Crazy confession

  • Thread starter Thread starter YehoiakhinEx232
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YehoiakhinEx232

Guest
I went to confession this evening, and the priest offering mass there wasn’t the parish priest but a religious priest that offers mass on occasion there and he, well, he isn’t traditional to put it lightly.

When this priest heard my confession he didn’t wear a stole, he was holding one in his hand that he had worn when offering mass, but when I asked him about having to wear one he insisted that his Franciscan habit would do. Additionally, a third of the way through me confessing my sins, he told me not to tell him the number of times I committed a mortal sin, but only the mortal sin itself.

I’m assuming that I am forgiven of my sins and I’m going to trust in God’s mercy, but I want to check with anyone here to see if this confession was valid or not?
 
As long both form and matter were there then it was valid.

Form: Priest: God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church, may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Matter: Sins; Contrition and confession; priestly words of absolution
 
It seems weird, to say the least, but it seems like you’re fine though.
 
YehoiakhinEx232 said:
When this priest heard my confession he didn’t wear a stole, he was holding one in his hand that he had worn when offering mass, but when I asked him about having to wear one he insisted that his Franciscan habit would do.
Click to expand...
I was once told this by a Benedictine monk with regards to his own habit (in the course of casual conversation, not during confession) and I just took him at his word because he has no reason to lie to me. Is it not true that a religious priest’s habit is sufficient? 🤔

In any event, the lack of a stole doesn’t invalidate confession.
 
Last edited:
If the priest said ‘I absolve you’ then the sacrament was valid. It doesn’t matter what the priest wore. We should confess or mortal sins in number and kind. So that part isn’t right.

I feel confident you were absolved. I’m not sure but I would think you might still need to confess any mortal sins which you didn’t specify a number for which there was more instance. If that is the case you can do this at your next confession, but if the priest gave you absolution then you are absolved.
 
With respect to mortal sins in number: I have several times confessed mortal sins from the past without being able to give a number of times. When it’s a sin that happened 5 years ago or over the course of several years, I wasn’t writing down whether I did it 10 times or 20 times. So if there was a “number” requirement then I would have a hard time making confession.

Most priests don’t care about exact numbers. They just want to see if this is a habit for you. If you say I did it for a few years then that’s enough. I can see a priest saying “don’t tell me the number” when he just wants to focus on the sin itself and not have someone trying to remember whether they did it 6 or 9 times.
 
Give the guy a break. He was visiting, and obviously was hearing your confession on the fly.
We had a pastor that was asked in the produce section of the grocery store. It doesn’t make your confession invalid.
You’ve been reading too many blogs, 😉
 
So the next time go to confession, (which should be at a more reverent parish where I go regularly for adoration) should that last third of my confession to specify the number which, I couldn’t mention this time?
 
Yeah that is weird. Most priests counsel to say ‘number and kind’ if possible. Only if you can’t honestly remember the number do you omit that. But it was a valid confession. Just don’t let this experience stop you from properly confessing your sins in the future though.
 
Wait we have to say how many times we committed a mortal sin!? 😮
 
not really…I have always just differentiated between once and multiple times, and my confessors have seemed fine with it.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
I just bring my abacus with me…😏
 
I’ve had pretty solid priests tell me we need to state how many times we have committed a mortal sin if we can remember them. But for the OP that does not mean he was not absolved. He was most definitely absolved as long as the priest said the words that Augustine3 notes. He would just need to say how many times at the next confession. That’s what I gathered. But I could be wrong…
 
You are right,. You could be wrong. In fact, you are wrong. The OP was forgiven and has nothing to regurgitate at the next confession.
 
I’ve never used to the number of instances. That would be a very rough estimate for some venial sins!
 
Tis_Bearself said:
With respect to mortal sins in number: I have several times confessed mortal sins from the past without being able to give a number of times. When it’s a sin that happened 5 years ago or over the course of several years, I wasn’t writing down whether I did it 10 times or 20 times. So if there was a “number” requirement then I would have a hard time making confession.
Click to expand...
We give the number as best we can remember. If we can’t recall we give an estimate. That could be something like ‘about once a week’ or anything else that conveys the frequency.
stupidisasstupiddoes said:
I’ve never used to the number of instances. That would be a very rough estimate for some venial sins!
Click to expand...
We are obligated to only for mortal sins.
 
otjm said:
You are right,. You could be wrong. In fact, you are wrong. The OP was forgiven and has nothing to regurgitate at the next confession.
Click to expand...
You seem rather confident. Unfortunately I think your confidence is misplaced. For mortal sins we are obligated to confess those in number and kind. That apparently didn’t happen here. That would, it seems to me, make it like a general absolution made in haste due to necessity where one is absolved but one is still obligated to confess those sins and mortal (in number and kind) at the next confession. I could be wrong as I don’t claim to be an expert but absent official documents saying otherwise this is what you do when you have an incomplete confession.

* This assumes nothing undisclosed like the OP is scrupulous and has different instructions.
 
Well, i just said I did it over X years or X months and if God wants a number I’m sure he knows much better than I can remember “number of times”.

“Number of times” is fine for me now that I’m going to confession every month. When you don’t go for 18 years there is no way I can remember the number of times I did some particular thing and the priest did not seem to insist on numbers, thank God. He was more focused on welcoming me back to the Church. Which I think was the right approach because if someone had begun to demand numbers in there then I might have gotten scared and left again because I couldn’t remember the numbers.
 
Last edited:
From the Code of Canon Law (CIC 1983):

Can. 988 §1. A member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess in kind and number all grave sins committed after baptism and not yet remitted directly through the keys of the Church nor acknowledged in individual confession, of which the person has knowledge after diligent examination of conscience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top