D
Dranu
Guest
Okay, I am looking for authoritative text on this if possible.
Here’s the situation: I gave a confession, and concealed absolutely nothing (consciously) by the time absolution was given. Upon leaving I prayed for about 3 minutes and realized that either the priest forgot to give me a penance or I forgot what it was. So someone let me jump ahead of them to ask the priest that question. While I was asking him (either right before or right after) I recalled something that came up in my examination (it was feeling like perhaps I once lacked diligence with one of my penances, or didn’t do enough to remember my penance). I did not mention that there, I think primarily out of the fact that I was basically cutting in line. I don’t recall thinking it was mortal, but I still consciously did not mention it. Of course I am dealing with scrupulosity (trying to find the right mean between the two evils of laxity and obsessive legalism), so my mind worries that perhaps I concealed a mortal sin without now knowing that it was mortal and perhaps I thought it was mortal then when I concealed it and just don’t remember it because I so quickly dismissed it. In honesty I think it is a venial sin and perhaps not even a sin, for I think with that old penance in question, the priest had told me not to worry if I should forget, but if I had not chosen to be less diligent than I could have perhaps that would not have happened.
Here’s the question: It seems to me that absolution only deals with sins of the past and not the future. Forgotten sins thus seem indirectly washed away by the absolution as well since they were not brought into the light, but not withheld from it either. Thus, after the point of absolution it seems logical that a new absolution would be needed to directly deal with forgotten sin, and thus it would be a new confession, indicating that the old one was over as the absolution is dealing with a different one, for if it were not, then one could consciously conceal mortal sin in one confession and then bring it at a much later time after absolution was given since, by bringing it later, they never concealed it from this same confession. But this is absurd, unless it be suggested that one can never invalidate a confession this way so long as they suggest it at some later time (as it would be the same confession). Therefore, a sin recalled after absolution could be confessed at some later date even if penance has not yet been given (so it seems). That is, one who recalled a mortal sin after, but not before, absolution was not consciously concealing anything IN confession, and thus their confession would not be invalid, and need repetition, even if what was concealed was mortal. So I am wondering, does anybody have any links to authority to suggest this is correct (that confessing, and the obligation to reveal everything known, ends at absolution), or must we state it even if it comes after that point and before the giving of the penance? It would bring me great peace as I am tired of re-confessing things over and over, but shall if need be.
Also, I suppose the sacrament of penance is still valid even if the penance is given after the absolution, right?
Here’s the situation: I gave a confession, and concealed absolutely nothing (consciously) by the time absolution was given. Upon leaving I prayed for about 3 minutes and realized that either the priest forgot to give me a penance or I forgot what it was. So someone let me jump ahead of them to ask the priest that question. While I was asking him (either right before or right after) I recalled something that came up in my examination (it was feeling like perhaps I once lacked diligence with one of my penances, or didn’t do enough to remember my penance). I did not mention that there, I think primarily out of the fact that I was basically cutting in line. I don’t recall thinking it was mortal, but I still consciously did not mention it. Of course I am dealing with scrupulosity (trying to find the right mean between the two evils of laxity and obsessive legalism), so my mind worries that perhaps I concealed a mortal sin without now knowing that it was mortal and perhaps I thought it was mortal then when I concealed it and just don’t remember it because I so quickly dismissed it. In honesty I think it is a venial sin and perhaps not even a sin, for I think with that old penance in question, the priest had told me not to worry if I should forget, but if I had not chosen to be less diligent than I could have perhaps that would not have happened.
Here’s the question: It seems to me that absolution only deals with sins of the past and not the future. Forgotten sins thus seem indirectly washed away by the absolution as well since they were not brought into the light, but not withheld from it either. Thus, after the point of absolution it seems logical that a new absolution would be needed to directly deal with forgotten sin, and thus it would be a new confession, indicating that the old one was over as the absolution is dealing with a different one, for if it were not, then one could consciously conceal mortal sin in one confession and then bring it at a much later time after absolution was given since, by bringing it later, they never concealed it from this same confession. But this is absurd, unless it be suggested that one can never invalidate a confession this way so long as they suggest it at some later time (as it would be the same confession). Therefore, a sin recalled after absolution could be confessed at some later date even if penance has not yet been given (so it seems). That is, one who recalled a mortal sin after, but not before, absolution was not consciously concealing anything IN confession, and thus their confession would not be invalid, and need repetition, even if what was concealed was mortal. So I am wondering, does anybody have any links to authority to suggest this is correct (that confessing, and the obligation to reveal everything known, ends at absolution), or must we state it even if it comes after that point and before the giving of the penance? It would bring me great peace as I am tired of re-confessing things over and over, but shall if need be.
Also, I suppose the sacrament of penance is still valid even if the penance is given after the absolution, right?
because I go at a minimum once a month.