What words are necessary for a priest to forgive sins?

[NonSumDignus]

Today I went to confession, and was absolved, "And I forgive you your sin, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

He said sin, not sins, and omitted "In the name of..." Is this valid? it seems like "sin" can be plural in the sense "sheep" is plural, and "in the name of" could be argued to be implied. Still, I thought I'd ask

[Herr_Mannelig]

Today I went to confession, and was absolved, "And I forgive you your sin, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

He said sin, not sins, and omitted "In the name of..." Is this valid? it seems like "sin" can be plural in the sense "sheep" is plural, and "in the name of" could be argued to be implied. Still, I thought I'd ask

That is weird. Is it possible he wasn't speaking clearly?

"in the name of" seems to be easy to push together, sort of like "lmnop".

By itself, I don't think that is valid, because it is nonsensical, however, I do think your confession was valid and he was just not speaking clearly. You aren't required to hear the absolution.

[NonSumDignus]

I'm fairly certain that's what I heard. I thought it was odd too. But I think it can be pretty certainly said that that priest intended to invoke the Trinity to forgive my sins.

[jovan66102]

I would say valid, but definitely illicit. The words in the ritual are:

"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."

Rome has insisted that no one has the power to change the words of the administration of the Sacraments, but obviously many priests think they know better than Rome!

[StrictCatholicGirl]

I went to confession today and here's what I heard......

"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."

[glgas]

Defined by the Council of Florence, the proper form of the Sacrament of reconciliation are the words beginning with the 'Ego the absolvo '

699 The fourth sacrament is penance, the matter of which is, as it were, the acts of the penitent, which are divided into three parts. The first of these is contrition of heart, to which pertains grief for a sin committed together with a resolution not to sin in the future. The second is oral confession, to which pertains that the sinner confess integrally to his priest all sins of which he has recollection. The third is satisfaction for sins according to the decision of the priest, which is accomplished chiefly by prayer, fasting, and alms. The words of absolution which the priest utters when he says: Ego te absolvoetc., are the form of this sacrament, and the minister of this sacrament is the priest who has either ordinary authority for absolving or has it by the commission of a superior. The effect of this sacrament is absolution from sins.
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma7.php

The words are:

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. Amen."

[MeaMaximaCulpa]

Defined by the Council of Florence, the proper form of the Sacrament of reconciliation are the words beginning with the 'Ego the absolvo '

699 The fourth sacrament is penance, the matter of which is, as it were, the acts of the penitent, which are divided into three parts. The first of these is contrition of heart, to which pertains grief for a sin committed together with a resolution not to sin in the future. The second is oral confession, to which pertains that the sinner confess integrally to his priest all sins of which he has recollection. The third is satisfaction for sins according to the decision of the priest, which is accomplished chiefly by prayer, fasting, and alms. The words of absolution which the priest utters when he says: Ego te absolvoetc., are the form of this sacrament, and the minister of this sacrament is the priest who has either ordinary authority for absolving or has it by the commission of a superior. The effect of this sacrament is absolution from sins.
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma7.php

The words are:

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. Amen."

I agree with you that "I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." is the form for a valid confession.   However, I can recall somewhere that "forgive" is valid as well.

If you're anxious about the validity of your confession NonSumDignus, then I'd say just go to another priest and recite your confession again (tell him what happened and why you're confessing again).  Confession is supposed to ease your soul, and if you're going to be wondering about validity, then its best to get the problem resolved (because I don't think an "intellectual answer" would really satisfy you (or me, for that matter)).

[PeteC]

The words "in the name of..." are not essential for a valid confession.
Some theologians held /hold that the words "Ego te absolvo" (I absolve you) were themselves all that was necessary for validity
Others held that "Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis" (I absolve you from your sins) were necessary for validity.

"Forgive" is valid as is it an acceptable synonym for absolve. Some will argue that there is a difference between "forgive" and "absolve" - God forgives, the priest absolves - but IMHO, that is unfounded. "Sin" would be invalid if he were explicitly intending to absolve you only from one sin (and that is not allowed), otherwise, it is valid, and you may take it that he was referring to your sin collectively.

[MagisterMusicae]

Fr. Jone writes in his Moral Theology that "the words Te absolvo a peccatis tuis" are certainly valid. These translate as "I absolve you of your sins"

Sacramental theology also is pretty clear that if the form is not substantially changed there is no doubt about validity. So, since to "forgive" is in the English language a synonym for "absolve" it would not invalidate the form to use this word instead. As above "sin" can refer to a plural or singular.

There is no reason from the form you state here to doubt the validity of the absolution. "I forgive you your sin" is an illicit, but valid form.

[Elwin Ransom]

The faithful are not bound by the shortcomings of a priest.  If we walk into the confessional with the intention of making a good confession, we admit our sins, and make a good act of contrition, then the sacrament is valid, even if the priest does not say everything he should say.  It's just like if a priest says the Mass with a mortal sin on his soul.  He has just committed another mortal sin, compounding the first, but the faithful do not, and should not, know about this sin.  As far as the people are concerned, it is still a valid Consecration, and they still make their Sunday duty to receive the Eucharist.  Same with Reconciliation.  If we go to a priest that we do not know, and they do not "perform" the Sacrament correctly, it is not the fault of the penitent, and the absolution is valid.  That said, we should not go back to that priest unless we have no other choice, and certainly not go back because "Fr. So-n-so's confessions are really easy."  NonSumDignus, your Sacrament was valid, just find a different confessor in the future.

[CatholicThurifer]

The priest must say "I absolve you of your sins in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

The key words are "I absolve you - Ego te absolvo". These words are the form, just as the words "I baptize you (N.) in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" matter, so do the words of absolution matter.

[Gerard]

The faithful are not bound by the shortcomings of a priest.  If we walk into the confessional with the intention of making a good confession, we admit our sins, and make a good act of contrition, then the sacrament is valid, even if the priest does not say everything he should say.  It's just like if a priest says the Mass with a mortal sin on his soul.  He has just committed another mortal sin, compounding the first, but the faithful do not, and should not, know about this sin.  As far as the people are concerned, it is still a valid Consecration, and they still make their Sunday duty to receive the Eucharist.  Same with Reconciliation.  If we go to a priest that we do not know, and they do not "perform" the Sacrament correctly, it is not the fault of the penitent, and the absolution is valid.  That said, we should not go back to that priest unless we have no other choice, and certainly not go back because "Fr. So-n-so's confessions are really easy."  NonSumDignus, your Sacrament was valid, just find a different confessor in the future.

That would only be correct if the person confessing were able to make a perfect Act of Contrition.  Otherwise, the absolution of the priest is necessary.  However if the person was not properly absolved, and did not know it, they would not be culpable for any subsequent sacrileges such as recieving communion unworthily when they have moral certitude that they are properly disposed to recieve.   The previously confessed but unabsolved sins would be forgiven on the next valid absolution even if they are not re-confessed.