Your thoughts?

Seraphim Reeves · Post by **Seraphim Reeves** » Mon 2 August 2004 12:53 am

“Man was led into his captivity when he experienced God’s wrath, this wrath being the good God’s just abandonment of man. God had to be reconciled with the human race, for otherwise mankind could not be set free from the servitude.

“A sacrifice was needed to reconcile the Father on high with us and to sanctify us, since we had been soiled by fellowship with the evil one. There had to be a sacrifice which both cleansed and was clean, and a purified, sinless priest…. God overturned the devil through suffering and His Flesh which He offered as a sacrifice to God the Father, as a pure and altogether holy victim – how great is His gift! – and reconciled God to the human race…

“Since He gave His Blood, which was sinless and therefore guiltless, as a ransom for us who were liable to punishment because of our sins, He redeemed us from our guilt. He forgave us our sins, tore up the record of them on the Cross and delivered us from the devil’s tyranny. The devil was caught by the bait. It was as if he opened his mouth and hastened to pour out for himself our ransom, the Master’s Blood, which was not only guiltless but full of divine power. Then instead of being enriched by it he was strongly bound and made an example in the Cross of Christ. So we were rescued from his slavery and transformed into the kingdom of the Son of God. Before we had been vessels of wrath, but we were made vessels of mercy by Him Who bound the one who was strong compared to us, and seized his goods.”

Now what is wrong with this? It seems Orthodox enough for me? Or am I just a crypto-papist?

Seraphim

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Mon 2 August 2004 1:32 am

Who am I to argue with St. Gregory Palamas?

George Australia · Post by **George Australia** » Mon 2 August 2004 2:02 am

"To whom was the Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High Priest and Sacrifice. We were detained in bondage by the evil one, sold under sin, and received pleasures in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask, to whom was this offered and to what cause? If to the evil one, fie upon the outrage! The robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone all together. But I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed; the next, on what principle did the Blood of His Only-Begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being offered by his father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of a human victim? Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the Father, Whom it is manifest that he obeys in all things."
-St. Gregory the Theologian, Second oration on Pascha.
Now what is wrong with this? It seems Orthodox enough for me?

Seraphim Reeves · Post by **Seraphim Reeves** » Mon 2 August 2004 11:05 am

George,

I accept both Gregories...ostensibly the stavroclastic "purgers of scholasticism" do not.

Seraphim

George Australia · Post by **George Australia** » Mon 2 August 2004 8:50 pm

seraphim reeves wrote:
I accept both Gregories...ostensibly the stavroclastic "purgers of scholasticism" do not.

Dear Seraphim,
The Western over emphasis on the Cross as "satisfaction" is off the mark as is the denial of the relevance of the Cross. The "purgers of scholasticism", and the believers in the "Western Captivity" of the Church are not necessarily stavroclasts; but I can see how they may appear so to eyes which only see the Cross as "satisfaction".
George

Seraphim Reeves · Post by **Seraphim Reeves** » Wed 4 August 2004 10:05 pm

George Australia,

The Western over emphasis on the Cross as "satisfaction" is off the mark as is the denial of the relevance of the Cross. The "purgers of scholasticism", and the believers in the "Western Captivity" of the Church are not necessarily stavroclasts; but I can see how they may appear so to eyes which only see the Cross as "satisfaction".

I do not think they are one and all stavroclasts - but I think some indeed are, without wishing to "name names". The point is that either extreme (of the heterodox west, or those who have zeal without knowledge in the Orthodox fols) are bad, and not in keeping with the continuous tradition of the Church. This is why I agree with Fr.Seraphim of Platina (who was very conscious of both stavroclasm, and the immoderate attitude of many self styled traditionalists), that there is a need to stick with the continuing Church, and for those who qualify, the continuing Russian Orthodox Church - and not to new, re-envisioned, theoretical fantasies of what the Church "is" or ought to be.

This includes not simply the practical life of the Church, but also Her articulation of doctrine. I know from my own experience the dangers of listening to such immoderate, ignorant zeal - it leads to confusion, private theologies, and a bizarre sort of "Byzantine Protestantism" (save it's "sola Rudder" rather than "sola Scriptura".)

Seraphim

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Wed 4 August 2004 10:43 pm

Seraphim, I've held off saying anything (actually I edited a number of posts), but do you realise how judgmental you've become, even as you've moved towards a moderate position? Please go back and reread your posts over the last two weeks, and note how you have grown increasingly judgmental and harsh in your attitudes towards others, even as you've grown increasingly moderate in your theology.

Also, I'm not sure how you can say on one thread: "substantially, I am in agreement in a basic sense with that 'Matthewite' position," and then join ROCOR? As I'm sure you know, I don't count ROCOR as schismatic or anything, I just don't understand this; it seems inconsistent?