Hopko and Schmemann?

[Cappadocious]

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.

That doesn't imply substitution, penal or otherwise, though

 

[Cappadocious]

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

FYI there are those who interpret the protoevangelium to say that Christ was teleported out of her womb in a ball of light.

Fr. Tom is saying: Painless birth, sure. But real and ordinary in the sense that it was a human birth, not Athena sprouting from the head of zeus. and no, after birth and fluid doesn't disturb this

 

[ArmyMatt]

That doesn't imply substitution, penal or otherwise, though

you asked in what sense, since the idea of God turning His back on the Son and abandoning Him on the Cross is part of penal substitution, that was the sense in which I meant. as someone who used to believe in substitutionary atonement, Christ being left even by God the Father was what I was referring to.

 

[Cappadocious]

you asked in what sense, since the idea of God turning His back on the Son and abandoning Him on the Cross is part of penal substitution, that was the sense in which I meant. as someone who used to believe in substitutionary atonement, Christ being left even by God the Father was what I was referring to.

Why can't that be another paradox of the incarnation, that while being in total communion with God he is simultaneously totally alienated from him, thus demanding the vindication of the resurrection

 

[jckstraw72]

I believe St. Irenaeus referred to the Blessed Virgin Mother as the new Eve. Since our theology of the Lord is incarnational, it seems fitting that His redemptive work begins with His incarnation and that His very birth would not engender the travail brought upon by ancestral sin ( Genesis 3:16 ).

Thus, while Eve heard of childbearing through pain, the archangel cried to the Theotokos instead "Rejoice!"

 

[jckstraw72]

Why can't that be another paradox of the incarnation, that while being in total communion with God he is simultaneously totally alienated from him, thus demanding the vindication of the resurrection

because He IS God.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Why can't that be another paradox of the incarnation, that while being in total communion with God he is simultaneously totally alienated from him, thus demanding the vindication of the resurrection

it could, if there were a human person in Christ. since the Person of the Son and the Person of the Father are divine and unchanging, and the Scripture says the Son is in the bosom of the Father, They are never not in full communion with each other. only if there was a human person in Christ could God abandon Him.

 

[Kristos]

So Jesus didn't have a belly button?

 

[ArmyMatt]

So Jesus didn't have a belly button?

I would imagine He did.

 

[Cappadocious]

because He IS God.

So?

 

[Cappadocious]

since the Person of the Son and the Person of the Father are divine and unchanging, and the Scripture says the Son is in the bosom of the Father, They are never not in full communion with each other.

No one said otherwise.

only if there was a human person in Christ could God abandon Him.

Not true.

God can truly empty himself without division. God the Son can be alienated from the Father while being in perfect communion with him, without division into multiple persons or hypostaseis.

 

[Cappadocious]

Thus, while Eve heard of childbearing through pain, the archangel cried to the Theotokos instead "Rejoice!"

Birth fluid isn't travail, blood or uncleanness.

 

[rusmeister]

(Since no one is challenging my previous posts...)

One thing that strikes me in you all's learn-ed dialog is that there is a curiosity about the physical aspects of the birth of Christ that, for some, anyway, seems to be unwilling to simply accept that a miracle is miraculous. Now I get that we want to know that Christ was human in the same sense that we are, as well as only more so. But it seems as if some are looking for a scientific explanation consistent with what we know about people in general, and won't be satisfied unless they can synthesize their faith with science. Hopko was definitely of that type, and the whole danger and criticism some of us have of that approach ( synthesis) is that it elevates temporal earthly knowledge to be equal with, or superior to, what we accept by faith. And in that, it becomes less faithful. Abraham showed his faith by accepting what made no earthly sense in sacrificing his son. But we are in danger of doubting the Faith if we suspect Christ didn't have birth fluids or a belly button, and so, wind up insisting on His having them so we can keep our synthesis. Me, I'm cool with saying "I don't know".

 

[ArmyMatt]

No one said otherwise.


Not true.

God can truly empty himself without division. God the Son can be alienated from the Father while being in perfect communion with him, without division into multiple persons or hypostaseis.

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.

 

[Kristos]

I would imagine He did.

completely missing the point.

 

[Kristos]

(Since no one is challenging my previous posts...)

One thing that strikes me in you all's learn-ed dialog is that there is a curiosity about the physical aspects of the birth of Christ that, for some, anyway, seems to be unwilling to simply accept that a miracle is miraculous. Now I get that we want to know that Christ was human in the same sense that we are, as well as only more so. But it seems as if some are looking for a scientific explanation consistent with what we know about people in general, and won't be satisfied unless they can synthesize their faith with science. Hopko was definitely of that type, and the whole danger and criticism some of us have of that approach ( synthesis) is that it elevates temporal earthly knowledge to be equal with, or superior to, what we accept by faith. And in that, it becomes less faithful. Abraham showed his faith by accepting what made no earthly sense in sacrificing his son. But we are in danger of doubting the Faith if we suspect Christ didn't have birth fluids or a belly button, and so, wind up insisting on His having them so we can keep our synthesis. Me, I'm cool with saying "I don't know".

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?

 

[Kristos]

Birth fluid isn't travail, blood or uncleanness.

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.

 

[ArmyMatt]

completely missing the point.

if you were referring to the belly button being a scar from the cutting of the umbilical cord, then I don't think I missed your point (unless there was some other reason)

 

[jckstraw72]

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

 

[gzt]

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?

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