I see your point, but it is possible for an absolution to be invalid because of a defect of form. I too would not have doubted in this particular case, but as someone else might, I’ll try and work it through.
This subject has come up recently in CAF, and I’ve found that, probably, some minimal correct words are required for the absolution to be valid. I say “probably” because the authors of articles I found both deferred from giving a definitive opinion.
Fr Z, discussing
Is "I absolve you” alone sufficient for validity?" concludes:
Another writer, in
We need to be careful with the notion of “Ecclesia supplet” discusses whether
Ecclesia Supplet (“The Church provides”) will make up for a defect of form in the absolution, and he concludes that it (probably) won’t.
Both of these authors however are discussing an
intentional deviation from the correct formula. If the deviation is unintentional, such as might happen when a priest attempts to follow the rubrics in a foreign language, then it seems to me that the absolution would always be valid, because the words he has used are those in the rubric, whether or not he has conveyed them accurately. That is our normal understanding of people speaking in a foreign language - we listen for the words they intend, not what they actually say.
So, my summary…
If the priest has said “I absolve you” then you are absolved
or if he has attempted to faithfully read the rubric but has slipped up because he’s speaking in a foreign language, then you are also absolved. If he **intentionally **has said something completely different, eg. “You have been absolved”, then it may have been invalid.
