Author Topic: Was my confession valid? (Read 2132 times)

Magdalene · « **on:** March 02, 2007, 10:40:33 PM »

I went to a N.O. priest for confession today. While I was saying my list of sins, I noticed that he was not paying attention but reading from a book (I saw him get up and take the book that was at the other end of the confessional and I heard him keep ruffling through the pages).

Was my confession valid considering the fact that he did not paying attention to what I was confessing?

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #1 on:** March 02, 2007, 10:50:32 PM »

He'll pay for doing that (not paying attention), but if he had the intention to absolve you of your sins, even if he didn't believe in it, your confession is valid. I believe it is fine.

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #2 on:** March 02, 2007, 10:55:48 PM »

I agree with what QVP said. The thing is though that it would be best to go to confession with a traditional priest. It would be alright to go with a NO priest if you can tell he would be sincere and have the correct intention of what the Church does, but again, it would be best to go to confession with a traditional priest like those of the FSSP, ICK, or SSPX.

Ancilla_Indigna · « **Reply #3 on:** March 03, 2007, 03:15:27 PM »

Quote from: Magdalene

I went to a N.O. priest for confession today. While I was saying my list of sins, I noticed that he was not paying attention but reading from a book (I saw him get up and take the book that was at the other end of the confessional and I heard him keep ruffling through the pages).

Was my confession valid considering the fact that he did not paying attention to what I was confessing?

Oh my goodness! That is frightening! If it were me (not that I would any longer go to any other priest than my own Confessor, unless I absolutely had to because he was away for more than 2 weeks, and even then, it would be another traditional priest that I knew was good), I would have said, "So Father, what do you recommend?" and press him for advice. Or, I'd stop in the middle and ask to do it face to face. That's harder for you, but better because he's forced to listen.

Better yet, go to a traditional priest. They are better equipped at hearing confessions because they hear them all the time and tend to have a greater respect for the Sacrament.

katoliko · « **Reply #4 on:** March 04, 2007, 12:07:45 AM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

He'll pay for doing that (not paying attention), but if he had the intention to absolve you of your sins, even if he didn't believe in it, your confession is valid. I believe it is fine.

If you confessed it and he absolved you but didn't think it was a sin, are you still absolved? I'm asking because several of my friends no longer think masturbation, premarital sex, eating meat on a lenten friday because there's a party, etc etc, are not sins because their priest said so. I haven't had a priest tell me he doesn't think this and that are not sins, but I have confessed to the same priests as they have.

Magda, I've also been in similar situations where my regular confessor and others had a magazine or some other reading material!

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #5 on:** March 04, 2007, 12:30:02 AM »

The effect of the sacrament comes from the intention of the minister to do what the Church does, not from his unbelief.

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #6 on:** March 04, 2007, 05:13:30 PM »

It would be best to not confess to a priest who would tell you certain sins are alright to do, even though his absolution would be valid. Injury can be done to a soul by improper dispositions to a sacrament given by a minister of God.

Not to veer off topic, but be aware of the improper or lack of proper dispositions one can find in the Pauline Mass or any New Order sacraments.

Magdalene · « **Reply #7 on:** March 05, 2007, 01:10:23 AM »

For those here who have told me to start going to an independent or SSPX priest for confession, the problem is that I have doubts about the validy of their confessions since they lack jurisdiction. I have heard both sides of the arguments concerning this issue. I don't know what to think. Since I am in doubt, then I can not go to a trad priest. I do go, however, to independent and SSPX Masses, since those don't require jurisdiction.

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #8 on:** March 05, 2007, 03:29:40 AM »

We live in a Church crisis right now, and many souls are in need of being assured they have tried and true sacraments. That overrides any scruple of jurisdiction simply. The Church simply supplies jurisdiction in this crisis we endure now. Some would disagree, of course, but remember that having ordinary jurisdiction is something that is supposed to ensure the faithful of valid ministers for confessions and marriages, but right now we do not live in an ideal situation for the Church. The canonical system would end up working against the mission of the Church to save souls if it were not for the supplied jursidiction ensured by the Church in times of crisis like our own. Sadly, now many priests in the canonical structure would not dispose many most properly to the sacraments of confession and marriage. It would be best then to go to a traditional priest. For one thing, it would be like living a double life if a Catholic has to always worry about going to confession with a NO priest and then attend SSPX or independent chapel Masses. The mission of the Church is not hindered though, and so it would be best to get the "full package" so to speak.

Magdalene · « **Reply #9 on:** March 05, 2007, 02:52:07 PM »

Quote from: Kephapaulos

We live in a Church crisis right now, and many souls are in need of being assured they have tried and true sacraments. That overrides any scruple of jurisdiction simply. The Church simply supplies jurisdiction in this crisis we endure now. Some would disagree, of course, but remember that having ordinary jurisdiction is something that is supposed to ensure the faithful of valid ministers for confessions and marriages, but right now we do not live in an ideal situation for the Church. The canonical system would end up working against the mission of the Church to save souls if it were not for the supplied jursidiction ensured by the Church in times of crisis like our own. Sadly, now many priests in the canonical structure would not dispose many most properly to the sacraments of confession and marriage. It would be best then to go to a traditional priest. For one thing, it would be like living a double life if a Catholic has to always worry about going to confession with a NO priest and then attend SSPX or independent chapel Masses. The mission of the Church is not hindered though, and so it would be best to get the "full package" so to speak.

I believe the N.O. confessors I go to are valid - although they are sadly misguided - or else I would not go to them. I don't think they give good spiritual advice - the ones I go to usually don't give any advice at all - but I can get spiritual advice from a trad priest after confession, so that is not such an issue. Although I think a revereant N.O. is not as pleasing to God as a TLM, since it is a Protestantized, watered-down version, I do believe that a N.O. Mass is still valid (unless proper matter and form are not used). When I am unable to go to a TLM, either because there is none or I am too tired to wake up early, I have to go to a N.O. Mass to fufill my Sunday obligation- although I follow along with my own prayers and try not to look up until the consecration.

Although there is a crisis in the Church, I don't think that a person is unable to go to confession to a N.O. priest because N.O. priests are still validly consecrated and their sacraments are still valid - unless you have one of those churches that have the outrageous abuses (then I would not go to their Mass or sacraments since I would doubt the validy).

Ancilla_Indigna · « **Reply #10 on:** March 05, 2007, 04:57:02 PM »

Quote from: Magdalene

Quote from: Kephapaulos
We live in a Church crisis right now, and many souls are in need of being assured they have tried and true sacraments. That overrides any scruple of jurisdiction simply. The Church simply supplies jurisdiction in this crisis we endure now. Some would disagree, of course, but remember that having ordinary jurisdiction is something that is supposed to ensure the faithful of valid ministers for confessions and marriages, but right now we do not live in an ideal situation for the Church. The canonical system would end up working against the mission of the Church to save souls if it were not for the supplied jursidiction ensured by the Church in times of crisis like our own. Sadly, now many priests in the canonical structure would not dispose many most properly to the sacraments of confession and marriage. It would be best then to go to a traditional priest. For one thing, it would be like living a double life if a Catholic has to always worry about going to confession with a NO priest and then attend SSPX or independent chapel Masses. The mission of the Church is not hindered though, and so it would be best to get the "full package" so to speak.

I believe the N.O. confessors I go to are valid - although they are sadly misguided - or else I would not go to them. I don't think they give good spiritual advice - the ones I go to usually don't give any advice at all - but I can get spiritual advice from a trad priest after confession, so that is not such an issue. Although I think a revereant N.O. is not as pleasing to God as a TLM, since it is a Protestantized, watered-down version, I do believe that a N.O. Mass is still valid (unless proper matter and form are not used). When I am unable to go to a TLM, either because there is none or I am too tired to wake up early, I have to go to a N.O. Mass to fufill my Sunday obligation- although I follow along with my own prayers and try not to look up until the consecration.

Although there is a crisis in the Church, I don't think that a person is unable to go to confession to a N.O. priest because N.O. priests are still validly consecrated and their sacraments are still valid - unless you have one of those churches that have the outrageous abuses (then I would not go to their Mass or sacraments since I would doubt the validy).

Perhaps Keph is referring to the fact that many N.O. priests are no longer able to be depended upon for Confession for various reasons: 1.) They don't always follow the form that is requisite for the Sacrament to be valid, (a good example, for a priest to say, "Go in peace. Your sins are forgiven" without ever having said the words, "I absolve you.")
2.) There are potential graces in getting good counsel and obeying your Confessor. If he doesn't give good advice or any advise, you lose out.
3.) They aren't likely to offer optional penances. (Most have no clue what this even means nowadays.)
4.) They aren't as schooled in natural law, having studied in seminaries that propogated modernistic heresies. This means that they are seldom equipped to even comprehend the sins and/or their root causes. They may play down a sin, or even dismiss it as venial when it is mortal, or a venial sin as not a sin at all, or sometimes some priests will even dismiss mortal sins as not being sins or merely faults.
5.) Because of the reasons above, I find that such Confessors are a danger to the faith, albeit, in they have the ability to administer valid Sacraments.

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #11 on:** March 05, 2007, 07:37:28 PM »

You bring up good points, Ancilla. The other thing to consider is that no official declaration has ever been made concerning SSPX confessions and marriages, from what I gather. Of course, you might hear some in the hierarchy advise you not to go to confession with or get married by a SSPX priest, but still there has been no official declaration specifically concerning the issue at hand. Even if there were or is one, it would indeed not help the Vatican if it wants to make tranquil negotiations with the SSPX. Even though NO priests do have ordinary jurisdiction and can then give valid absolution, you are not always assured that you will get the best disposition towards the sacrament of penance. If I am not mistaken, I remember St. Thomas Aquinas saying something in the Summa Theologica about having respect for a sacrament by not receiving it from an unworthy minister despite there being validity of the sacrament.

EDIT: St. Thomas, I think now, was referring specifically to receiving the Blessed Sacrament, but possibly, the same principle could very well be applied to the other sacraments themselves.

Ancilla_Indigna · « **Reply #12 on:** March 05, 2007, 09:09:22 PM »

Hmmm... you raise a good point yourself.

I wasn't thinking about the validity issue of the SSPX.

If you can, I recommend the FSSP or another Tridentine indult, just to be on the safe side. Or, if the only Tridentine is SSPX, go to Confession via the N.O. and get your spiritual direction from the SSPX.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #13 on:** March 12, 2007, 10:07:53 PM »

Quote from: Kephapaulos

...Not to veer off topic, but be aware of the improper or lack of proper dispositions one can find in the Pauline Mass or any New Order sacraments...

Why, Kepha, it almost sounds as if you are talking about defect in the (so-called) sacramental form itself? Or, with respect to the 'Pauline Mass', defect of intention on the part of the framers of the rite (something the Church can judge, as taught in Apostolicae Curae).

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #14 on:** March 12, 2007, 10:11:50 PM »

Quote from: Magdalene

...I don't think that a person is unable to go to confession to a N.O. priest because N.O. priests are still validly consecrated and their sacraments are still valid...

Although I do not mean to cause any disquiet, I hold the contrary to be true. I take the N.O. 'priests' to be no such thing, thus rendering their (mutilated, so-called) sacraments null. Btw, priests are ordained, bishops are consecrated.