The Atonement--Orthodox view vs. Catholic

[Macarius]

There's always much in common.

Yes, I often find that (despite what internet boards may seem to indicate) when Orthodox and Catholics speak openly and honestly, we contribute more to one another than we detract. I am almost always enriched by my interactions with pious Catholics (even when we agree, respectfully, to disagree).

I think the "temporal" concept actually originated with Augustine. I've always associated it with the "punishment" described in Hebrews 12 -- that of the discipline of a Father, which no one finds pleasant at the time, but is necessary to make us holy. It is "temporal" in that one day its work will be complete.

I'm not familiar with Augustine saying that, but am open to correction as I've not read the bulk of Augustine's actual writings. Unlike Anselm, much of my knowledge of Augustine is from secondary sources (aside from "City of God" which I have read in part and found largely agreeable).

I think that applies to just about all topics.

Yeah. That's aptly put.

I do think, though, that we can speak about views as being developed at given points of time (i.e. there is a point in time when the Trinitarian language of the Church gained its present complexity and nuance) - and that it is fair for me to look to the high middle ages (i.e. 11th c. & later) as the time when, for the RCC, the complexity and nuance surrounding purgatory came to be.

Is that fair? I'm not trying to craft any argument out of this; I just see that as the time when the doctrine starts to show up in a lot more theological texts and in councils and such. If I recall, there was a controversy not long prior to the 11th c. (or shortly thereafter... eh, my history is weak at this point) that spurred a lot of the debate around purgatory and caused (not unlike the Trinitarian debates) an increased complexity / nuance of thought to develop.

Also, I would say your view of temporal sin is in line with how I hear the RCC using it today, but the "transactional" view did seem to be common in the high middle ages. It may have been an erroneous application of the temporal / eternal dichotomy, but am I way off base in my read of the late medieval's thought? Here's where I really should go and grab a copy of Summa Theologica and look up Thomist thought (just to check that I'm not totally mis-reading the time period)...

It's not an intermediary state though, at least not if you mean intermediary between heaven and hell. It's a transitionary state of final purification for those who've been judged for heaven.

Intermediary as in "between our death and the last judgment / general resurrection." As I understand it, both our churches believe in hades (the realm of death) and paradise (where the saints reside) as disembodied states in which the souls of the departed exist while awaiting general resurrection into the new body and the final decisions of last judgment. The doctrine of purgatory teaches a third such intermediary state, so that souls wait either in hades, purgatory, or paradise between their death here and the general resurrection. Concievably, as I understand it, the souls in purgatory don't wait there the entire time, but can be cleansed and enter paradise with the saints even before the general resurrection.

This is an interesting quote I found, and I think it is probably absolutely correct:

Anselm did not teach penal substitution. Yes, he brought to prominence the vocabulary of ‘satisfaction’, which became important in later formulations. But in Anselm’s feudal thought-world, it was God’s honour that needed to be satisfied by substitutionary obedience, not his justice by substitutionary penalty. Thus his omission from our list of those who have endorsed penal substitution was not accidental.

I would agree with this - satisfactionalism (I still kind of like "transactionalism" for him) fits better. That was one thing I was surprised to find when reading him - God's "wrath" is quite absent from his description of the necessity of the cross. He is far more concerned with what we owe to God.

It's from a book called "Pierced for Our Transgressions" in which the case is attempted that the early church fathers actually taught penal substitution.

Eh, I really don't see that. I DO see saints like St. Irenaeus talking about obedience (the disobedience of the first tree is undone by the obedience of the second tree).

The view of "substitutionary" atonement as being that where the substitution is Christ's obedience for our disobedience is in line with the Catholic view. But not substitution to receive our punishment.

Interesting. Could you explain this in the context of "eternal penalty" (as you did with "temporal penalty" above)?

I personally have always loved and identified with the word reparation more than satisifaction.

That we definitely have in common.

It is also often used in Catholic terminology -- Christ makes reparation for our sins. At it's root is the concept of "repair" for damage done. We all know we need to repair the damage done for our sins to the best of our ability. We repay those we've cheated. We have an obligation to do everything in our power to repair another person's reputation if we've harmed it. But we also know we can rarely if ever fully repair the damage our sin causes. Christ's willing offering of Himself to the Father provides reparation in abundance -- enough to repair all of Creation, even better than the original.

Could you unpack how, in your view, the cross makes this reparation? I'm curious

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[St. Columcille]

Well, if a Church Father quotes the example of say Abraham being called to sacrifice Isaac, the fact remains that Isaac's sacrifice was substituted for a ram. I am not sure there are different analogies that could be used in different cultures to attempt to demonstrate a similiar substitution, especially if the culture in question never gave animal sacrifices like the Israelites nor like other pagan cultures which carried out such rituals. As such, I only see equivalence between the stories of the O.T. on "atonement" or "reconciliation" with the Gospels and Anselm's dialogue suggests he is making an attempt to answer certain objections from within a Western nonChristian culture.

As far as your statement that "if I've erred, show me how," it is not a matter of an intentional error (like a purposeful lie) as it may be an err of judgement (not having all the facts or perpetuating an idea without proper support). I have Anselm's Cur Deus Homo and it is not an easy read coming from a Modern American English culture, for I cannot assume that the period and place of which Anselm lived thought in the same manner as us. It was one reason I left my Protestant heritage and became Catholic, for my Protestant sensibilities regarding Mary did not fit what I read from Early Church Fathers and saints leading up to the Reformation. So I can not more easily demonstrate Anselm as you, he is not really much of a priority. Most people who do look to Anselm are more concerned with demonstrating an ontological reexamination on both the scriptural texts he uses and his rationale for the plausible existence of God. I personally think his position is fairly weak, but it can be both fun and useful if you consider his argument only as a sliver and not a big piece of the pie for reasons for why us Christians believe in God's existence.

 

[Macarius]

Well, if a Church Father quotes the example of say Abraham being called to sacrifice Isaac, the fact remains that Isaac's sacrifice was substituted for a ram. I am not sure there are different analogies that could be used in different cultures to attempt to demonstrate a similiar substitution, especially if the culture in question never gave animal sacrifices like the Israelites nor like other pagan cultures which carried out such rituals. As such, I only see equivalence between the stories of the O.T. on "atonement" or "reconciliation" with the Gospels and Anselm's dialogue suggests he is making an attempt to answer certain objections from within a Western nonChristian culture.

As far as your statement that "if I've erred, show me how," it is not a matter of an intentional error (like a purposeful lie) as it may be an err of judgement (not having all the facts or perpetuating an idea without proper support). I have Anselm's Cur Deus Homo and it is not an easy read coming from a Modern American English culture, for I cannot assume that the period and place of which Anselm lived thought in the same manner as us. It was one reason I left my Protestant heritage and became Catholic, for my Protestant sensibilities regarding Mary did not fit what I read from Early Church Fathers and saints leading up to the Reformation. So I can not more easily demonstrate Anselm as you, he is not really much of a priority. Most people who do look to Anselm are more concerned with demonstrating an ontological reexamination on both the scriptural texts he uses and his rationale for the plausible existence of God. I personally think his position is fairly weak, but it can be both fun and useful if you consider his argument only as a sliver and not a big piece of the pie for reasons for why us Christians believe in God's existence.

I love whipping out the ontological argument at parties because it befudles those who haven't heard it before

 

[MKJ]

I love whipping out the ontological argument at parties because it befudles those who haven't heard it before

It beats dancing on tables with a lampshade on your head.

 

[Joshua G.]

It beats dancing on tables with a lampshade on your head.

But this proves one's point so much better!

 

[MKJ]

But this proves one's point so much better!

What would be really impressive would be dancing on the table, with the lampshade, while explaining the ontological argument.

 

[ProScribe]

When I think of Atonement I think of Propitiation and the Eastern view of Christ being crucified and having (literally) died on the Cross.

Colossians 1:20
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Hebrews 9:11
[ The Blood of Christ ] When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation.

Hebrews 9:12
He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.

 

[narnia59]

Yes, I often find that (despite what internet boards may seem to indicate) when Orthodox and Catholics speak openly and honestly, we contribute more to one another than we detract. I am almost always enriched by my interactions with pious Catholics (even when we agree, respectfully, to disagree).



I'm not familiar with Augustine saying that, but am open to correction as I've not read the bulk of Augustine's actual writings. Unlike Anselm, much of my knowledge of Augustine is from secondary sources (aside from "City of God" which I have read in part and found largely agreeable).



Yeah. That's aptly put.

I do think, though, that we can speak about views as being developed at given points of time (i.e. there is a point in time when the Trinitarian language of the Church gained its present complexity and nuance) - and that it is fair for me to look to the high middle ages (i.e. 11th c. & later) as the time when, for the RCC, the complexity and nuance surrounding purgatory came to be.

Is that fair? I'm not trying to craft any argument out of this; I just see that as the time when the doctrine starts to show up in a lot more theological texts and in councils and such. If I recall, there was a controversy not long prior to the 11th c. (or shortly thereafter... eh, my history is weak at this point) that spurred a lot of the debate around purgatory and caused (not unlike the Trinitarian debates) an increased complexity / nuance of thought to develop.

Also, I would say your view of temporal sin is in line with how I hear the RCC using it today, but the "transactional" view did seem to be common in the high middle ages. It may have been an erroneous application of the temporal / eternal dichotomy, but am I way off base in my read of the late medieval's thought? Here's where I really should go and grab a copy of Summa Theologica and look up Thomist thought (just to check that I'm not totally mis-reading the time period)...



Intermediary as in "between our death and the last judgment / general resurrection." As I understand it, both our churches believe in hades (the realm of death) and paradise (where the saints reside) as disembodied states in which the souls of the departed exist while awaiting general resurrection into the new body and the final decisions of last judgment. The doctrine of purgatory teaches a third such intermediary state, so that souls wait either in hades, purgatory, or paradise between their death here and the general resurrection. Concievably, as I understand it, the souls in purgatory don't wait there the entire time, but can be cleansed and enter paradise with the saints even before the general resurrection.



I would agree with this - satisfactionalism (I still kind of like "transactionalism" for him) fits better. That was one thing I was surprised to find when reading him - God's "wrath" is quite absent from his description of the necessity of the cross. He is far more concerned with what we owe to God.



Eh, I really don't see that. I DO see saints like St. Irenaeus talking about obedience (the disobedience of the first tree is undone by the obedience of the second tree).



Interesting. Could you explain this in the context of "eternal penalty" (as you did with "temporal penalty" above)?



That we definitely have in common.



Could you unpack how, in your view, the cross makes this reparation? I'm curious

In Christ,
Macarius

Macarius, I will be back to this, but I need to think on it a little, and I have a very busy week. But I shall return.

 

[EdwardT]

This is a good Orthodox resource on salvation and the atonement by H.E. Metr. Kallistos Ware of Diokleia that is posted in three parts on YouTube:

For an Orthodox catechism, the Orthodox Church in America has made The Orthodox Faith by Fr. Thomas Hopko freely available on its website. Here is a chapter from the first volume that is relevant to this discussion:
The Orthodox Faith - Volume I - Doctrine and Scripture - The Symbol of Faith - Redemption
(See especially the section: "Jesus, the reconciler of man with God")

Here is another catechism:
The Catechism of St Philaret

 

[Anhelyna]

Edward - welcome to TAW

Rather than resurrect a thread from 2010 [ yes it's really 8.5 years old !! ] it would be better to start a new thread.

I'm not actually sure how many of the posters on the thread are still active here

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Hi everyone,

I'm fairly new to Christian Forums, and this is my first time in TAW area of the forums. Blessings to all my Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ.

I would like to hear what you all think the differences are between the Orthodox and the Catholic views on the Atonement, why Christ died for our sins and how He actually saves us. I have read the Atonement theories like Christus Victor, Substitutionary Atonement, Penal Substitution, etc. etc.

I'd like to hear your views on the Atonement and how it informs your faith walk with Christ. Again, blessings to you all.
Gurney

LOL! Glory to God for how He has led us to His Church.

I hope no one resurrects my old threads. I would disagree vehemently with me.

I do miss Macarius though. I mean the Macarius before he went off the reservation a bit.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I can’t believe that was 8 years ago!?!

LOL! Glory to God for how He has led us to His Church.

I hope no one resurrects my old threads. I would disagree vehemently with me.

I do miss Macarius though. I mean the Macarius before he went off the reservation a bit.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hi everyone,

I'm fairly new to Christian Forums, and this is my first time in TAW area of the forums. Blessings to all my Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ.

I would like to hear what you all think the differences are between the Orthodox and the Catholic views on the Atonement, why Christ died for our sins and how He actually saves us. I have read the Atonement theories like Christus Victor, Substitutionary Atonement, Penal Substitution, etc. etc.

I'd like to hear your views on the Atonement and how it informs your faith walk with Christ. Again, blessings to you all.
Gurney

Talk about your blast from the past - Gurney's hello TAW post!

 

[~Anastasia~]

LOL! Glory to God for how He has led us to His Church.

Glory to God indeed!

I hope no one resurrects my old threads. I would disagree vehemently with me.

Oh me too. I especially think of a thread I was in trying to explain something to a person who had left the faith ... I think of what I said and cringe at least several times a year. Part of that conversation felt wrong as I was offering my very best to that person, and was maybe in small part responsible for me looking more. I thought of basically describing the part I object to, but it's too shameful to mention.

I do miss Macarius though. I mean the Macarius before he went off the reservation a bit.

I only read the first post and the last few - but I'm reminded of @MKJ and I miss her posts too.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hello and welcome to CF and to TAW!

Thanks for sharing the resources, but it is kind of funny to be seeing posts from so long ago. That was before my time on here.

We are glad you've joined us. Again, welcome, and feel free to start new posts too.

God be with you!

This is a good Orthodox resource on salvation and the atonement by H.E. Metr. Kallistos Ware of Diokleia that is posted in three parts on YouTube:

For an Orthodox catechism, the Orthodox Church in America has made The Orthodox Faith by Fr. Thomas Hopko freely available on its website. Here is a chapter from the first volume that is relevant to this discussion:
The Orthodox Faith - Volume I - Doctrine and Scripture - The Symbol of Faith - Redemption
(See especially the section: "Jesus, the reconciler of man with God")

Here is another catechism:
The Catechism of St Philaret

 

[ArmyMatt]

Talk about your blast from the past - Gurney's hello TAW post!

whoa.....

 

[Light of the East]

that's a start

Well, we don't use it! (That's a start). But there are other things that are, as you say, Father, a loooooong way from Orthodoxy.

 

[Light of the East]

The blame is really on the Roman Church, who took their theories and made them dogma. Many theologians that are beloved by the Church had some ideas which might have been questionably Orthodox, but we certainly don't take those and make them dogma.

It is indeed odd that the Western Church took Augustine's musings and ran with them without so much as a council to discuss them.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well, we don't use it! (That's a start). But there are other things that are, as you say, Father, a loooooong way from Orthodoxy.

you also should not be in communion with those who do.

 

[Light of the East]

you also should not be in communion with those who do.

Why did I not see that coming??