Before I was done with confession my priest interrupted me and assumed I was done

[Le_Crouton]

He kept talking and I didn’t get a chance to interrupt him politely and then he gave me my penance. Do I have to go to confession again to tell the rest of the sins I didn’t tell this priest?

 

[PatK63]

Only if you were not able to confess a mortal sin. All venial sins are forgiven with absolution even if not confessed. Probable even a mortal sin under the circumstances you described would be forgiven with absolution but I would mention in your next confession to be sure.

 

[SuperDarkMan12]

Priests fault, not yours. Rest easy.

 

[Le_Crouton]

So I can go to communion on Sunday? I don’t have a chance to go to confession tomorrow, that’s why I went today. I just want to be sure I’m good for Sunday

 

[rosejmj]

Maybe after he gives the penance and when it is time to say the act of Contrition just say “sorry I didn’t get to mention xyz” then go on and make your act.of Contrition.
If you didn’t get the chance to confess some sins it is not your fault and even if you didn’t include them at the end I think you can trust that you were forgiven. Just confess them next time

 

[SeraficLeo]

This subject has been broached recently but in a different context. The short answer is, if you are conscious of any grave sins you should not receive Communion until having received the sacrament of Reconciliation. If there is any doubt at all, you ought to sacramentally confess before receiving Communion:

1385 To respond to this invitation [to Commiunion] we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."216 Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P42.HTM

 

[EricF]

Perhaps it is possible that the priest discerned genuine contrition in what you had already said and didn’t need to hear more. Be at peace. He absolved you.

 

[Le_Crouton]

But I already went to reconciliation. That’s why I’m asking because I didn’t get a chance to confess everything

It’s not like I didn’t want to I just didn’t have the opportunity to

 

[SeraficLeo]

Put it his way: I don’t doubt you are or certainly at least were in a state of grace because of your desire to actually confess your sins and the fact you were doing just that. But short of the danger of death (grave reason) we are to confess our grave sins in the sacrament of Reconciliation before receiving communion; and if we are conscious of any grave sins that we have not confessed, then we are to receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before receiving Communion.

The idea that because you intended to do just that but were cut off and could not and, therefore, when the priest absolved you that you were thus also absolved of sins you had yet to confess I suppose could be true or correct: but I have never personally ever read or heard anything of that kind from the Magisterium. The Catechism says:

1385 …Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.

Venial sins are one thing: grave sins are another. If the sins you had to confess were grave in your conscience or according to Church teaching, then I would certainly sacramentally confess them and receive absolution for them before receiving Communion. I have never heard of an ‘implied absolution,’ as it were, covering (absolving us from) grave sins that we had yet to confess: I could of course be wrong but I would absolutely want to see something authoritative before making that assumption.

 

[PennyinCanada]

You know, that’s happened to me. I don’t know why a priest does that. In my mind I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he needed to go to the bathroom and couldn’t wait another minute. I think I would err on the side of caution and do a spiritual communion on Sunday. That has great merit when we are respectful of the sacraments in such a way, and we can offer our desire to receive in reparation for those who have left the church.

 

[Le_Crouton]

How can I be in a state of grace but still not be able to go to communion on Sunday?

 

[SeraficLeo]

How can I be in a state of grace but still not be able to go to communion on Sunday?

Because,

1457 According to the Church’s command, "after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year."56 Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession…57

1493 One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, must confess to a priest all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience. The confession of venial faults, without being necessary in itself, is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.

It’s a condition for receiving communion (except for “grave reason”: see above CCC 1457) that we must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation and confess any grave sins “before coming to communion” (CCC 1385).

As far as I know, outside of the authority of God in and through His Church, we cannot be certain we are in the state of grace.

 

[edward_george1]

It seems to me that you did not deliberately withhold a serious sin, but were interrupted and not afforded the opportunity to confess. If what you had left to confess was venial, then don’t worry about it at all. If what you had left to confess was mortal, you still didn’t deliberately choose not to confess it, you were just not given the opportunity to do so. Mention it at your next confession, but don’t let it stop you from receiving communion.

I would argue that it has the same moral weight as not remembering to confess a grave sin. Your memory prevented you, you didn’t deliberately choose not to confess it. In this case, the circumstances, namely the interruption and the subsequent flusteredness that likely resulted, prevented you.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Thank you, Father. That makes sense.

It makes zero sense to me that someone could be in a state of grace but still not able to receive Communion. You are either in a state of grace or you aren’t. If you are, then you can receive Communion with no extra hoops required.

I think some people are getting a bit hung up on a narrow concept of “grave reason”.

 

[SeraficLeo]

If what you had left to confess was mortal, you still didn’t deliberately choose not to confess it, you were just not given the opportunity to do so. Mention it at your next confession, but don’t let it stop you from receiving communion.

With the greatest respect, I do not believe this is correct: if I am wrong, please God forgive me; but unless the unconfessed sins were venial or the OP had/has “grave reason” (presumably “was/is in danger of death”), then we are not to receive communion if we are conscious of any grave sins we have yet to confess:

CCC 1457 Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession

And

CCC 1493 One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, must confess to a priest all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience.

[1484] "Individual, integral confession and absolution remain the only ordinary way for the faithful to reconcile themselves with God and the Church, unless physical or moral impossibility excuses from this kind of confession…"95
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm

[ 1424 ] …It is called the sacrament of Reconciliation , because it imparts to the sinner the live of God who reconciles: "Be reconciled to God."7 He who lives by God’s merciful love is ready to respond to the Lord’s call: "Go; first be reconciled to your brother."8
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Correcting a priest on what he says about confession?

I’m pretty sure Father is very familiar with all those references.

 

[po18guy]

We have exactly half the story here, so it is impossible to render a valid opinion. Having said that, Father’s actions potentially suggest something.

1. Was there a line of penitents waiting?
2. Was mass approaching?
3. Ask yourself: Are you scrupulous? It is epidemic in our culture. We see tons of it here. If so, help is available.

 

[whatistrue]

if we are conscious of any grave sins we have yet to confess:

CCC 1457 Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession

Your formula “…yet to confess” is different from the reference that you cite of “…received sacramental absolution…”. I could be in error here, but my understanding is that all of your sins are absolved when the priest says the words of absolution, unless you deliberately omit one or more mortal sins. The way I read the OP, the omission was not deliberate on his part and therefore should be considered to be included. It could, and possibly should, be brought up at the next confession, if only for the penitent’s peace of mind.

 

[Arwing]

That refers to cases where the person has not been to confession. Canon law says we cannot receive communion without grave reason in those cases.

The case in this topic is more akin to a forgotten mortal sin. The person has received absolution, and therefore can receive communion. According to canon law those forgotten mortal sins are supposed to be mentioned at the next confession, but not necessarily before receiving communion.

 

[Sbee0]

It seems to me that you did not deliberately withhold a serious sin, but were interrupted and not afforded the opportunity to confess. If what you had left to confess was venial, then don’t worry about it at all. If what you had left to confess was mortal, you still didn’t deliberately choose not to confess it, you were just not given the opportunity to do so. Mention it at your next confession, but don’t let it stop you from receiving communion.

I would argue that it has the same moral weight as not remembering to confess a grave sin. Your memory prevented you, you didn’t deliberately choose not to confess it. In this case, the circumstances, namely the interruption and the subsequent flusteredness that likely resulted, prevented you.

-Fr ACEGC

That has happened to me many times when it’s mortal. I always wondered if there was a line for what it means to deliberately not mentioning it - like you are still in the confessional and absolution is given (specifically a detail associated with your confession that is still mortal) but then you remember what it was right after that? I’ve done a U turn before and gone right back in the confession line just in case. Is just letting your confession end normally considered withholding it deliberately (even when absolution is given)?