www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Theology of Sin

Dear ND Hoosier and Dan,

Insofar as "prelest" is concerned, it is a difficult subject at best.

It can work both ways, however. A person may think he or she is doing something that is good, but it is really bad. Someone may feel guilty about doing something, but it really is virtuous.

In either case, prelest is an action, often ascribed to demonic forces, to confuse us and keep us under a false spiritual awareness.

Alex

The brothers Wesley had a fascinating view of grace. They divided grace into four existential/experiential parts or stages and said that there were, at least, seven means of grace which don't exactly parallel the Catholic/Orthodox seven.

1. Prevenient grace (Latin "prevenio" to go before) reverse the absolute power of total depravity. This grace or work of the Spirit makes it possible for us to respond positively to God's saving grace.

2. Saving or Justifying grace which covers our sins.

3. Sanctifying grace which purifies us throughout life to help make us fit for heaven.

4. Final grace (rather undefined) which takes us to heaven.

The means of grace include Communion, Bible Study, Worship, Charitable works, prayer, Fasting, and Baptism.

As you can see there are some similarities with traditional Christianity but there are some differences as well. Who knows, if American Methodism would have remained true to their traditions I might still be a Methodist. Then again I do believe God led me to the BC Church. Who can discern the whole will of God?

Dan Lauffer

Indeed, Brother Dan. This is indeed a major question of perspective.

As Catholics and as Orthodox, there is the component of the 'mindset' (for want of a better word!) of the individual. There are truly those who practice certain things that they perceive as 'good' and which in the 'objective' realm (although I'm not sure who is making the judgement) are evil. And, at the same time, there are those who are concerned about certain actions they deem 'sinful', but which could be interpreted as good actions.

I think that the Catholic/Orthodox perspective of the confessional tries to dis-ambiguate the 'objective' sinfulness and the 'sinfulness-perspective' of the individual involved. The Catholic perspective realizes that the person MUST understand the evil nature of an action before admitting to "sin". If the person believes that an action is not sinful, then he/she is not guilty of sin, but rather of 'uninformed' judgement. And in that case, the priest cannot absolve. [Hence, the 'catch-all': "for these sins, and especially the sin of XXXXX (which I admit), I beg God's forgiveness and that of the Church".]

The priest NEEDS to have a 'confessible sin' in order to grant absolution -- even if it is a past sin.

The idea is one of spiritual progress. While a confessing person may be in a situation (like a sexual/interpersonal relationship) that he/she determines to be positive, even though it is 'objectively disordered' or 'sinful', then the priest cannot absolve based upon his own or the Church's understanding/perspective of the action. It devolves to the perspective of the penitent, since that is the entire purpose of the Sacrament of Penance.

I think that our Methodist brethren have evolved a long way from the initial black/white Calvinist perspective that had an early influence on them, and they have been very conscious of the forces that drive human behavior. And so, they are being perhaps hyper-sensitive to the human conditions that bring people to the various places that life has led them. For this, I applaud these Methodist brethren, because they are focusing more upon the salvation of the person than upon the abstract mandates that are supposed to guide our human lives.

Again: while de-ontological elements are certainly critical to our understanding of human moral behavior, we must also understand the teleological aspects that allow folks to make decisions that appear to contradict the deontological mandates. It devolves, once again, to the baptized person and his/her decisions.

Blessings!

Brother Dan, I noted something that you had previously posted and I wanted to make a response to it.

"If I were raised in a promiscuous environment and knew not the ways of God then I not only would not know of confession I would not know to go to confession. But if I were reared in the Church and within a Godly home I would know both. I would need to go to confession as quickly as I knew that I had sinned. I would gain absolution. If I changed my ways I would move on toward holiness. If I refused to change my ways at some point the sin would not be absolvable."

The last statement bothered me.

The only "unabsolvable" sin (according to Thomistic and Western theology - although it is similar in the East) is the "sin against the Holy Spirit" which proposes that a person is not able to be influenced by graces that come from the Holy Spirit, and is therefore "condemned" for all eternity.

The Church has rejected this perspective since it suggests that the graces of the Holy Spirit can be ineffectual in an individual and that a person can be obstinate in his/her sinfulness WITHOUT being influence-able by God. It is readily apparant why the Church has rejected this perspective: i.e., the Holy Spirit, as Divinity, cannot ever be accused of being in-efficacious in human affairs.

Thus, the 'sin against the Holy Spirit' is wrong because it opines that human will is immune to grace given by God. God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, has the power to influence any created being, including us free-will humans. To suggest otherwise is to denigrate grace.

Blessings!

Can you explain the difference between your perspective and universalism? Can you explain why there is a Church at all if your perspective is taken as standard?

Dan Lauffer

The Church exists as an entity to provide a witness to the faith of the community of believers. It serves as a butress and a framework within which the believers can obtain not only human support for one's ongoing pilgrimage to the Father, but also as an institution that will provide both guidance and support in the individual's pilgrimage to salvation.

This is not univeralism. In Universalism, as I understand it, the individual operates as a personal entity within a framework of a community but without the graces and benefits of the sacremantality that constitutes the Church. That is the critical difference.

Blessings!

Dear Dan,

For me, Methodism is a way of life, a special charism that was always meant to be lived within the life of Apostolic Christianity.

Its spiritual practices can be adopted by anyone and these can inspire the Christian lives of Catholics and Orthodox alike.

As you know, Wesley himself sought episcopal orders with the Greek Orthodox Church on the basis of "ekonomia" although this didn't work out.

He read and said he "venerated" the Fathers of the Church such as Clemens Romanus, John Chrysostom and Basil the Great.

His prayer life scheme was based on the Benedictine model adapted by the Book of Common Prayer.

So I see Methodism as a "Rule" such as that of St Benedict and others.

It is a Rule that has produced many fruits of holiness since it itself draws richly on the wellsprings of sanctity that properly belongs to the original and authentic teachings of the Orthodox-Catholic Church of Christ.

I've also come across books on Wesley by Catholics who, as they wrote, were led to privately venerate and invoke him as an intercessor in heaven.

That Methodism produces saints is something that was hit home for me through my veneration of our local Methodist saint, Holy Ann Preston of Thornhill.

In accordance with ancient tradition, although without really knowing it, the local municipal authorities enshrined her prayer-shed and well that had water returned to it in response to her prayers. They named a park for her and also protect her home, Holy Ann's House, where she reposed.

Anyone who visits these shrines of Holy Ann cannot but be touched by the greatness of spirit of this woman of God.

It matters not a wit to me that she was neither Catholic or Orthodox.

She was a true and holy Christian!

Alex

[ 07-10-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Early Methodist especially those that remained true to the Wesleyan models for holiness and community life were indeed like an order of the Church. Some, including myself, had hopes that Methodism might yet become an order of the Church. Sadly, I believe it is too late for that. What might happen is that some might leave Methodism (the American denomination) and reconnect as Methodist or Wesleyan order within the Church. Stranger things have happened.

Dan Lauffer

Dear Dan,

Actually, there are numerous instances of this occurring throughout the history of the Church!

The followers of Jan Hus of the "High Church" category, the "Calixtines" were later reorganized as a "Rite" within Catholicism and were given the option of: Having Communion in both Kinds, reading the Scriptures in Slavonic, and some other points, including keeping any pictures of Jan Hus they had in their churches . . .

Followers of Peter Waldo, a group of them, were later incorporated into the Catholic Church as well, although their Order died out.

Then there are the many Anglican religious Orders that entered the Catholic Church and were allowed to have "business as usual" such as the Cowley Fathers.

Rome is really quite flexible on this entire matter. For example, Rome never had a problem recognizing two Rites for the Russian Catholics, the Nikonian and the Old Rite.

And there is nothing in the Methodist Rule of Life and teachings that cannot come to a mutually agreeable union with the Catholic Church.

If anything, I think many Catholics would benefit from learning about the spiritual disciplines and way of life of Methodists whose personal holiness would put many of us to shame.

God bless you, holy Servant of Christ and thank you for allowing me to experience an inner fire just by discussing this matter with you!

Alex

Dan is correct. In order for one to be forgiven a sin one needs to repent of it. If one admits to the sin and yet obstinately refuses to even attempt to restrain from continuing in that sin then the sin is not forgiven. Just because someone has become a slave to the sinful habit in question does not make the particular action morally acceptable and not sinful.

To use the example that Dr. John used in his original post the two men in a committed relationship are indeed sinning because God has clearly stated that men may not lie with one another and that it is an abomination. The flaw in Dr. John's "teleological" argument is that his criteria for judging the action of his homosexual friends is his personal preference of what is considered to be helping people rather than God's commandments. There are plenty of times where Christ told people that if they loved him they would keep his commandments. I am sure that this is why he chose not to respond to the extensive and persuasive argument I made in the threads dealing with homosexuality. Using Dr. John's logic one could argue that if one of his friends was a kleptomaniac his actions would be morally justifiable because he only stole to help others. His attempts to frame a debate so that one will conclude that homosexual sex can be morally acceptable and not always intrinsically wrong falls flat and he is totally wrong.

Even if one attempted to make an argument that they do not know any better and that the level of sin involved is debatable it is our responsibility as Christians to teach them that their relationship is morally unacceptable, always wrong and call them to repentance.

I sure hope that Dr. John does not disagree with this and ask him to respond to this specific point.

It is very important to call people to God and the Sacraments but the end does not justify the means. One can never present something morally wrong as morally acceptable and anyone who does so brings condemnation upon himself as well as leads another one step closer to hell.

Steve D and Dan, what part does the individual's conscience play in your opinions (quite flawed in my opinion) concerning moral theology? It has has always been a part of Catholic scholastic theology that an individual has an obligation to follow his/her conscience even if by doing so he/she would be excommunicated. We do have an obligation to form our conscience...by that I mean one must study the Scriptures, the Fathers, theologians and spiritual writers, as well as consulting confessors and spiritual directors...but after that if your conscience still tells you that an action is in your best interest, you are free to go along with it. This holds true even in sexual matters (something that you seem to have an unhealthy preoccupation with). A bishop I used to know always quoted St. Augustine..."Love God and do what you have to do."
Moe

First, individual conscience plays no part in the determination of the wrongness of a particular action, whether blaspheming God, murdering someone, gossiping about someone or having sex with someone one is not married to (a heterosexual marriage blessed by the church).

Second, the individual's conscience has a direct bearing upon the level of sinfulness of the wrong action. Anyone whose conscience tells them that it is morally acceptable to blaspheme God, murder, gossip or have sexual relations outside of marriage has not formed their conscience according to the mind of the church. Anyone who seriously studies the Scriptures, the Fathers and the theologians will not ever come to the conclusion that these actions are morally acceptable. I believe that those who say that their conscience allows them to commit morally wrong actions and that they are not sinful are purposely misleading themselves. It is possible that they may be in earnest but it is highly unlikely since the church has been very clear on these issues. Christ was clear that if we loved Him we would follow His commandments. Moe's and Dr. John's posts on this topic smack of moral relavitism and if it feels good, do it. I have noticed that neither have acknowledged the moral wrongness of homosexual sex which is taught by the church.

Why do I have a preoccupation with asking the church to address the issues regarding homosexual activity? Because there are organized groups of homosexuals in our society who are actively campaigning to teach our children that the homosexual lifestyle choice is morally acceptable and equal to heterosexual marriage. There is no such organized group advocating the repeal of laws against murder (although the abortionists have succeeded in making the murder of innocents perfectly legal in our country).

Steve notes:

"First, individual conscience plays no part in the determination of the wrongness of a particular action, whether blaspheming God, murdering someone, gossiping about someone or having sex with someone one is not married to (a heterosexual marriage blessed by the church).

Second, the individual's conscience has a direct bearing upon the level of sinfulness of the wrong action. Anyone whose conscience tells them that it is morally acceptable to blaspheme God, murder, gossip or have sexual relations outside of marriage has not formed their conscience according to the mind of the church. Anyone who seriously studies the Scriptures, the Fathers and the theologians will not ever come to the conclusion that these actions are morally acceptable."

The basic statements are relatively correct, but the problem lies in the fact that the statement: "has not formed their conscience" automatically introduces the individual into the "sin" equation. It cannot rely solely upon the so-called "objective evil" or "wrongness" of an action.

"I believe that those who say that their conscience allows them to commit morally wrong actions and that they are not sinful are purposely misleading themselves. It is possible that they may be in earnest but it is highly unlikely since the church has been very clear on these issues. Christ was clear that if we loved Him we would follow His commandments."

Might I point out that the laws of love of God and love of neighbor are at the top of the list. (Jesus said so.) The Church has always (or most often) told us that we HAVE to judge situations. We cannot just rely upon our understanding of what is 'right or wrong', but rather upon how actions interact with a person's mandate to love God and love one's neighbor.

"Moe's and Dr. John's posts on this topic smack of moral relavitism and if it feels good, do it. I have noticed that neither have acknowledged the moral wrongness of homosexual sex which is taught by the church."

'Moral relativism' is a strange term. It implies (incorrectly) that there is one particular yardstick and that every soul has to toe the line without taking circumstances into consideration. This is not the position of the traditional Church (as the Penance guidelines clearly dictate), but rather the easy-way out that absolves an individual from discerning what is the best moral pathway. Were this perspective true, that we would have 'spiritual lawyers' rather than spiritual fathers and mothers as legitimate guides and guardians of our spiritual welfare.

"Why do I have a preoccupation with asking the church to address the issues regarding homosexual activity? Because there are organized groups of homosexuals in our society who are actively campaigning to teach our children that the homosexual lifestyle choice is morally acceptable and equal to heterosexual marriage. There is no such organized group advocating the repeal of laws against murder (although the abortionists have succeeded in making the murder of innocents perfectly legal in our country)."

These comments evince concisely the reasons that the Church has established moral theologies as well as sacramental guidelines for sin and absolution.

It suggests that the 'homosexual lifestyle choice' is indeed a choice. That's a topic for a whole different thread on the APA website.

The reality is: people fall in love with people; not with a sex organ. Some folks automatically equate gay folks with "sex activity" without taking into consideration that there are indeed long-term, loving commitments between persons. And I have seen this many times in dealing with AIDS patients (and others).

If the selfsame logic were used in parallel with heterosexual folks, then marriage would become the equivalent to a 'sex license', without consideration that people actually DO fall in love with other people and DO make commitments to each other.

And the Church must always consider the soul of the individual in providing pastoral services.

Brother Steve�s logic is based upon the belief that any and all (especially intimate/personal) relationships outside of Church-blessed marriage are intrinsically wrong. While he, Calvin and contemporary fundamentalist preachers may hold to this perspective, the fact remains that the Church, as an institution, does NOT accept this perspective. And the witness to this is found in the guidelines for confessors which states clearly that the components of �sin� are: serious matter, sufficient reflection and full consent of the will (i.e., the PENITENT�S perspective).. Any priest who ignored this mandate in confession would be subject to ecclesiastical discipline which could include both revocation of the faculties to hear confessions (and preach), and perhaps - in serious public cases - to interdict.

I do not know SteveD�s age, experiences or theological educational background, and so I am trying not to be too judgemental. But I would suggest that one do some SERIOUS reading of �real� theology (not theological �broadsides�) and of canon law before coming out with guns blazing in defense of one or another personal hobby-horse �moral theology� to the detriment of what the Church actually teaches in her catechisms and canon law.

Our �Mother Church� in Constantinople is named �Holy Wisdom� (Agia Sophia). Sophia (�Wisdom�) is understood as both �knowledge of fact� AND as the �understanding of how and when to use this knowledge�. There are many who believe they have the former element. All well and good. But the second element is the critical one -- it is the reason why we choose older, prayerful, reflective and experienced folks as our spiritual guides. They know when to take the knowledge and use it, and when to not apply it -- for the good of souls. It's grace from the Holy Spirit.

As for the 'groups' that preach one or another doctrine: why not focus on NARAL, the "Americans United", or the "Christian Coalition" (who have a REAL love for Catholics), the 'evangelicals' who think the Pope is the anti-Christ, and not just on the so-called 'homosexual activists'. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I suspect that there is some specific reason for this particular focus that is independent of 'morals'.

Blessings!

Moe,

Conscience can obviously lead a person to doing all sorts of things. Evil in, evil out. It is not a difficult concept. Being sincerely wrong is a freedom we all have. But so is being sincerely right. Both are true which suggests something higher than conscience. Since God gave the determination of moral law to the Church it is to the Church that we must go. I'm not particularly interested in speculations about moral principles that may be true that oppose the teachings given to us. I have enough trouble bending my will to the Church's teachings. I suspect that St. Paul was right. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. I don't have time to try to work it out with self centeredness. We've all doubtless tried that path. It leads no where.

Dan Lauffer

Dr. John,

You have said that you are very interested in Evangelism if memory serves. Rather than going around and around with your post which I believe will get us nowhere could you tell me based upon your understanding of sin and salvation from what and to what are people being saved?

I left the humanistic social club atmosphere of Methodism to become part of the Church. I did not leave it so that I would have no guidance whatsoever in my life. If the Church does not offer a message that elevates the soul I might as well stop going. It's much less expensive.

Dan Lauffer