Dogma of Redemption

[jgress]

You don't say.

Yes, he and one other ROCOR hierarch (who later went to the MP) protested against Metropolitan Anthony's work, accusing it of being heretical. The ROCOR Synod subsequently did an investigation of the work and definitively approved the work. Later the same issue was raised by Abp Leonty of Chile, but Metropolitan Anastassy refused to allow it to be brought up in Sobor, saying that it had already been discussed once and for all.

Fr. Seraphim Rose later took up the side of Abp Theophan as well, but when he tried to get it brought up in Sobor, St. Philaret refused to add it to the agenda, as Metropolitan Anastassy had done before him.

So it's not the case, as V Moss has claimed, that the DoR was "quietly suppressed" by ROCOR?

[Suaidan]

You don't say.

Yes, he and one other ROCOR hierarch (who later went to the MP) protested against Metropolitan Anthony's work, accusing it of being heretical. The ROCOR Synod subsequently did an investigation of the work and definitively approved the work. Later the same issue was raised by Abp Leonty of Chile, but Metropolitan Anastassy refused to allow it to be brought up in Sobor, saying that it had already been discussed once and for all.

Fr. Seraphim Rose later took up the side of Abp Theophan as well, but when he tried to get it brought up in Sobor, St. Philaret refused to add it to the agenda, as Metropolitan Anastassy had done before him.

So it's not the case, as V Moss has claimed, that the DoR was "quietly suppressed" by ROCOR?

If two ROCOR first hierarchs in a row comprising 49 years of its existence refused to allow it to be brought up in Sobor, it sounds like they suppressed formal discussion on it. However, the work only became particularly well known after its ideas were popularized anew by HTM and Alexander Kailomiros.

I've never read the work in question, but the works surrounding it seem really scary to me. They seem to imply that Christ did not die for our sins, and they seem to take what would be the clear meaning of the whole of the Fathers in cohesion by focusing on certain Fathers, to create a position on Christ's death and original sin which is basically alien to Orthodoxy.

In other words, I tend towards believing Abp Theophan of Poltava is in fact correct.

[Ephrem]

So it's not the case, as V Moss has claimed, that the DoR was "quietly suppressed" by ROCOR?

No, this is entirely untrue. It was officially approved by the Synod Abroad in 1925. After this approval, Archbishop Theophan of Poltava and Bishop Seraphim of Boguchar filed a complaint with the Synod, asking that the issue be re-examined. The Synod appointed Bishop Gabriel of Chelyabinsk to do a thorough study of the work, taking into account the points raised by the hierarchs Theophan and Seraphim. Bishop Gabriel completed his study, and ultimately refuted the claims of Archbishop Theophan and Bishop Seraphim.

In lieu of this, the Synod once again approved Metropolitan Anthony's work. The resolution read: “In reviewing, for a second time, the question of approving the catechism of Metropolitan Anthony as a textbook… it has been decided: On the basis of our former judgments, and after a thorough discussion of the objections of Archbishop Theophan and Bishop Seraphim, and the review by Bishop Gabriel in connection with Metropolitan Anthony’s brochure The Dogma of Redemption, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad resolves: Not finding in the catechism of Metropolitan Anthony the deviations from Church doctrine indicated by Archbishop Theophan and Bishop Seraphim, no basis is found to revoke the Synodal resolution of March 27 / April 9, 1925.” (emphasis mine)

Also, Metropolitan Anthony's work was compiled by Archbishop Nikon and published by the North American Diocese of ROCOR several times during the times of both Metropolitan Anastassy and St. Metropolitan Philaret.

If two ROCOR first hierarchs in a row comprising 49 years of its existence refused to allow it to be brought up in Sobor, it sounds like they suppressed formal discussion on it.

Metropolitan Anastassy refused to allow it to be brought up in Sobor because, according to him, the issue had been settled once and for all in Serbia, that is, at the councils in 1925 and 1926. This was not an effort to suppress formal discussion on the matter, but merely being firm about the fact that it had already been sufficiently discussed, and therefore it was pointless to bring it up again.

However, the work only became particularly well known after its ideas were popularized anew by HTM and Alexander Kailomiros.

This is untrue. Perhaps this is true for Enlgish speakers, but this is not so in Russian. The work was very popular in Russia shortly before the revolution and was also very well-known in Serbia and Abroad afterwards. It was praised by many people. In fact, Archimandrite Justin Popovich, Bishop Gregory Grabbe, and St. John Maximovitch, while still students, all collaborated on an article defending Metropolitan Anthony's Catechism (in which is contained the Dogma of Redemption). This was in response to a "rude article" written, which attacked the catechism from a "scholastic point of view" (Bishop Gregory's words).

I've never read the work in question, but the works surrounding it seem really scary to me. They seem to imply that Christ did not die for our sins, and they seem to take what would be the clear meaning of the whole of the Fathers in cohesion by focusing on certain Fathers, to create a position on Christ's death and original sin which is basically alien to Orthodoxy.

This is where all the criticism comes from. People don't read the work, they accept the accusations of others blindly, and don't bother to see for themselves or investigate the matter. Nowhere does Metropolitan Anthony say that Christ did not die for our sins, and nowhere would he have said it, because that was absolutely alien to his teaching.

The fact is that our greatest saints and holy people of the past century were extremely enthusiastic about Metropolitan Anthony's ideas, even defending them and propagating them. However, a few very vocal people have misunderstood this teaching and accused it of being a heresy, and have wrought a great deal of confusion thereby. They fail to recognize that to accuse this teaching of being a heresy, they subsequently condemn St. John Maximovitch, St. Philaret the New Confessor, Archimandrite Justin Popovich, and, curiously, all of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, and everyone that traces its origin back to them, because this was accepted and taught by their first-hierarchs and defended by it in council.

[Suaidan]

For those who haven't read it, The Dogma of Redemption is available online. Having finished it, I am not altogether satisfied with it. At times the book seems to stare down the precipice of Pelagianism; at other points it seems to make the purpose of the crucifixion almost a Divine afterthought.

I realize that because of the holiness of life that Metr Anthony lived, few could truly criticize him, and that seemed to be the result in many examples I can remember in his case. But lacking that experience personally, my reading of the book is starkly negative.

Mod Note: Link is no longer working.

[Suaidan]

This is untrue. Perhaps this is true for Enlgish speakers, but this is not so in Russian. The work was very popular in Russia shortly before the revolution and was also very well-known in Serbia and Abroad afterwards. It was praised by many people. In fact, Archimandrite Justin Popovich, Bishop Gregory Grabbe, and St. John Maximovitch, while still students, all collaborated on an article defending Metropolitan Anthony's Catechism (in which is contained the Dogma of Redemption). This was in response to a "rude article" written, which attacked the catechism from a "scholastic point of view" (Bishop Gregory's words).

I stand corrected.

I've never read the work in question, but the works surrounding it seem really scary to me. They seem to imply that Christ did not die for our sins, and they seem to take what would be the clear meaning of the whole of the Fathers in cohesion by focusing on certain Fathers, to create a position on Christ's death and original sin which is basically alien to Orthodoxy.

This is where all the criticism comes from. People don't read the work, they accept the accusations of others blindly, and don't bother to see for themselves or investigate the matter. Nowhere does Metropolitan Anthony say that Christ did not die for our sins, and nowhere would he have said it, because that was absolutely alien to his teaching.

I have since read it; it took about two hours. (It's about 50 pages long). However, he does say a number of disturbing things in his work; including that Christ did not HAVE to die for our sins.

"And a second time [emphasis added. Ed.] the same oppressing sorrow possessed His most pure soul on the Cross, when the cruel masses, far from being moved to pity by His terrible physical sufferings, maliciously ridiculed the Sufferer; and as to His moral suffering, they were unable even to surmise it. One must suppose that during that night in Gethsemane, the thought and feeling of the God–Man embraced all of fallen humanity numbering many, many millions, and He wept with loving sorrow over each individual separately, as only the omniscient heart of God could. In this did our redemption consist. This is why God, the God–Man, and only He, could be our Redeemer. Not an angel, nor a man. And not at all because the satisfaction of Divine wrath demanded the most costly sacrifice. Ever since the night in Gethsemane and that day on Golgotha, every believer, even he who is just beginning to believe, recognizes his inner bond with Christ and turns to Him in his prayers as to the inexhaustible source of moral regenerating force. Very few are able to explain why they so simply acquired faith in the possibility of deriving new moral energy and [p. 29] sanctification from calling on Christ, but no believer doubts it, nor even do heretics."

In this it is clear that he has equated the suffering in Gethsemane with the crucifixion.

"We have said that the act of redemption consists only in the rebirth of a man, while rebirth consists in his correction. Does this imply, then, that if a fallen man could correct himself through repentance alone and through a struggle with himself under the guidance of God’s commandments and the good examples of the righteous men sent by God, that there would be no need for the redemption? I have read this same question and a definite affirmative answer to it in Chrysostom’s works; he stated it approximately as follows: if men’s repentance could lead them to a victory over vice, then the incarnation would not have been necessary."

If anyone can find the citation from St Chrysostom, I'd be glad to see it. However, the editors have granted no citation, or I missed it.

"Let us now ask: Who was responsible for fashioning human nature so that a good desire and repentance are, nevertheless, powerless to renew a man in actuality and so that he falls helplessly under the burden of his passions if he does not have grace assisting him? God the Creator, of course. Further, why could not the Creator make men good by force? Because of His perfect justice, according to which only the free decision of free creatures is considered good. Why, then, did the Creator not make human nature in such a way that repentance would immediately make a man sinless again, as Adam was before the Fall? The answer: because of the same Divine justice for which evil is so hateful, that the process of freely turning from it toward good is marked by a long period of warfare and suffering; in addition, once human nature had fallen, it was deprived of the patience and strength for a victorious battle with sin, and only in isolated instances does it triumph over it. For a final victory human nature needs help from without, help which is, moreover, from someone who is both holy and compassionate towards it, that is, from a sufferer and moreover from a Divine Sufferer, as we explained above."

What is missing from Metr Anthony's explanation-- one that he seems to stress throughout the work-- is why would we need a sufferer or Divine Sufferer, and this seems to be absent from his work.

"And so, who is responsible that there are no other means to restore and save men except the incarnation of the Son of God and the grievous sufferings of His compassionate love for us? The Creator Who gave our nature such laws that it became so weak in its own powers when it abandoned obedience to its Creator.

And yet here we return to the original concept of original sin shared with the Westerners Metr Anthony condemns: a humanity tainted by sin by generation, something which he seems to deny earlier in the text.

"[p. 41] This is the sense in which one can and should affirm that Jesus Christ was a sacrifice for our sinful life, for the sin of Adam as the first man and ancestor of sinners. If one wishes, one can even accept the phrase “satisfaction of God’s justice” in this sense, for if the Lord had been only merciful and not righteous, only piteous and not just, He could have re-formed human nature without the compassionate, torturous love of His incarnate Son, so that every sinner who repented and was striving toward perfection would be able by himself to reach spiritual perfection, and with it, eternal salvation. The Lord told John, “It becometh us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15). Therefore, the act of redemption—the exploit of compassionate love which pours Christ’s holy will into the souls of believers—could not, as an act of love, violate the other laws of life, that is, justice. And yet it has not infrequently been considered from this secondary, non-essential, and incidental viewpoint, a viewpoint which the sons of Roman legal culture, as well as the Jews, considered extremely important."

And further:

"Christ’s cleansing Blood, saving Cross, life-giving tomb, and healing wounds are all expressions and images which are substituted (in the epistles of the Apostles and Fathers, and in the Church’s prayers) for the general concept of Christ’s redeeming Passion; those aspects of His exploit, of His saving grief and Passion, which make the greatest impression on us, are taken up here, especially the Holy Cross, but also the nails, the sponge, and the reed (in the Octoëchos). We are, of course, far from insisting [p. 52] that the only meaning of our Lord’s bodily suffering and, in particular, of His crucifixion and death was to provide the faithful with a way of conceiving His spiritual grief. It is probable that because of the connection between the soul and body, there is a deeper mystical sense here, but in any case, from the viewpoint of moral monism, the Lord’s crucifixion and death are not without meaning for our salvation, for, by bringing men to compunction, they reveal to them at least some portion of the redemptive sacrifice, and, by leading them to love for Christ, they prove saving for them and for all of us."

Effectively, Metr Anthony's teaching appears to be that the purpose of the Crucifixion is to make us feel guilty. Unless I have completely missed it, it's the only explanation he gives for the crucifixion, even though he poses the question.

[Ephrem]

The document you linked to included an introduction by Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) and a preface by Archbishop Vitaly which address many of the criticisms you mentioned. Also, the Resolution mentioned earlier, to which there is also a link provided above, addresses the others as well.

From what I can tell, many of the criticisms of the Dogma of Redemption are the result, primarily, of an inattentive reading of the work. For instance, you say that "effectively, Metr Anthony's teaching appears to be that the purpose of the Crucifixion is to make us feel guilty." Whereas, this is completely contradicted by the very text you quote, in which Metropolitan Anthony says he is "of course, far from insisting that the only meaning of our Lord’s bodily suffering and, in particular, of His crucifixion and death was to provide the faithful with a way of conceiving His spiritual grief." We see that he does not limit the saving work to this end only, though he does say that it is indeed an end that is achieved thereby.

I myself am not a theologian, and these sorts of things are very difficult for me to understand. So I hope you will forgive me for not being able to speak to each of your criticisms, and forgive me even more so if I have misunderstood you somehow. I would only humbly point out, as I have already, that many of our holy people were very much in support of this, and did not find in this work the same problems that you and others have found. We should be careful not to dismiss this fact, and we should be all the more careful not to presumptuously place ourselves above these saints, or to disregard them.

The reality is that those who criticize this work are the more vocal group, the more so for english readers. Fr. Seraphim Rose and Vladimir Moss, for good or for ill, are the most accessible resources to many english-speaking Orthodox. They learned of the conflict, not having been involved in it themselves, and for whatever reason took the side of Abp Theophan. The truth is that Abp Theophan voluntarily retreated from the Synod Abroad and ended his days in seclusion, having abandoned his flock, and in communion with no one. His only vocal supporter in the Synod, Bishop Seraphim, left ROCOR for the MP. It is unclear to me why Abp Theophan is viewed as such a saint by these writers. Perhaps he is worthy of the title, I cannot say. I can say, however, that there are those whom the Church has deemed worthy of these titles, namely Saints Philaret of New York, John of San Francisco, and Ilarion Troitsky, all of whom were supportive of these views, and even defended them. Again, it would be unwise to ignore their witness.

[Suaidan]

The document you linked to included an introduction by Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) and a preface by Archbishop Vitaly which address many of the criticisms you mentioned. Also, the Resolution mentioned earlier, to which there is also a link provided above, addresses the others as well.

Considering I just devoted 2 hours reading the text only to confirm it is quite problematic, something I would have known without reading secondary sources, I request politely that you please cite the text to which you refer.

From what I can tell, many of the criticisms of the Dogma of Redemption are the result, primarily, of an inattentive reading of the work. For instance, you say that "effectively, Metr Anthony's teaching appears to be that the purpose of the Crucifixion is to make us feel guilty." Whereas, this is completely contradicted by the very text you quote, in which Metropolitan Anthony says he is "of course, far from insisting that the only meaning of our Lord’s bodily suffering and, in particular, of His crucifixion and death was to provide the faithful with a way of conceiving His spiritual grief." We see that he does not limit the saving work to this end only, though he does say that it is indeed an end that is achieved thereby.

You have quoted a far larger quote out of context. Your argument here is that this is not the only meaning to the crucifixion. Without getting into the question of what else the crucifixion means (because Metr Anthony does not answer this, and I request you cite the text to demonstrate otherwise), I will have to do something I don't enjoy doing: spelling out the text to see what a contextual reading states. However, as you say the text I quoted is a contradiction of my understanding, let's examine who is contradicting himself.

There are either of two ways to read the context of the quote in our discussion: either (a) that all of the events of the Incarnation and Crucifixion, et cetera, occurred to make us feel compunction or (b) that the event of the crucifixion had a number of purposes and meaning to the believers. They are very different understandings, and therefore unless the text is completely ambiguous, one should be obvious.

"Christ’s cleansing Blood, saving Cross, life-giving tomb, and healing wounds are all expressions and images which are substituted (in the epistles of the Apostles and Fathers, and in the Church’s prayers) for the general concept of Christ’s redeeming Passion;"

Five items (four individual and one collective comprising the set) are then substituted for two other items (types of things within the Church) all comprise one item.

"...those aspects of His exploit, of His saving grief and Passion, which make the greatest impression on us, are taken up here, especially the Holy Cross, but also the nails, the sponge, and the reed (in the Octoëchos)."

We once again find the above subsets with the addition of the fact that they "make the greatest impression on us".

"We are, of course, far from insisting [p. 52] that the only meaning of our Lord’s bodily suffering and, in particular, of His crucifixion and death was to provide the faithful with a way of conceiving His spiritual grief."

Here you would be correct if this was all that was said. However, it was not, and in order to make your argument valid, you must extract a sentence from a paragraph-- and weakly, since the statement "We are, of course, far from insisting" implies that if the only value gained was the impression cited by the author, it would be sufficient. However, in the context of the essay, he is answering potential detractors. That is far from changing his meaning. It is only softening it.

"It is probable that because of the connection between the soul and body, there is a deeper mystical sense here, but in any case, from the viewpoint of moral monism, the Lord’s crucifixion and death are not without meaning for our salvation, for, by bringing men to compunction, they reveal to them at least some portion of the redemptive sacrifice, and, by leading them to love for Christ, they prove saving for them and for all of us."

Now I want you to consider the context. This entire paragraph is part of a response to the question of the meaning of the crucifixion. In fact, Metr Anthony INTENTIONALLY does not deal with other potential meanings of the crucifixion. This is because his intended point was EXACTLY what you accuse me of misunderstanding due to "inattentive reading".

I myself am not a theologian, and these sorts of things are very difficult for me to understand. So I hope you will forgive me for not being able to speak to each of your criticisms, and forgive me even more so if I have misunderstood you somehow. I would only humbly point out, as I have already, that many of our holy people were very much in support of this, and did not find in this work the same problems that you and others have found. We should be careful not to dismiss this fact, and we should be all the more careful not to presumptuously place ourselves above these saints, or to disregard them.

May God forgive; I for one am not offended, but I have a request. Please be simpler of speech.

To apologize and say that these things are difficult to understand didn't stop you from (a) implying that I didn't read them carefully nor (b) stating that in fact the two letters from the Bishops in question answered the things I wrote.

Many holy people were also AGAINST what Metropolitan Anthony wrote. Furthermore, as far as I can see we can judge by the fruits of the teaching. If we look at HTM and Abp Lazar Puhalo, which was something you seemed uninterested in discussing earlier, they are ardent defenders of a host of revisionist teachings within Orthodoxy. From my perspective, The Dogma of Redemption, alongside the Toll-Houses, was where these battles in the English-speaking world began.

I also read this interest the Sermon of St Philaret, which interestingly enough seemed almost to soften the positions Metr Anthony stated.

The reality is that those who criticize this work are the more vocal group, the more so for english readers. Fr. Seraphim Rose and Vladimir Moss, for good or for ill, are the most accessible resources to many english-speaking Orthodox.

Well, if you discount HTM, Synaxis Press, Lazar Puhalo, Fr John Romanides and other critics of all things Western, you will eventually realize that such people in the English speaking world are a sizeable minority, if not the majority, among Orthodox who even bother to debate these matters. This shameful reality indicates that people really do follow what is most carefully packaged. Working so hard to make Orthodoxy "different" has made such "Orthodoxy" different from Orthodoxy!

I frankly was never interested in this discussion-- nor Metr Anthony's book-- till today. But the correct position is obvious to me.

They learned of the conflict, not having been involved in it themselves, and for whatever reason took the side of Abp Theophan. The truth is that Abp Theophan voluntarily retreated from the Synod Abroad and ended his days in seclusion, having abandoned his flock, and in communion with no one.

NONE of the current defenders of the Dogma of Redemption (if you hadn't noticed, it's published on a HOCNA website) were "involved in it themselves", none of them having been alive or "vocal" having been involved. The simple reality is that Metropolitan Anthony died in... 1936? Who of the defenders of the book-- when it was originally approved in 1925 were alive besides say, Bishop Gregory?

His only vocal supporter in the Synod, Bishop Seraphim, left ROCOR for the MP. It is unclear to me why Abp Theophan is viewed as such a saint by these writers. Perhaps he is worthy of the title, I cannot say. I can say, however, that there are those whom the Church has deemed worthy of these titles, namely Saints Philaret of New York, John of San Francisco, and Ilarion Troitsky, all of whom were supportive of these views, and even defended them. Again, it would be unwise to ignore their witness.

It is also unwise to assume this was solely the position of Abp Theophan, and furthermore to imply Abp Theophan was a sole voice of dissent when I thought we were past that point in the discussion. The book incited a great deal of hostile opposition within ROCOR alone.