Dogma of Redemption

[Archimandrit Nilos]

Yes, indeed Anthony Khrapovitsky was a protestantophil rationalistic heresiarch with his heretic "DOGMA OF REDEMPTION". This is not the Florinite writer Vladimir Moss from Guildford (now occupied with the Serbian question) who is saying this. Archbishop Theophan Bystrov (+1941 in France), member of the Synod of ROCOR, this holy ermite and strong defender in the right faith of Christ's Redemption was against Khrapovitsky. Deplorable is the fact that the so called Florinite HOCNA has taken position in favour of Khrapovitsky and of his booklet about the "DOGMA OF REDEMPTION". This is a "Redemption" without the Holy Cross !

[Ephrem]

Metropolitan Anthony in no way denied the place of the Cross in our redemption. He merely denied that the Cross was demanded because God was offended and needed to be satisfied the way that a Knight had to satisfy his wrath in a duel. He argued that the reason for the Cross was not God's infinite wrath or necessity for retribution, but precisely His boundless love and endless mercy.

This is contrary to the Roman Catholic dogma as defined by Anselm and Aquinas (not found anywhere in the Holy Fathers), which says that God was offended and had to kill His Son in order to get over it.

[Archimandrit Nilos]

I cannot agree with the whitewash of the great heresiarch Anthony Khrapovitsky with the preceding statement. The reference of Anselm von Canterbury is unsuitable and useless. Khrapovitsky was a modernist, rationalist and protestantophil, an enemy of the true faith in Christ's Redemption.

[jgress]

Fr Nilos, I don't support your depiction of Met Anthony as a "heresiarch". Not only was he never condemned for heresy, but I don't think anyone, even Abp Theophan, treated him as a heretic, even if they disagreed with some of his teachings. Please stop using that label.

[Ephrem]

Forgive me, but I do not find the reference to Anslem of Canterbury to be useless. It was precisely against Anselm's theology that Metropolitan Anthony was writing. This theology had been taught openly in the theological schools in Russia in the 18th and 19th centuries. Very many Roman Catholic writings had been accepted by academic theology in Russia. This demanded an Orthodox corrective, which is what Metropolitan Anthony's Dogma of Redemption was intended to be.

[Suaidan]

Yes, indeed Anthony Khrapovitsky was a protestantophil rationalistic heresiarch with his heretic "DOGMA OF REDEMPTION". This is not the Florinite writer Vladimir Moss from Guildford (now occupied with the Serbian question) who is saying this. Archbishop Theophan Bystrov (+1941 in France), member of the Synod of ROCOR, this holy ermite and strong defender in the right faith of Christ's Redemption was against Khrapovitsky. Deplorable is the fact that the so called Florinite HOCNA has taken position in favour of Khrapovitsky and of his booklet about the "DOGMA OF REDEMPTION". This is a "Redemption" without the Holy Cross !

Dear Archimandrite Nilos, who is the first-hierarch of the True Orthodox Church in Russia today?

[Clovis]

Fr Nilos, I don't support your depiction of Met Anthony as a "heresiarch". Not only was he never condemned for heresy, but I don't think anyone, even Abp Theophan, treated him as a heretic, even if they disagreed with some of his teachings. Please stop using that label.

Metropolitan Anthony of sorrowful memory indeed was a heretic, and indeed his heresies had already been condemned by Church and if you read the report of Archbishop Theophan of joyous memory you will see that he states this clearly and lists where he falls under anathema; the canons of the Council of Carthage against Pelagianism is somewhere to start. ROCOR in its typical confusing fashion didnt settle the issue. Met Anthony might have been in the Church but he was not of Church. You are right he wasnt a heresiarch because he only vomited up again the heresy of the Roman Catholic Abelard; which was condemned by Roman Catholicism itself!