Should I re-confess my mortal sins because I forgot to say how many times I committed each one?

[Bookcat]

Yes it does apply
It is like the normal “forgotten mortal sin”.

I committed 12 mortal sins. I missed 12 Masses.

I confessed “I missed Mass” due to my being honestly clueless that number was needed.

That is one Mass not 12.

I did not yet confess the 12 mortal sins of missing Mass.

I need to confess still once I realize such.

I once in the past even discussed the very question with a Priest who wrote a guide for confessors on hearing confessions. He affirmed the very same thing (adding of course one may not remember the actual number and may need to approximate)

 

[Bookcat]

NO.

**Rule of thumb: **If the priest gave you the Absolution, then Jesus forgave you of your sins and has already forgotten them.
.

One is still normally obliged to confess the mortal sins not yet confessed.

 

[Bookcat]

As one work of Moral Theology (often used in the past by confessors) notes regarding the confession of mortal sins:

“If in indicating the number of sins ones erroneously minimizes, the mistake must be corrected in the following confessions.”

 

[Bookcat]

I am not asking you to fill the thread.

As one work of Moral Theology (often used in the past by confessors) notes regarding the confession of mortal sins:

“If in indicating the number of sins ones erroneously minimizes, the mistake must be corrected in the following confessions”

(of course this is to be done normally in the next confession)

(again note that those who are scrupulous – do not scruple on account of this --have the guidance of a regular confessor).

 

[jmcrae]

One is still normally obliged to confess the mortal sins not yet confessed.

She did confess them. Her intention was not to deceive the priest into thinking that she had only missed one Mass. Jesus was in the room with them; He understood her meaning.

Try not to demand more than what the Church actually requires.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I once in the past even discussed the very question with a Priest who wrote a guide for confessors on hearing confessions. He affirmed the very same thing (adding of course one may not remember the actual number and may need to approximate)

I too have asked this, and two similar questions of three different priests with regard to my own confessions and each time the answer was that I should not re-confess. They also said that the priest in the first confession would have understood what I confessed and taken it all into account.

Did the priest you discussed this with publish his guide? If so that would be excellent support for your position.

I gave one (see above) --Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

As I said, that supports my argument not yours. I am asking for one published reference which directly addresses the question and answers it as you have done. I’m not asking for a general discussion of confession which we need to interpret. We have had that discussion at least twice previously and not agreed.

 

[Bookcat]

She did confess them. Her intention was not to deceive the priest into thinking that she had only missed one Mass. Jesus was in the room with them; He understood her meaning.

Try not to demand more than what the Church actually requires

It is what is required… (demanding more would be to say one has to give all sorts of unneeded details–one does not)

She did not yet confess them. Not yet. She intended to make a good confession and I am not saying they were not “absolved” indirectly.

But all the mortal sins were not yet confessed. The Church notes they have to all be submitted --directly-to the keys and acknowledge in confession. This is to be in number and kind.

The fact that I simply have no clue that I have to confess them in number – and so make an incomplete but formally integral confession – and thus am validly absolved of them – that fact does not remove the reality that I need still to confess them* if I later come to realize that this is the case*. All mortal sins in number and kind that have not yet been confessed need to be confessed in confession.

Now there can be the exceptions of moral or physical impossibility.

And of course we are not Mr. Spock (it was 252.365 Captain) so we proceed humanly --and if we examine and do not know the actual number -no worries we can approximate according to what we know --8-10x or maybe even “many times” or “several weeks” etc.

And again I will add that those out there with the struggle of scrupulosity -have a regular confessor and do not scruple – for they can start to want to confess all sorts of unneeded things or worry fret over what is not to be fretted over. And they should follow the direction of their “regular confessor”.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I once in the past even discussed the very question with a Priest who wrote a guide for confessors on hearing confessions. He affirmed the very same thing (adding of course one may not remember the actual number and may need to approximate)

I too have asked this, and two similar questions, of three different priests with regard to my own confessions and each time the answer was that I should not re-confess. They also said that the priest in the original confessions would have understood what I confessed and taken it all into account.

Did the priest you discussed this with publish his guide? If so that would be excellent support for your position.

I gave one (see above) --Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

As I said, that supports my argument not yours. I am asking for one published reference which directly addresses the question and answers it as you have done. I’m not asking for a general discussion of confession which we need to interpret.

This is the third time, at least, we have had this dispute. I do not intend to continue it until you provide an authoritative source which directly addresses the question.

She did confess them. Her intention was not to deceive the priest into thinking that she had only missed one Mass. Jesus was in the room with them; He understood her meaning.

Try not to demand more than what the Church actually requires.

Agreed.

It was as a result of discussions with Bookcat that I have actually twice asked a confessor whether I needed to re-confess sins which I had not confessed by number and kind. Both times the answer was a firm “No”. (I asked the question not to get an answer for Bookcat, but directly for my own needs due to doubts he had raised.).

I would add that in addition to demanding more than the Church requires Bookcat’s position is also contrary to the primary purpose of confessional. As you and I have said, the confessional is a personal encounter with the merciful Christ. The priest acting in persona Christi hears the confession, judges it, and responds with Christ’s mercy. To do this, he has been given faculties by the Church which affirm he is competent for this ministry, and gives him the authority to exercise it.

 

[Bookcat]

I

I am obliged to confess all mortal sins in number and kind.

I commit murder 5 times

Or I commit adultery 5 times

and via my not having a clue or forgetfulness (discussed above)
I just confess “murder and adultery”

Have I confessed all my mortal sins in number and kind?

No

 

[Bookcat]

As I said, that supports my argument not yours.

No they have not been already confessed.

One was confessed.

One is obliged to confess all mortal sins in number and kind that have not yet been confessed (submitted to the keys).

the Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. Which sins must be confessed?

1456

All grave sins not yet confessed, which a careful examination of conscience brings to mind, must be brought to the sacrament of Penance.

(note --“grave sins = mortal sins = serious sins”)

By “confessed” the Church means “in number and kind”. For that is how mortal sins are to be confessed.

 

[Bookcat]

I

I am obliged to confess all mortal sins in number and kind.

I commit murder 5 times

Or I commit adultery 5 times

and via my not having a clue or forgetfulness (discussed above)
I just confess “murder and adultery”

Have I confessed all my mortal sins in number and kind?

No.

 

[jmcrae]

I am obliged to confess all mortal sins in number and kind.

I commit murder 5 times

Or I commit adultery 5 times

and via my not having a clue or forgetfulness (discussed above)
I just confess “murder and adultery”

Have I confessed all my mortal sins in number and kind?

No.

If the priest needs to know, he will ask. That’s why he’s there!

As Edmund has pointed out, he is qualified for his job and knows what he is doing. He is the final arbiter. His judgement stands. “What you” - the priest - not Bookcat!! - “loose on earth is loosed in Heaven.” The priest makes his judgement and either gives the Absolution or does not give it.

Once the Absolution has been given, those sins are all forgiven - everything you said, and everything you meant by what you said.

 

[Bookcat]

If the priest needs to know, he will ask. That’s why he’s there!

.

Such would be incorrect.

(It would be true about some things but not this per se)

Priests usually do not have the extraordinary gift of reading hearts.

And if I say “murder” he is not likely going to ask – what it more than one?

It is my obligation to confess.

Confession is confession not “interrogation”.

I confess…I accuse myself of…

We are to confess all our mortal sins in number and kind and we may also confess venial sins (good to do at least some -such as in regular confessions)

 

[Bookcat]

Once the Absolution has been given, those sins are all forgiven - everything you said, and everything you meant by what you said.

Yes --for the person intended to confess all their mortal sins and was repentant etc…

And if a mortal sin was forgotten or one forgot to give the number of the mortal sin–one is obliged to confess it normally. In the next confession (if it is remembered).

 

[Bookcat]

If the priest needs to know, he will ask. That’s why he’s there!

.

Such would not be correct…

(It would be true about some things but not this per se)

Priests usually do not have the extraordinary gift of reading hearts.

And if I say “murder” he is not likely going to ask – what it more than one?

It is my obligation to confess.

Confession is confession not “interrogation”.

I confess…I accuse myself of…

We are to confess all our mortal sins in number and kind and we may also confess venial sins (good to do at least some -such as in regular confessions)

 

[jmcrae]

Such would not be correct…

(It would be true about some things but not this per se)

Priests usually do not have the extraordinary gift of reading hearts.

And if I say “murder” he is not likely going to ask – what it more than one?

Having never had to confess murder, I wouldn’t know.

But when a person says, “I committed adultery” or “I missed Mass,” or “I ate cookies before dinner” the priest can easily infer that it happened more than once, and he can, if he chooses to, say “How many times?”

But when the priest renders judgement, it’s not up to us to overturn it and say “No, the priest was wrong to absolve you.”

 

[Bookcat]

Having never had to confess murder, I wouldn’t know.

But when a person says, “I committed adultery” or “I missed Mass,” or “I ate cookies before dinner” the priest can easily infer that it happened more than once, and he can, if he chooses to, say “How many times?”

But when the priest renders judgement, it’s not up to us to overturn it and say “No, the priest was wrong to absolve you.”

I just use murder cause it is one we do not confess often…

---

No the Priest will likely take it that it was one time (well except the cookies of venial sins if it was a sin --need not have numbers). For that is what I confessed.

Again it is our obligation to confess all our mortal sins in number and kind.

Now if a Priest suspects a penitent did it more often --he can then seek to help him make a full confession --but the Priest usually does not try to “interrogate” but hears the confession.

The fact that a Priest judges to give absolution – has nothing to do with the obligation to confess the forgotten mortal sin if remembered.

And if I go in and confess a single mortal sin and the Priest thinks that is it and absolves me – that was not necessarily “wrong” for him to do (I am not saying anything about “overturning it”)-- I confessed Y and expressed contrition and he absolved me. Again it is confession not interrogation. It is not about the Priest doing something wrong. The Priest takes us at our word. It is we who examined our conscience.

 

[underacloud]

Once the Absolution has been given, those sins are all forgiven - everything you said, and everything you meant by what you said.

But when the priest renders judgement, it’s not up to us to overturn it and say “No, the priest was wrong to absolve you.”

I don’t think anyone would question the validity of the absolution given, except if the person deliberately withheld mortal sins, which is not in question here. So yes, everything said and everything meant is forgiven.

Nonetheless, there is an obligation to mention any forgotten mortal sins in the next confession. They are already forgiven, but they do need to be mentioned next time. It seems that people are debating whether the number of times the sin is committed is relevant to this obligation. I can certainly see how it would be, as Bookcat describes…there is a relevant difference between saying “I committed murder” and “I murdered five different people”.

Anyway, I don’t see this as a big deal (but not to trivialise it, either). The OP can rest assured that the first confession was valid and absolved all sins. But for peace of mind just mention in the next confession that you are concerned you didn’t mention the number and may have given the wrong impression. The priest may say “I knew what you meant” or “oh, OK, it’s good you clarified that”. Either way, no problem.

 

[Bookcat]

I am obliged to confess all mortal sins in number and kind.

I commit murder 5 times

Or I commit adultery 5 times

and via my not having a clue or forgetfulness (discussed above)
I just confess “murder and adultery”

Have I confessed all my mortal sins in number and kind?

No.

---

So if I realize this am I to confess the numbers?

Yes.

For they have not yet been confessed.

What if I never realize this and honestly go my way and get bit by a rabid poodle and die.

Or I forget a mortal sin and never remember it?

Are those sins still forgiven?

Yes -they where absolved indirectly – for I was repentant and simply was mistaken as to what I was to confess and never realized otherwise…or in the case of a forgotten mortal sin I was again repentant and meant to confess all mortal sins but just forgot one and never remembered it cause it was just totally forgotten…never realized.

Jesus is the Good Shepherd who loves us and desires to give us true life.

(now can there be times when such is impossible …sure…especially if I honestly never realize that I should have confessed the number of the mortal sins…)

(and again those who struggle with scrupulosity - have a regular confessor. For they can want to confess all sorts of unneeded things and can have various difficulties regarding confession–and need a regular confessor to guide them)

 

[Edmundus1581]

…
So if I realize this am I to confess the numbers?

Yes.
…

That is your personal interpretation. Mine is that one should accept the verdict of the priest who heard the confession, and passed absolution without adding that one still needed to confess the numbers.

Do you have a Catholic authority which directly discusses this question?