Original Sin

[Matt16_18]

GrzeszDeL:

Huh? What about Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Croatia, Romania, Ukraine, China, Cuba, and the USSR? In many parts of the old communist world, the Catholics suffered more than the Orthodox. I do not want to downplay the trials which our Orthodox brothers and sisters have endured, but neither can I bear to see the glorious martyrdoms and persecutions of our fellow Catholics ignored. I do not mean to take serious issue with you on this point, Matt, as it is not terribly germane to the matter at hand, but I feel a certain gut-level need to point out that the Communists did not give us a free pass.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear in what I was trying to say. I would never deny that Catholics suffered tremendously under Communist tyranny all over the world.

I was only trying to point out that while Catholics *in the United States * were free from Communist oppression, the same spirit of antichrist that imbuded Communism was at work in the United States. The spirit that inspired the removal of the Crucifixes and the Liturgical abuses in our Churches came from the same diabolical source that inspired Marx and Engles.

 

[Matt16_18]

Myhrr:

The Gypsies say both they and the Jews came from India … The Hindus have an extremely well developed theology of imagining God, I am that I am, as man, which is epitomised for them in the incarnation of Krishna whose incarnation became necessary …

So what are you saying Myhrr? Should Christians look to the Rig Veda as the source of their spirituality?

You have said that God is Grace, and that we ARE God’s Grace. Has Orthodoxy led you to a pantheistic understanding God?

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Matt16_18:

Sorry if I wasn’t clear in what I was trying to say. I would never deny that Catholics suffered tremendously under Communist tyranny all over the world.

I was only trying to point out that while Catholics *in the United States *were free from Communist oppression, the same spirit of antichrist that imbuded Communism was at work in the United States. The spirit that inspired the removal of the Crucifixes and the Liturgical abuses in our Churches came from the same diabolical source that inspired Marx and Engles.

Ah, I see. Well, no argument there.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Matt16_18:

So what are you saying Myhrr? Should Christians look to the Rig Veda as the source of their spirituality?

You have said that God is Grace, and that we ARE God’s Grace. Has Orthodoxy led you to a pantheistic understanding God?

Kerygma and JoeOrthodox from the Orthodox Debate board over on B-net were usually pretty good at coming up with witty replies to the Orthodoxy-is-the-same-as-Hopi-paganism school of posts. I would invite them over here, but they are not speaking to me ever since the last EENS thread on the Catholicism Debate board…

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Matt16_18:

That makes no sense. Jesus was sinless, that is something that Chrisitans have ALWAYS believed. If Jesus is a sin offereing to the Father, i.e. the Lamb slain for the sins of the world, then he is a substitutionary sacrifice. Jesus isn’t offering himself as a sacrifice to God the Father to atone for the sins that HE committed! God’s justice cannot be pitted against his mercy, because God’s mercy has no meaning apart from his justice.

It was God that formed the Jews, God that taught them how to worship him, and God that gave the Jews their religion. The Jews offered untold millions of bloody animal sacrifices as sin offerings. How can anyone with a straight face possibly say that Christians had no concept of offering sacrifices for offenses against God’s justice until one thousand years after Jesus was slain for the sins of the world? Bah!

You have put your finger on one the absurdities of the theory of substitutionary atonement.

Let’s assume that it is valid and true. If that is the case, then as Grz has said, every sin of man and not just Adam’s requires it. Jesus would have needed to be incarnated and offered as a sacrifice to the Father even if the only sin inn the world was Minnie Caldwell’s adultery with the milkman.

Another major idiocy is that the entire system of temple sacrifice, insitituted by God Himself with enormously detailed instructions in the Pentateuch, IS A COMPLETE FRAUD. Those “atonements” amount to only a counterfeit. They achieved nothing since, as Grz says, only the sacrificial death of Christ can atone for the smallest of sins against God. The temple of Jerusalem whose main business was the sacrifice of millions of animals and birds was a sham. It was all for nothing… some sort of pseudo religion given to the Jews by Jehovah.

But it is not because the Orthodox are animal lovers that we say, a plague on the idea of substitutionary sacrifice - the reason is that it makes God into a God of anger and wrath whose sense of justice cannot be placated unto He has killed His Son. It anthropomophizes God in a thoroughly unacceptable way. While the Orthodox will entertain many theological theories about redemption (as I have shown in previous posts, that is one they abominate.

Matt, I have had this discussion before and I am aware of the emotional reaction which Catholics have to a rejection of this theory. Since Anselm it has become bedrock theology for the West, for both Catholics and Protestants. They have a lot invested in it. On the other hand, the Orthodox have never heard of this theory/doctrine. It is an early 12th century speculation formulated after Christendom had split into Orthodox and Roman Catholic. It came into existence after the Great Schism of 1054. It just ain’t any part of the orthodox faith. We can hope that as you continue to bring your faith back into a more patristic, and less scholastic framework (Anselm was a founder figure for scholasticism), you will quietly drop the teaching of substitutionary atonement.

 

[Myhrr]

GrzeszDeL:

Just to reiterate, as there seems to be some lingering confusion among the Orthodox on this point - every Catholic in this discussion believes 100% in everything taught by Trent (and all of the other 20 ecumenical councils, while we are at it); every Catholic here believes the exegeses of Trent taught by (inter alia) Pius XII, John XXIII, and John Paul II. All of the Catholics here can happily endorse the description of Original Sin given in the new Catechism. It is less than needless to remind us that the Tridentine Faith is still in force, as we not only know this, but would not have it any other way.

Deo gratias agimus ut concilium Tridentinum nobis dederit.

From Post 4 this discussion:

GrzeszDeL:

I am pretty sure that this idea that we Catholics believe in inheritted guilt is something that some Orthodox polemicist invented and we have taken the bait and treated it as if we really do believe thusly. I am not at all convinced that the western and eastern understandings of original sin are really all that different.

From Post 7:

GrzeszDeL:

In any case, my point was that, even granting the pro-western bias of the encyclopedia, one still finds the encyclopedia speaking of original sin in terms that the east might fight more amenable, thus indicating that the idea that the west conceives of original sin without imputing Adam’s guilt to babies is not a mere ecumenical revision, but an understanding with pre-Vatican II roots.

Etc., and including similar on:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=10930

We’ve been arguing for over 300 posts because you agree with me?

 

[Myhrr]

Matt16_18:

So what are you saying Myhrr? Should Christians look to the Rig Veda as the source of their spirituality?

Yes. No contest if the alternative is St Augustine’s misreading of Genesis.

You have said that God is Grace, and that we ARE God’s Grace.

Elegance, politeness, generosity of spirit, has all that really been lost to you?

UNIGENITUS (Section 3)[2]Dogmatic Constitution issued by Pope Clement XI on Sept. 8, 1713?

1. The grace of God is nothing else than His omnipotent Will; this is the idea which God Himself gives us in all His Scriptures.
2. The true idea of grace is that God wishes Himself to be obeyed by us and He is obeyed; He commands, and all things are done; He speaks as the Lord, and all things are obedient to Him.

Has Orthodoxy led you to a pantheistic understanding God?

GOD is one. The intelligent spirituality of India explains this, but you reject the good creation of man in the image and likeness of God for the mangled substitute of Augustine, a wrathful evil God who demands obedience from his creation and kills it if it fails. You can try and demean eternal Righteousness, Dharma, with name calling, but you will never be able to replace it with RCC dogmas for those that can see the difference.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Fr Ambrose:

Let’s assume that it is valid and true. If that is the case, then as Grz has said, every sin of man and not just Adam’s requires it. Jesus would have needed to be incarnated and offered as a sacrifice to the Father even if the only sin in the world was Minnie Caldwell’s adultery with the milkman.

Yes, although I fail to see why this strikes you as an “absurdity,” or even a strike against the theory.

Another major idiocy is that the entire system of temple sacrifice, insitituted by God Himself with enormously detailed instructions in the Pentateuch, IS A COMPLETE FRAUD. Those “atonements” amount to only a counterfeit. They achieved nothing since, as Grz says, only the sacrificial death of Christ can atone for the smallest of sins against God. The temple of Jerusalem whose main business was the sacrifice of millions of animals and birds was a sham. It was all for nothing… some sort of pseudo religion given to the Jews by Jehovah.

Well, a complete fraud only in the sense that it did not accomplish everything that the Jews might have hoped. Like the rest of the Old Testament doctrine and cult, however, that was not the point. The point was to foreshadow and anticipate the culmination of salvation history which would be achieved in Christ’s Incarnation. I would say that it did its job nicely in that respect.

But it is not because the Orthodox are animal lovers that we say, a plague on the idea of substitutionary sacrifice - the reason is that it makes God into a God of anger and wrath whose sense of justice cannot be placated unto He has killed His Son.

You can keep saying that until you are blue in the face, but until you take Hebrews out of your Bibles, we will know that you are just enjoying a moment of dramatic exageration. The Orthodox know just as well as the Catholics that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins,” (Heb 9:22).

 

[davidv]

Fr Ambrose:

Another major idiocy is that the entire system of temple sacrifice, insitituted by God Himself with enormously detailed instructions in the Pentateuch, IS A COMPLETE FRAUD. Those “atonements” amount to only a counterfeit.

It seems to me this misses the connection between what was being sacrificed and what this might have meant to an Israelite who had fallen into the practice of some pagan religion. The specifics of some of these connections escape me at the moment.

In today’s world, these sacrifices would be like asking an alcoholic to get up a 5:00a and smash a liter of his favorite spirits on an alter on main street for 8 mornings in a row. What would/could this do? 1) it takes one object away from its intended illicit purpose. 2) presuming these item cost something, it required a sacrifice. Sacrifice, the giving up of one’s own desire, is necessary for holiness.

 

[Matt16_18]

Fr Ambrose:

Another major idiocy is that the entire system of temple sacrifice, insitituted by God Himself with enormously detailed instructions in the Pentateuch, IS A COMPLETE FRAUD. Those “atonements” amount to only a counterfeit. They achieved nothing since, as Grz says, only the sacrificial death of Christ can atone for the smallest of sins against God.

Did those animal sacrifices that were required by the law justify the Jews?Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law … Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us – for it is written, “Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree” –
Galatians 3:11&13

On the other hand, the Orthodox have never heard of this theory/doctrine.

Then the Orthodox have never understood what is in their Bibles!

 

[Matt16_18]

GrzeszDeL:

The point was to foreshadow and anticipate the culmination of salvation history which would be achieved in Christ’s Incarnation.

 

[Matt16_18]

**The Day of Atonement

The Scapegoat**
When he has completed the atonement rite for the sanctuary, the meeting tent and the altar, Aaron shall bring forward the live goat. Laying both hands on its head, he shall confess over it all the sinful faults and transgressions of the Israelites, and so put them on the goat’s head. He shall then have it led into the desert by an attendant. Since the goat is to carry off their iniquities to an isolated region, it must be sent away into the desert.
Leviticus 16:21-22

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Matt16_18:

Did those animal sacrifices that were required by the law justify the Jews? Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law … Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us – for it is written, “Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree” –

Galatians 3:11&13

Why did God create the whole elaborate system of temple sacrifices at Jerusalem. The sacrificial system dominated the lives of the Jews for centuries, and it cost them dearly - the expense of the animals involved, always the best and unblemished, the expense of maintaining the temple and sacrificial priesthood for it.

Then the Orthodox have never understood what is in their Bibles!

One may as well say that the Catholics never understood their Bibles either, not until the early 12th century when Anselm of Canterbury popped up out of the mists of England and said: “Eureka! I have solved it all. It is about Substitutionary Atonement! Why didn’t we Catholics manage to see this in our Bibles before?”

 

[Matt16_18]

Fr Ambrose:

Why did God create the whole elaborate system of temple sacrifices at Jerusalem.

These sacrifices were all types that pointed to the antitype.And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it on Isaac his son; and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they went both of them together. And Isaac said to his father Abraham, “My father!” And he said, “Here am I, my son.” He said, “Behold, the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” Abraham said, “God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.”
Gen. 22:6-8

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Matt16_18:

These sacrifices were all types that pointed to the antitype.

Of course. But you all seem to be saying that they were nothing more than an elaborate charade instituted by God and a huge, and ineffectual, system laid upon the Jewish nation just to create* typology*!!!

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Fr Ambrose:

Of course. But you all seem to be saying that they were nothing more than an elaborate charade instituted by God and a huge, and ineffectual, system laid upon the Jewish nation just to create* typology*!!!

Yes. You say that as if it were an objection.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GrzeszDeL:

Yes. You say that as if it were an objection.

Well, I have to wonder if the Jews knew that the system of sacrifices which they were practising for a few millenia was really ineffectual. After all it was the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob who had instructed them to offer these sacrifices.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Fr Ambrose:

Well, I have to wonder if the Jews knew that the system of sacrifices which they were practising for a few millenia was really ineffectual. After all it was the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob who had instructed them to offer these sacrifices.

Given the rather patient tone of the letter to the Hebrews, I would guess that the Jews had not realized this at the time. Of course, now that we can look back, having read the last chapter of the book, as it were, we can see that it was true all along that those gallons of goat blood would never do the trick. Far from seeming a superfluous waste, it looks to me like one of the more artistic brushstrokes in the broader tableau of salvation history. All of those trills in Vivaldi’s mandolin concerti are not strictly necessary, but I would not have them any other way. In the same way, one cannot help but be impressed by the artistry of the Lord’s didactic approach.

Besides, the gross overkill of the whole business helps to make the point more clearly; it is not just that they had not sacrificed enough animals; they would never succeed in sacrificing enough animals, because only Christ’s sacrifice could ever do the job. I suspect that Hebrews’ point would not be quite as clear or masterful if it were written only a few days into the Temple regime, after the priests had only just started.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Incidentally, Fr. Ambrose’s obvious distaste for the idea of atoning sacrifice makes me rather wonder how Fr. Feeney’s charming essay My Little Minister might have been different if Fr. Feeney had met Fr. Ambrose in that library, instead of the un-named Presbyterian. Would the tables have been turned? Would it have been the heretic who was disgusted with the Catholic’s faith, instead of the other way around? I guess we will never know, but it is a mildly amusing pass-time to speculate…

 

[Myhrr]

GrzeszDeL:

Besides, the gross overkill of the whole business helps to make the point more clearly; it is not just that they had not sacrificed enough animals; they would never succeed in sacrificing enough animals, because only Christ’s sacrifice could ever do the job. I suspect that Hebrews’ point would not be quite as clear or masterful if it were written only a few days into the Temple regime, after the priests had only just started.

How does this affect your sacrifice of Christ?

Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread;