Does Communion with Rome Truly Allow Differences in Atonement Theology?

[M0nkey]

Thnx

 

[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)

I’m surprised that there weren’t more follow-up comments, as “the differences between East and West concerning theology of the Redemption” is an issue that gets brought up repeatedly in this forum (and its predecessor).

Did anyone read the book I linked to, or portions of it? Any thoughts, insights, concerns, revelations, inspirations?

 

[M0nkey]

I partially read it. It used very archaic language which of course is to be expected.

The only thing it sorta touched on is in how the Catholic theology of atonement comes from a very holistic sense, but Protestants have a more legalistic sense, which in turn has implicitly and indirectly influenced Catholic theology. Pope John Paul II did make attempts to stop this infiltration.

I’m still not quite clear on what legalistic even means when talking about atonement. My guess is Protestanism has a simple view of it (believe in Jesus and be saved), while Catholicism gives this understanding of this mystery behind the Incarnation.

 

[Usagi]

I’m still not quite clear on what legalistic even means when talking about atonement. My guess is Protestanism has a simple view of it (believe in Jesus and be saved), while Catholicism gives this understanding of this mystery behind the Incarnation.

A better word than “legalistic” might be “juridical,” since “legalism” is a separate issue that has plagued us to varying degrees since Jesus’ time.

“Juridical” in this case means that the entire problem of sin and atonement is viewed through the lens of a court case. As the OP said, this is more common in the West in general than in the East, but has become particularly popular among certain strains of Protestantism, who may even put it forth as the explanation of the atonement.

The most extreme form of this view is the “penal substitution” theory, which sometimes makes much of the “why have you forsaken me” utterance from the Cross to indicate that Jesus literally became something God could not stand to look upon and was essentially consigned to Hell (meaning the condition of the damned, not just the place of the dead) during his time on the Cross and the three days afterward.

That view is, needless to say, hard to reconcile with an orthodox understanding of the Trinity.

Even in milder forms of the Protestant view, the “legal ruling” aspect of the atonement is frequently emphasized. One of the major differences between Luther’s soteriology and that of his Catholic forebears was the notion that justification is simply a matter of legally declaring us righteous because of Christ’s actions, even though we are in no way actually righteous. This idea of “imputed righteousness” conflicts with the Catholic notion of infused righteousness, whereby we are actually changed upon justification. I’m not as familiar with Eastern theology on this point, though I suspect that the idea of theosis would mean that they are more likely to find agreement with Catholics than with Protestants on this point.

I suspect that the imputed/infused distinction is also at the root of other Protestant/Catholic disputes, such as assurance of salvation vs. mortal sin or the complete sufficiency of Christ’s work vs. purgatory. If it’s all a matter of God seeing Jesus when he looks at us, no matter what we are actually like or actually do, then of course it makes no sense that our own actions could change that relationship or that we would need to be “finished” before entering God’s presence. On the other hand, if justification only starts a lifelong process of re-creation of ourselves in Christ’s image, then our being able to interfere with the process or needing a final touch-up between death and Heaven are a lot more sensible.

Usagi

 

[ontologysue]

A better word than “legalistic” might be “juridical,” since “legalism” is a separate issue that has plagued us to varying degrees since Jesus’ time.

“Juridical” in this case means that the entire problem of sin and atonement is viewed through the lens of a court case. As the OP said, this is more common in the West in general than in the East, but has become particularly popular among certain strains of Protestantism, who may even put it forth as the explanation of the atonement.

The most extreme form of this view is the “penal substitution” theory, which sometimes makes much of the “why have you forsaken me” utterance from the Cross to indicate that Jesus literally became something God could not stand to look upon and was essentially consigned to Hell (meaning the condition of the damned, not just the place of the dead) during his time on the Cross and the three days afterward.

That view is, needless to say, hard to reconcile with an orthodox understanding of the Trinity.

Even in milder forms of the Protestant view, the “legal ruling” aspect of the atonement is frequently emphasized. One of the major differences between Luther’s soteriology and that of his Catholic forebears was the notion that justification is simply a matter of legally declaring us righteous because of Christ’s actions, even though we are in no way actually righteous. This idea of “imputed righteousness” conflicts with the Catholic notion of infused righteousness, whereby we are actually changed upon justification. I’m not as familiar with Eastern theology on this point, though I suspect that the idea of theosis would mean that they are more likely to find agreement with Catholics than with Protestants on this point.

I suspect that the imputed/infused distinction is also at the root of other Protestant/Catholic disputes, such as assurance of salvation vs. mortal sin or the complete sufficiency of Christ’s work vs. purgatory. If it’s all a matter of God seeing Jesus when he looks at us, no matter what we are actually like or actually do, then of course it makes no sense that our own actions could change that relationship or that we would need to be “finished” before entering God’s presence. On the other hand, if justification only starts a lifelong process of re-creation of ourselves in Christ’s image, then our being able to interfere with the process or needing a final touch-up between death and Heaven are a lot more sensible.

Usagi

Enjoyed your post. I am Russian Orthodox, have read Schmemann and Vladimir Lossky as well as Zizioulas on these issues but I pretty much come at it from a mystical theology frame of reference. Having come from the Protestant Church and converting to Othodox via the oxford anglican catholic communion, I always looked at the difference in Juridical terms as well.

It seems in the west the emphasis is on a “court scene” so to speak where as in the East per Maximus, for example, God would have become man even if the atonement had not been necessary as a manifestation of love.

There is a good thread on “Ship of Fools” about the distinctions.

forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=011682