Questioning whether my confession was valid

[krissy343]

After reading another thread about improper absolution I am a bit nervous! I came back to the Church about a year ago and had my first confession in nearly 15 years. I remember coming out and thinking: he didn’t tell me that I was absolved of my sins. I was actually waiting for it and when it didn’t happen, was pretty upset, but still figured my confession was valid. Does that mean that those 15 years of sins need to be confessed again in order to be truly forgiven, and that I have been living in mortal sin this entire time!? Thanks in advance and God bless!

 

[Dauphin]

If the priest didn’t use any formula of absolution, the confession was not valid. If the priest used an illicit formula of absolution, your confession may have been valid, but it still isn’t clear; the discussion on another thread hasn’t put the issue to rest.

In either case, now that you have some credible doubt about the confession’s validity, you should go to a solid priest and confess any grave sins again.

That doesn’t mean that you’ve been living in grave sin. If you made a perfect act of contrition and complied with the sacrament to the best of your knowledge, your sins were certainly forgiven. Now that you know more, it is the most prudent thing to seek a valid confession. Always err on the side of caution in matters of salvation.

 

[krissy343]

Thank you. I do recall the priest saying a prayer after I was finished confessing, but I can’t remember what he said. I do know that he did not say that I was absolved. In a later confession he did, just not at that one. I have since been going to a different confessor, so I will make an appointment with him. Thank’s again!

 

[PhilotheaZ]

The prayer of absolution includes the words “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Those are the bare minimum for validity. The prayer is longer, but if you remember hearing those words, you are good to go.

 

[thistle]

After reading another thread about improper absolution I am a bit nervous! I came back to the Church about a year ago and had my first confession in nearly 15 years. I remember coming out and thinking: he didn’t tell me that I was absolved of my sins. I was actually waiting for it and when it didn’t happen, was pretty upset, but still figured my confession was valid. Does that mean that those 15 years of sins need to be confessed again in order to be truly forgiven, and that I have been living in mortal sin this entire time!? Thanks in advance and God bless!

Is it possible you just didn’t hear the words of absolution as you might have been making the act of contrition when the priest was giving absolution?

 

[Joysong]

Hi Krissy,

This is the treacherous harm that comes from posting threads such as the one you read, because there are so many hidden variables.

What is absolutely clear is that IF you were NOT going to be absolved, the priest would have immediately told you, in no uncertain terms. Believe me, there are these circumstances when he cannot absolve certain penitents.

The fact that he did not say this to you, even though you may not have recalled hearing the specific wording of absolution, you were absolved. Many times I have gone to confession and while I was saying my act of contrition, I could hear the priest quietly speaking the words of absolution simultaneously, and both of us finished about the same time. I then heard him dismiss me with “go in peace.”

Threads like the one you read that caused you anxiety do no good and serve no valid purpose other than to complain, IMO. I would hope that posters would be more discriminate and less egotistic, considering well the harm they do to others.

Be at peace, dear lady, and trust in the goodness of your priest who would not willingly have deprived you of God’s mercy and reconciliation. It appalls me to even think that someone would believe this is possible. God Himself was in that confessional, and saw your repentent heart and has forgiven you.

 

[krissy343]

Thanks to everyone else who has responded. I feel a TON better now. I’m positive he didn’t speak the word “absolution” or “absolve” as I was waiting for it I didn’t say an Act of Contrition either, well not a formal one, but I did say several times during the confession that I was truly sorry for my sins. So, I know I didn’t miss it then. Like I had said, it was my first confession in nearly 15 years and I believe he was trying to make it as easy on me as possible. I’ve had other Priiests go right from hearing my sins to the absolution before without giving me a chance to say a formal Act of Contrition. I
I’m still going to bring this up to my current Priest at my next confession, but yeah, I truly do believe I was absolved. I was and am truly sorry for the things I had done and I really don’t see God as being one who would deny forgivness of my sins over a technicallity.

 

[Dauphin]

Hi Krissy,

This is the treacherous harm that comes from posting threads such as the one you read, because there are so many hidden variables.

What is absolutely clear is that IF you were NOT going to be absolved, the priest would have immediately told you, in no uncertain terms. Believe me, there are these circumstances when he cannot absolve certain penitents.

The fact that he did not say this to you, even though you may not have recalled hearing the specific wording of absolution, you were absolved. Many times I have gone to confession and while I was saying my act of contrition, I could hear the priest quietly speaking the words of absolution simultaneously, and both of us finished about the same time. I then heard him dismiss me with “go in peace.”

Threads like the one you read that caused you anxiety do no good and serve no valid purpose other than to complain, IMO. I would hope that posters would be more discriminate and less egotistic, considering well the harm they do to others.

Be at peace, dear lady, and trust in the goodness of your priest who would not willingly have deprived you of God’s mercy and reconciliation. It appalls me to even think that someone would believe this is possible. God Himself was in that confessional, and saw your repentent heart and has forgiven you.

I’m sure this position is perfectly acceptable in whatever faith you practice, but in the Catholic faith, we believe that a particular form is necessary for a sacrament to take effect. Apologists for abuse like you do much more to undermine the faith than honest inquiry about validity could possibly do.

The purpose of the thread I posted was to discover the Church’s teaching on the validity of absolution, which I know much more about now. The validity of an illicit absolution is not clear, and so the prudent action is to seek a licit confession.

If you think that the Church’s sacramental theology is legalistic in insisting on form, then perhaps you should look for another religion.

 

[Dauphin]

Thanks to everyone else who has responded. I feel a TON better now. I’m positive he didn’t speak the word “absolution” or “absolve” as I was waiting for it I didn’t say an Act of Contrition either, well not a formal one, but I did say several times during the confession that I was truly sorry for my sins. So, I know I didn’t miss it then. Like I had said, it was my first confession in nearly 15 years and I believe he was trying to make it as easy on me as possible. I’ve had other Priiests go right from hearing my sins to the absolution before without giving me a chance to say a formal Act of Contrition. I
I’m still going to bring this up to my current Priest at my next confession, but yeah, I truly do believe I was absolved. I was and am truly sorry for the things I had done and I really don’t see God as being one who would deny forgivness of my sins over a technicallity.

You should seek sacramental absolution for any sins you have credible reason to believe were not sacramentally absolved. It is necessary to do all one can to get his sins absolved, in order to comply with Christ’s desire in instituting this sacrament.

Sacramental absolution is not a technicality.

 

[Sir_Knight]

You are making confusing statements …

in the Catholic faith, we believe that a particular form is necessary for a sacrament to take effect.

… if the proper form is needed for the sacrament to take effect, how could the sins have been forgiven …

That doesn’t mean that you’ve been living in grave sin. If you made a perfect act of contrition and complied with the sacrament to the best of your knowledge, your sins were certainly forgiven.

… and if the sins were forgiven, why are you saving that they should be confessed again …

If the priest didn’t use any formula of absolution, the confession was not valid. If the priest used an illicit formula of absolution, your confession may have been valid, but it still isn’t clear; the discussion on another thread hasn’t put the issue to rest.

In either case, now that you have some credible doubt about the confession’s validity, you should go to a solid priest and confess any grave sins again.

… If the proper form is needed for the sacrament to take effect, then the sins were not forgiven and if they were forgiven, then the proper form is NOT needed for the sacrament to take effect.

Which is it?

 

[Dauphin]

You are making confusing statements … … if the proper form is needed for the sacrament to take effect, how could the sins have been forgiven … … and if the sins were forgiven, why are you saving that they should be confessed again … … If the proper form is needed for the sacrament to take effect, then the sins were not forgiven and if they were forgiven, then the proper form is NOT needed for the sacrament to take effect.

Which is it?

My, my, my. Your ignorance is more profound than I expected, considering your pontifications on this subject.

Ever heard of a perfect act of contrition?

I’ll let your figure the rest out for yourself. Go read the Catholic Encyclopedia, maybe.

 

[JimG]

I guess that one of the disadvantages of having the sacraments in English instead of Latin, is that we now tend to second guess what we heard or think we heard.

When I received absolution in Latin it never occurred to me to wonder if the priest got it right. It still doesn’t now that he says it in English. And even though I probably know the formula of absolution by memory, I could not tell you after any given confession, exactly what he said. There are a lot of things going through one’s mind during confession. Worrying about the priest’s part of the sacrament should not be one of them.

 

[Sir_Knight]

My, my, my. Your ignorance is more profound than I expected, considering your pontifications on this subject.

Ever heard of a perfect act of contrition?

I’ll let your figure the rest out for yourself. Go read the Catholic Encyclopedia, maybe.

You seem to be pretty ignorant yourself. If one has perfect contrition, which, by the way, is very rare according to church scholars, then one does not need the sacrament of confession to have one’s sins forgiven but should confess their sins at the next opportunity. One does not need to keep re-confessing those sins – that is being scrupulous.

And one does not need perfect contrition to have their sins forgiven in confession.

Maybe you should do some reading of that Catholic Encyclopedia yourself.

 

[Dauphin]

You seem to be pretty ignorant yourself. If one has perfect contrition, which, by the way, is very rare according to church scholars, then one does not need the sacrament of confession to have one’s sins forgiven but should confess their sins at the next opportunity. One does not need to keep re-confessing those sins – that is being scrupulous.

One has to have those sins sacramentally absolved. That’s the key.

And one does not need perfect

contrition to have their sins forgiven in confession.

You’re right on that one.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Dauphin:
One has to have those sins sacramentally absolved. That’s the key.Let’s slow things down a bit. You said to the opening post that she was not walking around in a state of sin even if the sacrament was performed incorrectly. There can be ONLY two reasons for this …

(1) Perfect form is not needed to make the sacrament valid – thus contradicting your opening statement; or

(2) The sins were absolved via perfect contrition (assuming it was present) – thus contradicting this statement that one has to have sins absolved sacramentally.

Which one is it?

 

[Dauphin]

Let’s slow things down a bit. You said to the opening post that she was not walking around in a state of sin even if the sacrament was performed incorrectly. There can be ONLY two reasons for this …

(1) Perfect form is not needed to make the sacrament valid – thus contradicting your opening statement; or

(2) The sins were absolved via perfect contrition (assuming it was present) – thus contradicting this statement that one has to have sins absolved sacramentally.

Which one is it?

There is no inconsistency in the remarks. Even if she made a perfect act of contrition, it is prudent to err on the side of caution, and receive sacramental absolution for those sins.

Salvation’s a game to you - a matter of probabilities and opinions, placing human respect above the Divine will.

 

[Reynardus]

Hi Krissy,

This is the treacherous harm that comes from posting threads such as the one you read, because there are so many hidden variables.

What is absolutely clear is that IF you were NOT going to be absolved, the priest would have immediately told you, in no uncertain terms. Believe me, there are these circumstances when he cannot absolve certain penitents.

The fact that he did not say this to you, even though you may not have recalled hearing the specific wording of absolution, you were absolved. Many times I have gone to confession and while I was saying my act of contrition, I could hear the priest quietly speaking the words of absolution simultaneously, and both of us finished about the same time. I then heard him dismiss me with “go in peace.”

Threads like the one you read that caused you anxiety do no good and serve no valid purpose other than to complain, IMO. I would hope that posters would be more discriminate and less egotistic, considering well the harm they do to others.

Be at peace, dear lady, and trust in the goodness of your priest who would not willingly have deprived you of God’s mercy and reconciliation. It appalls me to even think that someone would believe this is possible. God Himself was in that confessional, and saw your repentent heart and has forgiven you.

Sigh…I can’t help agreeing somewhat. After that and this thread, I assume there will be others left in doubt whether or not their confessions are valid. Since I NEVER hear the words of absolution (every priest I go to say the words very fast and in a whisper and they usually make me say the act of contrition at the same time), I’m in a bit of a quandary myself.

I would like to believe that God in His Divine Mercy will still absolve you even if the priest’s words were not prescribed ones. I mean, what does God really think about this?

I would like to believe that when it comes to Mercy, God will pull every loophole to bring us to salvation. Such as a lifelong sinner who does the bare minimum at the last minute to get him to Purgatory/Heaven. When it comes to Justice and Life, he tends to give exceptions in certain circumstances like a man who sins by stealing but does it to feed his starving family. In the case of confession, this sounds more like a technical error. Would God condemn someone to Eternal Death if a man who mortally sinned goes to confession out of fear of going to Hell, does not get the right words of absolution and gets hit by a truck right after?

And isn’t anyone going to ask this at the Ask an Apologist section?

 

[Dauphin]

I would like to believe that when it comes to Mercy, God will pull every loophole to bring us to salvation.

But we have to do our utmost to do his will. We can’t make assumptions about such important matters. We can’t simply assume the mercy of God - we have to beg for it, and do everything we can to comply with his will.

 

[josephdaniel29]

You should seek sacramental absolution for any sins you have credible reason to believe were not sacramentally absolved. It is necessary to do all one can to get his sins absolved, in order to comply with Christ’s desire in instituting this sacrament.

How does a priest not using the precise formula not comply with Christ’s desire?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Dauphin]

How does a priest not using the precise formula not comply with Christ’s desire?

Yours in Christ
Joe

Firstly, deliberately using an illicit form is an act of disobedience to the Church, and an indirect act of disobedience to Christ. It also shows a lack of respect for the action of Christ in the sacrament, which is profoundly sacred - not something to play games with.

But that isn’t what I was talking about. I was talking about my own obligation to comply with the will of God in seeking a valid sacramental absolution, and not to presume that God will exploit some loophole, or to treat my salvation as a game of chance.