On the Virgin Birth and the New Teaching of St. Vladimir's

尼古拉前执事 · Post by **尼古拉前执事** » Thu 14 July 2005 2:20 am

A post I found at OCnet:

On the Virgin Birth and the New Teaching of St. Vladimir's Seminary

Orthodox Christians must not confuse the virginal conception with the virgin birth of our Lord. The Church commemorates the first on the feast of the Annunciation, March 25, and the second nine months later, on December 25. Like all conceptions and births, they are two separate events. The Scriptures, the Creeds, the liturgical texts, the Holy Fathers, and all of Holy Tradition witnesses to the fact that our Lord had a virgin birth, i.e., no blood, no afterbirth, no breaking of the seal. This is what the Orthodox Church means by "virgin birth." It does not refer to the conception without a man, but refers precisely to the birth itself.

For without seed He took flesh of a Virgin and rose from the tomb, without breaking the seal of either. Akathist Hymn to Our Lord Jesus Christ

Having kept the seals intact, O Christ, Thou didst arise from the tomb, O Thou Who didst not break the seal of the virgin by Thy birth; and Thou hast opened unto us the gates of Paradise. Sixth Ode of the Paschal Canon

These are but two texts of many that could be quoted. One wonders, then, at the new teaching coming forth from the Dean of St. Vladimir's Seminary, my former professor, Fr. Thomas Hopko

: ..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 miracle in regard to His birth; certainly no idea that he came forth from His mother without opening her womb. Winter Pascha, by Thomas Hopko, St. Vladimir 's Seminary Press, p. 1 75

What are we to make of the Akathist Hymn: Without breaking seal of either (womb or tomb), and of the Paschal Canon: Having kept the seals intact (of womb and tomb), and of all the other liturgical and patristic texts which witness to this truth?

Is it not true that "Orthodox" theologians through their involvement in the ecumenical movement have begun to think like the non-Orthodox? Of course, most [of those] involved in this movement do not accept the Virgin Birth, and the few who do accept it equate it precisely with the virginal conception, without distinguishing it from the Virgin Birth. Consequently, even Orthodox are talking about the Virgin Birth when what they really mean is the virginal conception.

Those who use the icon of the Nativity which portrays the washing of the infant as a proof that there is "... certainly no idea that He came forth from His mother without opening her womb" forget our Lord's baptism at the hands of John:

Suffer it to be so now, or thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him (Matt. 3:15).

Without the need to be washed in baptism, so was our Lord washed, "Who didst not break the seal of the Virgin by Thy birth." May He Who did not break the seal of either the womb or the tomb grant you a Blessed Nativity and a Joyous New Year! Least worthy of priests,

Father David Belden

尼古拉前执事 · Post by **尼古拉前执事** » Thu 14 July 2005 2:22 am

And a Response by Fr Serafim of the JP:

Virginitas in partu has always been the teaching of the Church both East and West. It is curious to me that this should be a subject of dispute. In 1997 Fr David Belden (HOCNA) wrote the statement about St Vladimir's teaching. His criticism seems to be justified when we look at what we are supposed to believe!

Pope St. Leo the Great said, "She (Mary) brought Him forth without the loss of virginity, even as she conceived him without its loss...(Jesus Christ was) born from the Virgin's womb because it was a miraculous birth." The Gospel of St. Luke simply stated, "She gave birth..."

St. Augustine's elaboration: Mary "remained a virgin in conceiving her son, a virgin in giving birth to Him, a virgin in carrying Him, a virgin in nursing Him at her breast, always a virgin".

St Clement of Alexandria (215) says "For certain people say Mary, examined by the midwive after she had given birth, was found to be virgin".

St Hesychius of Jerusalem: "Christ did not open but left closed the door of the Virgin; He did not violate nature's seal, did not harm the one giving birth, for her, in reality. He left the sign of virginity." St John of Damascus: "The Lord deigned to enter into her, preserving her virginity inviolate after childbirth".

St Ambrose: "Mary had kept the seals of her virginity. The Prophet Ezekiel says He went forth from the Virgin..A good gate is Mary, that was closed and was not opened; by her Christ passed, but He opened it not".

It is interesting to note that midwives are depicted on the Nativity Icon. These figures are apocryphal, but accepted by the Church. It was custom for new born infants to be bathed and rubbed with salt. That Christ was washed does not infer after-birth cleansing in the normal manner.

I wonder how much we really know about Orthodoxy, myself included, when such questions arise and how much we are influenced by the Zeitgeist. It seems to me that there is a whole mind-set today that is totally out of touch with the basic teaching of the Church.

尼古拉前执事 · Post by **尼古拉前执事** » Thu 14 July 2005 2:27 am

And a response by Archbishop Chrystosomos about this:

In another place in this little book, Father Hopko shows an astounding lack of familiarity with Patristic texts. Admitting that the Orthodox Church insists that Christ was conceived supernaturally and that the Theotokos is forever virgin, he claims, on the other hand, that "there is no teaching of any other sort of miracle in regard to His birth; certainly no idea that He came forth from His mother without opening Her womb." As early as Justin Martyr, the Fathers have always taught that, in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (e.g., Ezekiel 44:2: "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" [Septuaginta]), Christ passed through the Virgin Mother's womb without violating it. It is this "virgin birth," along with the seedless or virgin conception, which we Orthodox uphold as a great miracle. Let us simply cite the words of St. John Damascus on this matter. In his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, he assures us that Christ "passed through" the Virgin Mary, "keeping her womb closed," coming through this "Gate" without injuring "her seal."

Not only is Father Hopko's claim against the inviolate nature of the Theotokos without Patristic substantiation, but it can be supported only by discarding the witness of the services appointed to the Nativity and Theophany period about which he is writing. Everywhere our Church's hymns speak of the Mother of God bearing a Son in purity, the Redeemer having passed through her closed womb without violating it. Let us cite three very clear instances of this: one a stichiron from the Vespers of the Forefeast of the Nativity (December 24) according to Slavic usage, in which the Theotokos herself speaks; another, the oikos appointed after the sixth ode for the Matin's Canon of the Feast of the Synaxis of the Theotokos (December 26), composed by St. Romanos the Melodist; and a third, a verse from the Lity of the Feast of the Nativity, in which the Virgin Mary again speaks:

Thou hast been born without destroying my virginity, but Thou hast kept my womb as it was before childbirth....

For the All-Perfect God is born a babe of her, and by His birth He sets the seal upon her virginity.

Thou art my God, for seeing the seal of my virginity unbroken, I proclaim Thee to be the immutable Word....

There is one reference used by those who support Father Hopko's un-Orthodox notion of the Virgin birth, a verse by the Monk John appointed for the Lity for February 2 in the Menaion (the Feast of the Meeting of the Lord): "Nyn ho katharos theos, hos paidion hagion, metran dianoixan agnen, heauto hos theos syncomezetai." Bishop Kallistos, in The Festal Menaion (London, 1969), translates this verse as follows: "Now the God of purity as a holy child has opened a pure womb, and as God He is brought as an offering to Himself." However, the verb "dianoigo" is translated too literally here. This verb also has the meaning of "moving" or "passing" through and does not carry with it the literal implications of the verb "anoigo," "to open." Thus one might better render the verse in this way: "Now the pure God, as a holy child, has made a way through a chaste womb, and as God is brought as an offering to Himself." When correctly translated, this verse, the single instance of supposed support for a notion foreign to the Church's conscience, offers no challenge to the universal teaching of the Orthodox Church about the miraculous way that Christ came forth from the womb of the Virgin.

Joshua F · Post by **Joshua F** » Thu 14 July 2005 3:12 am

Thank you for this. I knew Fr. Hopko held this position, and it came up in conversation recently - the discussion here is quite useful.

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Thu 14 July 2005 10:11 am

Is it not true that "Orthodox" theologians through their involvement in the ecumenical movement have begun to think like the non-Orthodox?

I believe this is totally false. It is not because of their involvement in the ecumenical movement. If their involvement in this movement, Thomas Hopko’s lack of Orthodox understanding, the general heresy of accepting heretic baptisms, calling Mohammed a prophet, their inability to see a Monophysite as a Monophysite, their willingness to question the Holy Fathers and overturn their decisions in a variety of important ways, ect., ect., ect. can be attributed to one thing, it would be the lack of the Grace of God. That they have departed from the Church, the source of life we will see a slow decay of everything sooner or later - it took the Latins centuries to see the complete abomination we now see. That we don’t see more heresies consuming every bit of what appears Orthodox in them is similar to how forensic scientists measure the growth rates of insects inhabiting a corpse in order to determine the time of death.

joasia · Post by **joasia** » Thu 14 July 2005 9:17 pm

...can be attributed to one thing, it would be the lack of the Grace of God.

We, in the secular world, carelessly throw around the statement of the "lack of the Grace of God". But, do you really know what that means? It means that they are in the same spiritual state as satan and his demons(the ones that truly lack God's Grace), because they choose to with the worst consequences...never to return to God's Kingdom. Are the hierarchs demons? No. They are now spiritually lost when once they were cute, little, innocent babies. Are we to compare them to demons? Are we not to have true Christian love and pray for our brothers who have been led astray?

Shouldn't we be praying for those who are lost? We ask each other to pray for us..why not think about it in those terms for the hierarchs? I used to be very judgemental about them, but now I see it in a different light.

Mankind has moved away from God because of their imperfections, but the saints, who have aquired the state of Theosis, demonstrate that we can regain it.

Does everybody in this cafe live in the state of theosis? We just analyze things with our worldly understandings. The saints saw it with the spiritual eyes of the Holy Spirit.

The monks bow to each other when they meet. Why? Because they know the spiritual teaching that Christ is in all of us and to bow to a brethern is like bowing to Christ Himself. This is what the holy fathers taught. We see the person from the outside, the worldly perspective. The holy fathers saw all of us with Christ as the center of us. They saw the Grace of God in each individual. The demons don't have that.

The holy fathers teach that even if a man's soul is tormented in hell, that the prayers of the church can eventually free his soul from that state. So if a man who is an heretical patriarch ends up in hell, only the prayers of the church can eventually free his soul. Can a demon be freed that way too? NO. Because satan and the demons lack the Grace of God that would allow that. But, Christ allowed Himself to be crucified for all of us and therefore we always have the Grace that could allow us to become freed, even from hell. His intent was for the salvation of mankind and for us to be restored to the Kindgom of Heaven.

All this mess with ecumenism and jurisdictions is due to man's concern more with the world than with the spirit. It has drawn them away from the focus of the aquisition of the Holy Spirit, which monastics should be striving for and drawn them close to the political arena, which they have established in the church. Not to mention that there are many hierarchs who always had more interest in the politics than the asectic focus.

If all the Patriarchs, Metropolitans, archbishops and bishops were saints, we wouldn't have these dilemmas. Because they would all be living in the state of Theosis and since that state brings them in union with God, then they would all be in union with God and agree because their wills would agree with God's will.

But, now these hierarchs are following their own wills. And that's why we have this mess.

Just test it for yourself. Think about all the saints that you know. Do you think they would act this way towards each other?

I felt the need to express this. Please forgive me, if I have said anything to offend anyone.

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Fri 15 July 2005 10:15 am

joasia,

I was simply addressing a question/point fr. David Beldon made as I happened to think there is a broader dimension to his explanation. I happen to believe the OCA is not the Church because of its anti-Orthodox teachings and actions in a number of areas, and what the Holy Fathers say about people who teach as such.

Being "judgemental" is very different from discerning the faith. I didn't call anyone a demon, and I doubt you can/should make judgements about whether I pray for them or not.

I believe this is a sorry situation and I do pray it will be corrected as it was with the Arians. Nobody should be satisfied that there are so many divisions, but at the same time, as the Holy Fathers say, "by schisms and divisions they have delivered the Church."