Hopko and Schmemann?

[rusmeister]

Rus - seems like you are very quick to pigeon hole those with differing views in this way. The presupposition, of course, is that you are correct in your approach. Should we all just drink your cool-aid and believe that you are right?

You have to decide who to believe, Kristos.
Yes, you have free will, you can decide that I am wrong and ignore me.

I'll just iterate that the way of the world has always been opposed to the way of the Church. That is a truth you can't deny. And synthesis is understandable insofar as we want to see that our Faith IS reasonable. But there are definitely going to be points where you are going to have to make a choice: where worldly claims of knowledge - including ones based on what we call "science" - are going to actually challenge and contradict what we believe. There is inevitably going to be conflict at some points (I do not say "all points") despite the slogan which claims there is no conflict between science and religion. At those points, synthesis become denial of what the fathers taught and a selling out to the world.

So you decide then, whether I am right or not. Do ideas begin with words? Does word choice have any effect on ideas? Is the word in the beginning?

So choose.

3:30

 

[rusmeister]

Yes, some of the terminology here seems to be intentionally vague or subjective. What exactly is travail and uncleanness? Are they related? What does it mean to "open" the womb? Or remain a virgin? What is this seal? What is the relationship between the seal and virginity? And I mean this in the scriptural, literary sense. Other terms that often get thrown around without much definition: childbed, puerperium.

I think Fr Hopko's point in all this was not much more than the point you made earlier: Jesus was born from a human mother as a human baby. God became man - that's a pretty big miracle, Rus.

I agree. But you were quoting Capp's post. I say that on the technical points a little more agnosticism about what we can only speculate and deduce (and could still be wrong about in those deductions) would be salutary. A dogmatic stand that says "There certainly was blood flow" is something we didn't see, no apostle, saint or father recorded, is the error - a prideful certainty in our own conception of knowledge.

Either way, it's a pretty big miracle. But it is skepticism to make belief contingent on Christ having a belly button (though I'm inclined to think He did).

 

[rusmeister]

This is, of course, how I expect to be treated. I am, of course, never wrong.

And certainly not about the age of the earth, anyway.

 

[ArmyMatt]

As I read it, he was taking issue with you saying there's no human person in Christ.

if this post was directed at me, it saddens me this point is even a debate.

 

[ArmyMatt]

This is, of course, how I expect to be treated. I am, of course, never wrong.

in all honesty and an attempt to keep the mood light, I will say that while we do butt heads from time to time, I am glad you make me look stuff up and think, gzt.

 

[All4Christ]

Ok, this is confusing. Are you all saying that there wasn't a physical birth of Jesus Christ? Wasn't that kind of the point? That he is fully human and experienced the entire life of humanity? The Church Father's were adamant that Jesus experienced a human life.

Are you all considering virginity to be the act of being a virgin or the physical state of a woman after they have sexual intercourse? Are you suggested Jesus just "popped out"?

When Elizabeth's "womb was opened", it meant that she was given the ability to bear a child, correct? It wasn't literally talking about the physical aspects of childbearing. The terminology is rather vague on the matter. Certainly the Theotokos could bear Jesus without pain should God give that to her, no matter the physical aspects of birth.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think we all agree that a literal birth happened and Christ was physically born. if that question was directed at me, I would only point out that Christ's birth was not according to the fallen mode of birth. so while He was literally born, Mary was a Virgin physically even as she was giving birth.

 

[All4Christ]

I think we all agree that a literal birth happened and Christ was physically born. if that question was directed at me, I would only point out that Christ's birth was not according to the fallen mode of birth. so while He was literally born, Mary was a Virgin physically even as she was giving birth.

"Fallen mode of birth"? The pain of birthgiving is due to the fall, but the actual way that birth happens is a miracle. I honestly don't see how giving birth in a normal way would make Mary not be a virgin. She never knew a man, causing her to always be a virgin.

 

[ArmyMatt]

"Fallen mode of birth"? The pain of birthgiving is due to the fall, but the actual way that birth happens is a miracle. I honestly don't see how giving birth in a normal way would make Mary not be a virgin. She never knew a man, causing her to always be a virgin.

while absolutely true, we confess that she remained a Virgin physically even during the birthing process. her seal was never broken, as we say in our hymns. her virginity is more than just that she never knew a man, but also that God always kept her preserved.

 

[All4Christ]

while absolutely true, we confess that she remained a Virgin physically even during the birthing process. her seal was never broken, as we say in our hymns. her virginity is more than just that she never knew a man, but also that God always kept her preserved.

What hymn says her seal was never broken? I remember the "preserved uncorrupt" portion but I don't remember the human which talks about her seal.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What hymn says her seal was never broken? I remember the "preserved uncorrupt" portion but I don't remember the human which talks about her seal.

being at Ft Knox I can't get to my books, but it is the one that speaks of Christ coming from the Tomb and the Womb, "without breaking the seal of either."

 

[ArmyMatt]

one place I just saw is it is in the Akathist to Our Sweetest Lord Jesus Christ

 

[rusmeister]

As to me,
I was only speaking to our insistence that we "scientifically" know every detail. If she gave birth without pain, then our assumptions about what is "normal" are already off. I just say we shouldn't claim to be so darn sure about specific details recorded nowhere, taught by no one, just because of our own experience. I think a little more admitted agnosticism on such things is healthy.

It's kind of like gzt's burning certainty that the Earth is x years old. It is a faith in our own knowledge that we wind up making our Faith dependent on. That kind of attitude could lead a person to walk away from the Church if a new ecumenical Council ever declared them wrong. What we think we "know" becomes more important to us than what the Church teaches, to the point where, as far as we are concerned, the Church only "teaches" what we happen to know. We "know better".

 

[All4Christ]

being at Ft Knox I can't get to my books, but it is the one that speaks of Christ coming from the Tomb and the Womb, "without breaking the seal of either."

Ok. I guess I always took that to be a mystical thing that happened, moreso than analyzing what happens with the birth.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Ok. I guess I always took that to be a mystical thing that happened, moreso than analyzing what happens with the birth.

you're absolutely right, it was a mystical thing that happened. the only reason the Church had to clarify was because people would analyze Christ's birth and got stuff wrong

 

[All4Christ]

you're absolutely right, it was a mystical thing that happened. the only reason the Church had to clarify was because people would analyze Christ's birth and got stuff wrong

A lot of things from a western convert's perspective are a lot easier if you just accept it as a mystery rather than doing what is the initial reaction of analyzing how it works.

 

[rusmeister]

A lot of things from a western convert's perspective are a lot easier if you just accept it as a mystery rather than doing what is the initial reaction of analyzing how it works.

I think the latter could fairly be called, in Catholic terms, Scholasticism, or Thomism.
I took a look at Aquinas's Summa Theologica. It was something like 45 MB of .txt. What flipped me out was seeing him try to analyze the Eucharist. Super logical and all, but something that can only be admitted mystery. Trying to apply reason where you shouldn't.

 

[All4Christ]

I think the latter could fairly be called, in Catholic terms, Scholasticism, or Thomism.
I took a look at Aquinas's Summa Theologica. It was something like 45 MB of .txt. What flipped me out was seeing him try to analyze the Eucharist. Super logical and all, but something that can only be admitted mystery. Trying to apply reason where you shouldn't.

By it's very nature, Christianity cannot be explained fully by logic or reason. The very fact that our God became incarnate is impossible to fully explain how - or even why.

I still tend to want to know the why and how for everything though

 

[Cappadocious]

that would mean divinity would change, as the Father would go from not alienating the Son, to alienating Him, to not alienating Him again.

plus part of the self emptying is the mutual eternal indwelling. so if the Father and the Son are mutually indwelling in each other, there is no alienation.

and Christ Himself says otherwise in John's Gospel.

It does not entail divinity would change, as the change is alienation between hypostaseis. and in any case, this change can e caused by the incarnation. without entailing two hypostaseis or persons in Christ. There is no reason why both cannot be true, the perfect indwelling and the total alienation. and this does not contradict johns gospel

 

[Cappadocious]

As for Rus, when I point out a missing connecting principle in your argument and you say, none is needed, what more can be said? but I trust that those bearing witness have, at least on some level, seen what your argument amounts to.