Theotokos and Labor Pains

Anastasios · Post by **Anastasios** » Tue 4 November 2003 1:13 pm

OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:
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?

OOD,

I was being sarcastic. "I am amazed that some people can read them once and understand them" i.e. they are full of it.

The Fathers must be read in context and together as a whole, with the right hypothesis (which is Holy Tradition). But the right hypothesis is gleaned from reading the Fathers as a whole. You can't have a starting point; it just hits you. That's why it's also a product of the Holy Spirit: if you are sinful and arrogant in your approach you will never get it.

anastasios

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Tue 4 November 2003 1:52 pm

Anastasios,

Thank you for the reply, I now see better what you mean.

Could you briefly sum up what the OCA teaches (the Holy Fathers by proxy) with regard to this subject?

Gregory2 · Post by **Gregory2** » Wed 5 November 2003 4:04 pm

Anastasios,

Thanks for the reply. I understand the prostestantism analogy (though I was never a protestant), but it's a little different on this subject. Technically-speaking, the Bible is the sacred text that belongs to the Church. To read and interpret the Bible outside of the context of the Church opens the door to huge differences in interpretation, as is manifested by contemporary protestantism!

Practically-speaking, what does your response concerning reading the Holy Fathers? Does it mean that as Orthodox laypeople - like myself -- we are not supposed to take any of the Church Fathers's teachings to heart until we run them by our pastor to make sure we're not misinterpreting them? Saint John Maximovitch said to always have a book of the Church Fathers's teachings and writings at hand.

I don't run my interpretation of my Bible readings by my priest before I allow them to mean something to me.

I'm still very fuzzy on this. Are you in favor, or not in favor, of Orthodox laypeople reading the Holy Fathers? If you are not in favor of this, honestly, it really smacks of clericalism.

Thanks for your communication on this subject!

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Sat 8 November 2003 9:46 am

Anastasios,

I know you are probably very busy so I thought I would just bump this up.

Refresh: Please share with us the teaching of the OCA with regards to Mary's miraculous birth...

Anastasios · Post by **Anastasios** » Sat 8 November 2003 10:14 am

Dear St Gregory Theologian,

stgregorythetheologian wrote:
Anastasios,

Practically-speaking, what does your response concerning reading the Holy Fathers? Does it mean that as Orthodox laypeople - like myself -- we are not supposed to take any of the Church Fathers's teachings to heart until we run them by our pastor to make sure we're not misinterpreting them? Saint John Maximovitch said to always have a book of the Church Fathers's teachings and writings at hand.

Oh by no means am I suggesting that laypeople should not read the Holy Fathers. On the contrary, lay people should ALWAYS read the Fathers. However, they must read the Holy Fathers with the mind of the Church. In other words, we can't just take passages out of context and use them in ways the Church has never used them, etc.

I don't run my interpretation of my Bible readings by my priest before I allow them to mean something to me.

Neither do I--we aquire the hypothesis of Scripture--which is the Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and if we keep that in mind, we see the clear meanings of the texts. When other people attempt to read the Scriptures without that presupposition (like the Jesus Seminar) then you get into trouble. One must pray, read the Bible, and read how the Fathers interpreted the Bible all together.

Anastasios · Post by **Anastasios** » Sat 8 November 2003 11:03 am

OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:
Anastasios,

I know you are probably very busy so I thought I would just bump this up.

Refresh: Please share with us the teaching of the OCA with regards to Mary's miraculous birth...

OOD,

I looked on oca.org and could not find the "Official OCA position" to your question. It wasn't really something we even got into at seminary--I think out of the 60-70 hours of class instruction time that semester, we spent 10 minutes on the topic and the professor looked at the texts cited above and as I recall (although I did not take good notes for this) he said, "this is their way of emphasizing that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus. Whether her physical hymen was torn is not the issue at all. We weren't there, we don't know, this is not something to speculate about, and the Fathes did not write about this to attempt to give us a biological description, but to emphasize her virginity" and moved on.

anastasios

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Sat 8 November 2003 1:37 pm

I'm not sure how Holy Tradition is/can be taught in a classroom by professors as I have always thought it best taught by the little old ladies and holy Priests, so this is a difficult question...

While not being specific in how, are you saying the OCA then does not teach the miraculous virgin birth of Christ as Holy Tradition but as some obscure concept fitting to be glossed over in a few minutes?

I have read Thomas Hopko's misinformed opinion and interpretation, and it does not reflect the Orthodox faith in any way. Is he considered a renegade in OCA circles? If not, then clearly the OCA is teaching heresy. Of course it might seem to someone who doesn't know the slightest about what the Church teaches here to not be very concerned.

The testimony of the Church that Mary had a virgin birth before and after Mary was even born, which has obvious connotations, is unambiguous. The mid-wives, when they arrived too late, were stunned that the hymen had not been broken.

Nicholas copied some of the texts out of "the Life of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos", believe me, there is much more. Either way, the OCA is robbing you and fooling you with legalisms and formulas, where is you should be learning the deep Mysteries from people who it has been handed down to.

"And the Lord said to me, 'This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no one shall pass through it; for the Lord God of Israel shall enter by it, and it shall be shut. For the Prince, He shall sit in it, to eat bread before the Lord; He shall go in by the way fo the porch of the gate, and shall go forth by the same'" [Prophesy of Ezekiel 44:2-3]

you said:

We weren't there, we don't know,…

True enough for the OCA, but I say, we were there, we do know.