Was this confession valid? what to do?

  • Thread starter Thread starter HSTV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HSTV

Guest
I made a through complete list of all my sins. I traveled to other city to be able to confess.
When I met the priest, asked him for me to confess.

He talked to me, asked If I were sorry and repentant. Then I replied “Yes, I repent”.
Then he said “I forgive you in the name of the father of the son and the holy spirit” and gave me my penance.

He did not gave me the opportunity to tell what I have done wrong, I had everything written in a list.

Do I need to go to confession again?
 
Did this priest ask you for any back story? I mean, did he question you at all before asking if you were truly sorry and repentant?

I ask because maybe something you said made him sense scrupulosity. I really don’t know. I’m just assuming, because what you experienced is not how a confession usually goes.

Are you scrupulous? I always listen to what my confessor tells me to do. I tend to be scrupulous myself, and suffer from OCD, so it is imperative that I obey, if I want to grow spiritually and not constantly obsess.
 
s.cono said:
Did this priest ask you for any back story? I mean, did he question you at all before asking if you were truly sorry and repentant?
Click to expand...
He did not ask me for any story. I did not have to explain my sins.
He asked if I were sorry and repentant.
He said I was doing the right thing to go to Confession, something like that. He said Jesus knew I wanted to confess and that he knew my conscience.

then he absolved me and gave me my penitence.
 
I dont know the validity. I do know a few things though. If you are scrupulous you should not post these things but I’m going to assume you are not.
If you posted accurately then the priest was in error and you should mention your sins at the next confession.
There is no need to travel to do so.
 
then I am not forgiven?
and I still cant receive the holy communion?
 
Last edited:
I don’t know. That’s above any of our pay grades. My advice is to confess before Mass this weekend. On one hand you intended to confess… on the other you didn’t say your sins in number and kind.
Can someone summon batpriest on this one I feel like he would know…
@edward_george1
 
Last edited:
I think you are fine. You tried to go to confession and you received absolution. Don’t overthink it. I think you can receive Communion. It is not your fault you were not able to confess your sins and you intended to.
 
HSTV said:
He did not ask me for any story. I did not have to explain my sins.
He asked if I were sorry and repentant.
He said I was doing the right thing to go to Confession, something like that. He said Jesus knew I wanted to confess and that he knew my conscience.

then he absolved me and gave me my penitence.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, we are to submit our sins to the tribunal of mercy (God) in the sacrament of confession, we are to accuse ourselves hence why we state our sins aurally for the priest to hear.
Perhaps he assumed you only had venial sins. Only he would know why he did what he did.
For your peace of mind, if you believe you have committed a mortal sin, go early before Mass and ask your priest to hear your confession.
If you have sins you’d rather Father not hear (if this is why you went to another city) , then offer this embarrassment to God as a penance for your sins.
If for some reason it is not possible for Father to hear it before Mass, ask if he would hear your confession after Mass.
Offer up your disappointment of not receiving a sacramental communion to God too, and instead of receiving make a spiritual communion.
 
HSTV said:
I made a through complete list of all my sins. I traveled to other city to be able to confess.
When I met the priest, asked him for me to confess.

He talked to me, asked If I were sorry and repentant. Then I replied “Yes, I repent”.
Then he said “I forgive you in the name of the father of the son and the holy spirit” and gave me my penance.

He did not gave me the opportunity to tell what I have done wrong, I had everything written in a list.

Do I need to go to confession again?
Click to expand...
Did you actually confess anything?
 
I intended to but the priest did not let me say anything. It wasnt my fault.
 
HSTV said:
I intended to but the priest did not let me say anything. It wasnt my fault.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately it is invalid and you will have to to go to another priest, tell him what happened and actually mention your sins. Sins are the required matter for a sacrament and without valid matter the sacrament is invalid. It would have been different if you had been able to mention at least one sin and then he interrupted you. That would have been valid because you presented at least some valid matter.

That it was not your fault is irrelevant and the priest will have to answer to God for his treatment of you. While we can argue you are forgiven, you are not absolved and cannot approach communion.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if a generic confession of having sinned, because he indicated he repented of his sins when talking to the Priest, and indicated contrition, would constitute valid matter? ( A generic confession of sinning without enumerating an actual sin would be allowed in cases involving special situations and this does not seem to be one but the principal remains—there are cases where no actual confessing happens where an absolution is validly imparted). So although he didn’t enumerate any actual sins, he acknowledged that he had sinned—and he intended to confess. I am wondering if perhaps the absolution would be valid despite the defects in this case. One could make the case that this Priest acted illicitly, but the absolution was nonetheless valid.

Of course, being scrupulous, I have taken things to confession and been told “I don’t think that is a sin. In order to absolve I would need an actual sin, proper matter for the Sacrament” before — so I totally understand your point too.

NOTE: I am not advising OP. He should seek counsel of another Priest. I am just pondering on this “irregularity”.
 
Your priest was correct.

The teaching is clear: kind and for mortal sins, number. No confession, no sacrament.

I have had that happen before. I was told it was not a sin but since I had also mentioned devotionally a previously confessed mortal sin, the priest had valid matter to absolve. And yes previously absolved sins are valid matter.
 
Last edited:
he was correct in what way? He didn’t listen to me, just asked if I was repentant and then absolved me and gave me my penance.
 
HSTV said:
he was correct in what way? He didn’t listen to me, just asked if I was repentant and then absolved me and gave me my penance.
Click to expand...
Sorry. Your priest was wrong. I was replying to Canvas. His priest was correct.

You unfortunately had an invalid confession and need to go back and actually mention your sins
 
I’m curious why people think this priest presided over an invalid confession.

I understand about form, but if a priest asks in the confessional if you repent of your sins and you say yes and he provides absolution and you say the act of contrition, what’s the problem?

We know that if we forgot one or two sins we are still forgiven for them. We’re absolved of our our sins in confession. Yes, I am aware that if you withhold a sin you have an invalid confession, but that’s not at issue here.
 
PaulinVA said:
I’m curious why people think this priest presided over an invalid confession.

I understand about form, but if a priest asks in the confessional if you repent of your sins and you say yes and he provides absolution and you say the act of contrition, what’s the problem?

We know that if we forgot one or two sins we are still forgiven for them. We’re absolved of our our sins in confession. Yes, I am aware that if you withhold a sin you have an invalid confession, but that’s not at issue here.
Click to expand...
Because no sins were mentioned. Not even one. That’s missing matter without which there is no valid sacrament. It would have been a different story if he had gotten at least one sin in edgewise and then the priest interrupted him. While that would still be very bad of the priest it would have provided sufficient matter. That is not the case here.

This is not a question of form. It’s a question of matter, another essential for any sacrament (the third being intent). This priest will answer to God for his mistreatment of the penitent and the Sacrament.
 
Last edited:
HSTV said:
there was matter. It was in my mind, I knew them in my mind.
Click to expand...
No that is not sufficient. There is a reason it is called Confession.

The matter needs to be mentioned. You did not get the chance to bring them to the tribunal to be judged. That is not your fault and I’m sure that will accounted for in case you’re hit by a bus. But as it stands you are not absolved and cannot approach communion.

Yes this is hard to hear and it was not your fault but this just emphasizes that the faithful can also be victimized by less than careful priests. The Church can supply many things but it cannot supply missing essentials of divine institution.
 
Last edited:
So, the priest thinks the confession was valid but some random person on the internet thinks the priest was wrong.

I know who I’d believe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top