Words Of Absolution

[Not The Philosopher]

Sooo.....

 

Last time I went to confession, the priest said "I forgive you of your sins.." instead of "I absolve you of your sins..." That irked me, but I assumed it still got the job done. Cappie's recent post, making a distinction between forgiveness and absolution makes me wonder about that.

 

Like, how exact do the words of absolution need to be for validity? am I just being scrumpulous?

[Catherine Therese]

The words ARE important, so its a good question, and it's not scrupulous. 

As far as I understand, the correct words of absolution are required for the Sacrament of Penance to be valid. 

 

I don't think, though, that you need to be distressed in the meantime. Your intention was to receive absolution and you went to confession to do so. If you named your sins to the priest with genuine sorry and firm purpose of amendment, then I don't believe the priest's ignorance in using the incorrect formula would put your spiritual well-being in jeopardy or anything. This is where "Ecclesia supplet" kicks into gear. (i.e. "the Church supplies"... the graces are made available even if things weren't done strictly properly because what was done was done in good faith...)

 

If, for the sake of argument, you had been in a state of mortal sin prior, and you were hit by a bus, I think you can be pretty confident in the mercy of God there :)

 

Given that you know that the incorrect words were used, it would be worth seeking Sacramental absolution from another priest, explaining what happened. As to what should be done to ensure that the priest who used the incorrect words is guided to use the correct words, I'm not sure who it would be best to speak to in that regard. Perhaps when you go to another priest for absolution, he could advise you on that? 

 

------

DISCLAIMER: I am not a priest, and although I have studied theology, I am not a sacramental theologian. I've offered this by way of reassuring you that you don't need to stress between now and when you can see another priest, but I'd be more comfortable if one of the priest members of Phatmass confirmed/corrected this as necessary.

As always - I could be wrong! (Shock-Horror!) If this is the case, I defer to the teaching of the Church.

[chrysostom]

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/01/quaeritur-nitwit-priest-changes-the-words-of-absolution-wherein-fr-z-really-rants/

 

A reader sent Fr. Z the same question.  He replied that although he was not the authority on the subject (the CDF is) he suspected that the absolution was valid, BUT that if the penitent was unsure, he should go to confession again (probably with a different priest), explain what happened, and confess.

 

If you named your sins to the priest with genuine sorry and firm purpose of amendment, then I don't believe the priest's ignorance in using the incorrect formula would put your spiritual well-being in jeopardy or anything. This is where "Ecclesia supplet" kicks into gear. (i.e. "the Church supplies"... the graces are made available even if things weren't done strictly properly because what was done was done in good faith...)

 

The Church supplies jurisdiction in certain cases - see cappie's post for more explanation on jurisdiction/faculties - but that only applies to the juridical aspect of the Sacrament, assuming everything else is done correctly.  The Church does not supply ordination, for example.  A layman is not able to absolve sinners in danger of death.  And the Church does not supply the correct form.  If the priest says, "may you hopefully be forgiven of some of your sins", it does not matter if the penitent is truly sorry, that absolution will NOT be valid.  So it depends on precisely how incorrect the formula is.  (not all changes to the words of absolution render the absolution invalid.)  Fr. Z suspects "I forgive you of your sins" is valid.  Our resident Capuchin priest may or may not agree.  The CDF is the authority on the subject.  If this were to happen to me, I would find another priest, mention the situation, and confess.  I would not consider it to be a scrupulous action.

 

If anything I said was incorrect I defer to the Church.

Edited August 17, 2014 by chrysostom

[Basilisa Marie]

"Ecclesia supplet" is a nifty little thing that helps in all sorts of difficult situations (both real and hypothetical). Let's say a man was pretending to be a priest in a very rural community, hearing their confessions, witnessing marriages, saying mass, etc, for years. After he dies the bishop finds out he wasn't actually ever ordained. One option the bishop has is to not reveal the man wasn't a priest to the community but instead invoke "the Church provides," because the people sought the sacraments in good faith and it would just cause incredible amounts of scandal in the little community. 

So like others have said, I'd bet that you were absolved just fine. But if it bothers you, you can mention it next time you go to confession (probably to another priest). 

[Not The Philosopher]

Thank y'all kindly for the responses.

[cappie]

Rite of Penance

 

Introduction

 

Penitent’s Prayer and the Priest’s Absolution

 

19. Next, through a prayer for God’s pardon the penitent expresses contrition and the resolution to begin a new life. It is advantageous for this prayer to be based on the words of Scripture.

 

Following the penitent’s prayer, the priest extends his hands, or at least his right hand, over the head of the penitent and pronounces the formulary of absolution, in which 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. As he says the final phrase the priest makes the sign of the cross over the penitent. The form of absolution (see no. 46) indicates that the reconciliation of the penitent comes from the mercy of the Father; it shows the connection between the reconciliation of the sinner and the paschal mystery of Christ; it stresses the role of the Holy Spirit in the forgiveness of sins; finally, it underlines the ecclesial aspect of the sacrament, because reconciliation with God is asked for and given through the ministry of the Church.

 

 

 

46. Then the priest extends his hands over the penitent's head (or at least extends his right hand) and says:

 

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.

 

The penitent answers:

 

Amen.

 

[cappie]

"Ecclesia supplet" is a nifty little thing that helps in all sorts of difficult situations (both real and hypothetical). Let's say a man was pretending to be a priest in a very rural community, hearing their confessions, witnessing marriages, saying mass, etc, for years. After he dies the bishop finds out he wasn't actually ever ordained. One option the bishop has is to not reveal the man wasn't a priest to the community but instead invoke "the Church provides," because the people sought the sacraments in good faith and it would just cause incredible amounts of scandal in the little community. 

So like others have said, I'd bet that you were absolved just fine. But if it bothers you, you can mention it next time you go to confession (probably to another priest). 

 

 Since what was defective was sacramental form, I don't see how the Church's ability to supply jurisdiction helps To adapt a phrase, Ecclesia non supplet quod Ecclesia non habet; the Church cannot supply what the Church does not have, and the Church does not have the ability to supply sacramental form to a minister's deficient utterance. Many historical examples of invalid baptisms, confirmations, or ordinations would seem to bear this out. Ecclesia supplet does not remedy those cases wherein innocent persons bore the consequences of ministers making invalidating changes in sacramental form, and I don't think it does so for confession, either.

 

Even though Ecclesia supplet seems of no avail here, nevertheless, we may hold that, in some way, Deus providet, that is, God provides, or God foresees.
 

[truthfinder]

"Ecclesia supplet" is a nifty little thing that helps in all sorts of difficult situations (both real and hypothetical). Let's say a man was pretending to be a priest in a very rural community, hearing their confessions, witnessing marriages, saying mass, etc, for years. After he dies the bishop finds out he wasn't actually ever ordained. One option the bishop has is to not reveal the man wasn't a priest to the community but instead invoke "the Church provides," because the people sought the sacraments in good faith and it would just cause incredible amounts of scandal in the little community. 

So like others have said, I'd bet that you were absolved just fine. But if it bothers you, you can mention it next time you go to confession (probably to another priest). 

I'm going to disagree.  Ecclesia supplet usually applies to the priest not having the intention of 1. confecting the Eucharist, 2. absolving sins, etc. but going through the correct rituals.