The ever-virginity of Mary [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Justin

18-08-2002, 03:25 AM

Here is, in my opinion, the explanation:

"And [Joseph] new her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son" [Mt. 1:25]... In discussing the verse "knew her not till," St. John Chrysostom writes that "The evangelist uses the word 'till,'(eos) not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards Joseph knew Mary, but to inform thee, that before the birth, the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why the word 'till'? It is usual in Scripture often to do this. It uses this expression without reference to limited times. Also, in the account of Noah and the ark likewise, it says, 'The raven returned not till the earth dried up' [Gen. 8:7]. Yet, the raven did not return even after that time. Scripture also says about God, 'From age until age thou art, [Ps. 89:2] not as fixing limits in this case. Also in the case, 'in His days shall righteousness dawn forth an abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away' [Ps. 71:7], it does not set a limit to this fair part of creation." [John Chrysostom, Homily 5 on Matthew]

Blessed Jerome, in his treatise "On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary," also adds: "And what does it mean when Scripture says, 'For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet'? [1 Cor. 15:25]. Is this Lord then to reign only for the time till His enemies shall be under His feet? And David, when he says 'Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the ahnds of their masters, as the eyes of the handmaid look unto the hands of her mistress, so do our eyes look unto the Lord oru God, until he takes pity on us' [Ps. 122:2], does not mean that David will have his eyes toward the Lord until he obtains mercy and, then having obtained it, he will direct them toward the earth." [Jerome, On the Ever-Virginity of the Blessed Mary] Blessed Jerome also comments that when the Savior speaks to His Apostles, saying, "Lo, I am with you always, even until the end of the world" [Mt. 28:20], it certainly does not mean that after the end of the world, He will step away from His disciples!

St. John Chrysostom continues: "In such a manner having become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail and a childbearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her and kept her in the place of a wife?" [John Chrysostom, Homily 5 on Matthew] Saint Basil believed in Mary's perpetual virginity and claimed that "until" could be used indefinately. "Lovers of Christ cannot hear that the Theotokos ever ceased to be a virgin." [PG, 31, 1468A]

The above is from: "The Life of the Virgin Mary, The Theotokos," (Holy Apostles Convent, 1989), pp. 148-149

Chad Duskin

21-08-2002, 10:05 AM

Sinjin,

One of the problems with English translations of the scriptures is that it is nearly impossible to determine how to translate a particular word or phrase that has subtle meannings in Greek into English. The word eos is one of them. It can be used as both an adjective and a conjunction. In the verse relating to Joseph's relationship to Mary (Matt. 1:25) the word eos can be translated as both until and while. The word eos here is being used as a conjunction and can also be translated while implying that this pregnancy and birth had absolutely nothing to do with a physical relationship between Mary and Joseph and that as all of this was happening he treated her as a virgin even as she gave birth to a son. That is a remarkable thought and testifies to his faith in what was happening and to the fact that Mary remained a virgin through this experience. The focus here should be on the fact that Joseph kept her a virgin (did not know her in Greek) while this happened and did not try to cover it up or divorce her (loose her in Greek). The verse should literally be translated and he was not knowing her while she was bearing a son and he called his name Jesus. It was a continual action and the word until takes away from this meaning because of the implications it has in English with an action that is terminated when a second action takes place (in this case the faulty notion of Joseph not knowing her and then knowing her after she gives birth). The word while is not much clearer in English, but conveys the fact that the verse is connecting continual actions - that of Joseph and that of Mary. It emphasizes that Joseph took her as his wife without reserve and allowed Mary to live as she did before the marriage with her vow of virginity.

I would also read Ezekiel 44:1-2 in relation to this verse. The Fathers have nearly always seen this in reference to Mary.

Chad

Chad Duskin

21-08-2002, 01:07 PM

Just an after thought to my post above:

The Greek word eos is different in meaning from the English until in the respect that in Greek it is used to describe an action that is later joined by an anticipated action without causing the first action to cease. The examples cited by Justin show proof of this (Lo, I am with you always, even until the end of the world). There is no English word that rightly describes this relationship properly (i.e. Mary gave birth and Joseph continued not knowing her).

This is probably clear as mud now. Sorry!

Chad

sinjin smithe

22-08-2002, 03:53 AM

Thank you Chad and Justin for clearing up a puzzling matter. The main thing is that Mary upheld her virginity during her marriage to Joseph, correct?

Chad Duskin

23-08-2002, 12:21 AM

Yes, if you mean the entire marriage, not just until after the birth of Jesus. If you think about it, it is incredible that the scriptures mention the Holy of Holies as a place where God's presense was manifested here on earth as in no other place. It was where God "dwelled" among His people. When Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit her womb became a holy place where God started to dwell among His people again as one of us. The belief is that the very presense of God in her womb made it so holy that none else could dwell there. To prevent it her womb was shut up (Ezekiel 44:1-2). No one but Jesus could claim to come from the Virgin. Besides the fact that Joseph, being a righteous man and understanding all that was happening, would not even think to defile that holy place. The fact the Mary was ever-virgin is also found in Old Testament passages attributed to her. She was a "type" just as Moses, David, and Adam are all mentioned as "types" of Christ. She gave of her flesh so that God could become man. That is something heavy to think about when receiving the body and blood of Christ during the eucharist! That is why she is often referred to as the mother of all those who would be saved.

M.C. Steenberg

23-08-2002, 12:35 AM

Justin and Chad have offered, in turn, the classic patristic quotations offered in response to questions on the term usually translated as 'until' or 'till' in English versions of Mt 1.25 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Matthew%2B1%3A25&NKJV_version=yes&language=english); as well as the explanation of the term (Gr. eos) from a more linguistic standpoint. These are the traditional 'responses' to such questions -- and they do a good job of answering them. Thanks to Chad and Justin for the posts.

For those (e.g. Sinjin and many others) who are interested in developing a clearer understanding of the Church's teaching on the ever-virginity of the Mother of God, one of the best places to look is in the hymnography for the feasts of the Virgin (i.e. the Annunciation, Presentation, Dormition, Nativity of Mary, and also the Nativity of Christ). It is here that one finds direct proclamation of much that is symbolized and 'typed' in the holy Scriptures. Additionally, the Scripture readings for these feasts help to show how the Church interprets Old Testament images of the Virgin, as well as New Testament discussions of her person.

The texts in question are to be found in English most easily in the Festal Menaion published by St Tikhon's Seminary Press. If there is interest, some of the texts can be placed online here for discussion.

INXC, Matthew

Donald Wescott

23-08-2002, 05:34 AM

All,

I just wanted to put my 2 cents worth in here. I must say that I believe that Matthew has offered the finest bit of advice on this and many subjects. My wife and I are fairly recent converts to Orthodoxy, having been received through Holy Charismation on Great and Holy Saturday 2001. I have found myself simply awestruck by the hymnography of the Church. This istrue not only true of the hymns of the great feasts, although I must say I have been particularly moved at Epiphany and Transfiguration this year, or the Liturgy, but daily vespers and matins as well. I am continually amazed at the ammount of teaching and Divine revelation which is to be found in the great hymnographic treasury of the Church.

Pamela Hristov

23-08-2002, 07:37 PM

I understand your confusion. I have also wondered about that and the fact that in some publications they refer to Mary as ever virginal. Does that mean that Mary did not have sex at all with Joseph..ever?

M.C. Steenberg

23-08-2002, 07:58 PM

Dear Pamela and others,

Yes, the teaching of the Church is unequivocally that Mary the Mother of God remained 'ever-virgin' -- that is, that she was a virgin up to and through her conception and birth-giving of Christ; and that she remained a virgin thereafter, through to her dormition. Chad Duskin's Post, earlier in this thread, offers a few reflections on the symbolism and typology that foreshadowed and predicted Mary's ever-virginity.

INXC, Matthew

John Wilson

16-12-2002, 12:16 PM

I realise this thread has been quiet for a while, but I just wanted to add something which is often missed. Mary and Joseph were betrothed but were never married. Although scripture sometimes describes their relationship using the terms "husband" or "wife", they were perfectly acceptable terms to use for people who were betrothed.

Mary had vowed to remain a virgin all her life. Her betrothal to Joseph provided the means whereby she could leave the temple where she had been raised since childhood and maintain her vow with Joseph as her guardian. It provided her with security without requiring her to break her vow.

If you are even remotely familiar with Orthodox hymnography, you must be familiar with the expression Rejoice, Thou Bride Unwedded!

dianne marie debs

04-03-2003, 08:27 PM

Dear John,

Thank you for your true point. The story of Mary's life is an amazing and Holy one. When our parish priest accually taught us about her life and how she did in fact "choose" a sinless life and how she was betrothed to Joseph, we were all amazed.

It is a shame how Hollywood has betrayed Joseph as a young man and has used the English translation of Matthew only to glorify the story to make money.There are a number of teaching from th church fathers that unfortunately many Christians today ignore; many of these teachings are about the Holy Theotokos, "Thou Bride Unwedded".

John Wilson

14-03-2003, 08:25 AM

Another point which has been missed is Mary's vow of celibacy. Though not stated outright, it is implied at her annunciation...

Luke 1:34 (ASV) And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Mary is currently betrothed to Joseph, so when the angel Gabriel announces that she will become pregnant, she does not respond as one would expect saying "Oh how nice.

Joseph and I are going to have a son.", but rather "How, since I know not a man?". Note too that she doesn't say "How, since I have not known a man?". This verse only makes sense when understood in the context of Mary having chosen to remain a virgin. It also confirms Joseph's role as her guardian and not as a husband.

John.

Kosta

25-06-2006, 10:13 AM

IN Matthew 1.25 not only can the word (eos) mean 'leaving thefuture aside.'It is also written in the imperfect tense, this means it refers to continuous action.
Abetter translation from greek would be "...And was not knowing her (till). Verse 24 speaks of the marriage, in hebrew custom betrothal was legally binding but sexual relations were forbiden. Matt 1.24-25 is trying to explain that even after he took her as a wife he continued not knowing her (remained in a state of betrothal).

Orthodoxy doesnt really find it important to explain the "brothers and sisters of Jesus" only that they were NOT of Mary. James could have been an uncle a cousin or stepbrother. The oldest and probably most accurate tradition is that he was a stepbrother. The others maybe cousins. This is seen from liturgical texts where Joseph is called a 'man of old age" . This us shown in the protovangelium of James and the most ancient apostolic fathers. He was a widower. Also in Orthodoxy there is an icon of the flight to Egypt. Mary and the baby Jesus on the donkey while James portrayed as a young man leading it with an aged Joseph trailing behind

Vasiliki D.

30-12-2008, 11:29 AM

This thread has only proven to me how important it is to never lose an understanding on the original biblical Greek ... we can never fully comprehend the bible ... every generation will explore something new ... so every generation needs to have that group of people who not only academically understand Greek but also understand the pneuma of how it was written.

The amount of information that can be extracted from one little teeny weeny word makes all the difference to (for example) whether the Virgin is Ever-Virgin or not ...

I love the reference to the liturgical services as proof of her ever-Virginty and this works fine ONCE you embrace Orthodoxy but most people who are not-Orthodox do not accept our services let alone would accept such an argument from us ... so, for me I really valued the intellectualising of the Biblical scripture as more of a "proof" for those who continually question the Ever-Virginity.

This issue particularly stresses me when I am with my Evangelical and Protestant friends who really dig into the Panaghia and I am helpless to defend the Mother of God other other than to tell them what I believe and that it is offensive to me and to Christ that we question her virginity (u know like an apology) ...

Does anyone else feel that with non-Orthodox friends? How do you handle the situation?

Nina

30-12-2008, 01:16 PM

Jonathan Michael

30-12-2008, 03:55 PM

What tempts me is the fact that people are so blindly accepting historical figures' life stories, but always are tempted when it comes to people who reached theosis!

Modern historians themselves are biased so that they cannot accept anything miraculous in a person's life, even if it is written down as a historical act. So what you'll find is that a "scholar" of the medieval period will go through the written accounts of someone like King Edward the Confessor and conciously sift out any acts that appear to be miraculous. What is the reasoning behind this? If someone blatantly disregards one piece of information saying that Edward healed a sick man through the laying on of hands, then why accept another piece of information in the same document that reports that Edward visited such and such a place on a certain date? Sorry for the use of bold there, Nina; I'm aware you're a member of the "against bold typeface group".

It's because of the partisan nature of many historians that I am always eager to know more deeply the Church's more modern Saints, like St. George the New posted by Vasiliki recently, or my own patron St. John the Wonderworker, who only reposed in 1966. Here we have modern examples that can not so easily be disregarded as "myths".

Mary

30-12-2008, 04:30 PM

This issue particularly stresses me when I am with my Evangelical and Protestant friends who really dig into the Panaghia and I am helpless to defend the Mother of God other other than to tell them what I believe and that it is offensive to me and to Christ that we question her virginity (u know like an apology) ...

Does anyone else feel that with non-Orthodox friends? How do you handle the situation?

The first time I felt this rage when I heard the Mother of God being spoken of lightly and 'insultingly', I was not yet orthodox. I was too angry to think of anything to say, so I said nothing. Anything I said would've been defensive.

Later, when I was talking to my mother, who is still protestant, and doesn't really care for linguistic proofs so much, I hit upon a few brilliant parallels. They're all in the Old Testament, and any Protestant will be familiar with all these stories. The Temple is a beautiful analogy. The articles of the temple were all set aside for specific purposes and once used for a certain thing, even if it was just used once, were not used for any other purpose. If an object made of metal is treated with such a great deal of respect, how about a human being who bore the Son of God?

The Holy of Holies... no one was allowed in, and even the High Priest could only enter once a year and had to be properly prepared or could lose his life. Why all this care for a place? Because of it's Holiness. When something, even a place, is set apart to contain God's presence, it is treated with the utmost care and respect.

But even we, as ordinary humans, set aside things for special purposes. We do not use the same rag to clean our dishes and the bathroom floor, even if it is the same kind of fabric. So, this concept of setting something aside for a special purpose, is something we are familiar with.

Also, protestants are big on a 'personal' relationship with God. To say that God used Mary to bear His Son, and then, had no further special relationship with her, would mean that we too, cannot expect to have a personal relationship with God. You don't just have a relationship with someone for the time that you need them, and then, forget about them when you don't need them anymore. So, she is always the Mother of God, and not just for the time that he was a little child who needed her.

I can't think of anything else off hand. But listen carefully to the conversations, because they are never the same. You can't really prepare your answers before hand. I also thought, one day, that the Mother of God, must be the one person who has been insulted the most because of her relationship to Christ! How do you suppose she receives those insults? I believe, as the martyrs did, she forgives and then prays for those who insult her. Some insult her out of ignorance, some out of hate. So, as she forgave those who crucified her Son, so shouldn't we also forgive those who insult her?

Not that it's easy. The first impulse is to toss a rock back and hurt the person who's hurting someone we love. I don't know. Best not to say anything, till we know how to speak in love, I guess.

Also, I think, the underlying cause of this attitude of disrespect to the Mother of God and other saints, is due to the fact that we have forgotten what holiness looks like on a daily basis. For the Orthodox, it is easy. We have so many articles in our church that we treat with respect, we have icons, we have the altar, we have our holy water, holy bread, and most of all, we have the Eucharist. We bow and we prostrate, before the icons, our priests, and even each other when we ask for a blessing or for forgiveness. All of these are outward expressions of an inner attitude of respect, that is completely absent in the protestant world.

Anyway... just a few thoughts, that might help you 'receive' their ignorance with a bit more patience. From my lot of friends, only one was full of hate and anger. All the rest of them, spoke from ignorance.

in Christ,
Mary.

Jonathan Michael

30-12-2008, 04:57 PM

Does anyone else feel that with non-Orthodox friends? How do you handle the situation?

The Theotokos and her life properly belongs to the inner life of the Church, and this is why so much heat and little light is generated when we discuss the Panagia with the non-Orthodox. Our Holy Mother is not part of the Gospel that is proclaimed to all nations, but a treasure of the Church that shouldn't be cast before those who are on the outside.

But I understand that to be like this infront of evangelicals or protestants is almost impossible; it would be scandalous to them to suggest that they are "outside the Church" and that therefore they are unable to talk about Christ's mother.

I did actually discuss/debate/argue the ever-virginity of St. Mary with some protestant and atheist posters of another forum I post on (interesting that the protestants and atheists were on the same side there). It was foolish and impious of me to do it, but I really needed to say something. I was helped during the discussion with an Orthodox friend of mine who only recently converted from Catholicism but, in his own words, spent more than twenty years preparing to "swim the Bosphorous" and make the journey home. The main protaganists didn't back down from their position - which is basically that the Church invented the teaching of the Theotokos' Ever-Virginity because of its morbid hatred of sex. But you can never expect people to back down in public like that. I also would not have the humility to just say "okay, sorry, I was wrong" in such a situation. But other posters who were just reading the thread did express that their feelings were changed by what was said. I have a link to this discussion if anyone would like it; but please forgive me if I appear impious or rude in that thread.

Anyway, the discussion did begin with the sort of typology described by Chad above, but spot texting is not really a very effective way of handling the Holy Scriptures and so it didn't really convince. The real breakthrough came when we encouraged people to just think deeply with the "mind" of the Old Testament saints...

Uzzah was struck down dead when he touched the Ark of the Covenant. He was trying to save it from falling! But still he was struck down, because what was inside the Ark made the outside - the part touched - Holy (lit. "set apart"). When Moses approached the burning bush he was commanded by God to "take off your shoes" because the ground was holy; it was holy because God's presence was there. It is vitally important for the implications of these actions to sink into our hearts. Because, as no Protestant should want to deny, Jesus Christ is God, He is the Fulfilment of the Law carried in the Ark, He is the Presence of God on Earth. And He dwelled inside Mary.

So how would we expect righteous Joseph to treat the woman he is betrothed to in this light? Righteous in the Gospels is almost always applied to a Jew who faithfully and piously followed the Old Law and had knowledge of the Torah and the Prophets. Knowledge of the Ark, of Uzzah's fate, of Moses' actions. Is it even remotely possible that such a man as Joseph, after being told that "God with us" would be incarnate in the womb of his betrothed, after witnessing His miraculous birth, after being led out of danger and seeing the destruction by Herod of the holy innocents, after all this, is it there even the tiniest possibility that such a man as Joseph would then take Mary into the bed chamber?

All it needs is a small measure of sense and a huge dose of humility to see things as they really are. Jesus was from the very beginning true God of God, the Word of God, and the Glory of God. And He dwelled inside a woman named Mary. Is it any wonder that she was to be called Panagia? Is it any wonder that Joseph would not dare to treat the Ark of the New Covenant as his wife and bearer of children? Being a wife and mother are perfectly honorable things, just as there is nothing wrong with wearing shoes. But in the presence of God Moses took off his shoes....

I just feel that unless someone has totally set their heart against the Incarnation, then even a small amount of consideration would lead to a softening of the heart.

EDIT----
Mary got there before me by a country mile! And she put it very well; there are truly many parallels (not necessarily typologies) in the Old Testament that show us what the "right scriptural mind" is, and it is one that would absolutely honour the vessel that contained the Bread of Life and our Salvation!

Vasiliki D.

30-12-2008, 11:13 PM

Thank you Mary, I want to clarify some of the emotions you think that I am experiencing are not what I am experiencing ... I do receive their 'ignorance' in patience ... two years now I hear the same things and I never raise my voice and I continue to be friends if only so that one day God will enlighten me for their own benefit - this is hard to do! I do not feel rage when they speak ... and I dont hate them nor do I need to forgive them because it is not me that they insult ...

I stress at ME because I dont want to just defend the Virgin I dont want to let her down ... I want my friends to love her like we all love her ... do you get what I am saying here? :-) It is quite a different emotion to wanting to fight a battle for her ... its more about me than them ... and I do have patience with them under the guidance of my Spiritual Father its just that I dont have the expertise to take the conversations to a level that articulates and honours the Virgin! :-)

The other thing is that the examples you have given about how Protestants "think" and what approach one should use in order to show them the purity and beauty of the Virgin from the scriptures IS what I was after and it has helped me a lot ... I think I will just spend some time reflecting on these points and keep the information close to my heart for when I need to refer to it next :-)

Addendum to post: the word I think I should have used in previous posts but only came to me is ... I feel "ashamed" of myself for not knowing how to be the Virgin Mary's friend ...

Vasiliki D.

30-12-2008, 11:22 PM

Eric Peterson

30-12-2008, 11:26 PM

Our Lady Panagia is more than capable of defending herself, St. Nikolai of Zica tells us, referencing how those who blaspheme her end up regretting it with some kind of punishment in this life so that they will repent. (Or they become Orthodox, like me, and the magnifications for the canon of Panagia are their favorite part of Matins, as they chant "More honorable than the Cherubim" with gusto.)

If someone who claims to be a Christian slanders the Lord's Mother, give that person a slap, sanctify your hand as St. John Chrysostom says. (Unless, of course, you'd wind up being charged with assault or battery.) You could say, "You claim to worship Christ and yet you slander His Mother. You should not do this, but rather love Her."

Mary

31-12-2008, 12:36 AM

I agree with Eric. The Mother of God can defend herself. As can the Church. I first started wondering about this from watching the protestants defending the doctrine of creation, and other teachings from the Bible. They have much evidence to defend their positions, but in the end, unless a person is enlightened by the Holy Spirit, there is no amount of evidence, even if it's right in front of their face, that can convince them of anything other than what they wish to be convinced of.

So, I wonder, if there is a different way of defending the Truth? Something that does not resort to the worldly way of 'presenting evidence' and 'arguments', etc. After all, this is not a debate. It is the Truth. You either believe it, or you don't. A good argument, isn't going to make it more true, nor is a lousy argument going to tarnish the truth or turn it into a lie. The Truth can stand on it's own.

I wonder, if the best way to approach such situations is as Jonathan Michael suggested - to just challenge them to think deeper... to find the 'mind of the Scriptures' which is the same as the 'mind of the Church' and which goes much deeper than words. Ask them why they think the way they do? Find out what prompted their comments and what they truly mean by it. A lot of times, people don't even think about what they're saying, they're just parroting the things they've heard.

For example, one verse you'll hear the protestants toss out to prove that Mary had other children, is the one about Jesus brothers and mother, coming to see him. That's the one that I used. Till I used a line of thinking that I had not thought of before - culture and language.... in the Eastern culture, all relatives are your brothers and sisters. In Ethiopia, we could never figure out who a person was introducing us to, because, even if they were only slightly related, we were told: "This is my brother, or this is my sister..." Then, it was my own language, Tamil, that floored me. In my language, there is NO word for cousin! If I were to introduce you to my cousins, I'd have to use the words 'brother' or 'sister'. So, if my conversation got translated into English, it would be lost that it's my cousin I was introducing, and that person would now become my brother or sister! The culture and the language of Jesus' time, being so close to these other eastern cultures, suddenly puts a cloud on that verse that protestants use with so much confidence. All of a sudden, that verse can't prove anything. But, different things work for different people.

I don't know. My friends have decided that they won't talk to me about Orthodoxy anymore, so my experience is at a zero. =) I can only think of what worked for me.

In Christ,
Mary

Vasiliki D.

31-12-2008, 12:48 AM

I agree with Eric. The Mother of God can defend herself. As can the Church. Mary

Of course the Theotokos can defend herself but this is not the point of my post. The origin or angle of my post is NOT about preaching or arguing to my friends .. it is about the shame that I feel that I "CANT" defend the Virgin (not having the scriptural knowledge inside me in the first instance) ... the interaction I was hoping people would have with my post is about their approach to this feeling of shame of not being able to love the Theotokos more ... Christ had NO NEED to be crucified - surely as God he could defend himself? Yet, the purpose of the crucifixion and the Resurrection was to show us how the greatest form of love is to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of another.

The point of my post is the shame I feel in not sacrificing myself in a way that would show ultimate love for the panaghia ... perhaps, the post that made me giggle but also intrigued me the most was the response that i should get up and SLAP those silly people for speaking this way about Panaghia.

Yes, this would surely show a sacrifice of my pride and ego for the love of the Virgin! :-)

Herman Blaydoe

31-12-2008, 01:18 AM

If someone who claims to be a Christian slanders the Lord's Mother, give that person a slap, sanctify your hand as St. John Chrysostom says. (Unless, of course, you'd wind up being charged with assault or battery.) You could say, "You claim to worship Christ and yet you slander His Mother. You should not do this, but rather love Her."

That indeed would be battery, assault is merely the overt threat of violence which would make someone fear for their safety. Raising your hand in a threatening manner is assault. Physical contact constitutes battery and both are generally considered illegal except in self defense (and even then you better have a good lawyer), not in defense of religious principle. Regardless of what the good saint and holy Father says, which may have been appropriate in his time and place, I really do not recommend it in this time and place. Or if a night in jail and/or a civil suit is worth it to you, then let your conscience and your banking account be your guide I guess.

St. Nicholas was originally condemned for his actions at the Council for slapping (punching?) Arius and it took Divine intervention to change the other bishops' minds about their actions against him. Do you think you rate Divine intervention for slapping someone?

Something to think about, at least for this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

Eric Peterson

31-12-2008, 01:40 AM

It was more of an illustration than an actual suggestion.

Vasiliki D.

31-12-2008, 01:58 AM

It was more of an illustration than an actual suggestion.

Dont worry Eric, I got it! My statement was light-hearted too ... I am thankfully not silly enough to go around slapping non-Christians .. because Christ himself does say that we render to Caeser what is Caesar's and to God what is Gods.

Civil laws are Caesars and so are people who are not Orthodox ... they belong to him and as such, I treat them with the laws of Caesar.

If it was an Orthodox person who spoke blasphemously against the Virgin then regardless of what our laws say today .. yeah, heck man ... they should get a slap in the face and guess what spending a night in jail would be worth it!

Mary

31-12-2008, 04:53 AM

Of course the Theotokos can defend herself but this is not the point of my post. The origin or angle of my post is NOT about preaching or arguing to my friends .. it is about the shame that I feel that I "CANT" defend the Virgin (not having the scriptural knowledge inside me in the first instance) ... the interaction I was hoping people would have with my post is about their approach to this feeling of shame of not being able to love the Theotokos more ... Christ had NO NEED to be crucified - surely as God he could defend himself? Yet, the purpose of the crucifixion and the Resurrection was to show us how the greatest form of love is to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of another.

The point of my post is the shame I feel in not sacrificing myself in a way that would show ultimate love for the panaghia ... perhaps, the post that made me giggle but also intrigued me the most was the response that i should get up and SLAP those silly people for speaking this way about Panaghia.

Yes, this would surely show a sacrifice of my pride and ego for the love of the Virgin! :-)

I think I did understand what you were trying to say. And I was trying to say that, you don't really need to feel ashamed, because we really don't need to defend anyone. Or maybe, we can't. Not with words anyway. But then, I may not really understand 'shame' in the way you use it. For me, it's an extremely negative thing and would put me in a place very much like despair and would cause me to lose hope and give up.

So, when I feel my shame creeping up on me, I have to quickly do something to cut it off. Something like take note of the cause, go to confession, and get started again. If I dwell on it any longer than that, I'll lose. But if the shame you feel motivates you to repent, then by all means, I hope you have lots of it! =)

So, what are some practical ways of sacrificing oneself for Christ and the Theotokos? How does one love those who are unseen?

Mary

Vasiliki D.

31-12-2008, 05:07 AM

So, what are some practical ways of sacrificing oneself for Christ and the Theotokos? How does one love those who are unseen?
Mary

Practical sacrifice:
heaps of answers, I will put forward only one at this point ...
- Passion for the truth;
Passion drives you to use more of your energy and spare-time throughout the day devoted to Christ and the Theotokos. For ascetics, the routine. Lay people, probably other ways - I find an iPod helps me keep up to date with my education as I can wear it on my ears .. and drive or go for a walk or whatever.

How to love the unseen?
His ultimate act of love was His sacrifice. So, we parrot this and we sacrifice ourselves for Him :-) See, Practical sacrifice then :-)

What comes first the chicken or the egg?

Jonathan Michael

31-12-2008, 05:27 AM

Thank you Jonathan ... this is perfect and only compliments the Scriptural parallels Mary suggested also. Again I want to point out that I dont fight with my friends ... I am always put into a difficult situation ...one moment we might be talking about the the colour of the sky and then out of the blue someone will start attacking the Virgin - I am then sitting there ashamed of myself because I have never had anyone advise me on the Scriptural passages that support Her virginity and so I look stupid, Orthodoxy looks stupid and the Virign Mary looks like she is Protestant :-) This stuff is awesome I hope to be able to pass it on to my friends in a gentle spirit so that they too can think about it :-)

I hope it will bear fruit, Vasiliki.
There is a reply usually given by Protestants to what I wrote, though, and it is sometimes given with sincerity, and not merely to try and "win the debate". The argument to those Old Testament parallels would be that we are no longer under the Old Law, and even that having "sacred ground" or "sacred vessels" is the antithesis of the Gospel! I don't agree with this of course, but a very Protestant way of discussing things is to spot-text the Scriptures, and there are indeed many examples to support this view: the temple veil being split in two; Christ opening up the way into the holy of holies (described in Hebrews); that we all make up the priesthood of believers; and so on.

To Protestants, the Orthodox way of having sacred ground, sacred buildings, sacred acts etc. seems like a continuation of the Old Law and a type of legalism. Many Protestants, especially self-confessed non-denominational, evangelical, Christians will argue that in light of the New Covenant, every action a Christian does is an act of worship done to the glory of God.

But again, the Orthodox reply I think would be to ask them to think about the true meaning of Christ sanctifying the world and tearing down the temple veil really means. As Mary said, sometimes people say things without really knowing what it means. What strikes me about the Protestant way, is that so often in practice the constant, daily, worship that they claim often looks so ordinary. I can accept that a Christian can worship at all times and in all places, but why should it look no different from the acts of a non-Christian? It often seems to me as though this idea of worshipping in everyday acts is exactly that: just an idea.

By "chance" I was reaquainted this morning with a prayer by St. Nikolai of Ohrid:

Arise all you creatures and serve the Living Lord who cares about you. Worship Him and serve Him, for no one greater than He has visited you in this vale of fear and tears....

Arise, O lilies of the field, and give off your fragrance, for His holy mouth mentioned your name.

Arise, O stone and rock, and worship Him, for His holy feet walked over you...

And it goes on (http://www.sv-luka.org/praylake/pl26.htm)

Which seems a truer understanding of the Incarnation and the tearing down of the Temple Veil? In the Orthodox prayer above, we speak of ordinary things made holy, and visibly so. The "non-liturgical" view, in practice, makes holy things look ordinary.

Which of the two speaks to the heart?

Vasiliki D.

31-12-2008, 05:46 AM

I hope it will bear fruit, Vasiliki.
Which of the two speaks to the heart?

I too hope that words can bear fruit one day, Jonathan. I dont try too hard with my friends to win any debates because since reading "Wounded by Love" and also just not being qualified enough to handle the Scriptural referencing and memorisation I just refer to prayer and hope that God will do the rest ... I know this has worked ONCE for me ... with my friend who hated the Theotokos with a passion. I have mentioned the story before so I wont repeat it ... that made me realise how powerful the Virgin Mary's prayers are if we humble ourselves and trust her with her son ...

Overall, this was such a beautiful response - and a beautiful prayer.

Naturally I would reply that the liturgical speaks to my heart and that ordinary things capable of becoming holy is much more beautiful than making a holy thing look ordinary ...

Jonathan Michael

31-12-2008, 06:29 AM

Vasiliki D.

31-12-2008, 08:10 AM

Yes, of course the question was rhetorical and I knew what your response would be; and the response of most people on this forum.

I read your account of how listening to the Paraklisis led your friend to love the Theotokos. Beauty and truth are inextricably linked with each other. I remember the poster Owen Jones said on another thread some time ago that seeing truth as beautiful and beauty as true is a very unfashionable view these days. Sad to say, he is right.

"Beauty will save the world!"
-Fyodor Dostoyevsky

"Preempting" - nice ... scary ... LOL

Listening to the Paraklisis without knowing it was for the Virgin ... she would ask me ... what is this service - it is beautiful ...and I would say, I will tell you soon .. I will tell you soon. All I would tell her it was a supplication prayer (but not who it was to).

Then, the Virgin herself corrected her thoughts ... it was amazing .. "Quick to Hear" http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Monastery_of_Gorgoepikoos_%28Geelong%2C_Victoria%2 9

Ps. Beauty has already saved the world ... the world just cant see it. Good post Owen.

M.C. Steenberg

31-12-2008, 08:09 PM

The depths of the Mother of God are unknowable except by the experience of her love in her Son. As Jonathan wrote, above, our knowledge of her is part of the inner life of the Church: one of its treasures, its joys.

The modern, critical mind seeks to 'know' a subject, like this person, through an impossible project of dissection, deconstruction, analysis and re-assembly of parts. It attempts to find faith by constructing it from what is not faith: 'logical' analyses of data, rational arguments, and the like. But all we do in such things is destroy the one we are trying to know. We cut them apart, so that we can 'understand them better', and vainly believe we can reconstruct them in a manner better suited to our understanding.

In this season drawing towards the Nativity of the Lord in the flesh, which cannot be deconstructed, rationalised or dissected, we find ourself with the truest and purest response to the secular mindset of so much of the world today. And in this, we are in the place of joy where we must not, cannot, cut apart the Theotokos so as to 'make sense' of her; but we are able to do what is much higher, much deeper, much more profound: cry out, 'Holy Mother of God, pray for us.'

INXC, Dcn Matthew