Need to re-confess after confessing to an Orthodox priest?

[carefullytread]

I was reading this article and one of the issues addressed is Canon 844.2, which allows Catholics to seek sacraments from valid, non-Catholic priests in certain circumstances.

An example given in the blog is a Catholic living in rural Bulgaria, knowledgable of mortal sin, and seeking to confess with no access to a Catholic priest could in some circumstances seek to confess to an Orthodox priest if the priest was willing.

I am wondering if the Catholic would be required to re-confess those sins the next time that they confess to a Catholic priest?

This is not a question of whether absolution occurs. If the Catholic gets the sacrament, then there is absolution. But the Church does give examples where absolution occurs but there is still a need to confess. I’m thinking about forgetting a mortal sin in a confession when you need to confess it next time even though you do receive absolution or achieving perfect contrition, which can return one to a state of grace but also requires seeking out confession as soon as possible.

So, would a Catholic who validly receives absolution from an Orthodox priest need to commit to re-confessing those sins when they have the opportunity to confess to a Catholic one?

 

[edward_george]

I’m not sure why you would. What would be the point of being allowed under the law to approach an Orthodox priest if you were just going to have to confess again?

-Fr ACEGC

 

[carefullytread]

I’m not sure why you would. What would be the point of being allowed under the law to approach an Orthodox priest if you were just going to have to confess again?

-Fr ACEGC

To return yourself to a state of grace! You can be in a state of grace and still be under requirement to confess past mortal sins, e.g. mortal sins forgotten in previous confessions or after perfect contrition.

 

[edward_george]

To return yourself to a state of grace! You can be in a state of grace and still be under requirement to confess past mortal sins, e.g. mortal sins forgotten in previous confessions or after perfect contrition.

But in the case of a forgotten mortal sin, it’s already been absolved, and it is out of humility before God that we confess it, not because we were only partially forgiven in confession. We are either absolved or we are not. If you willfully withhold mortal sins, then you are not absolved. If you forget, you are validly and completely absolved. Even if by an Orthodox priest in the exigent circumstances which the law envisions and you propose.

Further, the other situation you propose isn’t analogous; it’s a different kind of exigent circumstance. General absolution is allowed in case of danger of death or when the large number of penitents don’t allow for everyone to go to confession (i.e. mission territories where there are thousands of people gathered around at once for Mass and the priest can only make it out there every few months). If the danger has passed, then the penitent is obliged to confess after having been absolved. This is not the same as confessing and being absolved by an Orthodox priest–nothing has been lacking in how confession was carried out at that point. What was lacking in the case of even a valid general absolution was the actual confession of serious sins, which is then obliged if the danger passes and it’s possible to do so.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[FrDavid96]

I was reading this article and one of the issues addressed is Canon 844.2, which allows Catholics to seek sacraments from valid, non-Catholic priests in certain circumstances.

An example given in the blog is a Catholic living in rural Bulgaria, knowledgable of mortal sin, and seeking to confess with no access to a Catholic priest could in some circumstances seek to confess to an Orthodox priest if the priest was willing.

I am wondering if the Catholic would be required to re-confess those sins the next time that they confess to a Catholic priest?

This is not a question of whether absolution occurs. If the Catholic gets the sacrament, then there is absolution. But the Church does give examples where absolution occurs but there is still a need to confess. I’m thinking about forgetting a mortal sin in a confession when you need to confess it next time even though you do receive absolution or achieving perfect contrition, which can return one to a state of grace but also requires seeking out confession as soon as possible.

So, would a Catholic who validly receives absolution from an Orthodox priest need to commit to re-confessing those sins when they have the opportunity to confess to a Catholic one?

First of all, keep in mind the criteria which is a priest “whose Churches these sacraments are valid” That’s a very important point. It is not just about the individual priest himself, but he must be from a Church (not an ecclesial community) which has valid sacraments. Of course, the Orthodox Churches have valid sacraments, but still the point needs to be made. This canon does not apply to priests who (for whatever reason) might be validly ordained, but are not priests of true Churches.

The answer to your question is no. Once a priest has absolved, the penitent is absolved. Period. There is no need to re-confess, and indeed doing so would be a rejection of the Sacrament.

 

[thistle]

I was reading this article and one of the issues addressed is Canon 844.2, which allows Catholics to seek sacraments from valid, non-Catholic priests in certain circumstances.

An example given in the blog is a Catholic living in rural Bulgaria, knowledgable of mortal sin, and seeking to confess with no access to a Catholic priest could in some circumstances seek to confess to an Orthodox priest if the priest was willing.

I am wondering if the Catholic would be required to re-confess those sins the next time that they confess to a Catholic priest?

This is not a question of whether absolution occurs. If the Catholic gets the sacrament, then there is absolution. But the Church does give examples where absolution occurs but there is still a need to confess. I’m thinking about forgetting a mortal sin in a confession when you need to confess it next time even though you do receive absolution or achieving perfect contrition, which can return one to a state of grace but also requires seeking out confession as soon as possible.

So, would a Catholic who validly receives absolution from an Orthodox priest need to commit to re-confessing those sins when they have the opportunity to confess to a Catholic one?

Not if you have sincerely confessed all remembered mortal sins. The penitent would receive absolution. No need to re-confess sins already confessed. Even if later you remember a sin that had been forgotten that does not affect your state of grace as absolution covers forgotten sins. You simply have to confess the forgotten sins the next time you go to Confession.

 

[Bookcat]

But in the case of a forgotten mortal sin, it’s already been absolved, and it is out of humility before God that we confess it, not because we were only partially forgiven in confession.

(Note: I do not comment here on sins confessed (under legit circumstances as stated by the Church) to an Orthodox Priest. )

A note of clarification. As a person going to a Catholic Priest for confession and innocently forgetting a mortal sin - but was contrite etc - yes that sin was “indirectly” absolved along with the rest in the good confession. The Penitent though if they realize they forgot a mortal sin is still *obliged *to confess that forgotten mortal sin - though they may wait til the next confession.

 

[Bookcat]

(Note: I do not comment here on sins confessed (under legit circumstances as stated by the Church) to an Orthodox Priest. )

A note of clarification. As a person going to a Catholic Priest for confession and innocently forgetting a mortal sin - but was contrite etc - yes that sin was “indirectly” absolved along with the rest in the good confession. The Penitent though if they realize they forgot a mortal sin is still *obliged *to confess that forgotten mortal sin - though they may wait til the next confession.

I add for readers from Jimmy Akin (Senior Catholic Answers Apologist) -again not on the question of the Orthodox Priest but “forgotten mortal sins” in a Confession to a Catholic Priest.

“You are forgiven if you meant to confess all your mortal sins and just forgot one. Having been forgiven of the one you forgot, you are still obligated to confess it the next time you go to confession. It’s not that your forgiveness of it is conditional on you adopting the intention to confess it next time. That sin has already been forgiven. It’s that you incur a new sin if you refuse to adopt the intention of confessing it.”

jimmyakin.com/2006/09/a_reader_writes_1.html

(Note too: there can of course be some exceptions ie someone who is rather scrupulous and needs to be instructed differently than others…or other cases of physical or moral impossibility)

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI (emp added)

1. Which sins must be confessed?

All grave sins not yet confessed, which a careful examination of conscience brings to mind, must be brought to the sacrament of Penance. The confession of serious sins is the only ordinary way to obtain forgiveness.

 

[Reuben_J]

I was reading this article and one of the issues addressed is Canon 844.2, which allows Catholics to seek sacraments from valid, non-Catholic priests in certain circumstances.

An example given in the blog is a Catholic living in rural Bulgaria, knowledgable of mortal sin, and seeking to confess with no access to a Catholic priest could in some circumstances seek to confess to an Orthodox priest if the priest was willing.

I am wondering if the Catholic would be required to re-confess those sins the next time that they confess to a Catholic priest?

This is not a question of whether absolution occurs. If the Catholic gets the sacrament, then there is absolution. But the Church does give examples where absolution occurs but there is still a need to confess. I’m thinking about forgetting a mortal sin in a confession when you need to confess it next time even though you do receive absolution or achieving perfect contrition, which can return one to a state of grace but also requires seeking out confession as soon as possible.

So, would a Catholic who validly receives absolution from an Orthodox priest need to commit to re-confessing those sins when they have the opportunity to confess to a Catholic one?

Look like there are two things here:

1. No, you do not have to reconfess with a Catholic priest, since the first Confession was valid.
2. Forgotten sins need not be confessed again if they were included in the first Confession, like “for these sins and all the sins I cannot remember now, I am truly sorry.”

 

[thistle]

Look like there are two things here:

1. No, you do not have to reconfess with a Catholic priest, since the first Confession was valid.
2. Forgotten sins need not be confessed again if they were included in the first Confession, like "for these sins and all the sins I cannot remember now, I am truly sorry."

That is not correct. Forgotten sins, once remembered, MUST be confessed at the next Confession.

 

[FrDavid96]

That is not correct. Forgotten sins, once remembered, MUST be confessed at the next Confession.

No. Only mortal sins. One must be very careful when saying things like that. Omitting the word ‘mortal’ changes the meaning entirely.

Comments like this are really not helpful because they feed scrupulosity.

As another user rightly posted (my emphasis)

But in the case of a forgotten mortal sin, it’s already been absolved, and it is out of humility before God that we confess it, not because we were only partially forgiven in confession. …

 

[thistle]

No. Only mortal sins. One must be very careful when saying things like that. Omitting the word ‘mortal’ changes the meaning entirely.

Comments like this are really not helpful because they feed scrupulosity.

As another user rightly posted (my emphasis)

You are right. It was a typo on my part. I didn’t proof read before I pressed post.I missed mortal.

 

[Reuben_J]

You are right. It was a typo on my part. I didn’t proof read before I pressed post.I missed mortal.

The post that you replied to did not say mortal.

 

[thistle]

The post that you replied to did not say mortal.

What is your point. I am well aware that venial sins, never mind forgotten venial sins do not have to be confessed at all. It is assumed that when talking about forgotten sins that mortal sins are meant.
I meant to say mortal sins but forgot to type in mortal.

I don’t appreciate your sarcastic comment.

 

[PacoG]

First of all, keep in mind the criteria which is a priest “whose Churches these sacraments are valid” That’s a very important point. It is not just about the individual priest himself, but he must be from a Church (not an ecclesial community) which has valid sacraments. Of course, the Orthodox Churches have valid sacraments, but still the point needs to be made. This canon does not apply to priests who (for whatever reason) might be validly ordained, but are not priests of true Churches.

The answer to your question is no. Once a priest has absolved, the penitent is absolved. Period. There is no need to re-confess, and indeed doing so would be a rejection of the Sacrament.

Fr. David…
Doesn’t the Sacrament of Penance & Reconcilation require jurisdiction? Mustn’t the priest have faculties from the local bishop to hear confessions and grant absolution absent some grave circumstances?

 

[Reuben_J]

No. Only mortal sins. One must be very careful when saying things like that. Omitting the word ‘mortal’ changes the meaning entirely.

Comments like this are really not helpful because they feed scrupulosity.

As another user rightly posted (my emphasis)

Hi Fr. Just seeking your thought on this. When I was small we were taught by our catechism teacher that we can use phrase like “for the sins that I now cannot remember” in our Confession to include all sins that we have committed after the last Confession to be confessed.

Of course this is a case of genuine attempt to confess all sins after going through the necessary examination of conscience. The idea is after Confession we are in a state of grace with sin forgotten being confessed as well.

Would it not be a repetition to confess the sin in the next Confession after we remember it?

Another scenario would be for a person who has not confessed for many years and with memory problem. It may take ten of years for him to confess all the forgotten sins as and when he remembers them.

Would not our slates are made cleaned once we have a good Confession with the proper contrition and penance?

I would ask you this rather than another lay person to tell me.

Thanks.

 

[thistle]

jimmyakin.com/2006/09/a_reader_writes_1.html

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David…
Doesn’t the Sacrament of Penance & Reconcilation require jurisdiction? Mustn’t the priest have faculties from the local bishop to hear confessions and grant absolution absent some grave circumstances?

Both yes and no…

Yes, the priest needs to have faculties—he must have them. In typical circumstances, a priest will have faculties from his own ordinary.

In this particular case (a non-Catholic priest), the faculties are given to him “by virtue of the law itself.” That means that since Canon Law says he may do this, the Church is giving him those faculties but instead of doing it by sending him a letter of faculties (which of course would be impractical) Canon Law takes the place of the letter.

It’s a very good point you made. It’s an important element of the overall topic.

 

[FrDavid96]

Hi Fr. Just seeking your thought on this. When I was small we were taught by our catechism teacher that we can use phrase like “for the sins that I now cannot remember” in our Confession to include all sins that we have committed after the last Confession to be confessed.

Yes.

Of course this is a case of genuine attempt to confess all sins after going through the necessary examination of conscience. The idea is after Confession we are in a state of grace with sin forgotten being confessed as well.

Yes.

Would it not be a repetition to confess the sin in the next Confession after we remember it?

It’s not really a repetition in the case of a genuinely forgotten sin because it was never mentioned the first time—however that’s putting too much emphasis on the definition of the word ‘repeat,’ even though it’s true grammatically.
I see the apparent conflict that you’re getting at. If everything is included the first time, is it not repetitious to mention it later? This has already been addressed here. We confess the sin out of humility—not because if we remember it, the sin moves back into the ‘unabsolved’ column.

Another scenario would be for a person who has not confessed for many years and with memory problem. It may take ten of years for him to confess all the forgotten sins as and when he remembers them.

That’s why such a person needs to work with his priest-confessor. Your question is rather general, and that’s just fine; so it needs a generic answer. The penitent needs to allow the confessor to guide him. I cannot stress that enough. Every situation is going to be different. Trust the confessor.

Would not our slates are made cleaned once we have a good Confession with the proper contrition and penance?

Yes. Exactly.
The problem with discussing this online is that it feeds scrupulosity. Scrupulous people look for ways to justify mentioning past sins; when their confessors tell them not to do so.

I would ask you this rather than another lay person to tell me.

This is exactly why I only participate in online threads about the Sacrament of Confession as such, and not the myriad posts about individual Confessions.

Penitents need to trust their own priest-confessors. People give online advice about re-confessing sins, and it usually comes across as insisting that such sins need to be re-confessed. Scrupulous people take that information back to their confessors (believe you me, they do it!) and use it to ‘argue’ that they need to repeat sins from the past which don’t in-fact need to be repeated.

This thread is a bit a-typical because it’s asking about the Law itself, not an individual person, which is why I’m responding.

Thanks.

 

[e_c]

Some relevant Canons…

Can. 966 §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.

§2. A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself or by a grant made by the competent authority according to the norm of ⇒ can. 969.

Can. 969 §1. The local ordinary alone is competent to confer upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any of the faithful. Presbyters who are members of religious institutes, however, are not to use the faculty without at least the presumed permission of their superior.

Can. 976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.​

The Orthodox have faculties. They have never been withdrawn.