|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Orthodoxy - a total ignoramus asks ;
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Oh drat, missed my edit window. In the last paragraph I meant " It's really a real life change especially" for converts. josephine already gave several good answers while I was composing this.
The only other thing I would add is Orthodoxy doesn't foster coasting, or shouldn't, because it's about a process of becoming. It's not about instantaneous conversion or eternal security. It should be un upward and never ending movement of participation in the energies of God's holiness, portrayed I think nicely in the ladder of St. John Climacus.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
Just to weigh in on the prayers for the dead question, our BCP has at least one reference that I know of (didn't go digging through it) in one of the forms for Prayers of the People that says "We pray for those who have died, that they may have a place in your eternal kingdom." I would be mildly surprised if there are no more. We also add in our congregational prayers the sentence (for recent deaths)"we pray for the repose of the soul of ______" as part of our intercession prayers. So that's pretty explicit, and in our main prayer book.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cusanus
Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692
|
Posted
quote:
How would you, as a member of the OC which traditionally isn't exactly ecumenical or a eading light in its local "churches together" groups (!), see other Christians? I know some OC members would take umbridge at the use of the term "other Christians" at all.
Actually here in Oz the Orthodox churches have been very active in the ecumenical movement.
--------------------
"You are qualified," sa fotherington-tomas, "becos you can frankly never pass an exam and have 0 branes. Obviously you will be a skoolmaster - there is no other choice."
Posts: 3120 | From: The Peninsula | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Having been a Protestant and an Evangelical and an Episcopalian, I can't take umbridge at the term "other christians" -- I recognize and acknowledge and am eternally grateful for the Christian growth and nurturing I got in those places.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Coming in late as usual...
On the topic of singing, one of the things I love about the (English-speaking Antiochian) parish I am at is that while we have a wondrous, yet small, choir, the entire congregation belts out the responses and chants the Communion Hymns with gusto. 'Tis a wonderful thing. ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
Thanks for the questions and the answers. I have learnt a great deal here and have much more to ponder and investigate.
Ian.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
sorry to make this thread resurface again - rereading & consideraton has left me with a few more questions...
* What version of the Bible is the usual one used in the OC?
* St Vincent's three rules (summarised by Josephine near the beginning of this thread) - am I right in understanding that they are...
1) old teaching takes precedence over new
2) the belief of the Christian majority take precedence over the minority
3) the opinions of those appearing to really know God take precedence over those of "those who are less godly"
if so, how does the OC come to the conclusion that propitiatory, substitutionary atonement is not an accurate description of why Jesus had to go to the Cross, then rise again?
* could someone expand on what is meant by theosis / deification & how it is distinct to the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit
* Fr G said (adain, back on page 1 of this thread!) that another distinction of the OC is St Gregory Palamas's belief... quote from Fr G here ..."that the transforming energies of God ARE God and not creatures of God or grace. The Light of the Transfiguration IS the presence of God and we can participate in it / Him insofar as we are purified by repentance".
How is this different to the sanctifying work of the indwelling Holy Spirit?
Is the Light of Transfiguration the same light that caused the blinding radiance from Moses's face?
* How would the OC define grace (in the Christian / Biblical sense) to a non-Christian enquirer? Would this be different from how an evangelical or an RC person might answer the same question?
* when OC people here talk about their prayers & attitude being very trinitarian, how does that trinitatian-ness differ from evangelical trinitatian-ness (if at all?)
* how would the OC react to & back up its reaction to the following...
sola scriptura (think this has mostly been covered though!)
sola fidelis
eternal security
imputed righteousness
* for those who are OC members, is there anything about the OC that you wish was different or that you would like to change, or that makes you feel a little uncomfortable etc?
* how does the veneration of icons contribute to sanctification? (ref to one of Fr G's early posts, still page 1 of this thread)
* where does the OC's tradition of Jpseph being an elderly widower come from?
* what is the "protoevangelium of James" & who wrote it? [James?]
* if the OC use the jewish Old Testament, do they keep the books of the OT in their original order too?
* how do the OC see Jesus's pre-incarnate appearences in the OT? - Abraham's lunch, speaking to Mr & Mrs Manoah, anywhere the Angel of the Lord pops up really!
* what is the OC's official position on some of the contemporary issues such as stem cell research, abortion, contraception & genetical engineering?
* how does the OC see darwinism - thumbs up or thumbs down? what about physics's quest for one unifying theory? [apart from God!]
* Mousethief & Fr G - I am interested in OC music, but haven't followed up any of your contacts or links yet due to being disorganised - sorry!!!
* sounds like the choir director is very significant in the OC. How are they trained?
think that's it for now... watch this space though!!!
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Mousethief & Fr G - I am interested in OC music, but haven't followed up any of your contacts or links yet due to being disorganised - sorry!!!
Don't be too hard on yourself, l&d. There's only so much time in the day, and all that praying for the souls of the faithful departed you'll have been doing since you found out it's authentically Anglican is very time-consuming.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
CB
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
oops, sorry, forgot a couple & ran out of edit time...
* what does the OC teach about angels / seraphim / cherubim / living dreatures etc
* what is the OC position on homosexuality?
* what is the OC's view of Charismata? - thinking especially of 'toungues' and 'prophesy'
* how do you see the charismatic practise of raising hands during sung worship? Are there any equivalents?
* does the idea of Christian pop-music (etc) make the members of the OC want to run screaming into the hills?!
...sorry ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) still interested!!!
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ddraig
Shipmate
# 7572
|
Posted
Hi Luvanddaisies - please keep asking questions! I've found this thread fascinating, its answered some of my questions too!
I've only just emerged from lurking, and I don't want to tread on any toes (FrG, Mousethief et al.) but a good book that answers some of your questions is Timothy Ware's "The Orthodox Church". I'm almost at the end of it, and I've found it relatively easy to understand.
Don't know if it might help out here (if you can find a copy - Amazon has them).
Just a thought
Liz
--------------------
Theism - A morbid condition characterized by headache, sleeplessness, and palpitation of the heart, caused by excessive tea-drinking. Oxford English Dictionary
Posts: 86 | From: Leeds | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
BUMP
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif) anddaisies
sorry to make this thread resurface again - rereading & consideraton has left me with a few more questions...
* What version of the Bible is the usual one used in the OC?
The Septuagint for the OT and the best Greek translation for the NT ...a few possibilities exist for the Orthodox right now in English. The OT Septuagint will soon be ready in English.
* St Vincent's three rules (summarised by Josephine near the beginning of this thread) - am I right in understanding that they are...
1) old teaching takes precedence over new
2) the belief of the Christian majority take precedence over the minority
3) the opinions of those appearing to really know God take precedence over those of "those who are less godly"
The Vincentian canon is useful but cannot be stretched too far. The classic definitions of truth in the Church actually go on to specify how Tradition works ... and these questions raised by yourself are not pertinent to that. I'm sorry but they are too vague.
if so, how does the OC come to the conclusion that propitiatory, substitutionary atonement is not an accurate description of why Jesus had to go to the Cross, then rise again?
We simply say that picks out one element and inflates it beyond its proper place in the scheme of things.
* could someone expand on what is meant by theosis / deification & how it is distinct to the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit
Theiosis and the Indwelling of the Spirit compare as do arriving at your destination and the form of transport available.
* Fr G said (adain, back on page 1 of this thread!) that another distinction of the OC is St Gregory Palamas's belief... quote from Fr G here ..."that the transforming energies of God ARE God and not creatures of God or grace. The Light of the Transfiguration IS the presence of God and we can participate in it / Him insofar as we are purified by repentance".
How is this different to the sanctifying work of the indwelling Holy Spirit?
It's not but the end result is different ... you do find similar ideas in western Christian mystics but they have often held a rather suspect position in the western tradition. They actually consist of a call back to Orthodoxy in my opinion ... except the individualistic ones.
Is the Light of Transfiguration the same light that caused the blinding radiance from Moses's face?
No because with Moses it was a reflected afterglow .... with Christ and his friends it is all on the inside.
* How would the OC define grace (in the Christian / Biblical sense) to a non-Christian enquirer? Would this be different from how an evangelical or an RC person might answer the same question?
Not much different ... but we do not classify grace ... prevenient, infused etc.
* when OC people here talk about their prayers & attitude being very trinitarian, how does that trinitatian-ness differ from evangelical trinitatian-ness (if at all?)
We are much less squeamish about giving glory TO the Father, TO the Son and TO the Holy Spirit. We also pray less inhibitedly to all 3 hypostases, singly and together as One.
* how would the OC react to & back up its reaction to the following...
sola scriptura (think this has mostly been covered though!) See All Those Deceased Equines! Scripture is the controlling Core of Tradition.
sola fidelis
eternal security
imputed righteousness
Faith is complemented by Hope and fulfilled in Love. Eternal security is to presume. Imputed righteousness is too dryly transactional, forensic, (as indeed is SubAt.)
* for those who are OC members, is there anything about the OC that you wish was different or that you would like to change, or that makes you feel a little uncomfortable etc?
The things I don't like in Orthodoxy aren't actually Orthodox and that's NOT just my position. Jurisdictional disunity is a good example.
* how does the veneration of icons contribute to sanctification? (ref to one of Fr G's early posts, still page 1 of this thread)
Because it puts us in closer touch with Christ and his friends. If we leave the body and our senses out of worship we miss out big time.
* where does the OC's tradition of Jpseph being an elderly widower come from?
Tradition! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
* what is the "protoevangelium of James" & who wrote it? [James?]
Secure place in Tradition. Reliable but not canonical since no clear apostolic origin. Much like the Shepherd of Hermas and other such works.
* if the OC use the Jewish Old Testament, do they keep the books of the OT in their original order too?
We use the Septuagint ... as does the NT usually when it quotes the OT. This is not the same as the Masoretic text both in detail here and there and composition.
* how do the OC see Jesus's pre-incarnate appearences in the OT? - Abraham's lunch, speaking to Mr & Mrs Manoah, anywhere the Angel of the Lord pops up really!
Mileage varies but we are usually quite positive about that. The Logos has never been inactive.
* what is the OC's official position on some of the contemporary issues such as stem cell research, abortion, contraception & genetical engineering?
Contraception OK provided that it is not used to deny ANY possibility of new life ...eg., used by couples to prevent the birth of any children. No other techniques that involve the destruction of existing life OK ... this includes abortion and IVF of course. Stem cell research is OK provided that it does not use tissue "harvested" from aborted babies.
* how does the OC see darwinism - thumbs up or thumbs down? what about physics's quest for one unifying theory? [apart from God!]
The Orthodox Church does not rule out any scientific theory that capably describes creation or creation processes.
* Mousethief & Fr G - I am interested in OC music, but haven't followed up any of your contacts or links yet due to being disorganised - sorry!!!
* sounds like the choir director is very significant in the OC. How are they trained?
Usually "on the job" although attendance on courses and at practical sessions is encouraged.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RamblinPeck
Apprentice
# 7601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Baba is short for "babushka" which means -- i'm not sure what it means. But in practical terms it means "little old lady" and is an affectionate term for the matriarchs of any church. (In greek churches they are called yayas.)
Wow, the small amount of Russian I know actually comes in handy... that is if I'm remembering this correctly. "babushka" literally means something along the lines of "kerchiefs" or "head scarf", it just happens that all the little old ladies wore them, so the two became very closely associated and the idiom was created.
Posts: 13 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
Luvanddaisies, I'll tackle a few of these. I'm sure others will answer the ones I miss. If not, ask again!
quote:
* What version of the Bible is the usual one used in the OC?
Do you mean which English translation? It varies -- lots of folks use the RSV, because there's a nice edition that includes the deuterocanonical books. Others like the KJV for the beauty of the language. Most folks avoid the NIV and the various paraphrases.
quote:
* St Vincent's three rules (summarised by Josephine near the beginning of this thread) - am I right in understanding that they are...
1) old teaching takes precedence over new
2) the belief of the Christian majority take precedence over the minority
3) the opinions of those appearing to really know God take precedence over those of "those who are less godly"
Yes. Of course, these are guiding principles, not iron-clad rules. And they don't work to answer every single possible question. But they're a good place to start.
quote:
if so, how does the OC come to the conclusion that propitiatory, substitutionary atonement is not an accurate description of why Jesus had to go to the Cross, then rise again?"
Because when we look for propitiatory, substitutionary atonement in the teachings of the ancient church, in the universal teachings of the church, and in the consensus of the saints, it simply isn't there. Not that there's absolutely nothing there at all to even suggest anything along those lines -- that would be an overstatement. But when you look at things through an Orthodox lens, as it were, it's not the picture that you see.
quote:
* could someone expand on what is meant by theosis / deification & how it is distinct to the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit
Theosis is becoming by grace what God is by nature. Imagine a fire -- that's God. Imagine an iron bar -- that's you. Now put the bar in the fire. It becomes hot, it even gives off light. It has become, as far as its nature allows, what the fire is.
Likewise, when we dwell in God and God dwells in us, we become, as far as our nature allows, what God is.
quote:
* How would the OC define grace (in the Christian / Biblical sense) to a non-Christian enquirer? Would this be different from how an evangelical or an RC person might answer the same question?
Grace is God's love made manifest. It is the presence of God in our lives. (I can't tell you how an evangelical or RC person might answer the question -- you'll have to ask them.)
quote:
* when OC people here talk about their prayers & attitude being very trinitarian, how does that trinitatian-ness differ from evangelical trinitatian-ness (if at all?)
The biggest difference, in my experience, is the way we regard the Holy Spirit. When I was an evangelical, people occasionally referred to the Holy Spirit as "it" -- they seemed to regard him as something like The Force from Star Wars. He emanated from God, and did the work God sent him out to do, but people didn't appear to think of him as a person.
In the OC, the personhood of the Holy Spirit is clear and evident. We know him as a person, just as we know the Father and the Son as persons. The Spirit isn't "the bond of love between the Father and the Son," he isn't The Force, he isn't an apparition that one can see hovering over the crowd at a healing service. He is the Third Person of the Godhead, consubstantial, co-eternal with the Father and the Son.
quote:
* for those who are OC members, is there anything about the OC that you wish was different or that you would like to change, or that makes you feel a little uncomfortable etc?
When we don't do a very good job of living out what we are, it makes me uncomfortable. So when a bunch of monks get into a fight over precedence at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, that sort of thing makes me uncomfortable. They of all people should know better!
quote:
* how does the veneration of icons contribute to sanctification? (ref to one of Fr G's early posts, still page 1 of this thread)
The icons communicate to us who we are, and what we should be becoming.
quote:
* where does the OC's tradition of Jpseph being an elderly widower come from?
I think from the Protoevangelium of James.
quote:
* what is the "protoevangelium of James" & who wrote it? [James?]
I don't know who wrote it. Probably not James. It is an early writing that the early Christians felt was important and authoritative, but not Scripture.
quote:
* if the OC use the jewish Old Testament, do they keep the books of the OT in their original order too?
Ideally, I suppose the books would be in the order they're in in the Septuagint. But mostly, you just get whatever edition of Scripture you can, and deal with whatever order the editors put the books in.
quote:
* what is the OC's official position on some of the contemporary issues such as stem cell research, abortion, contraception & genetical engineering?
Abortion isn't really a contemporary issue. It's been around far longer than the OC, and from the beginning of the Church, it has been prohibited, except to save the life of the mother. And even there, it is accepted with sorrow and fear.
For truly contemporary issues, you will usually find no single Orthodox position. The Metropolitan of Japan and the Bishop of Berkeley might have different opinions on genetic engineering; the Patriarch of Moscow and the Patriarch of Antioch might have different opinions on stem cell research.
We'll get to a consensus eventually. But we don't have a form of governance that allows for immediate top-down declarations on such things.
quote:
* how does the OC see darwinism - thumbs up or thumbs down? what about physics's quest for one unifying theory? [apart from God!]
Scientific research is generally viewed positively. After all, you can't praise God for his wonders that you don't know about!
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
* what does the OC teach about angels / seraphim / cherubim / living dreatures etc
They are noncorporeal beings created by God. What else do you want to know about them?
quote:
* what is the OC position on homosexuality?
Sexual relations are permitted only between a husband and wife.
Homosexual acts outside of marriage are not viewed as different from, or worse than, heterosexual acts outside of marriage.
quote:
* what is the OC's view of Charismata? - thinking especially of 'toungues' and 'prophesy'
The "spiritual gifts" as practiced among so-called charismatic Christians are a novelty, and we don't do novelty.
However, within Orthodoxy, there is a deep and long-standing tradition of holy men and women who exercise spiritual gifts -- if you want to understand what it's about, and how it works, I'd suggest you read this life of Father Arseny, or the life of St. John of San Francisco.
quote:
* how do you see the charismatic practise of raising hands during sung worship? Are there any equivalents?
That position, of the hands raised, is traditionally a position for prayer. As used by charismatics, it's foreign to our tradition. But at many Orthodox churches, you'll see the people raise their hands when saying the Lord's Prayer, and you will always see the priest pray in that position at points during a liturgy.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
josephine said: quote:
Sexual relations are permitted only between a husband and wife.
Homosexual acts outside of marriage are not viewed as different from, or worse than, heterosexual acts outside of marriage.
So if homosexual marriage gets legalized, gay couples are in the clear?
Everyone insert the obvious answer according to Tradition™ et al
No, I thought not. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LydaRose:
So if homosexual marriage gets legalized, gay couples are in the clear?
Everyone insert the obvious answer according to Tradition™ et al
No, I thought not.
Ah, the Great American Litmus Test.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Whilst endorsing the rest of Josephine's excellent post it is going a little too far to write off "ilasterion" - propitiation along with "substitution." The latter has no place in the Tradition of the Church ... the former does. However, "ilasterion" understood in the post-Anselmian sense of the sacrifice of Christ appeasing and satisfying an outraged God is not a truthful or legitimate interpretation. Christ is both priest AND victim (Hebrews). God's action is unitary ... he acts out of love dealing with the sin itself .... not his supposed tantrums in relation to it. This does not erode his holiness, justice or sovereignty. Love perfects that and delivers all ... to himself.
[ 29. June 2004, 07:45: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Phos Hilaron
Shipmate
# 6914
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Whilst endorsing the rest of Josephine's excellent post it is going a little too far to write off "ilasterion" - propitiation along with "substitution." The latter has no place in the Tradition of the Church ... the former does. However, "ilasterion" understood in the post-Anselmian sense of the sacrifice of Christ appeasing and satisfying an outraged God is not a truthful or legitimate interpretation. Christ is both priest AND victim (Hebrews). God's action is unitary ... he acts out of love dealing with the sin itself .... not his supposed tantrums in relation to it. This does not erode his holiness, justice or sovereignty. Love perfects that and delivers all ... to himself.
What's "ilasterion"?
Oh, and "Theosis" sounds very similar to "Sanctification". Is that correct?
--------------------
Gaero?.......Gaero!
Posts: 1684 | From: Choson | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
A Greek word used in Romans 3:25 signifying "propitiation." In modern exegetics the preferred translation has been expiation. If Christ is both Priest and Victim (which He is) both senses apply.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
A Greek word used in Romans 3:25 signifying "propitiation." In modern exegetics the preferred translation has been expiation. If Christ is both Priest and Victim (which He is) both senses apply.
The English Standard Version of 2001 translates hilasterion consistently as "propitiation". Note that this translation aims to be linguistically and theologically conservative whilst retaining some KJV and old RSV flavour.
As far as I understand it, Eastern "theosis" is similar to, but not identical with, Western "sanctification". I'll leave it to Fr. Gregory to explain the full distinction. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
How far does sanctification go in the west? I'm not always sure. Sometimes it seems to be simply the process whereby someone's character and life becomes much more Christ-like. Sometimes it's this AND a belief that we can and should really be united (not just reconciled) to God and all that entails ..... which is theiosis.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
However, "ilasterion" understood in the post-Anselmian sense of the sacrifice of Christ appeasing and satisfying an outraged God is not a truthful or legitimate interpretation.
I presume by "post-Anselmian" you do not mean to include Anselm himself in your description, since he nowhere in his Cur Deus Homo? depicts God as "outraged." Satisfactio has much more to do with setting the order of things right than with placating an angry God. Indeed, Aquinas is even further from this view. The sacrifice of Christ is the offering of his love to the Father. It does not of necessity require the destruction of Christ as the victim, though Aquinas says that Christ's death on the cross is the most "fitting" way of him offering his life and love to the Father.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Yes, indeed FCB ... this is why I used "post-" Nonetheless it is true that Anselm emphasised an interpretation which rapidly took off in popular piety down the line of placatory sacrifice. I don't think that Anselm can be completely exonerated. In the same manner, although it took a Gustav Aulen to remind Lutherans what Luther was really like, Luther himself set the tone of what was to come after him..
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I don't think that Anselm can be completely exonerated.
Perhaps, but only in the sense that Paul cannot be completely exonerated for speaking in a way that later people could construe as meaning that God used Jesus to pay off the Devil.
But believe me, I'm no more a fan of penal substitution than you are.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustinos
Apprentice
# 7716
|
Posted
Oh dear, my first post and I'm afraid it's going to be a controversial one!
The twentieth century has been witness (in the Orthodox world) to a phenomenon typically called the "Patristic revival." There was a sense (and to a degree, justifiably) that in recent centuries the fullness of the Orthodox tradition was obfuscated, in particular by the borrowing of western polemics coming out of the Reformation/Counter-Reformation to deal with the dual problems of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism from an Orthodox perspective.
However, there's been a downside to this movement; that being the typical throwing out of the baby with the bathwater. Thus, in the name of purging Orthopraxis and Orthodox academic theology of perceived "westernizations", what has happened in some cases is the rejection of ideas which are actually quite Orthodox.
IMHO, the greatest example of this has been in relation to the dogma of redemption. This "re-envisioning" began earlier in the twentieth century, with the famous/infamous essay of Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky entitled "The Dogma of Redemption." The essential thrust of this document, was to remove from the Orthodox teaching on redemption any "judicial" or "satisfactory" ideas from the feat of salvation accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ. This work, and those who think along it's lines even if not directly citing it (and there are many such people) essentially claims that anything smacking of "atonement" is a Latin/Anslemian importation into Orthodoxy, even indirectly claiming that such an idea of the redemption is basically heretical.
Unfortunatly, for all of the claims of being a "return to the Fathers", those who promote this particular view are all but ignoring them. The language of the Holy Scriptures clearly has a strong judicial thread in them - the redemption and purification of mankind from it's sins (justification) preceeds and then continually accompanies his sanctification; yet the revisionistic teaching on this subject (coined by many as "stavroclasm") denies this, and reduces the economy of salvation almost exclusively to sanctification/divinization.
It is true that God is love. Yet His love extends not only to His creatures (and particularly sinners), but also to justice and righteousness. God is merciful, but He is also just - and all at the same time, as the traditional affirmation of God's unfathomable simplicity. There is no greater embodiment of this truth, than the Holy Cross itself - for in It we see both in the extreme, accomplished in a single redemptive feat.
No one would accuse St.Gregory Palamas of being "latinized" - he was in fact one of the chief opponents of attempts to import the scholastic categories of Roman Catholic theology into the Orthodox world. Yet read what he has to say on the doctrine of the Redemption...
quote:
"A sacrifice was needed to reconcile the Father on high with us and to sanctify us, since we had been soiled by fellowship with the evil one. There had to be a sacrifice which both cleansed and was clean, and a purified, sinless priest…. God overturned the devil through suffering and His Flesh which He offered as a sacrifice to God the Father, as a pure and altogether holy victim – how great is His gift! – and reconciled God to the human race…
"Since He gave His Blood, which was sinless and therefore guiltless, as a ransom for us who were liable to punishment because of our sins, He redeemed us from our guilt. He forgave us our sins, tore up the record of them on the Cross and delivered us from the devil’s tyranny. The devil was caught by the bait. It was as if he opened his mouth and hastened to pour out for himself our ransom, the Master’s Blood, which was not only guiltless but full of divine power. Then instead of being enriched by it he was strongly bound and made an example in the Cross of Christ. So we were rescued from his slavery and transformed into the kingdom of the Son of God. Before we had been vessels of wrath, but we were made vessels of mercy by Him Who bound the one who was strong compared to us, and seized his goods."
(St. Gregory Palamas, Homily 16, 21, 24, 31; in Christopher Veniamin (ed.), The Homilies of Saint Gregory Palamas, South Canaan, PA: Saint Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 2002, pp. 193, 195, 201.)
Now, if I listened to some people, I'd have to understand this to be "scholastic" or "Anslemian". Of course it is neither, so perhaps a critical gaze has to be directed not at the symbolic books of recent centuries, great catechisms (which are often accused of being "westernized"), but upon those who in the name of a "patristic revival" are actually trafficking in theological modernism.
Posts: 1 | From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Augustinos
I have no problem with your post at all. When I have posted on this topic here (on many threads!) I have always made it clear that juridical sacrificial language is in the New Testament, (see post on ilasterion), is in the Fathers, is in Tradition. It's just that Anselm identified this motif as the key soteriological idea.
As may be seen from your quotation of St. Gregory Palamas, this element is embedded in the classic exposition of the victory of Christ. However, Anselm did change the direction of western atonement thought toward this element and thereby eclipsed the so called "classic theory." The worst he can be accused of is selectivity (set in the context of feudalism this was understandable). However, his successors, particularly in the Reformed tradition moved this emphasis on from selectivity to outright error. There is nothing in Scripture or Tradition to uphold the further distortion of substitutionary atonement. By the time we get to this stage God really is constrained by some anterior principle of justice ... which is not Orthodox at all. I am only saying that you overstate your case for those of us who have (mild) issues with Anselm.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Still not completely clear on the whole substitutionary atonement thing.
Let me try and express what I think you're saying FG:
quote:
Substitutionary atonement as taught in (e.g.) con evo circles is wrong because it portrays God as vindictive (in the bad sense) and as limited by human logic
I don't think that God's vindictive in the bad sense either. Neither do I think he is limited by human logic.
My issue with this is that I agree with pretty much everything you've said on the atonement, except that you say you disagree with "substitutionary atonement", and I say I agree with both it and you. I can't see how my position on this is inconsistent either.
This makes me think we mean slightly different things by the phrase and that actually you are disagreeing with a position that few hold.
For reference, AFAIK, I'm pretty much classic evangelical theologically on this.
I would, of course, be interested to know more...
[ 29. June 2004, 19:41: Message edited by: Custard123 ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Custard123
Let's start with the positive angle which I believe to be scripturally supported.
(1) I cannot save myself.
(2) I stand guilty.
(3) Christ is not guilty.
(4) He takes the penalty for my sin inducing death and transforms a curse into a blessing through the resurrection.
Having said all that it may seem incredible that I resist SubAt. So what do I believe SubAt to be?
Well, it may not be what many conservative evangelicals believe but this is what I refute:-
SubAt seems to say that instead of me being punished, Christ is punished to secure my forgiveness / reconciliation to the Father.
This "punished in my stead" is not required by the "absorbs the penalty of my sin" IF (and it's a big and crucial IF) death is not a punishment but a self inflicted consequence of my sin induced alienation from the Source of Life Himself, God.
The crucial difference here is the resistance to the idea that God is an active punisher us for our sin. It's the "rewards and punishments" idea of the Law. I am not saying that it is absent from the Bible. I am saying that the New Testament sense of Christ's sacrifice does not require it and is, indeed, better served by God's willing embrace of our alienation on the Cross, healing it by the resurrection ... an act of Love not Justice.
[ 29. June 2004, 19:54: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
* where does the OC's tradition of Jpseph being an elderly widower come from?
I think from the Protoevangelium of James.
quote:
* what is the "protoevangelium of James" & who wrote it? [James?]
I don't know who wrote it. Probably not James. It is an early writing that the early Christians felt was important and authoritative, but not Scripture.
A question of my own about the Protoevangelium of James. . . .
I searched for "Protoevangelium of James" on www.oca.org and www.goarch.org and didn't find much. What I found on www.oca.org was:
quote:
In it [the Protoevangelium of James] we read about Jesus' grandparents, the pious Joachim and Anna whom are remembered at the dismissal of every worship service in the Orthodox Church. Also in the Protoevangelium is an account of the Presentation of the Theotokos. It is significant to remember that although the Protoevangelium of James was not accepted as a canonical text, it contains enough truth and dogma for the Orthodox Church to accept and embrace what it offers in regards to all Theotokion Feasts.
It is hard to tell whether the Protoevangelium of James is
- accepted as non-canonical but basically true,
- as an "apocryphal" book (in the common not the technical sense of "apocryphal") that nonetheless manages to have enough truth to be useful, or
- neither of the above
Which is it?
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Substitutionary atonement as stated by Father Gregory, seems to me rather like a guy who gets insulted bu his boss, so he goes home and kicks his cat / wife / or plays a game of squash pretending the ball is his boss's head. It is displacement of anger, not forgiveness.
Transforming our sin by conquering death (what Fr G believes) is like us absorbing or bearing the pain of whatever offence has been caused. The guy bears the insult, forgives his boss and doesn't take it out on anyone or anything else.
Forgiveness is free to the forgiven, but it costs the forgiver. If you forgive someone for robbing you of Ł100, for example, it costs you Ł100.
Substitutionary atonement (displacement) paints a horrible picture of a God who has to take His wrath out on someone.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Substitutionary atonement (displacement) paints a horrible picture of a God who has to take His wrath out on someone.
Christina
I think that a substitutionary atonement model can only generate some horrible pictures if one neglects to give due weight to the incarnation and the trinity. John Stott himself picks up this point in his book "The Cross of Christ". He avoids the trap by presenting a theology of substitutionary atonement solidly grounded in incarnational and trinitarian theology.
For a competent presentation of evangelical thinking on the atonement, covering both Anselm and Aulen on the way, his book is highly recommended
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
... an act of Love not Justice.
This interpretation does leave you with some significant problem passages though. Not least "he did it to demonsrate his justice...". Which seems pretty unequivocal to me.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
But there is nothing in the passage that Augustinos quotes that says Jesus died "INSTEAD OF ME" -- which is key and essential to the subsitutionary model.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Leprechaun
Of course God acts justly but it's the relationship between love and justice which is the issue here. God's justice is not fair in human terms. "The last shall be first and the first shall be last." This is not a capricious acting out of sovereign will or a formalistic exchange but rather wholly an act of Love for the sake of all, (and the Cosmos).
You have to reckon with the fact that when it comes down to ontological descriptions it's the Johannine "God is love" that holds the key. His justice is revealed in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
He didn't say, "I really MUST punish someone SO THAT I can love and accept them." He said: "I will submit myself to their evil and only return good; that will save them."
[ 30. June 2004, 15:34: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
It seems to me, dear Father G, that while you say that I have to jump through ontological hoops to maintain the truth God is love on my interpretation of the Bible, you have to do the same with "demonstrating his justice", which, on your reckoning looks nothing like justice in the commonly held use of the word.
Perhpas we would do better to let God himself define what it means for him to be loving and just rather than playing them off against each other because his actions fit into our human conception of neither.
This "I have to punish before I can love" is also a caricature I hope you are aware, as it is in himself that God takes the punishment, and thus that itself is an act of love and acceptance.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Leprechaun
God's justice is indeed nothing like our concept of justice because he doesn't HAVE TO punish sinners, (or require that Someone Else take the rap). He simply wants to reform them.
This next comment is not aimed at you ...
There seems to me to be a certain corollary between the rewards and punishments view of atonement (of which SubAt is a subset) and the view that penal policy should have a strong retributive rather than therapeutic element.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
It is hard to tell whether the Protoevangelium of James is
- accepted as non-canonical but basically true,
- as an "apocryphal" book (in the common not the technical sense of "apocryphal") that nonetheless manages to have enough truth to be useful, or
- neither of the above
Which is it?
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
B
James' translation
Thanks.
Is it me, or do the Orthodox have various apocryphal stories (again, in the common not the technical sense of "apocryphal") in the Tradition that they themselves take with a grain of salt?
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Yes. Mileage varies as to how much salt. Some take no salt at all. It's not that important really. We like a good story ... some true, some suspect ... but still useful at a different level.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Yes. Mileage varies as to how much salt. Some take no salt at all. It's not that important really. We like a good story ... some true, some suspect ... but still useful at a different level.
How can one tell how much "salt" the Orthodox apply to a particular story?
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
How can one tell how much "salt" the Orthodox apply to a particular story?
Listen to the hymns during Matins and Vespers. You'll hear the unsalted parts of the story there. If we don't sing the story in our worship, then we may love it, and tell it, and generally believe it, but it's probably well salted.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
I may have missed this question before(long thread and my eyes are starting to glaze over), but what exactly is "Byzantine Catholic?" I used to know somebody who said he was one. Are they entirely independent of both Constantinople and Rome? Or what? Don't know if this is an appropriate place to ask.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Byzantine Rite Catholics are under the Pope of Rome but follow the Orthodox Church in most liturgical and pietical (if that's a word) practices.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
This "I have to punish before I can love" is also a caricature I hope you are aware, as it is in himself that God takes the punishment, and thus that itself is an act of love and acceptance.
I appreciate that this may be a tangent, but I don't think it's a caricature.
In saying that Jesus had to die to pay the price for our sins, is the above not admitted also?
Otherwise Jesus didn't have to die.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Dumb Acolyte:
Uhhhh, try pious. English is such a bitch.
But "pious practices" isn't what I mean -- I mean practical piety, more like. Things like fasting and the form of personal prayers and such.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Right. And it's rather close to pious opinion, which you don't mean. Lemme paw around a bit in the one decent dictionary at hand, Websters New International, 2nd ed.
Well the 17th century German Pietists seem to have commandeered all the likely words (pietist, pietistical, pietistically); sort of like the evangelicals--oops! Wrong thread. And you probably want something people will actually understand, so pietose (=pietical, rare) is out. No useful entries near pious, either--not even in the teeny boxed entries at the bottom of the page.
Ummm. The Orthodox priest I listen to frequently calls the entire effort (fasting, repentence, the prayers, service, the whole lot) the Ascetical Life. Does ascetical practices work?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Does ascetical practices work?
Only if they're pietistiffic TDA.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
DO ascetical practices work? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) Sorry, it's the grammatical pedant in me.
No, they don't work at all. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) They are tools. You might as well ask whether or not a hammer works. It only works if it is used correctly.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Don't get huffy with me, dear. I'm just trying to help you out of your pietistiffic dictional corner.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
