Sin/confession question

[Cristiano]

No. It’s a bit like the sin of failing to perform penance after confession. The obligation is a fresh one afer confession and so the sin is a fresh one, independent of the original confession, that must be confessed at the next confession.

So it is with our obligation to confess forgotten mortal sins - if we are bound to confess them at the next opportunity, then that duty in itself becomes a fresh obligation, binding in itself on pain of sin, independent of the original confession and absolution.

I can see that to mention sins that have previously been NAMED and absolved can constitute the sin of despair, but we are in fact bound on pain of sin to mention those that we’ve forgotten in previous confessions. So to do so - as long as it is for the first time and not the third or fourth - cannot possibly constitute despair, but instead constitutes a binding duty.

As for reconfessing sins - have you ever heard of such a thing as a ‘devotional confession’? There are circumstances, such as when one desires to gain an indulgence for which confession is a necessary component, or when one simply wishes to gain the graces of the sacrament, when you can go to confession with no fresh sins at all, and simply mention sins of your past life. Presumably one would specify to the priest that one is doing this, and you can do so without fear of doubting that they were forgiven the first time around.

I completely agree with your statement. I was having a knee jerk reaction because I was focusing on the sacrament of confession alone.

The sacrament confers us grace through absolution for all the sins and that is a closed chapter. The part of penance and mentioning of the sins that we have forgotten are not really part of the sacrament itself (my understanding) but they are a fundamental part of our sequent sacramental life where we can and should choose to keep receiving graces. The penance that we are given from the priest and the mentioning of the sins are a minimum requirement that we must meet in our sacramental life and not doing so is sinful.

My reaction came from some thoughts about the sacrament of marriage.
If I am going to marry a woman because I simply want access to her money, but I am lying when I say that I agree with the all conditions necessary for a marriage I will have an invalid marriage. Even if I am faithful to her and just waiting for her to die my marriage will not become valid.
If am going to marry a women and meet all the required conditions for a marriage then my marriage is valid. If later I cheat on her I do not affect/invalid the sacrament but I hinder my sacramental life with sin. My marriage will always be valid no matter what.

 

[Cristiano]

I have not once doubted the validity of the original confession. Ex opere operato (“from the work having been worked”) is commonly used in the reference to the anti-donatist dogma of the Church that a priest can confect a sacrament regardless of his spiritual state. All priests can confect the Eucharist, and all western priests with jurisdiction can validly absolve penitants. The term is used in reference to the minister of the sacrament, not the recipient. I do not see why this is relevant.

All penitants are validly absolved provided that they tell all known mortal sins they have committed to the priest.

Sorry I misunderstood your comment. When I was referring to the theology of sacraments I should have been more specific. I should have addressed the bigger picture in terms of requirements, not only ex opere operato but also ex opere operanti or opus operanti. My point was about the latter and I confused the posters.

 

[HorseJumperCTS]

So, I’m still confused. Is the answer to my question, which was IF I CAN’T REMEMBER IF I SPECIFIED THE NUMBER OF TIMES THATI COMMITTED A MORTAL SIN DO I NEED TO RECONFESS IT? I wasn’t that I didn’t confess the mortal sin, it’s that I don’t know if i said “I did this” or “I did this twice”… Clariry!!

 

[Cristiano]

So, I’m still confused. Is the answer to my question, which was IF I CAN’T REMEMBER IF I SPECIFIED THE NUMBER OF TIMES THATI COMMITTED A MORTAL SIN DO I NEED TO RECONFESS IT? I wasn’t that I didn’t confess the mortal sin, it’s that I don’t know if i said “I did this” or “I did this twice”… Clariry!!

You are only required to do your best, nothing more. If you were sorry and you confessed it, then it has been absolved. If you are not sure that you followed all the proper details, then you could mention it to the priest during the next confession. He will help you out in understanding why and how we do things. You are not supposed to stress out too much either (after a valid confession). Mentioning the sin again is not to have it absolved it again. It is a discipline that we must follow to improve our spiritual life. If I were you I would read this part of the Trent Catechism where it says:

*Sins Forgotten

But should the confession seem defective, either because the penitent forgot some grievous sins, or because, although intent on confessing all his sins, he did not examine the recesses of his conscience with sufficient accuracy, he is not bound to repeat his confession. It will be sufficient, when he recollects the sins which he had forgotten, to confess them to a priest on a future occasion.

It should be noted, however, that we are not to examine our consciences with careless indifference, or to be so negligent in recalling our sins as to seem as if unwilling to remember them. Should this have been the case, the confession must by all means be made over again.*

I think that the easiest way to prevent this kind of issues is to learn how to do a good examination of conscience. Another good practice is to do a daily examination of conscience before going to sleep, it is a good tool to see which poor behaviors we can avoid the following day.

 

[HorseJumperCTS]

You are only required to do your best, nothing more. If you were sorry and you confessed it, then it has been absolved. If you are not sure that you followed all the proper details, then you could mention it to the priest during the next confession. He will help you out in understanding why and how we do things. You are not supposed to stress out too much either (after a valid confession). Mentioning the sin again is not to have it absolved it again. It is a discipline that we must follow to improve our spiritual life. If I were you I would read this part of the Trent Catechism where it says:

*Sins Forgotten

But should the confession seem defective, either because the penitent forgot some grievous sins, or because, although intent on confessing all his sins, he did not examine the recesses of his conscience with sufficient accuracy, he is not bound to repeat his confession. It will be sufficient, when he recollects the sins which he had forgotten, to confess them to a priest on a future occasion.

It should be noted, however, that we are not to examine our consciences with careless indifference, or to be so negligent in recalling our sins as to seem as if unwilling to remember them. Should this have been the case, the confession must by all means be made over again.*

I think that the easiest way to prevent this kind of issues is to learn how to do a good examination of conscience. Another good practice is to do a daily examination of conscience before going to sleep, it is a good tool to see which poor behaviors we can avoid the following day.

So, basically, since I can’t remember what I said, I don’t need to repeat it?

 

[Cristiano]

So, basically, since I can’t remember what I said, I don’t need to repeat it?

I do not think that you need to rush to the confessional right now. However, I think that you missed the point of my post. You have to continue to form your conscience, you cannot just keep asking the question to the forum for a yes/no answer. You have been given specific information, now read that part of the Catechism and reflect upon it. After that do what you believe to be truly right (not convenient) for this specific case.

 

[michael144]

Please clarify, if there’s a concept of “partial absolution” – If set A of sins is confessed but sin B was expressed but without intent to correct there was no absolution from the priest. Now, whenever sin B is intentionally corrected in the future, will confession A need to be repeated to receive complete absolution from the priest?

If possible, please refer me to the Catechism, thanks.

 

[LilyM]

Please clarify, if there’s a concept of “partial absolution” – If set A of sins is confessed but sin B was expressed but without intent to correct there was no absolution from the priest. Now, whenever sin B is intentionally corrected in the future, will confession A need to be repeated to receive complete absolution from the priest?

If possible, please refer me to the Catechism, thanks.

No, there is no such thing as partial absolution. This is covered in Canon Law:

Can. 959 In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a legitimate minister, are sorry for them, and intend to reform themselves obtain from God through the absolution imparted by the same minister forgiveness for the sins they have committed after baptism

Can. 987 To receive the salvific remedy of the sacrament of penance, a member of the Christian faithful must be disposed in such a way that,** rejecting sins committed and having a purpose of amendment,** the person is turned back to God.

Someone who lacks this sorrow or purpose of amendment in regard to any sin confessed is not entitled to absolution full stop.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Someone who lacks this sorrow or purpose of amendment in regard to any sin confessed is not entitled to absolution full stop.

Maybe a a correction?:

Someone who lacks this sorrow or purpose of amendment in regard to any mortal sin confessed is not entitled to absolution. It is possible to receive absolution in regard to the confessed mortal sins for which we have sorrow, while having no sorrow or purpose of amendment for a venial sin. It would, however, be an abuse to confess a venial sin for which we are not sorrowful or which we have no intention of amending.

VC