Crazy confession

[Don_Ruggero]

Is my confession invalid if I didn’t state how many times I committed a mortal sin

You were validly absolved. You should be at peace.

 

[JamalChristophr]

Excellent reply! Thanks for taking the time, Father Ruggero.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Do not let people on the internet make you fearful or doubt your priest.

This seems to be a recurring theme.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Excellent reply! Thanks for taking the time, Father Ruggero.

You are welcome. Thank you for your appreciation.

Looking back now across all these years, I have great satisfaction over my years in the academy, especially teaching liturgy and sacrament. The other courses in the curiculuum of dogmatic theology were very satisfying, too…particularly Christology and Mariology…but liturgy and sacraments is the principle interface of individuals with the Church and so those courses were so formative for future priests.

Aside from the academic courses was the rewarding occupation of the canonical examination, under the bishop, in preparation for seminarian’s ordination – and then thereafter for the duration that they are junior clergy – in view of the assessment for granting of faculties.

I am flabbergasted when someone says that because of this decision or that decision taken by a confessor, the priest must either not know the law or is acting in a way injurious to both the sacrament and the penitent. That is quite remarkable.

 

[exnihilo]

It is your confidence in yourself that is misplaced – and you have moreover grossly arrived to an incorrect conclusion.

Not really as I said I am not an expert. That is an expression of a lack of confidence.

The confessor told the penitent to cease something he was doing in his confession. I think I can surmise why…but it does not matter. The confessor’s judgement, as the celebrant of this sacrament, means the penitent was correct to comply with the confessor’s instructions and directive.

He didn’t say cease something, he said to cease accounting for the number of times he committed a mortal sin. Are you saying accounting for mortal sins by number is not required? Are you saying that priests can for any or no reason validly tell a penitent to not account for mortal sins by number?

Finally, you are wrong to assume what is known and what is not known. The confessor knows why he did what he did – and he knows the reason that he did it. He is the only one at this point who needs to know.

Actually, you are wrong to say I am assuming anything. I repeatedly offered my opinion stating unless something relevant has not been revealed. I specifically noted there may be more to this than revealed.

This is an open forum. People ask questions. If I am to never answer a question unless I have full knowledge then I’ll answer no questions nor will anyone else.

 

[adamhovey1988]

If you know, you’re supposed to. If I don’t know, I say I don’t know. Most priests are fine with that. I had one ask me to estimate.

 

[exnihilo]

As a lay person, you are not the judge of a priest who has received the faculty to hear confessions.

You do not have the academic education, the pastoral training or the experience to do so
You do not have jurisdiction to do so, which is delineated by a proper process

I don’t disagree that I lack many things. But that doesn’t mean I can’t form judgments and even valid judgments concerning the sacrament. If I had no such power then I as a penitent myself could never know if I had received the sacrament. I have to form a judgment that something occurred to know I have received the sacrament. Hopefully the Church wants the laity to know when they have received the sacrament so that they can be at peace.

You say that you know what it takes to make a good confession and you speak of rather “simple rules” – but what you have demonstrated to me is a radical lack of understanding regarding the celebrant of the sacrament’s latitude that the Church gives him to deal precisely with the individual celebration of that sacrament and the penitent seeking it.

Are you saying penitents do not need to give an accounting of the number of times they committed a mortal sin? Are you saying that a priest can for any or no reason forbid that a penitent account for the number of times they committed a mortal sin?

Those are not, in fact, the only options – and if you don’t know that, I do not understand why you would comment on this matter in a public forum where people can be misled by this error.

Besides chasitizing me could you enlighten me as to those reasons? The reason I commented was because I participate in this online forum comprised mostly of laity. The questions aren’t answered only by priests or by people with the extensive training you represent as necessary to comment on matters. The other answers provided were no more informed than mine by your criteria.

You seem to want to criticize me, and not educate or inform me, for offering an uninformed opinion. But you don’t criticize every other opinion which would, by your standards, be equally uninformed. Just because an uniformed opinion is correct, by your claim, doesn’t make it right to offer if equally as uninformed as mine.

 

[exnihilo]

Then the penitent has absolutely no reason to bring any of that up again. They were absolved; issue ended.

what you are not answering is why you think they have to bring up the number; and don’t boot to Canon law; tell me what the consequences are for not bringing it up.

There are no consequences. Period. No consequences, no need, no purpose.

Why would you say not to reference Canon Law?

The reason I would think as I do is because the Church has the concept of offering forgiveness of sins but requiring a later confession. This is the case of forgetting to account for a mortal sin, general absolution and also I believe Annointing of the Sick for those anointed while unconscious who later recover.

 

[otjm]

The concept of forgiveness and later confession is irrelevant. The OP has confessed.

The OP did not forget a mortal sin. They confessed it.

Ththe OP did not forget the number of times. The confessor said “don’t get into numbers.”

This is not about anointing of the Sick; it is about confession.

Unless you have something else, the short of it is simply that you presume, without any base, that the OP needs to go back and “confess” the number of times.

Why not go back to Canon law? Because what you so far have quoted does not show that being directed to not give numbers causes the sins to not be forgiven. Unless there is a part of Canon law which says that the confessor cannot dismiss stating the number of times, it is not relevant to the discussion. It does not answer the question I am asking.

I have known that one is required to state the number of times a sin was committed for 65 years. I get it.

That is not the question. The question is this: is a confession valid if the confessor says “don’t give me a count” (or the equivalent).

Canon Law does not answer that.

Thus there are only two conclusions:

1. The confession is valid - which means, there is no reason to tell the number next time.
2. the confession is invalid - which means the penitent needs to start all over, including all sins.

There is no third scenario, unless you can show why; and Canon law does not answer either of those.

I am not trying to jerk your chain - believe me! I am trying to get you to focus on what the question actually is, given your supposition.

Given the scenario of the confessor saying “don’t give me counts”, Canon law does not address that specific issue.

 

[exnihilo]

Thus there are only two conclusions:

The confession is valid - which means, there is no reason to tell the number next time.

the confession is invalid - which means the penitent needs to start all over, including all sins.

There is no third scenario, unless you can show why; and Canon law does not answer either of those.

Canon law isn’t the only source of information. I see no reason why absolution was valid but confession incomplete can’t be an option. That is exactly the position of forgotten mortal sins, general absolution and anointing. If you forced me into your two choices I’d be left thinking the absolution was invalid and I’d have to start from scratch.

 

[otjm]

Your second response to Father Ruggero: “He didn’t say to cease something, he said to cease accounting…”

Yes, he did say to cease something - and then you reiterated what he said to cease. You are contradicting yourslef in the same sentance.

The you turn what Father Ruggero said - that the confessor said “don’t count” to something he did not say. Father Ruggero never said no one has any duty to not “count”. What he said is that the confessor has the right and ability to not require that, by saying “don’t count”. There is a vast difference between saying one does not have to count" and saying the “the confessor can waive that duty”.

Father Ruggero, if you are not familiar with him has been a professor in seminary for a long time. If he says something, you can take it to the bank.

But don’t twist it around.

“Don” is a term for a university professor.

 

[otjm]

I gave you the opportunity to name whatever other source you have to say that the OP needs to return to confession, and you have none. Instead, you continue to argue that you “know” without any information upon which to base that.

Don Ruggero taught sacramental theology for years. His answer is specific, and you have taken his answer and twisted it around to question if he is sayiing a pentitent never ahs a duty. His answer, if you could understand it, already said that the priest could waive that duty.

You are right that you do not have knowledge. I am not trying to get in your case, but you have been given the answer, repeatedly, and you continue to insist that with your lac of any basis other than mere speculation, that you are right.

Don Ruggero siad the priest could waive the need to give a count. If you cannot understand that; if you think that somehow that says there is no need to count, then either this is a matter of not understanding something which is plain, or it is a personal issue, which could border on other issues.

For whatever reason, if you do not have training in a matter (and in this, it is plain you do not) then perhaps you should avoid wading into a discussion where you cannot cite a source of your o[pinion.

I understand you may not be familiar with Don (Father) Ruggero and his background. You now have his background, his answer, and anything further starts to become argumentative.

 

[exnihilo]

Your second response to Father Ruggero: “He didn’t say to cease something, he said to cease accounting…”

Yes, he did say to cease something - and then you reiterated what he said to cease. You are contradicting yourslef in the same sentance.

I was unclear. I meant he didn’t say to cease something as in something unimportant or not relevant to a good confession. He said to cease something specific that is normally essential to a good confession.

What he said is that the confessor has the right and ability to not require that, by saying “don’t count”. There is a vast difference between saying one does not have to count" and saying the “the confessor can waive that duty”.

The right and ability was unclear to me. If a confessor can unilaterally for or without cause waive this duty then I was not aware. It may be that this is so. And I am not saying it must be one way or the other. I only try to follow the Church’s teachings as best I can.

I gave you the opportunity to name whatever other source you have to say that the OP needs to return to confession, and you have none. Instead, you continue to argue that you “know” without any information upon which to base that.

Nor have you or anyone else cited a source saying a priest can unilaterally for or without cause suspend the normal requirement to enumerate mortal sins. I have explained my line of reasoning which seems to me sound. I may be wrong and don’t hold myself up as an authority.

You are right that you do not have knowledge. I am not trying to get in your case, but you have been given the answer, repeatedly, and you continue to insist that with your lac of any basis other than mere speculation, that you are right.

I don’t mind being disproven. I am simply trying to answer the question and understand what is allowed. But you answered the question too. What is the authority behind your answer?

For whatever reason, if you do not have training in a matter (and in this, it is plain you do not) then perhaps you should avoid wading into a discussion where you cannot cite a source of your o[pinion.

I’m confused. This is an anonymous Internet forum. The idea is that regular Catholic laity can have a discussion and answer questions. If the question needs an authoritative answer then it must be asked elsewhere.

No, I don’t have training. I did receive good instruction from a holy and orthodox priest. I have tried to learn about the Faith. That doesn’t make me an authority and nothing else would either on an anonymous Internet forum. But what training do you have to have answered the question? Why do you claim authority to answer the question but dismiss my ability to answer it?

 

[YehoiakhinEx232]

I guess I should elaborate on this priest and his conduct. This priest doesn’t know that well, and I think most of what he does know about me, he knows from my modernist RCIA Instructress. This priest has preached many errors in the past, including the neo-nestorian claim that Jesus didn’t know He was Divine, and didn’t know about His mission.

When this priest told me to stop giving the number of times I have committed a mortal sin, he did say why, but the explanation he gave was extremely vague, and had several implications that I won’t get into here.

So if the priest has the authority waive the essential norm for a good confession, I want a detailed explanation as to the nature of this authority and how it works, because if the priest does have this authority, then there is concern about whether the priest, misused, abused, or did not understand the nature of that authority.

 

[otjm]

By your paragraphs:

1. He answered a specific point with specific information and you questioned if he was saying “never”. Nothing in his comment should have elicited that.
2. you are now aware of it. And it is not “it may be so”. It is. Period. The Church’s teachings include what is taught in seminaries. It is truly amazing how many people question the actions of priests, and by implication, their integrity and knowledge. And yes, I understand that there have been abuses in the Mass in the past. that does not justify some of the questions and responses.
3. Father Ruggero has stated the fact. He is not going to give you, or any of us, a course in sacramental theology and practice. Your line of reasoning has been refined by the questions you have asked, and I have answered by focused questions.
4. the answer behind my response is the same as the answer behind Father Ruggero’s response. And a blog is not a place for a complete explication of the matter. If you wish more, speak with your confessor.
5. I am 71. I have learned a good bit along the way, and have dealt with this question before (it has come up in RCIA, which I teach, and I have used the same source as I have recommended to you.) When my pastor gives an answer, I don’t demand that he pull out his text books and notes from Seminary (which I also attended during college years). I have a fairly clear idea of which priests follow the Magisterium (all except one I know, who happens to be retired and a distant relative of mine).

I dismiss your ability to answer it by your approach and the sources you think are more absolute than they are. I also am fairly adept at asking a specific question, and know when the response does not answer it. That comes from practicing law.

 

[otjm]

Father Ruggero has given sufficient answer. if you have an issue with that priest, then you need to take it up with either him or his superior, not on the internet.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

When this priest told me to stop giving the number of times I have committed a mortal sin, he did say why, but the explanation he gave was extremely vague, and had several implications that I won’t get into here.

Yes, I have no doubt that he did – and I have no doubt that you don’t want to.

So if the priest has the authority waive the essential norm for a good confession, I want a detailed explanation as to the nature of this authority and how it works, because if the priest does have this authority, then there is concern about whether the priest, misused, abused, or did not understand the nature of that authority.

I don’t play this game, young man.

Take your “demands” to understand where they belong: to the chancery of your diocese. They will resolve your concern…and they will do it forthrightly. And since you are under their governance, your compliance will have to be total.

 

[exnihilo]

He answered a specific point with specific information and you questioned if he was saying “never”. Nothing in his comment should have elicited that.

No, my specific question has not been answered. I am not clear on what is allowed.

It is truly amazing how many people question the actions of priests, and by implication, their integrity and knowledge.

Actually I am not typically one who does. Asking questions isn’t inherently wrong.

Father Ruggero has stated the fact. He is not going to give you, or any of us, a course in sacramental theology and practice. Your line of reasoning has been refined by the questions you have asked, and I have answered by focused questions.

I can’t say or know what anyone else may do. If I am ignorant I would appreciate an explanation. Just saying I am wrong doesn’t teach me.

the answer behind my response is the same as the answer behind Father Ruggero’s response. And a blog is not a place for a complete explication of the matter. If you wish more, speak with your confessor.

A lot of words have been typed on this thread. It isn’t as if people aren’t willing to spend time commenting on this. So I’m not sure how an explanation beyond simply saying I am wrong is so difficult.

I will ask this question of a priest I trust.

I dismiss your ability to answer it by your approach and the sources you think are more absolute than they are.

To be clear I never cited any source. Someone else cited Canon Law. I agree with that citation. No one has cited anything else. Only opinions have been offered. The only evidence offered is on the side of numbering your sins.

I don’t think citing a single Canon Law is absolute proof. But again, no other evidence has been offferd to refute that single citation.

 

[exnihilo]

I don’t have an abstract curiosity. I have a concrete curiosity brought about by my attempt in good faith to answer a question about confession. I have been told I was wrong. I have no problem being wrong. I have no problem correcting my misunderstanding. But, if I am wrong it would be decent of the person who says I am to offer a reason and instruct me. This would benefit not just me but anyone else who has incorrect notions.

As I stated, but need not have, this is an anonymous Internet forum. Caveat emptor. I too come across what I think is incorrect information or bad counsel. But that happens outside of forums as well. That is life.

 

[OraLabora]

This priest doesn’t know that well, and I think most of what he does know about me, he knows from my modernist RCIA Instructress.

Please don’t throw around the word “modernist” like that. In the Church, it has a specific meaning for a specific heresy. Accusing your RCIA instructress of modernism is a very serious accusation, one which only the Church’s appointed hierarchy, and certainly not a recent convert, is in a position to make.

You know what is my pet peeve on this forum? New converts coming in and throwing around all sorts of accusations and making all sorts of criticisms without sufficient knowledge. By all means ask questions when you don’t understand something, but don’t pretend to know better than someone that the Church’s lawful hierarchy has appointed to teach you in the faith.

I’ve been a Catholic for nearly 60 years, and I’ve paid pretty close attention to the faith for the last 20 of those 60 years. To have a newly converted Catholic call his RCIA instructress a heretic, is simply insolent.