Author Topic: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...  (Read 155286 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AMM

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,076
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #90 on: April 09, 2007, 12:56:36 PM »
I'm not sure we have any choice but to view the word "ransom" as a metaphor. If we don't view it as a metaphor- then the ransom must be paid to the one who holds in bondage, i.e., the one who holds to ransom, or the one who has enslaved.

I don't see it either way, A. simply as a metaphor or B. as payment to someone holding us captive.  I see the ransom as an offering, or propitiation, made on our behalf to God the Father by Christ the Son as a voluntary act to release us from the power of death.  I don't believe it was a ransom paid to the devil or bait put forth to ensnare him.

Quote
Why can't you just accept this instead of making some song and dance about how it is "not a metaphor"? Why is it so important to you that it is not a metaphor?

What's important to understand to me is why it appears that much of what is being purported as the "Orthodox view" seems radically inconsistent with what the church has taught in the past.  It's also important to me to understand why there is a continual need felt by many Orthodox people to continually construct caricatures of the "western view" or to define what they believe in terms of what they oppose in western theology.  All of the above being interrelated I'm sure.

I also was not aware that I am putting forth a "song and dance" here, so much as actually posting writings that are directly related to the topic at hand.

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,497
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #91 on: April 09, 2007, 03:21:20 PM »
Quote
What's important to understand to me is why it appears that much of what is being purported as the "Orthodox view" seems radically inconsistent with what the church has taught in the past.


Your right. The church of the past has always taught us that life eternal is based on communion with Christ. But the Church according to OC net. is teaching us that eternal life belongs to all. ???
The problem is they can't seem to back it up.

Offline FrChris

  • The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
  • Site Supporter
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,253
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #92 on: April 09, 2007, 03:40:36 PM »
But the Church according to OC net. is teaching us that eternal life belongs to all. ???


Are you going on again regarding the Church teaching that:

1. All will be resurrected; but
2. Some to eternal life, and some to eternal death?

John 5:28-29 (an extract from the Funeral Gospel):
Quote
Do not be surprised at this, for the hour is coming when the dead will leave their graves at the sound of his voice: those who did good will come forth to life; and those who did evil will come forth to judgement.

If you're still misunderstanding the Church's teaching, please resurrect the threads dealing with this topic.

Otherwise, please explain clearly what you meant by your last post---I am uncertain of your intent and/or meaning.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2007, 03:46:06 PM by FrChris »
"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

Offline AMM

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,076
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #93 on: April 09, 2007, 03:55:15 PM »
I'm going to make what I hope are my last contributions to this thread.  It seems to me that:

The priest who was quoted as saying in effect "there is no dogma" surrounding the Atonement was correct.  There seem to be various theories that may or may not be in harmony with each other, and that may or may not have some possibly contradictory themes or propositions.  One quote may seem to openly discount the Atonement as ransom to the Devil, yet others in fact seem to support that it was a ransom to the Devil.  I believe when C.S. Lewis said "Christ's death redeemed man from sin, but I can make nothing of the theories as to how!" regarding the Atonement he made a statement I very much agree with (along with my appreciation and agreement with many things he said).

This seeming lack of dogma does not seem to stop Orthodox apologists from attacking western theology and creating caricatures of what western theology says about the Atonement (even when you can rather easily show them the things they accuse the west of can readily be found in the words of the church fathers or Orthodox catechisms).  In fact many people it seems cannot help themselves in this regard, and I am coming more and more to realize this myopic view may in fact actually represent something that is alive and well in mainstream Orthodoxy.  In other words this base anti-westernism and narrow view of the faith may not be something limited to the margins of the church.  I must admit this realization is rather unsettling.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2007, 03:56:19 PM by welkodox »

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,497
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #94 on: April 09, 2007, 04:06:50 PM »
Are you going on again regarding the Church teaching that:

1. All will be resurrected; but
2. Some to eternal life, and some to eternal death?

John 5:28-29 (an extract from the Funeral Gospel):
If you're still misunderstanding the Church's teaching, please resurrect the threads dealing with this topic.

Otherwise, please explain clearly what you meant by your last post---I am uncertain of your intent and/or meaning.

I would like to repeat the thoughts of Metropolitan John Zizioulas again concerning this matter.


The only one that is uncreated and has no beginning is God, The Holy Trinity. Everything else that has its beginning in time is created. Uncreated has it's ontological foundation in being, meaning He is Life, and the only Giver of Life. Everything else that is created has no ontological foundation in itself. But because everything was created out of unbeing (ex nihilo). Unbeing is always present in created as a threat. So everything that has its beginning might have an end, meaning it is finite (limited). Because all that is created, has no ontological foundation in being it must be in communion with someone who has/is, that is only God. With free will we can decide to be or not to be in communion with the uncreated. But death, or end, is something that goes together with creation ex nihilo.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #95 on: April 09, 2007, 04:23:19 PM »
A lot of people are making good points here.  Allow me my own personal views.

The definition of Original Sin to me is a curse, a curse caused by Adam's sin falling on all of us, his descendants to have a nature inclined to sin.  When others describe "Original guilt," I've seen the word "guilt" is not taken literally as a result of sin, but as a condition of man's "separateness" from God, a result of the curse, and if that is how it is defined, I see nothing wrong with that.

Well, Christ did get rid of the curse.  I do indeed see Him as a ransom.  But to who or what?

Satan?

To pay something to Satan sounds horrible, but perhaps payment made to Satan can be indeed a "mousetrap," and it's something that I don't object to.  To pay something to Satan is one thing (what St. Gregory objected to), but to pay him while fooling him to his own demise is another.

God?

God is not in need of anything in this at all.  If there's anything God desires, it is something He desires for our own good, not for His.  The language in the OT however makes it interesting.  Incense burning as a sweet-smelling sacrifice to God, sacrifices of animals to God, etc.  It is almost as if God is in need of them.  But this should not, nor should it ever be the case.  That is why I reject any language that has anything to do with "robbing His honor and glory," "necessary" salvation for God, or "Infinite Sin."  If sin was so evil to God, man would have become easily vanished to non-existence, and we would have Sin being an equal and second God, a gnostic dualism.  At the same time, the "wrath of God" should not be taken literally either, as if God is swayed in anthropological emotions.  In fact, I pretty much hold to the idea that "love" and "wrath" are pretty much the same thing in God, in terms of how we react.  I like the analogy of the hell/heaven distinction that some fathers give, that both are filled with Divine Fire, where the saints in heaven are like metal, glowing and reflecting the Divine Light and Heat, whereas the condemned in Hell are like wood and impurities, burning and being destroyed to ashes when exposed to the same Divine Power.

This is not to say God is impersonal, but that His tripersonal nature, along with the incarnation of the Second Person, makes God more than just a "force," but Personal in the truest sense, with a person being sacrificial in the greatest manner.  Christ portrays the Father's wrath is much imagery, you can't help but allow the continuation of describing God in anthropological terms.  And at the same time, He portrays the Trinity's sacrificial nature.  The Father loving the world sacrificing His Only Son, the Son sacrificing Himself for us and in obedience to the Father, and the Holy Spirit, sacrificially allowing Himself to be least mentioned and even prayed to, and in unity with us, prays with us, even though we should pray to Him, in order for us to be in communion with the Trinity.

Therefore, one cannot help but notice that Christ indeed paid something to God, to His obedience, to lift His wrath and magnify His mercy towards us, understood in a manner not like man, but a manner in which the curse is lifted, and in the sacrificial Love Christ has to the Father, as the Father has to God.  He truly paid the price of God's wrath, by destroying sin, so that we don't have to feel that "Loving Wrath."  Christ paid God's Love.

Man?

A price was given to man too, and we continually use this price in the Eucharist, for the sake of being in continual unity with God.  And yet this price is too expensive for something cheap.  For our mere sins that doesn't do anything to God or require necessity with God, God freely pays an Infinite Sacrifice.  It's like paying all you've got for an eraser to erase all the filth on a piece of paper.  Oh the Love of God!

And since we are persons, we too pay back with sacrificial self-renunciation to God, even though God is in no need of anything.  God paid to us Love, and we pay back with more Love.  He gave us talents, and we increase them.

The Law?

Here's something you don't hear everyday.  The fulfillment of the Law.  As the Law requires, it probably prophetically proclaims, and thus, Christ came fulfilling that Law.  The Law was also a curse, as it was abused by the Devil.  Thus, really, if ransom really was truly paid, it was paid to consistently fulfill what the Law required, so that we may not be in need of the Law.  For God made the Law for man, and not for Himself so that man may achieve righteousness in God's eyes, and Satan used the Law to fulfill his own desires to destroy man.  Therefore, really, the Law provided a divine discipline, but also a curse.

I think also this undermines the most important part which Theognosis tries to make.  The ultimate reality behind all of this is that the power of death is destroyed.  None of the OT lambs rose from the dead as did Christ.  However, I like to stress that the OT lambs did take away the sins of whoever sacrificed or presented it.  In the case of Christ, all of the world's mankind have done both present and sacrificed God, represented on both sides, Jews and Gentiles, male and female, slave and free.  Therefore almost in a stepwise fashion, sins taken away, then reconciliation, then unity, then partaking of divine nature, which ultimately is what was the goal, kinda like what St. Isaac the Syrian once said, that the Incarnation of Christ was going happen regardless or not of Adam's sin.  It is this added aspect of ransom that God saw it necessary for man if man is to indeed partake of His nature.

God bless.

PS  The Resurrection of all is a central dogma in any church, even the OO's.  I cannot see how anyone can say that only the righteous will rise from the dead on the Day of Judgment.
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 Aristibule

  • Masspreost
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR - WRITE
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #96 on: April 09, 2007, 05:33:53 PM »
What an insane thread. Not only for all the convert bashing but also for the anti-Westernism. Anselm isn't the West - he represents a certain school of thought within 11th c. French speaking Latin literate Norman England. He isn't representative of Humanity, Christianity, the West, England, Western Rite, people from Canterbury, or humans alive in the 11th c. His theology is not (and never has been) universally accepted in 'the West' as the norm. Sure - some may say so, but only to serve their purposes (ie, to say all Westerners should belong to their sect, or to place suspicion upon all Westerners.) So how long must we tolerate such evil words about Orthodox Christians (converts all, and many Westerners)?
"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 #97 on: April 09, 2007, 06:31:35 PM »
What an insane thread. Not only for all the convert bashing but also for the anti-Westernism. Anselm isn't the West - he represents a certain school of thought within 11th c. French speaking Latin literate Norman England. He isn't representative of Humanity, Christianity, the West, England, Western Rite, people from Canterbury, or humans alive in the 11th c. His theology is not (and never has been) universally accepted in 'the West' as the norm. Sure - some may say so, but only to serve their purposes (ie, to say all Westerners should belong to their sect, or to place suspicion upon all Westerners.) So how long must we tolerate such evil words about Orthodox Christians (converts all, and many Westerners)?

This is what I don't get.
Any time anyone questions a particular view of soteriology, such as the literal interpretation of Christ as "ransom", they are "convert bashing" or "anti-Western"....Why? 
If a particular doctrinal interpretation has holes in it, it has holes in it if it is "Western", "Eastern", "Northern" or "Southern".
And if it is not the "universally accepted" Western view, then why should someone who is merely questioning it's correctness be accused of being "anti-Western" or "convert bashing"? Do only Western coverts hold these views?
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #98 on: April 09, 2007, 07:23:04 PM »
This is what I don't get.
Any time anyone questions a particular view of soteriology, such as the literal interpretation of Christ as "ransom", they are "convert bashing" or "anti-Western"....Why? 
If a particular doctrinal interpretation has holes in it, it has holes in it if it is "Western", "Eastern", "Northern" or "Southern".
And if it is not the "universally accepted" Western view, then why should someone who is merely questioning it's correctness be accused of being "anti-Western" or "convert bashing"? Do only Western coverts hold these views?

Well, I seem to get the same vibe from many Orthodox Christians.  The Triple A attack (Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas), the scholastic label, and the traditional Western label of Protestants and Roman Catholics as espousers of such views.

If it has "holes," then these are the merits, but if the "holes" are somehow attributable to the West, then Orthodox Christians will use that as a thorn to further their "Orthodox" cause.

Xristos Anesti!
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 Aristibule

  • Masspreost
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR - WRITE
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #99 on: April 09, 2007, 07:29:18 PM »
Quote
And if it is not the "universally accepted" Western view, then why should someone who is merely questioning it's correctness be accused of being "anti-Western" or "convert bashing"? Do only Western coverts hold these views?

Yeah, let me know when someone is criticizing it without the bashing of the West or converts. Do Western converts hold those views? No - so why does the discussion always have to include convert-bashing and anti-Westernism? So far, I've seen no one 'merely questioning' without the double-barrel shot at converts and the West. Like minas says, discuss the holes - 'converts' aren't the cause of either side (and both sides have been using that one - converts as destroyers of tradition), nor is it attributable to the 'West' as a characteristic (again, Byzantium is the West.)
"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 #100 on: April 09, 2007, 07:41:40 PM »
I don't believe it was a ransom paid to the devil or bait put forth to ensnare him.
And I agree with you. All I'm saying is that a literal interpretation of the concept of "ransom" does not permit one to hold this view.
I think that the fact that we were "bought at a price" is a testimony to God's love for us, and it is the way He chose to save us by Divine Economia so that "when I (Christ) am lifted up (on the Cross), I will draw all men to Myself." But I also think that God's infinite love and mercy does not require that a "payment" be made for sin. Christ said: "This is my Blood of the new Covenant which is shed for many to (Gk: "εις") the forgiveness of sin."  To interpret this as saying "in order that sins may be forgiven" in the sense that sins can only be forgiven if someone suffers and dies in "payment" for them or accepts the "punishment" due for them is, in my view, erroneous. Our sins are forgiven because God is merciful, not because He has been paid off like some mafia boss given protection money.

What's important to understand to me is why it appears that much of what is being purported as the "Orthodox view" seems radically inconsistent with what the church has taught in the past. 
I'm not sure that it is radically different from what the Church has taught in the past. What seems radically different is that some view concepts meant as metaphors as meant to be taken literally- something which the Fathers did not do.

It's also important to me to understand why there is a continual need felt by many Orthodox people to continually construct caricatures of the "western view" or to define what they believe in terms of what they oppose in western theology.
I think what they are reacting against is the misinterpretation of metaphors as literal doctrine. The fact is that many today think that "God cannot forgive sin unless something bleeds".  I myself have come accross this many times, not only in my Catholic and Protestant friends, but some Orthodox as well. The fact is that this view is absent in Eastern soteriology, since our salvation came about by the "Divine Economia" of the Incarnation.

was not aware that I am putting forth a "song and dance" here, so much as actually posting writings that are directly related to the topic at hand.
What I am asking is: why is it so important that no one question the literal interpretation of our redemption as being the payment of a ransom? When you said:
Yes, that is the question.
Yet, if what you say is true, there is no ransom.  Yet, clearly there is a ransom that was paid by Christ on our behalf.  But to whom?
It seems to me there is only one possibility.
It seems to me that the words "clearly there is a ransom that was paid by Christ on our behalf"  leaves no room except for a literal interpretation of "ransom" to mean a payment given to God without which He could not forgive our sin. If I misunderstood, I apologise. But if this is what you meant to say, I could not disagree more.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #101 on: April 09, 2007, 07:59:45 PM »
The fact is that this view is absent in Eastern soteriology, since our salvation came about by the "Divine Economia" of the Incarnation.

I think what you are in essence is saying correctly about God, but God commanded that forgiveness of sins cannot be except without the shedding of blood, according to St. Paul to the Hebrews, or at least God desires that it must be done in that fashion, even though He can do it in other ways.

What exactly is absent in "Eastern" soteriology?  Why do we stress "Eastern" so much?
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 Aristibule

  • Masspreost
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR - WRITE
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #102 on: April 09, 2007, 08:05:44 PM »
What exactly is absent in "Eastern" soteriology?  Why do we stress "Eastern" so much?

Exactly what I've been asking - and have since perennial rambler brought it up on his blog. The fact is that the language (ransom, atonement, etc.) is not absent from the Scriptures, Liturgy, or Church Fathers. So 'absent' seems a bit strong. Rather, I've had Orthodox clergy explain not that it is 'absent' but simply that it is error to make that the *only* metaphor of what happens, or even to focus on it. Stressing the 'Eastern' is the apophatic way of smearing the West. ;) Of course, Eastern theology includes such luminaries as Arius, Eutyches and Nestorius - which is why the East is always better than the West (with its 'rank heretics' like St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, St. Gregory, St. John Cassian, etc.) ;)
"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 #103 on: April 09, 2007, 08:19:30 PM »
What exactly is absent in "Eastern" soteriology?  Why do we stress "Eastern" so much?

Because Eastern theology has maintained the Orthodox Christian view of redemption. Whereas the "Western" view has been typified by the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and are different. See:Summa Theologica: Q48 The efficiency of Christ's Passion
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 #104 on: April 09, 2007, 08:32:14 PM »
Quote
Because Eastern theology has maintained the Orthodox Christian view of redemption. Whereas the "Western" view has been typified by the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and are different. See:Summa Theologica: Q48 The efficiency of Christ's Passion

Eastern theology is also Arian, Nestorian, and Eutychian - as well as many other heresies. However, Aquinas' views were never universal in Western Christianity - in fact, still many today in the West (not just Western Orthodox, but even Traditional Catholics, Anglicans, Methodist Episcopalians, etc.) complain of the Aristotlean nature of Aquinas School and prefer the older Western neo-Platonism (a modern term referring to Patristic Christianity.) So, again - Western isn't Thomistic, Eastern isn't Orthodox: Orthodox can be Eastern or Western just as heresies may be Eastern or Western. 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.
"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 minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #105 on: April 09, 2007, 08:55:12 PM »
Because Eastern theology has maintained the Orthodox Christian view of redemption. Whereas the "Western" view has been typified by the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and are different. See:Summa Theologica: Q48 The efficiency of Christ's Passion

That's exactly the problem with many Orthodox.  It's not so much as they're holding a patristic view, but a prideful Patriotic view, almost as if if was phyletic in nature.
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 #106 on: April 09, 2007, 10:26:11 PM »
What seems radically different is that some view concepts meant as metaphors as meant to be taken literally- something which the Fathers did not do.
I think what they are reacting against is the misinterpretation of metaphors as literal doctrine.

I have already posted excerpts from the Catholic Encyclopedia stating that an overliteral interpretation of "ransom" is a serious error, one that Anselm, Lombard and Aquinas fought against themselves. Anselm, instead, saw it as satisfying the divine justice. 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.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2007, 10:26:55 PM by lubeltri »

Offline Ian Lazarus

  • The Main Man!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,545
  • yIjah, Qey' 'oH!
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #107 on: April 10, 2007, 12:23:55 AM »
My father confessor says it the best I think. " Many of the fathers writings about theology are, no matter the legnth, saying 'I dont know.'"  His point is, we have to look at things through the eyes of Grace.  If we look at such vague issues without forgiveness or with a heart ready to condemn, then we are setting ourselves up for hurtin, killing, and eliminating in the name of a vaguery.  It is fine to debate it, but if this issue is the hinge on which your theological structure rests, then it's best to get a better hinge, because it's flimsy.  Mainly I say this as it relates to the mind of God.  We dont know it in toto.  And when we think we do, other than what he has revealed to us solidly, we get in trouble.  And even then, if we get hung up, we only throw obstacles in the way of our salvation, becoming downright pharasaical about a busness that we dont know fully.  We can agree on some things.  If a person does not believe in the Crucufixion and  Resurection of Jesus Christ our God, then he is not a Christian but a philosopher.  But how this process of salvation by the Cross is accomplished, I'll ask God when  I get there.  It bears no weight on my salvation. 

Peace

Lazarus
"For I am With thee, withersoever thou goest"

Joshua 1:9

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 #108 on: April 10, 2007, 07:05:28 AM »
Eastern theology is also Arian, Nestorian, and Eutychian - as well as many other heresies.
Has the East maintained Orthodoxy or not?
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 #109 on: April 10, 2007, 09:10:56 AM »
Only parts of the East - parts of the East have maintained heresy (Nestorianism, for instance.) And for 'maintained' - there were times when the East didn't, and the continuity of Orthodoxy continued in the West until the East recovered Orthodoxy (such as during Iconoclasm.) Either way, Orthodoxy exists in the West - not just as an 'Eastern import', and much that is heretical in the West is also an Eastern import. More importantly, much of Western Christianity that is Orthodox was maintained in the West as well (even if ever so much in the minority.)
"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 AMM

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,076
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #110 on: April 10, 2007, 09:15:54 AM »
Quote
Orthodoxy exists in the West

Not according to what is being said here.  The right and legitimate view is apparently the Eastern one.

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 #111 on: April 10, 2007, 09:41:07 AM »
Quote
Not according to what is being said here.  The right and legitimate view is apparently the Eastern one.

Well, they'll have to have a Council then to condemn the West: then everyone in the West can be anathematized. A canon can be drawn up describing which degree of longitude separates 'East' from 'West' and everyone West of that line will be cut off. Sounds like grand fun. (And those who want to be Nestorian can clap their hands for joy - they're Eastern, and thus back in!)  ::) Islam is Eastern too (as is Judaism - Oriental and Ashkenazic) - also Mandaeanism, Yezidism, Druze. Hooray for East!  ;D
"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 #112 on: April 10, 2007, 09:51:39 AM »
Not according to what is being said here. The right and legitimate view is apparently the Eastern one.
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 Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,497
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #113 on: April 10, 2007, 11:08:01 AM »
What an insane thread. Not only for all the convert bashing but also for the anti-Westernism. Anselm isn't the West - he represents a certain school of thought within 11th c. French speaking Latin literate Norman England. He isn't representative of Humanity, Christianity, the West, England, Western Rite, people from Canterbury, or humans alive in the 11th c. His theology is not (and never has been) universally accepted in 'the West' as the norm. Sure - some may say so, but only to serve their purposes (ie, to say all Westerners should belong to their sect, or to place suspicion upon all Westerners.) So how long must we tolerate such evil words about Orthodox Christians (converts all, and many Westerners)?

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. It's pretty obvious that it really has no place there.
  If Anselm is what brought you to Christ that that's fine.  Chances are his view has brought many to the church. The whole point is to move on. The eastern church isn't static. It's life breathing. St John Chistostoma stated that are three ways to god. First is the fear of hell, the allure of heaven and finally the love of Christ. Orthodoxy is the love of Christ and clearly is different than the rest because it isn't centered in pride. I hope you can see this.

 

Offline AMM

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,076
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #114 on: April 10, 2007, 11:14:29 AM »
Quote
Orthodoxy is the love of Christ and clearly is different than the rest because it isn't centered in pride.

One of the most ironic statements I have come across in a while.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2007, 11:14:50 AM by welkodox »

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #115 on: April 10, 2007, 11:24:56 AM »
I think it's wrong to say that Redemption is an unexplainable issue that ends with "I don't know."  I think Fr. John Romanides put it best, even though he may take an extreme anti-Western pov, when he said that it would be a shame if a doctor would fight a mysterious disease.

Here's something that I'm reading at the moment:

http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/The%20Mystery%20of%20Redemption.htm

And here's Fr. John Romanides' article:

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.10.en.original_sin_according_to_st._paul.01.htm

If anyone else can present articles, more quotes from Holy Fathers, and more new perspectives, it would be nice to use these as resources to study the situation more and be better equipped to debate the issue.

God bless.

Xristos Anesti!
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 Tamara

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,208
  • +Pray for Orthodox Unity+
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #116 on: April 10, 2007, 11:29:39 AM »
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".

Christ is Risen!

George, Your honesty and knowledge of Orthodoxy is very evident. You are a clear articulator of the faith.

I do not understand why some want to pretend there is no Great Schism.  ???


Offline AMM

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,076
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #117 on: April 10, 2007, 11:35:42 AM »
Nobody has been in this thread.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #118 on: April 10, 2007, 11:41:55 AM »
Dear Lubeltri or Papist,

What is the RC view of "infinite sin?"  I never found anything in their catechism about it.  Do you have theologians who disagree with the concept?

God bless.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2007, 11:42:11 AM 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 #119 on: April 10, 2007, 11:45:46 AM »
Nobody is bashing the west. I have just displayed some differences between there theology's. 

Orthodoxy is the love of Christ and clearly is different than the rest because it isn't centered in pride. I hope you can see this.

What an ironic statement!

If you could refrain from creating straw men of "Western" theology, we might have a discussion here. But since you and several others persist in the stereotypes, it's time I left this thread. I feel very, very blessed that I don't have to deal with this kind of strident and very (IMO) uncatholic Anti-doxy on a daily basis. Part of what kept me from entering Orthodoxy, I'm afraid to say, was this incessant refrain I heard from many that "we're not like them." It didn't seem like there was a place in Orthodoxy for a Westerner like me---or at least, many Orthodox don't want it that way.

I have in my hand a brochure put out by St. Justin Martyr Orthodox Church (OCA) in Jacksonville, Florida. It's titled What Ever [sic] Happened to the New Testament Church? Does the Church Peter and Paul worshipped still exist? Come and see!

Inside they have a Church History Snapshot:

- The Church was undivided for the first 1000 years.
- in 1054 the Roman pope "excommunicated" the Orthodox for not accepting his claim to universal headship of the Church.
- in 1517 the Protestant Reformation began against the Roman Church
- According to the United Nations there are now more than 23,000 Protestant denominations worldwide
- the structure, teachings, and worship of the New Testament Church remains unchanged in the Orthodox Church.
- Christ said, "The gates of hell shall never prevail against His Church" [sic] (Matthew 16:16)

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

Orthodoxy has been the last stop for thousands of American Christians looking for a spiritual home where doctrine doesn't change with each new pastor or the latest trend.


I'll spare you the comical and frankly dishonest "Time Line of Christian History" also in the brochure. What was the brochure for, other than to steel sheep instead of evangelize the unchurched, a more difficult but more fruitful task?

Blessings,

Lubeltri
« Last Edit: April 10, 2007, 11:46:34 AM by lubeltri »

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 #120 on: April 10, 2007, 11:55:46 AM »
Quote
Orthodoxy is the love of Christ and clearly is different than the rest because it isn't centered in pride.
One of the most ironic statements I have come across in a while.

Is this the best you can do welkodox? Yet another snide one-liner? And this time, a one-liner which writes off the entire Apostolic Tradition? I really don't think you are listening to other people. Rather than immediately biting their finger, why don't you look where they are pointing?
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 #121 on: April 10, 2007, 11:59:38 AM »
I agree. It was a case of deceiving the deceiver. And in the Orthodox Church, we commemorate this on Holy Saturday:

"Today Hades cries out groaning:
I should not have accepted the Man born of Mary.
He came and destroyed my power.
He shattered the gates of brass.
As God. He raised the souls I had held captive.

"Today Hades cries out groaning:
my power has been abolished;
I have received a mortal, as one of the mortals;
but this One, I am completely powerless to contain;
with Him, I have lost all those over which I have ruled. 
For ages I had held them dead;
but behold, He raises them up all.'"

George,

During Holy Week I listened carefully to all the hymns and prayers. The theme which was very clear was that Christ came to destroy death and heal us.  I don't remember singing any hymns about the wrath of God or His demand for Divine Justice. I have always been taught that there is no official catechism of the Orthodox Church because regular attendance of the  Liturgical services provide our catechism.

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,497
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #122 on: April 10, 2007, 12:04:31 PM »
What an ironic statement!

If you could refrain from creating straw men of "Western" theology, we might have a discussion here. But since you and several others persist in the stereotypes, it's time I left this thread. I feel very, very blessed that I don't have to deal with this kind of strident and very (IMO) uncatholic Anti-doxy on a daily basis. Part of what kept me from entering Orthodoxy, I'm afraid to say, was this incessant refrain I heard from many that "we're not like them." It didn't seem like there was a place in Orthodoxy for a Westerner like me---or at least, many Orthodox don't want it that way.

Hay pal. It was you who posted a strawman as a counter to my post. In other words you want us to sweep our theology under the rug and accept you as is. Good luck.

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,571
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #123 on: April 10, 2007, 12:05:11 PM »
But to be fair, both Catholics and Orthodox fudge the truth when it comes to Church history, so it's really both sides that need to step up to the plate here. Easterners can sometimes have an anti-western bias, but both sides often have an anti-early-church bias. Division is convenient to bring up when it makes your group look better, but usually the countless divisions in the early Church--some including hundreds of clergy and millions of people--are left alongside the road, ignored. I've seen the timeline of which you are speaking, and if they were as critical of eastern history (e.g., all the breakoffs mentioned by Ireneaus, split after the so-called 3rd ecumenical council, after so-called 4th ecumenical council, etc.) it would have been a lot more honest. But like I said, both sides ignore what doesn't make them look good. (For an example of Catholic bias--or lack of real research--when in the middle of a debate/discussion with Protestants, I've yet to hear a Catholic admit that Jerome rejected the deuterocanonical books from his canon, but I hear lots about how the Church supposedly settled the issue before Jerome's translation... in other words, everyone says that which makes them look good).

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #124 on: April 10, 2007, 12:10:25 PM »
Dear Lubeltri or Papist,

What is the RC view of "infinite sin?"  I never found anything in their catechism about it. 

I don't really know, actually. I've only heard the phrase in Protestant circles. I'd have to do some real research on it (Googling it was utterly fruitless) or ask somebody more knowledgeable than me.

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #125 on: April 10, 2007, 12:16:48 PM »
But to be fair, both Catholics and Orthodox fudge the truth when it comes to Church history, so it's really both sides that need to step up to the plate here. Easterners can sometimes have an anti-western bias, but both sides often have an anti-early-church bias. Division is convenient to bring up when it makes your group look better, but usually the countless divisions in the early Church--some including hundreds of clergy and millions of people--are left alongside the road, ignored. I've seen the timeline of which you are speaking, and if they were as critical of eastern history (e.g., all the breakoffs mentioned by Ireneaus, split after the so-called 3rd ecumenical council, after so-called 4th ecumenical council, etc.) it would have been a lot more honest. But like I said, both sides ignore what doesn't make them look good. (For an example of Catholic bias--or lack of real research--when in the middle of a debate/discussion with Protestants, I've yet to hear a Catholic admit that Jerome rejected the deuterocanonical books from his canon, but I hear lots about how the Church supposedly settled the issue before Jerome's translation... in other words, everyone says that which makes them look good).

You are correct. The Church spoke the final word on the deuterocanonicals only at Trent. But I do know what you are talking about---some Catholics I know like to tell Protestants that the Church "wrote your Bible" and leave it at that, self-satisfied.

(Regarding the timeline, I love how it shows the monolithic Orthodox line punctuated with dates like 1794: Orthodox missionaries arrive in Alaska and 1988: 1,000 years of Orthodox Christianity in Russia while the Western spider web of lines is punctuated with dates showing the Crusades and other upheavals. The line labeled the "Protestant Church" was also amusing.)

Now I will take my leave, until I get an answer for Mina's question.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2007, 12:23:23 PM by lubeltri »

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 #126 on: April 10, 2007, 12:18:28 PM »
everyone says that which makes them look good.
That's probably true, but I'm not sure I understand your point about how the schisms in the early Church not being mentioned constitutes an "early church bias" by anyone. Are you talking abut doctrinal disputes which did not result in schism? If so, I'd say these started with St. Paul's dispute with St. Peter over the gentile question. I don't think anyone has avoided looking at doctrinal disputes- this thread certainly hasn't. Nor do I think that schism is "not mentioned" in order to "look good", in fact, I'd say the opposite is true- schism and anathemizing heresy is how the Church has always defined her doctrines, and she has always used heresy as a way of defining what she holds true as compared to what she holds to be false.
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 #127 on: April 10, 2007, 12:18:42 PM »
The statement that "The Orthodox Church is not based on pride" is a prideful statement.  The irony is right there, and it is not a matter of snideness.  It is simply a matter of pointing out the obvious.  It's like saying "I am incredibly humble".  It is simply given a further level of irony when juxtaposed with this thread.

At its heart to me, this thread is simply an illustration of a kind of mindset that has taken an unfortunate hold in many places.  lubeltri righly calls it the anti mindset.  It's not only standing in opposition to the west, it becomes ironically again something that stands in opposition to the past of the church itself.  So when it's said "we have no catechisms" or "you will not find the satisfaction theory in their writings" how can we not but appear but absurd when it turns out these things are absolutely true.  Yet there is a desire to press on with an obstinate refusal to deal with the reality of what is there.  Whether this is to make Orthodoxy attractive to converts as the "church that opposes that other church", or is a way to further retreat in to our own Orthodox shell and ignore everyone else is beyond me.

I will say I'm thankful my real world experiences in the church are in almost all cases absolutely nothing like what I read online.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2007, 12:19:22 PM by welkodox »

Offline Tamara

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,208
  • +Pray for Orthodox Unity+
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #128 on: April 10, 2007, 12:36:09 PM »
So when it's said "we have no catechisms" or "you will not find the satisfaction theory in their writings" how can we not but appear but absurd when it turns out these things are absolutely true. 
Christ is Risen!

Andrew,

There are various catechisms written by a variety of Orthodox but there is no one "official" catechism for the Orthodox church. If you don't believe me go and try to find it. By the way, I looked at the catechism of Greek priest you provided and I could not find any official endorsement by any synod for it. It appears to be his own work. Our liturgical texts and hymns provide us with our catechism. It had to be that way because the Fathers of the church did not want the illiterate to be ignorant of the faith. We (laity) are the royal priesthood and the guardian of the faith.  These services are the voice of the church. If you listen carefully, you will absorb the teachings of our church over time. Then you will be able to discern the truth from the fads you fear.

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 #129 on: April 10, 2007, 12:38:23 PM »
I will say I'm thankful my real world experiences in the church are in almost all cases absolutely nothing like what I read online.
That's fine. But you're just going to have to accept the fact that in 40 years as an Orthodox Christian, I have never come across any reference in any Liturgical Service to the "satisfaction" view of redemption. That's my real world experience.
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 #130 on: April 10, 2007, 01:03:41 PM »
There are various catechisms written by a variety of Orthodox but there is no one "official" catechism for the Orthodox church. If you don't believe me go and try to find it.

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.

Quote
By the way, I looked at the catechism of Greek priest you provided and I could not find any official endorsement by any synod for it. It appears to be his own work.

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

Quote
Our liturgical texts and hymns provide us with our catechism.

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.

Quote
If you listen carefully, you will absorb the teachings of our church over time. Then you will be able to discern the truth from the fads you fear.

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.

ozgeorge

Quote
That's fine. But you're just going to have to accept the fact that in 40 years as an Orthodox Christian, I have never come across any reference in any Liturgical Service to the "satisfaction" view of redemption. That's my real world experience.

Which I wouldn't argue with.  Looking in the writings from the past do bring to light that some church fathers and theologians view this as a legitimate aspect of the Atonement however.  One would not even need to be Orthodox at all to recognize this.

We claim to be a church consistent with the past, and I have seen Orthodox Christians rather pridefully tell Catholics they have not stayed consistent.  Yet here we are, with people people ignoring our past or writing things in flat contradiction of them.  We need to be honest and come to terms with where we aren't consistent - whether it's the Atonement, Primacy, Original Sin or contraception.  Burying our heads and living in denial will not work.

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 #131 on: April 10, 2007, 01:15:24 PM »
We claim to be a church consistent with the past, and I have seen Orthodox Christians rather pridefully tell Catholics they have not stayed consistent.  Yet here we are, with people people ignoring our past or writing things in flat contradiction of them.  We need to be honest and come to terms with where we aren't consistent - whether it's the Atonement, Primacy, Original Sin or contraception.  Burying our heads and living in denial will not work.

Welkodox, by this argument, in order to be "consistent", the Orthodox Church should accept apokatastasis as an "Orthodox doctrine" since St. Gregory of Nyssa (whom no one could say is not a Father of the Church) stated that the fire of hell is purifying and therefore not eternal in On the Soul and the Resurrection and in the Catechetical Oration.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

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 #132 on: April 10, 2007, 01:22:10 PM »
Gee I wish now that I hadn't used the example of apokatastasis.....
I sure hope GiC isn't reading this thread!
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 #133 on: April 10, 2007, 01:28:48 PM »
Welkodox, by this argument, in order to be "consistent", the Orthodox Church should accept apokatastasis as an "Orthodox doctrine" since St. Gregory of Nyssa (whom no one could say is not a Father of the Church) stated that the fire of hell is purifying and therefore not eternal in On the Soul and the Resurrection and in the Catechetical Oration.

I would agree if his view was:

Repeated in multiple other writings of church fathers.
Present in official encylicals or synodal statements.
In the official publications released by the church as as catechisms or other instruction in the faith.

Otherwise I think it's an apples and oranges comparison.  It would however I think be mistaken by the same token to say "no where in the writings of the Eastern Fathers is there support for the apokatastasis", because clearly there is.  Now, obviously that in and of itself does not prove anything other than somebody has articulated the belief.  Then you go look for the supporting evidence in the types of things I mentioned above.

That's what I mean about being consistent with the past.  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.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2007, 01:29:29 PM by welkodox »

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 #134 on: April 10, 2007, 02:28:12 PM »
That's what I mean about being consistent with the past.  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.
I've repeatedly quoted examples on various threads in this forum where the Orthodox Church has changed (my favourites include "Canon 101 of the 6th EC", usury, Deaconesses etc.). So why are you telling me this? Is it because you find it exasperating? If so, I can understand. But I hope you can understand that I find it exasperating to hear people on the internet claim to speak for the Orthodox Church and tell her what she should believe simply because the Fathers disagree on certain issues. The "daily dogmatic voice" of the Church is not the Internet; it's not even the writing of the Fathers who, as we know, have disagreed on issues. The daily dogmatic voice of the Orthodox Church is the daily cycle of her Liturgical Services where each prayer, ode, kontakion, troparion etc. is a mini homily. And there is nothing in this daily dogmatic voice of the Church which supports the notion of "penal satisfaction". And I don't just mean the Divine Liturgy, I mean the Triodion, Pentecostarion, Menaion, or any liturgical book. I can find references in the Liturgical Services to the dogmas about Icons, about the Two Natures, about the title "Theotokos", the Incarnation, the Divine Economia...etc..., but why would there not be any reference in the Liturgical Services to "penal satisfaction" if this truly were supposed to be an acceptable view of our redemption?
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? You would have to accept that this would constitute a dogmatic change, similar to the current dispute over the "Moghila" prayer of absolution in the Mystery of Repentance adopted in the 18th century in Russia which now raises the question: "Do priests have the power to forgive sins on earth?"- Liturgically, Russian Churches say 'yes', and most non-Slavic ones say 'no'. So now, we have a doctrinal dispute.
But as I've repeatedly said on this thread and elsewhere, doctrinal disputes is how the Church comes to define the dogmas which she does clearly believe, and she does this by holding up the erroneous belief (heresy) as an example. Take the example of the Iconoclasm dispute: the only reason that there we are called "Iconodules" is because at one stage "Iconoclasts" came about and started spreading their ideas.
And yes, some people may lose the point of the dispute and turn it into a political "us" vs. "them" instead of Orthodoxy vs. heresy, but we should know that that is bound to happen somewhere along the line, and it shouldn't surprize us, but nor should it be allowed to draw our attention away from the real issue, which is the doctrine, no matter where the heresy which challenges it has come from- whether it has come from "us" or "them".
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.