Can a priest temporarily forgive sins?

[Sir_Knight]

Our church has confessions every day 15 minutes prior to the start of daily mass. Went to confession this morning and there were over a dozen people in line. Plus, the priest was about 5 minutes late. As a result, he was able to hear the confessions of only about half the people before coming out and saying that he had to leave to say mass but would be glad to hear our confessions after mass and added that if we were in line for confession, we could receive communion.

That left me a little bit confused because it sounded like he was forgiving our sins without hearing our confession for those 30-40 minutes until he could hear our confession.
That didn’t sit right with me because my understanding is that one could only receive communion without confession in an emergency situation and I didn’t see this as such so I didn’t go to communion but I’m just curious how this squares with church teaching … can a priest temporarily forgive sins until confession is heard and then completely forgive them?

 

[puzzleannie]

it was quite in order, although he should have added that those who make a good act of contrition and return after Mass that evening for individual confession may receive communion. he did not give general absolution, he was giving a one-time permission to receive on that occasion, with the understood stipulation that those waiting would confess immediately after Mass.

 

[Sir_Knight]

So let me see if I have this straight. Receiving communion with a mortal sin upon one’s soul is the sin of sacrilege unless it is done in an emergency situation for a grave reason. That would not apply in this case.

So you are saying that those who did receive did not commit the sin of sacrilege because of the temporarily forgiveness given by the priest?

 

[YADA]

By way of example:

The Pharisees knew the “Law” and kept the “Law” literally but failed to live the spirit of the law or that seems to be the message Jesus gave…

If the priest was late [and the number of penitents too great to receive confession] before the beginning of mass … in the spirit of the ‘law’ about not receiving the Eucharist in a state of sin would recognize that your presence in the confessional line indicates that you are sorry for your sins and have in actuality had confessed your guilt and sought [and received] God’s forgiveness …

We seek God’s forgiveness for sins when we become aware of them. We can and do confess to God directly [do you do an examination of conscience every night before bed and ask forgiveness?]. The Rite of Reconcilliation is a gift … it is not the priest who foregives but Jesus …

It is good that you seek that Grace that comes form the Sacrament but that is not the only place to receive foregiveness …

Th priest was not “temporarily” forgiving anything, he just was recognizing the reality of your state as indicated by your presence … the formality of the confessional could come after mass …

Do you suffer from scrupulosity [sp?]. Forgiving ourselves and/or believing we are foregiven is sometimes very hard. But God’s love is boundless [and it is that assurance that I [and perhaps you too ?] find comforting in the Rite

Unless you murdered someone [were not truly sorry - but seeking confession under a ruse] then the priest was acting appropriately IMHO … I would have received Jesus and went to “Confession” after Mass as the priest suggested …

 

[puzzleannie]

he did not “temporarly forgive sins” and he did not violate canon law and he did not tell people they were free to receive communion in the state of mortal sin and go on their merry way.
would you be much happier if he penalized them because he was too late to hear all the confessions?

 

[baltobetsy]

Sir Knight, I’m surprised at you! I never thought you would question an action of the priest who has all that training and ordination, too. Surely he knows the extent of his authority to postpone your confession until after Mass, and yet you don’t trust him enough to receive Holy Communion. Is it your place to make this determination for yourself, or shouldn’t you obey unquestioningly as you do in other instances?

Betsy

 

[Cristiano]

1- The priest CANNOT temporarily forgive sins.
2- The priest can make decision based on pastoral needs.
3- Just because the priest makes pastoral decision that does not mean they the decisions are right/valid/according to canon law
4- Canon 961 talks about general absolution and not individual cases; however sub-paragraph 2:

“2/ there is grave necessity, that is, when in view of the number of penitents, there are not enough confessors available to hear the confessions of individuals properly within a suitable period of time in such a way that the penitents are forced to be deprived for a long while of sacramental grace or holy communion through no fault of their own. Sufficient necessity is not considered to exist when confessors cannot be present due only to the large number of penitents such as can occur on some great feast or pilgrimage.”

could be consistent with the scenario that you presented and so I would tend to agree with puzzleannie.

 

[Sir_Knight]

No, I’m just trying to understand this in light of what is written in the CCC.

 

[YADA]

Do you think the CCC teaches that the confessional is a somehow “magical” like a talisman?

The Sacrament of Reconcilliation is gift. The priest hears your confession as Christ’s representative and seaks the words of absolution as the same … if you enter into the confessional and make a confession [but it is made under false pretenses] even though you might hear the words of absolution you would not be forgiven [it is not magic and you could fool the priest but not Christ] …

That is why the priest could look at poeple standing in line to confess sins and feel assured that you were repentent of your sins. He would not deny you the extra grace of owning your sins [by naming them] and then ‘hearing’ the words of absolution and receiving a penance [which should be designed to help you overcome the temptation to repeat the sin]. That is why he would hear the confessions after mass … for you to receive the extra graces … Similarly, you receive grace from the reception of the Body and Blood of Jesus … nourishment in the Paschal Meal … The evidence of your repentance is your presence in the confession line …

Jesus knows your sins before you speak them [the ownership is for your benefit not Jesus’]. Jesus knows if you are or are not repentant, your sorrow expressed is again for your benefit. Your forgiveness comes from Jesus … and that is what the Chruch teaches … and we worship in spirit and in truth … not in attempting to “literally” interpret the CCC.

Your priest seems very wise perhaps you should sit down and discuss the Rite of Reconcilliation with him. The history and development of the Rite and forgiveness and reconcilliation in general, etc.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

The OP stated this was a daily mass. Someone who didn’t confess, would not be deprived of the Eucharist for a long period of time, only one day. IMO, it was imprudent of the priest to make the announcement he did. The church tells us we are not to receive communion without confessing our mortal sins, even thought we are repentant, even if we have perfect contrition.

If someone at that mass received communion without confessing his mortal sins, he wouldn’t have committed a mortal sin of sacrilege if he believed the priest, not having the intention to sin. However, the priest had no authority to do what he did.

YADA, to believe that the sacraments actually do what they symbolize is not to have a magical view of them. And yes, we should literally interpret the CCC. Obedience to the church is obedience to Christ.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Our church has confessions every day 15 minutes prior to the start of daily mass. Went to confession this morning and there were over a dozen people in line. Plus, the priest was about 5 minutes late. As a result, he was able to hear the confessions of only about half the people before coming out and saying that he had to leave to say mass but would be glad to hear our confessions after mass and added that if we were in line for confession, we could receive communion.

That left me a little bit confused because it sounded like he was forgiving our sins without hearing our confession for those 30-40 minutes until he could hear our confession.

That didn’t sit right with me because my understanding is that one could only receive communion without confession in an emergency situation and I didn’t see this as such so I didn’t go to communion but I’m just curious how this squares with church teaching … can a priest temporarily forgive sins until confession is heard and then completely forgive them?

It should not sit well, because it is not correct. He should have come out and said I’m sorry I was late, those who did not have the opportunity to have their Confession heard come back after Mass. Until then if you are aware of having committed mortal sins, do not receive Holy Communion but by all means attend Mass.

 

[YADA]

YADA, to believe that the sacraments actually do what they symbolize is not to have a magical view of them. And yes, we should literally interpret the CCC. Obedience to the church is obedience to Christ.

I believe that that sacraments ‘do’ what they symbolize. My question was related to [for example] something akin to taking the Eucharist home to ‘protect’ your house from evil. The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, it is not to be used as a “Good Luck” charm. Noting that the person who might do this believes that Jesus is Truly Present …

We tend to think we are ‘great sinners’ … the commitment of Mortal sins is far less than the habitual committment of lessor sins …

While the priest should have cautioned any who were conscious of very grave [mortal] sins … most of the persons present were already [by being in the confession line] forgiven … Now I go to confession … but I was taught to perform a daily examination of conscience and seek God’s forgiveness, perform an act of contrition. All of this without the ‘confession box and priest’.

The letter of the law says to make a confession once a year and when you are conscious of mortal sin … but surely this following of the letter of the law is the minimalist approach. We need to seek God’s council and grace much more oftern - as I said the Rite is a gift … but we also need to seek God’s foregivenees more often than we can get to the formal "confession’ with the priest …

We need to be vigilent but the priest still seems [to me] to understand the spirit and letter of the ‘law’ for those who were attempting to receive confession before mass …They were repentent and they made the effort, our humaness prevented the ‘perfection’ [priest late, too many penitents] … surely if the person felt they could not [should not] receive, then they should not - this is true of everyone at every mass [or shoud be].

God Bless, I was only attemtping to get to the theology and spirituality of the Rite and perhaps we might be speaking [writing] past each other … mor in agreement than not …

 

[Claire_from_DE]

It seems to me that the priest making any announcement is problematical. He should address the issue at another time. If he says, ‘all who are only guilty of venial sins should receive communion’ or ‘only those with unconfessed mortal sins should refrain from communion’ then he’s directing attention to those who don’t receive, which is never advisable. But if he says they all are permitted to receive, that may not be true. I do agree that the fact that the people were in line would indicate that they were repentant and already forgiven.

Some people have a feeling that all sins should be confessed before approaching the Eucharist. Others seem to feel that nothing is bad enough to need to be confessed, it’s ok just to tell God you’re sorry. The truth is that it is necessary to repent of all sin and to confess serious sin before receiving communion. But there is much grace that God wants to give us that comes with the confession of venial sin. So we are really in agreement I think.

 

[YADA]

I agreee, and perhaps his offer to her confessions right after mass was his method of addressing those who sins were not mortal …

With some parishes who only offer regular confessions monthly a parish with weekly and daily opportunities is representative of priests who have a good sense of the Sacrament … he still seems like a good and knowledgable priest [based upon the OP’s post] IMHO

 

[Sir_Knight]

Sir Knight, I’m surprised at you! I never thought you would question an action of the priest who has all that training and ordination, too. Surely he knows the extent of his authority to postpone your confession until after Mass, and yet you don’t trust him enough to receive Holy Communion. Is it your place to make this determination for yourself, or shouldn’t you obey unquestioningly as you do in other instances?

Betsy

Your sarcastic comments are uncalled for and most unChristian.

A priest is not infallible. When his actions APPEAR to be in DIRECT contradiction to official church teaching, his actions should be questioned.

 

[Walking_Home]

Someone prior stated that the actions of a priest should not have been questioned. By the following — it seems we better start paying better attention to just what type of advice some priests are dispensing. The crisis is escalating and infecting our seminaries – it could also be affecting some of our current priests.

zenit.org/article-21987?l=english

Sacrament of Penance in Crisis, Says Bishop

VATICAN CITY, MARCH 6, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The sacrament of the confession is experiencing a crisis, and the Church needs its pastors to be better trained to overcome some particular difficulties, says the regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary.
“As with vocations and the institution of marriage," the regent told L’Osservatore Romano this week, "so also the sacrament of penance must confront a period of crisis, which though it began a number of decades ago, is becoming much worse.”

According to the 1998 study, 30% of the faithful in Italy do not believe that priests are needed in confessionals. In fact, 10% consider the priest gets in the way of a direct dialogue with the Lord, while 20% say it is difficult for them to speak with another person about their own sins.

The prelate told the Vatican daily that the crisis isn’t just among the lay faithful, but has begun “to cross the door into seminaries, colleges and ecclesiastic institutions.”

 

[Sir_Knight]

Someone prior stated that the actions of a priest should not have been questioned.

Let’s not bear false witness, shall we, by mentioning only part of the discussion.

“Someone” said that we are to live our life by the bible as defined by the CCC (and Canon Law). Both state that we are to be obedient to our religious leaders. However, that does not mean we are to accept their words and actions when they DIRECTLY conflict with CCC or Canon Law. In this particular instance, that SEEMS to be the case.

In the “other” discussion, the CCC and Canon Law are not being directly violated because it left open for a determination to be made. When that is the case, the authority of a priest should come before that of those whom he shepards. When no determination is called for, Canon Law and CCC come before the authority of a priest.

Hope that clears things up.

 

[Walking_Home]

Let’s not bear false witness, shall we, by mentioning only part of the discussion.

“Someone” said that we are to live our life by the bible as defined by the CCC (and Canon Law). Both state that we are to be obedient to our religious leaders. However, that does not mean we are to accept their words and actions when they DIRECTLY conflict with CCC or Canon Law. In this particular instance, that SEEMS to be the case.

In the “other” discussion, the CCC and Canon Law are not being directly violated because it left open for a determination to be made. When that is the case, the authority of a priest should come before that of those whom he shepards. When no determination is called for, Canon Law and CCC come before the authority of a priest.

Hope that clears things up.

Quote=Quote:
Originally Posted by baltobetsy View Post
Sir Knight, I’m surprised at you! I never thought you would question an action of the priest who has all that training and ordination, too. Surely he knows the extent of his authority to postpone your confession until after Mass, and yet you don’t trust him enough to receive Holy Communion. Is it your place to make this determination for yourself, or shouldn’t you obey unquestioningly as you do in other instances?

Betsy​

Who is bearing false witness–the statement was made by a previous poster --“I never thought you would question an action of the priest who has all that training and ordination, too”. The post I was referring to (which was a response to you) --is included above. It is not becoming to jump to conclusions and accuse someone of bearing false witness.

Since the topic of this thread is whether a priest’s action was in line with the Church – I posted information that has bearing on this topic. Considering the crisis – we really should take great care in accepting a priest’s actions --just based only on him being a priest. As you said – we have the CCC, Canon Law and we also have RS-2004 and probably other Church documents – that help discern if a priest’s actions are in line with the Church or not.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Quote=Quote:
Originally Posted by baltobetsy View Post
Sir Knight, I’m surprised at you! I never thought you would question an action of the priest who has all that training and ordination, too. Surely he knows the extent of his authority to postpone your confession until after Mass, and yet you don’t trust him enough to receive Holy Communion. Is it your place to make this determination for yourself, or shouldn’t you obey unquestioningly as you do in other instances?

Betsy​

Who is bearing false witness–the statement was made by a previous poster

Did I or did I not provide biblical and CCC references supporting my earlier position clearly showing that official church teaching has to come first? With your comments, you are making it sound as if I said that a priest’s authority should be followed above everything. By not sharing the entire story, you are painting a false picture of things.

–“I never thought you would question an action of the priest who has all that training and ordination, too”. The post I was referring to (which was a response to you) --is included above. It is not becoming to jump to conclusions and accuse someone of bearing false witness.

And what was the point of bringing up the contents of a different thread into this discussion?

Since the topic of this thread is whether a priest’s action was in line with the Church – I posted information that has bearing on this topic. Considering the crisis – we really should take great care in accepting a priest’s actions --just based only on him being a priest. As you said – we have the CCC, Canon Law and we also have RS-2004 and probably other Church documents – that help discern if a priest’s actions are in line with the Church or not.

What does RS-2004 have to do with the topic of confession? Nothing that I can see. Then why bring it up in this discussion unless you have a vendetta against me and the other post’ers who disagreed with your position in the other thread?

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
Quote=Quote:
Originally Posted by baltobetsy View Post
Sir Knight, I’m surprised at you! I never thought you would question an action of the priest who has all that training and ordination, too. Surely he knows the extent of his authority to postpone your confession until after Mass, and yet you don’t trust him enough to receive Holy Communion. Is it your place to make this determination for yourself, or shouldn’t you obey unquestioningly as you do in other instances?

Betsy​

Who is bearing false witness–the statement was made by a previous poster --“I never thought you would question an action of the priest who has all that training and ordination, too”. The post I was referring to (which was a response to you) --is included above. It is not becoming to jump to conclusions and accuse someone of bearing false witness.

And what was the point of bringing up the contents of a different thread into this discussion?

uote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
Since the topic of this thread is whether a priest’s action was in line with the Church – I posted information that has bearing on this topic. Considering the crisis – we really should take great care in accepting a priest’s actions --just based only on him being a priest. As you said – we have the CCC, Canon Law and we also have RS-2004 and probably other Church documents – that help discern if a priest’s actions are in line with the Church or not.

What does RS-2004 have to do with the topic of confession? Nothing that I can see. Then why bring it up in this discussion unless you have a vendetta against me and the other post’ers who disagreed with your position in the other thread?

---

What contents of what different thread. I posted information relevant to this discussion. There is a crisis in progress – and this crisis is already affecting the Church —which could then be expressed by what you encountered.

As far bringing up RS–2004 – it is an authoritative Church document just as the CCC and Canon Law – the pt being is that we do have authoritative documents to help in the discernment process.

Vendetta — what vendetta. I was actually backing you up-- by providing information --that we need to discern the actions of a priest. But thanks —for accusing me of false witness --and your subsequent post . So before you go on and accuse me of something else — maybe you need to discern-- who actually carries the vendetta.