So the proper term is prayer rope instea of prayer bead. It is interesting the Kyrie Eleisons is repeated 41 times. I think that is a very powerful prayer to say before God. I don’t remember we recite that in our personal prayer exceept for the short stanza during the Penential act during the mass. I know Catholics do this in the Divine Mercy prayer which is incidently one of the preferred prayers of my wife.In the Coptic Orthodox tradition in which the prayer rope originated (it is an Egyptian desert father, St. Pachomios, who is credited with creating it), neither the Jesus Prayer nor the Rosary occupy a central place in our worship (the Rosary not at all, and my priest says that the Jesus Prayer is a good prayer to pray extemporaneously, but of primary importance are our established traditional prayers, such as the Thanksgiving Prayer). Copts use it instead to mark the 41 Kyrie Eleisons that are part of every canonical hour, though I myself use instead a small hand cross that a friend sent to me from one of the monasteries in Egypt, as we mark each Kyrie Eleison liturgically with the sign of the Cross, so I’ve gotten used to keeping track of them that way.
Well, the idea that Christ conquered death is certainly scriptural, as it states in Acts: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. However, I don’t think this can be taken as an explanation of how Atonement was made so much as what Atonement accomplished. Is this even what Athanasius is talking about here? The answer is no, as you admit. He is saying that Christ took the punishment due to man for his sins. What is this other than satisfaction? You have not drawn any meaningful distinction.That all depends on how one understands “satisfying the divine justice”. Are we to believe, for example, that St. Athanasius believed that the death of Christ was being offered in order to satisfy the Father’s need (for lack of a better term) to punish sins with respect to the Divine Justice, as Anselm might have taught? A reading of St. Athanasius’ discourses on the incarnation seem to indicate not, for St. Athanasius’ main reasoning (at least in On the Incarnation) for why the Father could not simply revoke the sentence of death brought upon Adam and his descendents does not appeal to the Divine Justice, but rather presents God (and His dilemma) in an almost anthropomorphic light.
The most Sovereign High, having promised the crown of His creation death if he ate of the forbidden fruit was bound by His word to sentence His beloved creation Adam to death for his disobedience. To revoke the sentence would be to prove himself to be a liar, and He therefore sent his Only-Begotten into the world, that the sentence of death could be annulled by the death of the very source of life, thus freeing Adam without ever revoking His promise that Adam would die.
It is, perhaps, more crude and more fantastic (or even more human) than Anselm’s more polished account, in which the sentence of death could not have been revoked because Adam, through his disobedience, dishonored his immutable Creator, and to have revoked the sentence would have rendered to the Creator less honor from Adam than what was due, making the Creator in truth subject to change. For Anslem then, we have that God, in accordance with His justice and majesty must punish sins, for sins render to God less honor than what is due to Him, and since God is immutable, this honor-due must be rendered to God by means of punishment.
So do we believe that the sacrifice of Christ at Calvary satisfied the divine justice? In a certain sense, yes (perhaps in the sense that St. Isaac of Nineveh understood the Divine Justice), but not in the Anselmian sense, no.
The statement about Chrismation for Roman Catholics is not 100%. Depends on jurisdiction and Bishop. It is most common however. I know this from personal experience. The major difference to me is in tone, Orthodox do not define as much dogma. Pretty decent summary though.Some of those distinctions are East-West differences rather than Catholic-Orthodox.
Your first example and to some degree your second one are real differences between Catholic and Orthodox.
Additionally there are the ecumenical councils after the first seven and dogmas defined by the Papacy like the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, all of which Catholics accept (or ought to) and Orthodox do not, at least as formally defined dogmas. There are a number of other issues too. For example, the Catholic Church regards sacramental marriage as indissoluble whereas the Orthodox do not, permitting divorce and remarriage between baptized people. The Catholic Church as a firm and consistent position against artificial contraception; the Orthodox Church does not. The Orthodox Church gives the sacrament of chrismation (confirmation) to converts from Catholicism; the Catholic Church does not re-confirm converts from the Orthodox Church. The Catholic Church has dogmatically defined divine simplicity; the Orthodox Church has promoted teachings that can be interpreted as contradicting divine simplicity. The Catholic Church believes in Original Sin; the Orthodox Church rejects this teaching. The list could go on.