If the Atonement was a Ransom or Christus Victor, how is the Divine Liturgy thought of in sacrificial terms?

[gurneyhalleck1]

I understand your point and find it valid, as usual, Meghan. I’m honestly not trying to categorize/organize anything. And I know that they’re not all firm philosophies, but holistic and not mutually-exclusive. You’re right, of course. But I notice some Orthodox priests will get put off if you tell them anything in Augustinian or Anselmian terms, things that speak of sacrifice thinking “oh, that’s so Western,” when in reality, as you say, there IS a sacrificial component to the Divine Liturgy itself? That’s all I’m trying to say. There seems a lot of posturing with this anti-Western thinking approach. I understand the importance of “emphasis” but an emphasis cannot drown out the whole picture, that’s all I’m saying. I applaud the focus on the conquering of death, the harrowing of hell, the triumph. No problem with that whatsoever from me! But I do value the Catholic emphasis as well on the journey to the Cross and the sacrificial side of things that Isaiah 53 speaks of. The triumph cannot happen without the journey to it and the pain therein.

I wonder Scott if you are not running into problems partly because you are thinking in terms of models of the atonement? So we say, well, the West uses this one, and the East that, and the Protestants another?

But really, those models are just ways theologians have categorized the different ways other theologians talk about it. In reality, they are not all neat, separate ideas, and they are not mutually exclusive.

So the East tends to talk about Christ destroying death. But they also talk about Christ being offered as a sacrifice - they have to really, as it’s scriptural language. Both are true but they have preferred to emphasize one. (Or, to put it another way, all of the models are actually untrue and simply point us to an unspeakable reality.)

Which isn’t to say your question doesn’t make sense, because I think there have been some interesting answers on some differences of emphasis with the sacrificial understanding. But it might be helpful not to try to fit them into what are really created categories that people who need to compare theological ideas have come up with.

 

[Byzman]

Well that has always been my understanding, that Christ sacrificed Himself to God the Father, restoring us to life. But like I’ve said, I’ve read the Atonement theories a lot and the predominant view is Christus Victor or the Ransom view. In both Jesus is not sacrificing Himself to God the Father but rather either overcoming death or being paid to Satan to let us loose. So I’ve found it odd that God isn’t the one receiving the Sacrifice of Jesus on the historical day of Good Friday and yet at the DL God is the one receiving the sacrifice?

Where do you get the idea that God isnt the one receiving the Sacrifice of Jesus on Good Friday? If Satan were the one receiving the Sacrifice on Good Friday than that would be idolatry for that would be offering Sacrifice to a created being. Just because we Eastern Christians focus on Christ trampling death by His Death doesnt in no way mean that His Death was than paid to Satan. Instead it is by His conquering of Satan that He defeated death. He conquered Satan by His remaining sinless and doing His Father’s will. God needed a sinless lamb…, yes, but even more, man needed a sinless lamb for our trampling down of death.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I didn’t get the idea. I’m merely saying that I see two sides to Orthodoxy that I can’t reconcile. On one hand they find the whole notion of sacrifice distasteful and choose to view things in term of conquering death and rising again, Christus Victor, etc. They don’t like to think of Christ as a “victim.” Kallistos Ware takes great pains to say that we Orthodox view Christ as a victor, the Catholics as a victim. I think that is unfortunate language and not entirely fair. If they are going to not like the thought of sacrifice and try to push it to the side, then don’t talk sacrifice and offer it to the Father at Divine Liturgy? Why, if God is so un-Anselmian, would He want to receive the Sacrifice of His Son? I’ve heard Orthodox say that God sending His Son to die on the Cross as an offering to Him is tantamount to “child abuse.” If God doesn’t want this, why offer it to him at Divine Liturgy?

I don’t think Satan is the recipient but I think the ransom thinking would lead to that line of thought.

I am merely saying that my understanding of the Mass is that it is very logical and consistent. The Catholics tend to adopt the Anselmian Atonement view that Christ died in our place and gave honor back to God that was His due, that was robbed from Him in the Fall, and that the Sacrifice of the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice in which we give God all the honor He is due and glory by offering up the unbloody re-presentation of His Son in the Eucharist. There is no contradiction of sacrifice being a good thing on one hand, uncooth and brushed-off on the other…

I am at a point right now where I totally see the rationale behind the Mass, not yet in the DL.

That’s why I started this thread, to help understand it.

Where do you get the idea that God isnt the one receiving the Sacrifice of Jesus on Good Friday? If Satan were the one receiving the Sacrifice on Good Friday than that would be idolatry for that would be offering Sacrifice to a created being. Just because we Eastern Christians focus on Christ trampling death by His Death doesnt in no way mean that His Death was than paid to Satan. Instead it is by His conquering of Satan that He defeated death. He conquered Satan by His remaining sinless and doing His Father’s will. God needed a sinless lamb…, yes, but even more, man needed a sinless lamb for our trampling down of death.

 

[Byzman]

I didn’t get the idea. I’m merely saying that I see two sides to Orthodoxy that I can’t reconcile. On one hand they find the whole notion of sacrifice distasteful and choose to view things in term of conquering death and rising again, Christus Victor, etc. They don’t like to think of Christ as a “victim.” Kallistos Ware takes great pains to say that we Orthodox view Christ as a victor, the Catholics as a victim. I think that is unfortunate language and not entirely fair. If they are going to not like the thought of sacrifice and try to push it to the side, then don’t talk sacrifice and offer it to the Father at Divine Liturgy? Why, if God is so un-Anselmian, would He want to receive the Sacrifice of His Son? I’ve heard Orthodox say that God sending His Son to die on the Cross as an offering to Him is tantamount to “child abuse.” If God doesn’t want this, why offer it to him at Divine Liturgy?

I don’t think Satan is the recipient but I think the ransom thinking would lead to that line of thought.

I am merely saying that my understanding of the Mass is that it is very logical and consistent. The Catholics tend to adopt the Anselmian Atonement view that Christ died in our place and gave honor back to God that was His due, that was robbed from Him in the Fall, and that the Sacrifice of the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice in which we give God all the honor He is due and glory by offering up the unbloody re-presentation of His Son in the Eucharist. There is no contradiction of sacrifice being a good thing on one hand, uncooth and brushed-off on the other…

I am at a point right now where I totally see the rationale behind the Mass, not yet in the DL.

That’s why I started this thread, to help understand it.

I would still be very careful to label the Sacrifice of the Liturgy to certain particulars as the Orthodox understand it. Instead it is for many reasons we offer the liturgy. Not as a ransom to Satan, for the Orthodox offer the liturgy also for the faithful, both the living and dead. It is these who are no longer in Satan’s grip anymore. So, yes, the Sacrifice of the Liturgy is also propitiatory. This is best seen when we offer, not only for the living, but more so for the dead who are in Christ’s care.

 

[Vico]

Being new to studying the Orthodox Church and inquiring into it, I have been pondering some quandries I have regarding the Divine Liturgy and the sacrificial nature of it.

In the Catholic Mass the offering of the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice that makes satisfaction to God for sin. The CC tends to have a more Anselmian approach to the Atonement so this is very logical to me. It is also a sacrifice of praise. But what do the Orthodox see in the way of sacrifice in the Divine Liturgy? Most Orthodox take the early Fathers’ views on the Atonement which include a ransom to Satan to win back the human race lost in the Fall through conquering death, the Christus Victor approach, and a few others in that same line of thought. The emphasis is not a sacrifice or giving honor to the Father that He deserves and lost, etc. So if the original actual Sacrifice at Calvary was more a ransom or just conquering death, how can the Divine Liturgy, being a re-presentation of that same sublime day of Atonement, be sacrificial? It doesn’t seem like there is a sacrificial element in Orthodox thinking? If Jesus was a death-conquerer but not an oblation, a propitiatory sacrifice, then I don’t understand how the DL relates to the event at Calvary and how the Orthodox see the DL?

I’d love to hear explanations and insight into this as I’m quite the novice and am eager to learn. I’m not looking for debate and polemics, just insight and help understanding this.

I most likely will be attending a DL again this Sunday, and I’d like to wrap my mind around it better.

Blessings to everyone

Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom contains:
We thank you, O Lord God of Powers, for having made us worthy to stand at this time before your holy altar and to prostrate ourselves before your mercy for our sins and for the people’s failings. Accept our prayer, O God, and make us worthy to offer you prayers and supplications and unbloody sacrifices for all your people. Enable us, whom you have placed in this your ministry through the power of your Holy Spirit, to call upon you at all times and in all places without condemnation or blame and with a pure testimony of our conscience that, hearing us, you may be merciful to us in the greatness of your goodness. For to you, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is due all glory, honor, and worship, now and ever and forever. Amen.
And:

Lord God Almighty, who alone are holy and receive the sacrifice of praise from those who call upon you with their whole heart, accept also the prayer of us sinners. Bring us to your holy altar. Enable us to offer you gifts and spiritual sacrifices for our sins and for the people’s failings. Make us worthy to find favor in your sight that our sacrifice may be pleasing to you and that the good Spirit of your grace may rest on us, on these gifts here present, and on all your people.
Grant this through the mercies of your only-begotten Son with whom you are blessed, together with your all-holy, good, and life-creating Spirit, now and ever and forever.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Don,

My post gives a number of quotations from the Divine Liturgy referring to the Eucharist as a sacrifice.

I think it is fair to ask why, if the language of sacrifice is ubiquitous in the Eastern DL, and “lex orandi, lex credendi,” why does one encounter so much Eastern (not from EC really, but from EO) opposition and aversion to the Latin Church’s concept of sacrifice, both in theology and spirituality.

I should note, of course, that the Oriental Tradition has no problem with the Latin concept, both in theology and spirituality, but actually shares it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bluegoat]

Dear brother Don,

I think it is fair to ask why, if the language of sacrifice is ubiquitous in the Eastern DL, and “lex orandi, lex credendi,” why does one encounter so much Eastern (not from EC really, but from EO) opposition and aversion to the Latin Church’s concept of sacrifice, both in theology and spirituality.

I should note, of course, that the Oriental Tradition has no problem with the Latin concept, both in theology and spirituality, but actually shares it.

Blessings,
Marduk

I would suggest two possibilities:

One is that when most people asking understand the Western view, one tends to describe what is different.

The other is that the Western model seems to have led to things like Calvinism. And so there might be a tendency to want to back away from that somewhat.

 

[Madaglan]

Dear brother Don,

I think it is fair to ask why, if the language of sacrifice is ubiquitous in the Eastern DL, and “lex orandi, lex credendi,” why does one encounter so much Eastern (not from EC really, but from EO) opposition and aversion to the Latin Church’s concept of sacrifice, both in theology and spirituality.

I should note, of course, that the Oriental Tradition has no problem with the Latin concept, both in theology and spirituality, but actually shares it.

Blessings,
Marduk

East and West both use the language of sacrifice in their liturgies. This is Scriptural language, and this language has been associated with the Eucharistic offering since Apostolic times. However, the interpretation of this sacrifice differs somewhat between East and West, just as the interpretation of it differs between Catholics and many Protestants.

I think it has to be kept in mind too that for the West, the meaning of this sacrifice has developed from Anselm, to Aquinas, to Calvin, etc. These developed teachings are not part of the Eastern tradition, and so they do not share these beliefs. Some beliefs may be considered acceptable insofar that they do not clash with what has been passed down; others are more suspect.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Bluegoat,

I would suggest two possibilities:

One is that when most people asking understand the Western view, one tends to describe what is different.

I understand that, and accept it. But describing what is different in order to establish unique identity is a whole different animal than describing what is different for the sake of opposition.

The other is that the Western model seems to have led to things like Calvinism. And so there might be a tendency to want to back away from that somewhat.

I understand this, too, but Western Catholicism is clearly different from Western Protestantism.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

East and West both use the language of sacrifice in their liturgies. This is Scriptural language, and this language has been associated with the Eucharistic offering since Apostolic times. However, the interpretation of this sacrifice differs somewhat between East and West, just as the interpretation of it differs between Catholics and many Protestants.

I think it has to be kept in mind too that for the West, the meaning of this sacrifice has developed from Anselm, to Aquinas, to Calvin, etc. These developed teachings are not part of the Eastern tradition, and so they do not share these beliefs. Some beliefs may be considered acceptable insofar that they do not clash with what has been passed down; others are more suspect.

I think my response to your post would be identical to my response to sister Bluegoat.

I wish Easterns who criticize and oppose the Latins would be more discerning between Western Catholicism and Calvinism. Would you agree with that?

I have never met a Latin Catholic criticize or oppose the Eastern emphasis on the Resurrection, probably because Latin Catholics fully accept and value that aspect of its soteriological doctrines. I’ve also never met an Eastern Catholic criticize and oppose Latin Catholicism’s different emphasis. These different emphases obviously existed already when the Church was united in the first millenium.

Would it be correct to say that on this matter, Eastern Orthodox have a thing or two to learn from their Eastern Catholic brethren?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexander_Roman]

A fascinating topic. I’ll give it a try, with everyone’s permission!

Fr. Prof. John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!) did write that the Western view of the Redemption is completely acceptable to the East.

Propitiation is what the Eastern Divine Liturgy is about. Christ is offered, as has been said, to honour the entire Trinity, including Christ Himself. As St Paul wrote, Christ offered Himself to the Father through the Holy Spirit etc.

And He did this out of obedience to restore the disobedience i.e. sin of Adam which is always our unwillingness to obey God’s commands out of pride (the same reason Lucifer was thrown from heaven).

It is that obedience unto the death of the Cross in honour of the Most Holy Trinity in Christ’s offering that is at the root of the Eastern Soteriology.

The East does stop at the Anselmian view that the Father’s anger/offense at our sin needed to be placated and this is what the Incarnate Son’s Sacrifice on the Cross does.

There is also the notion of “ransom” in the Eastern Soteriology. Christ paid a ransom for our sins - and to whom? To death itself in order to destroy it and to vanquish the devil. But how?

By taking on our Humanity and by entering fully into death by the Cross, Christ, the Divine Son of God, allowed Himself to be taken into the depths of hades.

Hades thought it was taking into its domination an ordinary human being. When it took hold of Christ, however, the God-Man broke its gates and emptied it of the souls of the righteous, thus liberating them first. By dying, He truly destroyed death.

This is all illustrated on the icon of the Resurrection of Christ/Desent into hades. Christ is depicted taking hold of the hands of Adam and Eve with the patriarchs and prophets of the OT in the background. The door of Hades (and thus Hades itself) are ripped off and take the shape of an “X” Cross. And the Lord stands on the devil who is bound by angels.

Alex

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I appreciate everyone’s replies so far. When asking a question of this kind, it’s very easy for some folks to look at it like the OP is challenging or badgering their religion in a negative way. Instead, everyone has realized it’s just an honest question and part of my faith journey. I appreciate that, and all the wonderful replies. Thanks so much to everyone.

So what I am getting out of this is that God the Father receives the Sacrifice Jesus made at Calvary in the DL just like the Catholics believe happens at Mass. Jesus became man so we can become like Him through theosis. He was taken to Hades and punished for sins He himself didn’t commit. In that gross injustice, Jesus rose from the dead and overcame death itself, nullifying the Law’s legal claims against us. At Divine Liturgy, Jesus is given to God the Father in a Sacrifice but not to appease his honor as per Anselm but rather in a sacrifice that had to take place to save man that pleased His Father. The Sacrifice is not so much TO God but FOR us and it pleases God?

Am I getting warm?

As a Catholic, I have always believed that God’s loss of respect, honor, and obedience from mankind in the Fall is restored by the Cross and at each Mass the sacrifice of Our Lord pleases God and is meant to give Him honor and satisfaction.

 

[Madaglan]

Dear brother Madaglan,

I think my response to your post would be identical to my response to sister Bluegoat.

I wish Easterns who criticize and oppose the Latins would be more discerning between Western Catholicism and Calvinism. Would you agree with that?

I have never met a Latin Catholic criticize or oppose the Eastern emphasis on the Resurrection, probably because Latin Catholics fully accept and value that aspect of its soteriological doctrines. I’ve also never met an Eastern Catholic criticize and oppose Latin Catholicism’s different emphasis. These different emphases obviously existed already when the Church was united in the first millenium.

Would it be correct to say that on this matter, Eastern Orthodox have a thing or two to learn from their Eastern Catholic brethren?

Blessings,
Marduk

With Eastern Catholics, there are some who are more accepting of Latin atonement theories, others more critical. I am willing to admit that West and East early on begin to focus on different aspects, but on the atonement I do not believe that the West had the beliefs it does now.

Regarding the present, the situation is such that many Latin Catholic theologians are learning their soteriology from the theological discourse of Protestants and others. We see this, for example, in the works of Latin Catholic theologians who argue that God, contrary to two thousand years of Christian tradition, is passible. I do note a distinction between Calvinist and other Protestant atonement theories, and those historically Latin Catholic, but I think certain Protestant teachings (as of penal substitution) have been melded into Catholic theology. We see this, for example, in Hans Urs Von Balthasar’s belief that Christ suffered separation from God and the pains of Hell.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Would you mind elaborating a little on this, Madaglan? Thanks for all your posts!

Latin Catholic theologians are learning their soteriology from the theological discourse of Protestants and others. We see this, for example, in the works of Latin Catholic theologians who argue that God, contrary to two thousand years of Christian tradition, is passible. .

 

[Contarini]

Being new to studying the Orthodox Church and inquiring into it, I have been pondering some quandries I have regarding the Divine Liturgy and the sacrificial nature of it.

In the Catholic Mass the offering of the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice that makes satisfaction to God for sin. The CC tends to have a more Anselmian approach to the Atonement so this is very logical to me. It is also a sacrifice of praise. But what do the Orthodox see in the way of sacrifice in the Divine Liturgy? Most Orthodox take the early Fathers’ views on the Atonement which include a ransom to Satan to win back the human race lost in the Fall through conquering death, the Christus Victor approach, and a few others in that same line of thought. The emphasis is not a sacrifice or giving honor to the Father that He deserves and lost, etc. So if the original actual Sacrifice at Calvary was more a ransom or just conquering death, how can the Divine Liturgy, being a re-presentation of that same sublime day of Atonement, be sacrificial? It doesn’t seem like there is a sacrificial element in Orthodox thinking? If Jesus was a death-conquerer but not an oblation, a propitiatory sacrifice, then I don’t understand how the DL relates to the event at Calvary and how the Orthodox see the DL?

I’d love to hear explanations and insight into this as I’m quite the novice and am eager to learn. I’m not looking for debate and polemics, just insight and help understanding this.

I most likely will be attending a DL again this Sunday, and I’d like to wrap my mind around it better.

Blessings to everyone

Gurney, the Fathers certainly thought that Jesus was a propitiatory sacrifice. Myself, I don’t see that Anselm’s view does justice to Jesus as a propitiatory sacrifice. He reduces Jesus’ self-offering to an act of perfect obedience, taking out the blood sacrifice aspect of it.

Ransom/Christus Victor theories do not exclude propitiatory sacrifice. Some Western adaptations of them do.

Edwin

 

[Madaglan]

Would you mind elaborating a little on this, Madaglan? Thanks for all your posts!

God in his divine nature is impassible. God the Father does not suffer, God the Holy Spirit does not suffer, and God the Son does not suffer, in the divine nature.

Through the Incarnation and taking of a human nature, the Incarnate Word does suffer, in his human nature, but not in his divine nature. So, it can be said, with right qualifications, that the Incarnate Word, the Son of God, suffers. The Father and Holy Spirit, who do not share in the human nature of Christ, cannot be said to suffer. God the Father does not suffer with his Son on the Cross. Many theologians nowadays, however, do not make this fine distinction.

 

[Madaglan]

Gurney, the Fathers certainly thought that Jesus was a propitiatory sacrifice. Myself, I don’t see that Anselm’s view does justice to Jesus as a propitiatory sacrifice. He reduces Jesus’ self-offering to an act of perfect obedience, taking out the blood sacrifice aspect of it.

Ransom/Christus Victor theories do not exclude propitiatory sacrifice. Some Western adaptations of them do.

Edwin

Something I would like to quickly point out to those who may not be aware, before I go to work, is that none of the atonement theories are declared doctrine in the Latin Church, even as they bear tremendous influence on spirituality and theology.

 

[Mickey]

Kallistos Ware takes great pains to say that we Orthodox view Christ as a victor, the Catholics as a victim. I think that is unfortunate language and not entirely fair.

You need to take it in context. Let me post some excerpts for you:

One must therefore reject as misleading the common assertion that the east concentrates on the Risen Christ, the west on Christ Crucified. If we are going to draw a contrast, it would be more exact to say that east and west think of the Crucifixion in slightly different ways. The Orthodox attitude to the Crucifixion is best seen in the hymns sung on Good Friday, such as the following:

He who clothes himself with light as with a garment,
Stood naked at the judgement.
On his cheek he received blows
From the hands which he had formed.
The lawless multitude nailed to the Cross
The Lord of glory.

The Orthodox Church on Good Friday thinks not simply of Christ’s human pain and suffering by itself, but rather of the contrast between His outward humiliation and His inward glory. Orthodox see not just the suffering humanity of Christ, but a suffering God:

Today is hanged upon the tree
He who hanged the earth in the midst of the waters.
A crown of thorns crowns him
Who is the king of the angels.
He is wrapped about with the purple of mockery
Who wraps the heaven in clouds.

Behind the veil of Christ’s bleeding and broken flesh, Orthodox still discern the Triune God. Even Golgotha is a theophany; even on Good Friday the Church sounds a note of Resurrection joy:

We worship thy Passion, O Christ:
Show us also thy glorious Resurrection!
I magnify thy sufferings,
I praise thy burial and thy Resurrection.
Shouting, Lord, glory to thee!

The Crucifixion is not separated from the Resurrection, for both are but a single action. Calvary is seen always in the light of the empty tomb; the Cross is an emblem of victory. When Orthodox think of Christ Crucified, they think not only of His suffering and desolation; they think of Him as Christ the Victor, Christ the King, reigning in triumph from the Tree: The Lord came into the world and dwelt among men, that he might destroy the tyranny of the Devil and set men free. On the Tree he triumphed over the powers which opposed him, when the sun was darkened and the earth was shaken, when the graves were opened and the bodies of the saints arose. By death he destroyed death, and brought to nought him who had the power of death (From the First Exorcism before Holy Baptism). Christ is our victorious king, not in spite of the Crucifixion, but because of it: ‘I call Him king, because I see Him crucified’ (John Chrysostom, Second Sermon on the Cross and the Robber, 3 (P.G. 49, 413).

(Continued)

 

[Mickey]

Such is the spirit in which Orthodox Christians regard Christ’s death upon the Cross. Between this approach to the Crucifixion and that of the medieval and post-medieval west, there are of course many points of contact; yet in the western approach there are also certain things which make Orthodox feel uneasy. The west, so it seems to them, tends to think of the Crucifixion in isolation, separating it too sharply from the Resurrection. As a result the vision of Christ as a suffering God is in practice replaced by the picture of Christ’s suffering humanity: the western worshipper, when he meditates upon the Cross, is encouraged all too often to feel a morbid sympathy with the Man of Sorrows, rather than to adore the victorious and triumphant king. Orthodox feel thoroughly at home in the language of the great Latin hymn by Venantius Fortunatus (530-609), Pange lingua, which hails the Cross as an emblem of victory:

Sing, my tongue, the glorious battle,
Sing the ending of the fray;
Now above the Cross, our trophy,
Sound the loud triumphal lay:
Tell how Christ, the world’s redeemer,
As a victim won the day.

They feel equally at home in that other hymn by Fortunatus, Vexilla regis:

Fulfilled is all that David told
In true prophetic song of old:
Among the nations God, said he,
Hath reigned and triumphed from the Tree.

But Orthodox feel less happy about compositions of the later Middle Ages such as Stabat Mater:

For his people’s sins, in anguish,
There she saw the victim languish,
Bleed in torments, bleed and die:
Saw the Lord’s anointed taken;
Saw her Child in death forsaken;
Heard his last expiring cry.

It is significant that Stabat Mater, in the course of its sixty lines, makes not a single reference to the Resurrection.

Where Orthodoxy sees chiefly Christ the Victor, the late medieval and post-medieval west sees chiefly Christ the Victim. While Orthodoxy interprets the Crucifixion primarily as an act of triumphant victory over the powers of evil, the west particularly since the time of Anselm of Canterbury (?1033-1109) — has tended rather to think of the Cross in penal and juridical terms, as an act of satisfaction or substitution designed to propitiate the wrath of an angry Father.

Yet these contrasts must not be pressed too far. Eastern writers, as well as western, have applied juridical and penal language to the Crucifixion; western writers, as well as eastern, have never ceased to think of Good Friday as a moment of victory. In the west during recent years there has been a revival of the Patristic idea of Christus Victor, alike in theology, in spirituality, and in art; and Orthodox are naturally very happy that this should be so.

 

[dzheremi]

Such is the spirit in which Orthodox Christians regard Christ’s death upon the Cross. Between this approach to the Crucifixion and that of the medieval and post-medieval west, there are of course many points of contact; yet in the western approach there are also certain things which make Orthodox feel uneasy. The west, so it seems to them, tends to think of the Crucifixion in isolation, separating it too sharply from the Resurrection. As a result the vision of Christ as a suffering God is in practice replaced by the picture of Christ’s suffering humanity: the western worshipper, when he meditates upon the Cross, is encouraged all too often to feel a morbid sympathy with the Man of Sorrows, rather than to adore the victorious and triumphant king. Orthodox feel thoroughly at home in the language of the great Latin hymn by Venantius Fortunatus (530-609), Pange lingua, which hails the Cross as an emblem of victory:

Sing, my tongue, the glorious battle,
Sing the ending of the fray;
Now above the Cross, our trophy,
Sound the loud triumphal lay:
Tell how Christ, the world’s redeemer,
As a victim won the day.

They feel equally at home in that other hymn by Fortunatus, Vexilla regis:

Fulfilled is all that David told
In true prophetic song of old:
Among the nations God, said he,
Hath reigned and triumphed from the Tree.

But Orthodox feel less happy about compositions of the later Middle Ages such as Stabat Mater:

For his people’s sins, in anguish,
There she saw the victim languish,
Bleed in torments, bleed and die:
Saw the Lord’s anointed taken;
Saw her Child in death forsaken;
Heard his last expiring cry.

It is significant that Stabat Mater, in the course of its sixty lines, makes not a single reference to the Resurrection.

Where Orthodoxy sees chiefly Christ the Victor, the late medieval and post-medieval west sees chiefly Christ the Victim. While Orthodoxy interprets the Crucifixion primarily as an act of triumphant victory over the powers of evil, the west particularly since the time of Anselm of Canterbury (?1033-1109) — has tended rather to think of the Cross in penal and juridical terms, as an act of satisfaction or substitution designed to propitiate the wrath of an angry Father.

Yet these contrasts must not be pressed too far. Eastern writers, as well as western, have applied juridical and penal language to the Crucifixion; western writers, as well as eastern, have never ceased to think of Good Friday as a moment of victory. In the west during recent years there has been a revival of the Patristic idea of Christus Victor, alike in theology, in spirituality, and in art; and Orthodox are naturally very happy that this should be so.

Wow. Just wow. The contrast between the earlier and the later Latin hymns sure are striking, when presented this way.

Also, thanks for “Today is hung upon a tree” in the other post. That’s one of my favorites, although I am more familiar with it in Arabic than in English (it took me a second of vague “where have I heard this…” to place it, actually), thanks to the famous rendition by Fairuz (and the less famous but still excellent rendition by Suad Hashem). It’s absolutely electrifying, in any language.