Confession question

  • Thread starter Thread starter student_of_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

student_of_God

Guest
the last time I went to confession the priest told me to say one thing for lack of time then he gave me the absolution where all my sins forgiven or do they have to be confessed :confused:
 
student_of_God said:
the last time I went to confession the priest told me to say one thing for lack of time then he gave me the absolution where all my sins forgiven or do they have to be confessed :confused:
Click to expand...
The way I understand it, you have to confess all grave sins you are concious of. I’m no theologian, but something does not seem right here.
 
CWBetts said:
The way I understand it, you have to confess all grave sins you are concious of. I’m no theologian, but something does not seem right here.
Click to expand...
The priest, on my understanding, acts like a judge does in court. A judge can elect to hear just part of the evidence in a case if they only need part of it to make a decision.

I’d say trust your confessor - and don’t worry unless you alone deliberately decided to omit a sin. If he was wrong he’ll answer for it, not you.
 
The priest may have been pressed for time but Jesus knows what is in your heart. You made the effort(humbled yourself) of going to confession. If we forget a sin it is still forgiven, but are supposed to tell them at next confession.
So I would say your sins were forgiven since you had every intention of telling them to the priest. It was beyond your control so, yes I would say you are forgiven.

If you can’t settle your heart about this go to confession again. But you were forgiven of all sins even if you didn’t speak them to the priest since in your heart you are truly sorry. You cannot purposely withhold a sin at confession as this is not a true act of contrition (being truly sorry). But this case does not sound like that at all to me. Isn’t the forgiveness of Jesus grand?

God Bless you my friend and don’t worry so much.
 
student_of_God said:
the last time I went to confession the priest told me to say one thing for lack of time then he gave me the absolution where all my sins forgiven or do they have to be confessed :confused:
Click to expand...
In order for the Sacrament to occur, there has to be at least one sin confessed, and the priest must pronounce the absolution.

Remember that absolution and forgiveness are not the same thing, although we often interchange the words.
Forgiveness is the fact that God Himself has removed your sin
Absolution is a juridic act of the Church, pronounced by the priest.

If you tried or at least sincerely intended to mention any other sins, then those sins are forgiven because God Himself knows that’s what you wanted to do. The same applies for any sins that you tried to confess but did not for lack of memory after a sincere examination of conscience.

Any and all sins, since your last confession, which you tried to confess have been forgiven; so long as you yourself were sincere.

In a scenario like you describe, the penitent still has the obligation to confess any mortal sins (in kind and number) at the next confession, which were not yet confessed. But this is not a matter of needing forgiveness as much as it is a need for absolution. One of the reasons why mortal sins have to be confessed in kind and number is so that the priest may apply appropriate measures of healing and counsel and in some cases reparation. Even if a person has been forgiven for those mortal sins (by God), that healing is still needed.

So, in short, in that scenario, all the sins since your last confession have been forgiven. If you are conscious of any mortal sins, you still need to mention them in your next confession.

Having people confess “just one sin” for the sake of time is usually not sound pastoral practice, and it’s something that the priest should do only in extreme circumstances, and certainly not as a matter of routine. Likewise, a penitent who finds himself in that situation should confess the most serious sin.
 
FrDavid96 said:
In order for the Sacrament to occur, there has to be at least one sin confessed, and the priest must pronounce the absolution.

Remember that absolution and forgiveness are not the same thing, although we often interchange the words.
Forgiveness is the fact that God Himself has removed your sin
Absolution is a juridic act of the Church, pronounced by the priest.

If you tried or at least sincerely intended to mention any other sins, then those sins are forgiven because God Himself knows that’s what you wanted to do. The same applies for any sins that you tried to confess but did not for lack of memory after a sincere examination of conscience.

Any and all sins, since your last confession, which you tried to confess have been forgiven; so long as you yourself were sincere.

In a scenario like you describe, the penitent still has the obligation to confess any mortal sins (in kind and number) at the next confession, which were not yet confessed. But this is not a matter of needing forgiveness as much as it is a need for absolution. One of the reasons why mortal sins have to be confessed in kind and number is so that the priest may apply appropriate measures of healing and counsel and in some cases reparation. Even if a person has been forgiven for those mortal sins (by God), that healing is still needed.

So, in short, in that scenario, all the sins since your last confession have been forgiven. If you are conscious of any mortal sins, you still need to mention them in your next confession.

Having people confess “just one sin” for the sake of time is usually not sound pastoral practice, and it’s something that the priest should do only in extreme circumstances, and certainly not as a matter of routine. Likewise, a penitent who finds himself in that situation should confess the most serious sin.
Click to expand...
Father, I have a question if you don’t mind. I understand that the penitent is obligated to confess any mortal sins he didn’t confess at his next confession, but between the time-shortened confession and this one, would he be able to receive Communion, or would he have to wait until all his mortal sins were confessed?
 
Once on a Day of Renewal, the priest recommended that each of us confess just one sin. If a person is regularly going to confession, the monthly devotional confession that many practice, it is unlikely that we really have any mortal sins to confess. It was a suggestion and recommendation that I really like. It forces me to concentrate on that one area of my life in which I am most tempted to sin.
If a mortal sin is committed, of course that sin must be confessed.
Consider the situation. There was one priest and at least thirty people seeking confession, many who attend Mass daily.
 
Lujack said:
Father, I have a question if you don’t mind. I understand that the penitent is obligated to confess any mortal sins he didn’t confess at his next confession, but between the time-shortened confession and this one, would he be able to receive Communion, or would he have to wait until all his mortal sins were confessed?
Click to expand...
Here’s the all-important question: did the penitent make a sincere attempt to confess that mortal sin? If the answer to that is yes, then the answer to Communion would likewise be yes. Remember that neither God nor the Church holds a person responsible for not-confessing if that person has made a genuine attempt to do so.

Here’s why: The Church says that a person who is conscious of mortal sin may receive if he makes an act of perfect contrition and a resolution to confess as soon as possible. Sacramental confession would “trump” an act of sincere contrition.
Having said that though, the mortal sin should be the “one sin” that the penitent chooses to confess.

Also, the idea of confessing only 1 sin is not something that should ordinarily happen anyway, and not something that the Church anticipates–in normal circumstances it just should not happen (important point there). The faithful need to be given the opportunity to confess all their sins. That doesn’t mean that if time is of the essence, penitents should “drag things on” adding stories or unnecessary details, but that they should be given the opportunity to mention all the sins that need mentioning. It’s one thing for the priest to ask people to be brief, it’s something else to tell a whole group of people to confess only one sin (I’m not saying that’s what happened here, only that I have heard of it happening). If that’s the case, then it’s the fault of the priest and not the penitent, and likewise the penitent is not responsible.

That’s also assuming that the time between the first confession and the Communion he has no reasonable opportunity to go to confession. Say it happens right before Mass. In that case, communion yes. If the next time that person is at Mass is 6 days later, well that person had an opportunity to confess, but didn’t, so it would be no.
 
FrDavid96 said:
Here’s the all-important question: did the penitent make a sincere attempt to confess that mortal sin? If the answer to that is yes, then the answer to Communion would likewise be yes. Remember that neither God nor the Church holds a person responsible for not-confessing if that person has made a genuine attempt to do so.

Here’s why: The Church says that a person who is conscious of mortal sin may receive if he makes an act of perfect contrition and a resolution to confess as soon as possible. Sacramental confession would “trump” an act of sincere contrition.
Having said that though, the mortal sin should be the “one sin” that the penitent chooses to confess.

Also, the idea of confessing only 1 sin is not something that should ordinarily happen anyway, and not something that the Church anticipates–in normal circumstances it just should not happen (important point there). The faithful need to be given the opportunity to confess all their sins. That doesn’t mean that if time is of the essence, penitents should “drag things on” adding stories or unnecessary details, but that they should be given the opportunity to mention all the sins that need mentioning. It’s one thing for the priest to ask people to be brief, it’s something else to tell a whole group of people to confess only one sin (I’m not saying that’s what happened here, only that I have heard of it happening). If that’s the case, then it’s the fault of the priest and not the penitent, and likewise the penitent is not responsible.

That’s also assuming that the time between the first confession and the Communion he has no reasonable opportunity to go to confession. Say it happens right before Mass. In that case, communion yes. If the next time that person is at Mass is 6 days later, well that person had an opportunity to confess, but didn’t, so it would be no.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for the explanation, Father. I think I understand it now.
 
I think that the words of John Paul II in *Misericordia Dei *go directly to this thread:
  1. Since “the faithful are obliged to confess, according to kind and number, all grave sins committed after Baptism of which they are conscious after careful examination and which have not yet been directly remitted by the Church’s power of the keys, nor acknowledged in individual confession”, any practice which restricts confession to a generic accusation of sin or of only one or two sins judged to be more important is to be reproved. Indeed, in view of the fact that all the faithful are called to holiness, it is recommended that they confess venial sins also.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top