Fr. Z's Blog

From a reader:

I need some help.  For years I remember my parish using a beautiful Crucifix for Veneration on Good Friday (nearly 6 ft. tall and everything).  I am now Liturgist there, working alongside a … pastor who insists on using a plain Cross since the title is "Veneration of the Cross" and not of the "Crucifix."  He cites the Latin as being "Lignum Crucis" which is of course correct, but it makes no sense to me to use a bare cross on Good Friday.

No, it makes no sense to use a bare Cross on Good Friday.

The Latin in the 2002MR does use Crux throughout.

Crux here means "crucifix", not just bare "cross".

Traditionally in the Roman Rite a Crucifix is used.

When the rubrics refer to a Cross, Crux, on or near the altar, which is what this is, a Crucifix is meant.  We gain clarity from GIRM 308 which says (my emphases):

308. Item super altare vel prope ipsum crux, cvm effigie Christi crucifixi, habeatur, quae a populo congregato bene conspiciatur. …  Likewise, on the altar or near it there is to be a Cross with the likeness of Christ crucified, which is easily seen by the congregation. …

The point of Good Friday is not merely to venerate the Holy Cross of our salvation.  There is a feast for that… on 14 September.  The point of Good Friday is to venerate Christ crucified: Christus Crucifixus.

In the Ecce lignum Crucis sung three times, the priest sings "in quo salus mundi pependit.. on which the salvation of the world did hang". 

The "salvation" hanging there is the Body of the Lord on the Cross, the one who is Crucifixus.

We venerate the Crucifix.

Historically the adoration of the Cross developed from veneration of a relic of the true Cross in those places where one was kept, especially Jerusalem.  This spread to Rome.  The veneration of Good Friday is in the Gelasian Sacramentary.   Where a relic of the Cross was not available, a Crucifix was used.  On Good Friday the veneration given to the True Cross is given to the Crucifix.  Thus the threefold genuflection on Good Friday.

If there is no relic of the True Cross available for veneration, then the Crucifix should be used.. not a bare Cross.

From a reader:

I have a question about confession, ….  When I went this morning, the priest heard my sins and then said, "I forgive you your sins in the name of…" instead of the usual "I absolve you from your sins…".  I cringed a little when I heard that, and I automatically thought of your previous posts on absolution.  Am I making too much out of this, or am I right to think that it was questionable?  After all, he’s not the one who is forgiving the sins!

The priest does forgive your sins. The sacrament of Holy Orders brings the priest into such a close bond with Christ that he speaks in the first person in this moments.  Christ is forgiving in the person of the priest.  Christ is the true minister of the sacrament, but He does so in the person of the priest.  He uses the word in the first person saying: "Ego te absolvo… I absolve you…".  The priest at Mass says, "This is my body…".   When the priest is absolving or consecrating he is alter Christus, "another Christ".  He acts in persona Christi, "the the person of Christ". 

As to the word "forgive" rather than "absolve"….

I suspect the priest is thinking that people will more immediately resonate with "forgive", a more common word, than "absolve".  Surely he isn’t trying to do anything wrong.

However, absolvo is not quite the same as "forgive", but words such as "forgive", "remit", "absolve" are very close in English. 

Absolvo is "loosen" or "acquit" or "declare innocent" of whatever the person had incurred.  "Absolve" sounds to my ears to be more thorough.  "Absolve" doesn’t merely "forgive" sins but also the effects of the sins.  There is also a juridical subtext in absolvo, which could be a helpful point of consideration.  I guess you could argue that for remit.

I don’t know if saying "forgive" instead of "absolve" makes the absolution invalid.  I suspect it is still valid, but I don’t know that.

I know without a shadow of a doubt that "absolvo" and "I absolve" are valid.

There is a reason why Holy Church says absolvo instead of dimitto, ignosco, condono, remitto even though Holy Church speaks frequently about the "remission" of sins. 

I think priests should use the words Holy Church designates for the forms of sacraments so that there isn’t any doubt in the minds of the faithful that the sacrament was valid. 

Latin priests would not make a mistake simply to use the Latin form for their Latin Church penitents. 

Latin form = zero doubt
approved English form = zero doubt
change the words  = some doubt

Why create unnecessary problems?

Just SAY THE BLACK WORDS in the text.

I think it is within a penitent’s rights to ask the confessor to use the proper form of absolution.  This might create a moment of tension and great tact should be used, especially if this is your regular priest.

If the priest will not use the form of absolution in the approved text, it might be necessary to ask the local bishop if saying "I forgive" is valid or not.

….

A Final Idea: You might go back to that priest for confession again and put to him a question about a doubt you are having.  You might say, "The last time I went to confession, the priest said ‘I forgive’ instead of "I absolve’.  That raised a doubt in my mind and really bothered me, since that is not the approved form of absolution.  Do I have to re-confess those sins?"  Maybe the priest will get the hint.

UPDATE: I close the combox.  I don’t see how all sort of people jumping in with advice will help at all.  If people have something to contribute, you can e-mail it to me.