Author Topic: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...  (Read 148292 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Schultz

  • Christian. Guitarist. Scooterist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,675
  • Scion of the McKeesport Becks.
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #135 on: April 10, 2007, 02:41:07 PM »
I've read this thread with some amusement as it seems that the participants are now largely talking past one another.

This is what I see, with no names to protect the innocent.  This is, of course, an oversimplification, but it's what an outsider would see if he read this discussion.

Group One:  There is no writing from an Orthodox church father that supports any sort of Western notion of "atonement"

Group Two:  Yes there, here are examples.  And another thing, all this "East vs West" stuff is alot of bull.

Group One:  So, are you saying there is no East vs. West when it comes to theology?

Group Two:  No, I'm saying that one can find so-called "Western" theology in the writings of Eastern church fathers.  Here are some more examples.

Group One:  Well, all those writings don't equate everything that the church teaches.

Group Two:  Okay, but you still have to admit that if these ideas are present in the writings of Eastern fathers, then we can drop this East vs. West business.

Group One:  No, we can't.  You're not getting it.  Just because these things seem to show up (enter semantic discussion) in the writings of certain Fathers that doesn't mean that's what the church teaches.

Group Two:  But they're still present.  The Orthodox Church may downplay their importance and use other fathers writings to support that position, but they're still present.  Here are some examples from catechisms and the like.

Group One:  The Orthodox Church does not produce catechisms.  The Orthodox Church uses the liturgy to teach its faithful.

Group Two:  But catechisms do exist.

Group One:  But they're not official so they carry no weight.  There are NO liturgical writings to support an atonement theology.  It only comes up in Western theological and liturgical writings.

Group Two:  Well, some catechisms appear to be more official than others, like this one.  Since this church is in communion with the others, and supposedly believe the same things, they should hold true at least as an example of this atonement theology existing as a theologeouma (or however it is you spell it).  And we should still drop this silly East v. West thing.

Group One:  But I've never heard anything in the liturgy to support such a theory.  And I'm not anti-Western, I jsut don't like Western theology.

Group Two:  Okay, I believe that.  But the fact remains that this theory has been posited by Eastern fathers and therefore we should be honest and say that it does turn up in their writings, but the Church downplays these opinions in favor of others.

Group One:  But the Church doesn't say that.

And here we go again...

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #136 on: April 10, 2007, 02:50:09 PM »
Thanks for your opinion Shultz, but I don't share it.
but it's what an outsider would see if he read this discussion.
One should not presume to speak for an entire group of people. What exactly is "an outsider"? Someone who doesn't read all the discussion?
And as for "talking past each other", that's not been my experience at all.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline AMM

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,076
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #137 on: April 10, 2007, 03:06:34 PM »
Quote
So, is this what you wish to change in the Orthodox Church? That she should start including the view of Penal Satisfaction in her liturgical services?

Red herring.  Nowhere have I said anything even approaching that.  I actually in this thread don't believe I've advocated any sort of change whatsoever.  I certainly haven't used the word penal at all.

Quote
The daily dogmatic voice of the Orthodox Church is the daily cycle of her Liturgical Services

Two questions then:

So the dogmatic voice of the church is found in all the liturgical services used, in both Western and Eastern Rites, correct?

When the services/typikon of the church change, does the theology of the church change?

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #138 on: April 10, 2007, 03:22:17 PM »
So the dogmatic voice of the church is found in all the liturgical services used, in both Western and Eastern Rites, correct?
To answer honestly: I'm not sure.
Personally, I'm not entirely happy with the method with which the Western Rite was introduced. I really think it should have taken place on a Pan-Orthodox level rather than the local level.

When the services/typikon of the church change, does the theology of the church change?
No. The Services are changing all the time- just look at the current mess the Greek typicon for Orthros is in, and I've already mentioned the Moghila Absolution prayer, not to mention the fact that new services are constantly being written at the local level. But what I'm talking about is the Services, Hymns and Prayers which have stood the test of time and place. The Absolution Prayer of Arch. Peter Moghila has not stood the test of time and place, since it is not acceptable throughout the Church, and the same goes for the Greek revision of the the Typicon, since it is not acceptable throughout the Church. But there are dogmatic hymns etc, which the whole church accepts, and isn't this the acid test of St. Vincent of Lerins: universality, antiquity and consent?
« Last Edit: April 10, 2007, 03:24:28 PM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Tamara

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,208
  • +Pray for Orthodox Unity+
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #139 on: April 10, 2007, 03:27:04 PM »
One that I have quoted from in this thread is the Longer Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow that bears the following statement

"Examined and Approved by the Most Holy Governing Synod, and Published for the Use of Schools, and of all Orthodox Christians, by Order of His Imperial Majesty. (Moscow, at the Synodical Press, 1830.)"

http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm

While technically you may be correct that for instance this was not put out by the entire church, do you suppose the faith of the Romanian Church is different than what was approved of by the Holy Synod of the Russian Church?

The one thing that does approach a catechism covering all churches are the Acts and Decrees 1672 Synod of Jerusalem.  http://catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html  It was described IIRC by Metropolitan Kallistos in his book "The Orthodox Church" as the most important post schism Pan Orthodox synod.  It's acts and decrees very much resemble what a catechism is intended to do, although not in the simplified Q&A format of a true catechism.  The real point is it is an authoritative statement on the faith.

Similar then to the work that was the nexus of this thread, although it seems with contradictory propositions.

While I would never discount the importance of the liturgy as the living expression of the church, I don't think we would be so naive as to assume they are the only deposit of faith or our only tool for learning about it.  That is why catechisms and other materials have been and will be produced.

It's interesting, because when I read these words I detect a rather patronizing tone.  Oh well, such is the Internet.

I have indeed listened to and participated in the divine services, though I haven't limited myself to comprehending the faith based on them.  This is an interesting point, because I think some people do assume others such as their children will pick up the faith almost through osmosis, and take no active interest in looking at it more deeply.  That I believe is a mistake.

The fads I fear are the re-invention of Orthodoxy as the alternative to the western church, which much of what I'm reading is further evidence of.  Considering I don't think I've quoted a writing newer than the 19th century, I hope one thing it would appear I am not doing is following a fad.  It would seem to me critically examining the claims being made about what the Orthodox church has actually said in the past is counter to the current fads.

No patronizing tone intended...this is not the best form of communication. I do believe the faith can be transmitted to my children by osmosis. Holy Week for us was one service following another. The boys served as altar boys in almost every service we attended. Questions do arise when we are at home because of what they have seen, heard or done during the various services. We discuss these questions and I answer them to the best of my ability or if I don't know the answer I ask our priest. They do attend Sunday School but I think it is more critical that they attend the services even if they still do not comprehend everything. Over time, the words of the prayers and hymns will become ingrained in their hearts.


Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,786
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #140 on: April 10, 2007, 03:31:38 PM »
Red herring.  Nowhere have I said anything even approaching that.  I actually in this thread don't believe I've advocated any sort of change whatsoever.  I certainly haven't used the word penal at all.


When you stated that you didn't understand the eastern theory's regarding the western atonement. You should have stopped there and tried to understand it. There not strawmen as others try and point out. Look into them before criticizing. If the reason for this debate is lack of knowledge regarding the eastern view. Than I suggest you look into it further before continuing.

Offline AMM

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,076
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #141 on: April 10, 2007, 04:06:57 PM »
To answer honestly: I'm not sure.
Personally, I'm not entirely happy with the method with which the Western Rite was introduced. I really think it should have taken place on a Pan-Orthodox level rather than the local level.

It has been blessed though for use by our bishops, so it would seem to me it would be hard to discount its validity; and therefore one could not discount its authority to represent Orthodox doctrine if one believes that the liturgy contains the substance of the faith.  Therefore, I can't see how one could say the "Eastern" or the "Western" view of the Atonement is either right or wrong.  Both are represented in the liturgies we use.

Quote
No. The Services are changing all the time- just look at the current mess the Greek typicon for Orthros is in, and I've already mentioned the Moghila Absolution prayer, not to mention the fact that new services are constantly being written at the local level. But what I'm talking about is the Services, Hymns and Prayers which have stood the test of time and place. The Absolution Prayer of Arch. Peter Moghila has not stood the test of time and place, since it is not acceptable throughout the Church, and the same goes for the Greek revision of the the Typicon, since it is not acceptable throughout the Church. But there are dogmatic hymns etc, which the whole church accepts, and isn't this the acid test of St. Vincent of Lerins: universality, antiquity and consent?

Here I think again is simply another issue with falling back and saying the services are the source of authoritative teaching.  Many hymns are quite ancient, but the oldest (Phos Hilarion I believe) is probably from the second century.  Pretty much everything else was added over time, especially the hymnology which grew in length and complexity.  It seems to me there must be a deposit of faith that preceded and therefore necessarily underlies its expression in the liturgy.  So the question becomes what is it, and where can we point to?  If not the church fathers, or the catechisms, or the councils or synods, then what?  The Catholics have the Magisterium and the Protestants the Bible.  What is our source of authoritative teaching?

I think the other danger in saying the essential substance of the faith is bound up in the liturgy is all too readily apparent in the split within the Russian church over the Nikonian reforms.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2007, 04:07:51 PM by welkodox »

Online Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,105
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #142 on: April 10, 2007, 04:13:38 PM »
George

Basically what I meant was, when people ignore the schisms in the early Church, while pointing out divisions among other groups, they are biased in that they ignore the fact that their own church has had break off groups. To hear some Catholic and Orthodox apologists speak (and I heard it a lot in chat rooms), you'd think that--with an exception or two like that whole Photius thing--everyone was together as one happy family until circa 1054. And then everyone was generally fine (as two seperate bodies) until the early 16th century. Why not just be honest, and admit that there were probably major divisions in every century, some of which ended in reconciliation, and some of which are still dividing Christianity today? The bias is in seeing history as people would like it to be, rather than for what it was. I certainly don't claim to be free from bias, I'm just saying.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2007, 04:14:22 PM by Asteriktos »

Offline Aristibule

  • Masspreost
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR - WRITE
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #143 on: April 10, 2007, 04:55:39 PM »
Ozgeorge:
Quote
Whether you like it or not, East and West are in Schism- and not just any schism, but one which has come to be called "The Great Schism".... But the reality is (much as you seem to wish to deny it) is that the Church is no longer One in East and West.

The Great Schism is correctly used in reference to events that happened in Europe surrounding the period of the Avignon Papacy. The use for the schism between Constantinople in Rome is secondary (noting, it wasn't a schism with the Orthodox til later - much later. Antioch did not until much later, Alexandria not until the sack of Constantinople. As for 'the West' - the West is One in the Church, and has been for quite awhile. Us Western Orthodox are in the Church again, like it or not. The problem is not that some are pretending no differences between Rome and Orthodoxy, but in that some are smearing all Westerners with Rome's errors, as well as the fallacy that the schism was over issues that did not develop until much later. Again - the Roman schism was really only two matters: papal jurisdiction and the filioque.

Demetrios G.
Quote
Nobody is bashing the west. I have just displayed some differences between there theology's. Your taking it to personal. You stated that Anselm isn't the west. But yet your sticking to your guns that it can be Incorporated into the eastern church.

I should take it personal - you just again accused me and mine of something we don't hold to; and that is bearing false witness. We are Westerners, we do not hold to Anselm's views and *never have*. I never stated anything about 'incorporating' Anselm's views into the 'eastern church'. I did note, however, that ideas such as 'ransom', 'atonement' are present in Orthodoxy from the beginning - in the Scriptures, Liturgies, and Church Fathers. Again - the West does not, and never had a single theology (in illustration, read this FAQ by a non-Thomistic Traditional Catholic : http://www.cheetah.net/~ccoulomb/ultra-realism.html .) What I, and others, are objecting to is not correcting Anselm's errors (and he had them), but in the constant attributing of his errors and guilt to 'the West' or 'converts'. Noting, us Westerners wouldn't be converts if we didn't think Anselm was in error. Anselm is not the West, nor does he represent the West or Western theology.

welkodox/ozgeorge:
Quote
Quote
So the dogmatic voice of the church is found in all the liturgical services used, in both Western and Eastern Rites, correct?
To answer honestly: I'm not sure.
Personally, I'm not entirely happy with the method with which the Western Rite was introduced. I really think it should have taken place on a Pan-Orthodox level rather than the local level.

Our theology says yes. The method that Western rite was introduced by *was* Pan-Orthodox - not only in its Apostolic origins (which it has), but also later. Even Constantinople approved it in 1881 (all other Patriarchates have as well.) The rite hasn't been 'reintroduced into' the Church, but parts of the West brought back into union. Besides, the use of the Western liturgical tradition overlaps - it has continuity in the Orthodox Church (thanks especially to the Russian Old Believers.) There also seems to be an implied charge here (false) that Western liturgy is somehow 'Anselmian' or 'Thomistic' (It isn't. We've got our texts from before the schism through to today, older in fact than the oldest 'Byzantine' texts. With some of our rights, we know that no more than 6 words had changed in the whole rite since the time before the Schism. As for the Byzantine rite - it was entirely introduced on the local level, rather than the Pan-Orthodox level. Never in history was it done the same way, and was locally foisted on the Antiochians by Balsamon (Met. Phillip understands this.) At least some of us were taught in catechism that the Orthodox Church *is* local, as St. Ignatius taught. The whole church exists in the laity and clergy gathered around their bishop. So, the local church is where things should occur. "Pan-Orthodox" was first tried about 1050 - by Rome, see what happened there? ;)
"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #144 on: April 10, 2007, 08:20:33 PM »
It has been blessed though for use by our bishops,
But which of the many heresies which have shaken the Orthodox Church over her history has not originally been blessed by Bishops? And liturgically, the Nikonian reforms in Russia changed the liturgy of an entire local Church in order to bring it more into conformity with the rest of the Church.

Here I think again is simply another issue with falling back and saying the services are the source of authoritative teaching.  Many hymns are quite ancient, but the oldest (Phos Hilarion I believe) is probably from the second century.  Pretty much everything else was added over time, especially the hymnology which grew in length and complexity.  It seems to me there must be a deposit of faith that preceded and therefore necessarily underlies its expression in the liturgy.  So the question becomes what is it, and where can we point to?  If not the church fathers, or the catechisms, or the councils or synods, then what?  The Catholics have the Magisterium and the Protestants the Bible.  What is our source of authoritative teaching?
And if we look at the earliest "deposit of faith" you mention- (i.e., the Bible) then what is the "deposit of faith" from whence it came?...and we can continue towards what appears to be reductio ad absurdum, but the fact of the matter is that the only way the Church can know the truth about  anything metaphysical is because God has revealed it. So either the Church Universal is being guided by the Holy Spirit, or she is not; either the Living Tradition of the Church Universal is the Apostolic Tradition, or it is not.

I think the other danger in saying the essential substance of the faith is bound up in the liturgy is all too readily apparent in the split within the Russian church over the Nikonian reforms.
And again, this is why we need to stop simply looking locally, and start thinking globally, and apply St. Vincent of Lerins' "acid test": universality, antiquity, and consent.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2007, 08:26:13 PM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Aristibule

  • Masspreost
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR - WRITE
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #145 on: April 10, 2007, 08:46:17 PM »
If you apply universality, you aren't going to get Byzantine rite - which is why St. Vincent's statement refers to dogma, not to liturgy. (St. Vincent of Lerins, of course, being a Westerner.)
"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #146 on: April 10, 2007, 08:56:14 PM »
If you apply universality, you aren't going to get Byzantine rite
That depends where you think the Church was after the great Schism. And "Byzantine Rite" is not the only rite in the Church apart from "Western Rite".

which is why St. Vincent's statement refers to dogma, not to liturgy.
And if you follow the train of thought, the point is that Liturgy refers to dogma.

(St. Vincent of Lerins, of course, being a Westerner.)
And the point being? Perhaps you missed this post:
Please feel free to accuse me of something openly rather than make "general" comments.
Now let me say something openly to you:
Whether you like it or not, East and West are in Schism- and not just any schism, but one which has come to be called "The Great Schism". Nowhere have I suggested that the Church prior to the Great Schism was not one. Nowhere have I suggested that when the Church was one that Orthodoxy was not maintained in the West. But the reality is (much as you seem to wish to deny it) is that the Church is no longer One in East and West.
So despite your snide comments, and despite your's and aristibule's attempts to rest your arguments on the fact that the Western part of the Church was once Orthodox (which no one is arguing, so I fail to see your point in setting up a straw man about it- unless of course, you don't have a better point, which I suspect may be the case), and despite the futile attempts to suggest that the East did not maintain Orthodoxy as "evidenced" by the Nestorians and other heresies which were anathemised and have schismed from the Orthodox Church (which if you think about it about it, makes about as much sense as stating that the existence of Lutheranism "proves" the unorthodoxy of the Roman Catholic Church).......Despite all this, and despite the attempts to suggest that my belief that the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is phyletism simply because, post schism, this Church existed only in the "East" (which includes more countries than any of us will probably ever visit in our lifetime, so to suggest that it is "phyletism" which literally means "tribalism" is laughable)....despite all this rudeness, false accusation, misrepresentation, these moot points...not once have I ever said anything "anti-convert" or even "anti-west", I simply pointed out the differences, and stated my belief that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church- and I've said before, that if you disagree with me, that's fine, I respect that. But don't you ever dare to suggest that my belief is based solely on a form of "phyletism".
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Tamara

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,208
  • +Pray for Orthodox Unity+
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #147 on: April 10, 2007, 09:15:27 PM »

The one thing that does approach a catechism covering all churches are the Acts and Decrees 1672 Synod of Jerusalem.  http://catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html  It was described IIRC by Metropolitan Kallistos in his book "The Orthodox Church" as the most important post schism Pan Orthodox synod.  It's acts and decrees very much resemble what a catechism is intended to do, although not in the simplified Q&A format of a true catechism.  The real point is it is an authoritative statement on the faith.


Bishop Kallistos Ware
Orthodox Church

"The doctrinal decisions of an Ecumenical Council cannot be revised or corrected, but must be accepted in toto; but the Church has often been selective in its treatment of the acts of Local Councils: in the case of the seventeenth century Councils, for example, their statements of faith have in part been received by the whole Orthodox Church, but in part set aside or corrected."[the Confession of Dositheus was one of these]



"In the seventeenth century a number of Orthodox writers

Offline Aristibule

  • Masspreost
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR - WRITE
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #148 on: April 10, 2007, 09:37:18 PM »
That depends where you think the Church was after the great Schism. And "Byzantine Rite" is not the only rite in the Church apart from "Western Rite".

Quite. The East Syrian rite is and has been in use again in the Eastern Orthodox Church for nearly 120 years. After the Roman schism, West Syrian rite continued as well as the majority rite of the Antiochian church (and existed as well after Balsamon tried to stamp it out, up until possibly as late as the 17th c.) There are enough differences as well between the modern Greek rite, modern Slavic rite, and the Old Rite of the Russians. It is sectarian to single one out as normative and the others as deficient.

Quote
And if you follow the train of thought, the point is that Liturgy refers to dogma.

But still, St. Vincent was not referring to liturgy - it isn't in his 'train of thought', though it might be in the minds of some here. I don't follow that train of thought either, but I do follow St. Vincent's.

Quote
And the point being? Perhaps you missed this post:

The point being in my reply to that post, so - not missed, but replied to.
"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #149 on: April 10, 2007, 09:45:54 PM »
it isn't in his 'train of thought',

"All of our liturgical hymns are instructive, profound and sublime. They contain the whole of our theology and moral teaching, give us Christian consolation and instill in us a fear of the Judgment. He who listens to them attentively has no need of other books on the Faith."
St Theophan the Recluse

"In my view, liturgical texts are for Orthodox Christians an incontestable doctrinal authority, whose theological irreproachability is second only to Scripture. Liturgical texts are not simply the works of outstanding theologians and poets, but also the fruits of the prayerful experience of those who have attained sanctity and theosis. The theological authority of liturgical texts is, in my opinion, even higher than that of the works of the Fathers of the Church, for not everything in the works of the latter is of equal theological value and not everything has been accepted by the fullness of the Church. Liturgical texts, on the other hand, have been accepted by the whole Church as a 'rule of faith' (kanon pisteos), for they have been read and sung everywhere in Orthodox churches over many centuries. Throughout this time, any erroneous ideas foreign to Orthodoxy that might have crept in either through misunderstanding or oversight were eliminated by Church Tradition itself, leaving only pure and authoritative doctrine clothed by the poetic forms of the Church’s hymns.'
Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev

Source: http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/12/1.aspx
« Last Edit: April 10, 2007, 09:48:37 PM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #150 on: April 10, 2007, 09:48:29 PM »
Well, I put a query to the experts on the EWTN Q&A website about "infinite sin."

I've seen people write on the Internet "Orthodoxy hasn't changed".  Yet we have changed, and are changing.  It's happening before our eyes.

From the aforementioned brochure:

Orthodoxy is undivided and unchanged. If one could "drop" into an Orthodox worship service in any century or culture, they would be able to recognize and enter into the worship. If one asked an doctrinal question, they would have exactly the same answer in any century, any place. Truth does not change."

(on the timeline) "Today: Orthodox Church unchanged"

"The structure, teachings and worship of the New Testament Church remains unchanged in the Orthodox Church."

"Worldwide Orthodoxy is divided only adminstratively by region and culture. Doctrinally and in practice each church is identical and in full communion with each other."

« Last Edit: April 10, 2007, 09:49:12 PM by lubeltri »

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #151 on: April 10, 2007, 09:59:52 PM »
Therefore, I can't see how one could say the "Eastern" or the "Western" view of the Atonement is either right or wrong.  Both are represented in the liturgies we use.

As they are in the Catholic liturgy and theology too. Neither is right or wrong (though dividing them into two neat halves is! I still have yet to see someone address the wide diversity of atonement views in the "West").

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #152 on: April 10, 2007, 10:03:03 PM »
I still have yet to see someone address the wide diversity of atonement views in the "West".
And I still have to see a better argument from you against the Orthodox Church other than a pamphlet produced by some group I've never come across and probably aren't in Communion with, but hey......who's counting? ;)
« Last Edit: April 10, 2007, 10:07:37 PM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline AMM

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,076
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #153 on: April 10, 2007, 10:06:28 PM »
Bishop Kallistos Ware
Orthodox Church

"The doctrinal decisions of an Ecumenical Council cannot be revised or corrected, but must be accepted in toto; but the Church has often been selective in its treatment of the acts of Local Councils: in the case of the seventeenth century Councils, for example, their statements of faith have in part been received by the whole Orthodox Church, but in part set aside or corrected."[the Confession of Dositheus was one of these]



"In the seventeenth century a number of Orthodox writers

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

Quote
On the whole, however, the Confession of Dositheus is less Latin than that of Moghila, and must certainly be regarded as a document of primary importance in the history of modern Orthodox theology.

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.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2007, 10:09:12 PM by welkodox »

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,786
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #154 on: April 10, 2007, 10:09:14 PM »


Demetrios G.
I should take it personal - you just again accused me and mine of something we don't hold to; and that is bearing false witness. We are Westerners, we do not hold to Anselm's views and *never have*. I never stated anything about 'incorporating' Anselm's views into the 'eastern church'. I did note, however, that ideas such as 'ransom', 'atonement' are present in Orthodoxy from the beginning - in the Scriptures, Liturgies, and Church Fathers. Again - the West does not, and never had a single theology (in illustration, read this FAQ by a non-Thomistic Traditional Catholic : http://www.cheetah.net/~ccoulomb/ultra-realism.html .) What I, and others, are objecting to is not correcting Anselm's errors (and he had them), but in the constant attributing of his errors and guilt to 'the West' or 'converts'. Noting, us Westerners wouldn't be converts if we didn't think Anselm was in error. Anselm is not the West, nor does he represent the West or Western theology.


Quote
The penal satisfaction theory isn't 'Western', though it is an error of focus and emphasis based upon language and understandings that *do* exist in the Orthodox Tradition (Scriptures and Patristics.) I'd like to be able to stop repeating it - but the West *never* has been entirely Thomistic, nor entirely Anselmian.

You can call me a sinner. Don't worry I have thick skin. Just don't call me a heretic. Well here is your post. Your post clearly states that it exists in the orthodox tradition. May I ask you where?

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #155 on: April 10, 2007, 10:17:11 PM »
And I still have to see a better argument from you against the Orthodox Church other than a pamphlet produced by some group I've never come across and probably aren't in Communion with, but hey......who's counting? ;)

The brochure was only providing an example of common Anti-dox thinking. It was not directly related to the subject of this thread. (It's from an OCA church---the EP is not in Communion with the OCA?)

And my debate here is not about what represents "true" Orthodoxy (I'll leave that to you and Welkodox; for me, it is already represented by the Catholic Church, where no Atonement theory is dogmatized unlike in Orthodoxy---or, as Welkodox would insist, in your characterization of it), but only about correcting the common and plainly silly stereotypes so many Orthodox construct of "Western" Atonement theology. I think I have already done that.

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
« Last Edit: April 11, 2007, 12:32:26 PM by cleveland »

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,786
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #156 on: April 10, 2007, 10:30:34 PM »
The brochure was only providing an example of common Anti-dox thinking. It was not directly related to the subject of this thread. (It's from an OCA church---the EP is not in Communion with the OCA?)

And my debate here is not about what represents "true" Orthodoxy (I'll leave that to you and Welkodox; for me, it is already represented by the Catholic Church, where no Atonement theory is dogmatized unlike in Orthodoxy---or, as Welkodox would insist, in your characterization of it), but only about correcting the common and plainly silly stereotypes so many Orthodox construct of "Western" Atonement theology. I think I have already done that.

Ya, I think my 5 year old daughter can come up with a better drawing of a straw man!
« Last Edit: April 10, 2007, 10:31:07 PM by Demetrios G. »

Offline Aristibule

  • Masspreost
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR - WRITE
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #157 on: April 10, 2007, 10:32:18 PM »
St Theophan the Recluse

Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev

Lets see - St. Vincent is 5th c. France, St. Theophan in 19th c. Russia. Bp. Hilarion (Alfeyev) 21st. c. Russian. You gotta take a huge leap across time and space to see a "train of thought" there. Again, St. Vincent's universality isn't speaking of liturgics (he sure isn't speaking of Byzantine rite, something St. Vincent never would have seen or even been aware of, especially not what we know of as Byzantine rite. IIRC, our oldest Byzantine liturgical texts are 10th c.) What St. Theophan says is true, of course - its just the 'Vincentian Canon' isn't referring to the same thing.

Also, as Lubeltri said - " I still have yet to see someone address the wide diversity of atonement views in the "West")." Except I'm asking it as a faithful and catechized Orthodox Christian. (Or for that matter, what is dogma in Orthodoxy - and what else is allowed as theological opinion, eh?)

Demetrios G:
Quote
Your post clearly states that it exists in the orthodox tradition. May I ask you where?

The Gospel according to St. Matthew (20:28), The Gospel according to St. Mark (10:45), the Apocalypse of St. John (5:9), The First Epistle to St. Timothy (2:6) - ie "ransom", there is one example of the language existing in Orthodoxy. You can find a full discussion of some of these same topics in "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" by Fr. Michael Pomazansky (he describes the real fault with the 'Anselmian theory' as the "The figurative expressions of the Apostles were accepted ... in their literal and overly narrow sense, and ... interpreted as a "satisfaction". This one-sided interpretation of Redemption became the reigning one in Latin theology.... The term "satisfaction" has been used in Russian Orthodox theology, but in a changed form: "the satisfaction of God's righteousness." That is true for most other terms and ideas comprising that particular view in Roman Catholic theology. That is the balance in our Orthodox theology - no reason to deny the language, or that we use the language in our theology: we do. However, it isn't the same as the viewpoint expressed by the Anselmian school. Fr. Michael also notes (correctly) that many Protestants believe quite differently (even to the point of error) against the same theory being criticized in the OP.

What I don't know, and would like to know - where did this movement start that attempts to purge Orthodoxy of any sense of 'blood', 'ransom', 'atonement', 'sacrifice', 'substitution'?
"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,786
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #158 on: April 10, 2007, 10:56:12 PM »
Lets see - St. Vincent is 5th c. France, St. Theophan in 19th c. Russia. Bp. Hilarion (Alfeyev) 21st. c. Russian. You gotta take a huge leap across time and space to see a "train of thought" there. Again, St. Vincent's universality isn't speaking of liturgics (he sure isn't speaking of Byzantine rite, something St. Vincent never would have seen or even been aware of, especially not what we know of as Byzantine rite. IIRC, our oldest Byzantine liturgical texts are 10th c.) What St. Theophan says is true, of course - its just the 'Vincentian Canon' isn't referring to the same thing.

Also, as Lubeltri said - " I still have yet to see someone address the wide diversity of atonement views in the "West")." Except I'm asking it as a faithful and catechized Orthodox Christian. (Or for that matter, what is dogma in Orthodoxy - and what else is allowed as theological opinion, eh?)

Demetrios G:
The Gospel according to St. Matthew (20:28), The Gospel according to St. Mark (10:45), the Apocalypse of St. John (5:9), The First Epistle to St. Timothy (2:6) - ie "ransom", there is one example of the language existing in Orthodoxy. You can find a full discussion of some of these same topics in "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" by Fr. Michael Pomazansky (he describes the real fault with the 'Anselmian theory' as the "The figurative expressions of the Apostles were accepted ... in their literal and overly narrow sense, and ... interpreted as a "satisfaction". This one-sided interpretation of Redemption became the reigning one in Latin theology.... The term "satisfaction" has been used in Russian Orthodox theology, but in a changed form: "the satisfaction of God's righteousness." That is true for most other terms and ideas comprising that particular view in Roman Catholic theology. That is the balance in our Orthodox theology - no reason to deny the language, or that we use the language in our theology: we do. However, it isn't the same as the viewpoint expressed by the Anselmian school. Fr. Michael also notes (correctly) that many Protestants believe quite differently (even to the point of error) against the same theory being criticized in the OP.

What I don't know, and would like to know - where did this movement start that attempts to purge Orthodoxy of any sense of 'blood', 'ransom', 'atonement', 'sacrifice', 'substitution'?


I have tried to explain it earlier in the thread. Go back and reread my posts. It's an ontological issue. We have dogma regarding our creation. I don't believe it's up to me to do your homework for you. Those terms you posted have to be put into context.

Offline Aristibule

  • Masspreost
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR - WRITE
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #159 on: April 10, 2007, 11:29:30 PM »
Yes, I read what you posted - but still the fact remains that those terms exist to be placed in context. They do exist, and are part of Orthodox theology (especially Russian Orthodox theology.) I don't believe its up to me to do your homework either - and it is a bit tiring to have to explain my position repeatedly while you accuse us of holding to the Anselmian view.
"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

Offline Tamara

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,208
  • +Pray for Orthodox Unity+
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #160 on: April 11, 2007, 12:40:46 AM »
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. 

Offline Theognosis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 248
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #161 on: April 11, 2007, 01:30:23 AM »
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.

« Last Edit: April 11, 2007, 01:43:38 AM by Theognosis »

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #162 on: April 11, 2007, 07:40:43 AM »
(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

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?
« Last Edit: April 11, 2007, 12:32:56 PM by cleveland »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Aristibule

  • Masspreost
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR - WRITE
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #163 on: April 11, 2007, 10:35:39 AM »
Tamara:
Quote
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:
Quote
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.)
"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

Offline EkhristosAnesti

  • 'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,743
  • Pope St Kyrillos VI
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #164 on: April 11, 2007, 10:40:22 AM »
Theognosis,

Quote
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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,

Quote
I've always found Romanides to be a good read.


Your Bishop thinks otherwise.  ;)
No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

Offline Aristibule

  • Masspreost
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR - WRITE
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #165 on: April 11, 2007, 10:52:24 AM »
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.)
"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #166 on: April 11, 2007, 11:44:57 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2007, 11:49:22 AM by lubeltri »

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,786
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #167 on: April 11, 2007, 11:45:05 AM »
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

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,198
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #168 on: April 11, 2007, 12:16:23 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2007, 02:07:02 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #169 on: April 11, 2007, 12:18:21 PM »
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.

Offline Aristibule

  • Masspreost
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR - WRITE
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #170 on: April 11, 2007, 12:20:36 PM »
For that matter, ROCOR is also considered under Moscow (nothing new next month, just restoration of our hierarchs concelebrating.)

Lubeltri:
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2007, 12:33:47 PM by cleveland »
"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #171 on: April 11, 2007, 12:40:33 PM »
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).
« Last Edit: April 11, 2007, 12:41:54 PM by lubeltri »

Offline Aristibule

  • Masspreost
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR - WRITE
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #172 on: April 11, 2007, 01:05:58 PM »
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.)
"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

Offline BrotherAidan

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,568
  • OC.net
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #173 on: April 11, 2007, 01:08:12 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2007, 01:19:13 PM by BrotherAidan »

Offline BrotherAidan

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,568
  • OC.net
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #174 on: April 11, 2007, 01:10:40 PM »
sorry  for actually triple posting
« Last Edit: April 11, 2007, 01:24:28 PM by BrotherAidan »

Offline aserb

  • asinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,188
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #175 on: April 11, 2007, 01:49:30 PM »
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
Save us o' Son of God, who art risen from the dead, as we sing to thee Alleluia!

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #176 on: April 11, 2007, 02:54:02 PM »
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.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,198
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #177 on: April 11, 2007, 03:29:52 PM »
On the "constrainment" of God, St. Athanasius speaks (On the Incarnation):

Quote
(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.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2007, 06:04:22 PM by cleveland »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,198
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #178 on: April 11, 2007, 03:31:55 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2007, 06:05:06 PM by cleveland »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,786
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #179 on: April 11, 2007, 04:54:23 PM »


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;