Valid Absolution?

[SKWill]

Just returned home from going to confession and am doubting whether I was validly absolved of my sins.I think the priest left a key word out in the words of absolution. Instead of hearing him ending the full formula with “…may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”, I heard him end it with “…may God give you pardon and peace, and absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” – as in “may God absolve you” rather than “I absolve you.”

I started to ask him to re-absolve me, but chickened out (not wanting to offend him.)

Assuming that I didn’t mishear Father and he really left out the word “I”, was I validly absolved? I regularly confess to this priest and to the best of my knowledge, he has always prayed the full formula correctly.

 

[Zooman77]

My understanding is that the words “I absolve you from your sins” is generally considered to be the least that must be said for validity, although there is debate as to whether just the words “I absolve you” would be valid. Either way, my understanding is that the “I” is needed for validity. The best thing to do in a situation like this is to ask the priest to repeat the formula.

ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur243.htm

wdtprs.com/blog/2011/11/quaeritur-is-i-absolve-you-alone-sufficient-for-validity/

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

If the priest got the rest of it, it is highly unlikely that he left out the word “I.” Perhaps it wasn’t as loud as the other words or perhaps you didn’t hear it, but if he’s been a priest more than an hour or two, he knows the words of absolution. Be at peace.

 

[whoisdiss]

I don’t think it really matters, he may have made a mistake but God knows your heart so I would say you are validly absolved from your sins.

 

[MaryT777]

If the priest got the rest of it, it is highly unlikely that he left out the word “I.” Perhaps it wasn’t as loud as the other words or perhaps you didn’t hear it, but if he’s been a priest more than an hour or two, he knows the words of absolution. Be at peace.

Yes, be at peace.
Mary.

 

[thistle]

Just returned home from going to confession and am doubting whether I was validly absolved of my sins.I think the priest left a key word out in the words of absolution. Instead of hearing him ending the full formula with “…may God give you pardon and peace, and** I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit**”, I heard him end it with “…may God give you pardon and peace, and absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” – as in “may God absolve you” rather than “I absolve you.”

I started to ask him to re-absolve me, but chickened out (not wanting to offend him.)

Assuming that I didn’t mishear Father and he really left out the word “I”, was I validly absolved? I regularly confess to this priest and to the best of my knowledge, he has always prayed the full formula correctly.

If he said that then it is valid. It doesn’t matter what he said before and after these words.

 

[SKWill]

If he said that then it is valid. It doesn’t matter what he said before and after these words.

Just to be clear, I heard him say “may God give you pardon and peace and absolve you…” not “may God give you pardon and peace***, and I ***absolve you…” - hence my concern.

That being said, I was able to go back to him (the parish also has confessions in the evening after the Saturday evening Mass), explain my concerns, and redo my confession.

 

[otjm]

Just to be clear, I heard him say “may God give you pardon and peace and absolve you…” not “may God give you pardon and peace***, and I ***absolve you…” - hence my concern.

That being said, I was able to go back to him (the parish also has confessions in the evening after the Saturday evening Mass), explain my concerns, and redo my confession.

Have you had problems with scrupulosity?

 

[myway]

Only God knows if you have really been absolved. I wouldn’t worry about it just make sure you have given a good examination to the best of your ability.

goodconfession.com/

 

[SKWill]

Have you had problems with scrupulosity?

I haven’t. Upon further reflection, I think I this may be a case not of scrupulosity, but of phariseeism.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve never had doubts about the validity of the absolutions I’ve received from the priest in question - or any other priest for that matter - before. It’s just that after reading enough inquiries (quaerituri?) about questionable absolutions on Father Z’s blog, I have taken comfort in hearing the full formula of absolution as used in the United States:

God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

So not hearing a key word in the formula caused me distress.

Thanks to everyone who replied.

 

[twf]

“I absolve you…” is definitely required in the Roman Rite, but it is not intrinsic to the sacrament itself, as the various Eastern / Oriental rites employ formulas of absolution in the Third Person (more akin to “May God absolve you…”). But whether dropping the first person in the Roman Rite renders the absolution invalid, as absolution is regulated by the laws of the Church being a juridical act, I cannot say. Either way, I would assume that the grace of the Church would have supplied anything that may have been lacking in this case and certainly at your next confession any defect would be removed.

 

[dans0622]

It’s an interesting question, purely academic at this point since the OP went back and confessed again and was absolved (again, perhaps).

I tend to think the original absolution was valid since I doubt the priest would have said every word correctly, except that one very important word.

If he did omit “I”, it still should have been valid since the words he said referred to “the ministry of the Church.” That is an implication of his own active role in the absolution of the penitent, even if he did not say “I” absolve you. So, the absolution prayer as it was said was not entirely “deprecatory” but was implicitly “indicative.”

Dan

 

[larsont7]

I found this on EWTN’s site (bolded parts mine): ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur243.htm

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.

If a penitent realizes that a priest has not granted absolution or has omitted the essential words, then the proper thing to do is to tell the priest immediately and request absolution before leaving the confessional. It is probable that such an omission is the result of a momentary distraction or fatigue and not some perverse theological or spiritual reason. In these cases the priest will more than likely apologize and grant absolution immediately.

So it seems you did the correct thing by returning to the priest. When it comes to the state of one’s immortal soul, especially regarding the form and matter of this Sacrament, I don’t think one can be too scrupulous.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Priests don’t forgive us. They are simply a conduit for God’s forgiveness. If all he left out was the “I” it doesn’t change the statement.

 

[SeekerM]

My understanding is that the words “I absolve you from your sins” is generally considered to be the least that must be said for validity, although there is debate as to whether just the words “I absolve you” would be valid. Either way, my understanding is that the “I” is needed for validity. The best thing to do in a situation like this is to ask the priest to repeat the formula.

ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur243.htm

wdtprs.com/blog/2011/11/quaeritur-is-i-absolve-you-alone-sufficient-for-validity/

If you know the priest personally, can you just ask him to repeat the formula the next time you see him, or would you have to re-confess all those same sins over again first?

I mean, if he already knows the sins you confessed last time, can you just remind him of them in a general way, confess any new sins you may have committed, and then receive absolution?

Would that be valid?

 

[SeekerM]

My understanding is that the words “I absolve you from your sins” is generally considered to be the least that must be said for validity, although there is debate as to whether just the words “I absolve you” would be valid. Either way, my understanding is that the “I” is needed for validity. The best thing to do in a situation like this is to ask the priest to repeat the formula.

ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur243.htm

wdtprs.com/blog/2011/11/quaeritur-is-i-absolve-you-alone-sufficient-for-validity/

If you know the priest personally, can you just ask him to repeat the formula the next time you see him, or would you have to re-confess all those same sins over again first?

I mean, if he already knows the sins you confessed last time, can you just remind him of them in a general way, confess any new sins you may have committed, and then receive absolution?

Would that be valid?

 

[peccator81]

Often with non-native English speaking priests, I haven’t heard the word “you” during the essential part of the formula. It sounds like “…I absolve from your sins in the name of…”. Assuming the priest has the intention to say the proper formula, is it still valid if he drops or mispronounces the “you”? I once tried to gently ask if he had said it and he assured me that he had, but still many times I have not heard it.

 

[sw85]

As has been said, the form of Confession as defined by Trent is “ego te absolvo,” or “I absolve you.” If an “I” is left out it is not a valid Sacrament. The Roman rite absolution is imperative, i.e., the priest positively does the absolving. Also as has been said, in other rites the absolution is invocative, i.e., the priest invokes God to do the absolving. But unless your priest has faculties from an Eastern bishop, use of an Eastern formula doesn’t cut the mustard. If you want to be safe, go to Confession again. But most likely he said it and you just didn’t hear it (especially if he had a slight southern drawl – “I absolve you” sounds like “ah absolve you” sounds like “absolve you”).

“I absolve you…” is definitely required in the Roman Rite, but it is not intrinsic to the sacrament itself, as the various Eastern / Oriental rites employ formulas of absolution in the Third Person (more akin to “May God absolve you…”). But whether dropping the first person in the Roman Rite renders the absolution invalid, as absolution is regulated by the laws of the Church being a juridical act, I cannot say. Either way, I would assume that the grace of the Church would have supplied anything that may have been lacking in this case and certainly at your next confession any defect would be removed.

Sadly, ecclesia non supplet quod ecclesia non habet – the Church cannot supply what it does not have. It does not have the authority to alter sacramental form, therefore it cannot supply the authority to alter sacramental form to her priests, therefore she cannot supply for deficiencies in sacramental form (the way she could for deficiencies in faculties).