Valid Confession forms

[Monica4316]

I read that the words “I absolve you…” need to be in the Absolution formula to be valid. Fr Z wrote a bit about when priests say “I forgive you” instead wdtprs.com/blog/2009/03/quaeritur-i-forgive-instead-of-i-absolve/ (I got confused if this is valid, but of course in any case “I absolve you” is best because that’s how the Church says)

In the East, (like Eastern Catholic rites), I heard that the priests say a version of “may God forgive you”. It’s valid in the East.

My question is - if a Latin rite priest were to say this, would it be valid though illicit, or invalid? isn’t it the case with some other East/West differences that validity is not affected, though it can be illicit to change it? but is this different? anyone know for sure, or is this arguable either way? I guess I’m looking less for personal opinions and more for sources like maybe information from a priest etc…

thank you!

 

[sw85]

I read that the words “I absolve you…” need to be in the Absolution formula to be valid. Fr Z wrote a bit about when priests say “I forgive you” instead wdtprs.com/blog/2009/03/quaeritur-i-forgive-instead-of-i-absolve/ (I got confused if this is valid, but of course in any case “I absolve you” is best because that’s how the Church says)

In the East, (like Eastern Catholic rites), I heard that the priests say a version of “may God forgive you”. It’s valid in the East.

My question is - if a Latin rite priest were to say this, would it be valid though illicit, or invalid? isn’t it the case with some other East/West differences that validity is not affected, though it can be illicit to change it? but is this different? anyone know for sure, or is this arguable either way? I guess I’m looking less for personal opinions and more for sources like maybe information from a priest etc…

thank you!

My guess is that the use of a different rite’s absolution formula would require faculties from an ordinary of that rite; since faculties are required for a valid absolution, such would invalidate the absolution. But I’m no canonist.

 

[Neofight]

Its probably valid…***might be ***illicit, but ***more than likely ***it’s valid. (although I can’t say for sure because 1), I don’t know enough of the details, and 2) I am not a canon lawyer.).

Many people confuse valid and illicit.

Illicit ***more often ***reflects on the priest not following rubrics, and is his bad, not yours.

Invalid*** is often ***when an act goes beyond the misapplication of the rubrics…for instance, a lay person presides over Mass, or administers the sacraments.

So, if an ordained priest to your confession, and if he erred in the wording of absolution (unintentionally), that might be illicit…if he did so intentionally, ***it may ***also only be illicit.

Invalid sacraments are relatively rare.

Relax.

Also, these type questions are best addressed with the priest who you are talking about, rather than asking for a definitive answer from CAF members. Often there is not enough information about the specifics of what actually happened.

Before this thread is finished, you are bound to see three or four people who will quote verse and chapter from Canon Law, but anyone with a computer can cut and paste from the code, but that doesn’t answer your question, without all the specifics, and personally I cordially thank all the Canon Lawyer wannabees and take their answers with a grain of salt.

 

[Marty_E]

My question is - if a Latin rite priest were to say this, would it be valid though illicit, or invalid? isn’t it the case with some other East/West differences that validity is not affected, though it can be illicit to change it? but is this different? anyone know for sure, or is this arguable either way? I guess I’m looking less for personal opinions and more for sources like maybe information from a priest etc…

Licit = lawful.

Every priest is required to use the liturgical texts as written and approved by the competent authority.

Should he choose on his own initiative to alter the text, he is doing something which is illicit, that is, which is not lawful.

For validity pronouncing the absolution is required, whether in the first person (indicative) as in the Latin Rite, or in the third person (Deprecatory) as in some other rites.

Most of the early sacramentaries cite deprecatory forms, and it is only in the eleventh century that we find a tendency to pass to indicative and personal formulas.

.