Does Communion with Rome Truly Allow Differences in Atonement Theology?

[Antonius_Lupus]

Dear brother Antonius,

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

Reposting them would be great.

 

[mardukm]

Atonement in Oriental Orthodoxy. This is the teaching of our hierarchy, regardless of the views of individual laymen.

stmarkdc.org/en/content/t…-april-24-2008
stdemiana.org.au/orthodox/cop…explained.html
syrianorthodoxchurch.org/…y/sermons.html
geocities.com/dershnork/divine_lit.html
saintsjoachimandanne.net/worship.htm
stsarkischurch.net/Badarak.htm
soc-wus.org/ar%20bapt.htm

Do a search for the keywords “atonement” and/or “satisfaction.”

Here’s further reading:

Holy Communion is not only a Sacrament but also a Sacrifice. “As Sacrifice, it is the continuation of the sacrifice of Golgotha.” The very words used by our Lord clearly show this: “My Body given . . ., or broken for you,” “My Blood shed . . . for many for the remission of sins.” “These expressions indicate that this Institution is itself a propitiatory sacrifice.” It is not simply a representation of the death of our Lord, but actual and real sacrifice, in which “The Offerer and the Victim are one and the same, our Lord, even if the sacrifice be offered by the priest.” It is not simply a reminder or commemoration of the historical fact of Golgotha, but an actual and objective sacrifice. The purpose of the sacrifice on the Cross was the reconciliation of man with God, the atonement for the sins of man and their expiation, in general. Whereas the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is offered for specific people, it is the application of the general benefits of the sacrifice of the Cross, to those for whom the Eucharist is celebrated, both for the living and the dead.
Bishop S. Kaloustian, Saints and Sacraments of the Armenian Church, 40

**Redemption & Atonement:
Sin is an offense against God, King David said, “Against You, You only, have I sinned and done evil in Your sight” (Ps 51:4). This he said even though he sinned against Uriah the Hittite and his wife Bathsheba. The weight of that offence is proportional to the status of the offended party. Sin is, therefore, considered unlimited because it is committed against the unlimited God. Consequently, any sin requires unlimited atonement.
This atonement should be provided by a person who is:

1. Unlimited à To be able to provide this unlimited atonement the Savior has to be unlimited.
2. Sinless à The Savior has to be free from sin to be able to redeem others, or else he would need
   salvation himself.
3. Human à Since human beings committed the sin, therefore, a human being should pay the price.
4. Mortal à Since the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23), therefore, the savior has to be mortal.
   Our Lord Jesus Christ is:
5. Unlimited à He said, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. Who is and Who
   was and Who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev 1:8).
6. Sinless à Archangel Gabriel said to the Virgin, “That Holy One who is to be born will be called the
   Son of God” (Lk 1:35). Our lord said, “Which of you convicts Me of sin?” (Jn 8:46).
7. Human à Our Lord was called the Son of Man several times, also, the Bible documents that on
   several occasions He was thirsty, hungry, tired, sleeping, etc…
8. Mortal à Even though our Lord is immortal due to His divinity, he assumed a human nature that
   was liable to die.
   E The Ransom:
   Our Lord said, “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mk 10:45), St. Paul said, “There is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all” (1Tim 2:5-6). The word ‘ransom’ suggests some kind of payment and someone to whom this ransom is paid. The question is, “To whom was this ransom paid?” Origen and some early fathers suggested that this ransom was paid to the devil but the Church rejected this idea. H.H. Pope Shenouda III clarified this issue and said, “The ransom was paid to the Divine Justice. The Old Testament sacrifices were symbols of the sacrifice of the cross. These sacrifices were not offered to the devil but were offered to God. Hence, holy fire came down from heaven and consumed them (1Kg 18:38), and it is written that God “smelled a soothing aroma” (Gen 8:21) after the sacrifice of our father Noah. Since sin is committed against God (Ps 51:4) then the price of this sin should be paid to God Himself, the devil has no right to ask or to accept a ransom. The devil is just an accuser
   (Rev 12:10; Job 1). On the cross our Lord offered Himself to the Father (Lk 23:46) and not to the devil”.**
   S. Naguib, a recollection of Lecture 1 on Original Sin and Atonement by HH Pope Shenouda.

The mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ is an atonement, which means that He mediates for the forgiveness of our sins, being the Atoner who paid our debts on our behalf. His mediation means that He says to the Father: “Do not count their transgressions because I have carried their iniquity” (Is.53:6). Thus He stands as a Mediator between God and men; or rather, He is the only Mediator between God and men; He fulfilled God’s Divine Justice and granted people the forgiveness of sins, by dying for them.
HH Pope Shenouda, Comparative Theology, p. 77

Sin is very awful indeed and leads to eternal death. The Apostle James said: and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death (Jas. 1:15). For the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). Therefore when sin overtakes a person, he becomes overwhelmed with apprehension, anxiety, guilt and instability. In fear and trepidation, He expects severe punishment as a consequence for what he has committed. But thanks be to God for sending His Son, Who became an atonement for us by His death on the Cross, thus abolishing sin by His resurrection from among the dead. In so doing, He reconciled us with His heavenly Father, Who wants us to be at peace with heaven in order to be worthy to inherit the kingdom of God. For we have been justified from the original sin when we were buried with Christ in Baptism, even to death, and rose with Him to a new life. Yet, we are humans, and are always susceptible to sin, but on Judgment Day the Lord shall not ask: why did you sin? but rather: why didn’t you repent?
HH Patriarch Ignatius Zakka, Patriarchal Encyclical 2003

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

I will offer my perspective on the difference between ‘legalistic’ and ‘holistic’. Anselm is my example of a theologian who took a legalistic approach. His view was basically that Christ died on the cross to counter-ballance the offense against God which our sins caused. This satisfies the justice of God which can not be ignored. (God can not simply forgive us without satisfying His justice.) Since God is eternal and infinite our sins against Him are infinite and consequently require an infinite sacrifice to counter them therefore God must become man and die for our sins. It is kind of like divine scales in which our sins are on one side and the sacrifice of Christ is on the other. Christ’s sacrifice out weighs our sin because He is God. This is more an emphasis on the justice of God.

The holistic approach is more along the lines of the idea that God so loved the world that He sent His son to die on the cross to save us from our sinfulness. The sins which we have become slaves to and the seperation from God that we have is the curse which Christ came to conquer. Therefore in Christ’s incarnation, sacrifice, death and ressurection we recieve communion with God and consequently through this we are healed of our disease and we are ransomed from slavery to sin. This is more an emphasis of God having mercy on his people.

That said, I don’t think the lines are absolutely distinguishable between east and west. The west does have a sense of the holistic. And in some sense the east has a sense of the legalistic but it does not speak along those lines nearly as often. Anslem is not the model by which western Catholicism approaches salvation. There are a variety of views.

 

[Badaliyyah]

I will offer my perspective on the difference between ‘legalistic’ and ‘holistic’. Anselm is my example of a theologian who took a legalistic approach. His view was basically that Christ died on the cross to counter-ballance the offense against God which our sins caused. This satisfies the justice of God which can not be ignored. (God can not simply forgive us without satisfying His justice.) Since God is eternal and infinite our sins against Him are infinite and consequently require an infinite sacrifice to counter them therefore God must become man and die for our sins. It is kind of like divine scales in which our sins are on one side and the sacrifice of Christ is on the other. Christ’s sacrifice out weighs our sin because He is God. This is more an emphasis on the justice of God.

The holistic approach is more along the lines of the idea that God so loved the world that He sent His son to die on the cross to save us from our sinfulness. The sins which we have become slaves to and the seperation from God that we have is the curse which Christ came to conquer. Therefore in Christ’s incarnation, sacrifice, death and ressurection we recieve communion with God and consequently through this we are healed of our disease and we are ransomed from slavery to sin. This is more an emphasis of God having mercy on his people.

That said, I don’t think the lines are absolutely distinguishable between east and west. The west does have a sense of the holistic. And in some sense the east has a sense of the legalistic but it does not speak along those lines nearly as often. Anslem is not the model by which western Catholicism approaches salvation. There are a variety of views.

I am just going to play the defender of Anselm a bit. While it is true that Anselm’s understanding of “Why God Became Human” works extensively with the concepts of Justice and Mercy, these two concepts and the relation between them had troubled Anselm from his very earliest writings. Moreover they also are part of a legacy of reflection that stretches back to Augustine (not that no one else had thought about the relationship between the two of course, but that the particular way in which the problem is framed and reflected on is rooted in Augustine…one finds it for instance prefigured in the City of God).

Second, Justice and Mercy are divine attributes. Anselm is not (primarily) interested in these as legal categories, but as an attempt to understand God. Christians affirm that God is both Merciful and Just. The arbitrary forgiveness of sin is not then the violation of some external standard of Justice, but would bring God’s being into contradiction with itself (you imply this already, but I want to make it clear that this is at the center of Anselm’s thought). This is obviously absurd.

Finally, the whole starting point of Cur Deus Homo is not a legal situation, but that God creates out of God’s Goodness (and thus, God’s Love). The whole reason sin (defined as alienation by Anselm) creates a situation that is worth reflecting on is because God’s purpose in creating cannot be thwarted. So the issue is not a juridical one about how human beings are caught in some legalistic relationship with God, but how the divine attributes - Good, Justice, Mercy - are unified and One (another attribute of God). It turns out that the unity of God in the full scope of God’s creative activity is maintained because God is Incarnate. Creation cannot ultimately be separated from God because of the Incarnation (which, necessarily, includes death). Reconciliation as accomplished in the Incarnation is the continuation of and fulfillment of God’s creative purpose.

Ultimately, creation and the reconciliation of humanity with God is an ontological problem for Anselm, NOT a legal one.

And as a side benefit the whole exercise demands that the understanding of the Incarnation be Chalcedonian to work.

I suppose maybe one could call some of the Lutheran interps of the Atonement juridical (since it is language that you actually find Lutherans using). Because of Christ take the punishment which belongs to human beings, God declares something to be the legally the case about humans which is not (yet) true. But this is not the same situation as in Anselm who is trying to figure out a way to explain how in fact human beings are not simply called into union with God, but how that union is in fact accomplished historically, through Christ and then the life of the Church. The collapse of Anselm’s account into later Penal Substitutionary accounts that one finds amongst Scholastics and later Protestants is simply a mistake (n.b., in Anselm that Christ’s death is in no way a punishment - though it is true that Christ dies for and because of human sin).

Certainly it is the Lutheran position that Aulen is reacting too, at least in part, in his championing of what he takes to be a more Patristic position.

salaam.

 

[Badaliyyah]

Just to add one more point that is more on topic…at least regarding legalism.

It does seem to me to be the case that legal issues and legal interpretations of events do play a more central role in the Latin world than in the East. One need only read the letters of Leo the Great around the time of the Chalcedon and see his interpretation of the exchange between Peter and Christ among other matters to see this play out.

That said, the real issue of legalistic thinking with regards to activity of Christ and reconciliation with God does not emerge as far as I can tell until High Middle Ages. We are talking post-Thomas (though Thomas is on the cusp of it). Nominalism (which is admittedly as broad and vague a term as, e.g., post-modernism) changes the way in which Latin theologians think about the relationship between God and humanity.

Notice in Anselm for instance that God is the Good and there are things that God cannot do without ceasing to be God. The nominalists found this to be a violation of divine omnipotence and in fact nothing could contain God’s power (not even the Good apparently). Thus God could do anything God wanted…forgive, not forgive…make killing the law, and peace the breach, etc. God chose to do it in the manner that we know and we call it good because God chose to do it this way. God gave humanity a set of rules that humans have to obey. If they don’t obey them, they will be punished. Thus because we broke the rules, there must be a punishment. This is indeed a legal framework; and thus everything reduces to question of Power. But it is not Anselm’s framework.

Anselm still has an understanding of the Good and an ontology that grounds the whole thing. For the nominalists all these have been lost.

Thus, in my opinion, when people talk about the legalistic nature of Latin theology and the Church, they are talking about the enduring effects of a specific period of Latin Church history (say 1350-1700) which we have indeed been trying to overcome with varying degrees of success since the advent of modernity.

salaam.

 

[Ghosty]

Badaliyyah: Wonderful posts. Since you noted that the interplay between Divine Mercy and Divine Justice is quite ancient, I thought I’d throw out this bit from St. Athanasius, from “On the Incarnation”:

As we have already noted, it was unthinkable that God, the Father of Truth, should go back upon His word regarding death in order to ensure our continued existence. He could not falsify Himself; what, then, was God to do? Was He to demand repentance from men for their transgression? You might say that that was worthy of God, and argue further that, as through the Transgression they became subject to corruption, so through repentance they might return to incorruption again. But repentance would not guard the Divine consistency, for, if death did not hold dominion over men, God would still remain untrue. Nor does repentance recall men from what is according to their nature; all that it does is to make them cease from sinning. Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough; but when once transgression had begun men came under the power of the corruption proper to their nature and were bereft of the grace which belonged to them as creatures in the Image of God. No, repentance could not meet the case. What—or rather Who was it that was needed for such grace and such recall as we required? Who, save the Word of God Himself, Who also in the beginning had made all things out of nothing? His part it was, and His alone, both to bring again the corruptible to incorruption and to maintain for the Father His consistency of character with all. For He alone, being Word of the Father and above all, was in consequence both able to recreate all, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be an ambassador for all with the Father.

…

He saw that corruption held us all the closer, because it was the penalty for the Transgression; He saw, too, how unthinkable it would be for the law to be repealed before it was fulfilled. He saw how unseemly it was that the very things of which He Himself was the Artificer should be disappearing. He saw how the surpassing wickedness of men was mounting up against them; He saw also their universal liability to death. All this He saw and, pitying our race, moved with compassion for our limitation, unable to endure that death should have the mastery, rather than that His creatures should perish and the work of His Father for us men come to nought, He took to Himself a body, a human body even as our own.

So, as Mardukm shows, that this dillemma would be present in Oriental theology should not come as a suprise, since the leading Oriental Father posed this very dillemma between Justice and Mercy as the very core of the Incarnation, and taught that the Incarnation was in large part for the purpose of fulfilling “Divine Justice” in completing the cost of death for all humanity.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Tessera]

Hi Antonius —

Sure She teaches both, but what has She defined?

She hasn’t. There is no dogmatic definition on the mechanics of the Atonement … that Our Lord saved us by His Sacrifice on the Cross is a given, this was preached by St Irenaeus on, but the various theories of the Fathers, the physical theory, the ransom theory, the realist theory, etc., remain theories, with more or less support.

Thomas

 

[Tessera]

In the end … 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.

Well, our brothers in the East can sometimes be a little bit … (but then so can we) … some would have it that Roman theology begins with Augustine and then the scholastics … that we’d never heard of the Fathers … and that the Fathers ‘belong’ to them …

Yet the theology of St Irenaeus, among the first of the Fathers, is not a theology of sickness, but of sin. His theology of reconciliation overshadowed the thinking of the Fathers, all the theories of atonement were subsequent to this, and accepted the Pauline idea — “(Our Lord) In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins, according to the riches of his grace … to re-establish all things in Christ” (Ephesians 1:7 & 10). Note it is remission of sin (guilt) not a remission of a sickness.

St Irenaeus, Against Heresies V, 16. 3:
“… For doing away with [the effects of] that disobedience of man (an act of disobedience is a crime, not an illness) which had taken place at the beginning by the occasion of a tree, “He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross;”(3) rectifying that disobedience which had occurred by reason of a tree, through that obedience which was [wrought out] upon the tree [of the cross].”

and

"… He (Our Lord) clearly shows forth God Himself, whom indeed we had offended in the first Adam, when he did not perform His commandment. In the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, being made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other but to Him whose commandment we had transgressed at the beginning.

It is Our Lord’s obedience which cancels out Adam’s disobedience.

Thomas

 

[jimmy]

When I read Anselm my understanding was that he believed that God demanded punishment for sin so Christ therefore had to suffer an equivalent or greater punishment than we were to suffer. Christ is basically the wipping boy who suffers the punishment we should suffer.

 

[Badaliyyah]

When I read Anselm my understanding was that he believed that God demanded punishment for sin so Christ therefore had to suffer an equivalent or greater punishment than we were to suffer. Christ is basically the wipping boy who suffers the punishment we should suffer.

This is NOT true in Anselm. In fact no punishment could change the situation within which humans find themselves. If it was a matter of punishment, then there would be no salvation for human beings as Anselm sees it. The issue of Justice, as framed by Anselm, is that human beings owe God the totality of who and what they are. Having failed in one instance (to say nothing of all the others that follow), nothing creatures can do can rectify the situation. The past cannot be undone. It would be a violation of divine Justice for God to forgive in that situation. God would be declaring the false to be true (i.e., that alienated humanity is reconciled to God), which is absurd.

The death of Christ is an instance of a human being offering something MORE THAN THEY OWE to God. Death was not a necessity for Christ because Christ had not sinned and did not participate in original sin. By participation in the death of Christ through the sacraments human beings can, in effect, give themselves totally to God despite their failures because the merits of the death of the Deus-Homo are infinite.

Only God is capable of accomplishing what needed to be accomplished (Reconciliation/Mercy), but only human beings can give themselves totally to God (Justice). Thus there has to be a Deus-Homo if the creative activity of God is to be fulfilled.

There is nothing in Anselm about pacifying divine anger or God taking out the punishment that would have been dumped on humans onto Christ. Indeed the effects of sin - pain and death - still pertain to human life even after the life, death and resurrection of Christ. One should not confuse later penal substitution theories with Anselm’s argument in “Cur Deus Homo”.

salaam.

 

[HolyNameOfJesus]

Dear brethren, [f]rom 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 . . .

Antonius, please beware of caricatures of Western Catholic doctrine (better to say Western doctrinal formulations of Apostolic teaching?) which unfortunately run rampant in the minds, mouths, and writings of many well-meaning Eastern Christians. Please be aware too that among English speaking Christians, evangelical Protestant formularies concerning the Atonement – which indeed are often highly legalistic – are so deeply ingrained in popular Christian culture that they are taken to be identical with the historical doctrine. But that’s not true, and it’s highly unfortunate that so many English speaking Catholics today – lay persons, priests, religious – have subconsciously adopted the evangelical Protestant mentality about Christ’s suffering and death, as this leads to a very superficial appreciation of the Redemption that Christ won for us by his life, death, and resurrection.

If you would like to develop an informed perspective on the historical development of the Catholic doctrine of the Atonement, let me suggest an english-language text from the 1800s which is freely available on books.google.com:

The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement:
An Historical Inquiry Into Its Development in the Church,
with an Introduction on the Principle of Theological Developments
by Henry Oxenham
(below the thumbnail pic of the title page:
click the “Read this book” or “Download PDF” buttons)

While written ~150 years ago, the information is all still relevant and well put together by modern standards; in certain sections he writes to his audience as though they were quite familiar with the the names and work of men who were at that time contemporary Protestant and Catholic theologians, so a reader today will have to just let some of it buzz over his/her head. If you want to skip the Introduction (pages 1 - 66), which is like a mini-treatise on the general concept of doctrinal development, you can jump straight to Chapter 1 (page 67) and it won’t affect your being able to understand the rest of the book (as he doesn’t refer back to it very often).

I would also recommend the following articles from the original Catholic Encyclopedia: Atonement, Redemption, Salvation, Reparation, Sin, Grace, Resurrection, Sacrifice, Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[HolyNameOfJesus]

Antonius, please beware of caricatures of Western Catholic doctrine . . . it’s highly unfortunate that so many English speaking Catholics today – lay persons, priests, religious – have subconsciously adopted the evangelical Protestant mentality about Christ’s suffering and death, as this leads to a very superficial appreciation of the Redemption that Christ won for us by his life, death, and resurrection.

Although the late Pope John Paul II did not indicate he was specifically trying to combat the penetration of Protestant or generally-legalistic understandings of the Cross into the Catholic Church, a regular but subtle theme or intent in a number of his encyclicals and other letters is a better, fuller appreciation of the Redemption wrought for us in Christ Jesus. You can start with the following, which are noteworthy in this regard: Redemptor Hominis, Salvifici Doloris.

 

[HolyNameOfJesus]

… If you would like to develop an informed perspective on the historical development of the Catholic doctrine of the Atonement, let me suggest an english-language text from the 1800s which is freely available on books.google.com:

The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement:
An Historical Inquiry Into Its Development in the Church,
with an Introduction on the Principle of Theological Developments
by Henry Oxenham
(below the thumbnail pic of the title page:
click the “Read this book” or “Download PDF” buttons)

While written ~150 years ago, the information is all still relevant …

To give you an idea of why the “History” book that I’ve suggested to you is a perfect fit given your concerns (and those of many others who have posted similar questions/statements in this forum over the years), let me quote from Chapter 1:

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS ON THE SUBJECT, AND THE METHOD OF TREATING IT.

THAT Jesus died, the Just for the unjust, to redeem mankind from the bondage of corruption, and restore the broken communion between earth and heaven, is, and ever has been, a fundamental verity of the Christian faith. From that uplifted cross, for eighteen centuries, He has been drawing all men by the ‘cords of Adam’ to Himself. Round the altars where that one true Sacrifice, offered once in blood on Calvary, is presented perpetually in a bloodless mystery, from the rising to the setting of the sun, has been gathered through those eighteen centuries of her chequered history the faith, the penitence, the devotion of the Church He purchased by that greatest pledge of love.

Yet, even as then among the spectators of the crucifixion there were some who worshipped and some who doubted, and its stillness was broken by the questionings, or the jests, or the mockeries of those for whose sake it was endured, so it has been till now. And doubts have multiplied tenfold since the first controversies of the Reformation period involved the whole subject in the confusions of a theological warfare, where men darken counsel with many words, and strive rather for a party triumph than for simple truth. Forgetting or greatly underrating, for the most part, the significance of the Incarnation as the centre-point of all Christian belief, the first leaders of the movement in the sixteenth century dragged forward into disproportionate prominence, and often in connection with an erroneous theory of ‘imputation,’ one side and one only of that Divine mystery, namely, the doctrine of the Atonement. And hence there has grown up in many quarters a way of looking at the doctrine, and speaking of it, full of difficulties to the devout believer, and offering abundant opportunities for the cavils of the sceptie. In our own country this has been partly due to the theological influence of Paradise Lost, which had become for a large number of Englishmen a kind of supplementary Bible. The Arian opinions of Milton on our Lord’s Person, have strengthened the hold obtained over the national mind by what is in fact an Arianizing conception of His work.(1) It has been so represented as to cloud our most primary conceptions of the attributes of God; and to imply, or seem to imply, a division of will between the Persons of the undivided Trinity, in whom being and will are one. And so men have come to complain that they cannot believe in a justice which strikes the innocent, while it spares the criminal; that they cannot understand a love which waits to forgive till it has exacted rigorous compensation; or recognise the holiness of that displeasure against sin which is content to exhale in displeasure against the Sinless One. Such objections may often be urged in a tone of mockery, or disbelief; but it is not always so. It will not then, I trust, be an unprofitable task to show that the doctrine of atonement held and taught from the beginning in the Catholic Church is open to no such criticism. An investigation of her teaching, as laid down by the Fathers and later theologians who are the accredited interpreters of her mind, will prove that the opinions fairly open to objection are no part of it, but are either those of particular writers or schools only; or such as have prevailed for a season and then passed away, like the notion of a ransom paid to the Evil One; or were put forward from the first with an heretical animus, and have never found a home within her pale; or are the doctrines of those who have formally renounced her creed. Meanwhile, it will not be out of place to premise some explanations, at starting, in reference to certain leading misconceptions on the subject.

First, then, let me repeat discrinctly what has already been implied, that no division of mind or will is even conceivable between the First and Second Person of the holy and undivided Trinity. The Atonement was not, if one may put such blasphemy into articulate words, a device of the Son to avert the wrath or appease the justice of His offended Father, as when He is said in a well-known hymn to have “smoothed the angry Father’s face.” Sin is equally displeasing to the Father and the Son, and to the Father as much as to the Son belongs the love which by the mystery of redemption “devised a way to bring His banished home.” The Father sent the Son in likeness of sinful flesh, and by the Eternal Spirit was He conceived in Mary’s womb, and offered on the Cross. The atonement is the work of the whole Trinity, and the sacrifice of the Cross, like the sacrifice of the Altar, is offered to the whole Trinity. To conceive of the Father being angry with His sinless Son, and inflicting on Him the punishment He would else have inflicted on us, is to forget that " the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet They are not Three Gods but One God." The justice which required satisfaction and the mercy which provided it, are the justice and the mercy of the Triune God. In the language of St. Leo, which will be quoted again further on, “One is the kindness of Their mercy as the sentence of Their justice, nor is there any division in action where there is no diversity of will.” It is only necessary to insist upon this, because it is so frequently forgotten . . .

(1) See Preface to Benson’s Sermons on Redemption, from which I quote the following apposite passage : — " The act of redemption is not the mere act of the love of the redeeming Person, but the manifestation of the love of the Triune God. God the Son came upon earth to satisfy His own justice, as much as to satisfy His Father’s, and for the accomplishment of His Father’s love to man, as much as for His own. If this truth is often lost sight of, it is because the consubstantial Godhead of the father and the Redesmer is ignored."
[end quote]

 

[Peter_J]

“On a light note, the Cardinal [Cassidy] said that if on judgement day the Lord asks him what he did, if nothing else, he can say he signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.”

• from Lutheran World Information (1999-10-29): “Joint Declaration” is a “peace document”

 

[ontologysue]

The Roman doctrine of “transubstantiation” is an example of the difference between the legalistic proclivities of Rome in contrast to the more mystical approach of the Eastern Church.

You can see, I prefer to use the term “mystical” as opposed to “holistic,” which was the terminology of the original question on this thread.

The Eastern Church, although stipulating a “change” in the accidents of bread and wine, so that the Body and Blood become present in wholeness, they choose not to delineate the process in scholastic philosophical fashion down to the “inth” degree. To do so exposes the theologian to two inauthentic outcomes:

1. to so meticulously definitize (is that a word?) doctrine, exposes one (the church) to error. Let’s face it, only God knows the details of how this happens.
2. the Orthodox tend to argue that to “over think” this Divine relvelation is to lose something of the mystical gift. It is a Mystery and the church and each soul must confront it in humility and love.

“Orthodox Theology, An Introduction,” by Vladimir Lossky is an excellent resource for understanding how Eastern Orthodox think about essential catholic doctrine. In general, they take a much more mystical approach than the more legalistic norms of Roman theology.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Sue,

The Roman doctrine of “transubstantiation” is an example of the difference between the legalistic proclivities of Rome in contrast to the more mystical approach of the Eastern Church.

How do you define “legalistic?” My understanding is that legalism is anything that prevents, by an excessive use of law, prevents a person from gaining the Grace of salvation. This is, after all, how Jesus defined it.

Given that biblical definition,in what way do you think that the doctrine of Transubstantiation prevents people from obtaining the Grace of the Eucharist?

As an Oriental, I find the Eastern theology on Essence and Energies to be more defined than I am normally comfortable with. Does that mean that the Eastern theology is inherently “legalistic?” I guess my issue with your statement is the equation of a belief that is more defined with legalism.

Perhaps we should be more careful with our use of the word “legalism” or “legalistic” for it has a clearly pejorative connotation that does not accord with the spirit of charity.

And as it relates to the specific matter of this thread, how does an emphasis on the Justice of God (without denying the Love and Mercy of God) translate to legalism?

This previous question is for everyone who wants to offer a response.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[HolyNameOfJesus]

And as it relates to the specific matter of this thread, how does an emphasis on the Justice of God (without denying the Love and Mercy of God) translate to legalism?

This previous question is for everyone who wants to offer a response.

Pope Benedict XVI said something interesting on this topic the other day:

Cross Not Optional, Says Benedict XVI
31 Aug 2008

… “Jesus, on the contrary, knows that the Father, in his great love for men, sent him to give his life for them, and if this means the passion and the cross, it is right that such should happen.”

Christ also knew that “the resurrection would be the last word,” Benedict XVI added …

… The Pope continued, *"If to save us the Son of God had to suffer and die crucified, it certainly was not because of a cruel design of the heavenly Father.

"The cause of it is the gravity of the sickness of which he must cure us: an evil so serious and deadly that it will require all of his blood.

“In fact, it is with his death and resurrection that Jesus defeated sin and death, reestablishing the lordship of God.”*

“But the battle is not over,” he added, "Evil exists and resists in every generation, even in our own. What are the horrors of war, violence visited on the innocent, the misery and injustice that persecutes the weak, if not the opposition of evil to the Kingdom of God?

“And how does one respond to such evil if not with the unarmed love that defeats hatred, life that does not fear death? This is the mysterious power that Jesus used at the cost of not being understood and of being abandoned by many of his followers.”

“Dear brothers and sisters,” the Holy Father continued, "to complete the work of salvation, the Redeemer continues to draw to himself and his mission men and women who are ready to take up the cross and follow him.

“Just as with Christ, it is not ‘optional’ for Christians to take up the cross; it is rather a mission to be embraced out of love.”

“In our present world,” he added, “where the forces that divide and destroy seem to prevail, Christ does not cease to propose his clear invitation to all: Whosoever wants to be my disciple, he must renounce his selfishness and carry the cross with me.”

I imagine that when the second volume of Pope Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth is published – which, among other things, will be a reflection upon the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ – we will receive more insights from him relating to the doctrine of the Atonement.

 

[M0nkey]

The Roman doctrine of “transubstantiation” is an example of the difference between the legalistic proclivities of Rome in contrast to the more mystical approach of the Eastern Church.

I see how most plp can have a problem with this definition by the Church. Correct me if I’m wrong, this goes for everybody, but the Church also defines it as consubstantiation, which I think has a more proper meaning, that is, both bread and flesh, wine and blood, co-exist in the species of wine and bread.

In His Love,

 

[HolyNameOfJesus]

I see how most plp can have a problem with this definition by the Church. Correct me if I’m wrong, this goes for everybody, but the Church also defines it as consubstantiation, which I think has a more proper meaning, that is, both bread and flesh, wine and blood, co-exist in the species of wine and bread.

You may want to start a different thread to discuss that matter – this thread is [supposed to be] focused on the Catholic doctrine of the Atonement.

 

[Peter_J]

You may want to start a different thread to discuss that matter – this thread is [supposed to be] focused on the Catholic doctrine of the Atonement.

Good idea. Consubstantiation?