Are mistakenly unforgiven sins still retained?

[Claire_from_DE]

For goodness sake, you intended to do some form of penance but then you forgot. You have a very high expectation for yourself and you didn’t live up to making that penance a priority. But you forgot to do it. Unless this happens all the time, so that you know you are very likely to forget, it was an unintentional sin. Venial sin at the most, not mortal! At the time it happen it was not intentional. Stop judging yourself so harshly after the fact. The priest made a judgment that as you described it, there was no sin. Trust him on that.

 

[LilyM]

The way that I understand it, disobedience to Canon law is a mortal sin. Thus, failure to perform the Friday Penance can be equated to failing to attend Mass on Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation.

Now let’s compare the two. If I forget to set the alarm clock and oversleep and miss Sunday Mass, then there is no sin because I did not do it intentionally. But if I then wake up and there is a later mass that I can go to but I don’t do so because I want to go to a fireworks display or go on a picnic or something like that, then I have commited a mortal sin by intentionally not attending mass.

Now, let’s compare that to my situation with the Friday Penance. I forgot about it. No sin. But then when I remembered, I should have made the time available to perform another penance in it’s place – skipped the fireworks display and spent the time in reading the bible or saying a rosary or left a family gathering early or arrive late or whatever.

Just as I am expected to take what ever reasonable means are available to me to attend Mass on Sunday and not pick a fireworks display over mass, I am also expected to make what ever reasonable means are available to me to perform the Friday Penance.

I did not give it the importance that was due and failed to perform the Penance – thus a mortal sin of omission which I attempted to confess.

No opportunity means NO opportunity. It means the time could not be made full stop, not that he chose not to make it. What part of NO opportunity do you not understand?

If I miss 9am mass, intend to go to 6pm Mass and something else comes up to prevent it (the car breaks down, the baby gets sick, I fall asleep again on the couch mid-afternoon through no fault of my own and wake up at 8pm) then I’ve committed no sin.

 

[EasterJoy]

The way that I understand it, disobedience to Canon law is a mortal sin. Thus, failure to perform the Friday Penance can be equated to failing to attend Mass on Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation.

Well, and here’s a new wrinkle. If you go to the apologetics forum, it would appear that Jimmy Akin has written a piece explaining why the best reading of canon law as it applies in the US is that the Friday penance is not a requirement except for those certain Fridays when abstainence is still required, but is rather highly recommended by exhortation of the US bishops:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=244742

In other words, it is hard to argue that your confessor was wrong in the first place.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Well, and here’s a new wrinkle. If you go to the apologetics forum, it would appear that Jimmy Akin has written a piece explaining why the best reading of canon law as it applies in the US is that the Friday penance is not a requirement except for those certain Fridays when abstainence is still required, but is rather highly recommended by exhortation of the US bishops:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=244742

In other words, it is hard to argue that your confessor was wrong in the first place.

If you read what Jimmy Akin makes references to, you’ll see that the US Bishops removed the SPECIFIC obligation of abstaining from meat on Fridays but nowhere do they state that they are also removing the boarder duty of performing a penance on Fridays as required by Canon Law.

The way that I understand this, and the way that it has been explained to me by other priests, is that we are no longer required to perform the SPECIFIC penance of abstaining from meat but we STILL have to perform a penance – the penance being one of our own choice.

 

[LilyM]

If you read what Jimmy Akin makes references to, you’ll see that the US Bishops removed the SPECIFIC obligation of abstaining from meat on Fridays but nowhere do they state that they are also removing the boarder duty of performing a penance on Fridays as required by Canon Law.

The way that I understand this, and the way that it has been explained to me by other priests, is that we are no longer required to perform the SPECIFIC penance of abstaining from meat but we STILL have to perform a penance – the penance being one of our own choice.

And, as you say, you had no opportunity to do so in spite of your intentions. No harm, no foul.

 

[Sir_Knight]

No opportunity means NO opportunity. It means the time could not be made full stop, not that he chose not to make it. What part of NO opportunity do you not understand?

If I miss 9am mass, intend to go to 6pm Mass and something else comes up to prevent it (the car breaks down, the baby gets sick, I fall asleep again on the couch mid-afternoon through no fault of my own and wake up at 8pm) then I’ve committed no sin.

I feel funny arguing try to prove that I am a sinner but …

After realizing that it was Friday and having eaten meat, I could have skipped the fireworks show to read the bible or not took part in some of the other family activities and devoted that time to pray. I should have MADE the free time and not waited for the free time. At least that’s how I see it – maybe I am being too hard on myself

 

[wanner47]

I feel funny arguing try to prove that I am a sinner but …

After realizing that it was Friday and having eaten meat, I could have skipped the fireworks show to read the bible or not took part in some of the other family activities and devoted that time to pray. I should have MADE the free time and not waited for the free time. At least that’s how I see it – maybe I am being too hard on myself

As long as you didn’t consciously think, “Oh, screw the Friday penance,” I think you’re okay. You honestly resolved to do the penance later and simply forgot. It happens. God knows your heart, and he knows that you regret your sin and have resolved to sin no more.

 

[AHapka]

The priest was sitting there in Persona Christi. I was not, nor were any of the rest of us here.

I have been given penances that I thought were too light. I have done things that I thought were sins only to be told that they were not.

However, St. Francis of Asisi, along with many other Saints have always taught that we are to be obedient to the Church and our religious superiors. St. Therese (I forget which one) in her book states that God specifically told her to do something, then a priest told her not to. God told her to obey the priest.

You were told be a priest who was sitting in Persona Christi that you committed no sin. Be obedient to him. You properly brought the matter up and got your answer. All of this second guessing could lead to a sin in and of itself, that of doubt. God has placed priests in a position as our religious superiors, and barring them ordering us to sin, we are to obey them.

I’m not trying to be hard on you, but I want to drive the point home. I’m not in a position to judge the state of your soul. He was. He said you committed no sin, so I say you committed no sin.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Okay, I can accept that but doesn’t scripture tell us that if we THINK that we have sinned, then we have indeed sinned …

• Romans 14:14 – I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself; except to him who reckons anything to be unclean, to that man [it is] unclean.
• James 4:17 – To him therefore who knows how to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin.

 

[wanner47]

Okay, I can accept that but doesn’t scripture tell us that if we THINK that we have sinned, then we have indeed sinned …

• Romans 14:14 – I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself; except to him who reckons anything to be unclean, to that man [it is] unclean.
• James 4:17 – To him therefore who knows how to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin.

The first verse is one you need to read in its proper context. Paul is speaking of behaviors that may cause others to sin or prove to be obstacles to those struggling with sin, even if it’s not an occasion of sin for someone else. (E.g., it’s not a sin to wear a tank top to your friend’s house unless you know that your friend is struggling with the sin of lust – then you may be a cause of a near occasion of sin.)

The second verse seems to be talking about people who have the ability to do good and **consciously ****choose **not to.