Is my confession valid if my confessor has heretical views?

  • Thread starter Thread starter notredame_999
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kingbear said:
You are forgetting Beidrik that many openly and unashamed Homosexuals deliberatly affect a feminine accent. How in warning against this, is a sin being committed?
Click to expand...
Because it is presumptuous and irrelevant. So what if some homosexuals do that? Some men simply have voices that sound…weird. Bringing it up is unneeded and unkind because we do not know know anything about the priest, especially in regards to where his sexual orientation lies.
 
notredame_999 said:
Just went to confession today, bad experience. It started with the priest mocking me when I told him I had committed mortal sins. He asked me sarcastically, are you a theologian? Before I even told him the sins he said, I doubt very much you committed a mortal sin. He then said that before vatican II eating meat on the wrong day was a mortal sin so I shouldn’t be concerned with black and white stuff. He then whistled around the alter later. It really bugged me.

Going to this confession by this priest, who sounded homosexual, got me really upset. I’ve been reading Malachi Martin and Marcel Lefebvre and I am really tempted to go to the SSPX although something in me says don’t. I am sick of this new church. No mention of hell, no mention of confession, no mention of Fatima. Nobody goes to confession anymore. Whenever I go its like me and 3 old ladies. Thats it. It seems like there is this dont ask dont tell policy regarding masturbation, pre-marital sex, and contraception.

Anyway’s, is my confession valid if I received it from a priest who doubts the realities of hell and the interpretation of mortal sin?

Another question, I just remembered another mortal sin I forgot to confess. Is this ok if I confess it next saturday? I really need to receive tomorrow.
Click to expand...
Bottom line, we’re not Donatists. The sacrament is valid if validly administered, regardless of the state of the priest’s soul. I sometimes have to remind myself of this very point when I go to a Novus Ordo church. But it’s important; don’t forget it. Obedient defense of Tradition and orthodoxy are good, but we must avoid schism.

Doesn’t matter if this priest is gay, a heretic, an atheist, or merely gravely misunderstood by you. That sacrament is the sacrament. You got it, so don’t sweat. Confess your forgotten sin (already absolved) next time.

For your own spiritual health, try going to a church that really lifts up your spirit (you like the TLM; good, stick with it) and avoid going to St. Shenanigan’s. Problem solved. Go with God.
 
At_Trent said:
I don’t need to witness one to accept the documentation.
Click to expand...
How is it possible that some of the people, here, have not witnessed liturgical abuse, during the NO. In the Tri-State NY area, this is the norm. It is nearly impossible to find a parish without it. I still attend the NO, but do prefer the TLM, at Holy Innocents, in NYC, one of the handful of parishes that still remember how to celebrate he Mass.

I personally have witnessed large screens, in the Church, placed strategically to block the altar and Pascal candle to play ridiculous videos. I watched a priest consume 20-30 hosts on more than five occasions, after Communion, because he was hungry (yes, we all watched in horror). I watched priests leave the Church, and within seconds, dressed in sneakers and jeans, because it was more comfortable. I even asked one of these priests and his response was that it is embarrassing to be dressed as a priest in today’s society. This is just a few things… every week I witness something else. I’ve been to other parishes which were far worse than that I describe. The latest horrors was the Archibishop who applauded the homosexuals at one Mass, in midtown, and the fiasco in Massapequa.

If your parish does not experience these things, than consider yourself very lucky and pray for us who suffer week after week in hopes that it will change.
 
jj_nycguy said:
How is it possible that some of the people, here, have not witnessed liturgical abuse, during the NO. In the Tri-State NY area, this is the norm. It is nearly impossible to find a parish without it. I still attend the NO, but do prefer the TLM, at Holy Innocents, in NYC, one of the handful of parishes that still remember how to celebrate he Mass.

I personally have witnessed large screens, in the Church, placed strategically to block the altar and Pascal candle to play ridiculous videos. I watched a priest consume 20-30 hosts on more than five occasions, after Communion, because he was hungry (yes, we all watched in horror). I watched priests leave the Church, and within seconds, dressed in sneakers and jeans, because it was more comfortable. I even asked one of these priests and his response was that it is embarrassing to be dressed as a priest in today’s society. This is just a few things… every week I witness something else. I’ve been to other parishes which were far worse than that I describe. The latest horrors was the Archibishop who applauded the homosexuals at one Mass, in midtown, and the fiasco in Massapequa.

If your parish does not experience these things, than consider yourself very lucky and pray for us who suffer week after week in hopes that it will change.
Click to expand...
There is nothing wrong with a priest consuming remaining hosts. I doubt he did it because he was hungry. I have seen priests consume hosts because there were too many to repose in the tabernacle. You have a problem with priests being comfortable? I doubt he changed within seconds…stop exaggerating. OK so now you peeked interest…where did an archbishop applaud homosexuals at Mass and what was the fiasco?

I very rarely see such abuses and I have been around a long time and been to many many churches. I swear I think you people just search these places out.
 
The question on the table was about the individual’s confession. It is inappropriate to make long-distance judgments about the priest. It is off-topic as well. Limit your posts to answering the question. We do not put people on trial here. Judging another person, based on one poster’s perception is uncharitable and unreasonable. These are his perceptions, which may or may not be accurate, but are irrelevant to the question on the table.

Stick to the question or move along to something more interesting.

Thanks

Thomas Casey
Moderator
 
Joannm said:
There is nothing wrong with a priest consuming remaining hosts. I doubt he did it because he was hungry. I have seen priests consume hosts because there were too many to repose in the tabernacle. You have a problem with priests being comfortable? I doubt he changed within seconds…stop exaggerating. OK so now you peeked interest…where did an archbishop applaud homosexuals at Mass and what was the fiasco?

I very rarely see such abuses and I have been around a long time and been to many many churches. I swear I think you people just search these places out.
Click to expand...
I believe the priest, a visitor, has a medical problem, this is why he consumed the consecrated hosts. He shouldn’t do this on the altar for everyone to see. He usually grabs a handful and places about 10 in his mouth at one time and it looks rather strange. I was going to confront him but her seemed to have disappeared and we have not seen him in a while.

The priests who changed very quickly, literally as we exited the Church they were there in jeans, did not speak English. They were visiting from Italy. The priest I confronted is a Jesuit who told me about feeling uncomfortable dressed as a priest.

The incident in NY, was in July, when Abp. Dolan applauded the homosexual Catholics. It had something to do about bringing practicing homosexuals into the Church. It was in all of the the NYC newspapers along with the Internet.

The incident in Massapequa was the new pastor who shutdown the well attended Latin and children’s Mass, with no excuse as to why, and fired the music director. He hired a practicing homosexual to bring “lively” music to the parish. The parishioners are petitioning against these changes but I’m not sure what will happen to this once Traditional parish.

I apologize to anyone who may be offended… all I ask is for prayers for those of us who are in the middle of this.
 
notredame_999 said:
Just went to confession today, bad experience. It started with the priest mocking me when I told him I had committed mortal sins. He asked me sarcastically, are you a theologian? Before I even told him the sins he said, I doubt very much you committed a mortal sin. He then said that before vatican II eating meat on the wrong day was a mortal sin so I shouldn’t be concerned with black and white stuff. He then whistled around the alter later. It really bugged me.

Going to this confession by this priest, who sounded homosexual, got me really upset. I’ve been reading Malachi Martin and Marcel Lefebvre and I am really tempted to go to the SSPX although something in me says don’t. I am sick of this new church. No mention of hell, no mention of confession, no mention of Fatima. Nobody goes to confession anymore. Whenever I go its like me and 3 old ladies. Thats it. It seems like there is this dont ask dont tell policy regarding masturbation, pre-marital sex, and contraception.

Anyway’s, is my confession valid if I received it from a priest who doubts the realities of hell and the interpretation of mortal sin?

Another question, I just remembered another mortal sin I forgot to confess. Is this ok if I confess it next saturday? I really need to receive tomorrow.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand the nature of confession by virtue of the fact you feel you need to confess again. You misunderstand the nature of ordination if you think someones sexual orientation has any baring on their priestly role or if you think their ‘right belief’ affects the efficiency of the sacraments they administer. The ‘new Church’, as you phrase it, is the body of Christ - yet you disdain it. Finally you read Lefebvre and think of leaving the Body of Christ in favour of a schismatic sect.

If you don’t understand the nature of the Church or the efficiency of the sacraments. You pass judgement freely without evidence on this Priest whilst effectively rejecting the Second Vatican Council with your disdain of the ‘new Church.’ I would suggest you go and speak to a Priest because you are running dangerously close to being in the position you threaten to put yourself into - in Schism from the See of Rome.

Please don’t interpret the bluntness of these observation as an attack, I put it as bluntly as I do out of love because I am fearful for you in the direction you say you are going.

In Christ,

Jonny
 
JReducation said:
A priest withoiut faculties cannot validly absolve sins, except in cases of life and death, in which case the Church supplies.
Click to expand...
Or for “any just cause” if not a declared censure per can 1335.
 
Matthew,
I think you need to read this section of the Catechism.
**Legitimate defense **

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”
Paragraph 2265 states that the intentional killing of a human being (as self defence) may be a grave duty. So you comment that all killing is murder and should be treated as such is, as I said before, not what the Catholic Church Teaches.
 
notredame_999 said:
Just went to confession today, bad experience. It started with the priest mocking me when I told him I had committed mortal sins
Click to expand...
It would help if you could provide a list of what you think are mortal sins. There would be no need to include your specific sin to be able to give an idea of your thinking - but even if you did there would be no way to tell which it was.

At least you would find out if the priest was correct. It does seem rather odd that he heard your confession and then didn’t confirm whether the sins you confessed were mortal sins or not.
 
Where I live, there is only 1 Catholic Church within about 25 miles. So we are fortunate to have 2 VERY orthodox priests! I don’t know what I’d do if that guy got transferred to our Parish. Well, I do know, now that I’m a convert. I’d keep going, but pray intensely for the priest’s conversion.

However, if he’d been the priest at my parish when I started my swim across the Tiber, I might not have made it all the way.

Good luck, God Bless!
 
Goodness. You guys make it sound like you’ve never met a flaming homosexual before. yeah, there are gay people who act just like everybody else, but there are also the stereotypical, feminine acting, limp wristed types. We can be politicaly correct and all, but i know gay people who find flamers absolutely annoying.

That said, there are perfectly straight people who sound the same way, so we can’t be sure without asking the priest that very personal question. My boyfriend is very conservative and wants to be a pastor in the future. He’s very sensitive and could be mistaken for gay if ya heard him. But he’s very straight.

Cut the OP some slack.

We all want to go to mass feeling like as if the Catholic Church is run by people who have stronger self control and morals than we do. Even though we’re all sinners.

The church I currently go to has a tolerant stance towards homosexuality, although I don’t know if they approve of it or not. And one of our cantors is definitely gay because I saw him with his boyfriend maybe 20 minutes after mass. They also have a gay support group. I do hope that my church tells these gay members that God disapproves of homosexuality and encourage them to change, while giving them whatever support they need to become closer to God and deal with everyday society.

I too would be upset if my confessor had dismissed my sins in such a manner. If I’m confessing, no matter what the sin, I want to be forgiven by God, not the liberal opinions of a priest.
 
I would like to share my thoughts on your post, if I may. As long as the priest says the words of absolution of “I absolve you from your sins, in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit)”, your absolution has been valid. The Church will supply any lack of intention of the priest in this manner (Ecclesia Supplet.)
Regarding his personal views, they can be a danger to your faith, if he counsels you with any advice against church teaching.
There have been some very uncharitable responses to your post that I read, one in particular that struck me, which indicated the view that Church teachings have been “updated” and modernized, and that your theology needs “updating.”
I encourage you to ignore this. You are correct to be concerned about the situation you experienced.
I would encourage you to find a priest you know will use the right words of absolution and give you sound, unambigious advice, who has an accurate understanding of sin, especially mortal sin, and who will help you and not hinder you in your efforts toward sanctification.
 
“Second of all, why go to SSPX? They are a group that is not fully in union with the church. You can find a good parish with the TLM that has been fully loyal to the church.”

From this previous post, I must ask a question: Who has been more loyal to the church and tradition as handed down for centuries, defending the Deposit of Faith without blemish, than the SSPX?

I would agree that there are many traditional priests to confess to, which would be an excellent option. But I’d like to say a thing or two about the Society of St. Pius X.

It is true. The Society does not enjoy the normal faculties from the local ordinaries.
The Ecclesiastical law is at the service of the Eternal law of the salvation of souls, not the other way around. It is there to aid sanctification, not hinder it. To say that you can’t go the SSPX for the sacraments for lack of faculties, even if the only other option is a priest who may endanger one’s salvation, is like pulling a fire truck or ambulance over for speeding when there is an emergency. “Salus animarum lex suprema est.” The salvation of souls is the highest law, and the juridical law is there to support that.

The Church supplies in danger of death, yes. This being said, would this be even more true in danger of spiritual death? i.e. falling or remaining in the state of mortal sin.
“The letter of the law killeth, while the spirit of the law quickeneth.”
 
ag_28 said:
I would like to share my thoughts on your post, if I may. As long as the priest says the words of absolution of “I absolve you from your sins, in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit)”, your absolution has been valid. The Church will supply any lack of intention of the priest in this manner (Ecclesia Supplet.)
Regarding his personal views, they can be a danger to your faith, if he counsels you with any advice against church teaching.
There have been some very uncharitable responses to your post that I read, one in particular that struck me, which indicated the view that Church teachings have been “updated” and modernized, and that your theology needs “updating.”
I encourage you to ignore this. You are correct to be concerned about the situation you experienced.
I would encourage you to find a priest you know will use the right words of absolution and give you sound, unambigious advice, who has an accurate understanding of sin, especially mortal sin, and who will help you and not hinder you in your efforts toward sanctification.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much. Come to think of it, I was so much in the moment with the priest that I don’t recall if he said “I forgive you in the name…” he could have, he could not have I can’t remember. If he didn’t do it, are my sins forgiven?

Also, I have decided I will go to FSSP or a traditional novus ordo parish so I don’t think I will have this problem again.
 
I can assure you that you won’t run into this problem with the FSSP, as they are trained with the Liturgical books of 1962 and the Catechism of the Council of trent, which allows no room for deviation. They will also absolve in an unambigious manner, saying the longer Latin form of absolution.

As for your previous reply/question, if the priest says “forgive,” it would lack validity, due to the difference in terms. It is Christ who forgives us, not the priest. It is the priest who has been given the authority to “loose” or absolve. “Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven.”
The priest must use the word absolve in the words of absolution, because he is acting on his authority as priest.
 
ag_28 said:
I can assure you that you won’t run into this problem with the FSSP, as they are trained with the Liturgical books of 1962 and the Catechism of the Council of trent, which allows no room for deviation. They will also absolve in an unambigious manner, saying the longer Latin form of absolution.

As for your previous reply/question, if the priest says “forgive,” it would lack validity, due to the difference in terms. It is Christ who forgives us, not the priest. It is the priest who has been given the authority to “loose” or absolve. “Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven.”
The priest must use the word absolve in the words of absolution, because he is acting on his authority as priest.
Click to expand...
You’re making an assumption here that the revised edition of the ritual for reconciliation allows for deviations. That’s incorrect. It does not. It is very specific in what has to be said, how and at what moment in the celebration of the sacrament. What it offers is two alternatives. If you stick to Form A or Form B, you are not deviating.

It’s like any other sacrament. The rituals often allow for more than one form. For example, you can have a wedding with a mass or without a mass. The two forms have differences, but the essential, which is the vowing, is constant.

In reconciliation, the absolution is constant. The forms vary. There are two that you can use in the confessional and there is even a third for cases when you cannot hear the confession, such as a hospital room where there is no privacy. In that case, you do not ask the person to recite his sins, but you do use the rest of the rite.

Please avoid suggesting that the new ritual allows for deviations. If it’s in the book, it’s not a deviation, it’s an option. The older books also have options in them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Thanks for the feedback.
However, I was quite firm on my explanation that the priest may not deviate. It seems to me that you are saying that I assume that there can be a deviation. far from it, even in the new formulary for Confession.
The priest must say I ABSOLVE YOU. The word forgive does not suffice. There must be the “loosing” of sins by the priest’s authority, The sacraments cannot be tampered with, especially with something as grave as the absolution of sins.
It’s quite different than Matrimony without a Mass because that does not affect the confection of the sacrament, since it is the bride and groom who confer the sacrament. In Confession, the validity of the absolution depends completely on the priest’s words, objectively speaking.

If the new formula faithfully follows the translation from the old, it will have the word absolve; “Deinde Ego Te Absolvo.” The word forgive is substantially different than the loosing of sins, which “absolve” confers. (loosing the chains of sin.)

In Charity,
ag 28
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top