What are the words of absolution?

[Butaperson]

So I don’t expect to ever go to a priest who hears my confession and doesn’t properly absolve me, but I surely would feel a bit more secure if I knew what on earth the “words of absolution” are. What is the minimum a priest must say in order to validly absolve?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

“I absolve you” is valid absolution.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Paul gave you the minimum. And the full prayer of absolution is:

God, the Father of mercies,
through the death and the 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

(See the Catechism 1449.)

 

[lmelahn]

“I absolve you” is valid absolution.

No, the priest, at a minimum, must use the Trinitarian formula:

I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Unless there is exceedingly grave necessity (e.g., immanent danger of death), he should use the full formula, if that is possible.

 

[Usige]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

No, the priest, at a minimum, must use the Trinitarian formula:

I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Unless there is exceedingly grave necessity (e.g., immanent danger of death), he should use the full formula, if that is possible.

Actually, both St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism of the Council of Trent put forth “I absolve you” (“Ergo te absolvo”) as the core requirement for the sacrament to be valid. Most today would say “I absolve you of your sins” would be the bare minimum. As I understand it the use of the Trinitarian formula is a blessing/benediction, but not required for validity. That being said, short of imminent danger of death, I would hope most would use the full length prayer rather than shooting for the bare minimum.

 

[G_S]

The problem as I have experienced it (twice) is not the question of the bare minimum but not having anything remotely resembling an absolution. I had one priest just offer a long prayer about how unworthy he was and how he was praying for forgiveness for me. Another offered a discourse about God’s mercy and forgiveness and then held his hands up in the air and said, “and you ARE forgiven.” The question of the minimum formula would be determined by the authority of the Church and can be changed. For example, Paul VI, in revising the Rite of Confirmation, clearly stated that the anointing is the sacramental moment and eliminated the ceremonial slap on the cheek. The extension of the bishops hands, therefore, could be eliminated in, for example, danger of death. The anointing could not. Not to quibble with the Doctor Angelicus, but we would have to look at what has been stated recently about the bare minimum formula. The current formula is actually different from the one used prior to about 1975 or 1976.

 

[FrDavid96]

So I don’t expect to ever go to a priest who hears my confession and doesn’t properly absolve me, but I surely would feel a bit more secure if I knew what on earth the “words of absolution” are. What is the minimum a priest must say in order to validly absolve?

First of all, remember that absolution is a juridic act of the Church. It’s a legal act, one in which the priest exercises his jurisdiction (as a minister/representative) of the Church.

The reason why that is important is because, as a juridic act, the Church has the authority to decide what does (or does not) constitute the essential words.

For a valid absolution (at a minimum) the priest must say “I absolve you.” Of course, he must also intend to absolve (so if a priest just happens to say those words, maybe in a homily, that’s not an absolution).

He is also obligated to add the words “from your sins. In the name of the Father…” but these words are not strictly-speaking required for validity.

Also, because absolution is a juridic act, the formula can (and does) vary according to the jurisdiction. The Eastern Churches have different forms of absolution, which are valid in their Churches (i.e. in their jurisdictions), but those forms are not valid for a Latin-rite priest to use.

 

[FrDavid96]

… we would have to look at what has been stated recently about the bare minimum formula. The current formula is actually different from the one used prior to about 1975 or 1976.

They say the same thing.

I don’t have my (1970s version) Rite of Penance handy or I would type-out the paragraph.

Yes, the long-form for the prayer has changed. In the Extraordinary form it’s actually 3 prayers one after the other. With regard to what constitutes the essential form, that did not change.

 

[dans0622]

…

For a valid absolution (at a minimum) the priest must say “I absolve you.” Of course, he must also intend to absolve (so if a priest just happens to say those words, maybe in a homily, that’s not an absolution).

He is also obligated to add the words “from your sins. In the name of the Father…” but these words are not strictly-speaking required for validity.

…

Hello,

In the praenotanda of the revised rite, it is said that “the essential words” are “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” This form is to be used even in imminent danger of death (see n. 21 of the Rite). How do you understand/interpret the usage of the word “essential” in this context? (I ask this while thinking “I absolve you” is the true minimum…but “essential” is a pretty meaningful word.)

Dan

 

[FrDavid96]

Hello,

In the praenotanda of the revised rite, it is said that “the essential words” are “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” This form is to be used even in imminent danger of death (see n. 21 of the Rite). How do you understand/interpret the usage of the word “essential” in this context? (I ask this while thinking “I absolve you” is the true minimum…but “essential” is a pretty meaningful word.)

Dan

It’s here newadvent.org/summa/4084.htm#article3

see reply to objection 3

Nevertheless, since the priest absolves ministerially, something is suitably added in reference to the supreme authority of God, by the priest saying: “I absolve thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” -]or by the power of Christ’s Passion, or by the authority of God. However, as this is not defined by the words of Christ, as it is for Baptism, this addition is left to the discretion of the priest/-].
In the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms today (unlike the form used in St Thomas’ time), it is not up to the priest’s discretion, so I’ve crossed out that part.

Note that I wrote in the first post that the priest is obligated to add “from your sins. In the name of the Father…”

Yes, the priest must add those words. There is no excuse for him omitting them.

What I would say is that if the priest does err and omits the words, or if the person dies at that moment (after “I absolve you” but before “from your sins…”) a valid absolution would still occur.

 

[JimG]

The problem as I have experienced it (twice) is not the question of the bare minimum but not having anything remotely resembling an absolution. **I had one priest just offer a long prayer about how unworthy he was and how he was praying for forgiveness for me. Another offered a discourse about God’s mercy and forgiveness and then held his hands up in the air and said, “and you ARE forgiven.” **The question of the minimum formula would be determined by the authority of the Church and can be changed. For example, Paul VI, in revising the Rite of Confirmation, clearly stated that the anointing is the sacramental moment and eliminated the ceremonial slap on the cheek. The extension of the bishops hands, therefore, could be eliminated in, for example, danger of death. The anointing could not. Not to quibble with the Doctor Angelicus, but we would have to look at what has been stated recently about the bare minimum formula. The current formula is actually different from the one used prior to about 1975 or 1976.

That is just strange. I’ve never heard of such a thing happening, at least around here. To me it would seem a lot more difficult to give that sort of extemporaneous response than to simply say the proper formula! Let’s hope such stuff never catches on. (The irony is that way back when absolution was given in Latin nobody every worried about such things!)

 

[G_S]

That is just strange. I’ve never heard of such a thing happening, at least around here. To me it would seem a lot more difficult to give that sort of extemporaneous response than to simply say the proper formula! Let’s hope such stuff never catches on. (The irony is that way back when absolution was given in Latin nobody every worried about such things!)

The sense I got from both of these experiences was that the priests themselves were uncomfortable with being in the position of acting in persona Christi and were, let’s be honest, inflicting their agenda or identity crisis on the penitents. I found the two experiences disturbing and I doubt they’re the only two priests doing similar things. Incidentally, one was a priest of the diocese of Albany, the other of Philadelphia.

 

[CatholicRaven]

(The irony is that way back when absolution was given in Latin nobody every worried about such things!)

Some priests still do give absolution in Latin.

 

[Bookcat]

I would say is that if the priest does err and omits the words, or if the person dies at that moment (after “I absolve you” but before “from your sins…”) a valid absolution would still occur.

handy as ones plane is going down…or as the bomb just reached 0.02 seconds…

 

[Brendan]

One other thing to keep is mind is that the Eastern Churches use a passive form “You are absolved…”

So the Church has (and is currently using) somewhat different forms. As Fr David pointed out, it is a Juridic act, so the form of absolution is what the Church declares it to be, and must follow the form appropriate to the Church and Rite.

 

[lmelahn]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

Actually, both St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism of the Council of Trent put forth “I absolve you” (“Ergo te absolvo”) as the core requirement for the sacrament to be valid. Most today would say “I absolve you of your sins” would be the bare minimum. As I understand it the use of the Trinitarian formula is a blessing/benediction, but not required for validity. That being said, short of imminent danger of death, I would hope most would use the full length prayer rather than shooting for the bare minimum.

That would be ego te absolvo (no R) .

I wonder, because St. Thomas Aquinas also says that the minimum for Baptism is “I baptize you,” and yet the Church clearly teaches that the Trinitarian formula for Baptism is a requirement for validity. (See , III q. 84., a. 3Summa; see also 1256 and 1278Catechism.) I get the impression that Aquinas was simply abbreviating the formula.

Be that as it may, for liceity, the priest should say the entire formula.

 

[Usige]

That would be ego te absolvo (no R) .

Phone auto correct (don’t ask why ergo is in there, but ego isn’t ).

I agree that the full prayer should be used, but was merely talking about what might make it valid. In reading Fr. David’s and our favorite cannonist, Dan’s, it gets me to wondering where what is required from a theological standpoint intersects with liturgical law as to juridical acts (i.e. validity vs licity).

 

[FrDavid96]

Phone auto correct (don’t ask why ergo is in there, but ego isn’t ).

I agree that the full prayer should be used, but was merely talking about what might make it valid. In reading Fr. David’s and our favorite cannonist, Dan’s, it gets me to wondering where what is required from a theological standpoint intersects with liturgical law as to juridical acts (i.e. validity vs licity).

I see the two (theological and canonical) as being the same.

From the Church’s laws (in this particular instance it’s liturgical law directly, and canon law indirectly, because canon law does not specify the essential words) we know that the essential form of absolution is “I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

That is what every priest is obligated to pronounce.

The part that I’m addressing is that if something should go wrong, either because the priest errs, or because of some other circumstances, if the priest says “I absolve you” then a valid absolution would occur. It’s very important for me to stress that I’m only talking about a situation where something goes wrong, not that any priest should ever consider doing this intentionally.

Let me give a scenario:
A priest is absolving a dying soldier on the battlefield. He begins “I absolve you” and at that moment, a sniper shoots the priest dead. I do think that from both a canonical and theological perspective, any expert would agree that a valid absolution occurred.

That’s the type of situation that’s going through my mind. An extreme situation.

I’m saying this not because I’m trying to advance the idea that words can be omitted from the essential formula, but because St. Thomas addressed this issue in the Summa and that was his conclusion. We also must keep in mind that in his time, the precise formula had not yet been codified. He indicates this by the words that I crossed-out when I quoted him earlier, for example “I absolve thee by the power of Christ’s passion.”