It just bothers me that something was missed and basically I have been doing something I shouldn’t have. I just don’t understand why Father let me get baptized and confirmed when he knew otherwise.
One, don’t feel stupid or embarrassed. You’ve done nothing wrong by your knowledge - as a good Catholic, you sought Communion and to live your life in accord with the Church’s teaching as you best understood and had been instructed by your priest. All of the times you’ve received Communion, your knowledge has been that you’ve not commited a mortal sin - without knowledge, there is no culpability, and without culpability, there is no sin. No one here condemns you, sister.
Second, I think that whoever told you that you cannot receive Communion until your marriage is convalidated is misreading
Gaudium et Spes and other relevant portions of Canon Law.
For a sin to occur requires both an option to not sin and a remedy to that sin. Receiving Communion while in a state of mortal sin requires that you have actually, knowingly and willfully committed a mortal sin and not confessed it, given the opportunity. If it is a mortal sin to be in a non-convalidated (but otherwise legal) marriage, did you know that it was? If you knew that it was a mortal sin, did you confess it? If you confessed it, what remedy was given? If you were told at the time that you were given conditional absolution and needed a convalidation, then for so long as convalidation was available and you did not seek it, you sinned. If you were not told that convalidation was necessary, you did not sin.
What would be the other option - divorce? Annulment and abjuration of cohabitation until convalidation occurs? The first is a mortal sin in its own right, the second does grave indignity to your marriage and to you and your husband as spouses. It’s not like you were living in sin - you were married and your marriage is recognized. For all the language in Canon Law on validity and invalidity, no one is going to say that you or your husband can legitimately forsake your marital vows because they weren’t Catholic vows.
While a practicing Catholic who marries outside the Church needs a dispensation for the marriage to be valid, that you were only recently confirmed tells me that you were not confirmed at the time of your marriage. If you were not yet confirmed, you could not have been married in the Catholic church in the first place - indeed if you were not Catholic at the time of your marriage, we cannot expect you to have taken Catholic vows.
So therefore, because you were not told that this was a sin, because you were not instructed to pursue an other remedy, and because you could not have avoided being married without causing another grave sin, you were not in a state of sin when you received Communion all these times.
I really don’t see the basis on which someone would approach you - if it was a Deacon, I’d contest his response through a Canon Lawyer. If it was a Canon Lawyer, I’d get a second opinion. This judgment on you seem to be a really narrow rendering of
Gaudium et Spes, which allows for case-by-case evaluation rather than a blanket approach, and yours is certainly unique. You and your husband are practicing Catholics, so there is no disparity of cult, and your marriage, while outside the Church, remains legal.
If you pray on it and still feel uncertain, you may deny yourself the Host until convalidation occurs so as to alleviate any concern of scandal; but in your case, what scandal could you incur by adhering to your marital vows? You may also seek Confession and since you are committing to convalidate at the next available opportunity, ask for dispensation to receive Communion during this conditional absolution - I cannot think of a reason for a priest to refuse you on these grounds.