hello. What do you think about realized mortal sin after did the confession. Is it absolved?
[quote=str41n]hello. What do you think about realized mortal sin after did the confession. Is it absolved?
You refer to forgotten sin. Yes, the guilt is absolved, but you must now confess it in your next confession. And if you remember while still in the church, stay and go again (I’d ask to go in front).
Q. 793. Is our Confession worthy if, without our fault, we forget to confess a mortal sin?
A. If without our fault we forget to confess a mortal sin, our Confession is worthy, and the sin is forgiven; but it must be told in Confession if it again comes to our mind.
Q. 794. May a person who has forgotten to tell a mortal sin in confession go to Holy Communion before going again to confession?
A. A person who has forgotten to tell a mortal sin in confession may go to communion before again going to confession, because the forgotten sin was forgiven with those confessed, and the confession was good and worthy.
Q. 795. Is it a grievous offense willfully to conceal a mortal sin in Confession?
A. It is a grievous offense willfully to conceal a mortal sin in Confession, because we thereby tell a lie to the Holy Ghost, and make our Confession worthless.
[quote=hurst] And if you remember while still in the church, stay and go again (I’d ask to go in front).
I once recalled a forgotten sin during thre absolution portion of confession and started to confess it and the priest became rather annoyed explaining that if I had honestly forgotten to confess it, then it was already forgiven and I shouldn’t have interupted him.
Just as my own practice, I always conclude my confession with “I ask for forgiveness for any sins I committed that I have forgotten.” I know it’s not necessary to say that as those are sins are forgiven anyway, but it gives me peace of mind when I later remember them.
[quote=Sir Knight]I once recalled a forgotten sin during thre absolution portion of confession and started to confess it and the priest became rather annoyed explaining that if I had honestly forgotten to confess it, then it was already forgiven and I shouldn’t have interupted him.
Well, maybe you should not have interrupted him as such, but you must still confess the recalled mortal sin in your next confession - that is a teaching of the Church.
[quote=hurst]Well, maybe you should not have interrupted him as such, but you must still confess the recalled mortal sin in your next confession - that is a teaching of the Church.
He said the final blessing to which we’re suppose to reply “His mercy endures forever” and instead of saying that reply, I started confessing a forgotten sin. At which point he became a bit upset with me because he had to give the absolution a second time.
Are you certain that we must confess a sin that was forgotten? I’ve heard it recommended, but I’m not sure if it’s a must. Any documentation would be great! The Baltimore Catechism is not reliable for that, however.
Peace and God bless!
Are you certain that we must confess a sin that was forgotten?
1493 of the Catechism (italics/bold added):
1493 One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, must confess to a priest all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience. The confession of venial faults, without being necessary in itself, is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.
Someone provided info from the CCC, and I can provide info from the Summa, but for you to disregard the Baltimore Catechism like that hurts me deeply. It is much more clear on many issues, even if some points are based on past discipline, such as fasting etc. But the doctrines relating to confession cannot change.
Thanks for the CCC reference!
As for why I disregard the Baltimore Catechism, it’s simply because its scope is very limited, and it doesn’t represent the canon laws and disciplines of the Catholic Church today. It was fine for its time, but a number of things have changed.
A very good example of this is the fact that the Baltimore Catechism treats with certainty the notion of Limbo for the unbaptised, even though Limbo has never been dealt with in any official Church teachings, and it is not a part of the Deposit of Faith. There is another active thread on this very forum about the Church currently discussing how to de-emphasize the concept of Limbo that has been burned into the minds of generations of Catholics.
It’s not that I think it’s an evil document, or that it isn’t useful for certain things, just that it’s not authoritative, and never has been. Therefore it’s quite likely to deal with certainty an issue that has never actually been settled by the Church.
Peace and God bless!
I already acknowledged changed displines. But it is much more useful in helping us to know what is actually expected of us in important issues. A good example is confession. So many people are groping in the dark today about issues that are clearly set forth in the BC.
I would say much more has stayed the same than has changed.
Quite a disservice to assert that.
It is most definitely authoritative, and has guided the faith of many for many years. It was used by the Bishops authoritatively and is official.
Again, quite a disservice to cast it in the light of rigidly dictating something not definite. In fact, it distinguishes between known teachings and commonly held beliefs.
Here is the item on Limbo:
Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.
Q. 402. Did Christ’s soul descend into the hell of the damned?
A. The hell into which Christ’s soul descended was not the hell of the dammed, but a place or state of rest called Limbo, where the souls of the just were waiting for Him.
I was not raised with the Balitmore Catechism. And I was clueless about the Faith. Having found the BC many years later, I find it invaluable! It concisely deals with issues that are otherwise ignored or neglected nowadays.
I have no doubt that the BC is useful in forming the Faith of people, but a clear distinction must be drawn between an authoritative Catholic document, and a document used authoritatively in a local Church (in this case the United States). It was/is a useful teaching aid, but nothing more. The CCC, on the other hand, was compiled by the Vatican itself, yet even it is peculiarily Latin; that is why the Eastern Catholic Churches have been working on their own Catechisms.
Peace and God bless!