www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodox meaning of Christ's sacrifice

First off, I think it is something we all can agree to when I say that what is being taught in the Latin Church's seminaries throughout the West is not necessarily traditional Latin theology. So, I think we must make a distinction between what some have experienced (like Inawe's testimony) in Latin seminaries and what is the official (or at least traditional) Latin view.

With that being said, I want to thank CT287 for the link. I think it manifests (or at least hints at) what we've been talking about, namely that in the traditional Latin view, Christ paid the ranson to His Father (see below):

But before you go there, allow me to clarify that to me this is not a big deal. I don't have any hang-ups about Latins being faithful to their own tradition as we must be faithful to ours. I'm sure there are lessons to be gained by both approaches to the idea of Christ's redemption. I only post this to show there is indeed a difference (cf. Fr. Hopko's document above).

In Christ's Light,

Ghazar Der-Ghazarian

excerpts from the new Roman Catechism:
------------------------------------------

Man's sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death. 403

By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God "made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."404

III. CHRIST OFFERED HIMSELF TO HIS FATHER FOR OUR SINS

Jesus freely embraced the Father's redeeming love

609 By embracing in his human heart the Father's love for men, Jesus "loved them to the end", for "greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."425

In suffering and death his humanity became the free and perfect instrument of his divine love which desires the salvation of men.426 Indeed, out of love for his Father and for men, whom the Father wants to save, Jesus freely accepted his Passion and death: "No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord."427

Hence the sovereign freedom of God's Son as he went out to his death.428

614 This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices.441

First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit in reparation for our disobedience.442

615 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous."443

By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities".444

Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.445

616 It is love "to the end"446 that confers on Christ's sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life.447

Now "the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died."448 No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.

617 The Council of Trent emphasizes the unique character of Christ's sacrifice as "the source of eternal salvation"449 and teaches that "his most holy Passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us."450 And the Church venerates his cross as she sings: "Hail, O Cross, our only hope."451

Thanks for the excerpt.

ChristTeen287

Dear William,

The seminaries that I attended were traditional and counciliar in that the traditional curriculum was amplified by the documents being produced by Vatican II at the time. The official teachings as I learned them included the basic theological assumption that all actions by the Son of God are salvivic (redemptive) and of infinite worth. I also learned what you present from the Catechism.

I believe that both are still official Catholic teaching.

The beauty of this seeing the one in the context of the other is that it amplifies our understanding that Jesus redeemed us by His sacrifice. He chose freely to live the metaphor of death, resurrection, and ascension so that slow learners like me can see what He is doing for me. He didn't have to do it that way. It was a fantastic free act of love for us.

As it worked out, Jesus purchased us by His act of sacrifice! It was freely chosen. Is that different from what Orthodoxy teaches?

I enjoy your postings and have learned much from them. Thank you.

Steve

Dear Steve,

First off, thanks for your kind words. I also appreciate your valuable input and insights on this forum. Perhaps I didn't word what I was trying to say, in the best way possible.

What I was trying to say was that there have been definite movements in the Latin Church, coming even before Vatican II -but especially afterwards, which strove to present a more balanced presentation of the Faith as opposed to the strict Latin view. Sometimes this went so far as to actually adopt views traditionally much more representitive of the Christian East. The disproportionate effect of the Eastern Catholic Churches on Vatican II, alone suffices to demonstrate this.

So, I did not at all mean to imply that the seminary you attended was "non-Conciliar" or "un-traditional" and certainly not "un-faithful" to the faith of the Catholic Church. All I was saying was that I think Eastern Christian ideas have had some success of making their way into many Latin Church seminaries. And being I am an Eastern Catholic, I -of course- don't see this as a bad thing.

Yet, to answer the question of whether what I and the other Eastern Christians on this thread are saying about the real difference between the Eastern and Latin view of our Lord's "ransom," we must not look to individual opinions but rather to public testimony, i.e. official texts and patristic witness. The quotes above excerpted from the Roman Catechism, I think, support what we are saying regarding the real differences between our teachings (not that this is necessarily a bad thing).

I'm sorry if I what I said seemed rude in any way.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian Wolfe

[/qb][/QUOTE]

Others say that Christ's "payment" on behalf of man had to be made to God the Father. This is the view which interprets Christ's sacrificial death on the cross as the proper punishment that had to be paid to satisfy God's wrath over the human race. God was insulted by man's sin. His law was broken and His righteousness was offended. Man had to pay the penalty for his sin by offering the proper punishment. But no amount of human punishment could satisfy God's justice because God's justice is divine. Thus the Son of God had to be born into the world and receive the punishment that was rightly to be placed on men. He had to die in order for God to receive proper satisfaction for man's offenses against Him. Christ substituted Himself on our behalf and died for our sins, offering His blood as the satisfying sacrifice for the sins of the world. By dying on the cross in place of sinful man, Christ pays the full and total payment for man's sins. God's wrath is removed. Man's insult is punished. The world is reconciled with its Creator.

[/QB][/QUOTE]

I just wanted to add...I was thinking how the view one has of Christ's sacrifice can completely change the way you see God. What Father Thomas posted above is exactly the way I understood Christ's sacrifice as a Presbyterian. Our pastor would even use judicial terms in sermons to describe what Jesus' death and resurrection meant. I loved Christ for his sacrifice as I understood it, but it really distorted how I viewed the Father. It did seem that the Father somehow received "satisfaction" from Christ's suffering, and I lived with a real fear of God. It wasn't a healthy, respectful fear, but a terrifying fear of God. Thinking about this Orthodox view for the past couple of days has really helped me to view the Father differently.

Thanks again.

Janka

Janka,

If you really want to understand this doctrine, the next step would be to study, according to the Orthodox faith, what God's wrath actually is, and how does God "punish" sinners in the end. The short answer is that God's wrath is God's love. Hebrews 12:29 says "Our God is a consuming fire." It is the fire of his love which will be "hell fire" to those who hate his appearing, but to those who love him (I Tim 4:8), it will be life eternal. God will be "all in all" at His coming (I Cor 15:28). God says "love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44) and so He does the same. He loves them even when they don't love Him back, and to them, His love becomes an eternal "torment."

What magnificent truths the Church gives to us!

Digging out in Pittsburgh,

Priest Thomas

Dear Janka,

What Fr Thomas has said is no snow job . . .

Alex

Forgive me, Reverend Father Thomas, and bless!

Reader Andrew Rubis wrote that the Orthodox Church teaches that when Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of OLGS Jesus Christ, the bread and wine "remain."

What is the (real) Orthodox teaching on what happens to the bread and wine after the Canon of the Divine Liturgy?

Excuse me for bothering you with this, but I thought you wouldn't mind answering my question since you are already surrounded by flakes where you are . . .

Alex

Father, bless!

I do really want to understand this doctrine. What is the best way to study it accoring to the Orthodox faith? Is there a particular book you would recommend?

Thank you for the short answer. So, it is the same fire of his love...it's just that how you experience that fire depends on whether or not you love him?

I hope you're able to dig out of that snow soon!

Janka

Janka

Dear William,

Thank you for your response and your clear expression of what you were saying. You have not been rude at all! I mentioned the curriculum of the seminary I attended simply for purposes of explaining where I was coming from.

In some ways, I think that we are saying the same thing.

I totally agree with you that there have been movements in the Latin Church even before Vatican II which had the goal of presenting a clearer expression of what we believe. The Liturgical Movement is a clear example of one such movement. Such movements have been a part of the life of Western Catholic life as long as the Western Church has existed, I think.

As you point out, during the Council the Eastern Catholic Churches contributed to an extraordinary degree to our return to our Latin roots in our expression of our deepening understanding of what our Church believes. They remind us of the riches that come from what we share in common: the truth in the Scriptures; the truth in our Liturgies; and the words of our Fathers in Faith.

I think that you are right also when you suggest that "Eastern Christian" ideas made their way into Latin seminaries. Those ideas rang true because they resonated with chords of belief that have been part of our ancient heritage also. They even found expression in the Catechism of the Catholic Church !

As a Latin Catholic, I too am glad that for this gift of the East. The sharing back and forth among the Churches over the millenia helps us "balance" our respective expressions of the Faith and our Liturgical practices. Such sharing, even our disagreements, I think, is a gift to us that comes from our diversity in unity as we live out the Faith.

I guess that what throws me in reading what you are saying is that you suggest that there was a strict Latin view that is in opposition to what the Western Church now teaches. I'd suggest that the official language used by the Church in Her official documents conveys only a part of the understanding of the Church.

It seems to me that the understanding of the Church is not a static thing. Our teachings develop. Development is not necessarily an oppositional process.

Again, thanks for your comments and your kindness. I hope that I do not appear to be abrasive or rude in what I say or how I say it.

Thanks for hearing me out

Steve

Dear Steve,

You are never abrasive or rude, but I'm most thankful that as someone living in Florida, you don't rub it in to us who live under these snow-falls.

I'm speaking of those to the south of me, but to the north of you.

I guess we can BOTH be rubbing it in, can't we?

The snow I mean . . .

Alas, I won't have the time to write such pearls beginning tomorrow . . .

Alex

Dear Steve,

I can appreciate what you are saying and also the way you are saying it. I agree with you that doctrines develope. The Latin Church has much evidence of this in her tradition but so do the other ancient Churches, to a lesser degree on most doctrines. Perhaps there was a traditional view Latin view (still evident in the Latin Church's documents) which is now developing even further. This is something to consider. Thanks for your explanations.

Trusting in Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

May the Lord God bless you, Alex!

Of course, you know that my answer, even though I am "Thomas," will not be Thomistic! (That is, Orthodoxy does not "measure" the change using philosophical terms (i.e., the "substance" changes while the "accidents" remain.)

The bread and the wine "change" into the blood of Christ. Although I am not challenging Reader Andrew's view (that is, it may be permissible to say this, I don't know), I read nothing beyond the word "change."

Priest Thomas

Dear Alex,

Thank you for your kind words. You are, as usual, the personification of discretion.

Sometimes the urge to rub is simply irresistible, though! (78 degrees here though it is overcast and windy. :rolleyes: ) I hope that I haven't rubbed too hard in what I said.

I really hope that you will be able to cast your pearls here as often as you can. It's hard to find the pearl of great price if it's not cast!

Daily would be nice.

How goes the search? The prayers continue.

Thank you, my friend.

Steve