What IS forgiveness?

[MilesVitae]

It's often pointed out how the Orthodox notion of sin is less legalistic than in the western mindset. Sin, from what I understand, is viewed more as a disease which must be healed than a matter of broken rules meriting a penalty, salvation is a process, etc.
Within such an understanding, what *is* God's forgiveness? Within a purely legalistic framework, of course, for God to forgive would be something along the lines of remitting the penalty due to sin and/or no longer count the offense against the sinner. But what is divine forgiveness within an Eastern Orthodox understanding, with the emphasis on the process of salvation, healing from sin, etc? When someone goes to confession, let's say, are they said to be "forgiven" of their sins, and what does it mean to say that?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I can't wait to hear the answers to this.

It's a very timely question too. I admit that I still struggle with internalizing what I "know". I actually had Confession yesterday and asked Father if I could read a list that was inspired by some of the prayers of the Church (a prayer of Confession that lists sins) but he felt it would not be right to do within the context of the Sacrament if they were not sins I had actually committed, after baptism and without having been confessed already. (He did say that at times it WOULD be allowed and helpful.)

He was rightly discerning that there could be an element of me failing to fully accept that forgiveness was already accomplished, and in that case it was more a therapeutic matter and was unwilling to allow me to reduce Confession to a legalistic "just in case" transaction (that wasn't the only thing that made me wish to read the list, but it was probably part of it). My SF wants to go into more detail, not because I "need forgiveness" but in order to be sure the memory of past events does not hinder me in any way.

So. I'm not attempting to explain anything, since I can see I still have a holdover legalistic mindset myself (and maybe a bit of - what is that called? I can't remember the word but I know there is especially a term Catholics use for being overly preoccupied with the guilt of one's own sins, or even sins one hasn't committed?). And neither my priest nor my SF is willing to let me continue in that way.

And both of them told me to stop using those prayers.

Not that I'm terribly neurotic, or bothered, or even feeling great guilt or shame or anything like that, but simply that they don't want me even thinking that way at all, in even the least way.

I hope that makes something of a distinction. If it WERE primarily a legal matter, then to be concerned with such things might be wise and I might be encouraged to pursue it. But as it is, the concern is with how I relate to the thoughts of my sins and how it affects my spiritual condition and growth and relationship with God. It's more about health, if at makes sense, than a point of legal obligation.

I admit that as a former Protestant, this is apparently taking me some time to really, completely internalize as well. I think Orthodoxy is unique in this approach compared to both Catholics and Protestants.

Stories of Tollhouses aren't helping me either!

 

[Cappadocious]

It's often pointed out how the Orthodox notion of sin is less legalistic than in the western mindset. Sin, from what I understand, is viewed more as a disease which must be healed than a matter of broken rules meriting a penalty, salvation is a process, etc.
Within such an understanding, what *is* God's forgiveness? Within a purely legalistic framework, of course, for God to forgive would be something along the lines of remitting the penalty due to sin and/or no longer count the offense against the sinner. But what is divine forgiveness within an Eastern Orthodox understanding, with the emphasis on the process of salvation, healing from sin, etc?

Most basically, isn't forgiveness the letting go of a wrong? This is more basic than the "legalistic" version involving penalties and counting offenses.

Reconciliation is when communion is restored after a break. Forgiveness and repentance are necessary for reconciliation.

Forgiveness acknowledges that a break occurred, but insists on communion with the other over and against the break.

Repentance is when one becomes poor before the other in order to make room for communion.

For Christians when we sin (wrong), we frustrate the manifestation of God's coming Kingdom in this age. Thus we frustrate the manifestation of Christ's body which is the Church, itself the witness of the coming Kingdom in this age. Thus we frustrate our communion with God. In confession, reconciliation with the body of Christ happens. Confession should be the culmination of lived repentance and seeking of forgiveness from those particular people we have wronged.

 

[nutroll]

I would look at the healing of the paralytic. Jesus, rather than saying, "be healed" or "take up your bed and walk" says "Your sins are forgiven. Forgiveness of sins is not a legal transaction, but rather makes one whole again... we are restored to our proper relationship with God. It is a healing that takes place, and in some cases can even be healing to us in the physical sense as with the paralytic. We also speak of Holy Communion and Holy Unction as granting remission and forgiveness of sins in the same sense. They are healing to both soul and body.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Within such an understanding, what *is* God's forgiveness? Within a purely legalistic framework, of course, for God to forgive would be something along the lines of remitting the penalty due to sin and/or no longer count the offense against the sinner. But what is divine forgiveness within an Eastern Orthodox understanding, with the emphasis on the process of salvation, healing from sin, etc? When someone goes to confession, let's say, are they said to be "forgiven" of their sins, and what does it mean to say that?

well for us, the legal aspect is certainly there, but it's not the only aspect. the remission of the wrongs we do is one part of the holistic healing. think of a doctor who gives you medicine and tells you how to take it. if you do not take it properly (ie taking 9 pills when your prescription is 2), the doctor will chide you and correct you for doing a wrong. but the ultimate goal is not to blink out the wrong, but to correctly lead you to be healed.

 

[truefiction1]

It's often pointed out how the Orthodox notion of sin is less legalistic than in the western mindset. Sin, from what I understand, is viewed more as a disease which must be healed than a matter of broken rules meriting a penalty, salvation is a process, etc.
Within such an understanding, what *is* God's forgiveness? Within a purely legalistic framework, of course, for God to forgive would be something along the lines of remitting the penalty due to sin and/or no longer count the offense against the sinner. But what is divine forgiveness within an Eastern Orthodox understanding, with the emphasis on the process of salvation, healing from sin, etc? When someone goes to confession, let's say, are they said to be "forgiven" of their sins, and what does it mean to say that?

It means to stop judging and condemning yourself and others out of your evil heart. God doesn't judge and condemn, for in Him is no evil. To be healed is to become as He is.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It means to stop judging and condemning yourself and others out of your evil heart. God doesn't judge and condemn, for in Him is no evil. To be healed is to become as He is.

Fr Hopko used to point out that God is the supreme Judge Who judges by not judging (I think that is in St John Chrysostom). He simply floods you with His grace, love, and mercy, and that encounter is the Judgment. so the pronouncement of forgiveness of sin is to help you accept the forgiveness that is already there.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Fr Hopko used to point out that God is the supreme Judge Who judges by not judging (I think that is in St John Chrysostom). He simply floods you with His grace, love, and mercy, and that encounter is the Judgment. so the pronouncement of forgiveness of sin is to help you accept the forgiveness that is already there.

That would be so awesome.

Though I must say that in "dealing with me" over my worst sin from my past, what I walk away from God with is an understanding of myself as a broken person, how sin affects me, and why I did the things I did. Not a sense of excusing/justifying sin, but not at all a sense of condemnation either.

It's more difficult to learn not to condemn ourselves.

 

[MilesVitae]

Thanks for the replies - I'm mostly just thinking them over right now, though I have a couple questions I'll post.
Also, lest I cause any confusion: my original post was not meant to imply that Catholicism (where I'm coming from) has a purely legalistic notion of forgiveness. It's just a topic I've been thinking about more lately and I'm curious to hear about it from an eastern perspective.

 

[MilesVitae]

So. I'm not attempting to explain anything, since I can see I still have a holdover legalistic mindset myself (and maybe a bit of - what is that called? I can't remember the word but I know there is especially a term Catholics use for being overly preoccupied with the guilt of one's own sins, or even sins one hasn't committed?). And neither my priest nor my SF is willing to let me continue in that way.

Scrupulosity?

I admit that as a former Protestant, this is apparently taking me some time to really, completely internalize as well. I think Orthodoxy is unique in this approach compared to both Catholics and Protestants.

I'd be curious to hear your understanding of the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy on this topic. For that matter, I'd be interested in anything further you wish to add regarding the differences between Protestantism and Orthodoxy on the matter - it's been a long time since I've been in any sense Protestant (that is to say, I was like....7 years old, and my religious upbringing to that point wasn't particularly rigorous...), so I'm not overly acquainted with the mindset or the theology.

 

[MilesVitae]

It means to stop judging and condemning yourself and others out of your evil heart.

I don't really understand - is this involved in God's forgiveness of us, or only our forgiveness of others?

 

[MilesVitae]

well for us, the legal aspect is certainly there, but it's not the only aspect.

Could you expand on the "legal aspect" and its relationship to the rest? To the extent that mention of legalism is made in the discussions I've seen, it has been to downplay that aspect in Orthodoxy as compared to western Christianity.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Though I must say that in "dealing with me" over my worst sin from my past, what I walk away from God with is an understanding of myself as a broken person, how sin affects me, and why I did the things I did. Not a sense of excusing/justifying sin, but not at all a sense of condemnation either.

and understanding how you are broken before Him helps you realize His mercy and love

 

[ArmyMatt]

Could you expand on the "legal aspect" and its relationship to the rest?

like the doctor who gives you rules for how to take your medicine, when you break the rules he punishes you in the sense that he might rebuke you or give you a more strenuous therapy or whatever.

To the extent that mention of legalism is made in the discussions I've seen, it has been to downplay that aspect in Orthodoxy as compared to western Christianity.

legalism is because in the West, thanks to Anselm of Canterbury, feudal legal practice of how to deal with criminals who offend the lord crept into the views of the atonement. add a dash of Augustinian understanding of the Fall and the rejection of theosis, and you only really have the idea that the Cross keeps us from getting tortured for all eternity.

for us, the legal views of God has to do like a physician restoring us to life, which is what Christ said He came to do.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Scrupulosity?

Yes, that's it. I need to read more about it to say if I actually "have" it .... I suspect that I've just gotten some tendencies to think that way because of the prayers I've been reading my the Fathers want to prevent it being a problem. But I might have?

I'd be curious to hear your understanding of the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy on this topic. For that matter, I'd be interested in anything further you wish to add regarding the differences between Protestantism and Orthodoxy on the matter - it's been a long time since I've been in any sense Protestant (that is to say, I was like....7 years old, and my religious upbringing to that point wasn't particularly rigorous...), so I'm not overly acquainted with the mindset or the theology.

I'm glad you said "my understanding" because that's all I'm qualified to tell you. I wouldn't presume to lay out either the Orthodox or the Catholic position, pretending I knew it all. And as far as Protestant thinking, well, that is actually so varied that there IS no real "Protestant mindset" on this. It's just that some flavors of my Protestant past have influenced me to think a certain way.

The difference as I understand it between Catholic and Orthodox views of forgiveness are ...

It is my understanding that Catholics make a sharp distinction between categories of sin, especially "mortal and venial". It seems there are prescribed consequences, for example - a "mortal sin" unconfessed will leave a soul in danger of damnation?

In Orthodoxy, there is the understanding of serious sins. For example, if one were to commit adultery, for example, one should not approach the chalice without first going to Confession and receiving Absolution. Telling your wife that her new hat looks good on her when you really think it looks like a flying sausage might be a "lie" but of course that won't keep you from the chalice. Those are extreme examples. There is a lot of gray area, in fact, I think. I hear often from laypeople that if one fails to keep the fast on Wed or Friday, one should not receive the Eucharist that week.

But we don't have the idea that a particular sin will automatically mete out condemnation as punishment. We DO understand that sin of any kind can harden a person and turn them from God. Who knows, one person MAY be able to commit a fairly grievous sin and at least keep a repentant heart, while another MIGHT be able to be hardened over stealing paperclips from the office repeatedly. That's unlikely, but the priest must talk to people and discern where their hearts are. This is what is important, not necessarily the exact "level" of the sin. (I'm giving extreme and unlikely examples, so it may never actually be this way, but my point is that I don't see a column of "these sins send you you hell" and another column of "these sins don't".)

For that matter, I see indications not only of sins being measured, but grace as well, and perhaps pennance? There ARE canons that prescribe certain pennances for certain sins in Orthodoxy, but it is my understanding that priests only refer to those in extreme cases. And I see reference (forgive me, I hope this is not offensive, but I have seen it) of things such as this act (visiting a pilgrim's site, praying x number of prayers, reading x amount of Scripture) to be effective to remove x amount of guilt (getting out of purgatory a specified amount of time). It seems to me that this is loosely analogous to God's grace, and it seems measured out. We don't do that in Orthodoxy.

The other biggest difference I see is the idea that sins have both an eternal and a temporal consequence (necessarily) in Catholicism. Correct me please if I misunderstand, but it seems like this? There is the fact that sin deserves condemnation (hell). This sin can be "paid for" by Christ's atonement, and is accessed by Confession and absolution. But there is also the fact that sin must be somehow atoned for by the individual (a temporal punishment?) and can be accomplished through suffering, almsgiving, or time in purgatory (and perhaps other ways as well). I do not understand this kind of "double jeopardy" for sin, and I am not aware of any Orthodox equivalent. Except for the fact that we all know that if a man cheats on his wife, he can go to Confession and receive absolution and then it is not a sin that God holds against him, but his wife may be unable to trust him after that and it may damage/cost the marriage. Those are simple natural consequences that God does not necessarily rescue us from. But I don't think it is really akin to the Catholic understanding of the requirement for temporal punishment?

I'm still trying to really get my heart to accept what my head knows about Orthodoxy and forgiveness. I'm almost there, but I do see little things that pull me back in small ways. Father said it is difficult for those who are baptized as adults. Babies who are baptized grow up to KNOW that ALL the sin they commit is post-baptism, and requires Confession. Being baptized after a lifetime of "stuff" is just harder to catch up with, according to him? But that's my little issue, not the Church's. I can even feel, understand, and personally experience healing when it comes to forgiveness (and have, in fact). So I know that part is true. I just have a hard time not keeping more "legal" stuff in there than what belongs.

 

[truefiction1]

I don't really understand - is this involved in God's forgiveness of us, or only our forgiveness of others?

It's all the same. Whatever you do to someone else, you're doing it to yourself. Deem another person guilty and condemned and you are already condemned, because they are only a mirror of the evil that is in you, which you cannot tolerate being there and so you project it into the other. God's will is for us to acknowledge, or "own" our own imperfections, to accept ourselves anyhow as He does, and accept His Love of us as the weak and helpless children that we truly are. Once we learn to see ourselves and to love ourselves for who we are, we know His forgiveness and we are then able to extend it to others. In other words, we will have become as He is -- LOVE.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Anastasia, you're disappointing me. I was thinking you'd say "subscribing"!!!

I can't wait to hear the answers to this.

It's a very timely question too. I admit that I still struggle with internalizing what I "know". I actually had Confession yesterday and asked Father if I could read a list that was inspired by some of the prayers of the Church (a prayer of Confession that lists sins) but he felt it would not be right to do within the context of the Sacrament if they were not sins I had actually committed, after baptism and without having been confessed already. (He did say that at times it WOULD be allowed and helpful.)

He was rightly discerning that there could be an element of me failing to fully accept that forgiveness was already accomplished, and in that case it was more a therapeutic matter and was unwilling to allow me to reduce Confession to a legalistic "just in case" transaction (that wasn't the only thing that made me wish to read the list, but it was probably part of it). My SF wants to go into more detail, not because I "need forgiveness" but in order to be sure the memory of past events does not hinder me in any way.

So. I'm not attempting to explain anything, since I can see I still have a holdover legalistic mindset myself (and maybe a bit of - what is that called? I can't remember the word but I know there is especially a term Catholics use for being overly preoccupied with the guilt of one's own sins, or even sins one hasn't committed?). And neither my priest nor my SF is willing to let me continue in that way.

And both of them told me to stop using those prayers.

Not that I'm terribly neurotic, or bothered, or even feeling great guilt or shame or anything like that, but simply that they don't want me even thinking that way at all, in even the least way.

I hope that makes something of a distinction. If it WERE primarily a legal matter, then to be concerned with such things might be wise and I might be encouraged to pursue it. But as it is, the concern is with how I relate to the thoughts of my sins and how it affects my spiritual condition and growth and relationship with God. It's more about health, if at makes sense, than a point of legal obligation.

I admit that as a former Protestant, this is apparently taking me some time to really, completely internalize as well. I think Orthodoxy is unique in this approach compared to both Catholics and Protestants.

Stories of Tollhouses aren't helping me either!

 

[MilesVitae]

It's all the same. Whatever you do to someone else, you're doing it to yourself. Deem another person guilty and condemned and you are already condemned, because they are only a mirror of the evil that is in you, which you cannot tolerate being there and so you project it into the other. God's will is for us to acknowledge, or "own" our own imperfections, to accept ourselves anyhow as He does, and accept His Love of us as the weak and helpless children that we truly are. Once we learn to see ourselves and to love ourselves for who we are, we know His forgiveness and we are then able to extend it to others. In other words, we will have become as He is -- LOVE.

Okay, I understand better now what you're talking about. Which leads me to what is possibly a tangent more than anything......
I have trouble seeing the truth in what you are saying here: "Deem another person guilty and condemned and you are already condemned, because they are only a mirror of the evil that is in you, which you cannot tolerate being there and so you project it into the other."
Sometimes I do find this to be true - my judgement/condemnation of others flowing from my own inability to bear the shame of my own sin. But, it seems like there are plenty of other times that it flows from either anger, or else an arrogant pride.... in those cases, I find it difficult to see how there is present the phenomenon of projecting my own evil onto others. What are your thoughts?

 

[truefiction1]

Okay, I understand better now what you're talking about. Which leads me to what is possibly a tangent more than anything......
I have trouble seeing the truth in what you are saying here: "Deem another person guilty and condemned and you are already condemned, because they are only a mirror of the evil that is in you, which you cannot tolerate being there and so you project it into the other."
Sometimes I do find this to be true - my judgement/condemnation of others flowing from my own inability to bear the shame of my own sin. But, it seems like there are plenty of other times that it flows from either anger, or else an arrogant pride.... in those cases, I find it difficult to see how there is present the phenomenon of projecting my own evil onto others. What are your thoughts?

It is precisely in those cases (anger or arrogance) that projection is being done, though that mechanism lies below our typical threshold of conscious awareness. Jesus warns us about this here: (Matthew 5:22) On a side note, a person of spiritual discernment is one who has undergone expansions of their threshold of conscious awareness so that they have become aware of spiritual realities which are unknown to many people whose awareness is captivated by what is ordinary and profane.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Okay, I understand better now what you're talking about. Which leads me to what is possibly a tangent more than anything......
I have trouble seeing the truth in what you are saying here: "Deem another person guilty and condemned and you are already condemned, because they are only a mirror of the evil that is in you, which you cannot tolerate being there and so you project it into the other."
Sometimes I do find this to be true - my judgement/condemnation of others flowing from my own inability to bear the shame of my own sin. But, it seems like there are plenty of other times that it flows from either anger, or else an arrogant pride.... in those cases, I find it difficult to see how there is present the phenomenon of projecting my own evil onto others. What are your thoughts?

If I am understanding both the statement, and the question correctly (and I may not be, so please forgive me for interjecting if I am wrong) ...

But I am thinking the point can be that we may not see the exact same sin (or even area of sin) mirrored in ourselves.

A woman could have dressed like a 16th century schoolteacher since girlhood and still be offended to see a miniskirt and cleavage on display from a woman in line to receive the Eucharist. That doesn't mean she is upset by her OWN impropriety in dress, or even the memory of such a sin, but it does mean that she has not yet understood how it is with human beings. Namely that we are all sick and broken in our own ways, and desperately in need of Christ every minute. Once we understand that about ourselves, how can we turn our eyes to condemn someone else?

I'm not claiming to have "arrived" in any sense of the word, btw.