Original Sin

[JGC]

Fr Ambrose:

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

Just my 2p worth. I grew up with the ‘Jesus died for your sins’ All you have to do is accept that Jesus paid the penalty for you’ stuff from my presbyterian church and Baptist friend. Never made any sense to me.

When I realised that the reason for Christianity was about re-establishing my broken relationship with God and becoming what I was truly born to be (and this was before I had read anything on theosis or deification) the wheels were set in motion…

 

[JGC]

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…

That was a great read:thumbsup: Thanks for the link.

 

[Myhrr]

GrzeszDeL:

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.

I believe the RCC is rather exacting about form, for example the argument with the Anglican ordination is about form, how do you then equate Christ’s sacrifice to the once a year sacrifice in the holy of holies when the blood was taken in by the High Priest, but it was sprinkled on the altar and people etc. not drunk?

The Passover of course was before there were any restrictions on eating blood.

I’ve had a passing look at Jewish sacrifices before:

lightforthelastdays.co.uk/docs/jesus_messiah/does_god_require_blood_sacrifices_today.html

www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Projects/Reln91/Sacrifice/sacpage2.htm

jewfaq.org/qorbanot.htm

The reference in Hebrews is to the High Priest alone who once a year entered the Holy of Holies to sacrifice for the people of Israel of which he was one member, it wasn’t a sacrifice for them excluding him as in any way apart, he was one with them.

This was explained to us, by a Jew who was leading the tunnel tour at Temple Mount, that at that moment the High Priest ‘took on’ all the people into himself, all knowledge of the people was in him; this, he explained, was for understanding and healing of the people and is how the Jews stayed together in their common purpose. It was dangerous, entry into the Holy of Holies was strictly regulated.

Christ is the eternal High Priest for the Orthodox, is this different with RCC? I understand there is a difference in priesthood, in the RCC the priest is vicariously Christ which I don’t think is an idea any Orthodox have, but I could be wrong.

 

[Matt16_18]

Myhrr:

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.

Tell us Myhrr, given your profound understanding of the “intelligent spirituality of India”, what do you make of difficult scripture verses?And the people complained in the hearing of the LORD about their misfortunes; and when the LORD heard it, his anger was kindled, and the fire of the LORD burned among them, and consumed some outlying parts of the camp.
Num. 11:1

While the meat was yet between their teeth, before it was consumed, the anger of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague.
Num. 11:33

So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel; and the LORD said to Moses, “Take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them in the sun before the LORD, that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel.”
Num. 25:3-4

And the LORD’s anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the LORD was consumed.
Num. 32:13

The LORD would not pardon him, but rather the anger of the LORD and his jealousy would smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book would settle upon him, and the LORD would blot out his name from under heaven.
Deut. 29:20

 

[Matt16_18]

Fr Ambrose:

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.

Right.

Catholics have a warped view of God? Look at what you are saying. Animal sacrifices actually atoned for the sins of Israel - the works of the law brought justification to the Jews! If that is the case, then why did God the Father send his only begotten Son into the world and allow him to be murdered, knowing full well that his death on the Cross was unnecessary for our salvation?

Jesus is a high priest on the order of Melchizedek, a priesthood that is of a higher order than the Levitical priesthood. Jesus could have just laid his hands on a scapegoat, transferred the sins of the world to the goat, and the goat could have taken away the sins of the world! Jesus could have taught us some moral doctrine, performed a ritual sacrifice with an animal, and presto, we could have all been saved through an animal sacrifice! Or even better, since Jesus is a high priest on the order of Melchizedek, a grain and wine offering could have been used for the redemption of the world. Jesus could have performed a ritual that took away the sins of the world, and then, ascended to Heaven. Jesus could have skipped the nasty business of a pointless crucifixion.And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.”
Matt. 26:29So why didn’t the Father let the cup pass from his beloved Son who cried out in agony for this to happen? There was no real need for this death according the Orthodox! Catholics have a monstrous view of God? If anything, the God the Father that the Orthodox bow down to worship is an uncaring monster that allows his Son to die an agonizing death that was totally unnecessary for our salvation.

 

[Matt16_18]

The great Augustinian nun, the Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich speaks of her visions as a child about the Fall, and the NECESSITY of Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the Cross for the salvation of fallen men:

Mankind at first numbered two, then three, and at last they became innumerable. That had been images of God; but after the Fall, they became images of self, which images original sin. Sin placed them in communication with the fallen angels. They sought all their good in self and the creatures around them with all of whom the fallen angels had connection; and from that interminable blending, that sinking of his noble faculties in self and in the fallen nature, sprang manifold wickedness and misery.

My Affianced showed me this clearly, distinctly, intelligibly, more clearly than one beholds the things of daily life. At the time, I thought that a child might comprehend it, but now I cannot repeat it. He showed me the whole plan of Redemption and the way in which it was to be effected, as also all that He Himself had done. I saw that it is not right to say that God need not have become man, need not have died for us upon the Cross; that He could, by virtue of His omnipotence, have redeemed us otherwise. I saw that He did what He did in conformity with His own infinite perfection, His mercy, and His justice; that there is indeed no necessity in God, He does what He does, He is what he is!

*Life of Jesus Christ *

 

[Myhrr]

Tell us Myhrr, given your profound understanding of the “intelligent spirituality of India”, what do you make of difficult scripture verses? And the people complained in the hearing of the LORD about their misfortunes; and when the LORD heard it, his anger was kindled, and the fire of the LORD burned among them, and consumed some outlying parts of the camp.

Num. 11:1

While the meat was yet between their teeth, before it was consumed, the anger of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague.
Num. 11:33

So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel; and the LORD said to Moses, “Take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them in the sun before the LORD, that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel.”
Num. 25:3-4

And the LORD’s anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the LORD was consumed.
Num. 32:13

The LORD would not pardon him, but rather the anger of the LORD and his jealousy would smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book would settle upon him, and the LORD would blot out his name from under heaven.
Deut. 29:20

“Profound understanding” are your words, not mine. However, with the intelligence I’ve got - the direction my musings on all this so far have taken me to think of these events in the light of God’s teaching Abraham about sacrifice, learning and adjustment, and so I think this thread can be followed through the rest of the accounts. Moses you’ll recall smashed the first tablets in frustrated anger, went back for advice…

I found this piece when I was looking for information on sacrifice, a look at the Jewish relationship to God in history.

crystalinks.com/judaism2.html

 

[Matt16_18]

Myhrr

All of the quotes I gave are from the OT and speak of God’s anger against sin. Catholics didn’t write these verses, but we do acknowledge that these verses are the inspired word of God.

These sacred scriptures cannot be ignored in order to prop up a house of cards built on a stale and insipid Shirley McClain-like syncretism of Christianity and Hinduism.

 

[Myhrr]

Myhrr

All of the quotes I gave are from the OT and speak of God’s anger against sin. Catholics didn’t write these verses, but we do acknowledge that these verses are the inspired word of God.

These sacred scriptures cannot be ignored in order to prop up a house of cards built on a stale and insipid Shirley McClain-like syncretism of Christianity and Hinduism.

Perhaps you’d need to give up your dualistic God of Augustine to see the broader view. You thought the description of the Vedas on the link I posted insipid? What in particular?

 

[Matt16_18]

Myhrr

If you want to start a discussion of why Orthodoxy is reconcilable with the teachings of Hinduism, then you should start another thread for that discussion.

 

[Myhrr]

Myhrr

If you want to start a discussion of why Orthodoxy is reconcilable with the teachings of Hinduism, then you should start another thread for that discussion.

Not on my agenda nor is changing your beliefs. What you choose to believe is up to you, my argument here is against your Church’s dogmas that mandate suppression of my beliefs for its own.

Re sacrifice:

"Postscript: Jesus struck at the heart of the animal sacrifice system, and before the end of the week, He was crucified. The Temple incident was not His only attack on rabbinical and Mosaic law. In a number of passages, Jesus shows clearly He does not support the church of his day."

Caught my eye while reading through some very detailed descriptions of animal sacrifice at the Temple.

And in context of this particular discussion I think it’s a ‘must read’, the detail and exactitude necessary for a sacrifice to be acceptable is relevant.

come-and-hear.com/editor/br_2.html

I then found this which touches on your last posts to me:

Advocating Holy Atrocities

The Holy Atrocity is relevant to today’s political situation in the Middle East and the role America will play: The Holy Atrocity is advocated as a political solution. One of the advocates is Washington, DC lawyer Nathan Lewin, who represents Orthodox Jewish interest groups in high-profile legal disputes. In an article published in May 2002 in the opinion magazine Shma.com, Lewin called for the massacre of families of Palestinians accused of suicide bombing. He introduces the subject with these words:

What if Israel and the United States announced that henceforth the perpetrators of all suicide attacks would be treated as if they had brought their parents and brothers and sisters with them to the site of the explosion? — Nathan Lewin (8)

We encountered Lewin before when he submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court arguing that the US death penalty is cruelly inflicted, and that the US should emulate the humanitarian death penalty principles contained in the Talmud. (35) Lewin also argued that the death penalty was rarely used in Talmud law. We found a number of flaws in Lewin’s presentation — for example, he failed to tell the Supreme Court about a Talmud law that mandates the annihilation of entire tribes, towns, and cities in one fell swoop.

(continued on:

come-and-hear.com/editor/br_1.html

 

[Myhrr]

p.s. how did Augustine, Aquinas et al explain ‘picking up one’s cross’? Anyone know where I can find discussions on this?

 

[Matt16_18]

Myhrr:

… my argument here is against your Church’s dogmas that mandate suppression of my beliefs for its own

It is useless to resist. The Vatican spy satellites are watching your every move. The Internet is already under our control. We know where you live, and who you are Nina.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Matt16_18:

It is useless to resist. The Vatican spy satellites are watching your every move. The Internet is already under our control. We know where you live, and who you are Nina.

Continue the good work Nina (I though Nina was a Georgian?) The last Irish census shows that Orthodoxy has replaced Methodism as the 4th major religion. Whatever you’re doing, it’s working. Hold a steady course.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Not that it is terribly relevant to the present dispute between the Orthodox and the Catholics, but I will never pass up a chance to post a piece of wit by my hero, G.K. Chesterton. As such, I give you Chesterton’s thoughts on original sin in his marvelous work Orthodoxy.
G.K. Chesterton:

Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin–a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R.J.Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.

Enjoy.

 

[RBushlow]

Myhrr:

Not on my agenda nor is changing your beliefs. What you choose to believe is up to you, my argument here is against your Church’s dogmas that mandate suppression of my beliefs for its own.

I don’t believe that you have to suppres your beliefs to be in communion with the Catholic Church. Don’t the Byzantine and other Eastern Rite Catholics hold identical beliefs with the Orthodox Church?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

RBushlow:

I don’t believe that you have to suppres your beliefs to be in communion with the Catholic Church. Don’t the Byzantine and other Eastern Rite Catholics hold identical beliefs with the Orthodox Church?

One that has remained close to Orthodoxy is the Catholic Melkite Church which takes a negative stance on papal infallibility, purgatory, immaculate conception, the filioque, the indissolubility of marriage, etc. The people at EWTN took a slam against the Melkites on these issues, basically accusing them of holding on to their Orthodox beliefs and not being obedient to the Pope.

See
ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/EASTRITE.TXT

 

[Myhrr]

GrzeszDeL:

Not that it is terribly relevant to the present dispute between the Orthodox and the Catholics, but I will never pass up a chance to post a piece of wit by my hero, G.K. Chesterton. As such, I give you Chesterton’s thoughts on original sin in his marvelous work Orthodoxy.

Enjoy.

And by ‘Orthodoxy’ was he talking about Orthodox or ‘not-Anglican…?’

…the word disingenous comes to mind, again, but surely not…? time for another martini…

He converted in 1922, this was around the time the Orthodox Church was being destroyed in Russia by Lenin’s Bolshevik pretender, Chesterton didn’t know the Orthodox Church existed. His reasons for conversion were varied, but certainly for the stricter traditions of RCC regarding the doctrine Original Sin, the Anglican’s had a milder practice of RCC Augustine version,
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ79.HTM

St Nicholai (Velimirovich) is the man who introduced Orthodoxy to England, to the Anglicans, by expounding on the Lord’s Prayer.

from Orthodox America:

Bishop Nikolai Velimirovich Serbia’s New Chrysostom

---

“A biography of Bishop Nikolai Velimirovic, published in Belgrade in 1986, bears the title, Novi Zlatoust, A New Chrysostom. Its author, Hegumen Artemije, now a bishop in Kosovo, is not the first to have drawn this comparison. Nearly thirty years earlier, Saint John (Maximovitch), who had been a young instructor at a seminary in Bishop Nikolai’s diocese of Zica, had called him “a great saint and Chrysostom of our day [whose] significance for Orthodoxy in our time can be compared only with that of Metropolitan Anthony [Khrapovitsky]. … They were both universal teachers of the Orthodox Church.” In another encomium, Bishop Nikolai’s worthy disciple and preeminent Serbian theologian, Archimandrite Justin Popovic, extolled his teacher as “the thirteenth Apostle, the fifth Evangelist.””

…

“With the outbreak of the First World War, Archimandrite Nikolai was sent on a diplomatic mission to England, where he successfully pleaded the cause of the embattled Serbs. In addition, the distinction of his Oxford doctorate helped gain him an invitation to speak at Westminster Abbey. As one Anglican prelate later recalled: “The Archimandrite Nicholai Velimirovich came, and in three months left an impression that continues to this day. His works,** ‘The Lord’s Commandments’ and his ‘Meditations on the Lord’s Prayer’ electrified the Church of England. His vision of the Church as God’s family, as over against God’s empire, simply shattered the West’s notion of what it had regarded as the Caesaro-Papism of Eastern Orthodoxy.**” (Canon Edward West)”

roca.org/oa/158/158f.htm

…I wonder which Church Chesterton would have chosen if he’d heard St Nicholai?

continued

 

[Myhrr]

continued

There used to be a history of St Sava’s on this link which covered his years there, I don’t know what’s happened to it. Maybe you could find it somewhere else if interested. This short extract from it:

"The spirit of any church era is clearly marked by the lives, writings and influences of her apostles. Among these luminaries stands the late Bishop Nikolai Velimirovich, who during the post war years made St. Sava Cathedral his home. A prolific writer and eloquent orator; a prophet and visionary; a mystic and apologist; an effective archpastor and a diplomatic statesman; Bishop Nikolai’s presence at the Cathedral created a sensation and a feeling of specialness. The echelon of intellectual society in New York City flocked to him spellbound. His beloved Srbiantsi trailed him night and day asking questions and advice about their concerns, all of which he found time to respond to during his busy schedule.

stsava.org/english/e09/history.html

The announcement on his sainthood was originally on this news page on the OCA site.

oca.org/pages/news/news.asp?ID=361

 

[Myhrr]

RBushlow:

I don’t believe that you have to suppres your beliefs to be in communion with the Catholic Church. Don’t the Byzantine and other Eastern Rite Catholics hold identical beliefs with the Orthodox Church?

As Father Ambrose said in the following post to yours, the Melkites, are fighting for survival against the complete takeover by Rome. As they explain it they’re the litmus test for us here, if latinization destroys their patrimony of collegiality and equality of their patriarch with the bishop of rome then the RCC will have proved itself false in its reassurances that acknowledging primacy for Rome doesn’t mean destruction of Orthodoxy.

Father Ambrose mentioned in another discussion that he couldn’t find a copy of the agreement between the Melkites and Rome and I’ve had several sessions looking for it too, it’s not on any vatican page that I can find or any Melkite pages I’ve managed to explore, so, without actually being able to refer you to the document I’m asking you to accept that the Melkites know their history and to understand that their explanations in the following are from the point of view of this documents existence, which guarantees them equality with Rome as in the Orthodox tradition, i.e. rejects the supremacy claims of Rome.

First, a response from them to the ewtn article Father Ambrose linked to in 337: melkite.org/misunder.htm

I think the ewtn piece is generally insulting, but its last statement worries me:
“The terms of the original agreement are clear that agreement with Rome on these matters is expected.”

The Melkites conclude:
“Being a Patriarchal Church, the only one in the family of Catholic Byzantine Churches, the Melkite Church deserves better treatment by its Roman Rite Catholic co-religionists, especially in the Catholic Media of Television and in the field of higher Catholic education.”

Some background history: melkite.org/Melkite.htm

"In the 1600’s western missionaries to the Middle East found fertile ground among the Melkites who were eager to obtain an educated clergy. Soon the Jesuits, Cappuchins, Carmelites, and Franciscans were educating and preaching the Word to a Melkite faithful starved for religious resources. . In 1709 Patriarch Cyril V formally recognized the authority of the Pope of Rome as the head of the Church. Some of the Antiochean faithful looked to the West for salvation of their church, while others only saw the missionaries as outsiders who did not understand their eastern customs, ancestral laws, and had not gone through the centuries of deprivations. As a result in 1724 the church split in two. One faction under the influence of Constantinople became known at the Antiochean Orthodox, while the other group, loyal to Rome, became known at the Melkite Catholics.

“Since the formal declaration of Roman/Melkite union in 1724, the Melkite Catholics have worked steady to be a “voice for the East within the Western Church.” Melkite Patriarch Gregory Joseph spent his thirty-three years working for union of the Churches while striving to maintain the Eastern traditions and rituals. His was a significant voice during the deliberations of the first Vatican Council and he was an important influence on Pope Leo XIII’s Orientalium Dignit. During Vatican II, it was Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV who was spoke on behalf of the “absent brother”, the great Orthodox Church. And so, today, the Melkite Catholics are a small but vibrant voice within the Catholic Church; a voice calling upon the dignity of the orthodox faith and praying for the unity of the church of Christ.”

continued