Theotokos and Labor Pains

rebecca · Post by **rebecca** » Wed 29 October 2003 10:37 pm

If she conceived miraculously, why would one doubt that she gave birth miraculously? We don't know how it happened, but we know that she was a virgin before, during, and afterwards. That should be enough for us.

Seraphim Reeves · Post by **Seraphim Reeves** » Thu 30 October 2003 10:13 am

As I stated before--and my controversialists missed--my concern is that some modern Orthodox apologists sound like Docetists and try to remove Mary from her status as a human being (much like the RC's do with the Immaculate Conception doctrine). I stated four times in my post that "I do not deny that Mary remained intact."

Ok then...so what exactly are you taking issue with then? You seem to be speaking with two minds.

Seraphim

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Sat 1 November 2003 10:37 am

Anastasios,

Do you hear that?

.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................

That is the sound of silence. Its ok, I'm used to it; its pretty hard to argue with the Holy Fathers.

Anastasios · Post by **Anastasios** » Sun 2 November 2003 1:53 pm

OOD,

No, it's called I have a life apart from the internet and just wrote 4 papers last week, one on St Ignatius of Antioch, one on St Symeon the New Theologian, one a Sermon on the Geneology of Matthew, and had a midterm in Hosea and in Canon Law.

Plus, the thread notification turned off for whatever reason so I didn't get some of the notifications for replies on this board and I just forgot about them.

anastasios

Gregory2 · Post by **Gregory2** » Mon 3 November 2003 11:10 pm

[quote="anastasios"]Dear OOD,

Since I do not deny that Mary had a miraculous birth but instead am opposed to the way that some patristic fundamentalists go about presenting this, I do not take anything you have just said as applying to me.

anastasios[/quote]

Anastasie,

I'm not trying to argue, I'm just wondering. What is a "patristic fundamentalist?" I've heard this term thrown around before, but I don't really understand it. It really seems to me to be a wastebasket term that people or ideas are thrown in when one doesn't like them. It does, in all honesty, have "modernist" connotations - those who are opposed to innovations are "patristic fundamentalists," those who are in favor of innovations are not.

Furthermore, who decides what is patristically "fundamentalist" and what is not? Is there a way to discern -- and how do church leaders discern -- when reading the Church Fathers, what parts of their writings and/or teachings would be fundamentalist and what wouldn't?

Thanks! Again, I don't mean to argue, I'm just trying to clarify what the term means.

Anastasios · Post by **Anastasios** » Tue 4 November 2003 8:19 am

Hello everyone--I have a few moments today so I will try to clarify two things.

Seraphim: The reason this issue bugs me is because when I was reading St Ireneaus' writings against the Donetists he made the statements I refered to above, about the natural birth, which made me wonder

1) How that jives with a teaching by later fathers of an intact womb
2) How that jives with Orthodox saying that the immaculate conception separates Mary from the rest of humanity, yet turning right around and giving her a special birthgiving. I don't see how one can hold both. If we are going to say that "No, her birthgiving in a miraculous way is miraculous" then we need to scrap the argument against the Immaculate Conception that says "it separates Mary" and focus on other anti-IC arguments.

2) St Gregory:

Patristic fundamentalists is a term invented I believe by Florovsky. I don't know if you were ever a Protestant but I was, and I know how the Protestant mind works in regard to the Bible: search out verses to prove ideas you already have, or read verses out of context and come up with your own views, etc. I see this happening with some Orthodox (although I am not naming names) and the fathers. Some RC's do it too: look at the Catholic Answers group and their tract series "The Fathers Know Best."

Having taken up the study of Patristics at St Vladimir's Seminary, I have realized just how complex the Patristic writings are and I am amazed at how some people can read them once and understand them perfectly as some seem to do. I must not be that smart when it comes to them. But I read and reread the texts we are assigned and am blessed to have Fr John Behr as my professor; he wrote the excellent book Way to Nicaea book and has given even a guest lecture at Jordanville. At any rate, I see that Patristic quotes have to be understood in the entire context of the one who made them; not out of context.

Talk to you all soon,

anastasios

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Tue 4 November 2003 9:24 am

Anastasios,

Having taken up the study of Patristics at St Vladimir's Seminary, I have realized just how complex the Patristic writings are and I am amazed at how some people can read them once and understand them perfectly as some seem to do.

But this is what the Protestants do with Holy Scripture. Like Holy Scripture, the Fathers cannot be understood outside of Holy Tradition. What I learned about the most Holy Theotokos is Holy Tradition. I didn't read until after I was taught it by my priest. This is how Holy Tradition is passed down, not by applying your own rationalistic mind to selected translations of the Holy Fathers.

I would say your method fits into the term "patristic fundementalist" much more than mine.

But what of the questions I asked at the top of this page?