Hopko and Schmemann?

[gzt]

How can you state so unreservedly that he was wrong? It's on you to impeach the venerable protopresbyter.

 

[jckstraw72]

lol, that's not an answer.

either his meaning is unclear, or he's clearly not wrong. but he can't be both.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and no one is trying to impeach Fr Tom. in fact, jckstraw said earlier how it was a great blessing to hear him preach on many occasions, and that he has talks that are amazing.

 

[gzt]

Who said he was clearly not wrong?

 

[rusmeister]

Who said he was clearly not wrong?

But anyway, we're wandering far from the point here, which is that Fr Thomas Hopko didn't say anything wrong in Winter Pascha.

I guess it would be whoever said this.

 

[gzt]

I didn't use the adjective clearly. We have claims that the venerable protopresbyter is teaching heresy in Winter Pascha, and then we have a demonstration that what he said was, at the very worst, only unclear and reflects the words of the Gospel. The attempts to impeach his work have a higher bar to clear, at least, to my mind, as I'm not in the business of sullying the reputations of ecclesiastical figures unnecessarily.

 

[jckstraw72]

Saying he did not teach ANYTHING wrong, that is, not leaving any room for him having made even the slightest mistake, is a wholly unambiguous statement, whether you used the adjective "clearly" or not.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and no one is sullying anyone. saying there are errors in someone's theology is not the same as sullying him. plus all the sulliers also listed positives of Fr Tom's theology and what he left us.

 

[gzt]

I'd be willing to amend my statement to say that the criticized statements in The Winter Pascha are not in error.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'd be willing to amend my statement to say that the criticized statements in The Winter Pascha are not in error.

even to add that Fr Tom rightly says she gives birth totally painlessly, in the reflection in question he does not bring up that the seal of her physical virginity was never broken, which was in the canon used in Orthros this morning at the parish in Louisville. Fr Tom says there is no idea that He came forth without opening her womb. that statement is in error.

 

[gzt]

'opening womb' vs 'seal of physical virginity [sic]': those are different things, and the former is reflected in the text of the Gospel (and by the way the hymen isn't a seal)

 

[ArmyMatt]

'opening womb' vs 'seal of physical virginity [sic]': those are different things, and the former is reflected in the text of the Gospel (and by the way the hymen isn't a seal)

and again, that Gospel is a reference for why Christ was brought to the Temple. until Christ there never was a firstborn who didn't open his mother's womb.

and is there any evidence that opening the womb and maintaining physical virginity are different things?

 

[gzt]

They're different phrases. As far as we're concerned that's an open question. But it's premature to say, given that he's just echoing the phrasing of the Gospels themselves, that he's "wrong".

 

[HoleyHermit]

and is there any evidence that opening the womb and maintaining physical virginity are different things?

"And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened to her, and opened her womb." I'm fairly certain that Rachel hadn't been a virgin for some time.

 

[ArmyMatt]

They're different phrases. As far as we're concerned that's an open question. But it's premature to say, given that he's just echoing the phrasing of the Gospels themselves, that he's "wrong".

to say that aside from the virginal conception and birth, that there was nothing different about Christ's birth is a wrong statement to make.

 

[ArmyMatt]

"And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened to her, and opened her womb." I'm fairly certain that Rachel hadn't been a virgin for some time.

not sure what this has to do with anything?

 

[HoleyHermit]

not sure what this has to do with anything?

If her womb was opened and she wasn't a virgin, then that is evidence that opening the womb and maintaining physical virginity are different things. Before that point, she was a nonvirgin with a closed womb.

 

[ArmyMatt]

If her womb was opened and she wasn't a virgin, then that is evidence that opening the womb and maintaining physical virginity are different things. Before that point, she was a nonvirgin with a closed womb.

good point, I sit corrected.

but the context is from the law, which ties this to the firstborn.

but your point as to your answer of my question is still right.

 

[Kristos]

'opening womb' vs 'seal of physical virginity [sic]': those are different things, and the former is reflected in the text of the Gospel (and by the way the hymen isn't a seal)

True, but I'm pretty sure that is what the hymns are talking about - what else would the seal be? Mary remained a Virgin - no big issue there if you simply define virginity as chastity - could even add to that, purity of mind and body - but the concern seems to be about the status of her hymen. As per the PV of James, the midwife "checked" if Mary was a virgin, thus the physical proof or attribute of virginity that her hymen was unbroken. An imperforate hymen would be a complete seal - but is this really what we are saying? Why do we even care? You are right, "opening the womb" seems to be something else completely. On one hand, the womb is opened when pregnant - i.e. it was closed/empty/barren, but now it's open/full/fruitful. On another hand, in giving birth it would seem that the womb must "open" to allow what is inside to come out (a normal birth through the cervix). The last option (which conflates the seal and the opening) seems to be that opening the womb comes back to the hymen, but only in the case of Mary because she is the only virgin to give birth - any other case, it would be not applicable because the hymen would have theoretically been broken during intercourse. So what do we know? Not much except there is plenty of room in these terms to dance around and not really say much and there seems to be a preoccupation with the physical "proof" of virginity.

 

[All4Christ]

True, but I'm pretty sure that is what the hymns are talking about - what else would the seal be? Mary remained a Virgin - no big issue there if you simply define virginity as chastity - could even add to that, purity of mind and body - but the concern seems to be about the status of her hymen. As per the PV of James, the midwife "checked" if Mary was a virgin, thus the physical proof or attribute of virginity that her hymen was unbroken. An imperforate hymen would be a complete seal - but is this really what we are saying? Why do we even care? You are right, "opening the womb" seems to be something else completely. On one hand, the womb is opened when pregnant - i.e. it was closed/empty/barren, but now it's open/full/fruitful. On another hand, in giving birth it would seem that the womb must "open" to allow what is inside to come out (a normal birth through the cervix). The last option (which conflates the seal and the opening) seems to be that opening the womb comes back to the hymen, but only in the case of Mary because she is the only virgin to give birth - any other case, it would be not applicable because the hymen would have theoretically been broken during intercourse. So what do we know? Not much except there is plenty of room in these terms to dance around and not really say much and there seems to be a preoccupation with the physical "proof" of virginity.

And it also implies she wasn't involved in any strenuous activity that can cause that or the myriad of other ways it can be broken without sexual intercourse...I've never considered (before hearing about this) that the Church considered that to be what being a virgin meant physically. It'd seem more likely that it would refer to the effacement of the cervix or something else like that since there are many ways to break the hymen other than intercourse (such as strenuous exercise like riding a horse or even a donkey for long periods of time).

It feels strange talking about this with the Theotokos.