Valid absolution

[mysticmaven]

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.

Without going into specifics, let’s assume that there was grave matter as part of the confession in question. As I said in my previous post, the priest DID NOT use the words “I absolve you”. Rather, he said something like “May Jesus Christ forgive you, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”.

Now, my question returns to one of Catholic Doctrine. Given the fact that the correct formula was not heeded, am I now under obligation to seek out another priest to offer me confession using the valid formula? Contrarily, does the principle of ecclesia suppla in these situations de facto validate my confession?

-mysticmaven

 

[Shin]

Yes, you have to reconfess your sins to another priest (preferably a different one who won’t mess it up).

I’ve had this happen to me before. Some innovator. First time, I barely registered that he did it. Repeat occasion, I was certain.

Never went to that one again, I can tell you.

 

[LilyM]

Without going into specifics, let’s assume that there was grave matter as part of the confession in question. As I said in my previous post, the priest DID NOT use the words “I absolve you”. Rather, he said something like “May Jesus Christ forgive you, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”.

Now, my question returns to one of Catholic Doctrine. Given the fact that the correct formula was not heeded, am I now under obligation to seek out another priest to offer me confession using the valid formula? Contrarily, does the principle of ecclesia suppla in these situations de facto validate my confession?

-mysticmaven

I know that ecclesia supplet doesn’t make valid, for example, a baptism that uses the wrong form of words. So it probably wouldn’t with confession either.

Say, as happened recently in a Catholic parish here in Australia, ‘In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier’ is said instead of ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit’. The baptisms that used the first formula were declared invalid.

The issue here would be how far one can stray from the formula of absolution and stay valid, and I can’t definitively answer that in this specific instance where it was a small change.

Prudence would dictate that we seek another confession if ever in doubt about validity, there’s no reason not to and every reason to do so.

 

[Cluny]

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.”

A similar formula is used in the Byzantine tradition, and nobody questions its ‘validity’.

Relax.

 

[LilyM]

A similar formula is used in the Byzantine tradition, and nobody questions its ‘validity’.

Relax.

Yes, and the anaphora of Addai and Mari apparently has no institution narrative and is nonetheless valid. Doesn’t mean that other Eastern or Latin liturgies can start chopping the institution narratives out of their wording.

 

[FrDavid96]

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

Forgiveness and absolution are two different, yet intricately bound and related realities.

Forgiveness means that God Himself has forgiven the sin. God forgives us because we are sincere in our sorrow for the sin.

Absolution is a juridic act of the Church whereby the penitent is reconciled to the Church.

In the Sacrament of Confession, properly done, we receive both forgiveness and absolution. That’s why the formula of absolution says “…through the ministry of the Church, may God give you pardon * and peace, and I absolve you…”

One might be forgiven without being absolved. In the Latin rite (which is what we’re discussing in this forum, as there is another forum to discuss the Eastern Churches and their perfectly valid/licit forms of confession), the form “I absolve you…” is a necessary part of the Sacrament.

If your conscience is troubling you that you have not been absolved (note that I’m saying absolved, not forgiven), you may go to another priest, explain the situation, and ask for absolution. Depending on the circumstances and details (which belong in the internal forum) that second priest might grant absolution in a “short form” of the Sacrament without repeating what has already been said and done.

Ecclesia suplet might “supply” the absolution if the priest uses an invalid formula. But keep in mind that forgiveness comes by the Grace of God and so is there by the very fact that you have attempted to sincerely confess your sins (and indeed have) and you have sincerely sought forgiveness & absolution throught the Sacrament.*

 

[Shin]

Dogma: By the Church’s Absolution sins are truly and immediately remitted. (De fide)

According to the view of the Reformers, absolution is a mere declaration that sins are forgiven on the grounds of fiducial Faith; As against this the Church firmly insists that the power of absolution is a true and real power of absolution, by which the sins committed against God are immediately remitted.

The proof derives from John 20, 23. According to the words of Jesus, the act of the remission of sin, performed by the Apostles and their successors, has the effect that sins are remitted by God. There is a causal connection between the active remitting and the passive being remitted.

• Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

Unless the above had perfect contrition he has not yet been forgiven for the sins confessed. Moreover, even if he had perfect contrition – he would be required to confess his sins, as perfect contrition only forgives through the sacrament of Confession, and requires the desire to receive it to be effective.

 

[FrDavid96]

Dogma: By the Church’s Absolution sins are truly and immediately remitted. (De fide)

According to the view of the Reformers, absolution is a mere declaration that sins are forgiven on the grounds of fiducial Faith; As against this the Church firmly insists that the power of absolution is a true and real power of absolution, by which the sins committed against God are immediately remitted.

The proof derives from John 20, 23. According to the words of Jesus, the act of the remission of sin, performed by the Apostles and their successors, has the effect that sins are remitted by God. There is a causal connection between the active remitting and the passive being remitted.

• Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

Good points. Keep in mind though that what has happened here is that absolution itself has not occured (the priest did not say the necessary formula “I absolve you…”).

The quote also makes the point that absolution and forgiveness are two distinct things: by absolution, sins are forgiven/remitted. When absolution occurs (validly and licitly) sins are thereby forgiven; no doubt about that.

Unless the above had perfect contrition he has not yet been forgiven for the sins confessed. Moreover, even if he had perfect contrition – he would be required to confess his sins, as perfect contrition only forgives through the sacrament of Confession, and requires the desire to receive it to be effective.

We’re not in any position to judge “perfect contrition” however based on what we read here: the penitent did confess the sins to a priest within confession and sincerely sought forgiveness and absolution. From what we read, there was nothing lacking on the part of the penitent, only on the part of the priest-confessor.

 

[Shin]

Good points. Keep in mind though that what has happened here is that absolution itself has not occured (the priest did not say the necessary formula “I absolve you…”).

The quote also makes the point that absolution and forgiveness are two distinct things: by absolution, sins are forgiven/remitted. When absolution occurs (validly and licitly) sins are thereby forgiven; no doubt about that.

We’re not in any position to judge “perfect contrition” however based on what we read here: the penitent did confess the sins to a priest within confession and sincerely sought forgiveness and absolution. From what we read, there was nothing lacking on the part of the penitent, only on the part of the priest-confessor.

That is true, however his next confessor has to hear the sins again because he has to pronounce a proper juridical judgement upon them, the contrition of the penitent, and the penance.

While the priest failed, the penitent still has to repeat what he said to another priest to properly receive the sacrament.

 

[puppypatrol]

I posed the question to my Priest and he reply the following:

"Needless to say, this is quite disturbing. The words Ego te absolvo are absolutely essential to the validity of the sacrament. The priest must say, I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father…”, Altering other words, while illicit, would not render the sacrament invalid. Much like altering parts of the Eucharistic Prayer would be illicit, but only changing the hoc est corpus meum or hoc est enim calix sanguinis mei would invalidate the sacrament. "

He is extremely knowledgeble and also advised that I should let him know if it was happening in our diocese (not name or parish). The Chancery would need to be advised so the Bishop could remind the pastors to stick to the script so to speak

 

[Shin]

I posed the question to my Priest and he reply the following:

"Needless to say, this is quite disturbing. The words Ego te absolvo are absolutely essential to the validity of the sacrament. The priest must say, I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father…”, Altering other words, while illicit, would not render the sacrament invalid. Much like altering parts of the Eucharistic Prayer would be illicit, but only changing the hoc est corpus meum or hoc est enim calix sanguinis mei would invalidate the sacrament. "

He is extremely knowledgeble and also advised that I should let him know if it was happening in our diocese (not name or parish). The Chancery would need to be advised so the Bishop could remind the pastors to stick to the script so to speak

Yes, this affects a number of people’s souls.

 

[Cluny]

Needless to say, this is quite disturbing. The words Ego te absolvo are absolutely essential to the validity of the sacrament

Not in the Byzantine tradition.

 

[Reynardus]

But I can hardly hear the priest say the words of absolution at times. He makes me say the act of contrition and he does the absolution at the same time (which usually comes out as a mumble that I can’t possibly hear if I’m saying out the act of contrition.)

How can I know if it’s invalid? And now I’ll end up worrying after confession if it’s valid or not when I should feel at peace.

 

[FrDavid96]

That is true, however his next confessor has to hear the sins again because he has to pronounce a proper juridical judgement upon them, the contrition of the penitent, and the penance.

While the priest failed, the penitent still has to repeat what he said to another priest to properly receive the sacrament.

Well, perhaps. That’s why this is a matter for the internal forum. For example, (and just for example) let’s say that a penitent confessed a few dozen very minor venial sins the first time. The second confession would not need to be an exact “duplicate” of the first confession. Mortal sins would have to be repeated. The confession could be “abbreviated” without omitting any necessary elements of the sacrament.
The priest might also say “do whatever penance the first priest assigned.”

And let’s keep in mind that this is the very sort of situation when ecclesia suplet would apply. The second confession would be more to ease the penitent’s conscience about being absolved. Both the penitent and the priest had the intention to do as the Church does–even though the priest’s choice of words was misguided.

 

[FrDavid96]

Not in the Byzantine tradition.

Did this happen in the Byzantine tradition? I might have missed that part.

 

[Irina]

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

Thank you! - this is brilliant. I’ve been looking for something to address this particular point for years!

 

[Shin]

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

 

[TMC]

Its not a magical incantation - the precise form of the words does not control the efficacy of any Sacrament. The intention of the priest and of the penitent are what matter.

This is NOT to say that it is “OK” for a priest to use whatever words he wants. But the priest making the mistake of using the wrong words does not invalidate the Sacrament. Its not a gotcha game where you can end up in Hell through the slip of a lip, or even because of a priest’s unsound choice. If you mean to confess, and he means to absolve you, its done.

 

[Shin]

Its not a magical incantation - the precise form of the words does not control the efficacy of any Sacrament. The intention of the priest and of the penitent are what matter.

This is NOT to say that it is “OK” for a priest to use whatever words he wants. But the priest making the mistake of using the wrong words does not invalidate the Sacrament. Its not a gotcha game where you can end up in Hell through the slip of a lip, or even because of a priest’s unsound choice. If you mean to confess, and he means to absolve you, its done.

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.

 

[bilop]

Its not a magical incantation - the precise form of the words does not control the efficacy of any Sacrament. The intention of the priest and of the penitent are what matter.

This is NOT to say that it is “OK” for a priest to use whatever words he wants. But the priest making the mistake of using the wrong words does not invalidate the Sacrament. Its not a gotcha game where you can end up in Hell through the slip of a lip, or even because of a priest’s unsound choice. If you mean to confess, and he means to absolve you, its done.

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