Atonement and Eastern Catholicism

[Gregory_I]

I would have to say the view I subscribe to would be the byzantine one: That hrist, on the cross paid the ransom to the Grave, and by his Death trampled upon the powers of death, and him who held the keys of death: Making it possible to LIVE in him.

“Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham” Hebrews 2:14-16.

It was not God the Father, who was holding us captive, (As the western view tends to degenerate into) but the evil one (Death and sin were the instruments of his tyranny).

1)St Gregory the Theologian, in Oration 45:22 states; "Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into. To Whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was It shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High priest and Sacrifice. We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause? If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether. But if to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed; and next, On what principle did the Blood of His Only begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being offered by his Father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim? Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things? So much we have said of Christ; the greater part of what we might say shall be reverenced with silence.

But that brazen serpent [Numbers 21:9] was hung up as a remedy for the biting serpents, not as a type of Him that suffered for us, but as a contrast; and it saved those that looked upon it, not because they believed it to live, but because it was killed, and killed with it the powers that were subject to it, being destroyed as it deserved. And what is the fitting epitaph for it from us? O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory? You are overthrown by the Cross; you are slain by Him who is the Giver of life; you are without breath, dead, without motion, even though you keep the form of a serpent lifted up on high on a pole". As quoted by Felix Culpa in ORA ET LABORA at ishmaelite.blogspot.com/2009/04/to-whom-was-christs-blood-offered.html

 

[dcointin]

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

Could you describe what you understand to be the correct doctrine of atonement? I can then answer if I feel that I, and Orthodoxy in general, would agree or disagree with it.

 

[dcointin]

A member of my parish wrote a short essay on the differences between the east and west, and addressed the theology of Anselm as follows:

"The solution in the West [to the problem of sin and death] has taken several forms, almost all of which are variations of Anselm’s theology of atonement. Anselm, bishop of Canterbury, reasoned that our (Adam’s) sin offended God’s sense of righteousness. Since God is infinite, the offense is infinite; thus, no finite human could give God satisfaction for the offense. God cannot simply ignore or forgive the offense, as that would contradict his sense of justice. The solution was for the infinite Son of God to suffer the punishment of Death, and appease the wrath of God. By faith, we are then considered to have the righteousness of Christ before God (we appear righteous even though we do not change), and are freed from the punishment of Death.

Practically, the problem in the West is not so much sin, but God’s attitude; He is angry with us. We feel a need to placate God’s wrath but are incapable of doing so. It is the loving Jesus who must appease the angry Father."

Orthodoxy rejects this particular understanding of atonement.

 

[Vico]

Perhaps you have read the beautiful commentary of Saint John Chrysostom, in the 6th Homily on Colossians (here on Col 2:13-15), that Christ rid us of the bond to the devil.

"Seest thou how great His earnestness that the bond should be done away with? To wit, we all were under sin and punishment. He Himself through suffering punishment, did away with both the sin and the punishment, and He was punished on the Cross. To the Cross then He affixed it; as having power, He tore it asunder. What bond? He means either that which they said to Moses, namely, “All that God hath said we will do, and be obedient " (Exodus 24:3), or if not that, this, that we owe to God obedience; of if not this he means that the devil held possession of it, the bond which God made for Adam, saying, “In the day thou eatest of the tree, thou shalt die.” (Genesis 2:17.) This bond then the devil held in his possession. And Christ did not give it to us, but Himself tore it in two, the action of one who remits joyfully.”

Ref: A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Vol. 13, Saint John Chrysostom – Philip Scaff (1889)

Colossians 2:13-15 (Rheims-Challoner):
13 And you, when you were dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh; he hath quickened together with him, forgiving you all offences:
14 Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he hath taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross:
15 And despoiling the principalities and powers, he hath exposed them confidently in open shew, triumphing over them in himself.

Colossians 2:13-15 (KJV):
2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
2:15 [And] having spoiledprincipalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

 

[mardukm]

A member of my parish wrote a short essay on the differences between the east and west, and addressed the theology of Anselm as follows:

"The solution in the West [to the problem of sin and death] has taken several forms, almost all of which are variations of Anselm’s theology of atonement. Anselm, bishop of Canterbury, reasoned that our (Adam’s) sin offended God’s sense of righteousness. Since God is infinite, the offense is infinite; thus, no finite human could give God satisfaction for the offense. God cannot simply ignore or forgive the offense, as that would contradict his sense of justice. The solution was for the infinite Son of God to suffer the punishment of Death, and appease the wrath of God. By faith, we are then considered to have the righteousness of Christ before God (we appear righteous even though we do not change), and are freed from the punishment of Death.

Practically, the problem in the West is not so much sin, but God’s attitude; He is angry with us. We feel a need to placate God’s wrath but are incapable of doing so. It is the loving Jesus who must appease the angry Father."

Orthodoxy rejects this particular understanding of atonement.

Here’s what I wrote in my post #17:
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.

Can say for sure that “[Eastern] Orthodoxy rejects this particular understanding of atonement?”

Btw, the description of the Western understanding your friend gave is identical to the Oriental Orthodox understanding. When I have time within the next couple of days, I will provide quotes from OO sources.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gregory,

I would have to say the view I subscribe to would be the byzantine one: That hrist, on the cross paid the ransom to the Grave, and by his Death trampled upon the powers of death, and him who held the keys of death: Making it possible to LIVE in him.

“Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham” Hebrews 2:14-16.

It was not God the Father, who was holding us captive, (As the western view tends to degenerate into) but the evil one (Death and sin were the instruments of his tyranny).

First, as evinced by brother Dcointin, the doctrine of the Atonement - the notion of ransom or satisfaction - is not accepted by certain quarters of the Eastern Tradition. However, the source you cite which uses St. Gregory Nazianzen obviously believes otherwise.

Second, I don’t understand where you obtain the idea that the Western view teaches that God holds us captive, and not the devil. Can you cite a Western Catholic source for that idea?

Third, it is important to point out that the “Western” Catholic view is also the Oriental view.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dcointin]

Yes, I can confidently say that Eastern Orthodoxy rejects the Anselmian theory of atonement.

Allow me to quote a selection from "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Father Michael Pomazansky:

"The interpretation of the truth of the Redemption was greatly complicated thanks to the direction which was given to it in the Western theology of the Middle Ages. The figurative expressions of the Apostles were accepted in medieval Roman Catholic theology in their literal and overly-narrow sense, and the work of redemption was interpreted as a “satisfaction” - more precisely, “the satisfaction of God (God in the Holy Trinity) for the offense caused to Him by the Sin of Adam.” It is easy to see that the foundation of such a view is the special Latin teaching on original sin: that man in the transgression of Adam “indefinitely offended” God and evoked God’s wrath; therefore, it was required that God be offered complete satisfaction in order that the guilt might be removed and God might be appeased; this was done by the Saviour when He accepted death on the Cross: the Saviour offered an infinitely complete satisfaction.

This one-sided interpretation of Redemption became the reigning one in Latin theology and it has remained so up to the present time. In Protestantism it evoked the opposite reaction, which led the later sects to the almost complete denial of the dogma of Redemption and to the acknowledgement of no more than a moral or instructive significant for Christ’s life and death on the Cross.

The term “satisfaction” has been used in Russian Orthodox theology, but in a changed form: “the satisfaction of God’s righteousness.” The expression “to satisfy the righteousness of God,” one must acknowledge, is not entirely foreign to the New Testament, as may be seen from the words of the Saviour Himself: Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness (Matt. 3:15). An expression which is close in meaning to the present term, but which is more complete and authentically Biblical, and gives a basis for the Orthodox understanding of the work of Redemption, is the word “propitiation,” which we read in the First Epistle of John: Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins (I John 4:10). (“Propitiation” is the direct translation of the Greek word ilasmos. The same use of the word is to be found in I John 2:2, and in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews, 2:17, where it is translated as “reconciliation” in the King James Version".

 

[crazzeto]

I’m curious what the Eastern Orthodox views are on the subject of Atonement then, honestly the doctrine seems so natural to me that I never really questioned it or bothered to stop to think that someone might have some other view on the subject matter.

 

[IHSpetros]

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.

Western Catholics certainly have the idea of satisfaction, but penal substitution is a later Protestant idea, not at all held by Latin rite Catholics.