Can absolution by a priest be rendered invalid? If so, by what means?

[Austere]

Would the absolution by a priest be rendered invalid if the penitent did not refer to the amount of times the sin/s was/were committed?

Thank you very much for reading.
God bless you.
:thankyou:

 

[UpUpAndAway]

Would the absolution by a priest be rendered invalid if the penitent did not refer to the amount of times the sin/s was/were committed?

I don’t know the answer to your question, but frankly I think this scenario is very unlikely. If the sin(s) in question is/are of a nature that it/they must be confessed in both number and kind, the priest would know that and would ask for the number should the penitent omit it. If he doesn’t ask and grants me absolution, I’d assume Father knows what he’s doing and thus wouldn’t question it.

 

[CountrySteve]

If it was on purpose and not by accident, then yes it would be invalid. Also, knowingly withholding an unconfessed mortal sin would make your confession invalid as well.

 

[Austere]

If it was on purpose and not by accident, then yes it would be invalid. Also, knowingly withholding an unconfessed mortal sin would make your confession invalid as well.

Leading on from this, do all mortal sins have to expressed in kind and number, is it expressing it in kind enough for absolution?

 

[CB_Catholic]

Leading on from this, do all mortal sins have to expressed in kind and number, is it expressing it in kind enough for absolution?

In genereal, yes, but sometimes a person who habitually commits mortal sins and over a period of time may not be able to remember the number of times. For example, if a person
hasn’t been to Confession in 20 years and committed a certain mortal sin repeatedly over the years, he probably cannot remember how many times. Priests are the ones to discuss this with, and they know how to handle these situations, and they have the authority to absolve if they are satisfied.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

If it was on purpose and not by accident, then yes it would be invalid. Also, knowingly withholding an unconfessed mortal sin would make your confession invalid as well.

Why isn’t the burden on the priest to probe for such detail depending in the nature of the sin(s) and his assessment of the penitent’s circumstances?

 

[FrDavid96]

Why isn’t the burden on the priest to probe for such detail depending in the nature of the sin(s) and his assessment of the penitent’s circumstances?

Because quite simply, if the penitent is intentionally withholding confessing a sin, there’s often (not always) very little chance that the priest would know to ask about it.

In order for the priest to inquire about a particular sin, he first needs to have some indication that it was a possibility. That either might or might not happen.

Think of it this way: none of us would want every priest at every confession to go through a list of mortal sins and ask “yes or no?” for each one. That would mean that I would have to ask every penitent “have you murdered anyone since your last confession?” Of course, we wouldn’t want that.

However, you are on the right track. When it comes to further details, such as “kind and number” it is indeed the priest’s responsibility to ask necessary questions (note the word “necessary”). If the priest does not ask, then the penitent should presume that what was said already is sufficient. Also, if the penitent does say something that indicates there might be a mortal sin yet unconfessed, then the priest should help the penitent by asking. So, again, you’re on the right track there. We just cannot say that it’s always the priest’s burden to ask—first there needs to be some reason for him to ask.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Because quite simply, if the penitent is intentionally withholding confessing a sin, there’s often (not always) very little chance that the priest would know to ask about it.

In order for the priest to inquire about a particular sin, he first needs to have some indication that it was a possibility. That either might or might not happen.

Think of it this way: none of us would want every priest at every confession to go through a list of mortal sins and ask “yes or no?” for each one. That would mean that I would have to ask every penitent “have you murdered anyone since your last confession?” Of course, we wouldn’t want that.

However, you are on the right track. When it comes to further details, such as “kind and number” it is indeed the priest’s responsibility to ask necessary questions (note the word “necessary”). If the priest does not ask, then the penitent should presume that what was said already is sufficient. Also, if the penitent does say something that indicates there might be a mortal sin yet unconfessed, then the priest should help the penitent by asking. So, again, you’re on the right track there. We just cannot say that it’s always the priest’s burden to ask—first there needs to be some reason for him to ask.

But the OP had to do strictly with the “number of times” issue, not the withholding of a sin itself. That’s why I asked the question I did.

 

[FrDavid96]

But the OP had to do strictly with the “number of times” issue, not the withholding of a sin itself. That’s why I asked the question I did.

Because the your question (to which I responded directly) had quoted this earlier post and seemed to be a direct response to it:

If it was on purpose and not by accident, then yes it would be invalid. Also, knowingly withholding an unconfessed mortal sin would make your confession invalid as well.

I responded to your question by addressing both possibilities, that the priest either might or might not have reason to inquire further.

I was addressing both situations.

In any case, I responded to your question because it was an objective one about the Sacrament itself. The thread seems to me to be a bit too close to a personal situation that should be addressed to ones own confessor, so I’m not going to post further. Instead I’m returning to being a non-participant.

 

[Reuben_J]

Would the absolution by a priest be rendered invalid if the penitent did not refer to the amount of times the sin/s was/were committed?

Thank you very much for reading.
God bless you.
:thankyou:

Your questions have been answered already. I just want to add a comment.

The idea of a Confession is to make a good confession as far as is reasonable. The guideline is to say the number and kind - you can understand why was that because it reflects the state of our spiritual life and perhaps for the priest to gauge it.

There are instances where we cannot remember our sins, let alone the number especially if the Confessions were few and far in between. Examination of the conscience is very helpful to remember sins though admittedly the number can be quite elusive.

In that case a summary would be sufficient like, “there were many times that I (say the the kind of sin)”.

That’s why to answer to your question that you would still be absolved. More importantly is our honesty and not trying to hide any sins committed.

 

[jcrichton]

Would the absolution by a priest be rendered invalid if the penitent did not refer to the amount of times the sin/s was/were committed?

Thank you very much for reading.
God bless you.
:thankyou:

Hi, Austere!

…I think it goes to intent…

When a penitent enters the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession), he/she is not simply recalling the act/s committed; he/she is engaging God’s Mercy… this means that it is not the Priest who is being deceived by any falseness but the penitent is attempting to deceive God Himself (this is reminiscent of Acts 5 where the couple engage in subterfuge and St. Peter adamantly states that they have not lied to man but to God, the Holy Spirit).

…in the case of Confession (Sacrament) ignorance is truly bliss–that is, if a person is unaware of the gravity of the offense or the number of times the offense was committed, well, this particular ignorance has no bearings on the Absolution God Grants since the penitent is not actively/consciously being duplicitous. However, if the penitent is attempting to circumvent his/her obligations (turn back to God, reject sin, make amends, wholeheartedly resolve not to sin again…) then he/she has not truthfully entered into the Sacrament of Confession–this, by default, would make the act invalid.

…like the Sacrament of Marriage, God is the actual glue that makes it stick–when God is removed/circumvented the Sacrament dissolves (ceases to be valid).

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Why isn’t the burden on the priest to probe for such detail depending in the nature of the sin(s) and his assessment of the penitent’s circumstances?

Hi!

…I think that you are confusing the Confessional with a court of law…

…when a penitent seeks the Sacrament of Confession there’s no judgment; the person is taken upon his/her word since the penitent is there seeking God’s Mercy and Grace. It is understood that the penitent is to put on his/her best since he is actually engaging God as in Isaiah 1:

16 Wash yourselves, be clean, take away the evil of your devices from my eyes: cease to do perversely, 17 Learn to do well: seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge for the fatherless, defend the widow. 18 And then come, and accuse me, saith the Lord: if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made as white as snow: and if they be red as crimson, they shall be white as wool. 19 If you be willing, and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land. 20 But if you will not, and will provoke me to wrath: the sword shall devour you because the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

(Isaiah 1:16-20)
…the Priest, if there is time, may engage the penitent prior to the Sacrament (especially if the Confession is by appointment and the penitent has been away from the Church for an extended period of time) and even offer a leaflet with guidelines on what to Confess, the type of sin, and the basic pre/post Confession prayers; the Priest may, depending upon the sin/s Confessed, advise the person on his/her obligation to make amends (making restitution and owning up to temporal correction/punishment)… yet, the Priest cannot gauge the person’s heart/intent nor place a condition (unless it is within the Church’s mandates) on the Confession made or the Absolution to be received.

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Because quite simply, if the penitent is intentionally withholding confessing a sin, there’s often (not always) very little chance that the priest would know to ask about it.

In order for the priest to inquire about a particular sin, he first needs to have some indication that it was a possibility. That either might or might not happen.

Think of it this way: none of us would want every priest at every confession to go through a list of mortal sins and ask “yes or no?” for each one. That would mean that I would have to ask every penitent “have you murdered anyone since your last confession?” Of course, we wouldn’t want that.

However, you are on the right track. When it comes to further details, such as “kind and number” it is indeed the priest’s responsibility to ask necessary questions (note the word “necessary”). If the priest does not ask, then the penitent should presume that what was said already is sufficient. Also, if the penitent does say something that indicates there might be a mortal sin yet unconfessed, then the priest should help the penitent by asking. So, again, you’re on the right track there. We just cannot say that it’s always the priest’s burden to ask—first there needs to be some reason for him to ask.

Hi!

…from your screen name and your post it seems that you are in deed a Friar… (I’ve asked before but you did not reply)

…if you are a Priest, can you shed some light on the hollowoodsy rendering of the Confessional? There are two issues with their rendering which I have never asked clarification from a local Priest…

Priest’s are usually portrayed as giving free-for-all Absolution–even to confessed murderers and sexual abusers who, according to the show (usually dealing with police drama), joyfully seek confession fully aware of their sin/crime and with the full intention to continue their activity (keep on murdering, not releasing their hostages and continue to debase, rape, and torture them).

…so my question is, when a person confesses such crimes/sins and they refuse to make amends (reparations and ceasing the act/s) is that a valid Confession and is the Church granting Absolution regardless of the person’s obstinacy (not giving up the practice, not releasing the victim, not giving him/herself up to the police)?

Thank you for your assistance.

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel