From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
I’ve been in a conundrum after confession today. The priest, a very holy yet elderly one was the confessor. At the words of absolution he said “and I absolve you in the name of etc…” and not the full ” I absolve you of your sins in the name of etc …” Is my confession valid? I believe it really is due to his age, I’ve been going to daily mass and he sometimes celebrates and at one Mass he accidentally said the old form of consecration of the wine (it will be shed for you and for all, instead of, which will be poured out for you and for many) he normally doesn’t do that. Anyways, thanks for your help and God bless you.
God bless that priest for his long and many years of service to God’s people. Think of the good he has done. Now in his twilight he is drifting a little. I get it. But this is why we have books to follow. No matter our age, we need to use our books because we can and do drift once in a while.
I am in my place in Rome and not back home… or is this home? Anyway, I don’t have my library at hand. However, I’ve written on similar questions.
The formula of absolution is, in its short form, “Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis, in nomine Patris +, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti… I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father +, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
St. Thomas Aquinas argues (though his opinions are not the equivalent of the Church’s Magisterium – never forget that!) that “Ego te absolvo” is the form of the sacrament (ST III, Q. 84, Art. 3). If he is right, then that may suffice. He’s probably 99.9% right.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, reliable and definitely an expression of the Church’s Magisterium, and surely working from Aquinas has this:
Pastors should not neglect to explain the form of the Sacrament of Penance. A knowledge of it will excite the faithful to receive the grace of this Sacrament with the greatest possible devotion. Now the form is: I absolve thee, as may be inferred not only from the words, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, but also from the teaching of Christ our Lord, handed down to us by the Apostles.
These days it seems that the minimum form in the Latin Church (the Eastern Churches have their own somewhat different practices) is “Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis… I absolve you from your sins.”
Because I am an Unreconstructed Ossified Manualist, I consulted several manuals (e.g., Tanquerey, Prümmer, Sabetti Barrett). They all come to the same basic conclusion. “Absolvo te a peccatis tuis” is certainly valid, and “Absolvo te” is probably valid,
but if possible the longer form should be repeated to be sure.
The point is that “I absolve”, the word itself, implies that a) a person is being freed and that b) he is being freed from something. In this context the person is a penitent confessing sins. So, the penitent is being absolved of sins. That’s implicit in absolvo te.
Part of the problem with not using the proper form – aside from the arrogance of priests who screw around with the form of absolution purposely – is the regular use of the bare minimum. That suggests that perhaps the rest is not so important. Just because it isn’t the bare and essential part of the form, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t important.
If you confess to a priest who regularly does something dodgy with the form of absolution, I would politely bring it up.
In your case, this was probably just a slip. I wouldn’t bring it up unless he does it more often.
People are within their rights to have the form of absolution spoken as it is in the book. Ask the priest to give you absolution with the proper form. Do not be nasty or aggressive about this.
Loading ...
