Dogma of Redemption

[Ephrem]

After much looking, I finally found Metropolitan Anthony's Dogma of Redemption in English online. For those who would like to read this brilliant work, it can be found here: http://www.saintannas.com/Archived_Docs ... Redemp.pdf. The fathers at Holy Transfiguration Monastery have put this revised edition online so that it can be available to English readers while they prepare to possibly reprint it in the future.

I thought others might like to know that this was available.

Mod. Note: The link above and in the following post are no longer operational. Cyprian has taken the time to find operational links, which are listed below. Thank you, Cyprian.

HTM's English translation of Met. Antony's Dogma can currently be found here:

Dogma of Redemption

Archbishop Theophan's report on Met. Anthony's Dogma can be found (in Russian) on many websites, for example:

О догмате Искупления - Архиепископ Феофан
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books ... avskij.htm

[mikejalex]

Thank you for the reference (link), unfortunately, some of the Latin-minded, Augustinian "Orthodox", call Met Anthony a "heresiarch". I believe, the prolific mediocre writer named Moss promulgate this position.
Whereas in the seventies and eighties we suffered from scarcity of Orthodox materials in English; today, one has to protect oneself from damaging exposure to writers seeking publicity through controversy; fame instead of originality.

[Ephrem]

Yes, there's been a bit of controversy over Metropolitan Anthony's views, and particularly his work, The Dogma of Redemption. That's one reason why it's very pleasant to have this writing translated into English, so that the reader can access the Metropolitan's ideas in their original form, without the distortions of his detractors.
His detractors fail to recognize that all the recent saints and holy people very much adored and revered Vladyka Anthony, and even defended his views, including St. John (Maximovitch), St. Philaret of New York, and Bishop Gregory Grabbe.

HOCNA wrote a very detailed and correct defense of Metropolitan Anthony's views, which can be found here: http://www.saintannas.com/Archived_Docs ... of_Red.pdf.

I agree that nowadays there is a lot to be wary of as far as reading goes. We should be careful, though, not to be so over-zealous as to become bitter or, especially, mean-spirited. This controversy in particular has seen quite a bit of that, and it seems that the popularity of various views toward Metropolitan Anthony can be attributed precisely to his detractors being self-willed and mean-spirited. In Orthodoxy, one understands Theology insofar as he has become proficient spiritually, and in accordance with his faith. We ought to all struggle first of all to make a beginning in this.

Mod. Note: This link is no longer available.

[Cyprian]

Thank you for the reference (link), unfortunately, some of the Latin-minded, Augustinian "Orthodox", call Met Anthony a "heresiarch".

Could you specifically define what you mean by a "Latin-minded, Augustinian 'Orthodox'"? I'm not really familiar with the term.

I believe, the prolific mediocre writer named Moss promulgate this position.

Citation, please. Where exactly has Vladimir Moss called Met. Anthony a heresiarch? He is such a prolific writer that I surely could have missed it.

Whereas in the seventies and eighties we suffered from scarcity of Orthodox materials in English; today, one has to protect oneself from damaging exposure to writers seeking publicity through controversy; fame instead of originality.

Precisely! I often wonder what people see in the controversial and unorthodox writings of New-calendarist schismatic authors such as John Romanides, Hierotheos Vlachos, Alexander Schmemann and the rest of the Parisian school, etc. After all, there are literally thousands of writings translated into English by genuine Holy Fathers, such as Chrysostom, Ephrem, Basil, Gregory, Augustine, Symeon, etc. Why anyone would want to waste their time reading the blather published by so-called renovationist "theologians" of our day and age is beyond me.

[Ephrem]

Cyprian has a point about the many popular authors that around nowadays. As for the New-Calendar and Ecumenist writers he mentioned, while some things they teach may be "traditional", we have to view their writings with a certain suspicion. They all knew about True Orthodoxy, and yet remained in the World Orthodox Churches, so clearly there is something wrong with the way they think.

That being said, Metropolitan Anthony was, of course, neither a "New-calendarist schismatic" nor a supporter of the Parisian school.

[Cyprian]

Yes, there's been a bit of controversy over Metropolitan Anthony's views, and particularly his work, The Dogma of Redemption. That's one reason why it's very pleasant to have this writing translated into English, so that the reader can access the Metropolitan's ideas in their original form, without the distortions of his detractors.

...or the distortions of his greatest promoters! It should be noted, Met. Anthony refers to the "Blessed Augustine" in his Dogma of Redemption, but one of Met. Anthony's greatest advocates, a certain prominent so-called "theologian" priest in HOCNA, praises Met. Anthony as "St. Anthony" on public message boards, while simultaneously condemning St. Augustine as a "heresiarch"--in fact, he once claimed in a booklet he authored, that Augustine was: "the source of all Western heresy". Not surprisingly, this HOCNA priest holds a theological degree from the liberal and unorthodox St. Vladimir's Seminary in NY, which is of course an American product of the liberal-scholastic "Parisian" school.

His detractors fail to recognize that all the recent saints and holy people very much adored and revered Vladyka Anthony, and even defended his views, including St. John (Maximovitch), St. Philaret of New York, and Bishop Gregory Grabbe.

We have to be careful when we use sweeping words like "all". I don't think it is accurate to suggest that "all" saints and holy people of our time defended or agreed with Met. Anthony's views. Some of them made a distinction between the personage of Met. Anthony and his writings, defending the man, while not necessarily accepting all of his teachings.

HOCNA wrote a very detailed and correct defense of Metropolitan Anthony's views, which can be found here: http://www.saintannas.com/Archived_Docs ... of_Red.pdf.

Who taught you this? Your bishop or priest? or have you arrived at this conclusion independently on your own? HOCNA are heretics; they are not Orthodox, and their writings are extremely unreliable and dangerous for those of us who are not well-versed in the doctrines of the Holy Fathers. Wouldn't we be better off to read Athanasius, John Damascene, Cyril the Catechist, or Isaac the Syrian, or some other Holy Father, before getting bogged down in polemical disputes with these modernist, neo-traditionalist scholastics from the Parisian school of philosophy?

I agree that nowadays there is a lot to be wary of as far as reading goes.

I think we would all be better off reading 150 pages of Chrysostom or Gregory of Nyssa rather than 150 pages of Met. Anthony's Dogma and HOCNA's cacodox defense of it.

We should be careful, though, not to be so over-zealous as to become bitter or, especially, mean-spirited. This controversy in particular has seen quite a bit of that, and it seems that the popularity of various views toward Metropolitan Anthony can be attributed precisely to his detractors being self-willed and mean-spirited.

Indeed, I myself have encountered a handful of detractors of Met. Anthony who exhibit a zeal not according to knowledge, and they do in fact come across as mean-spirited when they spew mindless vitriol at his personage. However, you will encounter no shortage of mean-spirited promoters of Met. Anthony in HOCNA as well, especially those who have inherited the malicious spirit of ecumenist John Romanides.

In Orthodoxy, one understands Theology insofar as he has become proficient spiritually, and in accordance with his faith. We ought to all struggle first of all to make a beginning in this.

Wise words.

From: Not Of This World, The Life and Teaching of Fr. Seraphim Rose,

Chapter 61: ZEALOTS OF ORTHODOXY

Fr. Herman had encountered Fr. Schmemann's books when he was at Jordanville. As he explained: "When I came to Jordanville, I read three books which were bound up with my conversion: the Life of St. Seraphim, the Life of Elder Ambrose of Optina, and The Way of a Pilgrim. I found that the most interesting thing about Christianity is the ascetics, because they make all of Christ's talk about the Kingdom of God make sense. And then someone said, 'If you really want to know what's happening in Orthodoxy today, read Schmemann.' So I read it, and I was bored. I read more and I was still bored. I wondered what was wrong. And then I figured it out. He speaks abstractly, albeit eloquently, not from experience like the ascetics. And then I thought: Big deal. I could do the same -- read books and think about them. It was two-dimensional, while the saints are three-dimensional, because they have sought and attained the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. They try their best to get it across to us, and it's only our denseness that prevents us from understanding their experience."

[Ephrem]

...or the distortions of his greatest promoters! It should be noted, Met. Anthony refers to the "Blessed Augustine" in his Dogma of Redemption, but one of Met. Anthony's greatest advocates, a certain prominent so-called "theologian" priest in HOCNA, praises Met. Anthony as "St. Anthony" on public message boards, while simultaneously condemning St. Augustine as a "heresiarch"--in fact, he once claimed in a booklet he authored, that Augustine was: "the source of all Western heresy". Not surprisingly, this HOCNA priest holds a theological degree from the liberal and unorthodox St. Vladimir's Seminary in NY, which is of course an American product of the liberal-scholastic "Parisian" school.

I noticed the same thing when I read through the Dogma of Redemption, and was very pleased to see it! Metropolitan Anthony has been distorted by both sides, and I am glad to see that you are keen to this as well.

We have to be careful when we use sweeping words like "all". I don't think it is accurate to suggest that "all" saints and holy people of our time defended or agreed with Met. Anthony's views. Some of them made a distinction between the personage of Met. Anthony and his writings, defending the man, while not necessarily accepting all of his teachings.

Very good point, Cyprian, and please forgive me for that foolish mistake. It's clearly presumptive for me to say that "all" the holy people defended Metropolitan Anthony. I should clarify, that as far as I've looked, many of our glorified saints of the past century were very supportive of his views, and not only his person. I understand that several of our more exceptional people (including, for instance, Father Seraphim (Rose) or Archbishop Averky) did not support his views, and the way I put it seems to imply that I don't think of these people as "holy". Forgive that mistake, please.

Who taught you this? Your bishop or priest? or have you arrived at this conclusion independently on your own? HOCNA are heretics; they are not Orthodox, and their writings are extremely unreliable and dangerous for those of us who are not well-versed in the doctrines of the Holy Fathers. Wouldn't we be better off to read Athanasius, John Damascene, Cyril the Catechist, or Isaac the Syrian, or some other Holy Father, before getting bogged down in polemical disputes with these modernist, neo-traditionalist scholastics from the Parisian school of philosophy?

I myself am not supportive of HOCNA. I also should not have implied that this "Resolution" was fully worthy of support. It should be noted that within the "Resolution" there are, for instance, disparaging remarks concerning the Toll-Houses, which was disappointing to see. That was only in one footnote, though. As far as defending Metropolitan Anthony's views (which, after all, is its purpose), it serves quite well. The resources contained within it are very useful for making sense out of some of the confusions that have been employed by Metropolitan Anthony's detractors.

I think we would all be better off reading 150 pages of Chrysostom or Gregory of Nyssa rather than 150 pages of Met. Anthony's Dogma and HOCNA's cacodox defense of it.

Perhaps so, depending on what we are trying to figure out. As far as the Church's teaching on redemption is concerned, I think the Metropolitan's work was an important corrective to some Anselmian tendencies that had appeared in the theological schools in Russia. Metropolitan Anthony himself was very active in restoring the theological schools to a more patristic curriculum. It is well known that, due to the influences of the West since the reforms of Tsar Peter the Great, many catholic works were being read and taught in the Russian seminaries. So, I think Metropolitan Anthony was basically saying what you are saying now, except it sounded more like, "I think we would all be better off reading 150 pages of Chrysostom or Gregory of Nyssa rather than 150 pages of Anselm's Cur Deus Homo and the Roman Catholic Church's cacodox defense of it."