Does Communion with Rome Truly Allow Differences in Atonement Theology?

[Antonius_Lupus]

Dear brethren,

From my understanding, it appears that Roman Christianity, Alexandrian Christianity, and Syriac Christianity tend (!) see the doctrine of the Atonement through a “legalistic” lense. Byzantine Christianity however takes a more “holistic” approach towards to the Atonement. One of the many issues dividing the Greco-Russian Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church is the question of the Atonement.

I am concerned about the issue. All my life I have understood the Atonement through the Roman legalistic lense. Most Protestants (from what I understand) hold, in one way or another, to the legalistic concept of Roman Christianity, so that was the understanding that was imbued to me. Now I have learned that an equally ancient and Apostolic Christian traditions looks at it through a holistic understanding.

My question revolves around who is “right.”

Due to my experience with Byzantine Catholics, who my Melkite-Greek priest affirms are essentially Greco-Russian Orthodox in communion with Rome, I firmly believe that the Catholic Mystery (i.e. the true faith defined by the 21 Ecumenical Councils) can be expressed through many different lenses. Hence, Rome does not object to the Byzantine Catholic Church not having a “legalistic” understanding of the Atonement.

HOWEVER, in some of the Ecumenical Councils, particularly Trent, the doctrine of the Atonement appears (at least to me) to have been “defined” through the lense of scholastic legalism, which is common in Roman Christianity.

I am now stuck in an impasse. If it appears as though the Ecumenical Council of Trent defined the Faith with scholastic/Roman legalism terminology, then how can the Church hold to the Councils and allow a “holistic” understanding in the Byzantine Catholic Churches?

The tenuous conclusion I am clinging to is that, while the Council did use scholastic terminology (since most of the East had gone into schism anyway thus the Church of Christ remained largely “Roman”), that does NOT mean that scholasticism ALONE is the only way the Paschal Mystery can be expressed. The Paschal Mystery is just that, a mystery. We use philosophy to try to explain what Christ did on the Cross, but in the end it is a divine truth of the Triune God.

Thus, Byzantine Catholics are free to view the doctrine of the Atonement through any lense they want, HOWEVER they cannot reject the scholastic legal definition of Rome or the Coptic understanding of Alexandria, even if they choose not to express the Paschal Mystery through those definitions.

Is this conclusion Orthodox? I am seeking help in this for I wish to resolve this issue in my mind. I think it is a critical question for the One, Holy, CATHOLIC (katholikos), and Apostolic Church.

I eagerly await replies,

-Antonius Ioannes

 

[yeshua]

Dear brethren,

From my understanding, it appears that Roman Christianity, Alexandrian Christianity, and Syriac Christianity tend (!) see the doctrine of the Atonement through a “legalistic” lense. Byzantine Christianity however takes a more “holistic” approach towards to the Atonement. One of the many issues dividing the Greco-Russian Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church is the question of the Atonement.

As a side, I would greatly appreciate some illumination on how Syriac Christianity views the Atonement through a “legalistic” lens. Perhaps then I could better understand your overall conclusions.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

As a side, I would greatly appreciate some illumination on how Syriac Christianity views the Atonement through a “legalistic” lens.

I am not the one to give that to you. That is simply something that I heard and incorporated into my understanding of the issue. If this is incorrect, please feel free to correct me.

 

[yeshua]

I am not the one to give that to you. That is simply something that I heard and incorporated into my understanding of the issue. If this is incorrect, please feel free to correct me.

If it was from the Syriac Fathers, I would appreciate a source, or if it were a poster here at CAF, then I would appreciate a reference.

Oriental Christianity here on this board has been subject to a rather one-sided viewpoint, and I won’t be the first to disagree and state that Coptics or otherwise do not view the Atonement as presented here on this board. In fact, I have never met one other Oriental Christian to substantiate this claim, both online or off, in this country and back home.

Thank you!

Peace and God Bless.

 

[mardukm]

As a side, I would greatly appreciate some illumination on how Syriac Christianity views the Atonement through a “legalistic” lens. Perhaps then I could better understand your overall conclusions.

I second. What is “legalistic” and what is “holistic?”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Yeshua,

Oriental Christianity here on this board has been subject to a rather one-sided viewpoint, and I won’t be the first to disagree and state that Coptics or otherwise do not view the Atonement as presented here on this board. In fact, I have never met one other Oriental Christian to substantiate this claim, both online or off, in this country and back home.

The doctrine of the Atonement states that Christ was/is a substitute for our punishment/sins in the Divine Economy. You really have not heard of that from any Oriental Christian you’ve met? I’m rather surprised. Do you have any sources that claim otherwise?

Of course, I admit I am not exactly sure of the difference between “legalistic” and “holistic”.What makes one belief “legalistic” and the other belief “holistic?” If we look at the beliefs of the various Traditions, maybe we are all really saying the same thing? I’m looking forward to this discussion. I started a similar one many months ago, but did not get too much detailed participation from Eastern Catholics.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[M0nkey]

I second. What is “legalistic” and what is “holistic?”

Blessings,
Marduk

I third. Would love to know what this means…

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Antonius Lupus,

I am also interested in quotes from the Council of Trent that would be interpreted as dogmatizing a “legalistic” view of Atonement (of course, after you explain what is meant by “legalistic” as distinct from “holistic”).

If you can provide those, it will go a long way towards an analysis of whether or not we can say the Latin/Oriental Traditions are compatible with the Eastern Tradition (which I believe they are).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Badaliyyah]

Aulen has a classic entitled Christus Victor in which he lays out various models for understanding the Atonement in which Anselm, if I recall correctly, is considered the paradigmatic instance of a legalistic thinker. The study is dated and controversial but it is readable and it will give you a handle on some of the various ways in which Christianity has approached the doctrine of the Atonement.

There is clearly a great deal of variety in the manner in which even Latin Christians understand the Atonement and it is neither surprising nor problematic that a similar variation is found within Christianity more broadly.

salaam.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Whew, okay. From my limited understanding (please recognize brethren that I am still very much a neophyte), the West tends to emphasize a view that sin is more of a “crime.” Thus Atonement becomes, as St. Anselm appears to have argued, a substitutionary sacrifice to atone for the crime that was committed. The East (I am really only familiar personally with Byzantine Easterners) has this IMO odd notion of sin as a “disease.” And so from what I hear the Atonement is less (if any) of a notion of atonement for sins against a just God, but rather a healing of the disease. I have seen what I believe to be traces of the “crime” mentality and the “disease” mentality in things like the differences between East and West on Original Sin.

To brother Marduk’s question, as I struggled with this last night I opened the Catechism of the Catholic Church and viewed its explanation of the Paschal Mystery. The Catechism quotes the Council of Trent saying:

“Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.” (CCC 615).

Then there is a quote from the Roman Catechism:

In His Passion and death the Son of God, our Saviour, intended to atone for and blot out the sins of all ages, to offer for them to his Father a full and abundant satisfaction.

Now, to my newbie mindset, this sounded very much like the “sin is a crime” legal idea. IOW, we had a debt to pay (or price) that Christ made a substitutionary satisfaction for our sins and now we are able to approach God. The Byzantine Catholics rarely approach it in that manner as I understand it…they tend to go off into some tangent that ends with a theosis mentality (not that that’s a bad thing, I tend to like Theosis).

Also, please understand something else. I may simply be totally missing the mark on this whole problem I am struggling with because prior to my full Initiation I almost embraced Eastern Orthodoxy. Thus, I still have (IMO) some baggage from alot of the anti-ecumenical wing of Orthodox apologetics.

In the end the big struggle I am having is:

If Rome has defined something with a certain terminology, then aren’t we as Catholics (of whatever sui iuris Church) bound to believe the theology according to those terms?

In the end this issue is bringing back “up the bile” that I meddled in when Orthodox polemicists would teach me that Rome had marred the original Tradition with Latin scholastic stuff and that Eastern Orthodoxy had perserved the Faith undefiled.

I hope that clears up some stuff. If it doesn’t let me know and I will try further. I hope to find some answer to this problem.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Aulen has a classic entitled Christus Victor in which he lays out various models for understanding the Atonement in which Anselm, if I recall correctly, is considered the paradigmatic instance of a legalistic thinker. The study is dated and controversial but it is readable and it will give you a handle on some of the various ways in which Christianity has approached the doctrine of the Atonement.

YES! I took a brief look at the “Christus Victor” theory, and that only helped to further cause doubt in the Catholic Church. It seemed, in many ways, to be an attempt to discredit the Roman Catholic Church as having a theology corrupt with legalism whereas Eastern Orthodoxy had maintained the “original” Christus Victor notion.

 

[M0nkey]

Interesting, I’m no expert, but I seemed to have run into something similar in my Catholic Bible where St. Paul talks about sin as a curse, of course I could be taking this out of context:

Gal 3:13 Christ ransomed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree,”

I personally think sin could be considered both a disease and a crime. It’s a disease because it creates self destruction, and a crime because it offends God. In my opinion, I think the Church teaches both aspects of sin, but I could be wrong.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

In my opinion, I think the Church teaches both aspects of sin, but I could be wrong.

Sure She teaches both, but what has She defined?

That is my problem.

 

[Badaliyyah]

YES! I took a brief look at the “Christus Victor” theory, and that only helped to further cause doubt in the Catholic Church. It seemed, in many ways, to be an attempt to discredit the Roman Catholic Church as having a theology corrupt with legalism whereas Eastern Orthodoxy had maintained the “original” Christus Victor notion.

except the author is Lutheran, if I recall correctly. It has been a long time. You are right that he is trying to attack Latin theology as legalistic. Since you have looked at the book I will say that I don’t think its a fair characterization of Anselm. Anselm is interested in the concepts of Justice and Mercy as divine attributes, not legal norms and he struggles with these concepts throughout his writings in an attempt to understand God. Second, Anselm’s account is not widely followed even in the West. One can take a quick look at Thomas and see that he goes a different direction (here I actually think Anselm is more interesting and better, but no one really asks me).

There was a “rediscovery” of sorts and a renewed interest in the Eastern Fathers in the later 20th century and this had an impact on the views of the Atonement that one sees in Rahner and de Lubac for instance. Von Balthasar, who has marvelous studies of Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus Confessor, actually takes time to defend Anselm at several points when he writes on Christology. So the distinctions are not always as neat as we would like them to be. Let’s just say that there is a great deal of variation to be found in Catholic thought.

salaam.

 

[bpbasilphx]

**I think our faith should be in Jesus and not in a theory about how He saves us.

There IS a difference.**

Sure She teaches both, but what has She defined?

Does something have to be formally defined for it to be the faith of the Church? If she teaches it, that should be sufficient.

 

[Ahimsa]

(…I tend to like Theosis).

Don’t we all.

 

[yeshua]

Whew, okay. From my limited understanding (please recognize brethren that I am still very much a neophyte), the West tends to emphasize a view that sin is more of a “crime.” Thus Atonement becomes, as St. Anselm appears to have argued, a substitutionary sacrifice to atone for the crime that was committed. The East (I am really only familiar personally with Byzantine Easterners) has this IMO odd notion of sin as a “disease.” And so from what I hear the Atonement is less (if any) of a notion of atonement for sins against a just God, but rather a healing of the disease. I have seen what I believe to be traces of the “crime” mentality and the “disease” mentality in things like the differences between East and West on Original Sin.

To brother Marduk’s question, as I struggled with this last night I opened the Catechism of the Catholic Church and viewed its explanation of the Paschal Mystery. The Catechism quotes the Council of Trent saying:

“Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.” (CCC 615).

Then there is a quote from the Roman Catechism:

Brother Marduk,

No, I have not heard of any Oriental affirm the Atonement in this way, aside from you, nor do I appreciate the condescension. In fact, many OO would seem resentful to misinformation such as this regarding their traditions, that of which are often used as a buffer between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy that they distasteful and offensive.

I have no interest in dueling with you over these issues, for I have zero interest in being called ignorant nor partial to EO polemicists.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Antonius,

I remember reading Christus Victor a long time ago, but did not come away feeling he was saying anything against the Catholic Church in particular. I recall that he stated that there are two theories of Atonement, one focuses on the Justice of God, while the other focuses on the Love of God, but BOTH theories contain BOTH elements, and it is just a matter of emphasis. Perhaps I am thinking of the wrong text?

I agree with brother Monkey that sin is both a crime and a disease for the very reasons he gave. Jesus is the answer to both the satisfaction for the crime and the healing of the disease.

But I am interested most in this comment from you:

If Rome has defined something with a certain terminology, then aren’t we as Catholics (of whatever sui iuris Church) bound to believe the theology according to those terms?

We are bound by theology, not the terms themselves. The legalism of terminological differences is something I have personally found to be NON-existent in the Catholic Church. Though I am not aware of a specific teaching from the Catholic Church on the issue, I am reasonably sure from the practice of the Catholic Church that this is the case. For instance, if we stuck to terminologies, there would be no Common Christological Agreements between the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholic Churches. There are other examples, but I’m sure you get my drift.

I also agree with brother bpbasilphx - the Church need not define something for it to be considered the Faith of the Church. But I appreciate your search for Truth, so I will attempt to respond to your concerns. To that effect, I would like to investigate the teaching of the Council of Trent on the issue. This requires research, which I don’t have time for at the moment. I will attempt to address your specific concerns this weekend.

For now, brother Badalliyah has a great outlook on the matter - there are different viewpoints on the matter in the Church, and always have been. Our goal is to see if these different viewpoints are amenable to each other, or are mutually exclusive. And did the existence of these different viewpoints affect the unity of the early Church?

For now, ponder this:
Can you imagine the Easterns denying that sin is an offense against God, which is the basis for the Western and Oriental understanding on the matter?

Can you imagine the Westerns and Orientals denying that sin/its effects are overcome by the healing balm of divinization or sanctification, which is the basis for the Eastern understanding on the matter?

If you can answer “no” to both questions, then you are perhaps more than halfway there in assuaging your concerns about this topic.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother yeshua,

Brother Marduk,

No, I have not heard of any Oriental affirm the Atonement in this way, aside from you, nor do I appreciate the condescension. In fact, many OO would seem resentful to misinformation such as this regarding their traditions, that of which are often used as a buffer between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy that they distasteful and offensive.

I have no interest in dueling with you over these issues, for I have zero interest in being called ignorant nor partial to EO polemicists.

I am saddened to read that you would consider that we would be “dueling” on the matter if we were to discuss it. If you feel that way, I respect your decision not to discuss the issue with me.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Antonius,

From my understanding, it appears that Roman Christianity, Alexandrian Christianity, and Syriac Christianity tend (!) see the doctrine of the Atonement through a “legalistic” lense. Byzantine Christianity however takes a more “holistic” approach towards to the Atonement. One of the many issues dividing the Greco-Russian Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church is the question of the Atonement.

Judging from this, this thread is an offshoot from another thread where I mentioned that the doctrine of the Atonement is the official belief of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. To demonstrate, I gave links to several sites from the three main Oriental Traditions - Syrian, Armenian, and Coptic. Did you read those sites that I gave from that other thread, or do you need me to repost those links here?

Blessings,
Marduk