What part of the "absolution formula" is required for there to be absolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pcg2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pcg2

Guest
I went to confession today and the priest was in a rush to hear a lot of confessions and mumbled the absolution formula. It was definitely really short, and he didn’t say the usual absolution formula. I couldn’t really make out what part of the formula he said, but I could have swore that he did say the words “I absolves you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” at the end. But he did not say all of this formula:

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. Amen."
  1. Was this a valid confession?
  2. Should I just assume that he knew what he was doing and not scruple over this?
  3. How much of this formula is needed for a valid confession, anyway?
 
pcg2 said:
  1. Was this a valid confession?
Click to expand...
Yes.
  1. Should I just assume that he knew what he was doing and not scruple over this?
Click to expand...
No, you asked the question and you are hopefully getting an answer that will satisfy your scruples. 🙂
  1. How much of this formula is needed for a valid confession, anyway?
Click to expand...
“I absolve you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

For further information, read the posts, e.g., here and here.
 
pcg2 said:
  1. Should I just assume that he knew what he was doing and not scruple over this?
Click to expand...
YES!!! You know, for many, many years, until relatively recently, the absolution was given in Latin, at the same time as the penitent was saying the act of contrition. For all we knew, the priest could have been mumbling the Star Spangled Banner in Latin. Did anyone worry? No. God gave us priests to take care of us, not so that we had the additional burden of monitoring the performance of their duties.

Betsy
 
Dear Brother,
The very fact that you went to confession is that your faith in this sacrament led you to it now believe that you are absolved & let your faith be complete,doubting leads to nothing,the priest has performed his part how about you?.

Regards,
Stanley Lobo
 
Remember, too, that we are bound by the sacraments, but G-d is not.
My personal opinion is that in a case where a penitent goes to Confession and, through no fault of his or her own, the Confession is not valid, G-d will provide the means for forgiveness. This might be that G-d allows the person to live to be able to go to Confession again, or maybe that he outright forgives those sins.
 
Thank you everyone for your timely and kind responses!

Mark, so from those links you provided, it would seem like if I am in doubt as to what the priest said, I should just assumer that he did his job properly and celebrated the sacrament correctly, correct?

**Also. I have a hypothetical situation here. Say that one does something that they are not sure was a mortal sin. So they receive communion (as they should). They go to confession a few days later, talk to the priest, and find out that they were in a state of mortal sin. Was it a sin for them to have received the Eucharist? If so, why? How can one commit the sin of sacrilege if one was not sure that they were in a state of mortal sin at the time they received?
**
 
pcg2 said:
Thank you everyone for your timely and kind responses!

Mark, so from those links you provided, it would seem like if I am in doubt as to what the priest said, I should just assumer that he did his job properly and celebrated the sacrament correctly, correct?
Click to expand...
I don’t know if there is an “official position” about this, but my view would be: if you are in doubt as to what he said (for instance, because it was in Latin, he had an accent, you sneezed while he was speaking) then you should assume he did it correctly. If you heard what he said but are in doubt whether it was correct (as here) then you might as well ask.
Also. I have a hypothetical situation here. Say that one does something that they are not sure was a mortal sin. So they receive communion (as they should). They go to confession a few days later, talk to the priest, and find out that they were in a state of mortal sin. Was it a sin for them to have received the Eucharist? If so, why? How can one commit the sin of sacrilege if one was not sure that they were in a state of mortal sin at the time they received?
Click to expand...
This is a better question for the moral theology forum, but I would think that if the person did not have a reasonable expectation that he was in a state of mortal sin, there shouldn’t be a problem. Besides which, committing the mortal sin in the first place requires full knowledge and consent.
 
pcg2 said:
Thank you everyone for your timely and kind responses!

Mark, so from those links you provided, it would seem like if I am in doubt as to what the priest said, I should just assumer that he did his job properly and celebrated the sacrament correctly, correct?

**Also. I have a hypothetical situation here. Say that one does something that they are not sure was a mortal sin. So they receive communion (as they should). They go to confession a few days later, talk to the priest, and find out that they were in a state of mortal sin. Was it a sin for them to have received the Eucharist? If so, why? How can one commit the sin of sacrilege if one was not sure that they were in a state of mortal sin at the time they received?
**
Click to expand...
you can not be in mortal sin without consent and full knowledge that the incident was grave matter

the action was grave matter, but it was not a sin then
 
this was actually what I was thinking.

so how come people are always discussing whether they committed a mortal sin? I never understood this. You either did or you didn’t. You have to know, when you committed the sin, that what you were doing was grave matter. There is no, afterwards, wondering about it. If, at the time, you were unsure, then there was no mortal sin…
 
pcg2 said:
Thank you everyone for your timely and kind responses!
**Also. I have a hypothetical situation here. Say that one does something that they are not sure was a mortal sin. So they receive communion (as they should). They go to confession a few days later, talk to the priest, and find out that they were in a state of mortal sin. Was it a sin for them to have received the Eucharist? If so, why? How can one commit the sin of sacrilege if one was not sure that they were in a state of mortal sin at the time they received?
**
Click to expand...
If: They are not sure if it is a mortal sin, they should not receive communion. It might be a sin. Not sure.

If: They do not know it’s a mortal sin (or “know” that it is not) then it is not a sin, but still a serious matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top