(Note, I believe our next installment of the Layman's Guide to the 39 Articles could be fairly early next week. If for any reason it comes too close to Christmas, look for it during the twelve days of the brief season.)
My recent posting, Speaking only for myself, has had two more comments this very day from two sources. The first is an unidentified life long member of the Orthodox Church (who, if he/she? wants to continue in this discussion, will, I hope, use his name or create an online "handle") and the second is our own Fr. Laurence Wells. I added my own perspective, which in no way disagrees with the theology of Fr. Wells. Like him, I vigorously defend the full Biblical revelation of the Atoning and propitiatory death of our Lord, as expressed so well in our own service of Holy Communion:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world."
A growing number of modern Orthodox writers reject the plain meaning of these words, even though they are not a Western innovation, but are a perfect summary of passages from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and of I John 2:1,2. The language of sacrifice has been denigrated, ridiculed and treated with such contempt that I must reject their opinion as utter heresy, just as, if not more, damning and more deadly than anything ever taught on the subject.
But, is it Orthodoxy? The words I have quoted above, for example, are an authorized part of the Western Orthodox Rite (called often, and in memorial honor, The Liturgy of St. Tikhon).
Below are the comments, and it may be best for genuine discussion to take place very openly. But, comments are no place for frustrated writers to make up for not being published. If any of you, who want to comment, have a complete book in your head, spare us the Tome, and keep it reasonably brief. Once you get on a pedestal you cease to converse. We have sermons here, but it is our own Continuing Anglican clergy who post them. Besides, if you write twenty-thousand words in a never ending series of comments, no one will read them anyway. "Brevity is the soul of wit," but endless repetition is the sole of witlessness.
-
Many years ago, when I was still a layman, a priest whom I greatly admired was in the process of joining one of the numerous Orthodox churches. With convert zeal, he attempted to convince me to join him in such an adventure. He placed into my hands two books by Bishop Kallistos Ware (then known simply as Timothy Ware) and some less erudite writings by Fr Thomas Hopko All of these I read with a fairly open mind. This was in 1979, when the Continuing Church did not appear to have much of a future.
When I had finished this exercise, I then knew exactly why Orthodoxy was not an option for me, why in fact it is fraught with theological errors far more dangerous than Roman Catholicism.
It is easy to point out the shortcomings of a kind of Orthodoxy which attacks Dr Hart and which Fr Wasson deplores. It would be more to the point to come to grips with the errors of EO at its best: the denial of original sin, denial of our Saviour's work as the penal substitute for us, denial of Justification as the Scriptures teach it.
LKW -
My family has been Orthodox for as long as anyone has knowledge. While there are many problems in the Church, I have never, ever met a single individual in any parish in any country with the attitude expressed by these blogs - I think these broad statements about the Orthodox based on 3-4 bloggers is completely unwarranted. While these bloggers are certainly worthy of censure - and I certainly pray they will seek help for their total capitulation to numerous passions - the best thing anyone can do is simply ignore them.
-
I wish it were only 3 to 4.
Most of these fellows are converts and self-loathing westerners. But, truth is, if you are a faithful EO, they are your problem, whether you have run into them yet or not. Fr. Wells wrote:
"It would be more to the point to come to grips with the errors of EO at its best..."
I must take a deeper look at two things here. 1. They do not deny original sin, but rather define it short of inheriting guilt. They see mankind as fallen into sin and death (as one coin with two sides), and sin as the consequence of death for all human beings after Adam's Fall. 2. Not all the Orthodox deny penal substitution and justification (indeed, up through the 18th century it was proclaimed very well in many Orthodox venues, and is still very popular on Mt. Athos). In fact, by reconciling St. Anselm and EO teaching, my brother has shown the un-Orthodoxy of this brand of unorthodoxy.
The problem with both of these denials, when and where they do occur (and, it is obvious that the disease is spreading), seems to be an inability to see God as the Lawgiver, and a disdain for Law as such. They use the word "forensic" as if God was not the Author of the Law and Commandments. They detest the revealed language of sacrifice as if it is more profitable an exercise to explain away Scripture than to attend to the wisdom therein. And, the root seems to be the anti-Western cult that is so important to so many of them. Anything, even heresy, is their preference over what they deem as "western."
But, what a slippery animal. Is this really E. Orthodoxy, or the latest fad? The Anonymous commenter above claims never to have come across any of these problems. I wonder where he lives, and still hold out hope for the E. Orthodox there, wherever that may be.
64 comments:
Arguing with with EO is like wrestling with a greased pig. No matter what is stated, someone will speak up asserting confidently, "Oh no, that's not how it is at all. Some Orthodox may think that way, but not all." Whereas the Roman Church has a splendid modern Catechism which all may appeal to, EO has nothing of the sort. That is truly ironic for a faith which claims to be "orthodox," a word which means either "straight-thinking" or "right worship."
I have long since purged my library of any books by EO writers. In a debate once over the difference between EO and Roman views of Intermediate State vs Purgatory, I went to the library and xeroxed a couple of pages of Ware's book. But even not having anything much in front of me, I feel secure in stating that EO goes even further than Rome in teaching a highly synergistic concept of man's salvation. I believe I could produce quotes from Ware and Hopko supporting what I said about Original Sin, Atonement, and Justification. Anyone with ready access to such writings is welcome to produce citations refuting me.
For those who heard, read, or heard of Archbishop Jonah's address to the Synod of ACNA, in which he admonished them to cleanse themselves of something he called "Calvinism," I hope they grasped the subtext of that remark. "Calvinism" (a loaded hot-button word for Anglicans, evoking a bitter emotional heritage of 300 years) was Jonah's code word for a theological tradition which has nothing to do with Geneva and Dordrecht. He meant Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and Bradwardine; Whitgift, Andrewes, Jewell, Hooker and Donne.
Sorry, Jonah, I for one will respectifully decline your invitation.
When someone emerges who can speak with authority (at least with historical if not dogmatic authority) and represent EO with some degree of credibility, then I will be willing to reconsider my
incredulity. But learned converts, however interesting, do not possess such authority for me.
LKW
I remember back in 2004 when Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ was released, generating all sorts of "passionate" discussions between the Orthodox and the noon-Orthodox (and even between the Orthodox themselves) over the cinematic depiction of the atonement. Many Orthodox predictably took the standard anti-Anselmian line, but some Orthodox, to their credit, understood that this line was overly simplistic and inaccurate; that the language of the Fathers (mainly Latin ones, but Greek ones as well) did at times point to some sort of "satisfaction" theory of the atonement. I myself had collected a number of these from the CCEL online library, but have unfortunately lost them. I collected them as I was debating a certain fellow, a convert to Orthodoxy like me, who went through the roof over the movie and over any suggestion that the satisfaction theory might be true.
It was partly a result of these debates that I came to conclude that something was not quite right with "Orthodoxy" as it was presented to me; that Aulen wasn't the theological superhero he was made out to be. This of course only supplemented other reasons for my depature from the Orthodox Church, which I have mentioned recently in these comments boxes.
I don't think it's possible to read the Scriptures and the aforementioned Fathers and not come to the conclusion that there is indeed a forensic element to the atonement. Those modern Orthodox who deny this are in danger, as has been argued here, of departing from the Gospel. But as has been suggested here, and as I certainly came to find out in my own experience in the Orthodox Church, many modern Orthodox who opine on what the Orthodox Church teaches really don't know what they're talking about sometimes. The Orthodox Church really does need to get its act together here.
Fr. Aidan Kavanaugh, speaking of the Eucharist, put the matter succinctly:
"However elegant the knowledge of the dining room may be, it begins in the soil, in the barnyard, and in the slaughterhouse—amidst strangled cries, congealing blood, and spitting fat in the pan. Table manners depend upon something’s having been grabbed the the throat. A knowledge ignorant of these dark and murderous ‘gestures charged with soul’ is sterile rather than elegant, science rather than wisdom, artifice rather than art. It is love without passion, the Church without a cross, a house with a dining room but no kitchen, a feast of frozen dinners, a heartless life. The pious (religious and secular) would have us dine on abstractions; but we are, in fact, carnivores — a bloody bunch. Sacrifice may have many facets, but it always has a victim."
Caedmon
When someone emerges who can speak with authority (at least with historical if not dogmatic authority)...
But (and this problem becomes unavoidable), you seem to be saying that you consider Ware, Hopko and Met. Jonah to possess some kind of authority as EO spokesmen, on some level. Ware is a convert form the C of E (and the perfect example of the self-loathing westerner); Hopko is a life long Greek O., but who told my brother how much he was glad to have been set straight about Anselm (which has theological implications, to put it mildly), by reading The Beauty of the Infinite; and Met. Jonah is a convert and member of an American EO Church.
What the EO claim to believe, however, is the Bible and the Seven Oecumenical Councils. This provides a pure and simple basis for theological discussion, including debate. But, I see no way to argue about what constitutes EO doctrine in an official manner. Fr. Reardon once told me that you prove that only by reference to their liturgy. If so, what about the WO Rite retaining the words I quoted from our Book of Common Prayer?
Of course, that is when someone will denounce the Antiochene Orthodox Church for approving it. Frankly, they give me a headache, always having an answer that is no answer.
Caedmon:
It is very easy to ignore the slaughter house and the kitchen when all you know is the dining room. One would think that the message sent by an altar upon which nothing is killed, is that Someone died once for all. Somehow, that once for all death gets treated as a minor event, a mere prelude to the glory of the resurrection, as if sin is no serious matter, and God's own integrity and righteousness unimportant.
Discussing actual texts helps, and not just the texts of bloggers attacking each other. No doubt, Fr. Robert, you would prefer to discuss Orthodox Liturgy with something familiar even if it is used only by a handful of convert Orthodox in one jurisdiction, and of which the vast majority of Orthodox have never ever heard. However, these days, you can get a surprising amount online, (LKW need not even clutter his library). Liturgical texts used by all or nearly all Orthodox for generations have a tremendous weight.
The part of the Liturgy parallel to that which Fr. RH points is, in St. John Chrysostom's Liturgy:
“Holy art Thou, and all Holy, and magnificent is Thy glory, who hast so loved Thy world as to give Thine Only-Begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life; Who, when He had come, and had fulfilled all the dispensation for us, in the night in which He was given up (betrayed) or rather gave Himself up for the life of the world, took bread …” I rather like the pun on the Greek word for betrayal which means “given up”.
And from the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great:
With these blessed Powers, O Master, Lover of man, we sinners also do cry out and say, Holy art thou, in truth, and all-holy, and there is no measure to the magnificence of thy holiness, and holy art thou in all thy works, for in righteousness and true judgment hast thou brought about all things for us.
(more to follow)
Liturgy of St. Basil continued
"When thou hadst fashioned man, taking dust from the earth,and hadst honored him with thine own image, O God, thou didst set him in a paradise of plenty, promising him life immortal and the enjoyment of eternal good things in the observance of thy commandments.
But when he disobeyed thee, the true God, who had created him, and was led astray by the deceit of the serpent, and was slain by his own trespasses, thou didst banish him, in thy righteous judgment, O God, from Paradise into this world, and didst turn him back to the earth from which he was taken, dispensing salvation for him through regeneration, which is in thy Christ Himself.
Yet thou didst not turn thyself away till the end from thy creature which thou hadst made, O Good One, neither didst thou forget the work of thy hands, but thou didst look upon him in divers manners, through thy tenderhearted mercy.
Thou didst send forth prophets; thou hast wrought mighty works through the saints who in every generation have been well-pleasing unto thee; thou didst speak to us by the mouths of thy servants the prophets, who foretold to us the salvation which was to come; thou didst give the Law as an help; thou didst appoint guardian angels.
And when the fulness of time was come, thou didst speak unto us through thy Son Himself, by whom also thou madest the ages; Who, being the brightness of thy glory,and the express image of thy person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, deemed it not robbery to be equal to thee, the God and Father. (more to follow)
"I don't think it's possible to read the Scriptures and the aforementioned Fathers and not come to the conclusion that there is indeed a forensic element to the atonement."
Thanks, Caedmon, for a truly outstanding comment. I would demur slightly from the above quote. Not only is a forensic element present; the forensic element is absolutely essential. I believe it was the Socinians (16th century precursors of the Unitarians) who first denied this essential aspect of the Gospel.
The one word at the heart of the liturgy is the word covenant, diathhkh, berith. That word resonates in every verse of the Bible. When our Lord on the cross cried out, "My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?" He was invoking covenant status and claiming covenant privilege. "My God" was a reference to the covenant formula, "I shall be thy God..." The forensic understanding of Atonement and Justification is a corollary to the forensic concept of covenant.
Fr Hart: Your quote from Patrick Reardon is intriguing. Has the Protestant "Scriptura sola" been replaced by "Liturgia sola"? I suppose he meant the original Greek, or Old Church Slavonic, or Arabic. The English versions of the Divine Liturgy, I read, have struggled with tendencies toward PC language (as have RC vernacularizations of the Mass).
LKW
Caedmon: For Patristic citations showing early use of forensic language (as if the Bible itself were not enough!), see Thomas Oden's book on Justification. He shows how it is nonsense to say that Anselm invented the saisfaction "theory" of atonement. It has been there all along, and can be documented in Origen(!) and Chrysostom as well as many others.
Fr Hart" Just checking the Index to Calvin's Institutes. The McNeill-Battles edition contains an index of Calvin's Patristic citations which fills around 40 pages of fine print
The references to Augustine will 14 columns, while the references to Chrysostom fill only one column. Citations of Thomas Aquinas consume three columns.
LKW
Fr. LKW writes,
"I would demur slightly from the above quote. Not only is a forensic element present; the forensic element is absolutely essential."
Yes, Father, I agree. An understatement on my part if there ever was one. And because it's so absolutely essential, that's why I noted that the Orthodox are in danger of denying the Gospel when they reject it.
Thanks for the information on Oden. I've read some of this stuff, but not his work on Justification. I will almost certainly obtain a copy.
Caedmon
Fr. Yousuf:
After three comments the html, or cyber watchdogs, or something, seem to act as jammers. Frankly, no one is going to read 19 comments in a row.
As for what we could get in here, you wrote:
No doubt, Fr. Robert, you would prefer to discuss Orthodox Liturgy with something familiar even if it is used only by a handful of convert Orthodox in one jurisdiction, and of which the vast majority of Orthodox have never ever heard.
The point was that the Antiochene Archdiocese approved that liturgy, and therefore gave an official nod to our BCP statement about Christ's "full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world." So, they did not see it as contrary to true doctrine at all, but rather they affirmed it. Antioch, the real See of Peter, is as old as a Patriarchate can be.
It seems to me, therefore, that the problem is not "Orthodoxy at its best." My one disagreement with Fr. Wells is not a theological disagreement. For, theologically we are on the same page. What I contend is that the bloggers, and even modern writers like Fr. Hopko (at least as late as 2004), do not always speak for the Orthodox tradition. The under emphasis and, at times, outright rejection, of Christ having offered Himself as the Propitiation for our sins, is a deadly course taken in modern times by theological extremists who have taken Orthodoxy hostage (sound familiar?).
As someone who has delighted and been instructed by many Patristic lectures by Dr. Ware, and many sermons by Father and later Bishop Kallistos, at Oxford, I find Fr. Hart's characterization "the perfect example of the self-loathing westerner" as so far from accurate as to be well-nigh incomprehensible. ("Would 'A very Anglican Orthodox' be nearer the mark? Discuss" (as they say on exams!).)
Father Wells's inviting note that "Anyone with ready access to such writings is welcome to produce citations refuting me" tends to elicit from me (from 'The Orthodox Church' (ed.1: end of section "JESUS CHRIST" in ch. 11, "God and Man", for comparison with later revisions - this is what I happen to have to hand), p. 234: please turn on, as appropriate, the English academic stylistic nuance sensors!), "Eastern writers as well as western, have applied juridical and penal language to the Crucifixion; western writers, as well as eastern, have never ceased to think of Good Friday as a moment of victory." (Check out all references the index entry "Atonement"leads to: in all revisions, if feeling scholarly, and bibliothecically (if that's a word?!) well-placed.)
Father Wells, in quoting the Psalm (22 or 21 depending on how one's counting) was the (fully) Human Nature of Our Lord talking to His Divine Nature within His One Divine Hypostasis, though audibly (to put it 'Chalcedonianly' - which it is not clear to me (or, apparently, e.g., 'the Vatican') is the only orthodox way to put it)? If not, what? And, is there a single dogmatically required answer in the Anglican, Orthodox', and 'Roman' parts of the visible Church?
All those parts strike me (and thoughtful Orthodox I have heard), as having various analogous difficulties re. wide ranges of self-describing (and not yet excommunicated) members - as (more or less) I have heard Father Hart also suggest, more than once.
Semi-Hookerian
The best way to consider Psalm 22 (I count it as the Hebrews do, and they ought to know) is in light of what happened at the crucifixion, of course. Do we say God suffered? What we say is that the Person Who is both fully God and fully man suffered. He remains one person with two natures, each nature in its fullness. It is He as a man, and always one Person, who suffered.
Dear Fr Robert,
Since LKW demands authoritative voices I provided them, and to make it easier, I divided them by source topic. I quoted the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St Basil the Great, and yes, St Basil's Liturgy is long, in large part due to the large amount of scripture he uses, which divided the direct quote from St. Basil into several parts. All of that was to provide requested Primary texts, of immediate pertinence, and undoubted authority, not my own comment.
When I got to providing my own comment I was answering a post of yours which contained within itself four comments, and attempted to deal with 4 more posted before me. The topic is a dense and important one, and I attempted to answer as best as I could, though I was less than hopeful that anyone would care.
If I actually sent 19 things in it was very much an error, containing much duplication from my attempts to divide St. Basil's liturgy and my own comments into appropriate sized chunks. I assumed that if Blogger says it is too long it doesn't go through.
You have posted 6 posts of heavy criticism on Orthodox related topics, from 3 Dec to now with 108 comments in response, the vast majority are not mine, nor from Orthodox. I have tried to be clear and irenic, and present the facts as I know them. I am beginning to see it is pointless. LKW demands sources, and instead of reading them suggests that Fr Reardon believes that in "sola liturgia", and this while you, Fr. Robert, are posting the BCP as "Catholic Consensus". Sauce for the goose?
Fr. Yousuf:
The BCP does indeed present the Catholic Consensus of the Church before the Great Schism, better than any one single source. You could not imagine I would think otherwise, inasmuch as I am an Anglican with my eyes wide open.
The ancient liturgies provide authority that no one can deny. However, I would think that long quotations of Liturgies is unnecessary, because they are in books and, no doubt, online, in their entirety. A simple reference or link would suffice. Yes, it was 19 comments, and we did the best we could to give you space.
As I said, Fr. Wells and I agree on theology. But, I think he dismisses the Orthodox Church based only on what modern revisionists have written, and they have misrepresented it as surely as certain revisionists have misrepresented Anglicanism.
But, those who really deny the message of the old liturgies are not us. It is the same revisionists who make Orthodoxy appear to us as dangerous waters to traverse; better not to send women and children down to the sea in ships. I hope the present season will change.
I am not hostile to Orthodoxy (in its true form), but I believe it needs to be demythologized. Too many Anglicans, especially among those who aspire to be followers of the Anglo-Catholics of the 19th and early 20th centuries (but who seem unfamiliar with their actual message), imagine it to be something rosy and ideal, above criticism, a magic land where all is wonderful. But, like everyone else, the Orthodox have their warts.
And, the revisionists are simply heretics.
Before serving Liturgy, in my devotions I read a series of prayers, one of which reads: .... Thou didst offer Thyself on earth as a sacrifice to Thy Father, Who accepted Thine immolation as that of a blameless lamb; by Thy Blood Thou didst hallow the whole world ...
The regularly prayed prayer of the 6th Hour reads: O God and Lord of powers, and Maker of all creation, who through the compassion of Thy incomprehensible mercy sent down Thine only-begotten Son, our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, for the salvation of our race, and through his precious Cross tore up the record of our sins, and by it triumphed over the principalities and powers of darkness...
The Akathist Hymn includes this verse: Wishing to give discharge / From ancient debts / The one who releases all mankind from their debts / Made His home of His own will / With those who had left the home of His grace, /And having torn up the record, / He hears from all, / Alleluia!
Semi-Hookerian: Thanks for the quote from Timothy Ware. It speaks somewhat to one of three issues I brought up, i. e., Atonement, but not to the Fall and its effects nor to the isssue of God's Justification of sinners. But I would like to know more of the context of your quote, since it clearly has the tone of concession rather than affirmation.
Applying Chalcedonian Christology to Psalm 22(21) is a challenge, as we both know. But bringing that problem up here is the reddest of red herrings.
My point was simply that this word from the Cross is a striking example of covenant (i.e., forensic) language. This seems to have escaped your attention.
LKW
Fr. Yousef, some version of Western liturgy is used in the Russian Church (Abroad), not just the Antiochians.
Fr. Robert, the Antiochians also appear to have parishes offering the post v2 ordinary mass, so it's unclear exactly what theological review if any is happening in Damascus with respect to western liturgies.
These blog posts and comments from all sides read more like territorialism - seem to be largely argument by assertion.
Fr. Yousef, some version of Western liturgy is used in the Russian Church (Abroad), not just the Antiochians.
Fr. Robert, the Antiochians also appear to have parishes offering the post v2 ordinary mass, so it's unclear exactly what theological review if any is happening in Damascus with respect to western liturgies.
These blog posts and comments from all sides read more like territorialism - seem to be largely argument by assertion.
Fr. Robert, it has been a while since I read BotI, but my recollection was that your brother was, in a long dialogue with post modernism's quest for a solution to the problems of violence as resolution, suggesting that Anselm needed to be re-read in a way that avoided a simplistic "satisfaction" narrative.
Also, I'm curious, Fr. Patrick has been invoked a number of times, suggesting a theology you are endorsing. Is this what you are referring to:
http://preachersinstitute.com/2010/02/06/expiation-blood-and-atonement-by-fr-patrick-reardon/
? He seems here to be arguing against the view you are putting forth.
Those who complain about the East's teaching concerning the atonement are missing the point (or ignoring the point as the case may be).
While there is indeed a covenantal forensic element to atonement as a redemptive whole, much of Western theology has been wholly given over to a Roman law court model of justification. The Eastern Church has good reason to point out that such is problematic.
Alistair McGrath strikes a more traditionally-minded via media on the subject:
The history of the doctrine of justification primarily concerns the western, Latin-based theological tradition. The Orthodox emphasis upon the economic condescension of the Son
leading to humanity's participation in the divine being is generally expressed in the concept of defication (theosis or theopoiesis) rather than justification. This is not, of course, to say that the western church was ignorant of such notions, at least one of which plays a significant (though, until recently, neglected) role in Martin Luther's soteriology; nor is it to suggest that Orthodoxy neglected the Pauline image of justification in its theological
reflections. Still less does it exclude the possible integration of the notions within a suitable comprehensive theological anthropology. The issue concerns where the emphasis is placed, and which soteriological emphasis came to dominate. Given the early church's relative lack of interest in the concept of justification, it is the western church's emphasis on justification, rather than the eastern church's emphasis on deification, which requires to be explained.
An anonymous Anonymous said..
"Given the early church's relative lack of interest in the concept of justification, it is the western church's emphasis on justification, rather than the eastern church's emphasis on deification, which requires to be explained."
I don't know--Paul was pretty interested in justification (and James was too, for that matter). In the early church, you really can't get any earlier than that. :-)
Doubting Thomas
Given the early church's relative lack of interest in the concept of justification, it is the western church's emphasis on justification, rather than the eastern church's emphasis on deification, which requires to be explained.
Even if I bought the "Eastern" propaganda that underlies your comment (i.e., "Given the early church's relative lack of interest in the concept of justification..." -- A far cry from reality indeed), I would say that you will find the explanation most authoritatively set forth in almost every book of the New Testament (all except, perhaps, Philemon). You will find it spelled out most strongly expressed in such Epistles as those written to the Romans, the Galatians and the Hebrews.
I doubt that Paul & the other NT writers were concerned with Roman Law courts. They were concerned with the Commandments of another Law altogether, the Torah, and with the symbolic sacrifices clearly applied by Isaiah to the Suffering Servant, which Suffering Servant is obviously, repeatedly and undeniably identified throughout the New Testament as Jesus Christ in His once for all offering of Himself.
You might, instead, explain what could be wrong with emphasizing the same message that the Apostles emphasized.
Fr. Hart wrote:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world.
But, is it Orthodoxy? The words I have quoted above, for example, are an authorized part of the Western Orthodox Rite (called often, and in memorial honor, The Liturgy of St. Tikhon)."
Actually, those words are not an "authorized part" of the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon," as I discussed at some length here:
http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/06/the-liturgy-of-st-tikhon-of-moscow/
The words authorized in 1977 were:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world;"
As I explain in my article, in the 2009 "Book of Common Prayer (subtitled The Administration of the Sacraments and Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church in the English Parochial Tradition according to Orthodox Catholic Usage)," published by Lancelot Andrewes Press, a different version appeared:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only son, Jesus Christ, to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his own Oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world ..."
which was a strange blend of the 1977 "authorized version" (or of its 1764 Scottish original) and the 1928 PECUSA version, one without any "authorization" whatsoever, save for that of the Western Rite Antiochian Orthodox priest who concocted it for unknown reasons. It was included by inadvertence, and I have been informed by one who can speak on behalf of Lancelot Andrewes Press that it will be corrected at the next printing of that BCP. The priest who was responsible for that "unauthorized" version made a notably incoherent and irrelevant comment in the thread to my article referenced above.
The version which Fr. Hart quoted has never appeared in any Orthodox liturgical source, and has never been approved by any Orthodox bishops or jurisdiction.
Anonymous wrote:
Fr. Robert, it has been a while since I read BotI, but my recollection was that your brother was, in a long dialogue with post modernism's quest for a solution to the problems of violence as resolution, suggesting that Anselm needed to be re-read in a way that avoided a simplistic "satisfaction" narrative.
(If you want to continue in this conversation, please use some kind of name so that we may know if we are continuing discussion with you or someone else.) "Simplistic" perhaps, but only in that it is deeper than many appreciate. He was taking aim at those who think Anselm wrote only from a Medieval Feudal perspective about honor, and all that. He demonstrated Anselm's harmony of mind with Gregory of Nyssa.
Also, I'm curious, Fr. Patrick has been invoked a number of times, suggesting a theology you are endorsing...
I read the essay, and find it almost self-contradictory, and that is because it is very paradoxical. On one hand he writes:
"Second, in those places where Holy Scripture does speak of propitiating the anger of God, this propitiation is never linked to blood sacrifice. When biblical men are said to soften the divine wrath, it is done with prayer, as in the case of Moses on Mount Sinai, or by the offering of incense, which symbolizes prayer."
The problem is, he is thinking of wrath as anger, not as judgment and consequence. Therefore, he is mistaken. Just go to this search page of the Bible, on the word "atonement." Recall that the priest offered the bloody sacrifice for each and every atonement. Recall that Christ fulfilled the meaning of "sin offering" and "peace offering," both bloody. Or, accuse Paul the Apostle of heresy, and reject the New Testament.
The reason Fr. Reardon seems to contradict himself is because he makes a false distinction.
"The Cross was the supreme altar, and Good Friday was preeminently the Day of the Atonement. The removal of sins was not accomplished by a juridical act, but a liturgical act performed in great love."
Yes, it is "a liturgical act performed in great love." But, it is also done with the full weight of the Law and Commandments, and even the liturgy that typifies the reality, as a shadow points to the object, is a liturgy of blood sacrifice and atonement. The Suffering Servant passage (Isaiah 52:13-53:12) is all about the same imagery, combining the Law and the Prophets in one chapter.
(Continued below)
The real point Fr. Reardon is making is one that has never been relevant to "Western" theology in the first place, as he knew four years ago (is he beginning to yield to pressure? That's not like him).
The charge that Eastern Orthodox writers bring against our "forensic" emphasis is that it contradicts Divine Impassibility, and is based on the image of God as full of wrath--in a purely emotional sense, as if His righteous and holy hatred for sin is a reaction instead of an eternal attribute. But, as we demonstrated when writing on Article I, Divine Impassibility is affirmed in Anglicanism in no uncertain terms. Ultimately, that is a comfort, for "God is love."
Fr. Reardon correctly acknowledges that "God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom.5:8), if I may put St. Paul's words in his mouth. But, the distinction between liturgical and juridical, and more so a notion that these two things contradict, is a false notion altogether, as is the notion that Western theology confuses wrath with passionate emotion.
What was satisfied when Christ paid the full price for human sin? Perfect justice, "To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Rom. 3:26)
Is it juridical or liturgical? Clearly, it is both. God justifies us in Christ because of His love. He does so in a manner that does not compromise His own righteousness. There was no other way to be just and the justifier, and that is the great story of Divine love.
How tragic that some "Eastern" writers have decided to treat that story as ugly in its essence.
Bill Tighe wrote:
The version which Fr. Hart quoted has never appeared in any Orthodox liturgical source, and has never been approved by any Orthodox bishops or jurisdiction.
Excuse me, but it is the other version that is newer and revised, and not in use.
"I doubt that Paul & the other NT writers were concerned with Roman Law courts. They were concerned with the Commandments of another Law altogether, the Torah, and with the symbolic sacrifices clearly applied by Isaiah to the Suffering Servant, which Suffering Servant is obviously, repeatedly and undeniably identified throughout the New Testament as Jesus Christ in His once for all offering of Himself.
You might, instead, explain what could be wrong with emphasizing the same message that the Apostles emphasized."
Well said, Fr Hart.
--Doubting Thomas
The responses defendng EO are running in
two different directions. A couple of knowledgeable comments (from Fr Yousef and from Semi-Tractarian) attempt to show that EO theology does indeed acknowledge the forensic categories which (in my view) are absolutely essential to the Gospel. The other direction trots forth the familiar argument that "western" notions of merit, atonement, justication, etc, are derived from Roman jurisprudence.
Dear EO brethren, you cannot have it both ways! Was it Roman law that influenced the Liturgy of St Basil??
But I will deal with each line of argument in turn.
As for the first argument, I would be happy to be proved wrong. Knowing that the Gospel is faithfully taught, even vestigially, is more important than winning an argument. But the citations, while impressive, do not prove much. The Liturgy of St Basil is used only ten times a year and is obviously secondary. Citations from the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom would be more convincing. And whatever merit this line of argument may have, the other argument (about Roman law courts)
neutralizes it.
Hans Kung amounted a fine defense of "simul iustus et peccator" based on the text of the 1570 Pian Missal. Kung notes astutely that even those suppposedly in a "state of grace" still say, "Nobis pecctoribus" and "Domine, non sum dignus." But official Roman theology doesnt buy it, and on this point Riome and the Reformation are separated by a deep chasm. So liturgical arguments in the last analysis do not hold much water, Fr Reardon to the contrary notwithstanding.
As for the other line of attack (the one about Roman law courts), I would modestly suggest that it is Hebrew, not Roman, law courts which reveal the mind of God. Consider the text from Psalm 43, the first prayer of the Mass after the Trinity is invoked. "Judge me, O God, and plead my cause..."
At the very foot of the Altar, we plead for God's forensic degree declaring us righteous. But what is most striking in this prayer is that we ask God to be simultaneously our Judge and our Advocate. The Gospel tells us that in Christ, He is both.
Yes, it is true that there has been a "lack of interest" on the part of EO in Justification. That's exactly what I am bitching about. That shocking insouciance places EO somewhere in the twilight of the Christian religion.
LKW
Father Hart,
Though I have no doubt been uncharitable to you in other venues (and to your brother), I am offering this post without spite and in the spirit of openness you suggest, though the tenor of the post is most difficult--and perhaps too personal for you to respond to (especially to an interlocutor who has insulted you personally in the past).
I think there may be a more economical way to address these various theological issues. Your brother David left Anglicanism for Orthodoxy, though it seems he kept a valuable part of his Anglican upbringing in his move (I am consciously not using the word "conversion" out of respect for your blog and perhaps because it best describes the ethos in which his move was made). Usually, when someone makes such a move, one does so for for one of two reasons, or perhaps a combination of both: there is a fullness found in Orthodoxy not found in Anglicanism; or, there is a deficiency in Anglicanism which if not fully rememdied in Orthodoxy is perhaps not as egregious. Or maybe it's a combination. So, in short, why would your brother leave? Was it because the language of Christ Victor or the language of redemption wasn’t strong enough in the Anglican church; i.e, was it expressed more fully in Orthodoxy? Was there too much emphasis on the forensic element without the equal balance of these others aspects?
You keep implying some sort of a harmony between many things Orthodox and Anglican. But this begs the question: why did your brother leave? Perhaps only he can answer this, but you keep speaking for him, so I thought maybe you'd have some insights.
You also rail against a hubristic sense of exclusivity in Orthodoxy (that “old geezer,” as you put it, of an abbot). I think we have to plead guilty in this case. When your brother David comes to visit you, does he ever attend your church? When he does, and it's time for communion, why do you suppose he doesn't partake? Is it simply because his Bishop won't allow it? Does he desire to partake and yet obeys his Bishop? Does he disagree with his Bishop in this regard? And, furthermore, what does that say about his relationship with Anglicanism that he would choose an Orthodoxy that practices a rigidly closed communion? Either way we look at it, he has chosen an Orthodoxy which would keep you from partaking of the mystical body of Christ in your brother's church, or, in the other direction, would prohibit your brother from doing so in your church. These observations are not triumphalistic in the least; they ought to be a great sadness to anyone who loves the Church.
(cont.)
(cont.)
I bring all of this up not to cause you pain (which I'm sure it does) but because your own brother must also accept fundamental differences that separate the two churches (lower case "c") from one another. Isn't neo-Palamism simply another form of this separation, perhaps on steroids? If what you say about neo-Palamism is true (or whatever theological variation of Easternism in its anti-western self-loathing), that's it's just a bunch of academic theology at its worst (and, again, I think you could be right) and has no bearing in the world of a life lived in Christ--let's grant that all of this is true--then your brother, even though he espouses a theology much closer to traditional western models (and finds their expression in the East as well), has also separated himself from you, not theologically (which we both agree isn't that important an issue), but in the area in which everything matters the most: Eucharistic, the body and blood of Christ.
So I guess what I'm saying is is that your brother actually isn't immune to all of the various charges you make about obnoxious, exclusivist Easterners. He obviously finds all sorts of commonalities theologically, but when push comes to shove, he is most exclusive in the area that is the pinnacle of life in the Church--Holy Eucharist.
Though I’ve been an ass to you and to your brother in the past, please know that I offer these insights/questions in the “tough” spirit of your post.
Yours,
Atychi
"Excuse me, but it is the other version that is newer and revised, and not in use."
I don't understand your point. The version you quoted has never been approved for use in Orthodox Churches; the first version I gave was taken directly and unaltered from the 1764 Scottish Communion Office and published with the approval of the Antiochian Orthodox bishops at the time (1977) and I have a copy of the liturgy published at that time to prove it; and the to-be-corrected version that was included in the 2009 Orthodox BCP by mistake (as the publisher of that book himself told me) was created by the Rector of St. Mark's Western Rite Orthodox Church in Denver, Colorado, for reasons known only to himself -- and it has never been approved in that form by any Orthodox bishops.
Atychi:
Sorry, but I simply don't remember you at all in any discussion. If you have argued with me, that's perfectly ok.
About the Orthodox rule that their people may not take communion from any but their own priests, my brother told me that if his Orthodox bishop gave him a letter granting permission, he would take communion from me. That was said in light of how it used to be between the Orthodox and Anglicans, before the heresy of WO (and how ironic that it should come between Continuing Anglicans and the Orthodox, inasmuch as we agree on that subject).
If you think I am going to get flustered because faithful individuals practice obedience to their respective churches, forget it. We both take and eat the Body and Blood of Christ, which is all that truly matters. We, Anglicans, know that it is the same Communion with the same Christ, whether at our hands or at the hands of other priests, and we are content.
Bill Tighe:
The WO Rite I have read is in the standard book that has been in use with the full authority of the Antiochene Archdiocese, not from the store of some ECUSAn priest. But, it hardly matters. The wording you have quoted means exactly the same thing, and therefore it would not change the point I made. The WO Liturgy (or Liturgy of St. Tikhon) says the same thing about Christ's once for all sacrifice that we say. That is the point.
Fr. Wells wrote:
Yes, it is true that there has been a "lack of interest" on the part of EO in Justification. That's exactly what I am bitching about. That shocking insouciance places EO somewhere in the twilight of the Christian religion.
It is on that score that I hope someone can prove my friend and colleague wrong. But, my hopes keep getting dimmer rather than brighter.
Earlier, I responded to this line by, if I recall correctly, an anonymous Anonymous:
Given the early church's relative lack of interest in the concept of justification...
Why do some of these EO fellows make the assumption that they are experts on "the early Church?" If they would read the Reformers (no, not your own books and articles about them, but their own writings), and not only the Anglican Reformers, but even the much vilified Calvin, they would be shocked to discover that they were Patristic scholars of the highest order. Now, this is especially true of the English Reformers, and of the generations that followed.
Confidently telling us what "the early Church" was concerned about, as if we were unaware of the Scriptures, Councils and Fathers, is a short way to make yourself look silly. The remark about their alleged lack of interest in justification is doubly absurd when one considers that the early controversies were almost entirely Christological. In fact, it is by knowing the ancient Christological controversies and by holding firmly to their orthodox defense, that the Reformers gained strong convictions about Christ's Once for All Atonement.
Hebrews 9:22: "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."
By the Law? Gee, that can't be right. It's so, so, well, forensic. And, shedding of blood? That can't be right. It's so, well, just so icky.
It's more fun, more tantalizing, more exciting and even dare I say it? flattering, to jump right past repentance and forgiveness of sins, and go sraight to Theosis. It's like the difference between religion and spirituality. Some of these EO keep up with the times real good.
-Mr. Nice Guy
What I find saddening in all of this is the fact that, apart from one EO commenter and Fr Hart, no-one is taking the easiest route towards discovering the EOC's official doctrine on the matters disturbing Fr Wells. And that is to look at the Eastern Fathers they reverence and consider Doctors and to look at their later official synodal Confessions, such as the Confession of Dositheus.
Fr Wells asks about original sin, penal substitution, and justification.
The common claim, including by many EO converts, is that the EOC only teaches that original sin amounts to inherited mortality. This is nonsense. As Ware's famous book notes, not only death but moral corruption is part of the inheritance of Original Sin (see p.228, 1964 edition: "under the domination of sin"), according to official Eastern teaching. There is no shortage of Eastern Fathers who teach this, and the Confession of Dositheus calls the state of the unregenerate "in darkness" (Decree III) and "utterly undone" (Decree XIV). However, the EO do deny total depravity, that the unregenerate cannot choose the good at all, though they also deny they can choose or do "spiritual good" (Decree XIV). The same Confession teaches the necessity of Prevenient Grace for choosing salvation, but denies it is irresistable. This all reflects the teaching of Fathers such as St John Chrysostom (SJC) and St Cyril of Alexandria (SCA).
SJC: "Paul calls sin a law ... because those who are under it obey it completely." SCA: "If sin inheres in my flesh and corrupts it, it may well be that the law offers help ... but even so it does not set me free from sin." SCA: "Naturally, every impulse which leads to righteousness comes from God the Father." More quotations could be given by using sources such as Jurgens,, but all these I have drawn from the ACCS Commentary on Romans.
We have already been shown that the authorised Eastern Liturgies (Basil, Tikhon) contain forensic language and that Ware notes the Eastern Fathers do too. Since the EOC claims the Eastern Fathers are authoritative for them and that their liturgies are dogmatic repositories, that deals with that issue sufficiently.
Before we deal with justification, I must say a word about synergy. It is a scriptural word describing the cooperation between God and redeemed humans in their ministry (1 Cor. 3:9, 2 Cor. 6:1 cp. 5:20). And no part of Christendom denies that such cooperation furthers the process of spiritual growth, as this is clearly biblical as well (e.g., Gal. 6:8-9, 2 P. 1:5f). Therefore, synergy is orthodox Christianity. However, since both the RCC and the EOC officially reject Pelagianism by Conciliar decree and explicitly teach the necessity of prevenient grace to faith and salvation, they also deny synergy between the ungraced will and God. Therefore, they also deny that synergy is a prior cause of faith and salvation. Instead, synergy is seen as enabled by prior grace, but not compelled by it. Given that all agree the act of saving faith is, among other things, a human act involving the will, synergy is unavoidable here. But it is itself a consequence of grace.
The only question is whether the prevenient grace that leads to synergy is purely enabling (Eastern Fathers, EO, Molinists, Arminians), sometimes irresistible (Augustine and some other Western Fathers, Aquinas, Thomists) or intrinsically and always irresistible and restricted to the Elect, who will infallibly persevere (Calvinists). As I have argued before, the last option might be permissible for Catholics as a kind of cut-down version of the "larger hope" of Universalism, a sub-Universalism if you will, since certain types of Universalism have never been condemned in a binding fashion. However, it must be noted that this position is apparently found in none of the Fathers whatsoever, but that there is much in the Fathers (including St Augustine) that is precisely contrary to it.
Similarly, while Alister McGrath's claim that imputational justification cannot be found in the Fathers is false, what is apparently true, and abundantly so, is that no Father dogmatically restricts justification to imputation. Instead, interpretation of it as also imparting a righteous state is extremely common. One need only read some of the heavyweights, such as Augustine & Chrysostom, to see this often exemplified.
So, the essential problem with the Reformed critique is not that it emphasises the helplessness of the Fallen, the substitutionary element of the Atonement, or the imputational nature of justification. The problem is that it tries to build a case for total depravity (every action of the unregenerate is wicked) and an exclusively and absolutely imputational interpretation of justification, and decry as heresy and denial of the Gospel anything less than this. If they are right, then the Gospel entirely disappeared for many centuries. If this is true, Catholicism is not.
Having said all of this, it is still fair to say that some of the knee-jerk reactions against reasonable Reformed emphases found in popular EO works are inaccurate and annoying, in my view. "The Orthodox Study Bible" provides a number of examples.
In my first post on this topic, being rushed, I posted several liturgical texts that immediately came to mind in support of the intuition that forensic and sacrificial language with regard to the atonement is certainly part and parcel of the Orthodox theological vision.
Here are a few more, having looked them up in the service books we use at Matins:
Christ, the high priest of the good things to come, is revealed to us. He has scattered our sins to the winds and, opening up a new, unheard of way by His own blood, he has entered a better and more perfect tabernacle, our fore-runner, into the holy places. (Canon of the Cross-Resurrection, Ode 4, Tone 1)
BY the fault of the first-fashioned man, O Lord, we were grievously wounded; by Thy stripes, O Christ, by which for our sakes Thou wast wounded, we are healed; for Thou art the strength and restoration of the weak (from Ode 6)
The righteous was judged as a criminal and nailed to the tree with the lawless, with His own blood granting forgiveness to the guilty. (from Ode 6, Tone 2)
By His divine blood Christ redeemed the race of mortal men, enslaved to the tyrant through love of sin, and making it like God, He renewed it, for He is glorified. (from Ode 1, Tone 3)
Thou didst create man in Thine image, O lover of man. Crucified on Golgotha Thou hast saved him who was put to death by sin through transgression. (from Ode 4)
O Lord, renewing mankind by Thy divine
blood Thou hast healed its affliction... (Ode 1, Tone 4)
O Christ, Thou didst bear the reproach of my sins, loosing the pangs of death...
(Ode 5)
Washed in Christ's divine blood, mankind has been called to incorruption and sings in thanksgiving.... (Ode 7)
These texts are just the tip of the ice-berg. Any Orthodox Christian who listens to what the Orthodox Church actually prays and sings - and I should add, teaches and preaches - knows that the biblical and patristic language of atonement, which includes the language of blood sacrifice, is woven into our theological vision and understanding of the Lord's redemptive work.
Perhaps one last snippet of texts may be offered (from the feast of the Cross, September 14)?
.... By the blood of God the poison of the serpent is washed away; and the curse of a just condemnation is loosed by the unjust condemnation inflicted on the Just... (from the Doxastikon of the Exaltation of the Cross)
The first man, through eating from the tree, went to dwell in corruption: condemned to shameful banishment from life, he fell prey to bodily corruption, which he transmitted to all our kind like some pollution from disease.... The breaking of the law of God came through disobedience, and the untimely partaking of the fruit of the tree brought death to mortal man.... the Wood that is sprinkled with the blood of the incarnate Word of God.... (Ode 7)
The sayings of the prophets foretold the holy Wood, whereby Adam was set free from the ancient curse of death... all creation raises its voice, asking of God plenteous mercy. O Master, who alone art boundless in compassion, be our atonement and save our souls! (Apostikha)
"Before we deal with justification, I must say a word about synergy. It is a scriptural word describing the cooperation between God and redeemed humans in their ministry (1 Cor. 3:9, 2 Cor. 6:1 cp. 5:20). And no part of Christendom denies that such cooperation furthers the process of spiritual growth, as this is clearly biblical as well (e.g., Gal. 6:8-9, 2 P. 1:5f). Therefore, synergy is orthodox Christianity. However, since both the RCC and the EOC officially reject Pelagianism by Conciliar decree and explicitly teach the necessity of prevenient grace to faith and salvation, they also deny synergy between the ungraced will and God. Therefore, they also deny that synergy is a prior cause of faith and salvation. Instead, synergy is seen as enabled by prior grace, but not compelled by it. Given that all agree the act of saving faith is, among other things, a human act involving the will, synergy is unavoidable here. But it is itself a consequence of grace."
Good comments about synergism, FrKirby. It's always good to be reminded that there is an orthodox synergism (as you describe) and heterodox forms of synergism (eg. such as condemned at Orange in AD 529).
--Doubting Thomas
Fr. Hart writes,
"Caedmon:
It is very easy to ignore the slaughter house and the kitchen when all you know is the dining room. One would think that the message sent by an altar upon which nothing is killed, is that Someone died once for all. Somehow, that once for all death gets treated as a minor event, a mere prelude to the glory of the resurrection, as if sin is no serious matter, and God's own integrity and righteousness unimportant."
By my lights, the *theosis* thing is most definitely EO's version of a "theology of glory" that almost entirely by passes a "theology of the cross."
Or so it is with with many Orthodox, anyway. Part of the problem here, as not only you but others have touched upon here, is that there are all sorts of Orthodox "authorities" out there telling us all "what the Orthodox Church teaches." I found out the hard way that some of these people have no clue as to what they're talking about; that they're relying more on cetain modern and very anti-Western Orthodox theologians and "Monks From The Holy Mountain", et al. than they are on the Fathers, whose writings are copius and oftentimes highly nuanced, if not contradictory.
This argument that Western theologians are relying on a Roman "law court" model of the atonement would be laughable if it weren't so sad. Your observations here mirror the ones that came into my head some time ago when I started re-evaluating Orthodoxy: the "law court" model not only antedates the Romans, if comes from writings - the Holy Scriptures - which the Orthodox are supposed to believe are inspired in a way the Fathers are not. Our anonymous Anonymous' "early church" is not quite early enough, and besides, as you rightly note, the controversies of the Church's first several centuries were christological in nature.
As crucial and central as those controveries were, not to mention the Church's decrees concerning them, at some point the question of "how are we to be saved" needs to be answered. The Orthodox answer I learned all too often resembles the "little-Christian-who-could" model. Want to be saved? Attain theosis. Well, how do I obtain theosis? By emulating the ascetism of the Holy Monks to the degree that you can, that's how (though, because of their monasticism, they have a far better shot at it than you do). So, simply do your best to attain Purgation, Illumination, and then Union God. Good luck.
Now, while the necessity for personal holiness is not to be ignored, the apostles teach that something comes before this. A sacrifice; a legal transaction; a substitution; something that happens to us "while we were yet sinners."
The kind of EO we're discussion here skips all this and proceeds directly to its "theology of glory", the theology of theosis, which sometimes doesn't look all that different from garden variety mysticism.
Fr. John Connelly, former Anglican and now Orthodox priest of the Western Rite Vicariate in the Antiochian church, wrote this humorous but descriptive little piece on the matter. See the first article:
http://www.westernorthodox.com/stmark/lion/lion2004-03
Caedmon
Thanks to Fr Kirby to a fine positive contribution. He has provided a number of quotes which would be useful in debate with a live EO.
One common assumption which we need to challenge (and Fr K. is far from guilty of this error) is that "Patristic theology" (a fairly amorphous concept) is simply identical with contemporary EO. The problem with EO is not that it is too Patristic, but it is not Patristic enough.
Nobody would claim that modern Lutherans and Presbyterians hold the same theological ground as the 16th century Reformers. Everybody knows that contemporary Roman Catholicism
(whether liberal or traditional) is rather different from the Council of Trent. The claim of EO to be an unchanging religion is both naive and disengenuous. Even worse is the common assumption, "Whatever I think is what the Fathers taught." There is a big difference in appealing to the Fathers and claiming to speak for the Fathers.
(Think of the Protestant fndamentalist who loudly announces, "The Bible says" and then contradicts perfectly Biblical teaching.)
LKW
LKW
Thank you to Священник села for giving back some of the hope for EO that others had diminished.
For clarification, and to answer a confused reader: Above I wrote "the heresy of WO." The WO there is women's ordination. The I mentioned WO liturgy, and the WO there is Western Orthodox. I apologize for being so hasty as to cause confusion.
We are plagued by false contradictions, that is, taking an issue and creating the appearance of contradiction where none exists. For example, the Essence/ Energies thing does not contradict Divine Simplicity (that God does not consist of parts). Penal substitution or juridical does not contradict liturgical offering. Atonement does not contradict Theosis, or even compete with it as an emphasis. These false contradictions are made up by the anti-Western cult and its blogging adherents.
Theosis is the destination we all want to sail toward. Picture a ship that sets sail for an island paradise, but begins to sink along the way. Let us see that ship after the rescue squad has arrived and pulled people out of the water, and has done so in close proximity to the original destination, so close that the island paradise is the only port to go to. Picture able bodied men who have been rescued themselves, now enlisted to help pull others out of the water, but one of their numbers refusing to do so because all he wants to do is concentrate on the island paradise.
The facts at hand are the emergency and rescue, and the work at hand ought to be obvious.
Dear Fr Robert,
Thank you for your response, I think it will help to make a response with clarity. Of course I know you think the BCP represents the best in Catholicity. I expect you and Fr Wells to read the Scriptures with and through the BCP, I haven't missed Fr. Wells frequent contributions on this blog. The point is, if you can appeal to the BCP as the clear witness of the Anglicanism, we ought to be able to appeal to our Liturgical tradition without being sniped at as “Liturgia Sola”. Fr Pat R and myself are pointing to the Liturgical texts as unambiguously authoritative Orthodox doctrinal statements. I thought using the liturgical tradition as “formularies” was something we and you had in common.
I think Fr Wells is perfectly clear, and in a way I prefer his approach. Fr Wells has looked at Orthodoxy, and rejected it. I suspect that I, too, would find his approach excessive in some aspects, but there is at least the possibility that we could agree to disagree as gentlemen. Unfortunately, it seemed that possibility was fading, as it seemed to me that Fr Wells, was throwing out questions of purely rhetorical nature not interested in the response, and using each response as a way to introduce some other hostile objection, but I am very hopeful and heartened and by his recent post.
But, Fr. Robert, you are so sure that you know what our faith really ought to be, what its “true form” is. But you have a conflict of interest, in that you have ecclesiological commitments that preclude you from regarding as “of Faith” those issues which attended Rome's schism from us, and our conciliar condemnations of her errors, especially since Anglicans kept some of them, like the filioque. I am sure you do not think the filioque that important, but that's just the point. You have every reason to prefer a filioque tolerant Orthodoxy, and this, I suspect, powerfully tempts you to imagine such is the “true form” of Orthodoxy.
I do not think many ordinary parochial clergy can afford to hold mythologized versions of their affiliation. I certainly can't. But I rather fear your “true form” of Orthodoxy is every bit as mythological as any other. Yes, once upon a time, (to take two gentlemen whom I rather respect), Abp. Ramsey and Zernov could have tea at the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius and go home to write inter-communion proposals. In hindsight, it was never very likely, there were some enormous elephants stomping around in the room at those old Fellowship meetings.
Dear Fr Wells,
Thank you for your attention. I am afraid that I am only going in different directions if I have to carry water for every real or perceived Orthodox comment on the subject, which I am obviously not willing to do. I wasn't trying to argue that Orthodoxy believes quite what you believe. You asked for authoritative voices, and I attempted to provide them. These texts make it clear that we have a strong doctrine of the Fall and the Redemption/Atonement by the Cross, there is no conceivable Orthodoxy without the Fall or the Cross. Whether you consider the texts minimal or vestigial Christianity would be for you to decide. By my lights, the texts stress the “forensic” language about as much as the Scripture does. Alas, today we celebrate the Liturgy of St. Basil less often than we once did, though happily, we are entering a time when we shall use it 3 times in 2 weeks, the eves of Christmas and Theophany and on 1st Jan. Anglicans who use Andrewes' Preces recite the last prayer of St. B's Liturgy as a post-communion devotion. “The Mystery of Thy dispensation is accomplished … ” But quoting St. B's Liturgy is rather popular. Fr Thomas Hopko does in his writing on the redemption, I have even read a suggestion in some OCA publication to read the Anaphora of St. B to Jehovites or Mormons at the door!!
Fr Yousuf
Father Robert - I am glad that you haven't lost hope! With the following texts as further examples I will conclude my effort to show that these matters are very much part of the Orthodox understanding, regularly woven into liturgy and prayer.
Today, in preparing services for the next few days, I was struck by the following:
The Prophet, foreseeing Thine ineffable mystery, O Christ, cried out to Thee, ‘Compassionate Father, Thou hast made strong love mighty, for Thou, O Good One, hast sent the Only-begotten Son into the world as atonement.’
Falling like rain up the fleece and like a drop upon the earth who gave Thee birth, O Lord, Thou dost come with compassion to be brought to birth and to live among mortals, for the Father has sent Thee, the Only-begotten, into the world as atonement.
At Pentecost, during the Kneeling Prayers - a popular service - is read:
...Thou who art compassionate, merciful, who without sin became a partaker in our flesh and who in loving compassion bendest down to those who bend the knee unto Thee, and became the atonement for our sins...
On Holy Thursday we have these verses (excuse the modern translation):
As you went to your passion, the source of dispassion for all the descendants of Adam, you said to your friends, O Christ, ‘I have desired to share this Passover with you, since the Father has sent me, the Only-Begotten, to the world as atonement’.
As you partook of the cup with the Disciples, O Immortal, you cried, ‘Now I drink no more of the fruit of the vine with you in this life; since the Father has sent me, the Only-Begotten, to the world as atonement’.
O Christ, you said to your friends, ‘I say that in my kingdom I am drinking a new drink beyond understanding; for I shall be with you, God as among gods; for the Father has sent me, the Only-Begotten, to the world as atonement.
At Theophany:
See, the enlightenment of believers, see, our atonement is about to enter the streams of the river to wash away the stain of humans’ wickedness, and to refashion us who had been crushed.
From various services of daily Vespers and Matins:
All creation has been sanctified by your Blood and by holy water, O only Long-suffering; while the rivers of polytheism were dried up and Adam has been saved from the fall, O Word, by your Crucifixion.
Lover of humankind, who are above all honour, you were reviled for our sake, given vinegar to drink, and willingly endured the Cross, that by your death, O Benefactor, you might redeem us all from corruption.
Willingly you were fixed on the Tree, O supremely good, and offered as a sacrifice to the Father for our sake, and you ended the sacrifices of idols and abolished the might of the ill-intentioned, O King of the ages.
Like a lamb you were suspended on a tree and were offered as a sacrifice to the Father for our sake, O Good One, and you brought to an end the sacrifices of idols, O All-powerful
We bow down before the divine stripes of your sufferings, Christ God, and royal sacrifice that took place divinely revealed in Sion at the end of the ages.
To him who was nailed of his own will to the Cross and through the Cross freed the fallen from the ancient sentence, to him alone let us sing, for he has been glorified.
You accepted a Cross, my Saviour, against the tree of knowledge, gall against sweet provender; while against the corruption of death you poured out your divine blood.
The Lord of glory in a form without glory, of his own will is hung dishonoured on the tree and thus ineffably procured for me divine glory.
You have changed my clothing for incorruption, O Christ, for incorruptibly you tasted in the flesh the corruption of death, and dawned from the grave on the third day.
O Master Christ, by the blood which flowed from God being emptied from your immaculate and life-giving side sacrifice to idols has ceased, while we of all the earth offer you the sacrifice of praise.
1. Apologies, first of all, for all my instances of typos, poor grammar and stylistic nasties. My livelihood depends upon writing ability, but for whatever reason I simply can't force myself to proof my comments to blog entries.
2. "Village Priest", thanks for those many citations from Orthodox liturgical sources that point to authentic Orthodox teaching on this point. My only criticism would be that all too often the "official" theology of the Orthodox Church as set forth in its liturgical treasures is somehow not effectively communicated to both the laity at large and all too many people who claim to speak for Orthodoxy.
3. Fr. Hart, thanks for the analogy in your 12/20 comment at 2:01 pm. I believe it is spot on:
"Theosis is the destination we all want to sail toward. Picture a ship that sets sail for an island paradise, but begins to sink along the way. Let us see that ship after the rescue squad has arrived and pulled people out of the water, and has done so in close proximity to the original destination, so close that the island paradise is the only port to go to. Picture able bodied men who have been rescued themselves, now enlisted to help pull others out of the water, but one of their numbers refusing to do so because all he wants to do is concentrate on the island paradise."
Caedmon
Dear Father Wells,
Thanks for your response (8:40 PM) (and to Father Hart for your 4:51 PM Psalm comment)!
You write, "But bringing that problem up here is the reddest of red herrings. My point was simply that this word from the Cross is a striking example of covenant (i.e., forensic) language. This seems to have escaped your attention."
I am capable of all sorts of inattention and missing things, alas, and think we must be very much at cross-purposes (no pun intended!), but I am not sure I understand either your "convenant (i.e. forensic)" emphasis, or why you think what I address as "here" any sort of "red herring" whatever.
I would be grateful for any relevant Psalm (commentary)reference recommendations.
Meanwhile, another Timothy Ware, 'Orthodox Church' (ed. 1)ref. might be worth passing on: from Ch. 14, "Orthodox Worship, II: The Sacraments", "The Eucharist", subsection, "The Eucharist as sacrifice" (pp. 292-93). In looking at "the basic Orthodox teaching" as "set forth clearly in the text of the Liturgy itself, 'Thine of Thine own we offer to Thee, from all and for all'", he says, "The Eucharist is offered to God the Trinity - not just to the Father but also to the Holy Spirit and to Christ himself. Thus if we ask, what is the sacrifice of the Eucharist? By whom is it offered? To whom is it offered? - in each case the answer is Christ." And, "We offer for all: according to Orthodox theology, the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice (in Greek, thusia hilastirios), offered on behalf of both the living and the dead." He also quotes Cabasilas, including "the Lamb of God was sacrificed once only, for all time."
Semi-Hookerian
"One common assumption which we need to challenge (and Fr K. is far from guilty of this error) is that "Patristic theology" (a fairly amorphous concept) is simply identical with contemporary EO. The problem with EO is not that it is too Patristic, but it is not Patristic enough.
Nobody would claim that modern Lutherans and Presbyterians hold the same theological ground as the 16th century Reformers. Everybody knows that contemporary Roman Catholicism
(whether liberal or traditional) is rather different from the Council of Trent. The claim of EO to be an unchanging religion is both naive and disengenuous."
Good observations, Fr Wells, and the statement in bold is one of the main reasons I ended up in Anglicanism after exploring Eastern Orthodoxy for a few years (and even after having been an EO catechumen for a few weeks).
--Doubting Thomas
Fr. Yousuf writes:
But, Fr. Robert, you are so sure that you know what our faith really ought to be, what its “true form” is. But you have a conflict of interest, in that you have ecclesiological commitments that preclude you from regarding as “of Faith” those issues which attended Rome's schism from us, and our conciliar condemnations of her errors, especially since Anglicans kept some of them, like the filioque. I am sure you do not think the filioque that important, but that's just the point. You have every reason to prefer a filioque tolerant Orthodoxy, and this, I suspect, powerfully tempts you to imagine such is the “true form” of Orthodoxy.
Where to begin with such a misinformed comment?
1.But, Fr. Robert, you are so sure that you know what our faith really ought to be, what its “true form” is.
The Bible and the Seven Ecumenical Councils-right?
2.I am sure you do not think the filioque that important, but that's just the point. You have every reason to prefer a filioque tolerant Orthodoxy, and this, I suspect, powerfully tempts you to imagine such is the “true form” of Orthodoxy.
The entire history of the Filioque clause in the Creed does show, most certainly, that it is an issue modern EOs elevate to excess. The only real issue ( inasmuch as the Latin Church used the word "proceed" with a different understanding from the word ἐκπορεύομαι) was the question of authority. By what right did anyone add to the Creed without Universal consent in Ecumenical Council? And, the EO Church has every right to demand a satisfactory answer.
But, if you think it is a genuine theological issue or that it divided the Church, then I am disappointed with you. History proves otherwise.
From Semi-Hookerian:
"but I am not sure I understand either your "convenant (i.e. forensic)" emphasis, or why you think what I address as "here" any sort of "red herring" whatever."
I'll try again. I alluded to the Cry of Dereliction (Matt 27:44, Mark 15:34) as an example of covenant language. Evidently this puzzles you, since you dart off into an unrelated topic, how this cry can be harmonized with Chalcedonian Christology.
To break it down: the OT covenant formula, occurring numerous places, was "I will be your God and you shall be my people, and I will dwell with you."
The cry of dereliction, rather amazingly, invokes that formula in the expression, "My God," repeated twice for emphasis. Our Lord there declared the covenant to be in effect and affirmed His own faith in it. That gives point to his anguished question, "Why hast thou forsaken me."
Whether this is a quote from Psalm 22 is not as certain as some think, since
(as we all know) the Psalm was written in Hebrew and Mark gives the quotation in Aramaic. Go figure.
Your question about how this relates to the two nature in the God-man is irrelevant and distracting, But to tackle it, let us remember that the classic Creeds and formulae are the Church's best effort to come to terms with Biblical revelation, not a Procrustean bed into which that Revelation must be stretched or hacked off. A text like this one is called "crux interpretum" or "crux theologorum," a fancy way of saying we really do not know.
Thanks for the additional Ware quote. But I am sure that with minimal effort I could dig up 10 times as many quotes from EO writers claiming the opposite.
Perhaps the saving grace of contemporary EO theology is its sheer inconsistency, shunning "the hobgoblin of small minds" such as my own. But speaking personally, I prefer a trumpet which does not give an uncertain sound.
LKW
Dear Father Wells,
Thank you for the detailed substantial answer!
How minutely do we (seem to) know the geographical and chronological parameters of the (synogogal) practice of Aramaic glossing of Hebrew texts? It seems, e.g., not impossible that Our Lord according to His growing childhood Humanity might have learned both Hebrew Psalm and Aramaic gloss, and prayerfully recited both.
Part of the background to my question is, to wonder whether the assertion that it is "the Cry of Dereliction" is equally "not as certain as some think" as that it is a Psalm quotation (prayed, after exactly whatever fashion).
However "Chalcedonianly" or 'Nicaeno-Constanstinopolitan-Pre-Chalcedonianly' we try to think of the God-man and 'Communicatio Idiomatum' (Greek, 'antidosis idiômatôn'), He is inseparably and unmixedly/unconfusedly the God according to His Full Divinity to Whom He so speaks - whether deliberately in Psalm citation or reminiscence or otherwise - according to His Full unconfused Humanity.
I still see no "unrelated topic" conducing to "irrelevant and distracting" question.
I do not see how Theandricality (if that's a word) and Covenant status and faith 'qua Humanitas' do not elicit attention to their most intimate interrelation.
You speak of the "sheer inconsistency" of "contemporary EO theology". I don't know how to formulate it well, but I long for good consideration/discussion of the matters of proper attention to "consistency", proper "liberty", properly scrupulous attention to every "crux" as "crux", with respect to the whole breadth of the Visible Church (or claimants to being part of it - or effectively it) since the Ascension.
To take one concrete example, what am I to think about Hastings Rashdall and especially his 1915 'Bamptons', published in 1919 as 'The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology'? A book I have not read from cover to cover, from which I have nonetheless profited, with which I am not comfortable. I know of no formal, authoritative word spoken out over it in the Church of England - and do not suppose there has been since the beginning of the Continuation. Ought there to be? Why or why not? If so, how and by whom? If not, what implications does that have?
Semi-Hookerian
However "Chalcedonianly" or 'Nicaeno-Constanstinopolitan-Pre-Chalcedonianly' we try to think of the God-man and 'Communicatio Idiomatum' (Greek, 'antidosis idiômatôn'), He is inseparably and unmixedly/unconfusedly the God according to His Full Divinity to Whom He so speaks - whether deliberately in Psalm citation or reminiscence or otherwise - according to His Full unconfused Humanity.
I still see no "unrelated topic" conducing to "irrelevant and distracting" question.
I do not see how Theandricality (if that's a word) and Covenant status and faith 'qua Humanitas' do not elicit attention to their most intimate interrelation.
Semi-Hookerian
Robert Hart wrote:
Even if I bought the "Eastern" propaganda that underlies your comment ...
LOL. Alistair McGrath...eastern propagandist! Got it. At least I see where you're coming from. But you will deal with the likes of McGrath if you are to reflect any catholic credibility.
As I said before, while there is indeed a covenantal forensic element to atonement as a redemptive whole, much of western theology has been wholly given over to a Roman law court model of justification. Such Protestant extremes should be steadfastly opposed by catholics.
(i.e., "Given the early church's relative lack of interest in the concept of justification..." -- A far cry from reality indeed),
Yeah. On the other hand, a search of Greek patristic literature on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae shows that, over a period of a couple of centuries that includes the theologically-rich fourth century, most Greek Fathers don’t talk much about δικαιοσύνη (“justification” or “righteousness”) except when exegeting a passage using that term. Gregory of Nyssa is an exception, but, when Gregory uses the term, it is almost always in the context of the transformative, Christian way of life, in other words, works of righteousness; neither Nyssa nor any other Eastern Father ever writes in terms of what Lutheranism calls “forensic justification.”
Anonyomous:
It is a good thing you are anonymous, because you can avoid embarrassment.
Obviously, your reading of Gregory of Nyssa is slanted and selective. Obviously, your reading of the "early Church" excludes the New Testament itself, as well as John Chrysostom's sermons and Augustine's victorious debate against Pelagianism. Apparently, you have not considered that much of the writing was apologetical, and that aside from Judaizers who were dealt with first by the Apostles in that first generation, and then by Chrysostom (often misunderstood to have been writing about Jews per say, when he was addressing a kind of Christian heresy), and the heresies of Pelagius, not much heresy arose about justification in the First Millennium. Therefore, what you misread as "lack of interest" is simply a lack of need for apologetics against Heresies. The heresies of the first Millennium were Christological, or they dealt with other denials of the Trinity. Therefore, that was the focus.
As I have pointed out, the Reformers of the 16th century were moved first and foremost by Christology, inasmuch as our justification was complete and perfect due to Who it was Who died for us and rose again. Their arguments against Rome's doctrines of Purgatory and Indulgences (Treasury of Merits) was a necessary defense, like the Fathers before them, of Christ's Person as Divine.
Also, both you and "Mr. Nice Guy" (who agreed with me) need to learn better manners. Either disagree with courtesy and learn to be polite (and use some kind of identifiable name), or go fight at the playground with the other kids.
The shrill post by Anonymous at 3:56 is remarkable, both for what it says but especially what it doesn't say.
It doesn't say anything about the Bible or Pauline theology, both of which, per Orthodox and Roman Catholic understandings, are supposed to trump Athanasius, Augustine, the Cappadocian Fathers, et al.
It triumphalistically mentions McGrath, but doesn't say anything about McGrath's own position on justification, or how he got there. "Catholic credibility", indeed.
It resorts to the tired, old argument about how the "early church" didn't say much about justification, but it doesn't equally argue that the "early church" didn't say much about images in the church, either, except to condemn them. Neither did it say much about certain things later Church Fathers taught, and which provoked no small amount of controversy. St. Symeon the New Theologian and Gregory Palamas, for example.
The earliest Fathers (those of the so-called "subapostolic" era, were mostly uninterested in any kind of synthesis between biblical religion and Hellenistic philosophy and mysticism. Will Anonymous at 3:56 therefore apply his logic and argue that the intrusion of Hellenism (specifically Neoplatonism) into Christian theology in later centuries was a development that should be eschewed by "credible catholics?"
Caedmon
Interesting posts. However, since the ACC accepts the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the writings of the Church Fathers it must also accept that during the pre-Schism period of the Orthodox Catholic Church there were two views on original sin, one that was more acceptable in the West -- the theological line of St. Augustine and another in the East -- that of the Cappadocian Fathers. The ACC must acknowledge both as acceptable pre-Schism positions.
Anonymous:
If you are the same Anonymous who posted a long comment on a very old essay I wrote about specific Anglican Articles (too old to start a long debate with you-whoever you are), then you need to keep following our Laymen's Guide to the Thirty-Nine Articles as it develops. For, clearly, your education is worse than deficient; it is utterly wrong. If it is you, you have not been educated, but indoctrinated, and very much to your harm.
As for the thrust of your comment here, all you have said is that there were two major positions before the Great Schism. So, are you insisting that a historical fact be accepted (your simplistic summary of which is dubious), or that we have no theological discussion, or that no one may hold a view that side with one or the other?
As for what "the ACC must accept", please remember that we make no claim either to infallibility or to being the One True Church. I have no intention of treating our C & C like the Roman Magisterium.
The Nameless One writes:
"....it must also accept that during the pre-Schism period of the Orthodox Catholic Church there were two views on original sin,...."
Hey, what happened to the Vincentian Canon?
At the risk of painting with a broad brush, I would say in response that the "two views" were those who gave the topic relatively little thought and reflection and those who, out of painful personal experience, gave it much thought and reflection. Since "veritas est omnis unum," we must consult the Scriptures to determine which group was correct. The 3rd Ecumenical Council did that and consequently condemned the Pelagian heresy. Who was it that said, "A Nestorian Christ can save a Pelagian man"?
LKW
They conveniently forget that the Church sided with Augustine on that matter.
Roman Juris system then what was the Justinian Code. And the Eastern Orthodox make the man a saint. Not saying that code influence Eastern Orthodox on theology but the Law influence in the west came from the east in the Late 11th century when the west got a hold of the Justinian Code in Italy.
What the ancient view on the east was on sin people can debate but study history I came across historians of the 6th century like John of Ephesus that thought the Plague was God's punishment for their sins. John was imprisoned in hos life for being a monophysite under Justin the second. Granted, not Eastern Orthodoxy but Oriental Orthodoxy which might shared their view on sin. I bring this up because some modern Orthodox does do not believe in God punishing sin while their ancestors in the eastern empire did.
Fr. Hart,
I do not understand why you think a sacrifice must be understood juridically. If you think this is how most religion has understood a sacrifice, you are mistaken.
The EO simply understand that God is concerned with something deeper than "rule breaking", man's affections and passions, which do not require external punishment, but disfigure the soul. If Christ were into moralism, he wouldn't have dined with prostitutes and tax collectors!
"Moralism." "External punishment." Colorful language, but not really specific in meaning. After everything said above (all more than two years ago), I have provided more than sufficient reply before the last comment was written.
Post a Comment