Ephrem wrote: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.