Invalid confession ... valid confession ... still need to re-confess?

[Sir_Knight]

Suppose one were to receive an invalid confession but didn’t realize it at the time. Then, one received a valid confession. Would one still need to reconfession the sins from the invalid confession or would that not be required any longer because all of those sins would have been absolved during the valid confession?

 

[AHapka]

It would depend on why it was invalid.

If the penitent purposely omitted a mortal sin, the confession was invalid. If they then later properly confessed but had legitimately forgotten about the invalid confession, they were validly absolved. However, they must mention the invalid confession at their next confession.

Now if one had only venial sins, and the confession was invalid due to defect of form (priest forgot to say absolution, for example), there would be no need to mention those sins at a subsequent confession since venial sins need not be mentioned in confession. However, confessing venial sins is edifying so one should re-confess them in my opinion (though it is not required).

Now if there were a mortal sin confessed at the invalid confession (presuming invalid due to defect of form), those were validly absolved at the valid confession. However, they must be mentioned at the next confession because they were not mentioned, and need to mentioned when they are remembered.

So it really depends on the circumstances to a certain point…

 

[Sir_Knight]

Let’s say that the priest used the incorrect words of absolution at the first confession and the individual didn’t realize / put two and two together until after a valid second confession had occurred.

 

[Jsmith17]

Let’s say that the priest used the incorrect words of absolution at the first confession and the individual didn’t realize / put two and two together until after a valid second confession had occurred.

Then the second confession would absolve all sins, including those invalidly confessed the first time. In confession it is not that we actually confess every single sin which gives validity, but the fact that we intend to confess all we remember. In this case, the person was not intentionally withholding any sins and considered the sins of his past absolved by the first (invalid) confession. Because this person had the intention of confessing all his known sins, the confession (and absolution) are valid and that person is in a state of grace.

 

[JimG]

It’s really not up to the penitent to act as the validity police.

If one is certain that a priest is using an incorrect form, bring it up to him directly outside of confession.