Perpetual virginity of the Theotokos [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Herman Blaydoe

02-05-2009, 03:07 PM

What exactly is the status of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity the Theotokos? Is it a dogma of Orthodoxy? An Orthodox friend of mine said he thought that it was merely a "theologoumenon" and not an actual dogma. Can anyone clarify this?

It is certainly doctrine. It is part of the proof that Christ is God. Remember that St. Joseph the Betrothed was serious about his faith. He believed that the Ark of the Covenant, the "Resting Place of God", was holy and even to touch it would mean death. The Theotokos was the true Ark. How do you think he would treat her who was the true "Resting Place of God"? In the prayers of the Church we proclaim and acclaim her who was a virgin before, during and after giving birth. Anyone who believes that the Church has any OTHER opinion on the subject needs to become more familiar with the prayers of the Church which express our true theology and they are rather explicit on the subject.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

Christopher Dombrowski

03-05-2009, 01:04 AM

What exactly is the status of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity the Theotokos? Is it a dogma of Orthodoxy? An Orthodox friend of mine said he thought that it was merely a "theologoumenon" and not an actual dogma. Can anyone clarify this?

Well, it is true that it has not been dogmatically defined. There aren't really all that many doctrines in our Church that have been explicitly dogmatically defined by an ecumenical source. The only Byzantine Marian doctrine I can think of that truly is dogmatically defined is Theotokos. However, there are numerous other doctrines that in a certain way have received ecumenical recognition, and as far as I can tell, the perpetual virginity is one of them.

Shelley Platt

03-05-2009, 01:51 AM

It is certainly doctrine.

I had wondered about this as well, especially after reading a blog post here (http://rocorrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/03/another-horror-from-st-vladimirs.html) about Fr Hopko denying it. Is this a misquote?

Vasiliki D.

03-05-2009, 02:13 AM

I had wondered about this as well, especially after reading a blog post here (http://rocorrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/03/another-horror-from-st-vladimirs.html) about Fr Hopko denying it. Is this a misquote?

Dear Shelly, I took a look at this blog and I was wondering who Father David Belden is? Do you know which church he is with or better who does he commemorate during a liturgy?

IF the BLOGGER is right in what he says, then St Vladimir's should be examined about what it is teaching on this matter ... how though? If the leading theologians/scholars of our church are "polluted" what hope do we have that this pollution does not contaminate us further ....

Saint Nicodemus wrote something about this type of situation ... I hope to find it later and post.

I like Herman's post above ... that is exactly the teaching of our church .... the Virgin Mary IS a Virgin and woah to us if we start to question that.

Herman Blaydoe

03-05-2009, 02:59 AM

I had wondered about this as well, especially after reading a blog post here (http://rocorrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/03/another-horror-from-st-vladimirs.html) about Fr Hopko denying it. Is this a misquote?

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet
Fr. Thomas is not the final infallible spokesperson for the Orthodox Church
One article does not a doctrine make
Renegade schismatics are not the best source of information in general

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

Paul Cowan

03-05-2009, 03:30 AM

Orthodoxwiki has a nice piece (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theotokos)on this question.

And this (http://www.saintjohnthebaptist.org/articles/TheDORMITIONHTimes.htm) by Protopresbyter Dr. George Dion Dragas

I agree with Herman we need to consider all online "truths" suspect. Including in this forum. For truths, go see your priest.

Paul

Father David Moser

03-05-2009, 05:00 AM

I happened to notice this evening (Myrrh-bearers) when chanting the canon during matins:

Thou didst not break the doors of the Virgin at Thine incarnation, O King of Creation, nor didst though break the seals of Thy tomb ... Ode V Canon of the Theotokos, 2nd Tropar

Thou didst arise from the tomb, maintaining the seals intact, O Christ Who in Thy birth didst not break the seal of the Virgin; ... Ode VI Canon of Pascha, 1st Tropar

Here, in today's service we see the confession of the ever-virginity of Mary for we confess that in His incarnation, Jesus did not "break the seal" thus leaving the physical virginity of Mary intact even in His birth.

There are references to the ever-virginity of Mary through and through the Divine Services and prayers of the Church. The above is just a minor example that I happened to see "by chance" just because it was in front of me. If the prayers and services of the Church are not "official doctrine" then I don't know what is.

Fr David Moser

Shelley Platt

03-05-2009, 05:29 AM

If the prayers and services of the Church are not "official doctrine" then I don't know what is.
Fr David Moser
My priest speaketh and I trust what he says, but I just wondered why, if it is so clear in all these prayers, that a seminary professor (emeritus) would say something so contrary.

Herman Blaydoe

03-05-2009, 01:54 PM

My priest speaketh and I trust what he says, but I just wondered why, if it is so clear in all these prayers, that a seminary professor (emeritus) would say something so contrary.

What was actually said was not all that contrary. He clearly says "...Although the Church insists that Mary remains forever a virgin...". Sounds like he agrees that the Church teaches the ever-virginity of the Theotokos doesn't it? How is that contrary?

What has evidently raised "horrors" in the minds of certain individuals who are more interested in defending their status as schismatics than the "truth" of Christ is this portion (I assume): "the only miracle in regard to the Lord's birth is the virginal conception. There is no teaching of any other sort of miracle in regard to His birth; certainly no idea that he came forth from His mother without opening her womb."

On its face, this is a true statement. Holy Scripture certainly says nothing different. Now what do we make of this statement? Quite honestly, unless you are trying to make it read some way other than what was meant, you need what precedes and follows in order to determine the context of the remark. A sentence or two in isolation is of very little value. When Protestants do this with Holy Scripture to defend their rather strange interpretations, we call it proof texting. So we have an individual trying to "defend" the Holy Orthodox faith using inflammatory language and Protestant methods. Doesn't seem very Orthodox to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

Shelley Platt

03-05-2009, 02:56 PM

So we have an individual trying to "defend" the Holy Orthodox faith using inflammatory language and Protestant methods. Doesn't seem very Orthodox to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh
Herman, thank you for putting this in perspective!

Father David Moser

03-05-2009, 04:09 PM

"the only miracle in regard to the Lord's birth is the virginal conception. There is no teaching of any other sort of miracle in regard to His birth; certainly no idea that he came forth from His mother without opening her womb."

On its face, this is a true statement. Holy Scripture certainly says nothing different. Now what do we make of this statement?

While Scripture may not say so outright, the services of the Church (as quoted above) certainly leave no doubt that such is indeed the teaching of the Church. Thus what I make of this statement is that it is wrong and it contradicts what we are taught through the services of the Church.

Fr David Moser

Shelley Platt

03-05-2009, 04:44 PM

I have written to Fr Hopko and asked him to clarify what he means to say by this.

Kosta

03-05-2009, 10:09 PM

I do not know whether the blogger has taken what Fr Thomas Hopko may have said out of context or not. But one needs to keep in mind that Fr. Hopko will never be known for his theology. One OCA monk who knows Fr. Hopko told me he would never recommend any of his writings, so I would not put it past him to say something like this.

But regardless of what one professor may say, we know the truth. It is the official teaching of the Orthodox Church that the blessed Virgin Mary is "ever-virgin". And this belief corresponds as to what the older generation believed concerning virginity, that the "seal" (let me put it bluntly- the hymen) must also remained intact to be considered a virgin.

And even if the common layperson is not familiar with the official liturgical hymns which teach this, we are familiar with how the Theotokos is depicted in canonical iconography, and that is with three stars on her cloak symbolizing that she was, virgin before, DURING and after the birth of Christ.

Christopher Dombrowski

03-05-2009, 10:50 PM

I had wondered about this as well, especially after reading a blog post here (http://rocorrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/03/another-horror-from-st-vladimirs.html) about Fr Hopko denying it. Is this a misquote?

Even if that is a misquote, it is still not showing that Father Hopko denies the perpetual virginity. Allow me to quote that segment supposedly from him:

"...Although the Church insists that Mary remains forever a virgin, the only miracle in regard to the Lord's birth is the virginal conception. There is no teaching of any other sort of miracle in regard to His birth; certainly no idea that he came forth from His mother without opening her womb." (emphasis mine)

I think it's quite clear that the teaching that Father Hopko is questioning is not the perpetual virginity of Mary. Rather, in contrast to the teachings of some, Father Hopko is expressing that Jesus did come forth from the womb of Mary and that this likely involved the ripping of her hymen and strain to her genitalia as in a normal birthing. It seems that Father Hopko does not view the physically immaculate birthing of Jesus as necessary to the perpetual virginity of Mary as some in the EOC do.

Vasiliki D.

11-05-2009, 06:04 AM

Matthew 1:25 the famous verse that all Protestants use in favour of non-perpetual virginity "And he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son" (KJV).

And here is the original: "και ουκ εγίνωσκεν αυτήν έως ου έτεκεν τον υιόν αυτής τον πρωτότοκον".

Two points of interest here: the word "πρωτότοκον" (aetiatike structure of "πρωτότοκος") and the words "έως ου".

The word "πρωτότοκος" (firstborn) as we have said, does not imply that other children followed; it means the first born child, the one that opens the womb of his mother, regardless of whether other children follow later on or not. Therefore the verse regarding the word "firstborn" can still not be used as proof for either two beliefs (ever-virginity or children).

Something that fails to come straight from translations here is the usage of "έως ου" (= eos ooh). The words "έως ου" mean "never". It doesn't mean, in other words, that after Christ's birth Joseph met her as his wife, but it means that he never did. The "έως ου" in the Holy Bible, is found many a time to mean "never". For example:

1) The Bible says regarding Noe's raven that it didn't return to the Ark "έως ου εξηράνθη τα ύδατα" (= eos ooh the waters had been dried up). But since it didn't return to the Ark before the waters had dried up, when it had nowhere to stand upon, what happened then; it returned when the waters had dried up?!

2.) The Bible says: "Said the Lord to my Lord; sit on my right έως αν θω τους εχθρούς σου υποπόδιον των ποδών σου" i.e. “eos an” I place your enemies under your feet. I ask therefore: after the submission of His enemies, will Christ cease to sit on the right hand of the Father?!

3.) Elsewhere again the Lord tells His apostles: "with you I am all the days έως της συντελείας του αιώνος" i.e. "until the end of the eon". OK, I ask again: isn't Christ going to be with His disciples after the end of the eon in Heaven?

4.) The OT also says regarding the barren woman, Melchol: "και τη Μελχώλ ... ουκ εγένετο παιδίον έως της ημέρας του αποθανείν αυτήν" ( = "she had no child until the day she died"). According to the Protestant interpretation, i.e. interpreting the word "eos" not as "never", we must deduce that Melchol must have born a child after her death, when she was in her grave!

In fact, the term "έως ου" is used in the same way even today in Modern Greek. For example the teacher tells the children: "Keep quiet 'έως ότου' [eos otou] I return"; until I return ["otou" being the modern Greek equivalent of "ou" here]. Does he mean that, after his return, the children must be noisy? On the contrary! The teacher is only interested that they keep quiet till he comes back. Afterwards, it follows that they must be quiet when he is present!

So clearly the Evangelist is interested to prove that Panagia [the All-Holy Virgin] was a Virgin until (eos) Christ's birth, Who was born supernaturally, from the Spirit the Holy, and He is not son of Joseph's but Son of God. Regarding the issues after the birth, these are of no interest in the semantics of this sentence. It was obvious that she stayed a Virgin, since she had been honoured to bear the All-Holy Word in the first place.

M.C. Steenberg

14-05-2009, 01:36 PM

Dear Christopher and others,

Reading back over the recent posts here, I was struck by this:

"...Although the Church insists that Mary remains forever a virgin, the only miracle in regard to the Lord's birth is the virginal conception. There is no teaching of any other sort of miracle in regard to His birth; certainly no idea that he came forth from His mother without opening her womb." (emphasis mine)

I think it's quite clear that the teaching that Father Hopko is questioning is not the perpetual virginity of Mary. Rather, in contrast to the teachings of some, Father Hopko is expressing that Jesus did come forth from the womb of Mary and that this likely involved the ripping of her hymen and strain to her genitalia as in a normal birthing. It seems that Father Hopko does not view the physically immaculate birthing of Jesus as necessary to the perpetual virginity of Mary as some in the EOC do.

I think it might be useful and beneficial if some 'text-hunting' members might seek out various readings from the feasts of the Mother of God -- I am thinking of the texts at Matins and Vespers in particular -- as I think the question of 'coming forth yet leaving the gates locked', etc., do have a context there.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Father David Moser

14-05-2009, 04:51 PM

I think it might be useful and beneficial if some 'text-hunting' members might seek out various readings from the feasts of the Mother of God -- I am thinking of the texts at Matins and Vespers in particular -- as I think the question of 'coming forth yet leaving the gates locked', etc., do have a context there.

In a previous post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=78618&postcount=8), I noted two quotes from the Pentecostarian during the week of the Myrrhbearers. It is quite possible that additional references would be found in the same week as well as other places in the services of the Paschal season.

Fr David Moser

Christopher Dombrowski

15-05-2009, 02:55 AM

Dear Christopher and others,

Reading back over the recent posts here, I was struck by this:

I think it might be useful and beneficial if some 'text-hunting' members might seek out various readings from the feasts of the Mother of God -- I am thinking of the texts at Matins and Vespers in particular -- as I think the question of 'coming forth yet leaving the gates locked', etc., do have a context there.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

For more clarification:

The EOC very well may have authoritative teaching on the subject of Mary's "physical virginity" beyond her "sexual virginity". I'm entirely open to such a reality; I'm not of a strong opinion one way or the other on this topic. The point I was trying to make was that Fr. Hopko certainly was not questioning the "sexual virginity" of the All-Holy Mother of God, but perhaps simply her "physical virginity". I was thus trying to clarify what appears to me to be the actual claims of Fr. Hopko rather than offering any opinion on Mary's physical virginity of my own.

Olga

15-05-2009, 05:35 AM

Christopher Dombrowski

15-05-2009, 08:59 AM

I hope to post more on this, but a very short reply for now: The liturgical and iconographic tradition, representing the consensus patrum of the Church, does not distinguish between the Mother of God's sexual virginity (did she have marital relations with St Joseph) and physical virginity (was she no longer a virgin after giving birth, having conceived without physical intercourse). The title Ever-Virgin (Greek: Aeiparthenos, Slavonic: Prisnodyeva) means exactly what it says. There is no "wiggle room" in this terminology.

I think you have misunderstood what I meant by these two terms. It seems you are setting up a chronological definition of these terminologies, with "sexual virginity" referring to the 2nd stage of Mary's virginity and "physical virginity" referring to the 3rd stage. However, I was speaking exclusively of the 2nd stage of Mary's virginity, from Jesus' conception to His birth. By "sexual virginity" I am referring to the idea that Jesus was conceived and born without Mary engaging in sexual activity with any man, even her husband. By "physical virginity" I am referring to the state of her physical body in that time, which was traditionally viewed as tied into the ontological reality of virginity, in which a woman's hymen is conserved. By these definitions, I was suggesting that Fr. Hopko maintains that Mary did not have sexual relations with a man before Jesus' conception, or during, or after, but rather what he does deny is the idea that Jesus did not pass through Mary's ****** and the idea that her hymen was unruptured by the birth.

Vasiliki D.

15-05-2009, 09:05 AM

Like Olga points out ... the traditional Church has had the sufficient tradition and sufficient research to conclude that both her physical and perpetual virginity.

However, I am so amazed (no finger pointing I promise) that many people question the physical reality of the virginity especially when the Scripture clearly shows us Joseph's response to the pregnancy! The Theotokos was fortunate that an Angel visited Joseph to clarify that this child was not of another man ... to me the comprehension is easy ...that says to me that neither Joseph had sexual relations with her NOR any other man.

What is sad is conversations that I have with non-Orthodox. It is hard to share the experience of our liturgical and iconographic tradition since they do not accept it as evidence or proof and do not see the witness of the early church fathers as credible either ... they soley rely on Scripture and even there read what they want ...

Ilaria

15-05-2009, 12:52 PM

Beyond the physical,what is the main characteristic of Mother Mary's virginity is her purity in relation with God;
as I know from my father, her perpetual virginity, in our language it is called ever-cleanness, consists of her perpetual relationship with God - and I think this indeed is an orthodox dogma
So, theologically, this perpetual virginity expresses - surely, including the physical status - her intimate link with God; it was nothing else in her mind and heart but only God and that is precisely her ever purity.

Christopher Dombrowski

15-05-2009, 09:15 PM

Like Olga points out ... the traditional Church has had the sufficient tradition and sufficient research to conclude that both her physical and perpetual virginity.

However, I am so amazed (no finger pointing I promise) that many people question the physical reality of the virginity especially when the Scripture clearly shows us Joseph's response to the pregnancy! The Theotokos was fortunate that an Angel visited Joseph to clarify that this child was not of another man ... to me the comprehension is easy ...that says to me that neither Joseph had sexual relations with her NOR any other man.

It still sounds like you're talking about the "sexual virginity" and not actually what I am meaning by the "physical virginity". And, like I said, I have no interest in bringing the teaching of her physical virginity under scrutiny. I am simply trying to clarify that this is what apparently Fr. Hopko is trying to question, not her perpetual sexual virginity.

Judson

31-12-2009, 08:04 PM

May I throw in a passage of scripture for interaction?

Matthew 1:24-25 (NASB): 24 (http://bible.cc/matthew/1-24.htm) And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 (http://bible.cc/matthew/1-25.htm) but kept her a virgin (literally: knew her not) until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

verse 25 in Greek:
καὶ (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2532.htm) οὐκ (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3756.htm) ἐγίνωσκεν (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1097.htm) αὐτὴν (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/846.htm) ἕως (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2193.htm) οὗ (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3739.htm) ἔτεκεν (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/5088.htm) υἱόν· (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/5207.htm) καὶ (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2532.htm) ἐκάλεσεν (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2564.htm) τὸ (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3588.htm) ὄνομα (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3686.htm) αὐτοῦ (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/846.htm) Ἰησοῦν. (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2424.htm)

the key word here is heos (until). the plain interpretation of this is that Joseph did not "know" Mary until she had given birth to Jesus. In other words, they had normal sexual relations after.

I'd be interested in having an exegetical discussion about this verse, as I see it as being the key.

M.C. Steenberg

31-12-2009, 10:44 PM

Andreas Moran

31-12-2009, 11:39 PM

Kosta

01-01-2010, 12:29 AM

Dear Judson

The greek word "until" leaves the future aside, it does not mean that a status quo will change or that its a deadline. In many instances the word "til" can be interchanged with 'and". A classic example of "until" is found in 1Tim 4.13, "TILL I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." This verse doesnt intend to imply that after Pauls arrival these things will cease.

The verse "knew her not' in the original greek is written in the imperfect tense. The imperfect tense represents continuous linear action in past times, thus a rendering of "was knowing her not" would be quite accurate. Or the version in your post, "but kept her a virgin" would more accurately be trans;ated as "keeping her a virgin'.

In Matt 1.18, we read, "...After His Mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with Child of the Holy Spirit." At that time betrothal was legally binding offering all the rights of marriage including transfer of property, except for sexual relations. "Before they came together" emphaisis this betrothal stage and affirms the birth as originating of a miraculous nature. Joseph having doubts, an angel visits him in a dream and tells him to marry. In marriage, sexual relations are indeed lawful, but Joseph only married Mary to cover the law and not bring shame upon her. They still lived as a betrothed couple afterwards as the imperfect tense of the phrase, "was knowing her not" suggests.

Thus Matthew 1.18 should be coupled with verses 1.24-25 for a correct understanding and context:

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ is as follows, After His Mother Mary was Betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, She was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph being aroused from sleep did as the angel commanded him and took to him his wife and was knowing her not...."

In other words even after legally marrying, they still lived in a state of betrothal as confirmed in Luke 2.5 where Mary is still called Josephs "Betrothed" at the time of Christ's birth.

Herman Blaydoe

01-01-2010, 03:39 AM

The Ark of the Covenant was the resting place of God and prefigured the Theotokos. What happened to anyone who touched the Ark? What do you think would be the natural reaction of Joseph, a pious Jew knowing that Mary was the new Ark?

Seems a rather natural conclusion to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

Herman Blaydoe

01-01-2010, 05:53 AM

One more thought, basing a theology on a single questionable point of grammar seems specious at best, I prefer the consensus of the ages and the harmony of Holy Scripture. Consider this passage and tell me what you think it means:

Then He brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary which faces toward the east, but it was shut. And the LORD said to me, “This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut. As for the prince, because he is the prince, he may sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gateway, and go out the same way.” (Ezekiel 44:1-3).

Scripture has a purpose, what do YOU think the purpose of these words from Ezekiel that is not perfectly explained by it being a prophecy of the ever-virginity of the Theotokos? Do you have a better explanation?

Just askin'

Herman the questioning Pooh

Ilaria

01-01-2010, 05:49 PM

"Woman, behold your son!"
while thinking of the proper 'key word', as Judson suggested, I also have found one of the key words to defend the orthodox view on this subject...if Mother Mary would have had a sexual relationship with Joseph and would have had other children from that relation, why would Jesus entrust her to St John the Evangelist?

Paul Cowan

01-01-2010, 06:44 PM

I agree whole heartidly with you Ilaria. I would like to ask a further question. Though they were under no "law" to do so, why did not the family of St. Joseph the Betrothed offer to take her in? I am thinking it was because all his sons were so much older than she already and St. John was the youngest and only one of his children that truly loved Jesus and even offered to give him part of his paternal inheritance. Still, being that she was their step-mother for some 33 years, why did none of the other siblings offer? or perhaps they would have but Jesus beat them to the punch and appointed St. John?

Oh, if only we could go back and just observe it all...How many questions we could finally get answered. Blessed are they who do not see and yet believe.

Paul

Judson

01-01-2010, 07:27 PM

Dear Judson,

On the topic of the ever-virginity of Mary the Mother of God, and in particular the word eos ('until') in Matthew 1.25, please do have a look at an older thread called The ever-virginity of Mary (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?1692-The-ever-virginity-of-Mary). You'll find some helpful information there, particularly on its first page - including a few patristic discussions on what 'until' means, and how it is (and is not) to be interpreted (e.g. such as by comparing it with Christ reigning 'until all His enemies should be put under His feet': does this mean that after this, He will no longer reign?).

Thanks Dcn Matthew.
It seems the use of "until" needs to be seen within its context. Indeed there are times when heos refers to a perpetual state, where the status quo will not change, as you have pointed out. But it is certainly not always the case. The word is most often employed in speaking of a state that is about to change given a turn of events. For example, in Matt 2:15, we are told Mary and Joseph stayed in Egypt until the death of Herod, implying most naturally, that they left once Herod was dead. This is the most natural and frequent use of until. Also, 11:13, the law and prophets prophesied until John, implying there is a cessation of the old covenant ending with John.

The passages that indicate no change in the status are usually: 1. in the context of some terminal point in world history. The enemies being put under Christ's feet, or, Matt 12:20 "He won't break a bruised reed. He won't quench a smoking flax, until he leads justice to victory". or, "the very end of the age". Or, 2. when the perpetual state is given in the context itself, eg. Matt 11:23 "For if the mighty works had been done in Sodom which were done in you, it would have remained until this day."

1Tim 4.13, "TILL I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine," does in fact imply a change, of sorts. It's not that reading, exhortation and doctrine (or teaching), will cease at Paul's arrival, but he is commanding them to stay faithful to the revelation that has been given to them and which they are familiar with until he is arrives and gives them fuller revelation. A change is actually in view. This is actually a safeguard against them falling into heresy, and makes perfect sense. it is like a school teacher saying to his class before a two month holiday, "just stick to the textbook for now, and when I come back, I will continue teaching where we left off."

That Joseph did not know Mary until she gave birth to a son is not a terminal point in world history. Nor, is the constancy of the state of virginity implied in the context or anywhere else. A natural reading suggests that there is a change in the state of viriginity after the birth of Jesus.

Kosta, the use of the imperfect tense does not diminish the likelihood that they had sexual relations after the birth. The state of Joseph "knowing her not" is not constant, as the "until" clearly demonstrates. He was knowing her not until she gave birth. This makes perfect sense, and the use of the literal translation of the imperfect is not necessary in conveying anything peculiar. Besides, you pointed out something that I hadn't seen before: the fact that 1:18 says "before they came together ..." This suggests 1. That sexual relations were part and parcel of the marriage/betrothal act; and 2. intentionality on Joseph's part to come together with Mary at some point. This sufficiently overturns the argument put forth by some that Joseph had made a prior vow to keep Mary virgin before the incident with the angel.

Blessings!

M.C. Steenberg

01-01-2010, 07:53 PM

Dear in the Lord, Judson, and others,

Thank you for your recent reply – and to all those whose replies preceded it. You wrote:

It seems the use of "until" needs to be seen within its context. Indeed there are times when heos refers to a perpetual state, where the status quo will not change, as you have pointed out. But it is certainly not always the case. The word is most often employed in speaking of a state that is about to change given a turn of events. For example, in Matt 2:15, we are told Mary and Joseph stayed in Egypt until the death of Herod, implying most naturally, that they left once Herod was dead. This is the most natural and frequent use of until. Also, 11:13, the law and prophets prophesied until John, implying there is a cessation of the old covenant ending with John.

While I applaud your desire and effort to find a rote pattern for meaning, I’m afraid that this term really cannot be subjected to such a patterning. ἕως simply cannot be itemised according to usage with events ‘marking a terminal point in world history’ or other usages—as if it clearly meant or means one thing in the one category, and something else in the other. This is the imposition of a false pattern upon usage which is less structured, and certainly doesn’t accurately reflect the usage of the term in the Greek language itself.

Most simply we should say this: the term eos itself doesn’t imply anything whatsoever about what happens after the moment it demarcates: it is a term that refers to what comes before, without any enforced implication as to what comes after. It may well be that after that moment, the situation changes; it may be that it remains the same. The term eos itself defines it in neither way: if a context of change is meant, this has to be provided by the remainder of the sentence or the broader text.

This is readily clear in the examples already cited: where change is meant, this is made absolutely clear in the text. And there is no pattern (at least, none that is authentic: we can always force patterns upon things…) that relates meaning according to the gravity of the event. When change is indicated, it is made explicit.

Matthew 1.25, for its part, makes no indication at all that change is indicated. It is expressly and solely speaking of Christ’s birth—namely, that in that whole period from the angelic visitation to His birth, Joseph had no relations with his betrothed (and thus—the passage’s express implication—there can be no cause to think that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph). The passage has nothing whatever to do with the ‘after’ of Joseph and Mary the Theotokos’ relationship: it is entirely inappropriate to try to read it to comment on a matter which clearly is outside its scope and interests.

This is an example of a moment when the simple, plain meaning of the text must be allowed to stand without extraneous reasoning and manipulation.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Paul Cowan

01-01-2010, 08:36 PM

Joseph was roughly 70 years old and the Theotokos 15 when Christ was born. We know Joseph's age from Holy Tradition as he died at 100 and the Theotokos's from the same as the elders of the temple had to marry her off as her "womanhood" [period] was going to make it impossible for her to stay in the temple.

Joseph was a highly spiritual and righteous man. His is the staff that budded on the altar designating he was the one to betroth her as God had chosen him as the most perfect protector for her and the Child. It was improper for anyone to have sex during the betrothal stage before the marriage. They never got married. They were perpetually betrothed. So we know it did not happen before. Knowing as Joseph did (he had 3 angelic visitations) that the Angel of the Lord had impregnated her and that God Himself came out of her, what idiot would have violated her body with the act of intercourse knowing this? Yes, Joseph was probably capable of the act though I doubt they had Viagra back then. Remember he was a God-fearing man. So much so he did in reality what he was told to do in a DREAM! Who of us today have ever fulfilled the orders of a dream we have had? The question which is not supported by history is that he violated her. The use of the word "husband" by Mary was a ruse they needed to keep up to protect the life of they were leading. She also calls St. Joseph his father, which we know not to be true.

Herman gave some good text from the OT. Everything in the bible is a preview of Jesus' entry into the world. Joseph was apparently capable of having children as he already had 3 boys and 2 girls from his first marriage. So if he had had sex with her, it is probable he would have had more by her. Since St. John is whom Jesus gave his mother to for safe keeping was a step child and not her child, and no one else as the legal system would not have recognized her without paternal protection it is proof she did not have other children.

Reading translations of translations does no one any good. Scripture can't be understood without Holy Tradition something Calvinsim rejects. DO you think Mary would have allowed him to touch her? Do you think God would have allowed him to touch her? Being a convert myself, it is the hardest thing in the world to come to realize all I was taught my first 35 years of life was "not really accurate". If you are willing to accept what you "know to be true" is not really accurate and open your mind to the possibility that the Orthodox Church is still around from the beginning with unchanged truth, this will go much easier on your brain; especially since you are studying to be a missionary. Oh BTW: you might want to check out this guy's story. (http://saintjameskids.blogspot.com/2009/07/more-on-my-book.html)

Paul

Father David Moser

01-01-2010, 09:14 PM

I am thinking it was because all his sons were so much older than she already and St. John was the youngest and only one of his children that truly loved Jesus and even offered to give him part of his paternal inheritance

Paul, you confusing St John the Evangelist with St James the Brother of the Lord. They were perhaps cousins, but St James was the youngest of the sons of Joseph and the only one to share their paternal inheritance with our Lord. St John and his brother James were "sons of Zebedee" and at best cousins of our Lord (there is a tradition of the relationship between the mother of Joseph's children and the wife of Zebedee, but I forget what it is exactly).

As o our Lord's action here, it was not the place of the sons of Joseph to "offer" but rather of the son of the mother to care for her. It may well have been the case that the Virgin would have been taken into the household of one of the sons of Joseph, but that proved to be a moot point as our Lord commended her to the care of St John. As you said, what questions might have been answered, if only...

Fr David Moser

Father David Moser

01-01-2010, 09:25 PM

This is an example of a moment when the simple, plain meaning of the text must be allowed to stand without extraneous reasoning and manipulation.

This is also an example of the necessity of the tradition of the Church in interpreting the Gospels. The ever-virginity of Mary is a doctrine that is as old as the apostolic age and the compilation of the Gospels. There has been a continuous belief within the Church, confirmed by the 7th ecumenical council and maintained even through the reformation (the primary reformers themselves confessed the ever-virginity of Mary). The novel interpretation of the Gospel to imply that Mary was not ever-virgin is a relatively new innovation which is actually born out of the loss of the Holy Tradition around the Virgin Mary. Once the proper veneration of Mother of God is lost then there is no longer any anchor for the proper interpretation of the Gospel accounts surrounding her and other "traditions" move in to provide "alternative" interpretations. The minimalist and literalist schools of interpretations of the Gospel which arise out of the "sola scriptura" ideal and the dcotrine of the "invisible Church" have opened the door to this faulty understanding. Once we abandon the traditions given to us both by letter and by word, then the void is filled by the traditions which arise out of our own fallen intellect.

Fr David Moser

Paul Cowan

01-01-2010, 09:32 PM

Paul, you confusing St John the Evangelist with St James the Brother of the Lord.
Fr David Moser

Oops, well hopefully the point is still valid. But if they were at best cousins that goes one step further to say she had no direct family to look over her.

Now I am busted Fr. I'll spend the rest of the day reading "The Good Book" and stop relying on my poor memory which my wife swears I have none left.

Andreas Moran

01-01-2010, 10:04 PM

As Father David and Fr Dcn Matthew have pointed out, this matter has been determined from apostolic times and confirmed by the Church in Council, and accepted for very many centuries by east and west alike. Holy Tradition tells how the temple authorities wondered what to do about Mary who had to leave the temple yet wished to remain devoted only to God? Answer: betroth her to a righteous, God-fearing and elderly widower with children of his own, and who would simply take care of her. Joseph knew from the angel the circusmtances of Jesus's conception and birth; the very idea that Joseph would then even consider marital relations with Mary is unthinkable. How presumptious is it, in the face of all this, to seek a personal interpretation which is contra?

Evan

01-01-2010, 10:38 PM

It still sounds like you're talking about the "sexual virginity" and not actually what I am meaning by the "physical virginity". And, like I said, I have no interest in bringing the teaching of her physical virginity under scrutiny. I am simply trying to clarify that this is what apparently Fr. Hopko is trying to question, not her perpetual sexual virginity.

I can confirm that Father Hopko does indeed make this distinction in a podcast entitled "The Nativity Fast." He contends that her hymen was in fact ruptured in giving birth, though she did conceive as a virgin by the Holy Spirit, and did not have intercourse afterwards with Joseph or anyone else.

Father David Moser

01-01-2010, 10:44 PM

I can confirm that Father Hopko does indeed make this distinction ...

Fr Thomas does indeed make this distinction, however, his opinion is considered by other Orthodox clergy and scholars (of equal or greater stature) to be in error. The Tradition of the Church is that the virginity of the Virgin is preserved by God in every way.

Fr David Moser

Andreas Moran

02-01-2010, 01:01 AM

Surely 'ever virgin' means what it says: virgin before, during and after birth. The Mother of God is referred to as ever virgin in the Fifth Ecumenical Council. The third canon of the Lateran Council of 649 (which, though not ecumenical, is surely of very high authority) specifically refers to Mary being virgin before, during and after Christ's birth. The saintly Fathers, especially Ambrose and Epiphanius, condemn those who do not believe this. Canticle Five of Matins of the Nativity says the Virgin conceived and brought forth God and remained still a Virgin. I don't understand any Orthodox Christian, let alone someone like Fr Thomas Hopko, not accepting this. Should icons of the Theotokos show her with only two stars on her mantle, not three?

Ben Johnson

03-01-2010, 12:04 AM

Anyone have any recommended books on this subject?

Herman Blaydoe

03-01-2010, 12:30 AM

How about this as a starter?
Facing up to Mary (pdf file) (http://www.orthodoxprayer.org/Articles_files/Facing%20up%20to%20Mary.pdf)
Facing up to Mary (html) (http://www.protomartyr.org/mary.html)

Father David Moser

03-01-2010, 12:31 AM

Anyone have any recommended books on this subject?

There are the now "classic" recommendations, St John of Shanghai's Mary the Birthgiver of God and George Gabriel's The Untrodden Portal. Also I would recommend reading the hymns to the Mother of God from the menaion on the occasions of the Great Feasts.

This also from a review of one of Fr Thomas Hopko's books by Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_winter.aspx) (TOC in resistance):

In another place in this little book, Father Hopko shows an astounding lack of familiarity with Patristic texts. Admitting that the Orthodox Church insists that Christ was conceived supernaturally and that the Theotokos is forever virgin, he claims, on the other hand, that "there is no teaching of any other sort of miracle in regard to His birth; certainly no idea that He came forth from His mother without opening Her womb." As early as Justin Martyr, the Fathers have always taught that, in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (e.g., Ezekiel 44:2: "This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no one shall pass through it; for the Lord God of Israel shall enter by it, and it shall be shut" [Septuaginta]), Christ passed through the Virgin Mother's womb without violating it. It is this "virgin birth," along with the seedless or virgin conception, which we Orthodox uphold as a great miracle. Let us simply cite the words of St. John Damascus on this matter. In his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, he assures us that Christ "passed through" the Virgin Mary, "keeping her womb closed," coming through this "Gate" without injuring "her seal."

Not only is Father Hopko's claim against the inviolate nature of the Theotokos without Patristic substantiation, but it can be supported only by discarding the witness of the services appointed to the Nativity and Theophany period about which he is writing. Everywhere our Church's hymns speak of the Mother of God bearing a Son in purity, the Redeemer having passed through her closed womb without violating it. Let us cite three very clear instances of this: one a stichiron from the Vespers of the Forefeast of the Nativity (December 24) according to Slavic usage, in which the Theotokos herself speaks; another, the oikos appointed after the sixth ode for the Matin's Canon of the Feast of the Synaxis of the Theotokos (December 26), composed by St. Romanos the Melodist; and a third, a verse from the Lity of the Feast of the Nativity, in which the Virgin Mary again speaks:

Thou hast been born without destroying my virginity, but Thou hast kept my womb as it was before childbirth....

For the All-Perfect God is born a babe of her, and by His birth He sets the seal upon her virginity.

Thou art my God, for seeing the seal of my virginity unbroken, I proclaim Thee to be the immutable Word....

There is one reference used by those who support Father Hopko's un-Orthodox notion of the Virgin birth, a verse by the Monk John appointed for the Lity for February 2 in the Menaion (the Feast of the Meeting of the Lord): "Nyn ho katharos theos, hos paidion hagion, metran dianoixan agnen, heauto hos theos syncomezetai." Bishop Kallistos, in The Festal Menaion (London, 1969), translates this verse as follows: "Now the God of purity as a holy child has opened a pure womb, and as God He is brought as an offering to Himself." However, the verb "dianoigo" is translated too literally here. This verb also has the meaning of "moving" or "passing" through and does not carry with it the literal implications of the verb "anoigo," "to open." Thus one might better render the verse in this way: "Now the pure God, as a holy child, has made a way through a chaste womb, and as God is brought as an offering to Himself." When correctly translated, this verse, the single instance of supposed support for a notion foreign to the Church's conscience, offers no challenge to the universal teaching of the Orthodox Church about the miraculous way that Christ came forth from the womb of the Virgin.*

See also:

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 5 on St. Matthew's Gospel

St. Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity

There is also a good essay by Archbishop Averky called "Mother of My Lord" but it is too long to post and I don't know where it would be found electronically.

Fr David Moser

Judson

03-01-2010, 01:55 AM

to say that her perpetual virginity has been established since apostolic times is a tough claim to make. What evidence is there? It is based on the assumption that the current faith of orthodoxy is the precise faith of the apostles. However, this doesn't admit what Rome at least has admitted, that liturgy and doctrine has undergone development. If it was dogmatized in the 7th council and makes its first appearance in the 4th and 5th centuries, this is not solid evidence that it came from the apostles. If it were found in Clement's epistle, or the Shepherd of Hermas, this would be a strong reason to accept it.

Dcn Matthew, you wrote:
the term eos itself doesn’t imply anything whatsoever about what happens after the moment it demarcates: it is a term that refers to what comes before, without any enforced implication as to what comes after. It may well be that after that moment, the situation changes; it may be that it remains the same. The term eos itself defines it in neither way: if a context of change is meant, this has to be provided by the remainder of the sentence or the broader text.

This is readily clear in the examples already cited: where change is meant, this is made absolutely clear in the text. And there is no pattern (at least, none that is authentic: we can always force patterns upon things…) that relates meaning according to the gravity of the event. When change is indicated, it is made explicit.

Matthew 1.25 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Matthew+1.25), for its part, makes no indication at all that change is indicated. It is expressly and solely speaking of Christ’s birth—namely, that in that whole period from the angelic visitation to His birth, Joseph had no relations with his betrothed (and thus—the passage’s express implication—there can be no cause to think that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph). The passage has nothing whatever to do with the ‘after’ of Joseph and Mary the Theotokos’ relationship: it is entirely inappropriate to try to read it to comment on a matter which clearly is outside its scope and interests.

I would first agree, that eos, in itself, does not say anything about what comes later. However, this is only true if the text and context require it. Eos is not that different from our english until in this respect. It is a temporal conjunction that creates a pivot point; and it functions as such in the majority of cases. Only in a few occasions does it function hyperbolically.

Looking even more closely at Matthew 1:25, note that the author is not saying that X is happening until event Y. Rather, he writes that X is not occuriing occur until event Y (ie. he did not know her until she gave birth). This now makes it distinct from the other verses where until does not indicate change. If X does not occur UNTIL Y, then there is a warranted expectation that X will occur. This is what makes the change explicity. it is different from verses that say "I will be with you until the end of the age". It would extremely awkward to say that Joseph was not knowing Mary until Jesus' birth, and continued to not know her after the birth. Why write it like that? What does abstinence have to do child birth if he's planning on being abstinent after the birth? Isn't it better to say Joseph was not knowing Mary until his death? This leaves us with a problem as to why the birth is pivotal to Joseph's abstinence.

Michael Stickles

03-01-2010, 03:02 AM

Looking even more closely at Matthew 1:25, note that the author is not saying that X is happening until event Y. Rather, he writes that X is not occuriing occur until event Y (ie. he did not know her until she gave birth). This now makes it distinct from the other verses where until does not indicate change. If X does not occur UNTIL Y, then there is a warranted expectation that X will occur. This is what makes the change explicity. it is different from verses that say "I will be with you until the end of the age".

Ummm... no. The "distinction" is without significance. How is it that saying "X does not occur UNTIL Y" warrants an expectation that X will occur after Y, if we have already agreed that saying "X occurs UNTIL Y" does not necessarily warrant an expectation that X will no longer occur after Y? Non sequitur.

It would extremely awkward to say that Joseph was not knowing Mary until Jesus' birth, and continued to not know her after the birth. Why write it like that? What does abstinence have to do child birth if he's planning on being abstinent after the birth? Isn't it better to say Joseph was not knowing Mary until his death? This leaves us with a problem as to why the birth is pivotal to Joseph's abstinence.

Judson, this should not be a difficult concept. The point of the passage is to emphasize the virgin birth of Christ, not the ever-virginity of Mary. Matthew is only concerned with the time period which supports that. Anything beyond that is not the concern of the narrative. To focus on her ever-virginity would be a distraction from the story he is telling.

I would posit that disbelief in the ever-virginity of Mary has less to do with Scripture and more to do with Western attitudes towards sexuality.

In Christ,
Michael

D. W. Dickens

03-01-2010, 03:58 AM

I would posit that disbelief in the ever-virginity of Mary has less to do with Scripture and more to do with Western attitudes towards sexuality.

I don't have any problem with the fact that Mary never knew any man. It was a simple thing to learn Joseph was old and previously married. I can even believe that the birth of Jesus was painless. I've known people who have had "nearly" painless births. My problem is with Christ "passing through" as He entered the upper room. It seems to care too much for the superlative interpretation of "virginity" and too little for Christ as man. The royal way I keep hearing about (that the councils took, neither swaying one way or the other into more extreme heresies) doesn't seem well applied here.

I was not asked to confess Christ's birth itself as an act that did not open the womb of Mary, or that in leaving the tomb the stone was not rolled away. (In fact, if we want to keep these two events linked it would seem that the stone having been moved... well...)

This wasn't covered in catechism, and it's clear that there is at least some ambiguity in the minds of some despite the texts of some services.

I need to know how important this is to those of you who have such a strong position here and whether I should ask my priest or bishop about this. This is one of those times when I am to wonder, where disagreement ends and heresy begins.

Michael Stickles

03-01-2010, 04:14 AM

to say that her perpetual virginity has been established since apostolic times is a tough claim to make. What evidence is there? It is based on the assumption that the current faith of orthodoxy is the precise faith of the apostles. However, this doesn't admit what Rome at least has admitted, that liturgy and doctrine has undergone development. If it was dogmatized in the 7th council and makes its first appearance in the 4th and 5th centuries, this is not solid evidence that it came from the apostles.

The first appearance in written texts was significantly earlier than that. Hippolytus, in Against Beron and Helix (written around 220 AD), says (emphasis added):

But the pious confession of the believer is that, with a view to our salvation, and in order to connect the universe with unchangeableness, the Creator of all things incorporated with Himself a rational soul and a sensible body from the all-holy Mary, ever-virgin, by an undefiled conception, without conversion, and was made man in nature, but separate from wickedness: the same was perfect God, and the same was perfect man; the same was in nature at once perfect God and man.

This is the earliest direct statement which I am aware of; there may be earlier ones. (I'm passing over the clear reference in the Infancy Gospel of James, which is most commonly dated to the mid-second century, since Protestants normally treat that work as spurious or apocryphal).

Now, if this were either an innovation in doctrine, or a refutation of an innovation, you would expect the author to supply proofs, so as to convince skeptical readers of the point. But Hippolytus mentions it practically in passing, with no emphasis or additional support - as if it was something known which needed no explanation or defense.

But, while not of the same directness as Hippolytus' words, the earliest non-prophetic statement of Mary's ever-virginity I know of is in the Scriptures themselves - and from the mouth of Mary herself (emphasis added):

And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Note that nothing in Gabriel's proclamation necessitates that Mary conceive immediately. It is simply to occur in the future. Now, if, as you seem to believe, Mary's impending marriage to Joseph was to be of the normal type, with sexual relations expected, then Mary would naturally have assumed that she would conceive the child Jesus soon after - if not actually at the time of - the consummation of the marriage. There would be no reason to wonder "How shall this be?"

The Greek verb there is in the present tense - "I am not knowing a man." The Greek present is used not only for present time, but for the aspect of "action not yet completed, or in progress, repeated, customary, or pertaining to general truth." Mary is not just saying "I'm not having sex with anyone at the moment." She is saying "not knowing a man is the general truth of my life - I am pledged to virginity." That is the only way I can see that her response to Gabriel makes sense.

In Christ,
Michael

Paul Cowan

03-01-2010, 04:25 AM

Joseph did not have sex with Mary. Nor did anyone else.

Mary was a virgin before, during and after she gave birth to Jesus.

Some things just need to be accepted without using one's brain.

Father David Moser

03-01-2010, 04:47 AM

However, this doesn't admit what Rome at least has admitted, that liturgy and doctrine has undergone development.

Judson, It is no surprise that the Orthodox Church does not admit "what Rome has admitted, that ... doctrine has undergone development". This idea of the "development of doctrine" is a uniquely post schism Roman concept which has never held any place in Orthodoxy. We don't admit it because we don't believe it. Please try not to confuse Roman Catholicism with Orthodoxy - they have not been the same thing for nearly a millennium.

Fr David Moser

D. W. Dickens

03-01-2010, 08:56 AM

Paul, you can keep repeating it, but nothing about giving birth makes her not a virgin. There is no need to imagine some sort of non-material passage. She would still be a virgin in every sense.

It seems the secondary point of virginity (the state of her hymen... I can't believe how disturbing it is to speak of this in this manner) overshadows the more important one, He was God and had no earthly father. He is fully God and fully man, if a human father would have been involved this would not be defensible. She was made pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit and not seed of a man. I don't see any theological need for all this about Christ not going down the birth canal.

I repeat my previous inquiry. Is this something worth bothering my bishop about? Where on the line of "believe what the Church tells you" is this? Are we in Tollhouse land or is this something detrimental to communion?

Herman Blaydoe

03-01-2010, 02:10 PM

I don't have any problem with the fact that Mary never knew any man. It was a simple thing to learn Joseph was old and previously married. I can even believe that the birth of Jesus was painless. I've known people who have had "nearly" painless births. My problem is with Christ "passing through" as He entered the upper room. It seems to care too much for the superlative interpretation of "virginity" and too little for Christ as man. The royal way I keep hearing about (that the councils took, neither swaying one way or the other into more extreme heresies) doesn't seem well applied here.

I was not asked to confess Christ's birth itself as an act that did not open the womb of Mary, or that in leaving the tomb the stone was not rolled away. (In fact, if we want to keep these two events linked it would seem that the stone having been moved... well...)

If the stone had not been rolled away, the myrrh bearers would not have been able to see the empty tomb, would they? An empty tomb was more important than an unmoved stone.

This wasn't covered in catechism, and it's clear that there is at least some ambiguity in the minds of some despite the texts of some services.

There will always be "ambiguity in the minds of some" because not everyone can accept the "meat" at the same time. The services proclaim the belief of the CHURCH, regardless of what "some" choose to believe.

I need to know how important this is to those of you who have such a strong position here and whether I should ask my priest or bishop about this. This is one of those times when I am to wonder, where disagreement ends and heresy begins.

If it is a problem for you then perhaps you should consult a spiritual advisor. Best to know TRUTH, regardless of how problematic, than believe something simply because it is easier to grasp, at least that is how it seems to this bear of little brain.

A God who can part seas and burn bushes without consuming them and defeat nations with a thought, and oh yeah, CREATE the universe, can easily allow a woman to give birth to the Logos without pain and without "altering" her physically. If you can accept all that stuff that happened in the Old Testament, why is this so hard to accept? Is God getting weak "in His old age" or something?

Herman the old Pooh

Michael Stickles

03-01-2010, 02:35 PM

D.W. - That Mary remained a physical virgin after birth is actually alluded to earlier than her ever-virginity, at least in the texts I covered while studying this. In Clement of Alexandria's Stromata (c. 200 AD) he says:

But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin.

I'm with you that it seems kinda wierd, but I don't see any concrete reason for dis-believing it, so ...

In Christ,
Michael

Ilaria

03-01-2010, 03:10 PM

Out of delicacy for whom she is and Whom she bore, the Holy Scriptures provide slightly - but enough - details so that we, sinners with little faith, may understand that the Mother of God was/is not just any woman; God himself had to wait this long for her to come, as pure as needed for what she accomplished...and now, forgive me, but why should we enter so deep in her and His intimacy?? Don't you think we should stop here? For those who believe in her ever-purity there is no need to go further; for those who don't, let us pray that God Himself enlight them how to read the Scriptures mostly with their heart opened, not only with their mind.

D. W. Dickens

03-01-2010, 05:50 PM

Herman Blaydoe

03-01-2010, 08:53 PM

In fact this whole "God could do it" stuff is very dangerous, because it can be turned inside out. For example you could reverse this and say God could have incarnated in a harlot. He certainly had the "power" to do anything He wished. Israel was surely a harlot yet was used to bring about the plan of God. In fact, God worked with so much broken material.

Go ahead, if you are going to conjecture, reverse away, if you like. If He can raise children of Abraham from stones, He could have incarnated any way He wanted to. This was obviously the way He wanted to, from the Theotokos and not from anyone else or in any other manner, why is that a problem? The stone was rolled away because God wanted us to see the empty tomb, it had a purpose. Sorry to border on the unacceptable but there was no reason to "see inside" the Theotokos, "rolling away" that particular "stone" serves no real purpose. Why can't we simply accept the witness of the Church on this? Why is perpetual physical virginity a problem? Why accept those other things like burning bushes and parting waters and Arks that kill at a touch, and not this?

But we do not have to conjecture, it is very plainly laid out, all we have to do is accept it and move on. Or not. I recommend that you pray to the Theotokos:

O Birth-giver of God, my most holy lady! Unworthy as I am, I beg you; by your holy and powerful prayers, empty my heart of all despair, of all laziness and slowness in understanding spiritual things, of all forgetfulness, of all sinful and crafty thoughts. By the strength of your prayers, cleanse my clouded mind and bruised heart. Free me from the memories of sins long gone by. Rescue me from every inclination to do wrong. In your goodness help me for I am poor and lost. For you are praised by all generations, and your glorious name is honored forever.

Andreas Moran

03-01-2010, 09:01 PM

I'm with Ilaria on this. We have the authority of early Councils, of the Holy Fathers, of the hymnography and iconography of the Church. I notice that at Matins for the Entry of the Most Holy Theotokos (Canticle Six, Second Canon, Katavasia) we have this: 'the Word, having dwelt in the Virgin and taken flesh, came forth from her yet kept her incorrupt. For being Himself not subject to decay, He preserved His Mother free from harm'. One of the great characteristics of Orthodoxy is that it has preserved mystery because there is much that is mysterious. If we knew everything, what place would there be for faith? Why, in the face of such weight of authority and Tradition, does anyone yet want to probe further? Western intellectual curiosity? Are the saints to be doubted? Are the service texts perhaps in error? As I mentioned before, shall we just have two stars and not three on icons of the Theotokos?

Paul Cowan

03-01-2010, 10:07 PM

No, let's leave it at three stars. Otherwise, we have to go back and erase one off all those pictures hanging up in the churches. Then there would be the debate of which one to erase. It's hard enough getting through the calendar issue.

Michael Stickles

03-01-2010, 10:39 PM

Peter S.

03-01-2010, 10:44 PM

Joseph did not have sex with Mary. Nor did anyone else.

Mary was a virgin before, during and after she gave birth to Jesus.

Some things just need to be accepted without using one's brain.

It seems that you agree with Paul the saint here:

1Tim 6:20-21
20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, 21which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith.
Grace be with you.
Its not wrong using ones brain but the way you are doing it can be in error.

Peter S.

03-01-2010, 10:57 PM

Maybe it was exactly this theme we are discussing St. Paul was thinking about when he wrote to Timothy in his conversation with him. Or maybe the Resurection.

Peter
In Christ

D. W. Dickens

03-01-2010, 11:09 PM

'the Word, having dwelt in the Virgin and taken flesh, came forth from her yet kept her incorrupt. For being Himself not subject to decay, He preserved His Mother free from harm'.

This has been a long thread and this is the closest we've come. I'm fine with mystery, but I hope that mystery (short of the Jobian type) teach me something. I still don't get this one.

However, I know that simply touching Christ healed people (even His clothing). That His birth would be harmful seems counter-intuitive in that light. I was once told that properly we say nothing about the Theotokos that isn't an effort to preserve something about Christ. I am reminded in this conversation how that is shown true. In our desire to adore our Lady we can forget that. I think that's what I've been running into here.

What bothered me (and still bothers me) is that there would be any hint that Christ wasn't born like humans are born. A sort of as the gnostic gospels having Christ not leave footprints on the beach.

I think I'm seeing a possible way through this mess. But Michael voices my frustration well. It is one thing to say that you don't know why some thing is, it's another thing to say why doesn't matter or that wanting to know why is inherently bad. Surely genuine mysteries are a part of faith, but something isn't a sacred mystery just because you personally don't know the explanation.

D. W. Dickens

03-01-2010, 11:16 PM

1Tim 6:20-21 Its not wrong using ones brain but the way you are doing it can be in error.

This is a misuse of that quote and could be used by anyone trying to cut off genuine struggling with the dogma of the faith. I'm sure you would have been very popular standing up in an Ecumenical Council saying ... gee Paul tells us not to argue about your so-called knowledge. Would you have said this to St Athanasius when he stood against the world?

I'm genuinely trying to come to know and accept the teachings of the Church. This is not godless chatter nor the controversies of young minds. This is me working out my salvation within the Church as I am charged to do.

I must say, this has been a very discouraging thread. Indeed, very harmful to my relationships with persons on this board. HOWEVER before you moderators consider action on that account, consider that this was (at least in my mind) a critically important conversation to me... and remains important. Some important conversations are hard, that doesn't make them bad--just hard.

Herman Blaydoe

03-01-2010, 11:27 PM

Is there a chance that D.W. can get an answer other than (I'm paraphrasing here) "sit down, shut up, don't question, you don't need to know why?" It perplexes me that he's getting so much blowback on this. I'd also love to know why this doctrine (the Theotokos retaining "physical virginity" after childbirth) is considered so theologically significant, but it doesn't sound like the question is safe to ask here. Guess I'll have to bypass this forum and go ask my priest.

Somebody's gonna have to help me on this one - I've never heard what the three stars symbolize (for that matter, I'd never noticed them before - and the icon of the Theotokos in my room doesn't have three stars on it that I can see).

In Christ,
Michael

I'd say that is a bit of an unfair and inaccurate paraphrase. The teaching of the Church is fairly straightforward, I think some justification from Scripture supporting that position has been put forward. We've done the best we know how to explain what we know and some things are NOT fully articulated by the Church nor by Scripture, even as the Holy Paul says: "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known." (1 Corinthians 13:12). We do not know explicitly the "why" for everything, and are positing that perhaps it is not absolutely necessary that we do. But the teaching of the Church is clear: "before, during, and after birth giving". This bear of little brain knows of nothing more to say and will therefore shut up.

Herman the finished Pooh

M.C. Steenberg

03-01-2010, 11:51 PM

I do rather agree with Michael!

It is worth remembering that temptations to be swiftly dismissive, etc., always appear strongest in times of fasting such as we have now. And when some are fasting, others not - an odder tension still.

Let us all pray for openness and quiet of heart to discuss things in a way that is fruitful and profitable.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Paul Cowan

03-01-2010, 11:53 PM

Somebody's gonna have to help me on this one - I've never heard what the three stars symbolize (for that matter, I'd never noticed them before - and the icon of the Theotokos in my room doesn't have three stars on it that I can see).

In Christ,
Michael

Michael,

Look at each of her shoulders and her forehead. My priest says these 3 stars or circles, and I have seen an icon replacing the stars with angels faces. represent the three time periods of her virginity. Before, during and after. I am surprised your icon does not have this. I would say then it is either a non-canonical icon or not the Theotokos. I guess Olga is out visiting family.

D.W.: Please forgive me for coming off "cold" in my responses to your inquiry. I had a much better teacher than me who had much more patience when I was / am learning. I have always been faulted for accepting everything I was told from the outset of a conversation without asking quesitions. Perhaps good or bad, I just got tired after years of PC hopping of trying to figure it all out. i know I am in the right church and She will never lie to me. So, for me, it is easier to accept what I am told at least until I get to a point I can understand. Mary was probably the hardest thing for me to "get over" as a convert. Now that I fully accept her I find myself very protective of her.

Forgive me.

Paul

Anna Stickles

04-01-2010, 12:22 AM

Ilaria, actually, that is very close to the position I would like to be in. I would like to leave the spiritual voyerism at the door. But the problem is built by the extra step taken by tradition to insist on amplifying a particularly scandalous detail and hanging great weight on it.D.W. and others,

I can't answer this fully, it's one of those things I've kinda started to notice without fully grasping, but I think that one important point of context we are missing is the different worldview that the early Church apologists were dealing with. A worldview wholly immersed a Greek definition of the relationship between material and spiritual reality that was totally incompatible with the Christian view of the relationship between God and man, spiritual and material. I suspect that this "extra step" was specifically formulated in order to defend the Incarnation within this worldview and that because we no longer are looking through the same lens, we do not truly understand what was being said, nor why it was being said. I think that there is a sense in which we are missing the deeper issues at stake here and not connecting with the fullness of the theological vision of the Church.

My problem is with Christ "passing through" as He entered the upper room. It seems to care too much for the superlative interpretation of "virginity" and too little for Christ as man.I can appreciate D.W.'s concern and I think it would be really profitable to discuss how to articulate the Patristic vision of Mary's ever-virginity in the context of the modern worldview rather then simply saying, "The Church said it, I believe it."

I think that all of us realize that when we talk about the ever-virginity of Mary, we are saying something about her purity, not just something about hymens.

as Arch. Zacharias says in The Enlargement of the Heart
"I say virginity or chastity, becuase what Christ desires is more especially the virginity of the heart. He says in the Gospel that what counts before Him is what the heart does. There is adultery in the heart. (Matt 5:28), when we give our heart over to a passionate carnal thought; there is also virginity of the heart, when the heart is totally given to Christ. ...what we target is the virginity of the heart."
and Elder Porphyrios in Wounded by Love says,
"In the eyes of God, the married and the unmarried person are the same, provided they live in accordance with the commandments of God and provided they live the life of God. Chastity, lack of possessions and poverty which are the virtues of the monk, are to be found in a person's heart."
As far as I can discern in the culture of the early Church the lack of continuity between a spiritual reality and its corresponding physical instantiation would have invalidated the physical aspect. In this culture the Christians were constrained in being able to talk about spiritual realities that didn't have a real physical connection because it would have led automatically to the kind of dichotomy that we see in the gnostics. One of Plato's contentions is that there is no mutual influence between spiritual and material substances. In the modern culture we are more comfortable with living in a lack of continuity without rejecting the importance and reality of either end of the spectrum, or their connection, if this makes any sense.

However, I think because we are comfortable with this lack of continuity, we can get into the problem of seeing purity entirely in terms of something predicated of the heart, and forget the importance that is placed on the purity of Mary's flesh. It was this very flesh that was assumed by Very God of Very God. And no sin, no impurity can exist in the fullness of the presence of God. "O Lord who art pure and incorrupt, who through the ineffable compassion of Thy love for man didst assume our whole substance from the pure and virginal blood of her that in manner surpassing nature conceived Thee by the coming of the Divine Spirit...." It is theologically imperative to protect the purity of Mary's flesh.

Like I said, I am not sure exactly how all this ties together, but somewhere in here I suspect that the physical aspects of Mary's ever-virginity came to be emphasized in an effort to protect the importance of her real phyiscal purity.

I would love to see a post by Fr Dcn Matthew or someone else familiar both with the early Fathers and the worldview that they were working within explain the context more fully. I just don't have enough of a grasp on the culture of the time to completely understand why her physical virginity after birth would be so important to this doctrine of her physical purity, if indeed this is the context that we are missing, since in our culture we do not see purity in these terms at all.

Anna Stickles

04-01-2010, 01:21 AM

Just one other thing here as I kind of wrestle with this whole line of thought. In our culture many deny such a thing as bodily impurity. To our mind this whole concept just tends to be an ancient Jewish "superstition". At least for myself before starting to wrestle with the Fathers I kind of read over the Gospel verses that talk about the fact that when an unrighteous impulse of the heart is brought to action by the body, the body through this becomes unclean. (Matt 15:11-20) This at least makes some sense and we can see that the fact that the Virgin Mary never sinned was important to her bodily purity.

However, there were also various Greek and Jewish ideas of what bodily purity entailed in addition to this and I do not know how these additions affected Church apologetics or how much credence to give any of those additions.

BTW if I have really gotten off in left field here would one of the moderators please correct me.

D. W. Dickens

04-01-2010, 02:11 AM

I am sure that I haven't been as clear as I should be. A couple of thoughts cross my mind as I continue to digest this thread (which I believe will ultimately be very helpful to me).

First is that Paul's quote, "i know I am in the right church and She will never lie to me". Paul the problem is your priest might lie to you, or your bishop, or a theologian writing a book. I have only been Orthodox for a little over a year, and seriously inquiring for a few before that, but I'm fairly familiar with with various "favorite sons" or even (forgive me) "rivalries" within Orthodoxy. Saying the Church will never lie to you is to disguise much that is complicated with something simple. I don't believe your statement to be untrue, but incomplete.

I would like to say that Herman's confusion may be my fault. I can't explain why we're talking past each other but I assure you Herman, I cannot understand how your own post denying that I have been told "that's the way it is" and then telling me "that's the way it is" isn't clear to you.

Anna, you have invested a considerable effort. I'm going to spend some time thinking about what you've written. I think I've identified part of the communication problem. When I think of Mary's loss of virginity I think of it only in terms of sexual matters. I don't think if she got a cut on her arm she would have been "corrupted". Everyone keeps circling this issue. "Don't you get it, she was a VIRGIN" I get that... but I think my definition of virgin is different. I cannot comprehend an injury as violating a girl's virginity.

I have to say, that while I am horrified by what I've seen certain liberal theologians mean when they say what I'm about to say... (I mean something completely different than they do) there are times I wonder if new formulations with modern terms might help. NOT (like the liberal theologians) for the purpose of changing things, but for preserving them. What the "will" meant to St Maximos, it simply doesn't mean anymore. The whole controversy makes no sense without the definition of the word "will" he was working with.

So it seems there is a doctrine here to protect against adversaries long since defeated and without that context it seems troubling to grasp.

Thank you to everyone (including the moderators for their patience).

Andreas Moran

04-01-2010, 03:01 AM

Herman Blaydoe

04-01-2010, 03:10 AM

http://aggreen.net/theotokos/virgin_mary01.jpg
This icon clearly shows the three stars, one on the forehead and on each shoulder.

http://www.kosovo.net/theotokos.jpg
Not as noticeable, but they are definitely there too.

http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/icons/data/theotokos5.gif
This one is less obvious, only two stars are visible, but Christ covers the shoulder where the other star would be and His presence certainly takes the place of the other star.

http://www.eastern-orthodoxy.com/holyskepe.jpg
The stars are clearly visible.

http://moorefamlily.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/theotokos1.jpg
This one only shows one star on the forehead, but the flanking angels could also be symbols for the other two.

I had problems with some of the teachings of the Church initially as well, that in itself is no crime, but the answer was not to change the teaching of the Church, or ignore it, but to accept it. And the intellectual stylings of Fr. Thomas aside, the hymnody of the Church is quite specific, I don't know how else to say it. When one hears these things sung in Church, do you simply "bleep" over it? Lex orandi, lex credendi, I am told, is a teaching of the Church. Should we throw that one out as well?

If someone has a problem with the concept of God as Trinity, someone is going to find it difficult to be an Orthodox Christian. If they don't like the idea that Jesus is God, Orthodoxy might not be their thing. If one doesn't like fasting and standing up during services, one might be happier elsewhere. If "before, during, and after giving birth" causes one a problem, that one will indeed be "uncomfortable" in the Orthodox Church until such time as one comes to terms with it.

Paul Cowan

04-01-2010, 04:07 AM

First is that Paul's quote, "i know I am in the right church and She will never lie to me". Paul the problem is your priest might lie to you, or your bishop, or a theologian writing a book.

Sorry D.W., I don't accept this. Well, perhaps the theologian writing a book part. I can't say as I "trust" the title theologian as the OC has only named I believe 3 in her entire history. Our heirarchs are given the chrism of the Holy Spirit to "rightly divide the Word of Truth" as is commemorated in every liturgy. I know in my archdiocese every priest is required to go to seminary and I believe that means some previous higher education as well and as far as I know in my diocese every deacon to take the St. Stephens course. I can't speak for other jurisdictions.

Now if these guys are as bad in school as I was, I can see getting somethign wrong occassionally, but I have yet to come across ANY clergy who was not spot on with his doctrine. Our clergy don't lie. They have much too much to be held accountable for in the end. I know my priest pretty well. I have been with him for 8 years now. He KNOWS his stuff.Our associate priest has a virtual photographic memory and he knows his stuff. My deacon is right there with them.

No, they do not lie. If anything, like Christ when asked when He would return, He put them off as if He did not know but only the Father knew the time of His return. Of course He knew. He was in the Father and the Father was in Him. Like a good father distracting his children from knowledge they did not need, he deferred the answer. My priest also has "put me off" until a later time when I was mature enough in my understanding to grasp what he wes teaching. His favorite saying is "All mysteries will be revealed". Then a wave of his hand, class dismissed until next week.

Saying the Church will never lie to you is to disguise much that is complicated with something simple.

I must come at this faith as a little child; unpretencious, open minded and willing to receive. I have been burned too many times from wolves in sheep's clothing. I know this to be the True church. I put my life and heart into the hands of my priest. I trust him. He is the representative of the bishop whom I also love who is the representative of Christ Himself. If I can't trust my priest, I can't trust Christ. If I can't trust Him, what's the purpose of it all? If this were a different topic like "Jesus taking pleasure in the death of His saints", as is chanted during weekday liturgies, then I would be in your shoes now and questioning every aspect of this saying. Perhaps this is a thread I can start.

Paul

Mary

04-01-2010, 04:45 AM

The three stars shown on icons of the Theotokos denote her virginity before, during, and after the birth of Christ.

Why does the Mother of God's virginity during Christ's birth matter? Let us be clear that we are supposed to believe in the virgin birth of Christ - the virgin birth is not the virgin conception or virginity afterwards. It is the virgin birth. Mary is 'ever-virgin' - it is one of the titles the Church gives her. The Mother of God's virginity during birth - which was spiritual as well as physical - is a feature of her supreme dignity which matched the unprecedented and unique event of Christ's birth. It is unthinkable that the Word of God would, by His incarnarion, do any violence to His Temple, His Ark, His Holy of Holies. Christ did not diminish her virginal integrity. The Mother of God's ever-virgin nature is the fulfilment of the OT prophecies (consider especially Ezekiel 44:2) and is bound up with our theology of the Incarnation. The texts of our services assert Mary's virginity during birth: 'For we see a Virgin giving birth, in ways past nature'; 'Today the Virgin comes to the cave to give birth ineffably'; 'A Virgin bears a child, and her womb suffers no corruption'; 'she gave birth in fashion past nature'. I believe that if we tamper with this column of Orthodoxy, we risk damage to the theology of our salvation in Christ, though not being a theologian, I cannot say in what way.

Not in any way picking on what you're saying, Andreas. Just that it's a good summary of what everyone else believes (I hope!) I think what DW is trying to understand is (please correct me if I'm wrong) - why all the hoopla about virginity 'during' the birth? Because in his mind (and in mine) - virginity is something that is only lost with sexual intercourse, not during birth. So what's the big deal with the during? She was virgin before and after, and that means 'ever-virgin'. The during is included in the before and after, because nobody, not even an unholy woman, can have sexual intercourse at the same time that she's giving birth (sorry - but I think, that's the only way one can lose virginity during childbirth).

Here's a tid bit that I learned some time back, that may clear up the mess. Or add to it, as the case may be, since I only pass on what I hear and do not have the resources or the ability to do my own research.

That line in the hymn to the Theotokos that goes: "... More honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, without corruption you gave birth to God the Word, true Theotokos we magnify you."

Most translations use the word 'defilement'. However, corruption is a more accurate word, because of another shade of meaning that 'corruption' carries, that defilement does not. One of the ways in which corruption is used is to indicate death and decay. "Defile", does not carry that shade of meaning. It is very negative - making something unclean, unholy, impure, desecration, etc. While corruption also carries these meanings, I think the death/decay one is important. It is more neutral - a general state of all of creation, which is in various stages of dying. Not A good state, but not unholy either.

Now - re-read that line in the prayer, thinking of corruption in terms of death and decay "... without corruption she gave birth..." - and it has a slightly different feel to it. That's what Andreas's explanation seems to bring out, to me. Nothing happened to her during birth. She was not, in any way, injured. The wholeness of her body was preserved before, during and after childbirth. Normally, pregnancy and childbirth, takes a bit out of you. But for her, it didn't.

I don't know if this has helped in any way. Or even if it's right in any way. But I like this explanation that was given to me. Because the other word 'defilement' made it sound like giving birth to a child was an unholy act. Conceving one can very easily be unholy. But what sin is there in giving birth? Childbirth shouldn't defile anyone! In fact, somewhere in the New Testament, it says that women will be saved by childbirth. Nowhere does it say you will be saved by conceiving children.

in Christ,
Mary.

Michael Stickles

04-01-2010, 04:45 AM

Look at each of her shoulders and her forehead. My priest says these 3 stars or circles, and I have seen an icon replacing the stars with angels faces. represent the three time periods of her virginity. Before, during and after.

Ah! I was looking for the wrong thing - I thought it meant stars "in the sky". Going back to the icon, I can see one, on her forehead - both shoulders are obscured (one by Christ; the other probably got "cut off" as it is a paper reproduction and that shoulder isn't visible)

I had problems with some of the teachings of the Church initially as well, that in itself is no crime, but the answer was not to change the teaching of the Church, or ignore it, but to accept it.

While true, some people need more help with that than others, and most of us have at least one area where it is very difficult - like Thomas, who needed to touch the nail prints and put his hand in Christ's side before he would believe in the resurrection. Christ's answer was not to have the other apostles say "accept it", but rather to appear and allow Thomas to touch his hands and side. When one is strong in an area of faith, one should not dismiss or castigate those who are weak, but rather help support and strengthen them - remembering always that we may, in another area, be the weak ones in need of that support and strengthening.

In Christ,
Michael

D. W. Dickens

04-01-2010, 05:45 AM

Good post Mary. When I stop thinking about "virginity" but rather think of whether or not Christ harmed his mother during birth I am as close as I can get to getting out of this dilemma. Virginity = no sex. That's what it means. Everyone repeating the same material over and over isn't helpful because it's clear we have some problems of definition here. Sometimes I feel like a foreigner who doesn't understand the language and the natives are just shouting louder at me instead of explaining themselves in a language I can understand. No woman can lose virginity "during" birth... so there's no theological point to this in my mind.

Paul, your latest post is incomprehensible to me. My priest makes all sort of mistakes (by his own admission). I have been told by everyone that we have no infallible saints in Orthodoxy. In fact, if I thought like you did I'm not sure how I could comprehend a board like this, or the many blogs (written by clergy) that feud about all manner of substantive (and insubstantial, unfortunately) issues. I sat watching my priest, matuska and reader have it out over what Florovsky meant in some passage about St Athanasius... I could not have walked out of that room with your understanding of the Church "not lying" to me. What would be the point to the studies of the fathers that Monachos supports if all our priests were infallible?

I have even heard that both Antioch and Alexandria were "wrong" and that the councils in their wisdom found a way to a path between them. Sounds like all sorts of problems here, that I don't need to go into.

Herman let me offer the opposing position. What do you do when you find all the canons of the Church that aren't followed? What do you do about what date Pascha should fall on? Do you show up to Church on the a day different from the rest of your parish and just make believe services are going on? The services of the Church aren't infallible, nor it's Typicon or any other such document. Even the scriptures themselves come from manuscripts across centuries with all manner of minor variations.

My point is that I can find the Church infallible without finding "Tropar X" infallible. A song might be wrong, just like the translation of a particular gospel text might be wrong. I don't think we'll ever know whether the word in 1 Timothy 3:16 was "Who" or "God" but it doesn't change the meaning of the passage. So who cares? A mistake (an overzealousness in the face of certain errors) about what the precise physical definition of virginity is not harmful to my faith in the Orthodox Church.

Andreas, a non-virginal conception (which was always what I believed the virgin-birth to mean) is far more important than a "being a virgin during birth" which I still haven't heard properly described (other than dogmatically and with great repetition). If Christ was the son of Joseph, then we are all fools for there was no incarnation. If Mary's hymen was torn as Christ passed through, we are not fools, though we lose some of the typological richness of "Mary as temple" (did I mention that Christ rent the temple curtain at death?... hrm... maybe that's not the only curtain He rent?)

Paul Cowan

04-01-2010, 06:04 AM

Paul, your latest post is incomprehensible to me. My priest makes all sort of mistakes (by his own admission). I have been told by everyone that we have no infallible saints in Orthodoxy. In fact, if I thought like you did I'm not sure how I could comprehend a board like this, or the many blogs (written by clergy) that feud about all manner of substantive (and insubstantial, unfortunately) issues. I sat watching my priest, matuska and reader have it out over what Florovsky meant in some passage about St Athanasius... I could not have walked out of that room with your understanding of the Church "not lying" to me. What would be the point to the studies of the fathers that Monachos supports if all our priests were infallible?

I have even heard that both Antioch and Alexandria were "wrong" and that the councils in their wisdom found a way to a path between them. Sounds like all sorts of problems here, that I don't need to go into.

okie dokie

PS: I never said they were infallible. I said they don't lie. Feuding and arguing and even fighting is not lying. Big difference. Doesn't look pretty but not the same and those in the wrong can learn to be corrected. A liar cannot.

And, most of the stuff on Monachos I never read cuz I can't keep up. You may have noticed I am a bit of a jokester. My way of dealing with my inadequcies. If I am on milk till the day I die, I will be judged on my milk. Others may be judged on steak and potatoes. If I get up to potatoes, they will be mashed potatoes.

Mary does have a way of cutting through doesn't she?

Herman Blaydoe

04-01-2010, 11:58 AM

Herman let me offer the opposing position. What do you do when you find all the canons of the Church that aren't followed? What do you do about what date Pascha should fall on? Do you show up to Church on the a day different from the rest of your parish and just make believe services are going on? The services of the Church aren't infallible, nor it's Typicon or any other such document. Even the scriptures themselves come from manuscripts across centuries with all manner of minor variations.

I follow the canons that my bishop says are important, even if I don't agree or understand them. I celebrate Pascha when the Church says to. I go to service when the service is held, not when I want it to be held. We do some things I am not crazy about but I accept them. As cantor I have to sing everything, and I had better believe it if I am going to sing it.

Not everything is set in stone, but there are a few things you simply do not mess with. We are not Anglicans, we don't get to pick and choose, and some things are difficult to accept. To God be the glory.

You might want to check your definition of virginity. You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. And if you understand the meaning, it makes much more sense.

Herman the Pooh

Anna Stickles

04-01-2010, 02:32 PM

the virgin birth is not the virgin conception or virginity afterwards. It is the virgin birth. ...The texts of our services assert Mary's virginity during birth: 'For we see a Virgin giving birth, in ways past nature'; 'Today the Virgin comes to the cave to give birth ineffably'; 'A Virgin bears a child, and her womb suffers no corruption'; 'she gave birth in fashion past nature'.Andreas what you said about virgin birth and Mary's comments about "without corruption you gave birth" was quite helpful. I'm with D.W. I simply never considered this since it is easy to read over virgin "birth" in a culture where virginity is defined strictly in terms of intercourse and re-read it as virgin "conception". I've done enough reading in the Fathers now though to realize how important the whole idea of incorruption is. I was thinking yesterday with my comments about purity that I wasn't quite getting at the heart of the matter.

Virgin:
n.
1. A person who has not experienced sexual intercourse.
2. A chaste or unmarried woman; a maiden.
3. An unmarried woman who has taken religious vows of chastity.

adj.
1. Of, relating to, or being a virgin; chaste.
2. Being in a pure or natural state; unsullied: virgin snow.
3. Unused, uncultivated, or unexplored: virgin territory.
4. Existing in native or raw form; not processed or refined.
5. Happening for the first time; initial.

As far as definitions go, I think that "virgin" does still carry, at least in part, the right connotation as can be seen in definition 2-5 under the adjectival form. These all are at least tangentially related to the idea of untouched and pure -although the Patristic idea of incorruption goes beyond this.

Incorruption is what happens in the presence of grace. So when we think about the fact that not only was Mary full of grace, but that in the conception, pregnancy and birth of Christ, we have stepped into a situation in which Mary is encompassed in eternal realities above this fallen world, yes, the "supernatural" character of the birth seems very in character as the natural result of the the presence of God. This does not deny Christ's humanity, but affirms what happens when human nature regains its rightful place in God. In fact, I think that to accept that the birth as "normal" according to medical science's experience with our fallen state, is to somehow deny the reality of the presence of that grace.

In a sense the incorrupt birth prefigures,/is connceted to the incorruption that was brought to it's fullness in Christ's resurrected body. We see these events in Christ's life as disconnected because of the way we view life as a series of happenings in time, but the Church has a much more integrated vision if only we can connect with it.

At least hopefully if we are willing to discuss things it uncovers areas where we are still looking at various aspects from a modern phronema, rather then an Orthodox one, and in which our theology isn't really integrated.

Really I do not think that we dump baggage and develop an Orthodox phronema simply by accepting things without question. Yes we have to accept that there is a limit to how deeply we can really understand the reality that the Fathers are trying to convey to us when we lack their spiritual experience, but that doesn't mean we can't work at getting out of modern paradigms that are simply incompatible with the Fathers' vision.

Like everything else in our life in the Church it is through the humility of being willing to share our problem areas and through engaging in an ascetical struggle against the habits of mind that we have developed that the integration we are looking for takes place. No struggle, no gain.

And if this board cannot be a safe place to question and struggle, without getting critsized for questioning.... So lets not pooh, pooh other people's questions. ;-) I at least have really appreciated this discussion and am glad that D.W. felt free to bring it up.

Herman Blaydoe

04-01-2010, 03:03 PM

Nobody is "pooh-poohing" anything, particularly not this Pooh. Whether or not we accept it, the teaching if the Church is pretty clear on the subject, that is all I am saying. Accept it or struggle with it or don't accept it at all, but it is still the teaching and just because it is "difficult" doesn't make it not a teaching. I am not criticizing, I am merely stating what I understand the teaching of the Church to be. When someone says they have a problem with it, that doesn't make it not a teaching, nor does it make things optional, we are not a smorgasbord Church, take what you like and leave the rest. Some things are not explicitly laid out, like say the exact nature of "toll houses" and some things change, like whether or not to baptize Catholics, and there are some things in my parish I would like changed, but it is not my place to force the issue, so I accept what is, because there is some "wiggle room" in the accepted practice of the Church in those particular things, even if it is not exactly to my preferences. I am not saying we are not allowed to question, but I AM pointing out what the teaching is which I think is a useful piece of information, a bit of data that must be added to the analysis and not merely discounted because it points towards a conclusion we don't feel comfortable with. Must be the engineer in me I guess. We tend to look at things a little differently than real people.

Herman the engineer Pooh

Andreas Moran

04-01-2010, 03:59 PM

Andreas, a non-virginal conception (which was always what I believed the virgin-birth to mean) is far more important than a "being a virgin during birth" which I still haven't heard properly described (other than dogmatically and with great repetition). If Christ was the son of Joseph, then we are all fools for there was no incarnation. If Mary's hymen was torn as Christ passed through, we are not fools, though we lose some of the typological richness of "Mary as temple" (did I mention that Christ rent the temple curtain at death?... hrm... maybe that's not the only curtain He rent?)

I know of no authority that says Christ's virginal conception is more important than His virgin birth; after all, we have two great feasts - the Annunciation and the Nativity, but the latter (preceded as it is by a forty-day fast) perhaps being the greater. I'd have thought that you can't separate these two if we are talking about the Mother of God's ever-virgin nature. The texts of our services are not mere poetry (though they are poetical); they exist to expound doctrine at the celebration of the feasts. To challenge the truth of liturgical texts is a dangerous step to take, and, I would have to say (without wishing to give offence), foolish. No one is going to find the virgin birth 'properly described' because, as the liturgical texts say, it is 'past nature' and ineffable. As Herman suggests, you accept it or you don't but I'd have to say that an Orthodox Christian who doesn't accept the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ has got a problem.

Michael Stickles

04-01-2010, 05:02 PM

As Herman suggests, you accept it or you don't but I'd have to say that an Orthodox Christian who doesn't accept the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ has got a problem.

The problem, of course, is that "Virgin Birth" has come to have more than one understanding. D.W. noted that he always believed the "virgin birth" to refer to the miraculous conception by a virgin ("birth" being taken to include the whole process, from conception through delivery), so he does accept the virgin birth as he understood it. Which, for that matter, is how I understood it also - when I entered Orthodoxy, I would quite honestly have told you I accepted the Virgin Birth, despite the fact that I didn't believe Mary remained a "physical virgin" after birth, because, like Mary noted, that didn't register as being relevant to the concept of "virginity" (technically, I didn't actively dis-believe it either; it just never occurred to me to even think about that sort of thing).

For myself right now, as to the "physical virginity" teaching, I can honestly say that I really don't believe it or disbelieve it in any meaningful way. I accept that it's the teaching of the church, and certainly see no reason to contradict it; but I also don't see how it fits into the "grand scheme of things" (and I have a hard time saying I believe something unless I can see where it fits in, even if only vaguely; otherwise it's not quite "real" to me). Mary's and Anna's posts are a help there, but it will take some time to see if that "sinks in" in an integrative way.

In Christ,
Michael

Rick H.

04-01-2010, 05:11 PM

That's really a good point Mike. There can be a big difference between what is expressed when we say: 'that's what I was taught;' 'that's my understanding;' and 'that's what I truly believe.'

Andreas Moran

04-01-2010, 05:20 PM

Surely Christ's virginal birth 'fits in' with the whole manner in which God chose to accomplish our salvation through Jesus Christ. We can't pick and choose which bits to accept according to how difficult we find any given bit. You take the whole package. I ask again, why is faith not more at issue here? Of course we cannot know how Christ was virginally born, any more than we can understand how He did lots of things. How did he walk through a locked door? We cannot understand everything, but if we are in the Church, we accept her central teachings in faith. And the Church has given us all the authority already cited to encourage our faith. I think someone said that as light passes through a window, so Christ the Light of the World passed through Mary into the world.

D. W. Dickens

04-01-2010, 05:22 PM

I greatly appreciate Anna's work in this thread. Though I fear to sound like a broken record from the repetition of it. Anna you have been the cause of great comfort. Paul, I also thank you for your efforts.

Herman, I always thought of you as a kind Pooh, but my priest tells me sometimes you need to use *I* messages, so I'd like to offer one. I feel cast out by you. I experience a sort of personal exclusion from your posts. I have no idea what you intend, but your words have cut me deeply, particularly any hint that I would approach the Church like a buffet. Worse than feeling attacked, I'm also confused by posts that say both "yes" and "no" in them. This isn't even about "questioning" anything. This is about "working out my salvation". Did you think that St Gregory just woke up one day and wrote down his elegant constructions? Or perhaps, did even the fathers themselves (greater men than I) spend years struggling through all the details with great fastings and self-denials along with their intellectual work!

"It just is, accept it" is absurd. The only way this is possible is to never actually confront the material. I suppose if you have an IQ of 80 or are a child of 8 then God is delighted that you stand in Church never thinking about what you are saying but merely "obeying" it. But a conscious adult does in fact think. The great fathers of the Church thought and ALL of them were WRONG about SOMETHING. No one father holds the entire of Orthodoxy perfectly. If no father can do it, how do you propose I "just" do it?

I'm doubly bothered that on a website that essentially exists because you cannot "just" do it, you'd be a member and participate in a discussion with someone who is clearly trying to work this stuff out, with words that to me appear dismissive of my person, my faith and my intention. Why are you here if there is nothing to work out? Just read in services because you already believe and understand all that is contained in them. I must be made of lesser stuff that I have to struggle with the text and beat my mind as well as my body into submission.

I may yet work out this issue, or the Lord may have some purpose in allowing me to struggle with it my whole life. Either way, it will be because Christ is saving me by it. It's clear that further participation in this thread will not be a part of that effort.

My apologies again to moderators and other members of the board. And I repeat, this has been very important to me. Your long-suffering is a blessing.

P.S. Andreas, I am not offended, though I think it's clear that I am wounded. My journey began anew coming to the Church, it was not ended by coming to the Church. I am still, everyday trying to work on and be worked on by "the faith of my fathers". I will admit something to both you and Herman, I have far more than one problem. Being Orthodox created more problems than it solved, but these problems are far preferable to the ones I had before. Perhaps I have not been explicit enough in the expression of my depravity. I am a mess and beg your prayers.

Herman Blaydoe

04-01-2010, 06:09 PM

Irf I have offended, I beg forgiveness, such was not my intent. I was only trying to share what I have learned. I stated what the Church teaches (to the best of my understanding) and that I have learned to accept things that I do not fully understand. If that doesn't work for you then let it be blessed. I obviously do not really understand the issue and will say no more on the subject.

Herman the apologetic Pooh

Father David Moser

04-01-2010, 07:34 PM

two great feasts - the Annunciation and the Nativity, but the latter (preceded as it is by a forty-day fast) perhaps being the greater.

Except of course for this year when Annunciation is preceded by the greater of the fasts - as it falls on Bright Tuesday.

Fr David Moser

Peter S.

04-01-2010, 08:17 PM

This is a misuse of that quote and could be used by anyone trying to cut off genuine struggling with the dogma of the faith. I'm sure you would have been very popular standing up in an Ecumenical Council saying ... gee Paul tells us not to argue about your so-called knowledge. Would you have said this to St Athanasius when he stood against the world?

I'm genuinely trying to come to know and accept the teachings of the Church. This is not godless chatter nor the controversies of young minds. This is me working out my salvation within the Church as I am charged to do.

I must say, this has been a very discouraging thread. Indeed, very harmful to my relationships with persons on this board. HOWEVER before you moderators consider action on that account, consider that this was (at least in my mind) a critically important conversation to me... and remains important. Some important conversations are hard, that doesn't make them bad--just hard.

I think I know that you dont want to change the Churchs faith, but that you want to work out your salvation within the Church. I just wanted to bring in new light, if it was that, into the discussion with my quote, and I dont think my comment is a misuse. Maybe I am wrong. I can try to make an effort and help you understand how I think:

-We (what I believe is the Orthodox Churchs faith, in which tradition like the saints stood fully in, and I hope I am too on this issue about the virginity, since I accept the three stars) are not only believing that Joseph was not involved, but that the Holy Spirit was indeed involved.
-We are not only believing that in Jesus Christ, a man was born, but that a God-man was born by Mary. Forgive me if I am wrong. Am I? I dont think so.

-I dont by science and my senses know everything about spirit, maybe science never can. I dont rely on science only. (I dont know about you D.W. but I think it is the same with you) I accept that I am not knowing. There are more important things.
-I dont know everything about matter, and maybe science never can. .... After all I heard about that elder that smiled on his deathbed, while he was dead at Vatopedi Monastery this last summer.
- God is Light...

-In Luke 1 Zacharias doubted archangel Gabriel. And he became mute since he asked questions like I would have done too in his situation I suppose, and many others. But Mary didnt. Then Mary visited Elisabeth and she recognized the Theotokos we can read in that same chapter. Then the Magnificat.

This is how I think. Hope it helps you in your thinking and faith D. W. .

Peter, the sinner
In Christ