Confession without confessing sins

  • Thread starter Thread starter LeonardDeNoblac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LeonardDeNoblac

Guest
I’ve just gone to confession, obviously with the intention of confessing my sins after contrition, but when I kneeled down the priest asked me if I knew how to make a confession. I answered yes, but the priest said that he didn’t think I knew it. I was a little bit perplexed, but the priest told me I had to thank God for the good things He gave me before confessing my sins. I did it, and the priest simply made me say the act of contrition and gave me the absolution without letting me confess my sins. Was it a valid confession? Because the whole purpose of confession is to confess your sins, and if I want to thank God for the good things He gave me (wich I do anyway ) I can simply pray to him for myself. Can anyone help me?
 
Not today. I could go to church earlier tomorrow and ask a priest about it before mass.
 
This priest sounds like he is a little off.
I was taught that you need to mention at least one sin that you haven’t confessed previously, or the priest cannot absolve you and there is no point in being there.

Once when I was in about 2nd grade I somehow got the mistaken idea that one could go to confession just to get grace without needing to mention sins. I went to an elderly priest and when asked my sins I said I couldn’t think of any and was just there to get grace. He did not get mad but he was definitely taken aback and gave me a little lecture about needing to better examine my conscience and kind of let me know it wasn’t proper what I had done. Needless to say I made sure I came in with at least one sin from that day forward.

As for thanking God for the good things he gave you, I’m guessing this is the particular pet practice of that priest. I know other priests who will have you give thanks to God for a good confession every time, AFTER you have recited your sins. Most priests really want you to get right to the point of “Bless me Father, my last confession was X (weeks/ months/ years) ago, my sins are… (list sins).” I’m pretty sure if I went in there and started thanking God, most of the priests I know would gently or not so gently tell me to get to the point, especially when there’s a half hour for confessions and 10 people standing in the line as is usually the case.
 
You have to confess something to be absolved. I’m not sure what this priest is thinking. Confession isn’t for talking about good things in your life, it isn’t for counseling, it isn’t for asking God to help you or bless you or anything like that. Confession is for confessing sins.

If you didn’t have any serious sins, you’re in the clear, as venial sins are remitted by acts of charity, prayers of contrition, using Holy Water, even receiving Holy Communion. If you had mortal sins to confess, you should try to get to another priest for confession.

How I hate when priests mess up confession intentionally. It’s not really that hard to do. It’s much easier to do it correctly than to do it in ways that leave people in doubt. Let us pray for the conversion of priests who treat the sacraments so blithely. They will have much to answer for at the judgment.

-Fr ACEGC
 
Your sins are forgiven with absolution. I think the priest was in error! However, that does not make the confession invalid because you were contrite and had the right intention! IMO.
 
This. Is. Wrong.

The matter of the sacrament is the sins confessed. If you don’t confess any sins, there can’t be a valid absolution.
 
I would say it is, but if the priest won’t budge or, God forbid, gets nasty about it, then leave and find another priest.
 
LeonardDeNoblac said:
I’ve just gone to confession, obviously with the intention of confessing my sins after contrition, but when I kneeled down the priest asked me if I knew how to make a confession. I answered yes, but the priest said that he didn’t think I knew it. I was a little bit perplexed, but the priest told me I had to thank God for the good things He gave me before confessing my sins. I did it, and the priest simply made me say the act of contrition and gave me the absolution without letting me confess my sins. Was it a valid confession? Because the whole purpose of confession is to confess your sins, and if I want to thank God for the good things He gave me (wich I do anyway ) I can simply pray to him for myself. Can anyone help me?
Click to expand...
No the absolution was not valid. Without the confession if at least one sin there is no matter for the sacrament.
 
It’s perfectly legitimate to confess venial sins, It couldn’t hurt.
 
Not true.

You may confess venial sins. People who go to Confession regularly, as is advisable, may only have venial sins to confess. If you go once a month and you don’t commit any mortal sins in between, it’s fine to confess venial sin.

Confession not only cleanses us of sin, it gives us grace to do better on the areas we fail. It can help us increase in virtue. So confessing venial sins aids in this process.
 
rdj88 said:
It’s selfish, disobedient, and scrupulous.
Click to expand...
It truly is none of these things, and this is quite harsh. There’s a difference between regularly confessing out of devotion and a desire to cultivate a good habit in the spiritual life, and going to confession impulsively.
 
LeonardDeNoblac said:
… gave me the absolution without letting me confess my sins. Was it a valid confession? … Can anyone help me?
Click to expand...
If a mortal sin is not mentioned that you are aware of, unintentionally omitted or later remembered, tell it next time.

Baltimore Catechism
Q. 780. What sins are we bound to confess?
A. We are bound to confess all our mortal sins, but it is well also to confess our venial sins.

Q. 782. What should one do who has only venial sins to confess?
A. One who has only venial sins to confess should tell also some sin already confessed in his past life for which he knows he is truly sorry; because it is not easy to be truly sorry for slight sins and imperfections, and yet we must be sorry for the sins confessed that our confession may be valid – hence we add some past sin for which we are truly sorry to those for which we may not be sufficiently sorry.

Q. 794. May a person who has forgotten to tell a mortal sin in confession go to Holy Communion before going again to confession?
A. A person who has forgotten to tell a mortal sin in confession may go to communion before again going to confession, because the forgotten sin was forgiven with those confessed, and the confession was good and worthy.
Click to expand...
 
rdj88 said:
Confession is for mortal sin; you should only be confessing sins that you believe may be mortal.
Click to expand...
Wrong. If I only confessed sins I thought were mortal, I wouldn’t have been to confession in well over a year. I sin, every day. I just don’t think any of those sins meet the criteria for mortal sin. (I sinned mortally probably almost every day of the week for about 25 years in the past so I think I know what I’m talking about.)

We are quite permitted to confess venial sins. Coming up with one venial sin is sufficient to receive absolution.

Edited to add, Father has already corrected you (thank Heaven) but I just wanted to point out that those of us who do the First Saturday Devotion and/or indulgence practice are confessing at least once a month because it’s necessary for the devotion/ practice. These devotions and practices are endorsed and promoted by the Church. For First Saturday, you must go to confession within about a week of the First Saturday; for a plenary indulgence, you must go to confession within 20 days before or after the indulgenced work. You don’t get to skip it if you didn’t happen to commit a mortal sin.

If the Church thought that confession once or twice a month was selfish, scrupulous, or wasting the priest’s time, it would not promote these practices - especially for indulgences, as the Church makes all the rules about how one receives those.
 
Last edited:
rdj88 said:
It would be sort of like receiving the Eucharist more than twice in one day.
Click to expand...
And not to take the thread off topic, but Catholics are also allowed to receive the Eucharist twice in one day, as long as the second Eucharist is received at a Mass that the person fully attends and participates in, or alternatively if the person is in danger of death when he receives the second Eucharist.

I receive the Eucharist twice in one day several times a month, usually because I am attending a morning daily Mass and then a second Mass in the afternoon as the vigil for a Sunday or holy day of obligation, or else because I need to receive a second communion to complete a plenary indulgence from a day or two before.

I’m not sure where you are getting your info about some of the sacraments; I see by your other posts that you are new to Catholicism, so you may want to read and study a little more before you make pronouncements like this. We have people on this forum who are trying to learn about Catholicism and you wouldn’t want to lead them astray with incorrect information.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
if the person is in danger of death when he receives the second Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Well said on all points, as per usual, Bear. One minor quibble here.

A person in danger of death may actually receive Viaticum at any time, even if they have already received twice in one day. If you read the rubrics in the rite for the sick (and this was news to me a couple of years ago when I just happened to glance at it), every allowance is to be made for someone in extremis to receive communion if they are able to. A good portion of the time, probably 75-80%, I don’t take the Eucharist with me on a call for Last Rites since the person is incapacitated completely or at least unable to swallow. But if they are alert and able, I always do; the rite makes it seem as though this is hardly optional.

Additional commentary, I realize, and not really directed at you. I just get excited about these things.
 
Thank you Father for correcting and clarifying that.
It’s good to know that people who can receive near death can receive. Who knows what situations we may ultimately end up in.
 
It’s really beautiful the language that’s used about it. “Viaticum” means “food for the way,” and we use that wording as well in the funeral Mass, when we invoke God in the postcommunion prayer as the one who gives us in the Eucharist “food for the journey.”

And I just realized how grammatically weird that sentence is. I’m currently writing my Spanish homily for today, so there’s that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top