The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 456 guests, and 39 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 1
L
Member
OP Offline
Member
L
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 1
Our parish book group is looking ahead to the Nativity Fast /Advent and wondering, is there any traditional reading for this period similar to that of The Ladder of Divine Ascent during Great Lent?

Last edited by likethethief; 11/01/10 02:08 AM.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,208
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,208
I recommend "The Winter Pascha" by Fr. Thomas Hopko: ISBN 978-0-881-41025-9, from http://www.svspress.com

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 787
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 787
Originally Posted by sielos ilgesys
I recommend "The Winter Pascha" by Fr. Thomas Hopko: ISBN 978-0-881-41025-9, from http://www.svspress.com
Many Orthodox Christians believe that Fr Thomas Hopko falls into doctrinal error concerning the Most Holy Mother of God in his book The Winter Pascha.

An Orthodox Review of "The Winter Pascha" [orthodoxinfo.com]

Though it has much in it that is spiritually profitable, and Fr Thomas is an excellent communicator, I personally could not recommend The Winter Pascha as spiritual reading, nor could I allow it to be sold in our Parish Kiosk or have it in our Parish Library.

Fr David Straut



Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,208
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,208
Horrors. I remember having read a text calling into question the supernatural nature of Christ's Birth; a text which could lead to the erroneous conclusion that the Theotokos was a virgin before but not during nor after the Birth of Christ; that her birth-giving was not miraculous in the sense the Church holds. I had always been taught the correct doctrine on this point. Alas! I forgot it was in the very book I recommended.

Thank you, Father David, for pointing this out by your reference to the book review.

So much for THAT. I am truly chagrined.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Seems like an utterly silly and superficial review, Father. What, exactly, do you think of Father Hopko's book?

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 787
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 787
Originally Posted by StuartK
Seems like an utterly silly and superficial review, Father. What, exactly, do you think of Father Hopko's book?
I think that the Church teaches us through the divine services that the physical signs of the virginity of the Most Holy Theotokos remained intact after her virginal birthgiving, and that this birth was miraculous, not only because Our Lord was conceived without a human father, but because it was a painless birth, "without travail." To teach otherwise is serious doctrinal error.

Fr David Straut

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,990
Likes: 10
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,990
Likes: 10
It seems, IMHO, like thinking about such things and changing them may border on the human error of pride; best for theologians in the East and the West, IMHO, to concentrate on personal salvation rather than change Church traditions and sow doubts in others.

I find that too much 'thinking' is a great tool of the devil's in getting us to doubt. The heart is the key of Orthodox (and other) Christianity, not the mind.

Forgive me if I am being simplistic.

--Humbly,
Alice

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,373
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,373
I have a question that also pertains to the pre-St. Phillip's Fast and St. Phillip's Fast. How long has the Sui-Juris Metropolitan Byzantine Catholic Church of America (formerly known as the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Metropolia) been numbering these Sundays according to the Gospel readings of St. Luke?

U-C

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
D
DMD Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
With all due respect to Father David, I think that it should be noted here for the non-Orthodox reader, that the source he sites for the review and the opinions stated, is not reflective of all Orthodox thought and opinion but merely represents the point of view of one faction within Orthodoxy. I would urge that you consult with your pastor, be he Orthodox or Eastern Catholic, for advice and guidance relative to the use of Father Thomas' booklet within the framework of your own parish community.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Quote
I think that the Church teaches us through the divine services that the physical signs of the virginity of the Most Holy Theotokos remained intact after her virginal birthgiving, and that this birth was miraculous, not only because Our Lord was conceived without a human father, but because it was a painless birth, "without travail." To teach otherwise is serious doctrinal error.

Are you quite sure that is what Father Thomas wrote, and not merely Archbishop Chrysostomos' interpretation of what Father Thomas wrote. His Grace does not give much of an indication of being an objective reviewer, as his short essay is replete with various digs at the author and the school of theology whence he came:

Quote
It suddenly struck me that this same detachment from Orthodoxy as a way of life taints Father Hopko's small book on the Nativity-Theophany period. There are some inspirational insights in the book. There are even some very profound theological observations (see for example his comments on "Adam's sin," p. 175). But there is often a snide tone with regard to Orthodox tradition, as though Father Hopko were writing about the spiritual life of the Orthodox Church from a distance, gleaning his observations from outside the ethos of the Church.

and

Quote
Father Hopko, on the other hand, understands St. Nicholas only in a fragmented way, believing one thing from here and rejecting another from there. Thus he calls St. Nicholas' display of outrage at the heresy of Arius an "alleged incident." Unless the Fathers of the Church are naive liars, this incident did indeed occur, and it is part of our very experience of the witness of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker. Father Hopko also observes that "...the extraordinary thing about the image of St. Nicholas in the Church is that he is not known for anything extraordinary." Those of us who celebrate the memory of this great Saint with long vigils are more accustomed to hearing words such as these about him: "Let us now praise the Hierarch in song, the shepherd and teacher of the inhabitants of Myra ...; for behold, he hath appeared entirely pure, uncorrupt in spirit..., as a Hierarch purified in soul and body."

and

Quote
Father Hopko's book, like others from modernist Orthodox writers, contains some very good material. However, as I have indicated, the spirit of such writings reflects a certain separation from Orthodox spirituality as it is derived from orthopraxis, or an Orthodox way of life. The danger of embracing a Faith on the weekends and Feast Days and with a spirit of intellectual "objectivity"—an artificial Faith—is not only that such folly cuts one off from the sources of genuine spirituality; it eventually leads one into error. For if in science and scholarship a spirit of doubt leads to discovery, in spiritual things it leads to snide arrogance, the denigration of revelation, and a departure from that wholeness of the spiritual experience in which truth resides.

and finally:

Quote
Moreover, while writers like Father Hopko are undoubtedly simply repeating the erroneous views of their mentors, there is a further danger in mere intellectual approaches to Orthodoxy.

Which is where we finally get to the real point of the Archbishop's review:

"Can anything good come out of Crestwood?"

For it is clear that Archbishop Chrysostomos objects not merely to Father Thomas' book, but the entire "modernist" school of theology that emerged in Paris between the wars and moved to St. Vladimir's thereafter--the theology of Fathers John Meyendorff and Alexander Schmemann (father-in-law of Thomas Hopko) and their successors. His Grace goes into his review with a very visible chip on his shoulder, and proceeds to indulge his grudge with a vengance, with a very overt rejection of any sort of scholarship as too rational, too intellectual, too methodical--a blanket condemnation that certainly would have put the Cappodocian Fathers, Maximos the Confessor and many others in the Archbishop's crosshairs, were they not already safely ensconced in the Festal Menaion.

His Grace's utter lack of charity, his determination to see the worst in everyone and everything, can be summarized in this statement of his:

Quote
There are also Orthodox ecumenists who are deeply embarrassed by our Church's pious veneration of the Saints and its literal belief in miracles. Rubbing elbows with Roman Catholics who consider St. Nicholas the product of legend and with Protestants who question the seedless conception, let alone the miraculous physical birth, of Christ, these Orthodox set forth to show that their Church too is "enlightened."

I always considered the Orthodox Church to be enlightened. I do not, however, consider Archbishop Chrysostomos and his viewpoints to be at all representative of that enlightenment--quite the opposite, in fact. It's almost a caricature of the dogmatic immobilism that leads many people to see the Orthodox Church as an anachronistic irrelevancy, clinging blindly to forms and formulas of past centuries without making any attempt to understand or apply them in daily life. Or, as Jaroslav Pelikan (another Orthodox modernist, I'm sure), elevating traditionalism--the dead faith of the living--over Tradition, the living faith of the dead.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
Originally Posted by DMD
With all due respect to Father David, I think that it should be noted here for the non-Orthodox reader, that the source he sites for the review and the opinions stated, is not reflective of all Orthodox thought and opinion but merely represents the point of view of one faction within Orthodoxy. I would urge that you consult with your pastor, be he Orthodox or Eastern Catholic, for advice and guidance relative to the use of Father Thomas' booklet within the framework of your own parish community.

Consider the listing source, what I have dubbed the Orthodox Christian MIS-Information Center. But it's always possible the author, Bishop [now Archbishop] Chrysostomos of Etna, is correct. The bishop doesn't document very well some of his key quotations. Also, in his use of some Patristic and liturgical proof texts he mixes the concepts of virginity and opening the womb. In others, he or the follow-up writer, provide texts that are themselves obscure. AND, does ONE Patristic opinion a proof of doctrine make?
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
I think that the Church teaches us through the divine services that the physical signs of the virginity of the Most Holy Theotokos remained intact after her virginal birthgiving, and that this birth was miraculous, not only because Our Lord was conceived without a human father, but because it was a painless birth, "without travail." To teach otherwise is serious doctrinal error.
Are you quite sure that is what Father Thomas wrote, and not merely Archbishop Chrysostomos' interpretation of what Father Thomas wrote. His Grace does not give much of an indication of being an objective reviewer, as his short essay is replete with various digs at the author and the school of theology whence he came...
Most of the context within Fr. Hopko's book can be read here [books.google.com]; see starting on page 170 but especially page 175 where Fr. Hopko says, considering the feast of the Encounter/Purification:
Quote
We learn as well that, although the accent of the liturgy is on the meeting, Mary did in fact come for purification as the law required. This means that her womb was opened and that the Christ Child was born from her in the manner in which all children are born. In this sense, 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.
A basic linguistic point, however, made by the bishop, is the meaning of the word dianoigo. He says:
Quote
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."
But the key LXX references, Exo 13:2,12,13, Num 8:16, do have this word with the meaning of open. The problem is that if the LXX is quoted then that would seem to be the meaning, otherwise one might expect a different word in referring to Mary's giving birth. Even worse for this point of the bishop's is that all the LXX (Ralphs) and NT Greek that have forms of this verb (42 verses, 44 hits, 23 forms) all have the meaning of open -- pass through just doesn't fit -- or in some few cases to interpret (make open the meaning).

One clear reference is to the Slav Dec. 24 vespers stichiron "Thou hast been born without destroying my virginity, but Thou hast kept my womb as it was before childbirth..." It says "as it was" but in what way; surely it was different in that it held the child Jesus. The comment at the end says:
Quote
St. Amphilochios of Iconium clearly states that, "the words every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord, refer to the Lord alone." Yet he admonishes us: "Listen intelligently: in the Virgin Birth, the virginal gates were in no way opened."
How can the words "refer to the Lord alone"?

And, the comment notes:
Quote
Likewise, St. Hesychios of Jerusalem, referring to this same passage, tells us: "This what the Law says. Christ, however..., being the Lawgiver, was above the Law, yet He fulfilled His own Law. Nor did He open the womb, but left the Gate of the Virgin closed. He did not spoil the seal of nature....He preserved Her virginity intact."
OK, but where? Is this a correct interpretation of Ezekiel 44:2? The bishop's/commentator's references need to be checked and verified. AND, to repeat, AND, (if it were so said) does ONE Patristic opinion a proof of doctrine make? Bishop Chrysostomos of Etna also notes:
Quote
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."
Again, the original wording of the specific reference would need checking. However, this, the Slav vespers text, and that of St. Hesychios of Jerusalem go to his point and should be considered further.

Is there an unambiguous Orthodox doctrinal consensus or even an actual doctrinal pronouncement on this issue?




Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 1
L
Member
OP Offline
Member
L
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 1
If we end up reading The Winter Pascha by Fr.Hopko these posts and the review will be useful.

Are there some other suggestions of books for us to consider?

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 512
Likes: 1
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 512
Likes: 1
I can't comment on the points on the Virgin Mary (I don't see much point to comparing sections of The Winter Pascha with Synaxaria and Menaia), but would like to make two points:

1. Archbishop Chrysostomos is the American bishop for the Greek "Synod in Resistance", an Old Calendarist jurisdiction (IIRC Greece's main Old Calendarist jurisdiction) and is therefore I believe non-canonical - he is not of course a bishop of the Church of Greece or the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

This doesn't necessarily mean that he's wrong or that what he writes is bad - I'd like to read his article on frequency of communion according to the Athonites in the 17-1800s - nor does it mean that Father David is wrong to take his advice. But to me it does imply that he isn't an authoritative voice on the subject - especially when just about every (Greek and OCA) parish I've visited stocks or uses Father Thomas' book.

2. re: St. Nicholas, even though Father Thomas does say "allegedly" that doesn't necessarily a denial that St. Nicholas accosted Arius (and if he doesn't I don't think it's consequential - I wonder what the ultimate source of this story is?). That being said, I would have to generally agree with Archbishop Chrysostomos: the book's discussion of St. Nicholas is a bit trite - one could get the sense that Father Thomas dismisses all the miracles St. Nicholas has wrought when he attempts to purge Santa Claus from the reader's consideration.

3. Why does my parish sell this book? It's not just on Christmas, but on the whole cycle from St. Phillip's feast to the Meeting of the Lord in the temple. Not only is it a commentary (with selections) from the Menaion, but also it puts all of this into the broader context of the season, which is what I think makes it excellent. If there are alternative books which do the same/similar, I'm all ears.

Markos

"Union with God, not through words and theories, but through experience and illumination, is the goal of our sojourn on earth..."

Fr. Maximos of the Monastety of Simonopetra

Last edited by MarkosC; 11/01/10 08:45 PM.
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 335
Likes: 1
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 335
Likes: 1
The group that "Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna" belongs to is definitely not a canonical Orthodox group. It appears they were once in communion with ROCOR but that was only temporary and ended quite some time ago.

You can read about them here:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Synod_in_Resistance

By the way, I have been to Etna, California. I think there may be about 200 people in that tiny town.

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 22
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 22
I think there is an important theological point missed. The Church proclaims if Christ did not take up all we are, save sin, there can be no theosis for us. Christ was conceived, born, grew, lived, and died just as we are, to sanctify it.

The Archbishop is now arguing that rather than being born like us, Christ was miraculously translated out of the Theotokos' womb into her lap? God could certainly accomplish this but to what point? So the Virgin Mother's hymen was not broken? Cannot Christ pass through her birth canal and miraculously keep her hymen intact? Why does it matter? Is she to be considered not a virgin if her hymen was broken in giving birth?

If Christ was not born like us, birth was not sanctified. In fact, if Christ was zapped from her womb to her lap, that was no birth at all but something else. Suddenly a literal translation of Theotokos as Birthgiver of God seems important. I believe Mary indeed gave birth to Christ in the same manner as we are all born and Christ sanctified and hallowed this act. I also believe the Birthgiver of God to be ever-virgin. I do not believe the absence of the hymen has any effect on this.


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Irish Melkite, theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5