Improper RCIA formation? Confession before baptism?

[FortressGiant]

Hello everyone,

As an ex-Muslim who joined the Catholic Church, I’ve had a bit of a hard time over the last several years (since my conversion) with trying to fully understand Catholicism and live according to it. There are some key elements in my conversion and formation that still have me greatly troubled and confused.

One example is that I had my first confession before baptism with a priest who was quite forgetful and who perhaps forgot that I was not baptized. Isn’t this impossible? From what I’ve read baptism always has to be the first sacrament a person received (except maybe in emergency situations?) It might have just been a confession-like dialogue but I’m pretty sure it followed the same exact form as a confession with absolution and all. After I was done, I felt like the whole world was lifted off my shoulders but I don’t think the priest should’ve had me do a confession. Any thoughts on this? Was this confession still valid or did I do something unholy or wrong by having it? Maybe I should confess this now just to be safe.

I also did not participate in the Rite of Election and yet I was baptized and confirmed. If someone does not participate in the Rite of Acceptance and/or the Rite of Election, are their baptism and confirmation still valid?

I have tried to find the answers to these questions myself but haven’t had great success. Any help is appreciated!

FG

 

[Elf01]

One example is that I had my first confession before baptism with a priest who was quite forgetful and who perhaps forgot that I was not baptized. Isn’t this impossible? From what I’ve read baptism always has to be the first sacrament a person received (except maybe in emergency situations?) It might have just been a confession-like dialogue but I’m pretty sure it followed the same exact form as a confession with absolution and all. After I was done, I felt like the whole world was lifted off my shoulders but I don’t think the priest should’ve had me do a confession. Any thoughts on this? Was this confession still valid or did I do something unholy or wrong by having it? Maybe I should confess this now just to be safe.

You are right there. Baptism should be received before first confession unless you were being conditionally baptized, even then I would think that the baptism should come first. The confession would not have been valid, but baptism removes all sin so you would not need to confess again.

I also did not participate in the Rite of Election and yet I was baptized and confirmed. If someone does not participate in the Rite of Acceptance and/or the Rite of Election, are their baptism and confirmation still valid?

Yes, with an adult one must freely choose to receive the sacraments (I assume this is true in your case), but the requirements beyond that are water, the formula and the intent of the minister to do what the Church does. Anyone can baptize and pre conditions would not effect validity (possibly illicit though).

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

Consult a priest, as recommended above, for your own peace of mind. However, from what you share here, despite irregularities in your situation, there’s nothing to invalidate your sacraments of initiation. Welcome home.

 

[Gorgias]

It might have just been a confession-like dialogue but I’m pretty sure it followed the same exact form as a confession with absolution and all. After I was done, I felt like the whole world was lifted off my shoulders but I don’t think the priest should’ve had me do a confession. Any thoughts on this? Was this confession still valid or did I do something unholy or wrong by having it?

It’s all good. If your question is whether the sins of your past have been forgiven, then please be at peace: they were forgiven, at the very least, by virtue of your baptism. You’re all good!

Maybe I should confess this now just to be safe.

Not necessary. You’re ok.

I also did not participate in the Rite of Election and yet I was baptized and confirmed. If someone does not participate in the Rite of Acceptance and/or the Rite of Election, are their baptism and confirmation still valid?

Yes, your baptism and confirmation were valid. Be at peace. The ‘Rite of Acceptance’ and the ‘Rite of Election’ are not necessary for a valid baptism! (And welcome to the Church, @FortressGiant!)

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Yes, my friend, you are fine. Your Baptism and Confirmation are valid. All of your previous sins were washed away at your baptism. The RCIA rites are not required for a valid baptism. The priest should not have given you absolution before baptism, but that was not your fault. Likely, as you say, he just forgot. People make honest mistakes.

 

[Vico]

Hello everyone,

As an ex-Muslim who joined the Catholic Church, I’ve had a bit of a hard time over the last several years (since my conversion) with trying to fully understand Catholicism and live according to it. There are some key elements in my conversion and formation that still have me greatly troubled and confused.

One example is that I had my first confession before baptism with a priest who was quite forgetful and who perhaps forgot that I was not baptized. Isn’t this impossible? From what I’ve read baptism always has to be the first sacrament a person received (except maybe in emergency situations?) It might have just been a confession-like dialogue but I’m pretty sure it followed the same exact form as a confession with absolution and all. After I was done, I felt like the whole world was lifted off my shoulders but I don’t think the priest should’ve had me do a confession. Any thoughts on this? Was this confession still valid or did I do something unholy or wrong by having it? Maybe I should confess this now just to be safe.

I also did not participate in the Rite of Election and yet I was baptized and confirmed. If someone does not participate in the Rite of Acceptance and/or the Rite of Election, are their baptism and confirmation still valid?

I have tried to find the answers to these questions myself but haven’t had great success. Any help is appreciated!

FG

The priest would not be able to give absolution without prior baptism. The Canon Law (CIC) has:

Can. 959 In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a legitimate minister, are sorry for them, and intend to reform themselves obtain from God through the absolution imparted by the same minister forgiveness for the sins they have committed after baptism and, at the same, time are reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by sinning.

Can. 865 §1. For an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.

 

[Hereiam]

It was a little clunky perhaps, but you are fine.

 

[FrDavid96]

You have nothing to be concerned about. Please be at peace.

You were baptized. The Rite of Election is optional and is not a requirement for baptism.

While it’s true that one cannot go to the sacrament of confession before baptism, at this point it makes no difference. Whether the priest made a mistake, or whether your memory is incomplete (and there was no absolution) makes no difference at this point.

When you were baptised, all of your sins were washed away. All. Everything. Gone forever. That’s what you need to remember.

I hope you find peace. Please, don’t let any of that bother you any further. You have no need to be concerned about anything you posted here—not even remotely.

 

[Elf01]

While it’s true that one cannot go to the sacrament of confession before baptism

Just out of interest is there any difference if the baptism is to be conditional?

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

While it’s true that one cannot go to the sacrament of confession before baptism

Just out of interest is there any difference if the baptism is to be conditional?

Good question.

First, the practical reminder. We only conditionally baptize if there’s true doubt after a thorough investigation. So such things are pretty rare. Typically, we know either way after that investigation.

That means, there is no practice of doing some kind of “conditional absolution” before a conditional baptism.

In the OP scenario, it happened by accident. It’s not done intentionally.

If there was no baptism the first time, then the conditional baptism (ie the real one) remits all sins, so the answer is obvious.

However, if the first baptism was valid, there’s no avoiding the fact that the 2nd one (the conditional) cannot be valid. So what about those post-baptismal sins? I think that’s the point of your question.

The first time that adult goes to confession, all sins are absolved.

 

[Elf01]

OK, but that would be after the conditional baptism?

I know they are rare but it was the only possible scenario I could think of where confession may be offered before baptism, and even then I wasn’t sure.

I wondered if it may have been offered to be 100% sure that the person was in a state of grace when receiving Holy Communion / confirmation.

 

[FrDavid96]

…
I know they are rare but it was the only possible scenario I could think of where confession may be offered before baptism, and even then I wasn’t sure.
…

Let me put it this way, if I ever heard of such a thing happening, I would not argue against it.

 

[Arkansan]

Question, if a person’s baptism is doubtful, are they required to confess past mortal sins? Or would they not be bound, since such sins would not be certainly valid matter for confession?

 

[twf]

I was both conditionally baptized and made my first confession the day before I was received into the Church via confirmation / first communion. The conditional baptism was private. I believe it came first and then the bishop and I went into the confessional where I confessed everything from the years since my first “baptism”. Regardless I was prepared for confirmation the next day… whether it was the baptism or the absolution that actually cleansed my sin that day.

 

[FrDavid96]

Question, if a person’s baptism is doubtful, are they required to confess past mortal sins? Or would they not be bound, since such sins would not be certainly valid matter for confession?

I think the answer is here, posted by twf

I was both conditionally baptized and made my first confession the day before I was received into the Church via confirmation / first communion. The conditional baptism was private. I believe it came first and then the bishop and I went into the confessional where I confessed everything from the years since my first “baptism”. Regardless I was prepared for confirmation the next day… whether it was the baptism or the absolution that actually cleansed my sin that day.

The only thing I would say would be that only mortal sins might need to be confessed, not venial ones.

 

[FortressGiant]

Thank you FrDavid96.

I’m just having a hard time trying to figure some of this stuff out years after it happened. I’m going through the Catechism and my Code of Canon Law too which has helped. But what if the priest did something wrong for example? How would I know if he did something that made the baptism invalid? This goes into a deeper question about what is true in God’s eyes when we believe one thing but we don’t know that in reality we are wrong. If someone missed the Rite of Acceptance and Rite of Election on purpose wouldn’t that make the baptism illicit while at the same time valid?

FG

 

[FrDavid96]

… If someone missed the Rite of Acceptance and Rite of Election on purpose wouldn’t that make the baptism illicit while at the same time valid?

FG

No, neither of those omissions makes baptism either illicit or invalid.

All of the RCIA rituals leading to baptism are entirely optional. Now don’t get me wrong here: they are there for good reason and they help. However, they have nothing to do with the validity of baptism itself.

Again: you have nothing to worry about. Please don’t cause yourself any further undue anxiety.

 

[Elf01]

In order for a baptism to be valid in the case of an adult the person must want to be baptized (or at least not be opposed to it).

The minister must use water and the trinitiarian formula (objective criteria) and must have the intent to do what the Church does (subjective but assumed)