tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post7326301941049758064..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: God's Salvation: Law and GraceFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-71814429544046721922008-05-15T08:11:00.000-04:002008-05-15T08:11:00.000-04:00I feel that we are getting closer, as Fr Kirby wri...I feel that we are getting closer, as Fr Kirby writes:<BR/><BR/>"As for "mere concupiscence", there is nothing "mere" about it. If God did not both acquit and renew us, that concupiscence of itself would still characterise our fundamental human nature and moral identity and render us alienated from God by both an intrinsically distorted will and a corrupted nature for that will to "work with". Concupiscence of itself is hellish."<BR/><BR/>If concupiscence is so truly serious, then what is the point of the distinction? Is this a distinction without a difference? My impression is (and I confess to ignorance about the history of this word) that it was contrived to minimize the seriousness of residual sin in the regenerate.<BR/><BR/>With your devotion to The Tradition, do you have any evidence of such a distinction in the Patristic period? <BR/><BR/>I note with pleasure your language "both acquit and renew." The correlatives "both ... and" seem to acknowledge a distinction.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-73342292335846041352008-05-15T08:03:00.000-04:002008-05-15T08:03:00.000-04:00Fr. Kirby,Bravo! And a hearty Amen! Your last se...Fr. Kirby,<BR/>Bravo! And a hearty Amen! Your last several posts have nailed it for me. Your thoughts are another way of getting at what I could only hope to convey. In fact, you really nailed it with the distinction between Romans 7 and Romans 8. I have come to see that this is precisely where Martin Luther got stuck. He allowed himself, it seems to get too focused on Romans 7 when continuing on to Roman 8 gives the glorious answer (the infused Holy Spirit, if you will) to the true freedom we have in Christ. Moreover, Paul in Galatians 5: 24 brings this exact point home by saying, "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." We here belong to Christ and we actively "choose" ie, our God -given active free-will (regenerated) to cooperate by Grace in putting to death the concupiscence that remains in the new Birth. <BR/><BR/>PatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-86671711840848105202008-05-15T05:35:00.000-04:002008-05-15T05:35:00.000-04:00Finally, since this thread has taken enough of my ...Finally, since this thread has taken enough of my time, the reason I think the Scripture implies there is some kind of moral good (albeit imperfect) in the fallen man outside the Covenant is that there are positive indications of this in it. E.g., the Parable of the Good Samaritan, John 1.9, Acts 28.2, Romans 2.14-15. St Paul's statement, quoted earlier, that there is nothing good in the flesh, needs to be read with the accompanying statements about the good in the mind and the desire to obey the Law. I know some have interpreted this passage as exclusively about Christians, but many have not, and there is great difficulty in interpreting it either exclusively of the fallen man awaiting salvation or of the Christian struggling (and mostly losing that struggle) with sin. Romans 8. 4f shows that this is not meant to be the norm for Christian life. Romans 7.14 shows the passage could either be about fallen man (since it is the non-Christian enslaved to sin, not the Christian normally, cf. Romans 6.18) or about the immature ("unspiritual") Christian (cf. 1 Corinthians 3.1).<BR/><BR/>So, what is the difference between the last part of Romans 7 as a description of the non-Christian and as a description of the struggling Christian? Only the latter can go on to lay hold of Romans 8, so that the inner dilemma is resolved for eternal good. The former is stuck with sin having the upper hand perpetually, until grace is received and accepted, self-justification having been abandoned.<BR/><BR/>I can only hope this way of putting things is agreeable to both Fr Wells and Fr Hart. I do truly believe that I have interpreted Scripture here consonantly with its own wider teaching and with the consentient interpretation of the Fathers, Eastern and Western. If I have failed, it is not for want of submission to Holy Tradition.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-52581943077219757472008-05-15T05:12:00.000-04:002008-05-15T05:12:00.000-04:00Fr Laurence,Fr Matthew has answered your question ...Fr Laurence,<BR/><BR/>Fr Matthew has answered your question to me about total depravity:<BR/><BR/>"If total depravity meant there is nothing morally good in any sense in fallen man (though all be corrupted and not pure), this would be going too far, and be opposed to Scripture and the Fathers, especially the Eastern ones."<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, to you and any others who may be interested, I am making progress toward finding that paradigm about which I spoke, which is presented in a discussion on temptation. Hopefully, within a week I will have what I am looking for.Albion Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14423168351697120421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-22636910246464744842008-05-15T05:08:00.000-04:002008-05-15T05:08:00.000-04:00So, I am happy to rescind my earlier use of the ph...So, I am happy to rescind my earlier use of the phrase in responding to Fr Wells. Saying "mere concupiscence" does not adequately communicate what I believe it to be.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-27975144194853262882008-05-15T05:04:00.001-04:002008-05-15T05:04:00.001-04:00As for "mere concupiscence", there is nothing "mer...As for "mere concupiscence", there is nothing "mere" about it. If God did not both acquit and renew us, that concupiscence of itself would still characterise our fundamental human nature and moral identity and render us alienated from God by both an intrinsically distorted will and a corrupted nature for that will to "work with". Concupiscence of itself is hellish.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-18325794734642890142008-05-15T05:04:00.000-04:002008-05-15T05:04:00.000-04:00As for "mere concupiscence", there is nothing "mer...As for "mere concupiscence", there is nothing "mere" about it. If God did not both acquit and renew us, that concupiscence of itself would still characterise our fundamental human nature and moral identity and render us alienated from God by both an intrinsically distorted will and a corrupted nature for that will to "work with". Concupiscence of itself is hellish.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-57087357757024011732008-05-15T04:51:00.000-04:002008-05-15T04:51:00.000-04:00Fr Wells,Your quotation from Romans underscores th...Fr Wells,<BR/><BR/>Your quotation from Romans underscores the very point I was making. "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, <B>that is, in my flesh</B> ... I then, <B>of myself</B> serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin." Since "flesh" is a similar concept to the "old man" we have-left/are-leaving behind, and the "law of sin" is effectively concupiscence, we see that concupiscence of itself is not sin in us <B>as new creatures</B>. Although it remains in us according to the old nature, it does not subsist in us as Christians with new life and identities (unless we again deliberately choose it). God hates the concupiscence in us, but he does not hate us at all as persons, for we (as regenerate and sanctified) are no longer "characterised" by concupiscence in God's sight (due to both his grace and re-creative power) and have been forgiven all our sins. To me, this is a perfect synergy of imputation and impartation.<BR/><BR/>As for total depravity, since you have said not all our acts are automatically "sins", I see no disagreement. If total depravity means every part, without exception, of fallen man has been infected by Sin, there is no debate. Trent specifically affirms this as well. If total depravity meant there is nothing morally good <B>in any sense</B> in fallen man (though all be corrupted and not pure), this would be going too far, and be opposed to Scripture and the Fathers, especially the Eastern ones.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-45953749499595394422008-05-14T22:28:00.000-04:002008-05-14T22:28:00.000-04:00Albion: Please do not withdraw, at least not yet....Albion: Please do not withdraw, at least not yet. I take note of this statement:<BR/>"I reject the assertion that absolutely everything we may think or do is a sin."<BR/><BR/>I have not made such an assertion, and if you re-read carefully what I have written you will see how wide of the mark this inference is.<BR/><BR/>Please reflect on the simple but important distinction between "Sin" and "a sin."<BR/><BR/>The term sin (harmartia) is used in the NT both in singular and plural. This word frequently means particular sins, by omission or commission, in thought, word or deed. But at a deeper level, Sin (note capital) is not merely an occasional occurrence, but rather the condition or predicament in which we exist. For example, the words of the Baptist, "Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world." (NT has the singular, unfortunately changed in the liturgy to "sins of the world.") For Paul's words in Romans 6:23, "The wages of sin is death." Or St John, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves."<BR/><BR/>It seems to me you have not given much thought to the meaning of Sin in the deeper and larger sense. If you own a Concordance to the Bible, check the occurrences of the word Sin in the singular. <BR/><BR/>Not everything we think, do, or feel is "a sin." But nothing we do is entirely pure or blameless (if we could claim such a deed, we would have an occasion of boasting, which we know is excluded) Sin then is the human predicament from which we are helpless to extricate ourselves. That's why the Bible calls us "lost." That word, by the way, must be taken seriously.<BR/><BR/>You say that you do not believe in total depravity. Would you tell me what you think that doctrine holds? If you tell me what "total depravity" you do not believe in, I probably don't believe in it either. And if you do not believe in total depravity, how much depravity do you admit to? If you get to know me better, your opinion of human nature might go down!<BR/><BR/>Pat: Fr Hart has answered your question well enough, but for the record, let me reassure you, the problem of indwelling sin does NOT last into eternity. Christians grow in grace, growing into the full measure of Christ. "I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ....so that you ... may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ." (Phil. 1:6, 10).<BR/><BR/>LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-65216331228079200182008-05-14T17:36:00.000-04:002008-05-14T17:36:00.000-04:00Pat:Your question about baptism should not be limi...Pat:<BR/><BR/>Your question about baptism should not be limited to infants, since what is true about baptism is true for the convert as well as the infant.<BR/><BR/>Romans chapter 6 teaches that baptism regenerates by taking us through Christ's death into his resurrection, teaching this as a fact. But, it clearly tells us that we must not, after baptism, continue in sin, apparently speaking of choices we make. It is obvious from the chapter that we continue to battle the flesh.<BR/><BR/>The text suggests what St.John comes right out and says: <BR/><BR/>"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as <B>he</B> is pure." I John 3:1-3 <BR/><BR/>The battle against sin should be through a life of ongoing purification, cooperating with divine grace to sanctification. But, the ultimate hope is to share in Christ's resurrection. That seems to be the point at which we are finally free. <BR/><BR/>Not even death can do this, since it is itself unclean. Modern people do not understand the Eucharistic Theology in this passage of the Prayer of Humble Access (Anglican service of Holy Communion): "Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our souls washed through his most precious Blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen."<BR/><BR/>The time when we are free from the effects of the Fall, namely original sin, the state of sin and death, will be when we see the risen Christ on the Last Day. We will then be raised from the dead to be like him, because we will see him in his glory.<BR/><BR/>That too will be grace.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-27871453268097652902008-05-14T15:49:00.000-04:002008-05-14T15:49:00.000-04:00Fr Laurence,We are clearly not communicating, and ...Fr Laurence,<BR/><BR/>We are clearly not communicating, and I think the problem is we are talking at cross purposes. I'm not sure yet.<BR/><BR/>So I shall withdraw from the conversation until such time as I have had an opportunity to reflect more thoroughly on the issue, and hopefully to find the paradigm I referred to earlier.<BR/><BR/>I will make just one parting observation: I do not subscribe to the concept of total depravity, and I reject the assertion that absolutely everything we may think or do is a sin.<BR/><BR/>I am not absolutely sure you are saying that, but it sure does look like it to me.Albion Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14423168351697120421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-23000015590620668772008-05-14T14:10:00.000-04:002008-05-14T14:10:00.000-04:00Fr. Laurence,Thanks again for responding. If I ta...Fr. Laurence,<BR/>Thanks again for responding. If I take your comments at face value then you are saying that our concupiscence remains in us forever and is •only• covered by Christ's Righteousness and remains in us through eternity into Heaven itself. To be sure, Sanctifying Grace is available, but not needed to attain Heaven. You can not intend to mean this.<BR/><BR/>Because, as you said,"If our sin is watered down into mere concupiscence", then it is still sin an no sin will enter Heaven. So, at what point will even our concupiscence ( as you interpret and understand it) be removed? In this life? Or, will it be purged in the next? Since you see it as sin then it must be removed. I do not think you want to contend that we will enjoy heaven while we still have this concupiscence, ie, bent toward sin which falls short of God's glory.<BR/><BR/>Pat<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>PatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-50916895468874535702008-05-14T10:49:00.000-04:002008-05-14T10:49:00.000-04:00Pat: the essence of the Gospel is "God commendeth...Pat: the essence of the Gospel is "God commendeth his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." <BR/><BR/>There are also some pertinent texts about God justifying the ungodly.<BR/><BR/>If I take your statement at face value, it would mean something like Baptism (the signum efficax of regeneration) zapping us into perfect sanctity, which is not what you mean. <BR/><BR/>The miracle of grace is that God simultaneously hates us as sinners and loves us as righteous.<BR/><BR/>"Look, Father, look, on His anointed face,<BR/>And only look on us as found in Him;<BR/>Look not on our misusings of thy grace,<BR/>Our prayer so languid and our faith so dim;<BR/>For lo, between our sins and their reward,<BR/>we place the passion of thy Son, our Lord."<BR/><BR/>If our sin is watered down into mere concupiscence, then such prayers become mere sentimentality.<BR/><BR/>I recall a theology professor once saying that those who are reluctant for God to justify sinners are very quick for God to justify sin <BR/>(i. e., by renaming it concupiscence).<BR/><BR/>Sorry, Albion, I only cast my pearls once!<BR/><BR/>LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-46723355744855245832008-05-14T08:37:00.000-04:002008-05-14T08:37:00.000-04:00Fr Laurence,Mea culpa! I just accidentally deleted...Fr Laurence,<BR/><BR/>Mea culpa! I just accidentally deleted your latest comment; it was not to punish you for taking issue with me. :>)<BR/><BR/>Any chance you can reassemble it, if you don't have it in memory somewhere?Albion Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14423168351697120421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-75129395689799040632008-05-14T08:04:00.000-04:002008-05-14T08:04:00.000-04:00Hello again all,This is Pat. Thanks for this disc...Hello again all,<BR/><BR/>This is Pat. Thanks for this discussion. Without seeming presumptuous I would like to have these issues discussed in relation to the New Birth that occurs in an infant at Baptism. My last post in this thread was perhaps too long for anyone to read through (understandably) but, this is the point (infant Baptismal regeneration) that I take issue with. It is my understanding that the infant would have •nothing• in them that is hateful to God after their New Birth. So, if the concupiscence that remains in this same infant is seen as a sin or if we say that this infant is a sinner -ie, simul justus et peccator then this would contradict the idea that there is •nothing• that is hateful to God after the New Birth. There either "IS" or" IS NOT" something that is hateful to God in the Born Again infant. To me it seems that one key is understanding first what it means to be translated from being born a child of the first Adam to being born a child of the second, which is Christ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-70334043851676752392008-05-14T08:03:00.000-04:002008-05-14T08:03:00.000-04:00It must be remembered that Sin is not just the occ...It must be remembered that Sin is not just the occasional sinful acts we are guilty of, in thought word, and deed, by commission and omission. Sin is our condition and our predicament. It is not mitigated or relieved by precious distinctions. Whatever fails to glorify God, or falls short of His glory partakes of the nature of Sin.<BR/><BR/>Albion speaks of going from "pure innocence" by degrees to grave sin.<BR/>I must confess that I have never had a moment of "pure innocence" in my entire life. Any moral theology which speaks of such is not very helpful to sinners like me. A moment of "pure innocence" would be a moment when I would not need Christ. <BR/><BR/>Paul wrote: "I am carnal, sold under sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate....For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the EVIL I do not want is what I do....Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So I then, of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin."<BR/><BR/>If some of what has been written here has any validity, then Paul was talking nonsense. Calm down, Paul! It's only concupiscence! Not to worry!<BR/><BR/>As St Anselm wrote, Nondum considerasti quantum ponderis sit peccatum.<BR/><BR/>LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-4666712699563877552008-05-14T06:38:00.000-04:002008-05-14T06:38:00.000-04:00Fr Laurence,I have clearly not made myself clear. ...Fr Laurence,<BR/><BR/>I have clearly not made myself clear. :>), though Fr Matthew's latest contribution, particularly the citation from James, expands on what I have been trying to say.<BR/><BR/>Sadly, I still cannot find the material I was looking for that I was going to post separately; I think it is in the Philokalia, but just cannot find it. <BR/><BR/>It is beautiful, because it describes in great detail the various stages of how one can go from the pure innocence of seeing something to the mortal sin of seizing it in lust, outlining the tell-tale signs of each step and, if I recall correctly, also giving counsel on how to avoid descending, or descending further, into sin.Albion Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14423168351697120421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-63184762936045231722008-05-14T03:14:00.000-04:002008-05-14T03:14:00.000-04:00Fr Wells,You said: "The more I find out about this...Fr Wells,<BR/><BR/>You said: "The more I find out about this distinction between sin and concupiscence, the more convenient it looks!"<BR/><BR/>But, based on what else you have said, you think it "convenient" and pastorally unwise to make the distinction because of what it would allow Christians to do and dismiss as mere concupiscence. But if you actually <B>do</B> anything in the moral sense, it is an act of the will, even if only of consent to or entertainment of a desire. And Catholic moral theology has always taught that such an internal act itself is actual sin, not mere concupiscence. The original motivation or temptation does not have to be willed for the final act to be so.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, the example you give of an alcoholic "romancing" a drink illustrates this perfectly as it could well be an actual sin, since it may involve either knowingly consenting to sinful pleasure or knowingly putting oneself into a position where one will commit the outward sin, that is, deliberately fostering an occasion of sin, which is itself a sin! I understand your concerns, but you seem to underestimate traditional moral theology's treatment of these.<BR/><BR/>What is certainly the case is that Scripture does generally distinguish between temptation and sin, and that it teaches the tendency to sin is within us, but that this tendency or state is not a "sin" in the normal sense until our will acts (James 1.14-15). Desire is not sin, but can "conceive" it. As for Jesus' statement on lust, looking lustfully is not the same as seeing inadvertantly or innocently and then noticing beauty, even if one is affected by it (as long as one does not consent to any arousal, but instead mentally rejects it). Looking is a positive act. Looking lustfully means the act itself is characterised by the lust, which itself implies it is the motive, since lust is an inordinant desire.<BR/><BR/>The Church has always taught that we are not only forgiven but cleansed and renewed in such a way that the concupiscence that remains is not intrinsic or proper to us <B>in our new identities</B>, so to speak, but an almost alien enemy. See Romans 7.20f and Ephesians 4.22-24 <I>cf.</I> Colossians 3.9-10 & 2 Corinthians 5.17.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-25367824729747314222008-05-14T01:12:00.000-04:002008-05-14T01:12:00.000-04:00I am not suggesting that a person goes through a p...I am not suggesting that a person goes through a process before coveting, only that it is not a given that everybody covets all the time with no means to combat the flesh. The growth of charity restores a just attitude, the ability to rejoice in the good fortune and blessings given to one's neighbor. Therefore, even this sin can be overcome; and yet the saintly person whose virtues have been growing by the Holy Spirit is still a sinner.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-22664109508726952562008-05-13T22:05:00.000-04:002008-05-13T22:05:00.000-04:00Fr Hart: I brought up the 10th commandment, the o...Fr Hart: I brought up the 10th commandment, the one about coveting, in response to Albion's<BR/>"It [i.e., Temptation] only starts becoming so when we begin to seriously entertain that temptation, increasing as we decide to act (or refrain from acting) and culminating in its gravity when we ultimately do the deed (or, again, refrain from doing a deed)."<BR/><BR/>While I have frequently been guilty of covetousness, it was never because I went through the spiritual gymnastics outlined here.<BR/>I have never said to myself, "I feel tempted to covet my neighbor's Harley-Davidson, oh, the hell with it, I'll just go ahead and covet!"<BR/><BR/><BR/>Now on this statement of yours, I am in complete agreement: "All I was saying was that even when (if this is even possible) we are not sinning, we are sinners."<BR/><BR/>I am wary of this distinction between sin and concupiscence, even when I see a degree of validity in it. Take the case of a dry alcoholic who starts "romancing" a drink. Thinking nostalgically of the smell, the taste, the sound of ice tinkling in the glass, the camaraderie, the sophisticated atmosphere. He doesnt get drunk from this mental flight of fancy, but you see where he is headed. Telling a person who is still inwardly struggling with Sin X "It's not really sin, it's only concupiscence" can be bad advice.<BR/>LKWellsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-54147652021346430022008-05-13T21:46:00.000-04:002008-05-13T21:46:00.000-04:00Fr., I don't see your point about the tenth comman...Fr., I don't see your point about the tenth commandment. Covetousness comes from a lack of charity, and is itself an injustice. It is not automatic. And, even the person who does not covet (in the sinful sense) still has the flesh as his enemy. Yes, it is both an attitude, and a sin. But, it is not everybody's sin, or at least not everybody's sin all of the time. All I was saying was that even when (if this is even possible) we are not sinning, we are sinners.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-11312465975917285212008-05-13T19:43:00.000-04:002008-05-13T19:43:00.000-04:00Albion: don't put too much freight on the word "i...Albion: don't put too much freight on the word "intent" in that text.<BR/>RSV has simply "lustfully" which is closer to the Greek. The more I find out about this distinction between sin and concupiscence, the more convenient it looks! How nice to hear that my concupiscent desires aren't really sinful! This makes me wonder about the 10th commandment: Is it really a sin to covet, or is that just concupiscence? After all, I have never formed a conscious or voluntary intention of coveting.<BR/>Laurence K. WellsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-70272683589507462792008-05-13T18:56:00.000-04:002008-05-13T18:56:00.000-04:00Dear All,Following up on Albion's comment: I beli...Dear All,<BR/><BR/>Following up on Albion's comment: <BR/>I believe that, in the Eastern Tradition at least, monks frequently "confess" their "mere temptations," especially the ones they actually entertain for more than a fleeting second but nevertheless are able to banish from their minds. Though they may not be confessing sins pre se, the goal of those who have taken the radical Christianity of the Cloth is a progress toward perfection such that even "mere temptations" themselves rarely enters the mind at all! Such an amazing purity of heart does occur and I believe that I have personally met such men and women living today (in cloistered monastery's, which I think helps.)<BR/><BR/>OTOH, a spiritual novice "in the world," like myself, may being doing well indeed if he can just manage the self-restraint to not follow through with "very much entertained temptations," much less banish temptation from his head without even dwelling on it a bit! But we each start where we are, and confess what is useful (committed, major sins at a minimum) given the spiritual elders we have.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely, <BR/><BR/>Lord PeterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-2800004052420797852008-05-13T17:06:00.000-04:002008-05-13T17:06:00.000-04:00My point, exactly. Looking with "lustful intent" i...My point, exactly. Looking with "lustful intent" is indisputably a sin (especially since Our Lord said so). But the operative word is intent. Go back and look at what I said, perhaps awkwardly.<BR/><BR/>Tonight, or tomorrow, I shall try to post a separate item on this. I just have to remember my source, which lays it out quite well.Albion Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14423168351697120421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-29104885272481884102008-05-13T16:40:00.000-04:002008-05-13T16:40:00.000-04:00So what do you make of this text, Albion:"You have...So what do you make of this text, Albion:<BR/>"You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."<BR/>Is this just concupiscence or is it sin? What did Jesus say?<BR/>Lawrence K. WellsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com