Hopko and Schmemann?

[Cappadocious]

accuse him of, but substitutionary atonement was one thing he taught

In what sense, and where?

 

[Cappadocious]

and I asked evidence for the modernism as you defined it. repeating there is an issue you see is not the same as showing evidence for the issue

I will come back to you when I get those passages on the mind in the heart vs. rationality etc etc and other Romantic idioms.

Or it would beeasier to critique our example here, Rus, but either way

 

[rusmeister]

Nah, I've got no personal attachment to it. That's your prerogative


Who would describe any word that way besides a neo-neo-platonist wannabe, talking about arete and the good the true and the beautiful off the cuff? Don't put that on me.


uhhhhh


You are missing a connecting premise. *why* does this have to do with legitimacy?

Dying! smh !!!

View attachment 200113

Capp, you've been defending the use of the word. We have you on record for much of this thread as doing so. Are you seriously trying to claim now that you aren't defending it?

I can't imagine why I should have to spell out super-obvious stuff. But OK. Legitimacy is about the current usage of the word. There is no necessary connection between merriment and sodomy, not even a hint, a remote connection. That should be super obvious to anyone of even basic intelligence. Therefore, the use of the word is illegitimate. It is an evil euphemism.

I didn't miss any premise. You missed something that should not have required any explanation. And that really is what is at stake. Common sense does not require an explanation of why one should get in out of the rain, or why men are naturally attracted to women. It is the loss of that faculty that requires explanations that have hitherto been unnecessary.

And trying to laugh at the Flintstones does not negate my point that the usage of the word had shed all association with sexuality by the 1960's.

It would be a lot more dignified to concede that I am right, and let it go, rather than try to defend the indefensible.

 

[ArmyMatt]

In what sense, and where?

many of his talks, I am pretty sure he hints at it in the Word of the Cross, and says it in his talk about the Death of Christ. in the sense that the Father abandons the Son on the Cross.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I will come back to you when I get those passages on the mind in the heart vs. rationality etc etc and other Romantic idioms.

Or it would beeasier to critique our example here, Rus, but either way

well, you can't just bring up passages about heart vs rationality, but show that they were only accepted without any critical thought. and that this was taught in seminary.

rus is not our example, since he has nothing to do with seminary education. you said modernist seminary stuff, rus has nothing to do with that.

my question was about your accusation of modernist seminary education, so it does not do well to point at stuff that is unrelated to seminary education.

 

[gzt]

that Mary was not a Virgin during her giving birth to the Lord.

That is a slightly different assertion from what Fr Thomas Hopko was making.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That is a slightly different assertion from what Fr Thomas Hopko was making.

I will have to reread the book when I go home, but I am pretty sure he asserts that she was Virgin before and after giving birth, but not during. so her womb was resealed afterwards, or something like that. I have been at Ft Knox so I don't have access to my books

 

[gzt]

It's chapter 27, pages 122-6, to save you a moment. Called "The Ever-Virgin Mary".

 

[gzt]

He's commenting on Πᾶν ἄρσεν διανοῖγον μήτραν in the footnote on 123 as implying the womb was opened, if that helps and your Greek is less rusty than mine, and which I presume is what people object to.

 

[ArmyMatt]

He's commenting on Πᾶν ἄρσεν διανοῖγον μήτραν in the footnote on 123 as implying the womb was opened, if that helps and your Greek is less rusty than mine, and which I presume is what people object to.

I believe you and yes, I think the implication that the womb is opened is the error, since we say the seal of her womb was never broken, not broken and resealed. but being a fellow who likes to do his own homework, I will take a peek when I get back.

 

[gzt]

I mean, I'd like commentary on what Πᾶν ἄρσεν διανοῖγον μήτραν is supposed to mean, then.

 

[gzt]

I'd quote the Vulgate but I don't think the words used there would get past the dirty language filter...

 

[ArmyMatt]

I mean, I'd like commentary on what Πᾶν ἄρσεν διανοῖγον μήτραν is supposed to mean, then.

this would be another thing, if I can remember, to ask the more knowledgeable folk at school. I always heard His birth was more a translation of place, since Mary gave birth painlessly and without any of the physical yucky side of birth giving

 

[jckstraw72]

Canon 79 of the Council of Trullo states, “Confessing the divine childbirth to have resulted from the Virgin without confinement (i.e., childbed), as well as without its being induced by seed …” St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite says that childbed “consists in giving birth to an infant with the accompanying pangs of childbirth and is followed by a flux of blood, according to Zonaras.”

 

[gzt]

I don't see how what Fr Thomas Hopko says denies that.

EDIT: at least, in the relevant section of The Winter Pascha.

 

[jckstraw72]

He writes: "This means that her womb was opened and that the Christ Child was born from her in the manner in which all children are born. In this sense, 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 a miracle in regard to His birth; certainly no idea that He came forth from His mother without opening her womb."

 

[gzt]

So this is a slight misstatement rather than a contradiction - the canon and commentary you give don't discuss "opening the womb", which is the main idea he is counteracting. He is slightly inaccurate in that one would have to confirm that it happened without "confinement" according to that canon. There is a question of whether St Nikodemos accurately conveys what is required by that canon, but we can grant that for now.

 

[jckstraw72]

well, but he doesn't only speak of opening the womb, but rather he says there was nothing at all unique about the birth - certainly if she gave birth painlessly and without blood that would be unique.

Because she conceived without pleasure she bore without pain is taught by several great saints in additon to this canon.

but anyways, about opening the womb - isn't that the whole point of the Ezekiel reading on her feast days, and we sing often enough about Christ not breaking the seals of her womb. Fr. Tom's statement here is pretty baffling.

 

[ArmyMatt]

that is also the point of one of the stars on her icon, that she remained perfectly virginal in every way even during the birth of Christ, not only before and after His birth.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and to be fair to Fr Tom, in his talk on Revelation (another excellent talk of his, in my humble opinion), he does say that Mary gave birth to Christ without pain. just remembered that point on my drive back to my barracks