www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Regarding differences between the EO and EC churches

Well, this is what I mean. I am curious which explanations are considered the safest or which are the least safe. I hardly consider myself a gifted theologian to the point where I can speak with authority on the matter or not. But I was trying to side step the idea of it propitiating wrath.
I think calling it a ransom is similar to what I am saying. That it sort of ransoms us, or buys us back because it is a satisfying offering. Maybe I should have used that word instead of atonement. Still, I think that the cross is supposed to be sort of the perfected idea of what was practiced in the sacrifice and partaking of the passover lamb. So maybe it should be explained as how that was understood, except as Hebrews notes, not needed to be repeated. One perfect sacrifice for all time. The Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. It is an offering that can make pure its recipients. Maybe that is better for you.

But bought back from whom is an important question. Through the first millennium, the overwhelming consensus is we were ransomed from death. St. Anselm was not the first, but he was the most convincing of the medieval Western theologians to postulate we were ransomed from the wrath of God himself-- a view most first millennium theologians, both in the East and in the West, would have found difficult to accept.

Well, that is interesting. A little beyond my knowledge to respond to, though there is the verse at the end of 1 Thessalonians chapter one that says Jesus rescues us from the coming wrath.
I am not sure how that fits into things here, but I do know that it seems to imply that were it not for Him, we would all have been on the path toward whatever the wrath that verse is referring to.

Thank you all for your thoughtful replies. I had forgotten about my op (it has been months) because I was never notified that any response were made. Thank you again.

P.S. With all due respect,it seems from the research that I have done, the EC's in many cases do not agree with what the majority of RC's do on some issues, and try to avoid discussing these differences.

From past familial experience, it usually doesn't work out all that well for the EC's when they try that approach!

May I quote the famous Vatican expert on all things Eastern/Oriental Church, professor emeritus at the Pontifical Oriental Institute (Rome), Mitred Archimandrite Robert (Taft, S.J. {a Jesuit}):
the only difference between Eastern Catholic and the Orthodox should be Communion with Rome!

Well said!!

May I quote His Beatitude, Patriarch Emeritus Lyubonir of Kyiv-Halich: "Between the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics there are no theological distinctions".

Stuart,

It seems I learned a different sense of the word "atonement." Just to be clear, I looked it up in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, whcih gave: Definition #2, which is based on the "obsolete" #1, reflects how I would understand the term; #3, on the other hand, is quite unacceptable.

(I included #4 because it's interesting: does it really mean that CSs believe Our Lord's suffering and death were only to show that man and God were already one? )


Peace,
Deacon Richard

The sense in which Ambrose and most other Western medieval theologians use it is more like "propitiation".

As to why Christ died on the Cross, the answer is littered throughout the Paschal texts: Christ died to free us from bondage to sin and death. By assuming all aspects of human nature, including mortality, human nature is sanctified, and Chfrist's resurrection, death itself is transformed from a permanent separation of the soul from the body and both from God, into a form of sleep in preparation for the final resurrection of the body.

By death He trampled death...

He didn't just "grin and bear it" in our place. It was much more than that. His death was a very pro-active action.

Well, for starters, it was entirely voluntary on his part. Being perfect man and true God, Christ did not have to die, but took death upon himself.

Awaiting with great interest to see if the forthcoming UGCC catechism will reflect the above quotes.

Instructive that it is difficult to find Orthodox theologians who would agree with either of these points.

If that is true, then it makes me sad that Orthodox theologians would not want Eastern Catholics to try their best to believe and practice what Orthodox Christians believe and practice. Hopefully it won't stop Eastern Catholics from trying and persevering.