Do Eastern Catholics share an Orthodox understanding of the atonement...

[josephback]

By which I mean, do they view sin as something that God punishes us for(like the West), or do they view sin as something that God rescues us from(like the Orthodox East)? And is the second view acceptable in Catholic thought? Thanks in advance

[Biedrik]

Originally Posted by josephback

By which I mean, do they view sin as something that God punishes us for(like the West), or do they view sin as something that God rescues us from(like the Orthodox East)? And is the second view acceptable in Catholic thought? Thanks in advance

The second one certainly is acceptable to Catholic thought. It's why we call Jesus Christ our savior, because he has saved us from sin. If one pays attention, then one sees that the first and second views aren't contradictory. Sin can be something to be saved from, and something to be punished.

[silicasandra]

Originally Posted by josephback

By which I mean, do they view sin as something that God punishes us for(like the West), or do they view sin as something that God rescues us from(like the Orthodox East)? And is the second view acceptable in Catholic thought? Thanks in advance

I've never understood it this way - my understanding was that sin IS our punishment, as it's something we do that takes us away from God. We choose to sin and our relationship with God suffers. But God will always rescue us from it if we ask for it and are sincere in our asking (the second part of your question.)

I'm still somewhat of a newbie, though (four years, three not very well catechized. ) But I've never heard sin defined in the Roman Catholic Church the way you've described it here.

[Fone Bone 2001]

Originally Posted by josephback

By which I mean, do they view sin as something that God punishes us for(like the West), or do they view sin as something that God rescues us from(like the Orthodox East)? And is the second view acceptable in Catholic thought? Thanks in advance

I'm not an eastern Christian, but I'm 99.9% certain that eastern Catholics hold the view that you identify as Orthodox/eastern.

In my opinion, not only is that latter view "acceptable" in Catholic thought, but it is also more accurate. "Punishment" for sin - like all legal terminology applied to matters of the divine - is philosophical language that applies analogously, not univocally. In paragraph 1472, the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself defines sin's "eternal punishment" as "privation of eternal life," and it defines sin's "temporal punishment" as a series of "unhealthy attachments."

In other words, sin is its own punishment, as silicasandra said.

The Catechism goes on to say, "These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin" (1472). As such, Orthodox Christians make a huge mistake when they believe that western Catholic Christianity does not actually share their view on the atonement, or when they believe western theologians speak of punishment and blood atonement univocally rather than analogously.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by josephback

By which I mean, do they view sin as something that God punishes us for(like the West), or do they view sin as something that God rescues us from(like the Orthodox East)? And is the second view acceptable in Catholic thought? Thanks in advance

No. In the Eastern view, sin is not an offense, but a failure. Our goal in Eastern theology is not to make up for our wrong doings but rather repair and restore our nature to its original state at the time of creation, which is to be the image and likeness of God. So sin is a failure to be like God. The more we sin, the less we are like God.

Is this acceptable in (I presume you mean Western) Catholic thought? Of course it is. Just read Theology of the Body by Blessed Pope John Paul II. He brings in a lot of the Eastern teachings on theosis.

Just a funny side comment. My previous RC pastor teaches TotB in the Archdiocese. And he markets TotB as "truly groundbreaking stuff". He says this as if its a completely new way of thinking about the faith. But Blessed Pope John Paul II really is just introducing a lot of the Eastern understanding into the West. That is why in Orientale Lumen he said that there are some teachings expressed better in one tradition over the other. This is one of them where I guess he realized the Eastern approach is a much better received message today than the legalism of the West. Because people in a way are tired of "if you sin you will go to hell" kind of preaching. Its not that its not taught in the East, the focus really is achieving the state that we partake in the life of God.

[mardukm]

Dear brother Joseph,

Originally Posted by josephback

By which I mean, do they view sin as something that God punishes us for(like the West), or do they view sin as something that God rescues us from(like the Orthodox East)? And is the second view acceptable in Catholic thought? Thanks in advance

The ORIENTAL Tradition (Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Indian, etc.), as distinct from the Eastern Byzantine Tradition, views Atonement in much the same way as the Latin Tradition, except for the guilt part.

Blessings,
Marduk

[josephback]

K. Thanks everybody.

[josephback]

Originally Posted by silicasandra

I'm still somewhat of a newbie, though (four years, three not very well catechized. ) But I've never heard sin defined in the Roman Catholic Church the way you've described it here.

I was taking my understanding from a non-Catholic website, so my knowledge was second hand I really like the way that the East understands things, but I believe in papal supremacy so can't be Orthodox. The nearest Eastern Catholic parish is 200 miles away

[Vico]

Originally Posted by josephback

By which I mean, do they view sin as something that God punishes us for(like the West), or do they view sin as something that God rescues us from(like the Orthodox East)? And is the second view acceptable in Catholic thought? Thanks in advance

CCC The punishments of sin

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.


Baltimore Catechism No. 3:

Q. 800. Why does the priest give us a penance after Confession?
A. The priest gives us a penance after Confession, that we may satisfy God for the temporal punishment due to our sins.

Q. 801. Why should we have to satisfy for our sins if Christ has fully satisfied for them?
A. Christ has fully satisfied for our sins and after our baptism we were free from all guilt and had no satisfaction to make. But when we willfully sinned after baptism, it is but just that we should be obliged to make some satisfaction.

Q. 802. Is the slight penance the priest gives us sufficient to satisfy for all the sins confessed?
A. The slight penance the priest gives us is not sufficient to satisfy for all the sins confessed:
Because there is no real equality between the slight penance given and the punishment deserved for sin;
Because we are all obliged to do penance for sins committed, and this would not be necessary if the penance given in confession satisfied for all. The penance is given and accepted in confession chiefly to show our willingness to do penance and make amends for our sins.

Q. 803. Does not the Sacrament of Penance remit all punishment due to sin?
A. The Sacrament of Penance remits the eternal punishment due to sin, but it does not always remit the temporal punishment which God requires as satisfaction for our sins.

Q. 804. Why does God require a temporal punishment as a satisfaction for sin?
A. God requires a temporal punishment as a satisfaction for sin to teach us the great evil of sin and to prevent us from falling again.

Q. 805. Which are the chief means by which we satisfy God for the temporal punishment due to sin?
A. The chief means by which we satisfy God for the temporal punishment due to sin are: Prayer, Fasting, Almsgiving; all spiritual and corporal works of mercy, and the patient suffering of the ills of life.