ is not bound by the Church. Can you imagine that Christ would withhold His mercy and forgiveness from one truly repentant because a priest deviated from the “magic spell?”

You are certainly correct to point out that these notions are NOT part of Catholic belief.

 

[bilop]

As I’ve read before, the Church is bound by Christ but Christ is not bound by the Church. Can you imagine that Christ would withhold His mercy and forgiveness from one truly repentant because a priest deviated from the “magic spell?”

You are certainly correct to point out that these notions are NOT part of Catholic belief.

I agree with you that Christ would not withhold his mercy, but Christ would be acting extra-sacramentally (just like with Baptism of desire). The Sacrament would not be taking place.

The Sacraments require the correct form. God’s mercy does not.

God Bless

 

[Timothysis]

… but Christ would be acting extra-sacramentally (just like with Baptism of desire). The Sacrament would not be taking place.

The Sacraments require the correct form. God’s mercy does not.

The Sacraments are a means to an end; namely, the Mercy of God. While they do require the correct form I don’t think that we can be so legalistic as to say that a slight, unintended deviation renders a sacrament as being invalid. It is more important that a priest intends to do what Christ did than to simply say the things that Christ said.

Also, I am sure that Christ acts “extra-sacramentally” much more than we can imagine. What difference does it make as long as a person achieves a state of grace? That is, after all, the whole point, isn’t it?

 

[pickguard1]

The Sacraments are a means to an end; namely, the Mercy of God. While they do require the correct form I don’t think that we can be so legalistic as to say that a slight, unintended deviation renders a sacrament as being invalid. It is more important that a priest intends to do what Christ did than to simply say the things that Christ said.

I think you’re right here, as I believe St. Thomas said (paraphrasing) that as long as the words retain their fundamental meaning the sacrament is valid. But I would say where the line is between retaining that meaning and changing it can be pretty vague depending on who is hearing the words and how they interpret them or understand them. So changing them at all is a cause for concern since it raises the doubts we are discussing at this very moment. If you don’t change the words - the faithful have nothing to fear.

Also, I am sure that Christ acts “extra-sacramentally” much more than we can imagine. **What difference does it make **as long as a person achieves a state of grace? That is, after all, the whole point, isn’t it?

As far as receiving the grace from a valid sacrament, there isn’t a difference. But illicit changes to the form are sinful, and not caring about such abuse is uncharitable for the person who is committing the sin. We should make sure we do what we can (charitable admonitions) to keep our clergy in a state of grace as well, shouldn’t we?

 

[bilop]

The Sacraments are a means to an end; namely, the Mercy of God. While they do require the correct form I don’t think that we can be so legalistic as to say that a slight, unintended deviation renders a sacrament as being invalid. It is more important that a priest intends to do what Christ did than to simply say the things that Christ said.

Also, I am sure that Christ acts “extra-sacramentally” much more than we can imagine. What difference does it make as long as a person achieves a state of grace? That is, after all, the whole point, isn’t it?

No one is saying a “slight unintentional deviation” invalidates the sacrament. “I forgive you” instead of “I absolve you” or “this is the chalice of my blood” instead of “this is the cup of my blood” doesn’t invalidate the sacrament. And it is only the very few critical words in the sacrament, not the whole prayer.

But when the critical words are changed so much that you can no longer discern whether the priest acts with the same intention that the Church has, the Sacrament is invalid.

A personal example. A priest in confession said “May Jesus Christ absolve you of your sins” instead of “I absolve you”. I have no way of knowing from that wording if he actually intends to absolve my sins, and actually intends to act in persona Christi. I went to confession again the next day to the other priest in that parish. I should have said something at the time, but was shocked.

When we ignore the proper form of the sacraments we are being presumptuous of God’s mercy. We have a certainty in the Sacraments, I believe it is sinful to cast that aside in the hope, which may be well founded, but is still a hope, that God will act extra-sacramentally.

What’s so hard about using the correct formula anyway?

God Bless

 

[Digitonomy]

But when the critical words are changed so much that you can no longer discern whether the priest acts with the same intention that the Church has, the Sacrament is invalid.

Don’t you mean that in that situation the sacrament may be invalid?

 

[bilop]

Don’t you mean that in that situation the sacrament may be invalid?

Well, the Church has been pretty clear with baptism that it is invalid if the formula is changed.

God Bless

 

[Shin]

I think there’s a lack of sufficient gravity being given to what St. Thomas has said, combined with an over ‘former Protestant’ type reaction against it using the term, ‘magic words’.

Our Catholicism can’t be based on a reaction against some misguided Protestant belief or accusation, whether one is a former Protestant or is simply being influenced by hearing their groundless accusations.

The truth is the words do matter, the form does matter. This doesn’t make it a ‘magic spell’. It makes it a sacrament, it makes it a fulfillment of Christ saying to the effect, “Do this, and that will happen.” which isn’t magic, it’s a promise of God.

And if God promises you, ‘Go here,’ this will happen, ‘Say this’, it will happen, whether to the whole Church or to a private individual, that has nothing to do with magic spells, and they are completely besides the point and should not affect the study of the nature of the sacraments.

Honestly there’s a whole very bad trend of a sort of Protestantized Catholicism running throughout the Church today, now -that- is something to be very careful against, you can slip into it without even knowing it, and I see it happen. A lot. To even some high authorities, famous ex-Protestant converts included.

 

[LilyM]

Remember the OT episode where God strikes two people dead simply for offering incense at the wrong time? Or where He strikes Uzzah dead for touching the Ark when instructed not to, even though his intent was a good one (to stop it from falling)?

Following instructions does matter - and when the Church gives instructions that certain words and not certain others are required in the administering of a sacrament, and furthermore that lack of correct form of words does (not may, but does) render them invalid, then it does so with His authority.

Does God act extra-sacramentally? Sure, but that’s not an excuse for us to ignore defects of form when it is so easy to celebrate the sacraments in the correct form. And it’s not an excuse for us to presume on His mercy and make no effort to obtain it in the manner He through the Church has laid out for us.

 

[pickguard1]

Exactly Shin and LilyM!

The words DO matter - and Baptism and the Eucharist are excellent examples of where there can’t be any change in the essential form without rendering them invalid. I think the case with absolution is that there have historically been many variations in the Church, but they all share the same characteristic, that the priest is forgiving the penitents sins, in the name of, or through the power of God. Any words that change that understanding i.e. “God forgives you,” “May God forgive you,” “I pray that God fogives you,” render the sacrament invalid. Even this Byzantine absolution, while sounding completely foreign to a Latin Rite Catholic posesses the essential things : penitent being forgiven through the priest by the power of God. I think if the words “through me” were left out, it would be invalid.

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.”

Likewise, to change from “I absolve thee” (with the customary implication of through the power of God, if not the actual verbal trinitarian formula) to “God absolves thee” without saying explicitly, “through me” changes the meaning, and therefore doesn’t correspond with the intent of the Church.

 

[Digitonomy]

"bilop:

But when the critical words are changed so much that you can no longer discern whether the priest acts with the same intention that the Church has, the Sacrament is invalid.

Digitonomy:

Don’t you mean that in that situation the sacrament may be invalid?

Well, the Church has been pretty clear with baptism that it is invalid if the formula is changed.God Bless

I suppose what I object to is your suggestion that it is the perception of others that determines the validity of the sacrament. If the minister acts with the intention of the Church, but happens to stumble over some words such that some can’t tell quite what he said or meant, I don’t think that would automatically invalidate the sacrament. It may very well invalidate it, but I don’t think we can say with certainty, and I think it would depend on exactly what the minister said, or half-said.

 

[pickguard1]

I suppose what I object to is your suggestion that it is the perception of others that determines the validity of the sacrament. If the minister acts with the intention of the Church, but happens to stumble over some words such that some can’t tell quite what he said or meant, I don’t think that would automatically invalidate the sacrament. It may very well invalidate it, but I don’t think we can say with certainty, and I think it would depend on exactly what the minister said, or half-said.

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?