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

[FrDavid96]

…​

The Orthodox have faculties. They have never been withdrawn.

That’s true, but that really applies to Orthodox priests absolving their own subjects. More directly to the topic, canon 844.2 specifically gives an Orthodox priest the faculties to absolve a Catholic under the stated circumstances.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

 

[e_c]

That’s true, but that really applies to Orthodox priests absolving their own subjects. More directly to the topic, canon 844.2 specifically gives an Orthodox priest the faculties to absolve a Catholic under the stated circumstances.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

Thank you. I was looking for that but it was hiding!

 

[Bookcat]

.“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…

Right is not a “repetition” for that forgotten mortal sin has yet to be directly confessed. It has not yet been confessed. It was “indirectly absolved” (readers may see my posts above) but now is to be - submitted to the keys directly in confession. Yes it is good for humility in addition to being the obligation of the penitent if he remembers the mortal sin.

Also as was pointed out those who struggle with scruples can be in* a very different boat than other penitents*. It may be the case that their regular confessor who knows them - tells them to only confess such if they are certain that it was mortal and certain it was not confessed as it was to be. It may be that the confessor may need to tell a particular penitent never to confess a past sin that comes to mind - due to their* particular scrupulosity about past confessions*. Such are exceptions was noted above.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you. I was looking for that but it was hiding!

It’s a ‘connect the dots’ (or connect the canons) situation.

You quoted the first part
966 §2 A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself or …

But the second part is in a different place altogether, 844. So, yes, it was hiding from you.

 

[FrDavid96]

Right is not a “repetition” for that forgotten mortal sin has yet to be directly confessed. It has not yet been confessed. It was “indirectly absolved” (see my posts above) but now is to be - submitted to the keys directly in confession. Yes it is good for humility in addition to being the obligation of the penitent if he remembers the mortal sin.

…

And that’s exactly what I wrote about earlier. There is no such thing as “indirectly absolved”; and creating such a vocabulary to defend what you keep writing only serves to further encourage the scrupulous person who goes back to a confessor and says “I wasn’t really absolved, I was only indirectly absolved, so I’m repeating it again.”

Your posts, here and elsewhere, about penitents confessing past sins goes far beyond what the Church teaches as necessary. From the point-of-view of an actual confessor, I must say that it is not helpful, and very harmful because scrupulous people are reading the posts and they are making real confessions more difficult.

I’ve been hinting at this before. You won’t take the hint, so I must be more direct.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

And that’s exactly what I wrote about earlier. There is no such thing as “indirectly absolved”; and creating such a vocabulary to defend what you keep writing only serves to further encourage the scrupulous person who goes back to a confessor and says “I wasn’t really absolved, I was only indirectly absolved, so I’m repeating it again.”

Your posts, here and elsewhere, about penitents confessing past sins goes far beyond what the Church teaches as necessary. From the point-of-view of an actual confessor, I must say that it is not helpful, and very harmful because scrupulous people are reading the posts and they are making real confessions more difficult.

I’ve been hinting at this before. You won’t take the hint, so I must be more direct.

Thank you for this!
There are a few posters on this forum who want to set up their own rules & magisterium. It is very disconcerting and is one of the reasons that I do not recommend this site to anyone who does not have a good grasp of their faith already.

 

[babochka]

It was “indirectly absolved”

You use this term somewhat regularly. Would you define what it means? I have never heard it, other than your use of it.

It seems to me that when the priest says “I absolve you of your sins” or, in the case of the absolution used in my rite, the priest says " I, an unworthy priest, by His authority given me, pardon and absolve you of all your sins", that is direct absolution. There is nothing indirect about it.

 

[babochka]

And that’s exactly what I wrote about earlier. There is no such thing as “indirectly absolved”; and creating such a vocabulary to defend what you keep writing only serves to further encourage the scrupulous person who goes back to a confessor and says “I wasn’t really absolved, I was only indirectly absolved, so I’m repeating it again.”

Your posts, here and elsewhere, about penitents confessing past sins goes far beyond what the Church teaches as necessary. From the point-of-view of an actual confessor, I must say that it is not helpful, and very harmful because scrupulous people are reading the posts and they are making real confessions more difficult.

I’ve been hinting at this before. You won’t take the hint, so I must be more direct.

Thank you! I’d like to point out that this doesn’t just cause problems for the scrupulous. It can be confusing for those who are simply trying their best grow in their faith and improve their confessions. It can make even the non-scruplous unnecessarily revisit the past and cause unnecessary doubt.

 

[e_c]

It’s a ‘connect the dots’ (or connect the canons) situation.

You quoted the first part
966 §2 A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself or …

But the second part is in a different place altogether, 844. So, yes, it was hiding from you.

I have a question - wasn’t there a mutual excommunication between the RCC and EOC? I am confident that it was lifted (don’t know when), but how does that factor into this? Were faculties taken away while under the censure and automatically returned after it was lifted? Or something else? Which Codes were in use at the time?

And that’s exactly what I wrote about earlier. There is no such thing as “indirectly absolved”; and creating such a vocabulary to defend what you keep writing only serves to further encourage the scrupulous person who goes back to a confessor and says “I wasn’t really absolved, I was only indirectly absolved, so I’m repeating it again.”

Your posts, here and elsewhere, about penitents confessing past sins goes far beyond what the Church teaches as necessary. From the point-of-view of an actual confessor, I must say that it is not helpful, and very harmful because scrupulous people are reading the posts and they are making real confessions more difficult.

I’ve been hinting at this before. You won’t take the hint, so I must be more direct.

From “New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law,” page 1170:

“Moreover, although grave sins forgotten and thus omitted at the time of confession are indirectly remitted, the canon indicates that these too must be confessed when remembered and thus be **submitted for ‘direct remission.’”
**

It would be great to see the nearly forgotten practice of “general confession” brought back “into style.”

 

[FrDavid96]

I have a question - wasn’t there a mutual excommunication between the RCC and EOC?

Yes. In 1054. At least, that’s the date part. Scholars disagree on exactly what happened, in the sense of whether or not the acts has any canonical force. For example, did Cardinal Humbert as papal legate, actually have the authority to excommunicate the Patriarch? Today, most scholars would say ‘no’ but there is no denying that the acts themselves did have tremendous consequences.

Let’s leave it at that, unless you want to start a new thread in the appropriate forum.

I am confident that it was lifted (don’t know when), but how does that factor into this?

It was “committed to oblivion” in a joint declaration by Bl Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras, 1965.

Rather than the lens of my commentary, I suggest reading it for yourself.

w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration.html

Were faculties taken away while under the censure and automatically returned after it was lifted? Or something else?

It was mostly symbolic, yet significant in its own right.
The previous censures were against individuals, not Churches; however, over time, they came to be seen as applying to the Churches.
There were no canonical changes made in the document in 1965, but those would come later.

Which Codes were in use at the time?

The 1917 Code for the Romans (this pre-dates any unified Eastern Catholic Code). For the Orthodox, it would be their collection of canons, as they do not have single codes in the same way that the Catholics have now.

As I see it, the details of the agreement between Paul VI and Athenagoras are just too complicated for the purposes of this thread. One really does need a thorough background in the history (centuries of history) to really understand what is or is not being said. It’s extremely complicated.

For purposes of this thread, it’s sufficient for Catholics to know that under the circumstances outlined in canon 844, they can confess to an Orthodox priest and they are validly and licitly absolved. I am not trying to say ‘discussion over’ but rather that too much detail is simply beyond the nature of this kind of online discussion.

From “New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law,” page 1170:

“Moreover, although grave sins forgotten and thus omitted at the time of confession are indirectly remitted, the canon indicates that these too must be confessed when remembered and thus be **submitted for ‘direct remission.’”
**

OK. I will concede the point that ‘indirectly remitted’ is not just someone’s personal vocabulary. Yet still, it does confuse people, especially those not familiar with the code, and most especially confuses the scrupulous.

It would be great to see the nearly forgotten practice of “general confession” brought back “into style.”

 

[Bookcat]

You use this term somewhat regularly. Would you define what it means? I have never heard it, other than your use of it.

It seems to me that when the priest says “I absolve you of your sins” or, in the case of the absolution used in my rite, the priest says " I, an unworthy priest, by His authority given me, pardon and absolve you of all your sins", that is direct absolution. There is nothing indirect about it.

It is just a theological term that can be applied here.

It means that mortal sin Z was forgotten -but the person was in good faith - they intended to confess all mortal sins and were contrite etc but they simply forgot mortal sin Z.

They did not yet directly confess mortal sin Z.Thus it can be said that it was absolved indirectly (the confessor did not know of it and the person did not recall it).

The penitent if he recalls it later would mention it in their next confession.

 

[Bookcat]

And that’s exactly what I wrote about earlier. There is no such thing as “indirectly absolved”; and creating such a vocabulary to defend what you keep writing only serves to further encourage the scrupulous person who goes back to a confessor and says “I wasn’t really absolved, I was only indirectly absolved, so I’m repeating it again.”

Your posts, here and elsewhere, about penitents confessing past sins goes far beyond what the Church teaches as necessary. From the point-of-view of an actual confessor, I must say that it is not helpful, and very harmful because scrupulous people are reading the posts and they are making real confessions more difficult.

/QUOTE]

I was very clear that it was absolved. And I did not create the phrase - I learned it. But that can be set aside - it is not too important here.

Also I am very conscious of the presence of persons with scruples in the this forum and I actually add notes directly to them when I respond on this matter- about that they can be in a different boat and to see their regular confessor. See my posts -this is a common practice on my part when I answer this question.

What I was getting at was that I was agreeing with you in some of what you were noting and that I was further noting for clarity that it while the forgotten mortal sin was absolved - that it still needs to be confessed if it is remembered.

I simply noted a term that has been used in past - but perhaps your right that it was not the place necessarily to bring up the term that I used and that it can be at times too confusing for some.

As to the obligation to confess forgotten mortal sins - as I continually note - there can be *exceptions *- but these are exceptions (such as a person who scruples over confession may need to be directed in particular way by their confessor…the forgotten sins remain forgotten etc etc-- and again I am rather careful to note the existence of these exceptions -and I am rather careful to refer those with scruples to their regular confessors…so I do not see what you suggest.).

Here are some examples from the Staff at Catholic Answers for readers that may be better in explaining for readers what I was seeking to note (and thus leaving aside that phrase that I used) and from the CCCC.

Jimmy Akin - the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers:

"A reader writes:

I am aware that if one goes to confession and supplies the requisite contrition, then all sins which the person committed are absolved–provided that the person does not intentionally conceal any mortal sins.

Correct.

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/COLOR] 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

Catholic Answers Priest - “Ask an Apologist”:

“You simply need to confess (sic) the mortal sin you had forgotten the next time you go to confession. You can continue to receive the Eucharist until you are able to go to confession. You did not fall out of grace, the sin was forgiven.”

Fr. Charles Grondin
Apologist

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=960288&highlight=forgotten+mortal+sins

“You are correct in stating that after making a good confession, all one’s sins of the past, including forgotten sins, are forgiven. Should we remember some of them later, we are obliged to mention them in Confession, not because they are not forgiven (They are!), but because we owe God our humble expression of sorrow, repentance and gratitude. Since it was through the sacrament that He has forgiven us, it is only right that we respond, as best we can, to such forgiveness there also.”

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
Apologist Catholic Answers

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=928374&highlight=forgotten+mortal+sins#post928374

“A person who has genuinely forgotten a mortal sin need not worry because s/he is not considered in a state of mortal sin. However the mortal sin does need to be confessed at the next reasonable opportunity.”

Fr. Charles Grondin
Apologist

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=738084&highlight=forgotten+mortal+sins
**
Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI**

304. Which sins must be confessed?

1456

All grave sins not yet confessed, which a careful examination of conscience brings to mind, must be brought to the sacrament of Penance.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[Bookcat]

And that’s exactly what I wrote about earlier. There is no such thing as “indirectly absolved”; and creating such a vocabulary to defend what you keep writing only serves to further encourage the scrupulous person who goes back to a confessor and says “I wasn’t really absolved, I was only indirectly absolved, so I’m repeating it again.”

Your posts, here and elsewhere, about penitents confessing past sins goes far beyond what the Church teaches as necessary. From the point-of-view of an actual confessor, I must say that it is not helpful, and very harmful because scrupulous people are reading the posts and they are making real confessions more difficult.

I was trying to be very clear that it was absolved. And I did not create the phrase - I learned it. But that can be set aside - it is not too important here.

Also I am very conscious of the presence of persons with scruples in the this forum and I actually add notes directly to them when I respond on this matter- about that they can be in a different boat and to see their regular confessor. See my posts -this is a common practice on my part when I answer this question.

What I was getting at was that I was agreeing with you in some of what you were noting and that I was further noting for clarity that it while the forgotten mortal sin was absolved - that it still needs to be confessed if it is remembered.

I simply noted a term that has been used in past - but perhaps your right that it was not the place necessarily to bring up the term that I used and that it can be at times too confusing for some.

As to the obligation to confess forgotten mortal sins - as I continually note - there can be *exceptions *- but these are exceptions (such as a person who scruples over confession may need to be directed in particular way by their confessor…the forgotten sins remain forgotten etc etc-- and again I am rather careful to note the existence of these exceptions -and I am rather careful to refer those with scruples to their regular confessors…so I do not see what you suggest.).

Here are some examples from the Staff at Catholic Answers for readers that may be better in explaining for readers what I was seeking to note (and thus leaving aside that phrase that I used) and from the CCCC.

Jimmy Akin - the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers:

"A reader writes:

I am aware that if one goes to confession and supplies the requisite contrition, then all sins which the person committed are absolved–provided that the person does not intentionally conceal any mortal sins.

Correct.

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

Catholic Answers Priest - “Ask an Apologist”:

“You simply need to confess (sic) the mortal sin you had forgotten the next time you go to confession. You can continue to receive the Eucharist until you are able to go to confession. You did not fall out of grace, the sin was forgiven.”

Fr. Charles Grondin
Apologist

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=960288&highlight=forgotten+mortal+sins

“You are correct in stating that after making a good confession, all one’s sins of the past, including forgotten sins, are forgiven. Should we remember some of them later, we are obliged to mention them in Confession, not because they are not forgiven (They are!), but because we owe God our humble expression of sorrow, repentance and gratitude. Since it was through the sacrament that He has forgiven us, it is only right that we respond, as best we can, to such forgiveness there also.”

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
Apologist Catholic Answers

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=928374&highlight=forgotten+mortal+sins#post928374

“A person who has genuinely forgotten a mortal sin need not worry because s/he is not considered in a state of mortal sin. However the mortal sin does need to be confessed at the next reasonable opportunity.”

Fr. Charles Grondin
Apologist

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=738084&highlight=forgotten+mortal+sins
**
Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI**

304. Which sins must be confessed?

1456

All grave sins not yet confessed, which a careful examination of conscience brings to mind, must be brought to the sacrament of Penance.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[Bookcat]

And that’s exactly what I wrote about earlier. There is no such thing as “indirectly absolved”; and creating such a vocabulary to defend what you keep writing only serves to further encourage the scrupulous person who goes back to a confessor and says “I wasn’t really absolved, I was only indirectly absolved, so I’m repeating it again.”

Your posts, here and elsewhere, about penitents confessing past sins goes far beyond what the Church teaches as necessary. From the point-of-view of an actual confessor, I must say that it is not helpful, and very harmful because scrupulous people are reading the posts and they are making real confessions more difficult.

I was trying to be very clear that it was absolved. And I did not create the phrase - I learned it. But that can be set aside - it is not too important here.

Also I am very conscious of the presence of persons with scruples in the this forum and I actually add notes directly to them when I respond on this matter- about that they can be in a different boat and to see their regular confessor. See my posts -this is a common practice on my part when I answer this question.

What I was getting at was that I was agreeing with you in some of what you were noting and that I was further noting for clarity that it while the forgotten mortal sin was absolved - that it still needs to be confessed if it is remembered.

I simply noted a term that has been used in past - but perhaps your right that it was not the place necessarily to bring up the term that I used and that it can be at times too confusing for some.

As to the obligation to confess forgotten mortal sins - as I continually note - there can be *exceptions *- but these are exceptions (such as a person who scruples over confession may need to be directed in particular way by their confessor…the forgotten sins remain forgotten etc etc-- and again I am rather careful to note the existence of these exceptions -and I am rather careful to refer those with scruples to their regular confessors…so I do not see what you suggest.).

Here are some examples from the Staff at Catholic Answers for readers that may be *better *in explaining for readers what I was seeking to note (and thus leaving aside that phrase that I used ) and from the CCCC.

Jimmy Akin - the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers:

"A reader writes:

I am aware that if one goes to confession and supplies the requisite contrition, then all sins which the person committed are absolved–provided that the person does not intentionally conceal any mortal sins.

Correct.

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."

Jimmy Akin

jimmyakin.com/2006/09/a_reader_writes_1.html
**
From the Catholic Answers Priest - “Ask an Apologist” section on this Catholic Answers Website:**

“You simply need to confess (sic) the mortal sin you had forgotten the next time you go to confession. You can continue to receive the Eucharist until you are able to go to confession. You did not fall out of grace, the sin was forgiven.”

Fr. Charles Grondin
Apologist

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=960288&highlight=forgotten+mortal+sins

“You are correct in stating that after making a good confession, all one’s sins of the past, including forgotten sins, are forgiven. Should we remember some of them later, we are obliged to mention them in Confession, not because they are not forgiven (They are!), but because we owe God our humble expression of sorrow, repentance and gratitude. Since it was through the sacrament that He has forgiven us, it is only right that we respond, as best we can, to such forgiveness there also.”

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
Apologist Catholic Answers

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=928374&highlight=forgotten+mortal+sins#post928374

“A person who has genuinely forgotten a mortal sin need not worry because s/he is not considered in a state of mortal sin. However the mortal sin does need to be confessed at the next reasonable opportunity.”

Fr. Charles Grondin
Apologist Catholic Answers

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=738084&highlight=forgotten+mortal+sins

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. Which sins must be confessed?

1456

All grave sins not yet confessed, which a careful examination of conscience brings to mind, must be brought to the sacrament of Penance.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

Again - those who struggle with scruples about confession -your regular confessor can guide you.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thank you for this!
There are a few posters on this forum who want to set up their own rules & magisterium. It is very disconcerting and is one of the reasons that I do not recommend this site to anyone who does not have a good grasp of their faith already.

You are wise to be extremely cautious and circumspect.

As a priest and a retired professor of theology, one of the things I have found most disturbing in this forum are people who are quite evidently not clergy, as it abundantly shows, and who clearly – at least to a professor of theology – lack the theological education to make pronouncements that they attempt to make.

Sometimes they are blatantly wrong. Other times they have failed to take into account the need to filter their answer through other disciplines…which is a fundamental mistake of the very inexperienced or one under-educated in the field upon which they are endeavouring to comment. In either case, what they write is incorrect. That is harmful both to them as well as those who will read what they write.

For someone who is not a priest, who is not confessor, who obviously therefore has never held confession faculties, to be holding forth – without qualification in how they phrase what they write – on what should and should not be done relative to the sacrament of penance or to attempt to speak with any sort of authority about a sacrament should be simply intolerable.

This is not a closed classroom, where such exercises are tolerable as the young men preparing for ordination can be corrected by both their professor and their peers for their error(s).

Such behaviour that one encounters here leaves me at a complete loss – all the more so when, as a priest, I have encountered in this forum other priests as well as deacons, and canonists who demonstrate ably their competence relative to theology as well as their experience derived from their pastoral work.

Father David has written quite well. His answers here are quite solid and the readers of this thread do well to simply follow what he has written.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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.

Indeed, Father. At the risk of putting too fine a point upon what you have very well said, that is why contributions concerning the administration of sacraments by those who are not priests – and therefore have neither the academic or spiritual formation in the various cross disciplines or the pastoral experience of administering the sacrament of penance across years, augmented by continuing education geared to those who are priests working with the internal forum – are not only exceedingly poorly positioned to offer any counsel, they actually can do incalculable harm by their blithe way of proceeding.

It reminds me of the lovely English language maxim: “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”

 

[dans0622]

…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?

Hello,

This is a fascinating question. I’ve never considered it before but will throw my own opinion into the mix.

If I might rephrase it, you are asking whether or not a Catholic who has lawfully and integrally confessed his sins to an Orthodox priest (cf. c. 844.2) has had his sins “directly pardoned by the keys of the Church” (c. 988.1).

I would say that the answer is “yes.” The “direct pardon by the keys of the Church” seems to operate in a unique manner (via c. 844.2) but it is there nonetheless. There is no need to “re-confess” those sins.

If I had the time and the inclination, I’d dedicate further study to this question.

Dan

 

[twf]

Hello,

This is a fascinating question. I’ve never considered it before but will throw my own opinion into the mix.

If I might rephrase it, you are asking whether or not a Catholic who has lawfully and integrally confessed his sins to an Orthodox priest (cf. c. 844.2) has had his sins “directly pardoned by the keys of the Church” (c. 988.1).

I would say that the answer is “yes.” The “direct pardon by the keys of the Church” seems to operate in a unique manner (via c. 844.2) but it is there nonetheless. There is no need to “re-confess” those sins.

If I had the time and the inclination, I’d dedicate further study to this question.

Dan

That the Catholic Church recognizes all Orthodox sacraments as being valid, including confession, leads me to assume that the Church’s power of the keys operates within the Orthodox Church on a regular basis. Otherwise how could confession be valid for ordinary Orthodox Christians? The Orthodox Churches are united to the Catholic Church - imperfectly but still united - on a certain level. The Orthodox celebrate the same Eucharist and exercise the same power of the keys to absolve sin, etc.