A reader writes:
I went to confession today, and when the priest said the words of absolution
he left out the usual "from your sins." So it was, instead, "I absolved you
in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." I take it this is
valid. I’m just looking for confirmation on this.
You are correct that this would be valid (unless the priest intended to absolve you of something other than your sins–e.g., ecclesiastical censures–though that’s not in view in this case).
Isn’t the required form
simply "I absolve thee" according to Trent? Thanks for your help.
Trent references the words of absolution in passing but doens’t quote them completely. It says "I absolve thee, etc." In making these references, Trent is not attempting to specify the minimal form necessary for absolution. It is simply stressing that the absolution takes effect when the minister says the words that constitute its form. Part of the formula is provided simply to indicate when this occurs.
There is no single set of words that are necessary for validity in the case of this sacrament. Various formluas of absolution are used in different rites of the Church, though "I absolve you" is the one used in the Latin rite. It is valid as long as the priest intends to do what the Church does, even if he omits the object of absolution. His intent to do what the Church does–since the Church absolves sins in this sacrament–is sufficient.
20
*snicker*
I’m surprised American priests haven’t taken to saying “I absolve thee, etc.” and dismissing the penitent. 🙂
But if the priest doesn’t say, “I DEFINE that you are absolved of your sins…” how can I know for sure?
I think it may be a good idea to, when using rule 20, to have a link from the little 20 to a copy of ‘da rulz’ for new visitors.
JohnH, this had nothing to do with our posts, did it? }:)