www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Traditional reading during the Nativity Fast / Advent?

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?

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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:


and


and


and finally:


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:


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.

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?
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: A basic linguistic point, however, made by the bishop, is the meaning of the word dianoigo. He says: 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: How can the words "refer to the Lord alone"?

And, the comment notes: 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:
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?

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?

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

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.

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.

It might be interesting to juxtapose this insistence on a miraculous, hymenically circumvented birth with the insistence of some Orthodox that the immaculate conception of Mary somehow diminishes her full humanity in a way that undermines her ability to stand forth as our Champion Leader.

To what extent, one wonders, does this fixation upon Mary's hymen reflect a growing concern with ritual purity in the late patristic Church, a development addressed by Mother Vassa (Larin) in her article On Ritual Impurity [theinnerkingdom.wordpress.com].

It strikes me that, for the early Church, virginity was more than just a physical state, it was a state of mind, a spiritual disposition, and that Mary manifested this disposition, as well as physical virginity, better than any other woman. Thus, having virginally conceived her Son through the power of the Holy Spirit, it seems superfluous to me that she should give birth in an utterly inhuman and unlikely manner. Her virginity remains intact, even as she gives birth in normal human fashion, because her virginity is more than a hymen. On several occasions, during the persecutions, the barbarian invasions and the Muslim conquest, nuns and consecrated virgins were subjected to rape and other sexual abuse--yet the Church insisted their status as monastics and virgins was not altered thereby.

On the other hand, this hymen fixation strikes me as prurient and reflective not of true piety, but of the machismo code of Mediterranean cultures, which insists that blood be shed in the nuptial bed on the wedding night as proof of the purity of the bride. The Most Holy Theotokos is beyond such childish preoccupations, and so should we all.

I also agree with Father Deacon Lance that Christology demands that Mary's Son be born as other men, so that he might experience the pain and shock of childbirth, for is Christ not like unto all men in all ways saving sin? And is it not true that that which is not assumed cannot be redeemed? So, Mary would have to give birth in the normal way, in order that Christ could be born in a normal way, and redeem that element of our humanity with all the rest of it.

Daily Meditations and Prayers for the Christmas Advent Fast and Epiphany
by Emily Harakas and Anthony M. Coniaris


http://www.light-n-life.com/shopping/order_product.asp?ProductNum=DAIL062

It doesn't, not in the Gospel Book and not on the Calendar. On the Calendar, for several years now (10 or maybe more) the Lukan Jump is made in the reading of the Gospels, i.e. the reading of the Gospel of Luke begins the 2nd Sunday after the Exaltation of the Holy Cross as the Typicon outlines. The Melkites and the Raya Gospel Book name these Sundays as "after the Exaltation" and number them accordingly. The naming and numbering of the Sundays hasn't changed but the Lukan Jump is made when previously it had not been because the Metropolia Gospel Book simply begins the reading the Gospel of Luke on the 18th Sunday after Pentecost. By doing this the reading of the Gospel of Luke previously could begin before the Exaltation.

We did begin reading The Winter Pascha by Fr. Hopko last Sunday. It turns out it's actually among the suggested "Spiritual Reading during the Nativity Fast" on our parish website, and we have several copies in our library. It's also on google books [tinyurl.com]. A considerable amount of the text consists of festal prayers.