Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...

Tamara

Archon
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
2,208
Reaction score
0
Points
0
welkodox said:
He does say parts were accepted by the whole church, and parts were not.  He doesn't specify which council of the two however or which part, but based on this quote earlier in the book

I would guess it is more likely the Confession of St. Petro Mohyla is the one with parts set aside.  In any case, I only quoted one thing from the Confession of Dositheus.

I'm glad at least that we've arrived at the point where we can drop the western/eastern distinction and look to the Western and Eastern liturgical expressions of Orthodoxy as normative for the faith.
He says that the 17th century councils were corrected and some things were set aside. I interpret that to mean they were all faulty and not authoritative in their original form.

Western rite may be very old but it has not organically evolved over time within Orthodoxy. We don't even know if the rite will be successful within Orthodoxy. Time will tell. 
 

Theognosis

Sr. Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
248
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
minasoliman said:
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.10.en.original_sin_according_to_st._paul.01.htm
That's a good read!  I love this in particular:

Thus salvation for man and creation cannot come by a simple act of forgiveness of any juridical imputation of sin, nor can it come by any payment of satisfaction to the devil (Origen) or to God (Rome). Salvation can come only by the destruction of the devil and his power.

...

If there is no resurrection there can be no salvation. Since death is a consequence of the discontinuation of communion with the life and love of God, and thereby a captivity of man and creation by the devil, then only a real resurrection can destroy the power of the devil. It is inaccurate and shallow thinking to try to pass off as Biblical the idea that the question of a real bodily resurrection is of secondary importance.


Again, it is the resurrection that ACTUALLY saved us.  The legalities of the crucifixion, if any, are secondary. 

St. Paul says it clearly:

1 Cor. 15
17  And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18  Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
lubeltri said:
(It's from an OCA church---the EP is not in Communion with the OCA?)
Nope. Nor are they mentioned in the Dyptich of the Church of Constantinople.

The discussion/debate regarding the OCA's Autocephaly and recognition by other churches has been given its own thread: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11433.0.html - Questions and whatnot regarding the OCA's Autocephaly - Cleveland, GM

Theognosis said:
That's a good read! 
I've always found Romanides to be a good read. It's really sad that he is written off as being "anti-western" by some- which seems to me to be the new "PC thuggery" of some in the Church (and I am talking about a few Bishops, priests and theologians here).  It's as though they seek to deny that things such as the hesychastic controversy even happened, and the mere mention of anything which suggests that there now exists some dogmatic differences between the eastern and western Churches brings an almighty tirade against one. And what I'd like to ask the "PC thugs" in the Orthodox Church is: if there are no dogmatic differences, then why not abolish the Western Rite in the Orthodox Church and allow worship in the Roman Catholic Church instead, rather than trying to make leaven bread look like unleaven bread?
 

Aristibule

High Elder
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Tamara:
Western rite may be very old but it has not organically evolved over time within Orthodoxy.
Technically it did - as the Western rite evolved in the first millenium, and has changed in only a few particulars since that time (again, with Western Rite in Orthodoxy, all those changes are corrected.) Nevermind that language of 'organic' comes from the Theosopical movement (in particular, the Traditionalist school of Rene Guenon.) The truth is, even with 'organic' applied - it did organically reenter Orthodoxy, through the appropriate channels.

Ozgeorge:
It's as though they seek to deny that things such as the hesychastic controversy even happened, and the mere mention of anything which suggests that there now exists some dogmatic differences between the eastern and western Churches brings an almighty tirade against one. And what I'd like to ask the "PC thugs" in the Orthodox Church is: if there are no dogmatic differences, then why not abolish the Western Rite in the Orthodox Church and allow worship in the Roman Catholic Church instead, rather than trying to make leaven bread look like unleaven bread?
Again and again - no one is denying the hesychastic controversy happened, or that there are dogmatic differences with the Roman Catholic church. That we *aren't* worshipping in the RCC should give you a clue - you've constructed a strawman. If we speak of Barlaam - the West was never against hesychasm, in fact - hesychasm has a long history in the West (popping up again and again, see articles on Quietism - which covers everything from hesychasm to some things that are wrong. The point being, real hesychasm was misunderstood as Quietism - not just in condemning Eastern Orthodox, but also in condemning many Catholic mystics. Hesychasm, however, is an integral part of Western theology - and has been since the beginnings (I know I find it in medieval Welsh writings, and earlier Irish writings.)

That - and we don't 'make leaven bread look like unleaven bread'. If you want to see the leavened hosts we use, they are similar to what Anglicans have used the past 500 years - very similar to Russian prosfora, almost exactly like Syriac qurban.

The point is - it is anti-Westernism to keep saying 'The West is X' when the West was actually 'A' through 'Z'. The fault lies not in a lack of recognition of errors in the Roman church (we wouldn't be Orthodox otherwise, but would have stayed where we were.) The fault is in claiming that the West through and through held to a whole list of errors (they didn't.)
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Theognosis,

Thus salvation for man and creation cannot come by a simple act of forgiveness of any juridical imputation of sin
Forgiveness is key to the redemptive work of the Lord Christ. It is key to our ongoing process of salvation; we ask, nay, beg for forgiveness consistently in our liturgical and private worship. Yet the need for forgiveness is, in essence, the need for guilt--not illness--to be absolved. You don't go to a physician and beg for their forgiveness of your illness. The therepeutic aspect of salvation is indeed important and not to be overlooked, and given its greater appeal to the average mind is probably the aspect to be emphasised first and foremost, but it certainly cannot replace the juridical aspect of redemption.

"Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on Himself the judgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all". (St. Athanasius, Contra Arianos I.41,60)

"How, were the Word a mere creature, could He have the power to undo God's sentence, and to remit sin?" (St. Athanasius, Orations ii. s. 67)

Again, it is the resurrection that ACTUALLY saved us.
You simply cannot separate the work of the Resurrection and the Crucifixion; that's highly un-Orthodox. Our hymns, icons, and soteriology in general, testify quite strongly to the fact that they constitute a single unified event.

St. Paul says it clearly:

1 Cor. 15
17  And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
He also clearly states (in the very same epistle, I believe), that we should not know anything but Jesus Christ and Him Crucified.

ozgeorge,

I've always found Romanides to be a good read.
Your Bishop thinks otherwise.  ;)
 

Aristibule

High Elder
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Romanides is a good read. But, there is a qualification...

Romanides' theories are not official with the Orthodox Church, nor are they mainstream or even majority opinion. Which should be stressed - his writings *are* opinions. Romanides may represent a certain school of thought associated with Holy Cross in Brookline, MA. But, there are hierarchs and clergy who disagree with him (many of them Holy Cross graduates.)

(And a step back - I agree with Ozgeorge about PC thugs. The anti-Anglo PC crowd in Orthodoxy really gets me P.O.ed. If they want to be Eastern so much (Greek, etc.) then there is real estate aplenty in those Eastern countries. If you aren't assimilating, you're invading. I'm happy the Indonesian Orthodox figured that out in time.)
 

lubeltri

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,794
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Archdiocese of Boston
Aristibule said:
Tamara:
Technically it did - as the Western rite evolved in the first millenium, and has changed in only a few particulars since that time (again, with Western Rite in Orthodoxy, all those changes are corrected.) Nevermind that language of 'organic' comes from the Theosopical movement (in particular, the Traditionalist school of Rene Guenon.) The truth is, even with 'organic' applied - it did organically reenter Orthodoxy, through the appropriate channels.
You mean tacking on the epliclesis? I don't think that was a "correction," but an artificial addition.

I am supportive of the Latin or other Western rites in Orthodoxy, it makes you more catholic, but I think the rite was fine as it was.
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
wilderness
EkhristosAnesti said:
Theognosis,

Forgiveness is key to the redemptive work of the Lord Christ. It is key to our ongoing process of salvation; we ask, nay, beg for forgiveness consistently in our liturgical and private worship. Yet the need for forgiveness is, in essence, the need for guilt--not illness--to be absolved. You don't go to a physician and beg for their forgiveness of your illness. The therepeutic aspect of salvation is indeed important and not to be overlooked, and given its greater appeal to the average mind is probably the aspect to be emphasised first and foremost, but it certainly cannot replace the juridical aspect of redemption.

"Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on Himself the judgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all". (St. Athanasius, Contra Arianos I.41,60)

"How, were the Word a mere creature, could He have the power to undo God's sentence, and to remit sin?" (St. Athanasius, Orations ii. s. 67)


You simply cannot separate the work of the Resurrection and the Crucifixion; that's highly un-Orthodox. Our hymns, icons, and soteriology in general, testify quite strongly to the fact that they constitute a single unified event.
I'm going to stress this again. Salvation is an ontological issue. No man has or ever will lived up to the glory of God.
If you want a good read on the matter. Read 1 The dogma regarding Creation through 7 Ecclesiology.
http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/perieh.htm
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
I think people should reread EA's quotes from St. Athanasius.  They are quite telling, especially those who want to pretend that this "satisfaction" issue was never found in the "Eastern" fathers.

He also makes a very important argument.  While I don't deny an ontological aspect, I don't think one can ask a physician to "forgive me," as EA articulated.  To say that this is ENTIRELY ontological denies this aspect of salvation, and in essence might even deny a lot of practices in our church, including confession.

As for Fr. John Romanides, while I respect and agree with his writings, he does give off a sense of "anti-Western" pride.  A lot of his writings is dedicated to the "real Romans" vs. those fake Latin-Frankish poor excuses of human beings.

God bless.
 

lubeltri

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,794
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Archdiocese of Boston
minasoliman said:
I think people should reread EA's quotes from St. Athanasius.  They are quite telling, especially those who want to pretend that this "satisfaction" issue was never found in the "Eastern" fathers.

He also makes a very important argument.  While I don't deny an ontological aspect, I don't think one can ask a physician to "forgive me."  To say that this is ENTIRELY ontological denies this aspect of salvation, and in essence might even deny a lot of practices in our church, including confession.

As for Fr. John Romanides, while I respect and agree with his writings, he does give off a sense of "anti-Western" pride.  A lot of his writings is dedicated to the "real Romans" vs. those fake Latin-Frankish poor excuses of human beings.
I completely agree. Why can't we have BOTH ontological AND juridical? They are both found in Scripture and the Fathers.
 

Aristibule

High Elder
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
For that matter, ROCOR is also considered under Moscow (nothing new next month, just restoration of our hierarchs concelebrating.)

Lubeltri:
You mean tacking on the epliclesis? I don't think that was a "correction," but an artificial addition. ...I am supportive of the Latin or other Western rites in Orthodoxy, it makes you more catholic, but I think the rite was fine as it was.
This is probably a topic for another thread - in liturgy. A brief synopsis of why we Western Orthodox have an epiclesis, though:

To begin with, the epiclesis is a feature of Western liturgy from the earliest times (to be distinguished from epiklesis, a similar prayer with the same function in the Byzantine rite of Eastern liturgy. One term is Latin, the other Greek - when referring to the WRO liturgies, you correctly use epiclesis, while epiklesis is the normal term when discussing Byzantine or Oriental liturgies.)

The epiclesis still exists in the Mozarabic rite (in fact, where we have our epiclesis from - the Gothic Missal), as it did in the other Gallican rites. It used to be the opinion of the greater part of liturgical scholars that the Roman mass originally had an epiclesis. In the mid-20th c., this fell out of favor in some quarters. However, to hold such an opinion means to ignore contemporary witness even of Roman bishops who describe the epiclesis in the Roman Mass. There were and are differences of opinion as to where the epiclesis was or should be.

As for as Western theology regarding the epiclesis, there is a whole literature involved the subject in English. The Non-Juror Anglicans demanded the restoration of the epiclesis. So did the English part of the Anglo-Catholic movement (a whole Alcuin Club publication is dedicated to the epiclesis.) The Book of Common Prayer tradition, in fact, began with the restoration of an epiclesis into the liturgy of the first Prayer Book (which the Roman Church considered a Catholic liturgy - it was only the later Ordinal and second Prayer Book that were later rejected. The second Prayer Book, by the way, was never accepted by the Church - only by the English government, and only propogated for three months. Many scholars claim it was never in use in most parts of the Empire.) It is no secret either that the reform of the Roman Mass at Vatican II included the restoration of an epiclesis (and I'm not talking about liturgical abuses in the name of Vatican II.)

The question as to borrowing between Western rites - they form such a close family, and the basic form of the Roman canon became normative, that minor borrowing in the name of clarifying our theology is justified. The fact is that both the Western theologians (including Roman trained DDs in the 19th c.) as well as Orthodox theologians from the old Academies (such as Kiev) were involved in the review of the Roman rite (same as the Gallican rite, again - which Abbe Guetee was the first Orthodox to translate and use.) The inclusion (restoration) of the epiclesis into the Roman Canon then was in accordance with Orthodox theology (East and West) and with a scholarly understanding of its precedent and nativity within Western liturgy. It is no more 'tacked in' than the name of various saints are into the commemorations in the Canon (which various Missals have wide variations.) Again, part of the diversity of the West, of which it is error to say 'The West had no epiclesis'.

Also - regarding recognition of OCA autocephaly. There are varying reasons - for Constantinople, it is because they now hold that they alone can grant autocephaly. For other churches, it is because they understand that Autocephaly cannot be granted to only a portion of a local church. For any American Church to have autocephaly, it has to be *all* the American Orthodox.

The discussion/debate regarding the OCA's Autocephaly and recognition by other churches has been given its own thread: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11433.0.html - Questions and whatnot regarding the OCA's Autocephaly - Cleveland, GM

As for the 'ontological argument' - the funny thing is, that Anselm was the first to apply the ontological argument to theology. Ironic, no? Me - I'm no fan of Anselm or his ontological argument.
 

lubeltri

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,794
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Archdiocese of Boston
Aristibule said:
For that matter, ROCOR is also considered under Moscow (nothing new next month, just restoration of our hierarchs concelebrating.)

Lubeltri:
This is probably a topic for another thread - in liturgy. A brief synopsis of why we Western Orthodox have an epiclesis, though:

To begin with, the epiclesis is a feature of Western liturgy from the earliest times (to be distinguished from epiklesis, a similar prayer with the same function in the Byzantine rite of Eastern liturgy. One term is Latin, the other Greek - when referring to the WRO liturgies, you correctly use epiclesis, while epiklesis is the normal term when discussing Byzantine or Oriental liturgies.)

The epiclesis still exists in the Mozarabic rite (in fact, where we have our epiclesis from - the Gothic Missal), as it did in the other Gallican rites. It used to be the opinion of the greater part of liturgical scholars that the Roman mass originally had an epiclesis. In the mid-20th c., this fell out of favor in some quarters. However, to hold such an opinion means to ignore contemporary witness even of Roman bishops who describe the epiclesis in the Roman Mass. There were and are differences of opinion as to where the epiclesis was or should be.

As for as Western theology regarding the epiclesis, there is a whole literature involved the subject in English. The Non-Juror Anglicans demanded the restoration of the epiclesis. So did the English part of the Anglo-Catholic movement (a whole Alcuin Club publication is dedicated to the epiclesis.) The Book of Common Prayer tradition, in fact, began with the restoration of an epiclesis into the liturgy of the first Prayer Book (which the Roman Church considered a Catholic liturgy - it was only the later Ordinal and second Prayer Book that were later rejected. The second Prayer Book, by the way, was never accepted by the Church - only by the English government, and only propogated for three months. Many scholars claim it was never in use in most parts of the Empire.) It is no secret either that the reform of the Roman Mass at Vatican II included the restoration of an epiclesis (and I'm not talking about liturgical abuses in the name of Vatican II.)

The question as to borrowing between Western rites - they form such a close family, and the basic form of the Roman canon became normative, that minor borrowing in the name of clarifying our theology is justified. The fact is that both the Western theologians (including Roman trained DDs in the 19th c.) as well as Orthodox theologians from the old Academies (such as Kiev) were involved in the review of the Roman rite (same as the Gallican rite, again - which Abbe Guetee was the first Orthodox to translate and use.) The inclusion (restoration) of the epiclesis into the Roman Canon then was in accordance with Orthodox theology (East and West) and with a scholarly understanding of its precedent and nativity within Western liturgy. It is no more 'tacked in' than the name of various saints are into the commemorations in the Canon (which various Missals have wide variations.) Again, part of the diversity of the West, of which it is error to say 'The West had no epiclesis'.
Thanks for the explanation. I don't doubt that an explicit epiclesis has existed, long ago, in the West, but my point was that it is already expressed implicitly in the classic Roman rite (and the possible "loss" of it occurred long before the East-West schism). I know some Orthodox theologians think an explicit epiclesis is absolutely necessary for a valid consecration, and you Western-rite Orthodox already have to go out of your way to convince many in your Church that you are legitimate, so I can understand why you imported the epiklesis from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom to your rite. Just thought it wasn't necessary (and neither were all those different Eucharistic prayers in the Novus Ordo, of course).
 

Aristibule

High Elder
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
lubeltri said:
Thanks for the explanation. I don't doubt that an explicit epiclesis has existed, long ago, in the West, but my point was that it is already expressed implicitly in the classic Roman rite (and the possible "loss" of it occurred long before the East-West schism). I know some Orthodox theologians think an explicit epiclesis is absolutely necessary for a valid consecration, and you Western-rite Orthodox already have to go out of your way to convince many in your Church that you are legitimate, so I can understand why you imported the epiklesis from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom to your rite. Just thought it wasn't necessary (and neither were all those different Eucharistic prayers in the Novus Ordo, of course).
St. Nicholas Cabasilas is often used as an example that the later Roman canon still has an 'implied' epiclesis - however, that is using him out of context. It wasn't the intent of his writing on the subject. Many liturgical scholars have not considered the Roman and Gallican as separate families, in fact - that since the time of Charlemagne they are definitely merged into one. The epiclesis did survive continuously at least in the Mozarabic. The Mozarabic in fact had many of them that were changed throughout the year, and inserted as the changeable parts in the Canon.

I wouldn't say we have to go out of our way - those critics are critics anyway, and they're argument isn't that we aren't Orthodox - but that we aren't 'Eastern' (meaning, not Hellenic, etc.) Any time they do make a criticism, they talk past us and criticize Rome or the Protestants. Meaning, they accuse us of practices or beliefs that we do not hold to.

Again, as you might have missed it - here is the epiclesis approved by our bishops from our official liturgical text:

And here we, Thy servants, offer the gifts that Thou hast commanded for our salvation, that Thou mayest be pleased to send down Thy Holy Spirit upon this Sacrifice that It may be duly and properly  changed in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, in the transformation  of the Body + and Blood + of our Lord, Jesus Christ and that It may be for us who partake thereof, Life eternal and the everlasting Kingdom through the same Jesus Christ our Lord Who liveth and reigneth with Thee and the Holy Ghost, world without end. Amen.

As you will note, it is the epiclesis Collect for the Throne of St. Peter from the Missale Gothicum. We didn't 'feel the need' to import from Chrysostoma, as it wasn't an issue of 'acceptance' from anyone, but a question of liturgical completeness and theological Orthodoxy (universal, not local 'Eastern' or 'Western'.) Overbeck did use a Western translation of the epiklesis from Chrysostoma, and only one of our texts uses it (two texts for the Antiochians) - but it is placed where Western liturgists have said the missing epiclesis is - before "We humbly pray Thee, Almighty God, to command that these giifts be borne by the hands of Thy holy Angel to Thine Altar on high...".

So, for us it is/was necessary - from a theological, historical and liturgical perspective. For a Trad Catholic committed to a baroque form of a particular liturgical use, it wouldn't be necessary - which is why you don't have the prayer anymore, nor will it be restored. (There are a few Antiochian WRO with a fascination for Renaissance Roman Catholicism, but not most of us - either in Antioch or ROCOR.)
 

BrotherAidan

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
1,568
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
pennsylvania
lubeltri said:
Lombard and Aquinas, and pretty much most Catholic theologians afterward, however, have disagreed with Anselm that the divine justice HAD to be satisfied, that the Atonement WAS necessary. It wasn't, but God chose it to be the conduit of his mercy (so, in that context, for us, it is necessary). And it conforms to reason that justice must be done---God is a pretty sensible God, not to mention an incredibly loving one.
This corresponds to St. Paul's words in Romans 3:24-26, " Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus."

God did it this way, so that Joe Common Man couldn't question the intergrity or justice of God in forgiving even the worst sinner, because look who paid the cost of his salvation!

Maybe, and don't press this too literally, the ransom was paid to common sense justice. So that the "man in the street" could easily understand a price was paid, a ransom was paid and the perfect God-Man Jesus Christ paid it.

On the other hand, God did create the universe to run by certain laws (he could have done it differently but he didn't) and he created man to "run" by a certain moral code (he could have done it differently but didn't) and because of this, the sacrificial death of Christ, not surprisingly, satisifies the righteous demands of that moral code and of justice. All the while God remains free and unbound. He is the one who chose to create and do the whole thing in this way in the first place. God is not constrained.

Removed doubled post - Cleveland, GM

PS sorry for the the extra posts, computer issues. The last line may be the critical one in this debate - that God "appears" (in some of these theories) to be constrained by divine justice -- I think that is what concerns many "eastern" theologians. The west (and I think this thread has established that satisfaction is not necessarily western) is not imposing necessity this sense on the divine nature or freedom of God.
 

aserb

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
63
Location
Valley Forge, PA
You know I've been reading this blog for some time and it is getting a bit tiring. You guys are gonna debate east vs. west theology unitl the cows come home. When I sojourned among the Evangelicals the following statement kept popping up which I still tend to agree with

"You were saved" You are being saved" You will be saved"

That's it in nutshell.

Now off to another rant.  :-X
 

lubeltri

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,794
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Archdiocese of Boston
BrotherAidan said:
This corresponds to St. Paul's words in Romans 3:24-26, " Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus."

God did it this way, so that Joe Common Man couldn't question the intergrity or justice of God in forgiving even the worst sinner, because look who paid the cost of his salvation!

Maybe, and don't press this too literally, the ransom was paid to common sense justice. So that the "man in the street" could easily understand a price was paid, a ransom was paid and the perfect God-Man Jesus Christ paid it.

On the other hand, God did create the universe to run by certain laws (he could have done it differently but he didn't) and he created man to "run" by a certain moral code (he could have done it differently but didn't) and because of this, the sacrificial death of Christ, not surprisingly, satisifies the righteous demands of that moral code and of justice. All the while God remains free and unbound. He is the one who chose to create and do the whole thing in this way in the first place. God is not constrained.

The last line may be the critical one in this debate - that God "appears" (in some of these theories) to be constrained by divine justice -- I think that is what concerns many "eastern" theologians. The west (and I think this thread has established that satisfaction is not necessarily western) is not imposing necessity this sense on the divine nature or freedom of God.
Exactly. Very well put. God is "constrained" only by his will to follow the divine justice he created.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
On the "constrainment" of God, St. Athanasius speaks (On the Incarnation):

(6)We saw in the last chapter that, because death and corruption were gaining ever firmer hold on them, the human race was in process of destruction. Man, who was created in God's image and in his possession of reason reflected the very Word Himself, was disappearing, and the work of God was being undone. The law of death, which followed from the Transgression, prevailed upon us, and from it there was no escape. The thing that was happening was in truth both monstrous and unfitting. It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die; but it was equally monstrous that beings which once had shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back again into non-existence through corruption. It was unworthy of the goodness of God that creatures made by Him should be brought to nothing through the deceit wrought upon man by the devil; and it was supremely unfitting that the work of God in mankind should disappear, either through their own negligence or through the deceit of evil spirits. As, then, the creatures whom He had created reasonable, like the Word, were in fact perishing, and such noble works were on the road to ruin, what then was God, being Good, to do? Was He to let corruption and death have their way with them? In that case, what was the use of having made them in the beginning? Surely it would have been better never to have been created at all than, having been created, to be neglected and perish; and, besides that, such indifference to the ruin of His own work before His very eyes would argue not goodness in God but limitation, and that far more than if He had never created men at all. It was impossible, therefore, that God should leave man to be carried off by corruption, because it would be unfitting and unworthy of Himself.

(7) Yet, true though this is, it is not the whole matter. As we have already noted, it was unthinkable that God, the Father of Truth, should go back upon His word regarding death in order to ensure our continued existence. He could not falsify Himself; what, then, was God to do? Was He to demand repentance from men for their transgression? You might say that that was worthy of God, and argue further that, as through the Transgression they became subject to corruption, so through repentance they might return to incorruption again. But repentance would not guard the Divine consistency, for, if death did not hold dominion over men, God would still remain untrue. Nor does repentance recall men from what is according to their nature; all that it does is to make them cease from sinning. Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough; but when once transgression had begun men came under the power of the corruption proper to their nature and were bereft of the grace which belonged to them as creatures in the Image of God. No, repentance could not meet the case. What - or rather Who was it that was needed for such grace and such recall as we required? Who, save the Word of God Himself, Who also in the beginning had made all things out of nothing? His part it was, and His alone, both to bring again the corruptible to incorruption and to maintain for the Father His consistency of character with all. For He alone, being Word of the Father and above all, was in consequence both able to recreate all, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be an ambassador for all with the Father.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Is something wrong with OC.net?

The rest of the message keeps getting truncated:

Fixed quote above and left this message with the follow-up - Cleveland, GM

Even though God is not bound or constrained by anything, there is a "Divine consistency" that must be followed, according to St. Athanasius.

God bless.
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
wilderness
minasoliman said:
On the "constrainment" of God, St. Athanasius speaks (On the Incarnation):
Excellent post minasoliman. This part in particular tells the whole story.

for, if death did not hold dominion over men, God would still remain untrue. Nor does repentance recall men from what is according to their nature; all that it does is to make them cease from sinning. Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough;
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Aristibule said:
Hesychasm, however, is an integral part of Western theology - and has been since the beginnings (I know I find it in medieval Welsh writings, and earlier Irish writings.)
I don't know how many times I have to say this. No one is arguing that the western Church was not Orthodox before the schism. No one is arguing that the western Church was not Orthodox before the schism. No one is arguing that the western Church was not Orthodox before the schism.

Aristibule said:
That - and we don't 'make leaven bread look like unleaven bread'.
From the website of St. Paul Antiochian Western Rite Orthodox Church:
The Host which is leavened bread baked into a thin round wafer is given first, followed by the wine. http://www.stpaulsorthodox.org/westernrite.html
EkhristosAnesti said:
Your Bishop thinks otherwise.  ;)
You mean, the guy who signed the Balamand Agreement? That guy? ;)
I stated that the PC thugs included Bishops for a reason.
Fortunately I'm not Roman Catholic, infallibility of Bishops is not an issue (despite the fact that Archbishop Sylianos argues that there is such a thing as infallibility in Orthodoxy).
 

Theognosis

Sr. Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
248
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
EkhristosAnesti said:
The therepeutic aspect of salvation is indeed important and not to be overlooked, and given its greater appeal to the average mind is probably the aspect to be emphasised first and foremost, but it certainly cannot replace the juridical aspect of redemption.

"Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on Himself the judgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all". (St. Athanasius, Contra Arianos I.41,60)

"How, were the Word a mere creature, could He have the power to undo God's sentence, and to remit sin?" (St. Athanasius, Orations ii. s. 67)
I think that's a misrepresentation of how St. Athanasius viewed salvation.  People may quote many Church Fathers to prove that the legalities in the crucifixion exist, but they fail to realize that the Church Fathers have always stressed the importance of the resurrection.  In the case of St. Athanasius, a simple examination of his work "On the Incarnation" reveals that the therepeutic aspect is given much more emphasis over the juridical.  And even in the few times wherein St. Athanasius speaks of the juridical aspect, the therapeutic aspect is not left out, for instance:

He accepted and bore upon the cross a death inflicted by others, and those others His special enemies, a death which to them was supremely terrible and by no means to be faced; and He did this in order that, by destroying even this death {i.e. resurrection}, He might Himself be believed to be the Life, and the power of death be recognized as finally annulled.

In the book, I've done a simple search of the following words and their results:

For Anselm:
Crucifixion = 1
Crucify = 0
God's Satisfaction = 0
Justice = 0
Guilt = 0
Guilty = 0
Penalty = 2
Law = 26

Against Anselm:
Resurrection = 40
Corruption = 55
Corruptible = 6
Incorruptible = 9
Hades = 4
Sacrifice = 11**

** Sacrifice is always associated with the resurrection, for example:
Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man's account with death and free him from the primal transgression. In the same act also He showed Himself mightier than death, displaying His own body incorruptible as the first-fruits of the resurrection.

For St. Athanasius, the resurrection is the key, and it shows in his works.

You simply cannot separate the work of the Resurrection and the Crucifixion;
When did I ever separate the resurrection and the crucifixion?  I was actually the one who kept on stressing that the crucifixion is useless without the resurrection!

that's highly un-Orthodox.
That's why Anselm's theory is un-Orthodox.  He has made the legalities of the crucifixion, if any, as the be-all and end-all of salvation.  In effect, the resurrection becomes a secondary event that can be discarded as opposed to a primary event that is vital. 

Our hymns, icons, and soteriology in general, testify quite strongly to the fact that they constitute a single unified event.
Correct.  And contrary to the satisfaction theory, the crucifixion is NOT THE ONLY event that saved us.  This makes Anselm's concepts--which focus almost exclusively on the crucifixion--untenable. 

He also clearly states (in the very same epistle, I believe), that we should not know anything but Jesus Christ and Him Crucified.
See above.
 

Theognosis

Sr. Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
248
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
minasoliman said:
I think people should reread EA's quotes from St. Athanasius.
That's not a good idea.  Quotes mislead people.  Your best bet is to read St. Athanasius' De Incarnatione Verb Dei.

It's available online.  And it IS a good read.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Dear Theognosis,

The point being made is that the juridicial view is not neglected.  Many Orthodox consider the juridicial view heretical.  Even though he may have written more about ontology, he did not let alone the juridicial side of salvation.

I don't think these were misleading quotes.  If they were misleading, you would prove to us how these quotes are not juridicial.

Even a small part on St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" writes about some sort of "debt:"

(20) We have dealt as far as circumstances and our own understanding permit with the reason for His bodily manifestation. We have seen that to change the corruptible to incorruption was proper to none other than the Savior Himself, Who in the beginning made all things out of nothing; that only the Image of the Father could re-create the likeness of the Image in men, that none save our Lord Jesus Christ could give to mortals immortality, and that only the Word Who orders all things and is alone the Father's true and sole-begotten Son could teach men about Him and abolish the worship of idols But beyond all this, there was a debt owing which must needs be paid; for, as I said before, all men were due to die. Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man's account with death and free him from the primal transgression. In the same act also He showed Himself mightier than death, displaying His own body incorruptible as the first-fruits of the resurrection.
This also proves that an Eastern Father did not merely say that Christ died "with all," but on behalf of all.  To play that "Koine Greek" game simply puts St. Athanasius in the wrong.

God bless.

Mina
 

lubeltri

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,794
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Archdiocese of Boston
ozgeorge said:
Fortunately I'm not Roman Catholic, infallibility of Bishops is not an issue (despite the fact that Archbishop Sylianos argues that there is such a thing as infallibility in Orthodoxy).
Unfortunately, you are not only not Roman Catholic, you don't seem to know what Roman Catholicism believes about bishops.
 

dantxny

High Elder
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
769
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Fort Worth Texas
lubeltri said:
Unfortunately, you are not only not Roman Catholic, you don't seem to know what Roman Catholicism believes about bishops.
I think you're reading far too much into him.  Rather, there are some bishops who suggest a greater deal of infallibilty exists with some ordinaries than most Christians are used to.  As Orthodox are a local based church this would not be in some eastern pope.  If I'm putting false ideas into your mouth George, please correct me, but I think that you, lubeltri, are speaking past him  and past the issue.
 

lubeltri

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,794
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Archdiocese of Boston
Theognosis said:
That's why Anselm's theory is un-Orthodox.  He has made the legalities of the crucifixion, if any, as the be-all and end-all of salvation.  In effect, the resurrection becomes a secondary event that can be discarded as opposed to a primary event that is vital. 
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I think that's a misrepresentation of how St. Athanasius viewed salvation.
I'm having some trouble understanding how quoting St. Athanasius can be deemed misrepresenting St. Athanasius.

People may quote many Church Fathers to prove that the legalities in the crucifixion exist, but they fail to realize that the Church Fathers have always stressed the importance of the resurrection.
No one here is saying that the Resurrection is not important, or that its importance is not to be stressed. We are simply saying that its importance should not be stressed in exclusion to the Crucifxion, and in neglect of the judical aspect of Christ's redemptive work on the Cross.

In the case of St. Athanasius, a simple examination of his work "On the Incarnation" reveals that the therepeutic aspect is given much more emphasis over the juridical.
Ofcourse it is, but have you ever stopped to wonder why? It's certainly not because he thought there to be no judical aspect of salvation (and the quotes I brought forth concretely demonstrate this), nor because he thought an emphasis on the judical aspect of redemption per se was "unOrthodox".

And even in the few times wherein St. Athanasius speaks of the juridical aspect, the therapeutic aspect is not left out
But no one is arguing that such an aspect is absent in his soteriology, we are simply showing that it is not exclusive in his soteriology.

When did I ever separate the resurrection and the crucifixion?
That's the impression I received when you stated, that we are "actually saved by the Resurrection". We are *actually* saved by the entire work of the Incarnate Word--His Life, His Teachings, His Resurrection, His Ascension, His Sending of the Spirit, and no less, His Crucifixion.

That's why Anselm's theory is un-Orthodox.  He has made the legalities of the crucifixion, if any, as the be-all and end-all of salvation.
I choose not to comment on a figure whose works I have not read in their entirety. Much has been made of him in recent EO polemical publications, and I am not inclined to take those readings at face value.

As for reducing the redemptive work of Christ exclusively to the judical aspect of the Crucifixion, that is surely not Orthodox. But the very point that many of us are making here is that to reduce the redemptive work of Christ exclusively to any model, be it therapeutic, or judical, is surely not Orthodox.

Would you agree with this? If so, then I think we can agree that despite our surface disagreement, we're essentially on the same page.
 

lubeltri

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,794
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Archdiocese of Boston
dantxny said:
I think you're reading far too much into him.  Rather, there are some bishops who suggest a greater deal of infallibilty exists with some ordinaries than most Christians are used to.  As Orthodox are a local based church this would not be in some eastern pope.  If I'm putting false ideas into your mouth George, please correct me, but I think that you, lubeltri, are speaking past him  and past the issue.
The Pope himself could sign that Balamand Agreement, and we are completely free to believe that he was completely wrong to do it. Certainly some Catholics like to practice Pope worship, but it isn't Catholic teaching and has never been so. Sure, it's easy to worship John Paul II, but how about Alexander VI?

Forgive me if I do not have much patience for infallibility cracks.
 

Theognosis

Sr. Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
248
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
minasoliman said:
The point being made is that the juridicial view is not neglected.  Many Orthodox consider the juridicial view heretical.  Even though he may have written more about ontology, he did not let alone the juridicial side of salvation.
People can redefine the "juridical view" all they want, but it is the juridical view of Anselm in particular that is heretical.  It leads to immaculate conception, infant damnation before baptism, etc.

I don't think these were misleading quotes.  If they were misleading, you would prove to us how these quotes are not juridicial.
It is misleading because it can be used to support Anselm's totally different interpretation of the crucifixion.

Even a small part on St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" writes about some sort of "debt:"
Again, that's the danger of presenting quotes.  St. Athanasius actually goes on to explain why it was necessary for Christ to die on the cross.  Nothing was said about satisfying God.  Nothing was said about divine justice.  Acording to St. Athanasius, "the supreme object of His {Lord Jesus'} coming was to bring about the resurrection of the body."

There are some further considerations which enable one to understand why the Lord's body had such an end. The supreme object of His coming was to bring about the resurrection of the body. This was to be the monument to His victory over death, the assurance to all that He had Himself conquered corruption and that their own bodies also would eventually be incorrupt; and it was in token of that and as a pledge of the future resurrection that He kept His body incorrupt. But there again, if His body had fallen sick and the Word had left it in that condition, how unfitting it would have been! Should He Who healed the bodies of others neglect to keep His own in health? How would His miracles of healing be believed, if this were so? Surely people would either laugh at Him as unable to dispel disease or else consider Him lacking in proper human feeling because He could do so, but did not. (23) Then, again, suppose without any illness He had just concealed His body somewhere, and then suddenly reappeared and said that He had risen from the dead. He would have been regarded merely as a teller of tales, and because there was no witness of His death, nobody would believe His resurrection. Death had to precede resurrection, for there could be no resurrection without it. A secret and unwitnessed death would have left the resurrection without any proof or evidence to support it. Again, why should He die a secret death, when He proclaimed the fact of His rising openly? Why should He drive out evil spirits and heal the man blind from birth and change water into wine, all publicly, in order to convince men that He was the Word, and not also declare publicly that incorruptibility of His mortal body, so that He might Himself be believed to be the Life?
...
For it was not the Word Himself Who needed an opening of the gates, He being Lord of all, nor was any of His works closed to their Maker. No, it was we who needed it, we whom He Himself upbore in His own body
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Dear Theognosis,

Can you explain what things in Anselm do you find heretical other than his exclusion of the Resurrection?  I've never got the feeling from looking at his writings that he excluded the Resurrection from salvation, although I do disagree with the concept of "infinite sin" and "robbing God's glory."  That's pretty much what I find disagreeable.  And also, can you show how this logically can lead to "immaculate conception, infant damnation before baptism, etc?"

And like EA said, we can't say that only the Resurrection was the sole cause of our salvation.  Yes, it is that great "monument" that shows proof He has defeated death, but not in exclusion to other things He did, like crucifixion.  And certainly because he talks little about the juridicial view doesn't mean he opposes it.

God bless.

Mina
 

Theognosis

Sr. Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
248
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
EkhristosAnesti said:
As for reducing the redemptive work of Christ exclusively to the judical aspect of the Crucifixion, that is surely not Orthodox. But the very point that many of us are making here is that to reduce the redemptive work of Christ exclusively to any model, be it therapeutic, or judical, is surely not Orthodox.

Would you agree with this? If so, then I think we can agree that despite our surface disagreement, we're essentially on the same page.
Yes, I think we're on the same page.

 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Theognosis said:
People can redefine the "juridical view" all they want, but it is the juridical view of Anselm in particular that is heretical.  It leads to immaculate conception, infant damnation before baptism, etc.
Okay, of all the strawmen, or red herrings, or just plain silly statements I've seen on this thread, this is by far the silliest!  Just how does Anselm's juridical view of atonement lead to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?  ???
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Regarding anti-Western Bias
I recognize that the RC church has introduced some teachings and practices that I, as an Orthodox Christian, must reject as heresies:
  • Universal papal sovereignty, with its eventual development into the dogma of papal infallibility
  • Unauthorized introduction of Filioque into the Nicene Creed

But I also recognize how nearsighted and wrong it is for me to reject many RC teachings as heretical merely because they're not Eastern.  The Orthodox Church remains the safeguard of true doctrine by the grace of the Holy Spirit, but, even though the Orthodox Church is predominantly Eastern in its theology due to its stronger geographical ties to Eastern culture, this does not mean the Orthodox Church can or even should be confined to her Eastern roots.  The Orthodox Church is the Church for all persons and can embrace and sanctify all cultures as valid means of communicating her Gospel of salvation in Christ Jesus.  Is this not part of what Christ meant when He told His disciples to "go and make disciples of all the nations"?
 

Theognosis

Sr. Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
248
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
PeterTheAleut said:
Okay, of all the strawmen, or red herrings, or just plain silly statements I've seen on this thread, this is by far the silliest!  Just how does Anselm's juridical view of atonement lead to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?  ???
Silliest?  Take it from Anselm.   ;)

CHAPTER SIXTEEN
How God assumed from the sinful mass a sinless
human nature. The salvation of Adam and of Eve.

B. Therefore, just as you have disclosed the rationale of the
points which have been stated above, so I ask you to disclose the
rationale of the points about which I am still going to ask. First
of all, how did God assume from the sinful mass--i.e., from the
human race, which was completely contaminated with sin--a sinless
human nature (as something unleavened from something leavened)?
For although the conception of this man was clean and was
free from the sin of carnal delight, nevertheless the virgin from
whom He was assumed was conceived in iniquities, and her mother
conceived her in sins; and this virgin was born with original sin,
since she sinned in Adam, in whom all have sinned.1

A. Now that it has been established that that man is God and
is the Reconciler of sinners, there is no doubt that He is completely
sinless. However, this sinlessness is not possible unless He
was assumed sinless from the sinful mass. But if we cannot comprehend
in what way the wisdom of God accomplished this sinless
assumption, we ought not to be astonished; rather, we ought
reverently to tolerate the fact that within the mystery of so deep
a matter there is something which we cannot know. Indeed, God
has restored human nature in a more miraculous manner than He
created it; for it is just as easy for Him to do the one as the other.
Now, it is not the case that before human nature existed it sinned
and, as a result, ought not to have been created.

...

Hence, we must not doubt that Adam and Eve shared in
that redemption, even though DivineAuthority does not openly state this.

A. Moreover, since God created them and immutably planned
to create from them all other men, whom He was going to take
into the Heavenly City, it also seems incredible that He would exclude
these two from His plan.

B. Indeed, we ought to believe that He created them especially
for the following purpose: viz., that they would be in the company
of those for whose sake they were created.

A. You are thinking correctly. Nevertheless, no soul was able to
enter the heavenly paradise before the death of Christ, just as I
stated above about the palace of the king.

B. We hold this belief.

A. But the virgin from whom that man (of whom we are speaking)
was taken belonged to the class of those who through Him
were cleansed from their sins before His birth; and He was taken
from her in her purity
.

B. What you say would please me greatly except for the fact
that, although He ought to have His purity from sin from Himself,
He would seem to have it from His mother and to be pure
through her rather than through Himself.


By the way, this was taken straight from Cur Deus Homo.
 

Theognosis

Sr. Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
248
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
minasoliman said:
Can you explain what things in Anselm do you find heretical other than his exclusion of the Resurrection? 
From the same source, said Anselm:

But if you will carefully consider human reconciliation, then
you will understand that the reconciliation of the Devil (about
which you asked) is impossible.


You can also check my previous post as to how Anselm's idea of the salvation of Adam and Eve differs from what we Orthodox are taught.


 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
wilderness
minasoliman said:
The point being made is that the juridicial view is not neglected.  Many Orthodox consider the juridicial view heretical.  Even though he may have written more about ontology, he did not let alone the juridicial side of salvation.

I don't think these were misleading quotes.  If they were misleading, you would prove to us how these quotes are not juridicial.

Even a small part on St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" writes about some sort of "debt:"

This also proves that an Eastern Father did not merely say that Christ died "with all," but on behalf of all.  To play that "Koine Greek" game simply puts St. Athanasius in the wrong.

God bless.

Mina
(20) We have dealt as far as circumstances and our own understanding permit with the reason for His bodily manifestation. We have seen that to change the corruptible to incorruption was proper to none other than the Savior Himself, Who in the beginning made all things out of nothing; that only the Image of the Father could re-create the likeness of the Image in men, that none save our Lord Jesus Christ could give to mortals immortality, and that only the Word Who orders all things and is alone the Father's true and sole-begotten Son could teach men about Him and abolish the worship of idols But beyond all this, there was a debt owing which must needs be paid; for, as I said before, all men were due to die. Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man's account with death and free him from the primal transgression. In the same act also He showed Himself mightier than death, displaying His own body incorruptible as the first-fruits of the resurrection.

I think St. Athanasius is being misrepresented by some here. The only debt that was paid was to that of death, so Christ could give to mortals, immortality. Primal transgression is the state that humanity fell into after the fall. We took on flesh. This is the consequences of original sin. To reverse this Christ was put to death as the only sinless one.
I really don't see any juridicial view in any of his writings unless there read out of context.
 

Aristibule

High Elder
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
Regarding anti-Western Bias
I recognize that the RC church has introduced some teachings and practices that I, as an Orthodox Christian, must reject as heresies: ...

But I also recognize how nearsighted and wrong it is for me to reject many RC teachings as heretical merely because they're not Eastern
Bingo!

ozgeorge:
I don't know how many times I have to say this. No one is arguing that the western Church was not Orthodox before the schism.
Which wasn't my point either - there are things correctly Orthodox, theology and praxis, which continued in the West until the present. The West is not monolithic, the West is not monolithic, the West is not monolithic. If it was, there woudn't have been all the Western converts. The argument many are making is that "West" is inherently corrupt. Its a convenient dualistic (and simplistic) demonisation, but it doesn't help the case when discussing with Westerners ... unless the goal is to keep them all away. The point is - much in the West *post-schism* is not heretical (either being unchanged from before, or while being new - not contrary to Orthodoxy.)

From the website of St. Paul Antiochian Western Rite Orthodox Church:
What they do is no business of ours. Again, I'm Russian Western Rite Orthodox - we've been around much longer. Our hosts are leavened bread, which can actually be of any form as long as they meet the canonical specifications. Most often they are small prosfora similar to the Russian (but not stacked).

Part of the issue here, I think, is trying to treat the writings of Church Fathers and others (like Anselm) as if they were all trying to write dogmatic assertions. Theolougmena, people. Many of our sainted Church Fathers wrote things that if held as dogma would qualify one as a heretic.

The issue with Anselm - the OP is an article attacking - who? Who is asserting that Anselm is the correct belief? More importantly, who would agree that the article accurately reflects Anselm's thought? Which is why we Orthodox have to do better than that. If we're going to argue apologetics, we have to argue with the theology and praxis people actually have - not against non-current historical positions, or against parodies of positions. And, as I've tried to make the point - arguing against 'West' isn't apologetics, it is race hatred.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Demetrios G. said:
(20) We have dealt as far as circumstances and our own understanding permit with the reason for His bodily manifestation. We have seen that to change the corruptible to incorruption was proper to none other than the Savior Himself, Who in the beginning made all things out of nothing; that only the Image of the Father could re-create the likeness of the Image in men, that none save our Lord Jesus Christ could give to mortals immortality, and that only the Word Who orders all things and is alone the Father's true and sole-begotten Son could teach men about Him and abolish the worship of idols But beyond all this, there was a debt owing which must needs be paid; for, as I said before, all men were due to die. Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man's account with death and free him from the primal transgression. In the same act also He showed Himself mightier than death, displaying His own body incorruptible as the first-fruits of the resurrection.

I think St. Athanasius is being misrepresented by some here. The only debt that was paid was to that of death, so Christ could give to mortals, immortality. Primal transgression is the state that humanity fell into after the fall. We took on flesh. This is the consequences of original sin. To reverse this Christ was put to death as the only sinless one.
I really don't see any juridicial view in any of his writings unless there read out of context.
Dear Demetrious,

The reason you are giving is an ontological reason.  It would make no sense if the "second reason" St. Athanasius talks about was the first reason you are giving.  That's like saying:

1.  The first reason was to end our corruptions and mortalities.
2.  The second reason was paying a debt to death, ending our corruptions and mortalities.

To me, that would misrepresent St. Athanasius as someone who just doesn't know how to give different reasons.

Dear Theognosis,

Can you explain that quote more?  I don't understand how that's heretical.

God bless.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Aristibule said:
The West is not monolithic, the West is not monolithic,.......... And, as I've tried to make the point - arguing against 'West' isn't apologetics, it is race hatred.
The west is not monolithic, yet anyone who argues against them is racist......
So basically, what you're saying is rather than rejecting bad theology, the "truth" is that I hate: Italians, Celts, Anglo-Saxons, the French Germans, Fins, the Dutch.... Or do you think the "West" is a race? But hang on, I must also hate Greeks, because I reject the theology of Barlaam the Calabrian...::)
Gimme a break!
 
Top