Hi Everybody,
Just a quick question: I was listening to the fraction "O, Only Begotten Son" (as chanted by Fr. Antonios Tanios; thanks, TITL) just now and wanted to ask about one part of it:
"We are the ones who were indebted to divine justice as a result of our sins, and He was the one who paid off our debts for us."
In the context of the entire fraction, that sort of stood out to me when I first heard it, but I forgot to ask about it here or after liturgy, and just remembered it after listening to it again.
My question: This is not the Anselmian "God is out for to get us because we made Him mad" idea, is it? I never really understood that, since it seems like it makes Jesus our Savior not from ourselves (i.e., from death which is the wages of our sins), but from the Father! ??? Anyway, I was under the impression that this was an RC (and through them, Protestant) idea of Christ's sacrifice, not Orthodox. But I am sure that the Orthodox Church has its own meaning of these words; I just don't know what it is, and I don't want to react negatively to something that is no doubt Orthodox just because of my own ex-Catholic hangups or mental clutter.
What do you all say? What is the proper Orthodox understanding of Christ's sacrifice in the Orthodox tradition? In light of that understanding, how should we understand language like the above being used in an Orthodox context?
Thanks for any help. God bless you all.
Comments
I really recommend that you read On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius if you haven't done so already. It explains the reason that salvation had to occur the way it did by starting right at the beginning of creation.
Read it for yourself, it isn't too long and I guarantee it will answer your questions.
There was an old and new version of this. For example, the old text (Catholic) meditates on the wound's and blood..etc of Christ, whereas in Orthodoxy, we address Christ as a person. I'm not sure if the example you gave is Catholic though, cause it's similar in the Orthodox text..
Anyway, Hos Erof also said this fraction isn't in the Ancient Coptic Liturgy book, but was added recently (and had Catholic contents in it).
Abouna Shenouda Maher made the Coptic translation, and it was then that they revised the English/Arabic translation to sound Orthodox.
You can find the Orthodox translation in your Liturgy book on page 467.
P.S. You spelled his name wrong!!! Antonious Tanious.
Thanks for the suggestion. I've read parts of "On The Incarnation", but was really just interested in the words above, since they seem odd to me. But thanks!
[quote author=JG link=topic=12470.msg146193#msg146193 date=1318834485]
Hi dzheremi,
I really recommend that you read On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius if you haven't done so already. It explains the reason that salvation had to occur the way it did by starting right at the beginning of creation.
Read it for yourself, it isn't too long and I guarantee it will answer your questions.
Hos Erof brought it to my attention that this fraction's text is actually Catholic.
There was an old and new version of this. For example, the old text (Catholic) meditates on the wound's and blood..etc of Christ, whereas in Orthodoxy, we address Christ as a person. I'm not sure if the example you gave is Catholic though, cause it's similar in the Orthodox text..
I would expect the Orthodox version to be similar, sure, but the wording of the version above gives me pause, for the reasons I mentioned in the OP. That's good. I have to wonder why they used a Catholic version in the first place, but I guess it wouldn't be the first time that RC influences got into the church (like all of the Catholic-style paintings you can find in Coptic homes, Youtube videos, and even occasionally churches, instead of Coptic icons). :( The fraction to the Son is in my liturgy book on page 312 and still has the same wording as I wrote in the OP. Maybe it's because it's an old translation (from 1992)? Do you when they made that change? Don't look at me! I put the mp3 in my Ipod and that's how it comes up in there! :) I didn't write it that way; it's automatically filled in, so I figured that's how it's spelled. Sorry.
I can't really help you with any of your questions; my source is Hos Erof. Maybe if we call him loud enough, he'll post something!
HOOOOS EROOOOOOOOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm going to go beat myself up now for not noticing Abouna Antonious' misspelled name in my iTunes....
I admit I do not know Anselmian doctrine but what I found online seems to be inline with Orthodox doctrine of propitiation. Maybe your understanding (or any RC or Protestant understanding) is not inline with Anslem's theology. I found this article that may have addressed your question.
Take a look at page 5. The author, Daniel Shannon, first describes 3 objections to Anselm's theology of atonement. The third objection seems to correlate with your question: "Anselm’s argument has nothing to do with the older doctrine and, indeed, separates itself even from the Biblical notion of a “scapegoat” whose sacrifice is demanded by an angry God. The point should be well-considered because even today theologians mistakenly attribute the ransom and scapegoat theories to Anselm." First, Shannon wants to clarify that this is not Anselm's theology. So what is Anselm's theology on divine justice.
To clarify the argument, Shannon gives a very simple similar situation to explain "divine justice": If I incurred many debts and died before I paid them, then my estate and children, as my collective heirs, will automatically incur the debts of an individual (me) and have to pay back the bank. I am not released by death and that is why nearly every bank or loan company requires life insurance. But in the case of humanity, atonement can't be made from the heirs because the heirs also incur the same debt by sinning and not doing God's will. Therefore, we've entered an endless loop. My heirs are required to pay my debts but they are recurringally incurring the same debt. This in itself says nothing about the original person who held the promissory note (God). Shannon adds to the illustration by explaining Anselm's explanation of Jesus' role: "Jesus is acting to settle what amounts to a “blood feud”; he is acting in a legal and moral capacity for both parties. But the point to understand is that for the Father, he seeks to end the conflict, but from the heirs of Adam, who have nothing to pay and keep deepening the debt, he receives the burden of payment." So Jesus is acting in favor of both parties; resolving a conflict out of love and honor for the Father and at the same time incurring the burden of the debt from humanity since He (Jesus) is an heir of Adam. The second part does not mean Jesus needed to be saved like Adam did. Anselm spent a bit of time explaining why this is true.
Let's talk about "the angry God". Shannon explains Anselm's objector's (Rashdall's) argument: "A God who requires satisfaction is not the Christian God but is in Nietzsche’s words a tyrant who imposes suffering not on the wicked but on the innocent". Shannon expanding on Anselm's entire book states, "If Rashdall’s legalistic opposition is in some sense right, then Jesus is the advocate for humanity but also has incurred the debt as “heir.” This means not that the Father requires satisfaction from Jesus but that he requires a fundamental alteration in human nature. The satisfaction of the debt of sin would require an alteration in human nature. "We could forgive the criminal his crimes, it would do no good unless the criminal had a change of heart and gave up his criminal behavior. God is faced with the same dilemma; to say that the debt is satisfied entirely by Jesus’ will without a change of heart in humanity would do no good for humanity...The only plausible way to alter our nature is by following the morally upright model of Jesus’ life devoted to truth and justice. [I would add that the Orthodox theology of atonement and altering our nature must include the sacrament of Baptism, which Shannon makes no mention of.] Jesus acting on behalf of humanity shows humanity the way of devotion to the Father, and for that he is to suffer, not by the Father’s commission but by the omission of truth and justice in our lives...Jesus suffers directly because the “infidels” reject his life and teaching. Thus, Jesus’ suffering is necessary because of our hard-heartedness, not because of the Father’s will."
Shannon's exposition of Anselm's argument can be summed up like this. "This “blood feud” is not caused, or continued, by the Father who... is committed to reconciliation, but it continues because of Adam’s heirs. They continue their wrong doings and fail to accept their debt, [and] fail to attempt repaying it by seeking forgiveness. They continue to dishonor the Father by their sins." So what was God to do? He can't force humanity to stop sinning, and at the same time, with every sin the debt increases. Shannon explains, "We already know from an earlier portion of the argument that the Father is not pursuing the punishment of humanity to the greatest possible extent... If he were to do so, he would not hand the case over to his son; he would not have already planned, knowing that Adam would sin, redemption through the Incarnation." If God was an angry God who only seeks maximum punishment, He would not have given up His only Son, nor would He have even considered reconciliation. Through the Incarnation and Resurrection, the wage of sin and death was removed from humanity, the Father was reconciled with humanity, and Adam who sinned, lost immortality, and was banished to Paradise instead of being in God's presence, was freed of his debt and returns to God's presence and becomes immortal in the second coming. What a perfect solution!!!
I know ILSM is a man of few words and I am a man who can't get to the point under 50,000 words. I envy ILSM in this respect. I think Anselm's theology does fit with the Orthodox understanding of atonement as seen in the Liturgy of St Gregory reconciliation prayer.
Does this help?
Thank you for taking the time to answer me with so much information. Unfortunately, I do not have time to read the article you've linked in any proper depth, though I did scan it for main points. I don't have much to say about it (as the objections that I would have to the topic at hand don't match those of article, I don't think).
Anyway, the explanation of the RC view of atonement as it was explained to me when I was RC was attributed it to Anselm by the Catholics themselves. I have nothing against the man myself.
Besides, the point is not about the man himself such that if it can be proved that he did/didn't teach a certain thing, there is no problem with the RC view of atonement. I don't know whether there is or not from the Coptic perspective (which is sort of why I made this thread; to see where the differences might lie), but being somewhat familiar with the general RC view, I personally do have problems with it.
And it would seem, from this thread on Coptic Hymns board that there is some difference between the Coptic and the Catholic (and for that matter, perhaps the Coptic and the Byzantine/EO) view. I would like to concentrate especially on the post by one "Peter Theodore", as I believe that is our own Fr. Peter, and what's more very much agree with his comments there regarding what Christ's sacrifice does not mean about the Father (which, I am afraid, is somewhat lost on many Catholics, and causes much trouble in their theological outlook; I am writing here as one who was trained to form that count of outlook).