Eastern Catholic view of Original Sin

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The idea that the Father’s wrath had to be appeased by Christ’s voluntary death is not Byzantine (and actually Protestant I assume?). The idea that the Father’s justice had to be satisfied by Christ’s voluntary death is not Byzantine (we do not do penance to satisfy anything; penance is used as spiritual medicine to fight the passions of the flesh).

Man was subject to death and hades and Christ became man and destroyed the power of death and hades and he freed us.

The concept of Christ suffering penalty on our behalf and Christ’s death satisfying the Father’s justice is definitely Catholic. However, most Protestants take this to an extreme. First they say that God imputed Christ as a sinner and punished him for our sins in our stead. I think this could be interpreted in an orthodox manner if we heavily qualify certain words, especially “impute” that God did not actually regard Christ as a sinner, but they go much further. They say that God despised his Son so much that fellowship was broken (citing “why hast Thou forsaken me”) and that Christ was suffering some kind of “invisible wrath” of the Father during the whole Passion (citing the sweating of blood in the Garden). Then, many go even further, recognizing that if the Atonement was substitutionary and we deserved hell for our sins, they suppose that the Cross was not sufficient and that Christ must have gone to hell after his death to burn in torment for our sins. The ironic thing is that those who claim sola scriptura deny that the Resurrection, and some even the Cross, had any real role in the Atonement (contrary to Scripture), and invent an event that Scripture never speaks of. Catholics do not teach any of this.

 

[Zekariya]

Yes. I know that the teaching of Christ satisfying the Father’s justice is a Catholic (predominately Western) view of the Atonement. It is not the Byzantine Catholic view.

 

[GaryTaylor]

St Anselm and then Aquinas/reformation.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Yes. I know that the teaching of Christ satisfying the Father’s justice is a Catholic (predominately Western) view of the Atonement. It is not the Byzantine Catholic view.

There’s no problem with that as long as Byzantines don’t try to impose their teaching as the only acceptable formulation. Like the Holy Trinity, the Atonement is beyond our understanding and it is impossible to limit it to a single dimension. In my eyes, this difference in emphasis lies in the different views of fallen man. If the ailment is described differently, the cure will be as well. Since Byzantines emphasize the physical aspect of “original sin,” they take a more physical view of Atonement, saying that Christ conquered death. On the other hand, Westerners emphasize the loss of original justice in the Fall, so they end up speaking of the Atonement in legal terms, saying Christ took away the punishment of wicked man. Both understandings are complementary if understood correctly.

St Anselm and then Aquinas/reformation.

Please don’t lump St. Thomas Aquinas with the Reformers. While the Reformers were influenced by the later scholasticism of their day, they rejected scholasticism and they hated St. Thomas. I haven’t studied what Luther and Calvin taught about Atonement in any great detail, but St. Thomas nowhere taught what their modern followers teach (see my previous post).

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’ll show the entire argument.

Final Conclusion: The Motive Of The Incarnation

"Therefore it must simply be said that God willed the Incarnation for the manifestation of His goodness by way of mercy for the redemption of the human race, or “for our salvation,” as stated in the Creed.

Those who admit, as the Thomists do, one efficacious decree concerning the redemptive Incarnation in passible flesh, by this very fact must say with St. Thomas that, in virtue of the present decree, “if Adam had not sinned, the Word would not have become incarnate,” or, expressed affirmatively, it must be said that, in the present decree, the redemptive Incarnation supposes the fall of the human race to be redeemed, although this fall was permitted for a greater good, which is the redemptive Incarnation. Thus the creation of the soul presupposes that the embryonic body is sufficiently disposed, and this sufficient predisposition was willed and produced by God for the soul. Causes mutually interact though in a different order, without implying a vicious circle. It would be a vicious circle if we were to say that the permission of Adam’s sin was on account of the Incarnation, and that the Incarnation took place because of the permission of Adam’s sin. The truth is that the Incarnation took place, not on account of the permission of sin, but for its reparation.

It would likewise be a vicious circle to say that men are for the sake of Christ, and in the same way Christ is for the sake of men. But it is true to say that Christ is the destined end of men, and men are the end to whom the redemptive Incarnation is beneficial.

Hence the truth of the assertion is established, that God willed the Incarnation as a manifestation of His goodness by showing His mercy toward men for their redemption, or “for our salvation,” as stated in the Creed."

The debate in sequence…

iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2008/12/aquinas-vs-scotus-on-motive-of.html

Rev Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. He’s not complete scholastic but he tends to lean in this direction.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Please don’t lump St. Thomas Aquinas with the Reformers.

I believe you read that wrong? St Thomas developed the thinking of St Anselm which was used against the reformation.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, taught at the Angelicum in Rome till 1960, he served as a consultant to the Holy Office.

His work on the Trinity is significant also. He leans toward a scholastic view while acknowledging Scotus. Its not a wrong or right its merely an observation. St Thomas Aquinas is fine, his language is difficult from an Eastern persepective is all. Such as with created energies. Its not incompatible, its merely difficult, doesn’t distract from his work or intelligence.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I believe you read that wrong? St Thomas developed the thinking of St Anselm which was used against the reformation.

Oh, I see. The use of a slash lumps things closely together. It looked like you were creating an equivalence between Thomas and the Reformers. It would have been clearer if you said “versus” or something similar.

 

[Zekariya]

There’s no problem with that as long as Byzantines don’t try to impose their teaching as the only acceptable formulation.

And as long as the Latins don’t try to impose their teaching as the only acceptable formulation.

Since Byzantines emphasize the physical aspect of “original sin,” they take a more physical view of Atonement, saying that Christ conquered death.

Death is physical and spiritual. When Adam died, his soul was separated from his body (physical death) and his soul was placed in hades (spiritual death). We stress both physical death and spiritual death. We Byzantine Catholics teach that Christ conquered Death (physical death) and Hades (spiritual death).

When a man dies in Christ, his soul is separated from his body (physical death) and his soul is purified and dwells with Christ (spiritual life). At the last day, his body will be resurrected (physical life).

 

[MorEphrem]

And as long as the Latins don’t try to impose their teaching as the only acceptable formulation.

Amen

Death is physical and spiritual. When Adam died, his soul was separated from his body (physical death) and his soul was placed in hades (spiritual death). We stress both physical death and spiritual death. We Byzantine Catholics teach that Christ conquered Death (physical death) and Hades (spiritual death).

When a man dies in Christ, his soul is separated from his body (physical death) and his soul is purified and dwells with Christ (spiritual life). At the last day, his body will be resurrected (physical life).

Ay, and hence why in some Syriac prayers it asks that we be spared of the “second death.”

Although, to be honest, I must say Sheol sounds much cooler than Hades in my opinion .

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Death is physical and spiritual. When Adam died, his soul was separated from his body (physical death) and his soul was placed in hades (spiritual death). We stress both physical death and spiritual death. We Byzantine Catholics teach that Christ conquered Death (physical death) and Hades (spiritual death).

When a man dies in Christ, his soul is separated from his body (physical death) and his soul is purified and dwells with Christ (spiritual life). At the last day, his body will be resurrected (physical life).

That’s kind of what I mean. Byzantines focus on the separation of the soul from the body, Latins focus on the separation of the soul from God, the death of the soul (i.e. mortal sin) even in this life. I’m not saying that either concept is foreign to other tradition, just that they have different emphases.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That’s kind of what I mean. Byzantines focus on the separation of the soul from the body, Latins focus on the separation of the soul from God, the death of the soul (i.e. mortal sin) even in this life. I’m not saying that either concept is foreign to other tradition, just that they have different emphases.

You just lost me, what Zekariya stated Is both Biblical and affirmed by the Council of Orange.

If you insist theirs a difference East/West then show me. I’m interested in seeing it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Oh, I see. The use of a slash lumps things closely together. It looked like you were creating an equivalence between Thomas and the Reformers. It would have been clearer if you said “versus” or something similar.

You mean like the correct use of a slash?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I could be wrong but I see a slight difference on emphasis which resides in the aspect of reparation/contrition, as to the focus on divinization thus Grace. Perhaps this is what is hinted at.

 

[Zekariya]

That’s kind of what I mean. Byzantines focus on the separation of the soul from the body, Latins focus on the separation of the soul from God, the death of the soul (i.e. mortal sin) even in this life. I’m not saying that either concept is foreign to other tradition, just that they have different emphases.

Then you must have not understood what hades is. Hades is where people are separated from God (identical to the Latin teaching above).

Hades (hell in the Apostles’ Creed) is were souls are separated from God. Christ descended into hades/hell and set the righteous free and brought them into heaven to live in his presence. Since then, those who die apart from Christ are cast into hades/hell (separation from God) and those who die in Christ are purified and dwell with him in heaven.

 

[Zekariya]

MorEphrem:

Although, to be honest, I must say Sheol sounds much cooler than Hades in my opinion .

Haha.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Then you must have not understood what hades is. Hades is where people are separated from God (identical to the Latin teaching above).

Hades (hell in the Apostles’ Creed) is were souls are separated from God. Christ descended into hades/hell and set the righteous free and brought them into heaven to live in his presence. Since then, those who die apart from Christ are cast into hades/hell (separation from God) and those who die in Christ are purified and dwell with him in heaven.

One question. Where did Elijah go?

2 Kings 2:11 states that “Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.”

1 Macabees 2:58, "Elijah because of great zeal for the Law was taken up into heaven. "

 

[Zekariya]

One question. Where did Elijah go?

2 Kings 2:11 states that “Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.”

1 Macabees 2:58, "Elijah because of great zeal for the Law was taken up into heaven. "

It is a part of Byzantine tradition that the two witnesses in Revelation are Enoch and Elijah since neither have physically died yet. In the Bible heaven often refers to the sky. Psalm 23(24) speaks of Christ’s ascension as the first man to enter heaven’s gates.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It is a part of Byzantine tradition that the two witnesses in Revelation are Enoch and Elijah since neither have physically died yet. In the Bible heaven often refers to the sky. Psalm 23(24) speaks of Christ’s ascension as the first man to enter heaven’s gates.

Ok, I see it now.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

You mean like the correct use of a slash?

I’m not entirely clear on what you are saying. What is “like the correct use of a slash?” Your elliptical way of speaking is hard to understand. The slash mark can denote a dichotomy such as “y/n?” but this is usually where there is a complementarity, which is not the case for theories of Aquinas and the Protestants on the Atonement. The more common use of the slash is to denote a kind of equivalence, somewhat like a hyphen (which is a descendant of the slash. Applying that rule, saying, “Anselm and then Aquinas/Reformers,” made it sound like there is a Thomistic-Protestant theory that further developed the Anselmian theory.

Sorry for a stupid post about grammar, but I don’t think it was necessary to post a sarcastic emoticon at me when your post was so short and ambiguous. I have seen Protestants conflate the views of Thomas Aquinas and Protestants as if they were equivalent so you’ll have to forgive me for my mistake.