Why not Orthodoxy?

[Don John of Austria]

The Blood Atonement is an essintial of the Faith, Christ the son paid the price as the sacrifice to redeem us, he was like the scapegoat of the old law the one who took the sin upon himself and bought out freedom from it with Himself.

As St. Augustine said:"Men were held captive under the devil and served the demons, but they were redeemed from captivity. For they could sell themselves. The Redeemer came, and gave the price; He poured forth his blood and bought the whole world. Do you ask what He bought? See what He gave, and find what He bought. The blood of Christ is the price. How much is it worth? What but the whole world? What but all nations?"

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jan 4 2005, 11:00 PM'] The Blood Atonement is an essintial of the Faith, Christ the son paid the price as the sacrifice to redeem us, he was like the scapegoat of the old law the one who took the sin upon  himself and bought out freedom from it with Himself.

As St. Augustine said:"Men were held captive under the devil and served the demons, but they were redeemed from captivity. For they could sell themselves. The Redeemer came, and gave the price; He poured forth his blood and bought the whole world. Do you ask what He bought? See what He gave, and find what He bought. The blood of Christ is the price. How much is it worth? What but the whole world? What but all nations?" [/quote]
Christ does not die as a scapegoat, and so He does not die in our place; rather, He dies for us, i.e., He dies as our representative Head. No Catholic is required to subscribe to either Augustine's or Anselm's theory of atonement.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jan 4 2005, 07:28 PM']6. Orthodoxy also has different teachings about God and our ability to know him.  Catholic teaching teaches that human reason can prove that God is, and also that human reason can infer certain things about God.  Orthodoxy, on the other hand, teaches that human reason can only allow us to know that God exists, but that we cannot know more about him without revelation.  Why is the Catholic teaching correct and the Orthodox teaching incorrect?  Also, Catholic teaching states that human beings will behold the Essence of God with human reason and the assistance of grace in the life to come.  This is referred to as the Beatific Vision.  On the other hand, Orthodoxy teaches that it's impossible to see God in himself, but that the saved will see God as the glorified flesh of Christ.  Why is the Catholic teaching correct and the Orthodox teaching incorrect?[/quote]
The Eastern Churches do have a different understanding of some issues in theology. Both East and West agree that a man can, by the light of natural reason, know that God exists; but East holds that knowledge of God is experiential, and so it is not definitional or conceptual, and furthermore it divides knowledge of God into three categories: (1) knowing [i]that[/i] God exists, (2) knowing [i]how[/i] God exists, and (3) knowing [i]what[/i] God is. The first of these can be known by reason, for a man can see God's creative hand in the world around him, while the second can be known only by revelation, for the [i]how[/i] of God's existence is as a Trinity of persons, and finally, what God is, i.e., His essence, is completely unknowable, because God is incomprehensible and utterly transcendent in His essence.

Anyone interested in more information on these three distinct ways of knowing God can click the link below:

[url="http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun/existence"]How God Can be Known[/url]

The following statement is not correct:

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jan 4 2005, 07:28 PM']On the other hand, Orthodoxy teaches that it's impossible to see God in Himself, but that the saved will see God as the glorified flesh of Christ.[/quote]
The Eastern Churches, both Orthodox and Catholic, hold that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit alone possess the divine essence, and that no man can participate in it, or see it, for to do so would involve becoming God by nature. Instead, a man participates in God's uncreated energies, and these energies are God Himself, in other words, they are God [i]ad extra[/i]. Now clearly, those who enter into the uncreated light of the beatific vision will see the deified humanity of Christ, but, as I've already indicated, they will do much more than that, because they will also participate in God's uncreated energies, and as a consequence, they will be divinized by grace. In other words, by participating in God's uncreated energies they will become divine, and they will see the tri-hypostatic God face to face.

[spathariossa]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 5 2005, 12:47 AM'] I am not sure whether this quote is intended to be a rejection of the teachings of St. Anselm, but if it is, then your portrayal of his discussion of the Incarnation is inadequate at best.

God, being the unchanging source of all virtue, contains within Himself Perfect Justice. Man, being ordered by and for God, has, through his sin, merited just punishment. Moreover, Perfect Justice does not simply mean punishment, but also rectifying the harm done. However, while man can receive divine punishment, man cannot, unaided, right the wrong done by his sin, because the actions of unregenerate man are not supernaturally meritorious.

Thus, God must become man so that man can right the wrong done by his sin, and appease the Perfect Justice of God.

In this manner, Anselm argues that the Incarnation must occur on account of our sin.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote]
I was simply saying what the Orthodox believe. I don't really care either way.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jan 5 2005, 01:26 AM'] Christ does not die as a scapegoat, and so He does not die in our place; rather, He dies for us, i.e., He dies as our representative Head. No Catholic is required to subscribe to either Augustine's or Anselm's theory of atonement.

God bless,
Todd [/quote]
Todd, I do not know about Augustine's theory of atonement, but to characterize Anselm's theology as Christ playing divine scapegoat to a God who can't tell the difference is a rash generalization that shows a complete lack of understanding of the intricacy of Anselm's discussion. I do not maintain that one must adhere and believe Anselm's teachings, but I do maintain that if we are going to discuss them, then we are to do them justice by discussing them as they are put forth in [i]Cur Deus Homo[/i]. I am not accusing you of misrepresenting his teaching, but if your previous post [i]is[/i] insinuating Anselm's teachings as being mere "scapegoat theology" then that misunderstanding must be cleared up.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jan 4 2005, 07:28 PM'] 7. Catholic teaching states that the visible head of the Church is the Pope, who is the successor to St. Peter, appointed to his position by Christ himself in the Gospel of Matthew.  On the other hand, the Orthodox Church teaches that all bishops are equal.  There are different ranks of bishops within Orthodoxy, but the differences apply to administrative faculties, not to the sacramental nature of the bishop himself.  The only primacy held by any Orthodox bishop is that held by the Patriarch of Constantinople, which is a primacy of honor, which does not give him any new authoritative or juridical authority.  Why is the Catholic teaching more correct than the Orthodox teaching? [/quote]
Sadly at the present time the Eastern Orthodox are in a state of schism. This schism was caused by many things, one of those things being the rejection of the doctrine of Papal Primacy by the various Orthodox Churches. The dogma of the primacy of jurisdiction and infallible teaching authority of the Pope was defined as a dogma of divine and catholic faith at the First Vatican Council, and this dogma is based on both scripture (Mt. 16:13-19, Lk. 22:31-32) and tradition. The rejection of this sacred dogma caused a rupture between the Catholic Church and some of the Eastern Churches, although it must not be forgotten that many of the Eastern Churches are in full communion with the Pope (e.g., the Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Melkite, Maronite, etc.). But a distinction must be made between the dogma itself, which is an immutable truth of the faith, and how the primacy of the Pope is exercised in the Church, for as Pope John Paul II himself has said:

[quote name='Ut Unum Sint' date=' no. 95']Whatever relates to the unity of all Christian communities clearly forms part of the concerns of the primacy. As Bishop of Rome I am fully aware, as I have reaffirmed in the present Encyclical Letter, that Christ ardently desires the full and visible communion of all those Communities in which, by virtue of God's faithfulness, his Spirit dwells. I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation. For a whole millennium Christians were united in "a brotherly fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life ... If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator."  In this way the primacy exercised its office of unity.[/quote]

Clearly, the Primacy of the Pope is not a threat to the Eastern Orthodox Churches, to either their theological or liturgical traditions, because the whole point of the primacy as it is intended by Christ the Lord Himself, is to serve the unity of the whole Church by safeguarding the deposit of divine revelation.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 5 2005, 12:19 AM'] Todd, I do not know about Augustine's theory of atonement, but to characterize Anselm's theology as Christ playing divine scapegoat to a God who can't tell the difference is a rash generalization that shows a complete lack of understanding of the intricacy of Anselm's discussion. I do not maintain that one must adhere and believe Anselm's teachings, but I do maintain that if we are going to discuss them, then we are to do them justice by discussing them as they are put forth in [i]Cur Deus Homo[/i]. I am not accusing you of misrepresenting his teaching, but if your previous post [i]is[/i] insinuating Anselm's teachings as being mere "scapegoat theology" then that misunderstanding must be cleared up.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote]
I'm quite familiar with Anselm's theory and its connection to the incarnation, which is commendable, but the penal satisfaction theory is not a dogma of the faith, it is a theory, and no one is required to accept it.

The remark I made about the "scapegoat" was in reference to Don John's comments, and had nothing to do with Anselm.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 4 2005, 10:47 PM'] Thus, God must become man so that man can right the wrong done by his sin, and appease the Perfect Justice of God.[/quote]
Yes, I understand what you are saying here, and this does play a part in Anselm's theory, but the idea that God's justice must be satisfied by the death of an innocent person is not a part of the Byzantine tradition. The legalistic framework of the theology of the atonement in the West is foreign to the East. The West tends to focus on juridical categories, while the East focuses on ontology, and it must be remembered that both viewpoints are acceptable within the Catholic Church.

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 4 2005, 10:47 PM']In this manner, Anselm argues that the Incarnation must occur on account of our sin.[/quote]
For St. Irenaeus, and many of the other Eastern Fathers, the incarnation does not occur because of sin; rather, the incarnation was planned by God from all eternity. In other words, if the fall had never happened, God would still have become man, in order that man might become God.

God bless,
Todd

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]For St. Irenaeus, and many of the other Eastern Fathers, the incarnation does not occur because of sin; rather, the incarnation was planned by God from all eternity. In other words, if the fall had never happened, God would still have become man, in order that man might become God.[/quote]

I am well aware of this and, if you will refer back to my first post on the subject, I make it clear that Anselm's theology, though discussing the Incarnation from the viewpoint of its relation to our sin, does not in any way assert that this is the [i]only[/i] or even the [i]primary[/i] reason for the Incarnation.

Most of Anselm's writings were written in the hopes that they could be explained to the simple and poor, who did not have education, and yet still be understood. Thus, when writing [i]Cur Deus Homo[/i] Anselm approach the question of "why did god become man" as if a peasant had asked it, and so answers in the way he would most likely understand, yet remaining true to the faith.

For this reason, Anselm would not contradict Irenaeus, but rather, simply provides a different response.

Also Todd, if it seems like I was accusing you, I appologize, my goal was only to illustrate that Anselm's is not a scapegoat theology, and that it does not contradict the idea that "God became man that man might become Divine" but rather stands parallel with it.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jan 4 2005, 07:28 PM'] 8. The Orthodox believe that the change from bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurs at the [i]epiklesis[/i] (the calling of the Holy Spirit) rather than during the words of consecration.  They also believe that it is the calling of the Holy Spirit rather than the priest working [i]in persona Christi[/i] that brings about the change.  Why is Catholic teaching correct, and why is Orthodox teaching incorrect?
[/quote]
The dispute about whether the words of institution or the epiclesis brings about the change of the elements into the body and blood of Christ arose only during the fourteenth century (see Fr. Casimir Kucharek, [u]The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom[/u], pages 613-623), and prior to that time there were Fathers who supported both views, and both views were tolerated in the Church. In this case I think it is better to say that the whole of the Eucharistic prayer is consecratory, because neither the Latin nor the Byzantine Churches would ever say that a priest could dispense with the whole of the anaphora and simply say the words of institution or the epiclesis in order to consecrate the Eucharist. As I said above, there are Fathers, both Eastern and Western, who held that the words of institution are central in changing the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, while other Fathers held that the epiclesis brought about the change in the elements. Thus it really is best to say that the whole of the Eucharistic prayer is consecratory.

It is also wrong to say that the priest in the Eastern Churches is not seen as acting in the person of Christ, because clearly he does just that, since he is the one that calls down the Holy Spirit upon the gifts in order to transform them into Christ's sacred body and blood.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 5 2005, 01:46 AM'] Also Todd, if it seems like I was accusing you, I apologize, my goal was only to illustrate that Anselm's is not a scapegoat theology, and that it does not contradict the idea that "God became man that man might become Divine" but rather stands parallel with it.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote]
I didn't think anything of the sort, so don't fret.

Most of the juridical theories of atonement don't make much sense in an Eastern context, but the beautiful thing about the Catholic Church is that both views, i.e., the more juridical and the ontological, are permissible.

God bless,
Todd

[Guest JeffCR07]

amen to that! I would be skeptical of any Church that claims to be the Bride of Christ and yet can fit into a singular, specific system.

[cathqat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jan 4 2005, 10:07 PM']First it should be noted that the Eastern and Western teachings on original sin are not as different as some people like to say that they are, because the West has never endorsed [i]in toto[/i] the doctrine of Augustine on this topic.  Normally, when Eastern Orthodox attack the Western view of original sin, they are in fact attacking Augustine's understanding of the doctrine.[/quote]

I couldn't agree more. I would also add that the Orthodox are often critiquing a Protestant concept of original sin (similar to Augustine's, but going even further) which Catholics do not accept either.

[quote]both Eastern and Western Christians within the Catholic tradition hold that Mary, by a gift of God's grace, is all pure and sinless, and anyone who knows the Byzantine liturgy understands this well.

For some examples of Byzantine prayers about Mary read the thread begun by Cathqat:

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=26681&view=findpost&p=472408"]Theotokos:  Mother of God[/url][/quote]

See also [url="http://www.cin.org/imconcep.html"]Orthodoxy and the the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos[/url], which refers to the liturgical studies of the Byzantine Catholic scholar Fr. Casimir Kucharek.

[cathqat]

[quote]4. Catholicism struggles to reconcile faith and reason[/quote]

Pope John Paul II didn't seem to regard it as a "struggle" when he wrote [i]Fides et Ratio[/i]. I think it's nominalists have a hard time reconciling faith and reason, not Catholics.

[quote]However, the Church still goes out of this order for cradle Catholics -- Baptism as an infant, Confession and First Communion as an older child, followed by Confirmation as an adolescent.[/quote]

Only the Latin Church follows this order. The Eastern Catholic Churches do not.

[quote]12. Orthodoxy recognizes other rites as Sacraments or Mysteries, including: kingship, monasticism, blessings of the water, and others.  Why is the Catholic setting of the Sacraments at seven correct and the multiple Sacraments of the Orthodox Church incorrect?[/quote]

Orthodoxy is not so rigid about the numbering of the sacraments as that website implies, nor would all Orthodox theologians include the other things you name. One of my Orthodox friends is fond of quoting, for example, the Patriarch of Constantinople's response to Luther: "There are seven Sacraments, not two!"

[quote]15. Orthodox iconographical teaching holds that God the Father cannot be depicted because he has not been seen and cannot be seen.  I have seen many Catholic works of art, including Catholic icons in the Eastern tradition, with depictions of God the Father.  He is, for instance, on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.  Why is Orthodox teaching incorrect on depictions of God the Father?[/quote]

I don't think the Orthodox are incorrect on that point, personally. The true icon of the Father is the Son. For the record, many Orthodox icons do depict the Father; some Orthodox theologians regard those as heretical violations of later Orthodox canons.

[cathqat]

As a followup to the document Apotheoun posted, I do not think either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Churches are wrong about the [i]fioloque[/i]. Linguistic differences and differences of doctrinal emphasis have exacerbated the issue, as the document explains.

In my opinion, it can be perfectly orthodox to say either "the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" (as the Latins do) or "the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone" (as Photios would do), depending on what is meant by "proceed." I have at least one friend who believes that full council of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox bishops should be convened to make the Creed include [i]both[/i] words translated as "proceed" (the [i]ekporeusis[/i] one and the [i]proienai[/i] one).

[[Aside: Some Orthodox theologians, like St. John Maximovitch of San Francisco, do seem to believe that Mary was not sinless.]]

Edited January 5, 2005 by cathqat