Do you confess sins you remember after receiving absolution, the next time you attend confession?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dpoc41
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dpoc41

Guest
I’ve had conflicting answers from priests on this, but Theory and practice of the confessional by Caspar Erich Schieler, Richard Frederick Clarke makes it pretty clear -

If the penitent, through forgetfulness or for some lawful reason, without any blame attaching to him, omits to mention something which is necessary for the integrity of the confession, he is bound to disclose it on the next occasion; for, by the decision of the Council of Trent, each and every mortal sin of which one is conscious must be mentioned, that it may be directly remitted; hence if sins occur to the mind which have not yet been confessed, they must be submitted to the power of the keys.

Thus Alexander VII condemned the proposition: Sins which have been forgotten or omitted in confession on account of instant danger to life or for any other reason, need not be mentioned in the next confession (cf. Prop. 11 damn.).
 
Dpoc41 said:
I’ve had conflicting answers from priests on this, but Theory and practice of the confessional by Caspar Erich Schieler, Richard Frederick Clarke makes it pretty clear -

If the penitent, through forgetfulness or for some lawful reason, without any blame attaching to him, omits to mention something which is necessary for the integrity of the confession, he is bound to disclose it on the next occasion; for, by the decision of the Council of Trent, each and every mortal sin of which one is conscious must be mentioned, that it may be directly remitted; hence if sins occur to the mind which have not yet been confessed, they must be submitted to the power of the keys.

Thus Alexander VII condemned the proposition: Sins which have been forgotten or omitted in confession on account of instant danger to life or for any other reason, need not be mentioned in the next confession (cf. Prop. 11 damn.).
Click to expand...
If the sin was mortal, yes. It’s required.

Failing to do so incurs a new sin.
 
Dpoc41 said:
I’ve had conflicting answers from priests on this, but Theory and practice of the confessional by Caspar Erich Schieler, Richard Frederick Clarke makes it pretty clear -

If the penitent, through forgetfulness or for some lawful reason, without any blame attaching to him, omits to mention something which is necessary for the integrity of the confession, he is bound to disclose it on the next occasion; for, by the decision of the Council of Trent, each and every mortal sin of which one is conscious must be mentioned, that it may be directly remitted; hence if sins occur to the mind which have not yet been confessed, they must be submitted to the power of the keys.

Thus Alexander VII condemned the proposition: Sins which have been forgotten or omitted in confession on account of instant danger to life or for any other reason, need not be mentioned in the next confession (cf. Prop. 11 damn.).
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t be conflicting answers. It’s pretty clear.
One may get spiritual direction in regaurds to scrupulocity that might confuse the answer for normal situations. Could that be at play here?
 
There is no need to search history for an answer. The teaching of the Church is clear. Forgotten mortal sins are absolved, but should be mentioned at the next regular confession. If you are scrupulous and worry about this, discuss it with your confessor and follow his advice.

Baltimore Catechism:
  1. What are we to do if without our fault we forget to confess a mortal sin?
Click to expand...
If without our fault we forget to confess a mortal sin, we may receive Holy Communion, because we have made a good confession and the sin is forgiven; but we must tell the sin in confession if it again comes to our mind.
Click to expand...
Jimmy Akin: “Forgotten & Forgiven Mortal Sins”
jimmyakin.com/2006/09/a_reader_writes_1.html

“Forgotten Mortal Sins”
catholicexchange.com/forgotten-mortal-sins
 
In reading this thread and the mention of scrupulosity it occurs to me (just thinking out loud) that if one confesses sins but then remembers one or some, sometime after confession and being absolved of those sins that they need to confess anyway, this would seem to invite scrupulosity.
Scrupulosity or the possibility of it seems to be common in quite a few threads I’ve read. Could it be that scrupulosity is fed by something like confessing a sin after it has been absolved?
 
puzzledtoo said:
In reading this thread and the mention of scrupulosity it occurs to me (just thinking out loud) that if one confesses sins but then remembers one or some, sometime after confession and being absolved of those sins that they need to confess anyway, this would seem to invite scrupulosity.
Scrupulosity or the possibility of it seems to be common in quite a few threads I’ve read. Could it be that scrupulosity is fed by something like confessing a sin after it has been absolved?
Click to expand...
One is* obliged *to confess a forgotten mortal sin.

Not a forgotten venial sin etc

Can it happen that someone who struggles with scruples might scruple about confession? Sure it can happen. But that does not mean that it was the obligation to confess forgotten mortal sins that lead to their scruples per se or that such would create scruples in those without scruples. It just happened to be the occasion of their particular scruple there. But yes it is possible that some with scruples will scruple about confession - fearing that they need to confess something that they do not need to confess etc. They need to have a regular confessor to direct them - for they can be in a “different boat” in this due to their scruples regarding confession. He might for example (and this is classic direction that was often given for those scrupling about confession by their confessors) direct them as their regular confessor not to confess any mortal sin remembered from the past unless they are both certain that was mortal (not only grave matter but full knowledge and complete consent) and they are *certain *it was not already confessed…If anyone is in this boat - they should have a regular confessor who can direct them. (PS I would also suggest that those with scruples not read that particular older book meant for confessors of the past- at least discuss with their regular confessor if they can read it - for it can occasion scruples for them that they should rather avoid. And again I emphasize - such persons with that struggle should certainly have a regular confessor to direct them.)
 
Dpoc41 said:
I’ve had conflicting answers from priests on this, but Theory and practice of the confessional by Caspar Erich Schieler, Richard Frederick Clarke makes it pretty clear -

If the penitent, through forgetfulness or for some lawful reason, without any blame attaching to him, omits to mention something which is necessary for the integrity of the confession, he is bound to disclose it on the next occasion; for, by the decision of the Council of Trent, each and every mortal sin of which one is conscious must be mentioned, that it may be directly remitted; hence if sins occur to the mind which have not yet been confessed, they must be submitted to the power of the keys.

Thus Alexander VII condemned the proposition: Sins which have been forgotten or omitted in confession on account of instant danger to life or for any other reason, need not be mentioned in the next confession (cf. Prop. 11 damn.).
Click to expand...
If its a remembered mortal sin then yes it is mandatory to confess it at your next Confession.
 
puzzledtoo said:
In reading this thread and the mention of scrupulosity it occurs to me (just thinking out loud) that if one confesses sins but then remembers one or some, sometime after confession and being absolved of those sins that they need to confess anyway, this would seem to invite scrupulosity.
Scrupulosity or the possibility of it seems to be common in quite a few threads I’ve read. Could it be that scrupulosity is fed by something like confessing a sin after it has been absolved?
Click to expand...
One is* obliged *to confess a forgotten mortal sin.

Not a forgotten venial sin etc

Can it happen that someone who struggles with scruples might scruple about confession? Sure it can happen. But that does not mean that it was the obligation to confess forgotten mortal sins that lead to their scruples per se or that such would create scruples in those without scruples. It just happened to be the occasion of their particular scruple there. But yes it is possible that some with scruples will scruple about confession - fearing that they need to confess something that they do not need to confess etc. They need to have a regular confessor to direct them - for they can be in a “different boat” in this due to their scruples regarding confession. He might for example (and this is classic direction that was often given for those scrupling about confession by their confessors) direct them as their regular confessor not to confess any mortal sin remembered from the past unless they are both certain that was mortal (not only grave matter but full knowledge and complete consent) and they are *certain *it was not already confessed…If anyone is in this boat - they should have a regular confessor who can direct them. (PS I would also suggest that those with scruples not read that particular older book meant for confessors of the past- at least discuss with their regular confessor if they can read it - for it can occasion scruples for them that they should rather avoid. And again I emphasize - such persons with that struggle should certainly have a regular confessor to direct them.)
 
puzzledtoo said:
Could it be that scrupulosity is fed by something like confessing a sin after it has been absolved?
Click to expand...
I think so, yes.

But that doesn’t mean the Church’s law on this matter is useless or that it doesn’t bind us ordinarily. It’s the result of theological reflection and, I’m sure, is the consensus opinion on things. Obviously, one’s culpability for not following this law depends on various factors.
 
Bookcat said:
I would also suggest that those with scruples not read that particular older book meant for confessors of the past…
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree.

Trust your local Priest and submit your problem to him to help you discern things.

A good Priest I know of once said that he finds laypersons, even extremely well-read ones, to have various gaps in their knowledge that inevitably can lead them to wrong conclusions.

Most of us aren’t called to be theologians or to have an in-depth knowledge of various nuances of moral law. We’re called to be as children who trust in a loving Father.
 
InOmnemTerram said:
I think so, yes.

But that doesn’t mean the Church’s law on this matter is useless or that it doesn’t bind us ordinarily. It’s the result of theological reflection and, I’m sure, is the consensus opinion on things. Obviously, one’s culpability for not following this law depends on various factors.
Click to expand...
Yes, the answer to the question in the title is yes!
That someone is receiving multiple answers from priest like that s and citing things out of context is an indicator that there may be other factors at play.
It’s pretty clear in the CCC. No need to ask around…
 
PaulfromIowa said:
There is no need to search history for an answer. The teaching of the Church is clear. Forgotten mortal sins are absolved, but should be mentioned at the next regular confession. If you are scrupulous and worry about this, discuss it with your confessor and follow his advice.

Baltimore Catechism:

Jimmy Akin: “Forgotten & Forgiven Mortal Sins”
jimmyakin.com/2006/09/a_reader_writes_1.html

“Forgotten Mortal Sins”
catholicexchange.com/forgotten-mortal-sins
Click to expand...
Excellent.

Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top