theotokos

# on 03 Nov 2008
Uncategorized

Comments (0)

Related Posts

• Intro to The Creeds and the Seven Ecumenical Councils
• Historical Renewal Friday: Athanasius
• Do Catholics Deny Chalcedon in their View of Mass?
• Biblical Contradiction? How Would You Respond?
• A Test of Essentials and Non-Essentials

No Responses to “theotokos”

1. Bill on 04 Nov 2008 at 9:24 am #

   So what is the history of the veneration of Mary within the Roman Catholic Church? Does Eastern Orthodoxy view Mary the same way as Roman Catholics or Protestants?

   Thanks,
   bill

2. Scott on 04 Nov 2008 at 12:50 pm #

   I have to admit that I prefer Mary to be the “Mother of Christ” rather than the “Mother of God.” Since we are trinitarian, would this not be the proper term? Christ need not be divided, He’s the God-Man, 100% of each. Furthermore, Mary is not the mother of the Father or the Spirit, but of Christ.

3. C Michael Patton on 04 Nov 2008 at 1:41 pm #

   Scott, I have to agree. When we look at this issue from this side of history, Nestorius seems perfectly reasonable in suggesting such a designation. But the battle for this word is laden with its historical context. Suggesting that Mary was Christotokos was no different, at the time, than suggesting that Christ was Anthropotokos.

4. CNI on 04 Nov 2008 at 3:51 pm #

   I would suggest that although a primarily Christological issue, the designation “Theotokos” was also related to the proper form of commemorating Virgin Mary during the Anaphora of the Liturgy. She is still commemorated as “Theotokos” or “Deipara” or “Yaldat Alaha”in the Byzantine, Roman and Western Syrian liturgies.
   The Eastern Syrians (aka “Assyrians” or “Nestorians”) commemorate her as “yaldat Mshikha”, that is “mother/bearer of Messiah/Christ.
   Otherwise they pray to her as much as any other Easterners, they believe in her perpetual virginity, special intercessory power etc.

5. C Michael Patton on 04 Nov 2008 at 3:55 pm #

   I would agree with you today, however, historically speaking, I don’t think the veneration of Mary was the issue at all in the fifth century when she was designated theotokos.

6. Vladimir on 04 Nov 2008 at 7:34 pm #

   Bill,

   In a nutshell the Roman Catholic Church believes at Mary was a perpetual, sinless, virgin.

   The Orthodox Church believes that she was ever Virgin, but does not maintain her sinlessness.

   Protestants believe various things. Some view Joseph’s marriage to Mary as his second marriage and the brothers and sisters of Jesus were half brothers and sisters. This view portrays Joseph as an older man. The Orthodox entertain no such notion. Others believe that Mary and Joseph (the holy family) had marital relations after Jesus’s birth and Jesus brothers and sisters are in deed full brothers and sisters.

   This view is an abomination among Catholics and some Orthodox, but the Orthodox are more open (more silent) about this view.

   Certainly, the view of the Catholics has its origin in a faulty understanding of sin (as substance) and somehow abstinence or celebacy are holier than marital relations. The rise of monastism is linked historically to this understanding.

   The Orthodox deny such a dichotomy as do most protestants.

   The doctrine, however, of the supernatural conception and birth of Jesus by his mother as a real virgin and the Holy Spirit as the responsible party is undisputed except by the profane and unbelieving liberals contrary to the historical testimony of the Scriptures themselves.

   Vladimir

7. CNI on 05 Nov 2008 at 12:42 am #

   “This view is an abomination among Catholics and some Orthodox, but the Orthodox are more open (more silent) about this view.”
   This is anathema to every Orthodox, my brother, except to the very few Protestant-leaning Orthodox…
   I come myself from a very Orthodox country, and there it is only the so-called “sectarians” who are known to entertain such notions.

8. Vladimir on 05 Nov 2008 at 10:13 am #

   CNI,

   Actually, although the Orthodox concelebrate with one another, the view that Mary and Joseph had other children after the virgin birth is not an abomination or abominable.

   Origen (d. 253 A.D.) (condemned as a heretic by the Roman Church about 500 yrs after his death) believed that the virginity of Mary was perpetual.

   In the liturgy of St John Chrysostom (as it stands nowadays) the term “ever” virgin is employed, but the understanding of this is open to interpretation within the Orthodox Church. It is hardly a “sectarian” view.

   It is only after the questionable exegetical results of some (by no means all) early Church fathers (In the West, St Augustine and St Jerome; in the East, this father’s name escapes me at present) that this view may have entered into vogue within the further written development and dissemination of the liturgy by the scriptural activity of the monastaries in the 500’s.

   Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Jesus, the incarnate second person of the Trinity, is maintained and upheld by every true Christian.

   Vladimir

9. britphil on 05 Nov 2008 at 10:27 am #

   “Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Jesus, the incarnate second person of the Trinity, is maintained and upheld by every true Christian.”

   I fully agree with this view.

   However, I think what happened to Mary after the Virgin Birth is not as rigid as the Orthodox churches would wish to have us believe.

   I fully subscribe to the view, which I believe is supported by Scripture that Joseph took Mary home to be his wife, where they then continued to live as husband and wife and where they had normal, healthy sexual relations as would any married couple.

   I personally am strongly of the opinion that Jesus’ brothers and sisters that are alluded to in the gospel narratives are his full brothers and sisters, in that they are the offspring of Joseph and Mary, only differing in the fact that Jesus was conceived and born of the Holy Spirit.

10. Vladimir on 05 Nov 2008 at 12:11 pm #

    britphil,

    The Orthodox Church’s dogma is not as clearly defined on this topic. There are those who believe as you believe within Orthodoxy, but there are some who accept ever virgin to mean no sexual relations with Joseph subsequent to the Virgin birth of Jesus the Christ.

    However, the Roman Catholic dogma pertaining thereunto is quite opposed to any view that does not agree to immaculate (sinless), perpetual virginity. Hence there portrayal of Joseph as an old man. Again, The Orthodox do not view or portray Joseph in this fashion.

    Orthodoxy is quite another world from Catholicism, in spite of the fact that Ratzinger and Bartholomew concelebrated in Rome recently.

    Vladimir

11. britphil on 05 Nov 2008 at 12:45 pm #

    Hi Vladimir

    Thanks for your helpful comments.

    Am I right in thinking that this “ever viriginal” state is linked with Mary’s alleged assumption into heaven in a perpetually sinless state, or have I got that completely wrong? If I am correct in thinking this, then it is another area where there does not seem too much in the way of biblical evidence to support the argument.

    Can I just say that I am one of those evangelicals who believe in the need for us to have a “higher” view of Mary than we normally do, in the sense that there is so much we can learn from her life experience and example.

    One of my favourite, more modern hymns is called “Tell Out My Soul” with words by Bishop Timothy Dudley Smith which are a truly uplifting modern version based on the words of the Magnificat. There is also a brilliant song called “Mary’s Song” by a Christian songwriter called Maggi Dawn. Close your eyes and ears Vladimir because Maggi is an ordained Anglican Priest currently serving as Chaplain at Robinson College in Oxford University.

    The words of her song beutifully try to capture and eloquently express how Mary must have felt on hearing that she was to give birth to her Son who was yet also going to be God’s Son too.

12. CNI on 05 Nov 2008 at 1:11 pm #

    Vladimir,
    I think that the examples below sufficiently express the mind of the Church on Mary’s ever-virginity:

    All we who with longing flee for refuge to your goodness know you to be Mother of God and after childbirth still truly Virgin; for we sinners have you as protection; in temptations we have you as salvation, the only All-blameless one.
    (Sunday Matins, tone 1)
    The shadow of the law has passed now that grace has come, for as the Bush in flames was not consumed, so as a Virgin you bore a Child and remained a Virgin; instead of a pillar of fire the Sun of righteousness has dawned, instead of Moses Christ, the salvation of our souls
    (Sunday Vespers, tone 2)
    At your conceiving without seed, O Mother of God, Joseph was struck with wonder as he contemplated what was beyond nature, and he brought to mind the dew on the fleece, the bush unburned by fire, Aaron’s rod which blossomed; and your Betrothed and guardian bore witness and cried to the priests: A Virgin bears a child, and after child-birth remains still a virgin.
    Sunday Matins, tone 4)
    Come, let us sing the praises of the Mother of the Saviour, who remained still a Virgin after bearing child. Rejoice living City of the King and God, in which Christ dwelt and wrought salvation. With Gabriel we sing your praise, with Shepherds we give glory as we cry: Mother of God, intercede with him who was incarnate of you that we may be saved.
    (Christmas Matins)
    Commemorating our all-holy, pure, most blessed and glorious Lady, Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary, with all the Saints, let us entrust ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God.
    (Great Litany)

13. britphil on 05 Nov 2008 at 1:35 pm #

    CNI

    I think it states the mind of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but this does not constitute the mind of the church as a whole.

    I don’t think it states the mind of the rest of the church, whose thoughts and opinions are likely to differ quite markedly.

14. CNI on 05 Nov 2008 at 1:47 pm #

    It is only the Protestants who are going to disagree with what was stated above. The Catholics and the Non-Chalcedonians would have no problems with this.

15. Vladimir on 05 Nov 2008 at 6:43 pm #

    britphil,

    It is imperative to make the following demarcation firm and clear in one’s thinking about this issue.

    The Roman Catholic Church today maintains as church dogma:

    1. The immaculate (sinlessness) of Mary. Cf this to her own testimony Lk 1:47.

    2. The perpetual virginity of Mary (not the same as ‘ever’)

    3. Mary is addressed and worshipped as an intermediary in salvation beyond her role as the Mother of God.

    The Eastern Orthodox maintain:

    1. Mary was not sinless. Again cf Lk 1:47.

    2. In the Liturgy her role in the history of salvation is *venerated* as well as her person along with all the saints.
    Mary is not worshipped.

    3. Most representations of Joseph are that of an old(er) man in Catholicism.

    “Commemorating our all-holy, pure, most blessed and glorious Lady, Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary, with all the Saints, let us entrust ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God.”
    (Great Litany)

    3. As I mentioned before, the historical progress toward the conceptualization of her as ‘ever’ is non uniform among the Orthodox. Most just smile or wink or something along these lines, indicating at least to me that they know something – do I?

    4. The Orthodox represent Joseph at about the same age as Mary – maybe a little older.

    Doubtless, some believe as CNI does, but others maybe not.

    Its interesting to know that Orthodoxy is quite in tune with the tangible elements of this life. Marriage is truly an honorable and desireable thing.

    Finally, you commented:

    “…Close your eyes and ears Vladimir because Maggi is an ordained Anglican Priest currently serving as Chaplain at Robinson College in Oxford University.”

    My eyes and ears aren’t the ones that are closed.

    Vladimir

16. CNI on 05 Nov 2008 at 10:17 pm #

    Vladimir,
    You say:
    “4. The Orthodox represent Joseph at about the same age as Mary – maybe a little older.”
    This is the synaxarium for the Sunday after Nativity, when the OC commemorates the Righteous Joseph.
    http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=85
    It is clear that the OC aggrees with the CC, in that which pertains to the Righteous Joseph’s old age.
    It seems to me, that for some reason you are trying to make Orthodoxy seem more like Protestantism than Catholicism. Well, for most Orthodox it is obvious that Orthodoxy is much closer to Catholicism than to Protestantism.
    “2. The perpetual virginity of Mary (not the same as ‘ever’)”
    In what way then does “aeiparthenos” differ from “semper virgo”?
    I kind of know the dogmatic differences we have with the Catholics., but this has never been one.
    “Most just smile or wink or something along these lines, indicating at least to me that they know something – do I?”
    Too bad if most no longer cling to the traditional understanding of the Church. However, I take issue with the word “most”. It is rather a tiny minority.

17. C Michael Patton on 05 Nov 2008 at 10:39 pm #

    “It seems to me, that for some reason you are trying to make Orthodoxy seem more like Protestantism than Catholicism. Well, for most Orthodox it is obvious that Orthodoxy is much closer to Catholicism than to Protestantism.”

    Interesting. This is not necessarily what I have found.

18. Peter on 06 Nov 2008 at 2:16 am #

    I agree with CNI, the suggestion Mary wasn’t ever Virgin has no traditional place in Orthodoxy.

19. britphil on 06 Nov 2008 at 6:06 am #

    Hi Vladimir

    Thanks for your comments and clarification.

    I have to say I am very much more on the Orthodox/Eastern Orthodox side of the fence one this one.

    With regard to the “close your ears and eyes” comment, it was purely and simply meant as a light hearted joke given your strongly held views against the ordination of women. It appears to have backfired somewhat.

    Just out of interest, are you a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Or did you have a background in EO but are now a member of a more Independent Evangelical/Brethren style church.?

    This is not to mock or criticise in any way, I am just curious.

20. Vladimir on 06 Nov 2008 at 10:17 am #

    CNI & Peter

    I must be brief.

    1. The Ikon you refer to is a modern representation. There are other older ones at mospat.ru that show the opposite.

    2. The early church does not hold/advocate/espouse the “ever” aspect of Mary’s virginity. It simply focused on the historical veracity of her virginity (Is 7:14) PARQENOS. The idea of her virginity as “ever” or in the RCC as “perpetual” was a much later *interpretation* within ecclesiastical circles and Tradition.

    3. Within the present GOC one is more apt to find adherents who understand the concept of ‘ever’ as referring to Mary’s virginity even after Jesus’ birth. In Russia and other “Orthodox countries”, however, and even in the US, this conception is not understood, even though ‘ever’ is found in the Divine Liturgy. “Ever” rather is understood as the historical immutable nature and character and miraculous fulfillment of God’s promise in her and through her.

    4. The idea that Jospeph was not a husband and father does not sit well with the Orthodox. It evidences more deceit and deception than anything else. Besides, consider St. Matthew 1:25. The Orthodox do not conceptualize the concept of sin the same way the Catholics do. There is no shame or inferiority in holy matrimony.

    5. The issues are quite complex, but the textual transmission of some writings (whether the biblical mss or those of some earlier fathers, i.e., St J. Chrysostom) cause one to seriously question the authenticity of some within the Church’s view that Mary ever was to be considered ‘ever’.

    6. Suffice it to say that both views are held within Orthodoxy.

    Vladimir

21. EricW on 06 Nov 2008 at 10:23 am #

    Vladimir:

    It’s nice to know that some (or many?) Orthodox don’t believe in or demand belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity (including during and after giving birth to Jesus). However, such was not my experience with Orthodoxy. The only view I heard was her perpetual virginity, and that Jesus’s “brothers and sisters” were not the natural children of Mary, nor did she ever have marital relations with Joseph or with anyone else.

22. CNI on 06 Nov 2008 at 11:30 am #

    In you, O Virgin without spot, the bounds of nature have been overcome; for childbirth remains virgin, and death is betrothed to life; Virgin after bearing child, and alive after death, O Mother of God, may you ever save your inheritance.
    (Matins of the Dormition)
    There is no hint in the entire liturgical corpus of the OC that Mary might have given birth to any other children, save Christ aor that she might have lost her virginity in any other manner.
    She is a Virgin “ante partum, in partu et post partum”.

23. Vladimir on 06 Nov 2008 at 5:23 pm #

    CNI and Eric,

    As I said, some believe this way, but the historical later development of this ‘perpetual’ nuance is in fact foreign within Orthodoxy from the start.

    Besides CNI, who ever heard of the Orthodox writing in Latin?!

    britphil,

    I’m not telling.

    Vladimir

24. CNI on 07 Nov 2008 at 1:13 am #

    ‘As I said, some believe this way, but the historical later development of this ‘perpetual’ nuance is in fact foreign within Orthodoxy from the start.”
    On what do you base this claim? The writings of the Fathers?
    Decrees of the Synods? Liturgical texts? Or just on your own reading of the Bible, in Protestant fashion?
    Perhaps you then, count Helvidius, Jovinian, Bonasus and the Antidicomarianites among the Orthodox?!

25. Vladimir on 07 Nov 2008 at 9:41 am #

    CNI,

    Thanks for the inquiry.

    I’m not quite sure what you mean by “reading the Bible in protestant fashion.” I am somewhat of a trained scholar, and yes, there is a right and wrong way to read and interpret historical documents; and yes, there is a right way and wrong way to interpret the theological tenents contained in the Bible.

    Again, the *interpretation* of the nature of Mary’s virginity begins with the prophecy in Is. 7:14 and is recorded as historically fulfilled by both St Matthew and St Luke.

    In both Isaiah (LXX) and the Greek text of St Matthew the word PARQENOS is used. It means virgin or young girl. This is the point of departure for the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Jesus.

    The NT in no way hints or indicates anything beyond this with respect to Mary’s virginity, but in fact, hints and indicates in St Matthew 1:25 that Joseph and Mary in fact had *relations* as husband and wife subsequent to the birth of Jesus – God incarnate.

    It is only in the later church father’s writings (late 4th century and after) that one finds the espousal and interpretation that Mary’s virginity was something more than what the Holy Scriptures clearly indicate.

    St Augustine and St Jerome (in the West) both came to believe and teach that Mary’s virginity was ‘perpetua’. But this, in fact is nothing but an interpretation of their own reading of the Bible.

    John of Damascus (in the East) was perhaps the best (if not the first) exponent of this view, but he too, was not representative of the earlier Church’s understanding which was more in line with the plain and ordinary sense of the Scriptures themselves.

    It is clear, historically, that this espousal had its rise with that of monasticism. From this point on (c. 500 A.D.) and subsequently, this understanding found its way into all areas of manuscript reproduction such as the writings of the Fathers, Decrees of the Synods, as well as Liturgical texts.

    Even falsifications of earlier patristics documents (originally written in Greek) were altered (in Latin!?) to reflect this idea.

    Today, the AEIPARQENOS, the ante partum, in partu et post partum, as well as the ever – virgin idea (variously understood) still persists. Even attempts at altering the Scriptural text itself have been detected which attempt to obviate and mitigate the plain and ordinary sense of St Matthew 1:25. This is seen in the Russian Synodal Version as well as other biblical translations.

    Vladimir

26. EricW on 07 Nov 2008 at 10:07 am #

    Vlad:

    Try telling an Orthodox priest or Christian that Mary and Joseph had children together and/or marital relations. While they might concede that this was a possible view early in the church, I suspect they would dogmatically say and insist that:

    “The Church Teaches Her Perpetual Virginity And It’s Been Enshrined In The Liturgy And Troparia And Akathists, Etc., And Hence Mary Was And Is Ever-Virgin, So There Is Nothing To Discuss Except The Accepted And Believed Fact Of Her Ever-Virginity And What That Might Mean For Us And The Church.”

    :^)

27. britphil on 07 Nov 2008 at 10:11 am #

    ““The Church Teaches Her Perpetual Virginity And It’s Been Enshrined In The Liturgy And Troparia And Akathists, Etc., And Hence Mary Was And Is Ever-Virgin, So There Is Nothing To Discuss Except The Accepted And Believed Fact Of Her Ever-Virginity.””

    Hmmm.

    I always knew there was a reason why I could never be Orthodox/Eastern Orthodox…and my friends…this is it!

28. EricW on 07 Nov 2008 at 10:18 am #

    britphil:

    What the Greek Orthodox Church teaches and/or posts about this on its Website from an article from Again Magazine:

    http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith9174

    It’s originally from Fr. John Hainsworth, pastor of All Saints of Alaska Orthodox Mission of Victoria, British Columbia. Fr. John converted to Orthodoxy in 1992. He graduated from St. Vladimir’s Seminary in 2002 with a Master’s degree in Divinity.

    http://www.myocn.net/index.php/Bonus-Articles/THE-EVER-VIRGINITY-OF-THE-MOTHER-OF-GOD.html

    A Consistent and Unbroken Tradition
    .
    The question could be inverted. Why not believe in her ever-virginity? The Eastern Church has witnessed to the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos steadfastly for two thousand years and shows no sign of tiring. In the West, the idea was largely undisputed until late in the Reformation; even Luther and Calvin accepted the tradition.
    .
    Indeed, to suggest (a) that the tradition about her perpetual virginity could have been introduced after apostolic times, (b) that this tradition would have gone little noticed by a Church in the throes of questioning everything about what it believed in the first millennium, (c) that such a novel tradition should be considered inconsequential enough to pass without discussion before it became universally proclaimed, and (d) that such a tradition should have no discernible literary or geographical origin and yet be universally accepted from very early in the Church’s history, is to form a very unlikely hypothesis.

    Maybe Fr. John is an overzealous or overly-devout convert, or maybe he is indeed properly speaking for the Church in what he writes.

29. Vladimir on 07 Nov 2008 at 10:38 am #

    ‘Maybe Fr. John is an overzealous or overly-devout convert, or maybe he is indeed properly speaking for the Church in what he writes.”

    Well, needless to say, he does not speak for me or the others who understand differently.

    Vladimir

30. Vladimir on 07 Nov 2008 at 10:49 am #

    EricW,

    “The Church Teaches Her Perpetual Virginity And It’s Been Enshrined In The Liturgy And Troparia And Akathists, Etc., And Hence Mary Was And Is Ever-Virgin, So There Is Nothing To Discuss Except The Accepted And Believed Fact Of Her Ever-Virginity And What That Might Mean For Us And The Church.”

    :^)

    Don’t you see something somewhat rather odd about the way this statement is frame. It is unorthodox! Where is the freedom, the mystery, the pathos of this westernized, imposed unitate composition?

    Vladimir

31. EricW on 07 Nov 2008 at 10:57 am #

    Vladimir:

    My “quote” was a hypothetical as what a priest would “probably” say to an Orthodox Christian who wants to (re)open the question of whether or not “Ever-Virgin Mary” was indeed “ever-virgin”, and/or who might suggest that the hymns and prayers to her that call her “Ever-Virgin” should be set aside or made optional.

    What would YOUR priest say if during confession you told him you do not believe Mary was “ever-virgin” and in fact believe that she and Joseph had children together?

32. Vladimir on 07 Nov 2008 at 11:13 am #

    EricW,

    But I do believe she was ‘ever’, but in this sense as I stated above:

    “…’Ever’ rather is understood as the historical immutable nature and character and miraculous fulfillment of God’s promise in her and through her.”

    Speaking of St. Vladimir’s seminary, the priest I know graduated from there as well. His parents are Baptist, as he was, but now has found the truth – to hear him tell it.

    Well, is Mary perprtua or ever? he just smiled. He is in the OCA.

    Besides, EricW, you can’t sidestep Scriptures as something unorthodox in favor of church hymns or whatever. That is unorthodox.

    If you were making $100,000.00 dollars a year and had the Church give you a home as well, would you rock the boat and stand up for Orthodox Truth?

    The Divine Liturgy does not have to change, the ‘ever’ is decidedly intelligible as is. It is the uniate perpetual that causes dismay.

    Vladimir

33. CNI on 07 Nov 2008 at 11:26 am #

    In my life, I’ve never heard a single Orthodox either from the laity or the clergy, to ever imply that the Mother of God had any other children besides her Only Son Jesus Christ.
    While, as Vladimir says, there might be some Orthodox who dissent from this quasi-universal and constant teaching, they have to keep quite a low profile, nevertheless, for fear of the ecclesiastical punishment that would come, were they to openly teach these things.
    Vladimir,
    It seems to me that you read the Bible in regards to Mary’s virginity, in roughly the same manner as others read it in regards to the Trinity, as to draw the conclusion that both were some innovations and departures from the Apostolic faith.
    Just a difference of degree.
    There is some ambiguity in the Divine Scriptures in regards to both-and many others, but that’s way we read them in a manner consistent with the reading of the Church, submitting to its judgment.
    Otherwise we are Protestants.

34. EricW on 07 Nov 2008 at 11:27 am #

    Vladimir:

    Is your understanding/nuancing of “ever” what the Orthodox Church means and teaches and proclaims and prays when it calls Mary “Ever-Virgin”?

    Or does the Orthodox Church mean that she was a virgin her entire life – i.e., before Jesus’s conception, during His birth, and the rest of her mortal life afterwards?

    “Remembering our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God.”

    Tês Panagias, achrantou, hypereulogêmenês, endoxou, despoinês hêmôn Theotokou kai aeiparthenou Marias….

    Is one truly Orthodox if he or she rejects or disbelieves Mary’s “before, during, and ever-after” Virginity?

35. CNI on 07 Nov 2008 at 11:33 am #

    “It is the uniate perpetual that causes dismay.”
    You are trying to invent a difference where there is none.
    Every Apostolic Church, be it in Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome, Jerusalem, Armenia, Persia, Gaul, everywhere, thought the same of this matter. Nothing “uniate” about THIS. But there is something Protestant about THAT.

36. britphil on 07 Nov 2008 at 11:51 am #

    “The Eastern Church has witnessed to the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos steadfastly for two thousand years and shows no sign of tiring. In the West, the idea was largely undisputed until late in the Reformation; even Luther and Calvin accepted the tradition.”

    Just becasue they have done so for two millenia does not necesarily, by definition, make it right.

    What I would like to ask you Eric is where is the biblical evidence for any of this? As far as I am aware, the texts would point to something completely different than the ever-present virginal state of Mary.

    “What would YOUR priest say if during confession you told him you do not believe Mary was “ever-virgin” and in fact believe that she and Joseph had children together?”

    Mine would say..”I have a confession to make to you in return Phil…..neither do I!!” (not that I go to her for confession..you understand….not quite my tradition)

37. britphil on 07 Nov 2008 at 11:57 am #

    “Is one truly Orthodox if he or she rejects or disbelieves Mary’s “before, during, and ever-after” Virginity?

    It depends what you mean by orthodoxy.

    I would argue that I am orthodox in my views, yet I totally reject the “before, during and ever-after” virginity of Mary. Two out of the three I can go along with… but the ever-after stuff….no way!

38. EricW on 07 Nov 2008 at 12:02 pm #

    britphil:

    To clarify:

    In the context of my question, which was addressed particularly to Vladimir, when I asked if such a person is “truly Orthodox” I meant a person who is in line with and in agreement with, in belief and practice and confession as understood and taught by the Church, the so-called “Eastern” Orthodox Church(es) – not generic little-o Christian “orthodoxy” which usually means belief in the Trinity (along the lines of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and the Chalcedon Statement), the divine origin and inspiration of Scripture, salvation through Jesus Christ, etc., as professed by most Protestant Christians.

39. C Michael Patton on 07 Nov 2008 at 12:04 pm #

    In my opinion, that this is even a point of “orthodoxy” for any Christian tradition is a historic, biblical, and theological travesty. I say you can believe in the ever virgin or perpetual virginity doctrines if you desire and are convicted of such, but to imply that it is a central issue of the Gospel and the Christian faith, seems very idealistic for creedal maximalists. Oh that our theologies would be allowed to carry a truly Christocentric approach.

    Love you guys, but please see where I am coming from.

40. britphil on 07 Nov 2008 at 12:32 pm #

    Hi Eric

    Thanks for your comments and clarification.

    I find I have a similar problem concerning the use of the phrase “the Church” within my own denomination.

    I often find myself gently pulling people up when they use phrases like “the Church” or “the Church year” as if they themselves solely constitute the length and depth and width and height of God’s church.

    People use it as though anybody outside of Anglicanism/Roman Catholicism/Greek/Russian Eastern Orthodoxy is somehow outside the scope of the church, but it is a concept I simply refuse to buy into whatsoever.

    I find it can sometimes lead to a sense of superiority over other Christians which is unmerited, unhelpful and certainly not God-given, inspired or ordained.

41. EricW on 07 Nov 2008 at 12:34 pm #

    britphil:

    You have no knowledge of, nor have I stated, what “church” (whether big “C” or little “c”) I belong to.

    “Unaffiliated” would probably be the most accurate description at present.

    My comments are based on objective knowledge and/or personal experience and/or past C/church membership or affiliation and/or what I have read or studied, and are not necessarily statements of what I personally confess, profess and believe.

42. britphil on 07 Nov 2008 at 12:38 pm #

    Eric

    Thanks for your clarification on your own particular stance.

    I have found your explanations of the teachings most helpful, as it has helped me understand where I do not stand on certain issues, if that makes sense.

    Being unaffiliated, you are one of the more fortunate and blessed ones amongst us, though I guess there must be some strands you feel more afilliated towards than others!

43. Valdimir on 08 Nov 2008 at 9:53 am #

    CNI and EricW,

    As long as either of you continue to define the understanding of Mary’s virginity from either Roman Catholic or GOC sources and disregard the historical development of and the plain and ordinary sense of her virginity in the Scriptures, I would simply have to view either of you as those within Orthodoxy who believe other than others within Eastern Orthodoxy.

    Further, if I were to tell you the source of Fr. John Hainsworth’s essay, who is pastor of All Saints of Alaska Orthodox Mission of Victoria, British Columbia, was a protestant scholar, you might cring and shutter. Therefore, I won’t be explicate.

    Among the 300 million Orthodox there are those who believe either/or, but not both/and.

    On any given Sunday there are about 700 verses read from the Holy Scriptures – not to mention the daily Scriptural readings from the lectionary. This is the bedrock of Orthodoxy – even Christianity.

    Vladimir

44. EricW on 08 Nov 2008 at 2:19 pm #

    Vladimir:

    My unanswered question to you remains:

    What would YOUR priest say if during confession you told him you do not believe Mary was “ever-virgin” – i.e., a virgin her whole life – and in fact believe that she and Joseph had children together?

    As you yourself note, I didn’t use a Greek Orthodox Church source; I linked to a GOC site that used an article by an Orthodox Church in America (OCA) Orthodox priest. You claim the source for his essay is a Protestant scholar, but you refuse to explicate. Until you do, though, such a claim is unfounded and merely hearsay. Also, what difference does his source make? If it’s what the Orthodox Church teaches – and apparently the GOC and the OCA think so – then it doesn’t matter if the source was an atheist biblical or church historical scholar.

    At this point, your claim that Mary’s ever-virginity only means that she was perpetually ordained to be a virgin with reference to Christ’s conception (and birth) seems to be held by one Orthodox person only – i.e., yourself.

    I am quite familiar with what’s said during the Divine Liturgy and the other Sunday services. That has nothing to do with what appears to be your uniquely-held understanding of what you say the Orthodox Church and many Orthodox Christians believe and teach about what the “Ever-Virgin” in “Ever-Virgin Mary” means.

    (You imply that I am someone who is “within [Eastern] Orthodoxy.” FYI, I am not. Also FYI, I believe the plain reading of Matthew 1:25 suggests that Mary and Joseph had marital relations after Jesus’s birth.)

45. Vladimir on 09 Nov 2008 at 2:53 pm #

    EricW,

    OK, EricW, I’ll humor you.

    1. What is the source of Orthodox theology? Answer:

    “St. Irenæus writes thus: We ought not to seek among others the truth, which we may have for asking from the Church; for in her, as in a rich treasure-house, the Apostles have laid up in its fullness all that pertains to the truth, so that whosoever seeketh may receive from her the food of life. She is the door of life. (Adv. Hæres. lib. iii. c. 4.)”

    2. What constitutes Apostolic Succession? Answer: See blog roll at P&P under said title.

    3. What makes the Liturgy Divine? Inspired by God himself Holy Scripture.

    4. What differenciates priests, patriarchs, and laymen from the dicta of Holy Scripture. The Answer: To believe in their uniqueness and inerrancy and infallibility.

    5. What differenciates Tradition from Holy Scripture. Answer: See Metr. Philaret’s exposition.

    6. When you take seriously the word of God at St Mt 1:25 (Is 7:14) and my already presented historical representation (something which even Patr. Bartholomew would assent to), then you will see the truthfulness and reasonableness of what has been laid bare.

    By the way, EricW, the OCA is under the jurisdiction (however loosely) of the MP.

    The above are cold, lifeless propositions until embraced by faith.

    Vladimir

    P.S. I make no retractions for my above posts.

46. EricW on 09 Nov 2008 at 4:22 pm #

    XAPIC KAI EIPHNH

47. Vladimir on 09 Nov 2008 at 4:39 pm #

    XAPIC KAI EIPHNH

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

3000 characters or less or your post will disappear!

Also, be sure to read the blog rules.