Atonement and Eastern Catholicism

[mardukm]

I am wondering if the doctrine of the Atonement has a place in Eastern Catholicism. I’m quite certain that it is present among Oriental Catholics (at least for those who have not been hellenized). By Oriental Catholics, I mean Middle Eastern Catholics.

I am asking this question of Slavic Catholics who have their roots in Eastern Orthodoxy proper.

I would be inclined to include Melkites among the Oriental Catholics, but I’ve heard some Melkites speak more like Eastern Orthodox rather than Oriental Orthodox on the matter of the Atonement.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

It would appear that St. Athanasius presents an firm argument for Atonement in On the Incarnation.

“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 corruption 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 bother able to recreate all, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be an ambassador for all with the Father.”

Taken from On the Incarnation - Chapter II: The Divine Dilemma and Its Solution in the Incarnation by St. Athanasius

 

[mardukm]

Yes, brother Chrisb. I find it everywhere and every time since the earliest Fathers - Sts. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, etc. etc. etc. I know it has largely disappeared from Eastern Orthodoxy. I am wondering if Eastern Catholicism (as distinct from Oriental Catholicism) has inherited this facet of Eastern Orthodoxy, or if its association in the Catholic family has somehow renewed the ancient recognition of it within Eastern Catholicism.

BTW, I was too lazy delineating Oriental from Eastern in my first post. I know not all Easterns are Slavic, and that not all Orientals are Middle Eastern.

Blessings all,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Yes, brother Chrisb. I find it everywhere and every time since the earliest Fathers - Sts. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, etc. etc. etc. I know it has largely disappeared from Eastern Orthodoxy. I am wondering if Eastern Catholicism (as distinct from Oriental Catholicism) has inherited this facet of Eastern Orthodoxy, or if its association in the Catholic family has somehow renewed the ancient recognition of it within Eastern Catholicism.

BTW, I was too lazy delineating Oriental from Eastern in my first post. I know not all Easterns are Slavic, and that not all Orientals are Middle Eastern.

Blessings all,
Marduk

Each of the “Eastern Catholic” churches inherits its elements from its rite and church of origin. Alexandrian Rite Catholics are less like Byzantine Rite Catholics than they are Alexandrian Rite Coptic Orthodox.

The confusion comes from using Latin as the Administrative language of the Catholic Church/Communion. Oriental means of the East… from Rome, all but Alexandria is “of the east”, and it’s closer to east liturgically…

The “eastern/oriental” distinction is far less important than the difference of Alexandrian, Chaldean/Syriac, Byzantine, Armenian, or Latin rite…

 

[Dan-Man916]

I always thought that the Orthodox took a rather negative view towards atonement theology because they claim that its basis only goes back to St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century.

I’m not quite sure why this is an issue among us, as it seems quite obvious to me that the atonement is naturally found in Scripture just as much as the theology of recapitulation in Christ.

Aren’t they really 2 sides of the same coin?

 

[Alexius]

I always thought that the Orthodox took a rather negative view towards atonement theology because they claim that its basis only goes back to St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century.

I’m not quite sure why this is an issue among us, as it seems quite obvious to me that the atonement is naturally found in Scripture just as much as the theology of recapitulation in Christ.

Aren’t they really 2 sides of the same coin?

You are correct. Many Orthodox reject what is called Atonement due to the excesses of some Westerners such as Anselm. I would hesitate to say that most reject it totally, however. As was pointed out, Athanasius shows what most Orthodox believe to be true of the Atonement. Unfortunately, just as there are some Eastern Catholics who have thrown out much of their Eastern heritage, there are also some Orthodox who have thrown out the Atonement as a whole due to Latin excesses. It is unfortunate, but I still believe most accept Atonement (I know many Orthodox priests who have given homilies clearly teaching Atonement).

Be aware; however, that the majority who deny ALL forms of Atonement are usually converts and convert-run internet Orthodoxy (I don’t mean the Orthodox who post here , but I speak of a lot of the websites…).

In conclusion, I believe that most Greek-Catholics can follow the true Orthodox belief in Atonement (i.e. St. Athanatius), while not accepting/succumbing to some of the excesses of Scholasticism…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

You are correct. Many Orthodox reject what is called Atonement due to the excesses of some Westerners such as Anselm. I would hesitate to say that most reject it totally, however. As was pointed out, Athanasius shows what most Orthodox believe to be true of the Atonement. Unfortunately, just as there are some Eastern Catholics who have thrown out much of their Eastern heritage, there are also some Orthodox who have thrown out the Atonement as a whole due to Latin excesses. It is unfortunate, but I still believe most accept Atonement (I know many Orthodox priests who have given homilies clearly teaching Atonement).

Be aware; however, that the majority who deny ALL forms of Atonement are usually converts and convert-run internet Orthodoxy (I don’t mean the Orthodox who post here , but I speak of a lot of the websites…).

In conclusion, I believe that most Greek-Catholics can follow the true Orthodox belief in Atonement (i.e. St. Athanatius), while not accepting/succumbing to some of the excesses of Scholasticism…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

What are the excesses of Saint Anselm and Scholasticism?

 

[Alexius]

Hello,

What are the excesses of Saint Anselm and Scholasticism?

The idea of satisfaction delivered to the Father that developed into penal substitution. This understanding is not presented in Athanasius and other early writers who write without such an understanding.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alexius,

The idea of satisfaction delivered to the Father that developed into penal substitution. This understanding is not presented in Athanasius and other early writers who write without such an understanding.

I don’t think satisfaction to the Father is an “excess.” Or perhaps I am misunderstanding you and you are only saying that the excess is the development into penal substitution.

I think “penal substitution” is a polemic term used by EO against the Latin teaching. I think “penitential substitution” would be more appropriate - if one understands that penance is intended to increase our holiness and that the Holy Sacrifice likewise increases our holiness.

I think the excess you may be thinking of is the idea that the Holy Sacrifice was a satisfaction to Satan (instead of the Father). I know for a fact that this idea is rejected by the Latin Church (not sure if it was formally condemned).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

The idea of satisfaction delivered to the Father that developed into penal substitution. This understanding is not presented in Athanasius and other early writers who write without such an understanding.

How do you define as “penal substitution” (I have heard at least two or three different definitions of what others mean by this term).

Also, where does this show up in Saint Anselm’s (or other reputable Scholastics whom the Church refers to) and how does it differ excessively from Saint Athanasius and other Church Fathers?

I don’t mean to be combative (I hope this post doesn’t seem so) - but I really want to get a good understanding of the differing points of view on this subject.

 

[mardukm]

You are correct. Many Orthodox reject what is called Atonement due to the excesses of some Westerners such as Anselm. I would hesitate to say that most reject it totally, however. As was pointed out, Athanasius shows what most Orthodox believe to be true of the Atonement. Unfortunately, just as there are some Eastern Catholics who have thrown out much of their Eastern heritage, there are also some Orthodox who have thrown out the Atonement as a whole due to Latin excesses. It is unfortunate, but I still believe most accept Atonement (I know many Orthodox priests who have given homilies clearly teaching Atonement).

Be aware; however, that the majority who deny ALL forms of Atonement are usually converts and convert-run internet Orthodoxy (I don’t mean the Orthodox who post here , but I speak of a lot of the websites…).

In conclusion, I believe that most Greek-Catholics can follow the true Orthodox belief in Atonement (i.e. St. Athanatius), while not accepting/succumbing to some of the excesses of Scholasticism…

It is REALLY good to hear this coming from an Eastern Catholic. I hope to hear more affirmations of the doctrine of Atonement from Eastern (and even Oriental) Catholics.

I think you have hit the nail on the head with the source of the outright rejection being zealous converts. A couple of years ago, there were several EO posters here who exhibited an outright rejection, and I distinctly recall only one EO poster who gave credence to the doctrine.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexius]

I believe in substitutionary atonement, just as Orthodox Christianity and the early Fathers teach. When I speak of penal substitution, I mean the belief that Christ was punished in our place to satisfy the justice of the Father. I believe this is very popular in the Reformed tradition. If I am correct, I think most Roman Catholics believe in what Thomas Aquinas taught, which doesn’t go nearly as far as Calvin did, but perhaps a bit deeper than most early Fathers…?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alexius,

When I speak of penal substitution, I mean the belief that Christ was punished in our place to satisfy the justice of the Father.

That’s an interesting perspective. I must confess I do not understand how you distinguish this from the patristic teaching.

Here is the sentence immediately before the excerpt that brother Chrisb provided from St. Athanasius:

But just as the consequence [of the necessity of Christ’s death] must needs hold, so, too, on the other side the justice of God lie against it: that God should appear true to the Law he had laid down concerning death.

It seems the issue here is the idea of God’s “Justice” and that it must be satisfied.

Do you think God has no justice to be satisfied? If that is what you are saying (and I will not assume so, but await your explanation), I, as an Oriental Coptic Christian, must disagree with you.

In his Pedagogos, St. Clement of Alexandria likewise views the Sacrifice of Christ as satisfaction for God’s demands, likening it to the sacrifice of Isaac (except that Isaac himself was not immolated).

Again, in his Who is the Rich Man that is Saved?, Clement narrates that the Savior asserts: “I am the Teacher of lessons concerning the highest heavens. On behalf of you I contended with death, and I paid the death which you owed for your former sins and for your unbelief towards God.”

Does not Scripture call Christ “the ransom for many.” Further, is not the word “redemption” or “redeemed” or “remission” constantly utilized by the Fathers to refer to our salvation? What do these words mean if not payment for satisfaction? What do these words mean to you?

I am not trying to challenge your belief. I am presenting these questions sincerely in order to understand your Eastern/Greek belief on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Here is Father Yacoub Malaty’s teaching on the matter as expressed in his book Introduction to the Coptic Church.
After his fall, man became in need to enjoy the risen life,
and at the same time he was in need for One who can redeem
him by realising God’s justice.

HE Metropolitan Bishoy from The Dogma of Atonement and Redemption:
The cross is also the manifestation of God’s perfect holiness and absolute justice, as it is written, “Without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb 9:22).

I invite other Oriental Christians to provide current quotes about what your Church teaches on the matter of the Atonement and satisfying God’s justice. If my Eastern brethren can do the same, that would indeed be a blessing.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexius]

Here is Father Yacoub Malaty’s teaching on the matter as expressed in his book Introduction to the Coptic Church.
After his fall, man became in need to enjoy the risen life,
and at the same time he was in need for One who can redeem
him by realising God’s justice.

HE Metropolitan Bishoy from The Dogma of Atonement and Redemption:
The cross is also the manifestation of God’s perfect holiness and absolute justice, as it is written, “Without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb 9:22).

I invite other Oriental Christians to provide current quotes about what your Church teaches on the matter of the Atonement and satisfying God’s justice. If my Eastern brethren can do the same, that would indeed be a blessing.

Blessings,
Marduk

Here is a more detailed explanation from Theopedia:%between%

The Penal-Substitution Theory maintains that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.

This was an extension of Anselm’s Satisfaction theory made by the 16th century Reformers.

I am surprised to hear you accept Penal Substitution. It is the view accepted by the Reformers in order to throw out all need for penance, Purgatory, works, etc. I rather stay with the more generalized Substitutionary atonement. It also must be pointed out that much of the thinking on the issue of Redemption wasn’t done until the 12th century Scholastic movement (beginning with Anselm), so the Byzantines were left with a much more primitive and simplistic understanding of Redemption. I tend to be more prone to follow the Ransom theory and Substitutionary atonement.

 

[Ghosty]

Here is a more detailed explanation from Theopedia:

The Penal-Substitution Theory maintains that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.

This was an extension of Anselm’s Satisfaction theory made by the 16th century Reformers.

I am surprised to hear you accept Penal Substitution. It is the view accepted by the Reformers in order to throw out all need for penance, Purgatory, works, etc. I rather stay with the more generalized Substitutionary atonement. It also must be pointed out that much of the thinking on the issue of Redemption wasn’t done until the 12th century Scholastic movement (beginning with Anselm), so the Byzantines were left with a much more primitive and simplistic understanding of Redemption. I tend to be more prone to follow the Ransom theory and Substitutionary atonement.

We shouldn’t confuse God’s Justice with any concept of “expending His wrath”, which is what the Reformers tended to push to the exclusion of His Mercy and our cooperation with Him.

Fulfilling God’s Justice has nothing to do with God using up all His punishment on Christ, but rather is an expression of the fact that Justice, i.e. balance and fulfillment of Divine Order, meant that there would be death for sin. Christ picked up that death and made it into the means for our redemption. There is no remission for sins apart from the shedding of blood, not because of Divine desire to punish, but because the rightful price, or balance, of sin is death. That’s what was meant by the Catholic theologians by the fulfillment of Divine Justice, and follows on the words of St. Athanasius that since God decreed death for sin, it would be an abomination of Divine Order if death didn’t follow on sin. God simply fulfilled His own decree by giving a new definition and purpose for death, which fit both Mercy and Justice (balance and order).

I think it’s very easy for us in the post-Reformation world to think of Justice as punishment, or the desire to punishment, rather than punishment as one kind of fulfillment of the balance that is Justice (hence the traditional depiction of justice with the symbol of scales; where there is a transgression, there is a penalty that flows from the transgression, and balances the scales so to speak), which is how the Latin theologians understood it. For them justice meant a kind of external “law above laws”, and not the mere performance of punishment or exacting of revenge. For God, obviously, Justice is a part of His very being and not something external and above Him, and so it refers to His own balancing and ordering of the universe, and His essential disposition to such order and balance.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alexius,

Here is a more detailed explanation from Theopedia:%between%

The Penal-Substitution Theory maintains that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.

This was an extension of Anselm’s Satisfaction theory made by the 16th century Reformers.

I am surprised to hear you accept Penal Substitution. It is the view accepted by the Reformers in order to throw out all need for penance, Purgatory, works, etc. I rather stay with the more generalized Substitutionary atonement. It also must be pointed out that much of the thinking on the issue of Redemption wasn’t done until the 12th century Scholastic movement (beginning with Anselm), so the Byzantines were left with a much more primitive and simplistic understanding of Redemption. I tend to be more prone to follow the Ransom theory and Substitutionary atonement.

Actually, I did not say I accepted Penal Substitution. I stated that Penal Substitution is a polemic view of the Latin teaching, and that I accept what I call “penitential substitution.” In truth, Penal Substitution is distinct from Anselmian satisfaction. Penal Substitution is not accepted by any of the apostolic Churches, not even the Latin Catholic Church. It is, however, the generally accepted viewpoint of PROTESTANTS. You may want to study the Wikipedia entry on “Atonement” which has a surprisingly detailed account on the issue.

I have been doing a lot of research on the matter lately, and I have concluded that ALL Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches DEFINITELY and OFFICIALLY accept the doctrine of the Atonement (no big surprise).

On the other hand, I have seen different views from Eastern Orthodox sources. Some, such as a Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church written by a Rev. Constas Demetry indicates acceptance. On the other hand, the resident EO at AllExperts asserts that the Eastern Orthodox rejects the doctrine. Further, the folks at Orthodoxinfo.com claim that there is simply no patristic consensus on the matter.

I can guess that my Eastern Catholic brethren choose the first and third options above. I do have a big problem, however, with the idea that an Eastern Orthodox Christian can pick and choose to accept or reject such a foundational doctrine of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Here is a more detailed explanation from Theopedia:%between%

The Penal-Substitution Theory maintains that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.

This was an extension of Anselm’s Satisfaction theory made by the 16th century Reformers.

I am surprised to hear you accept Penal Substitution. It is the view accepted by the Reformers in order to throw out all need for penance, Purgatory, works, etc. I rather stay with the more generalized Substitutionary atonement. It also must be pointed out that much of the thinking on the issue of Redemption wasn’t done until the 12th century Scholastic movement (beginning with Anselm), so the Byzantines were left with a much more primitive and simplistic understanding of Redemption. I tend to be more prone to follow the Ransom theory and Substitutionary atonement.

Yup, the Protestants went hogwild on any number of doctrines. That doesn’t make what they may have based their distorted views on wrong. It just means that the Protestants are wrong.

Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Atonement. Read it, see if it makes sense:

newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

 

[Dan-Man916]

Here is a more detailed explanation from Theopedia:

The Penal-Substitution Theory maintains that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.

The way this is described and worded does indeed sound like the reformed theology of the Calvinists, who are even more legalistic than Roman Catholics are accused of being.

When we begin talking specifically about imputing guilt to Christ and that God poured his wrath upon his Son, I think we are moving from Anselm into Calvinism.

Perhaps theopedia would be better served by quoting directly from the newadvent encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

Anselm’s answer to the question is simply the need of satisfaction of sin. No sin, as he views the matter, can be forgiven without satisfaction. A debt to Divine justice has been incurred; and that debt must needs be paid. But man could not make this satisfaction for himself; the debt is something far greater than he can pay; and, moreover, all the service that he can offer to God is already due on other titles. The suggestion that some innocent man, or angel, might possibly pay the debt incurred by sinners is rejected, on the ground that in any case this would put the sinner under obligation to his deliverer, and he would thus become the servant of a mere creature. The only way in which the satisfaction could be made, and men could be set free from sin, was by the coming of a Redeemer who is both God and man. His death makes full satisfaction to the Divine Justice, for it is something greater than all the sins of all rnankind.

And in the article, it identifies 2 mistaken notions of the Protestant reformers:

the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God’s merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.

The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins.

So it seems that the Orthodox reject the reformers view of atonement theory. And in this, the Catholics would agree. Perhaps the issue is that our Eastern Christian brothers sometimes have a hard time making the distinction between Catholics and the reformers who left the Catholic Church in the 16th century.

 

[Dan-Man916]

JMJ,

I didn’t read you post before writing mine. It seems we are of the same mind, here.