The Thursday Theotokeia

edited December 1969 in Hymns Discussion
In the fifth part, it says: "For He who was born is God, born without pain from the Father, and He was also born according to the flesh, WITHOUT pain for the Virgin." I remember I read it on here somewhere but I can not find the exact thread; someone said that the Virgin Mary had normal labor pain like every other woman. He/she also gave a good explanation of why, but what is that? That is not immaculate conception by any mean right?
«1

Comments

  • The immaculate conception refers to the Roman Catholic doctrine that St. Mary was born without original sin. The OC does not accept it, neither does it accept original sin.

    For your questions about St.Mary/labor, refer to these threads:

    http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php/topic,12054 (I had this exact same question when I saw that part of the Theotokia)

    http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php/topic,4112
  • the word used in the original coptic is: pathos.....a greek word that means passion/pain/suffering. the Church Fathers used this word to describe the consequence of the original sin--pain, suffering and corruption. In kiahk, in one of the parts of the moaqap it is mentioned:
    `Aremacf cwmatikoc@ hijen pikahi a[ne pa;oc@ afhwtp `eron nem nefaggeloc@ kata tefmet`aga;oc.
    i translated it to be:
    You gave birth to Him in the flesh, on earth without the pain [of sin], and He reconciled us with His angels, according to His goodness.
  • "For He who was born is God,born without pain from the Father,and He was also born according to the flesh,without pain for the Virgin." Ok so this say that there was no labor pain, right?
    "Upon her head was a crown of twelve stars,she being with a child cried out in labor,and in pain to give birth.This is Mary,the New heaven on earth..." and this say that there was normal pregnancy pain, right?

    So I concluded that there was pregnancy pain, but not pain during giving birth. Am I right?

  • [quote author=Copticandproud link=topic=12907.msg151796#msg151796 date=1329101735]
    "For He who was born is God,born without pain from the Father,and He was also born according to the flesh,without pain for the Virgin." Ok so this say that there was no labor pain, right?
    "Upon her head was a crown of twelve stars,she being with a child cried out in labor,and in pain to give birth.This is Mary,the New heaven on earth..." and this say that there was normal pregnancy pain, right?

    So I concluded that there was pregnancy pain, but not pain during giving birth. Am I right?


    In general, pain or suffering is the result of the fallen nature. Specifically, God punished Eve with pain in childbearing as a sign of the sinful nature. Christ was not sinful and his nature was not. This is why St Mary  brought our Lord with no pain as foretold in Isiah 66:7.
  • Christ took our own nature, under the curse, and felt both pain and suffering.
  • [quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12907.msg151880#msg151880 date=1329231639]
    Christ took our own nature, under the curse, and felt both pain and suffering.


    He took the human nature, not our sinful one.
  • The Fathers are explicit that out nature is not sinful. We are born mortal not sinful. This is the teaching of the Fathers.

    We become sinners, but we are born under the curse, as was our Lord. If he was not born under the curse then He could not free us from the curse.
  • If Christ felt pain and suffering, why would His mother be exempt from labor pain? She herself acknowledges her need for a savior. If she gave birth without pain, then one must conclude she was already saved from the fallen nature before Christ was born. This conclusion automatically leads into the heresy of immaculate conception.

    St Mary must have had physical pain in labor. Isaiah 66:7 can be interpreted as a prophecy of St Mary but it can also be interpreted as a prophecy of God's salvation of all mankind since the rest of the chapter speaks about salvation of anyone with a contrite heart and how God will comfort his people.

    Additionally, even the Protoevangelium of James or the Infancy Gospel implies Christ was born without labor pains but it seems the story skips over the birth while Joseph goes to look for a midwife. When he finds one and returns to the cave, Christ is already born. This is not sufficient to say Christ is born without physical pain to St  Mary.

  • The Fathers teach that the Virgin Mary felt the real birth, but was spared the pain which came by the curse. I would say that they mean by this that she had an easy birth, and that she felt no pain but she did feel the natural process of giving birth.
  • [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12907.msg151889#msg151889 date=1329241628]
    If Christ felt pain and suffering, why would His mother be exempt from labor pain? She herself acknowledges her need for a savior. If she gave birth without pain, then one must conclude she was already saved from the fallen nature before Christ was born. This conclusion automatically leads into the heresy of immaculate conception.

    St Mary must have had physical pain in labor. Isaiah 66:7 can be interpreted as a prophecy of St Mary but it can also be interpreted as a prophecy of God's salvation of all mankind since the rest of the chapter speaks about salvation of anyone with a contrite heart and how God will comfort his people.

    Additionally, even the Protoevangelium of James or the Infancy Gospel implies Christ was born without labor pains but it seems the story skips over the birth while Joseph goes to look for a midwife. When he finds one and returns to the cave, Christ is already born. This is not sufficient to say Christ is born without physical pain to St  Mary.


    How can you reconcile your understanding with those of the Fathers who say that St. Mary did not suffer pain? Further, how would you say the Tawodokeya if you have a different interpretation?
  • [quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12907.msg151888#msg151888 date=1329241507]
    The Fathers are explicit that out nature is not sinful. We are born mortal not sinful. This is the teaching of the Fathers.



    I understand what you are trying to say.  Still Jesus did not take our corrupt nature.

    Here is my thought process ...

    Why are we mortal? Because we inherited a corrupt nature? Why? Because of sin.

    So, yes one could say that our nature is not sinful but is corrupt. Ye, no one can say that because it is not sinful, it cannot sin for it was corrupted through sin.
  • Our nature is not corrupt when we are born.

    Without wishing to cause offense, what we think does not matter, the Fathers are very clear. Turn to St Cyril and St Severus for their teaching on these things.

    We are mortal because all created beings are by nature liable to dissolution. We were granted immortality as a gift which our forefather Adam lost. So we are born mortal.

    Sin does not cause a corruption of nature because it has no existence, it is the wrong exercise of the will. We become corrupt through the habitual practice of sin.

    But we are all born mortal but not sinful, corruptible but not corrupt. This is the teaching of St Cyril and St Severus, and is therefore the teaching of the Orthodox Church of Alexandria.
  • [quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12907.msg151893#msg151893 date=1329243055]

    Our nature is not corrupt when we are born.


    I cannot accept this sentence whatsoever. I am afraid this is not the teaching of our Church.

    All our liturgical prayers focus on the corruption we inherited because of sin. If the above sentence is true, then why baptism?

    We are born with a corrupt nature and renewed through the baptistery.
  • But have you studied any of the Fathers on this subject?

    If a person lived a sinless life it would not put them right with God. We are all born separated from God. We are reborn in baptism so that we are united to the renewed and restored humanity of Christ. This old humanity has to die in the waters of baptism.

    I won't keep going back and forth on this as the teachings of the Fathers are so very clear. If you are able to study them and still have doubts about what they teach then I am happy to discuss them, but I do not believe their teachings can be ignored. You are placing your own spin on the subject, but the Fathers are so very clear that they must be our first reference point.

    The Fathers are also clear that when a child is born it is sinless and when it is baptised it is not because it needs to have any sins forgiven, but it is so that it can be reborn in unity with the renewed humanity of Christ, the Second Adam.
  • [quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12907.msg151895#msg151895 date=1329243909]
    But have you studied any of the Fathers on this subject?

    Our liturgical prayers breathe the teaching of the Fathers. So in a way yes, though I have not focused on one particular Father.



    If a person lived a sinless life it would not put them right with God. We are all born separated from God.

    Why this is true. Because of the sin that entered into the world through the envy of Satan.


    We are reborn in baptism so that we are united to the renewed and restored humanity of Christ. This old humanity has to die in the waters of baptism.

    Again, why this is true? Because we are born with a corrupt nature that is regenerated, renewed, and restored, through baptism.


    I won't keep going back and forth on this as the teachings of the Fathers are so very clear. If you are able to study them and still have doubts about what they teach then I am happy to discuss them, but I do not believe their teachings can be ignored.

    The Church teaching, through the Fathers, is that we are born corrupt. Period.

    Again, the liturgical prayers are VERY clear on this. I will list some examples:

    The Reconciliation prayer of St Basil,
    The litany of the deceased,
    The bathing prayer.

    You are placing your own spin on the subject, but the Fathers are so very clear that they must be our first reference point.

    I am afraid I am not spinning anything. If one Father disagrees with the liturgical prayers, then his teachings are wrong.


    The Fathers are also clear that when a child is born it is sinless and when it is baptised it is not because it needs to have any sins forgiven, but it is so that it can be reborn in unity with the renewed humanity of Christ, the Second Adam.

    It is baptized so that the corrupt nature it is born with can be in corrupt. Through this renewal, it can gain eternal life and unite with God. I do not know what you mean by "the renewed humanity of Christ"
  • Well I dont want to argue with you so ill leave it there
  • [quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12907.msg151898#msg151898 date=1329245240]
    Well I dont want to argue with you so ill leave it there



    Please, continue the discussion, if not for me, at least for the benefit of others.

    What the Church of Alexandria teaches, at least that what I was taught, is that the liturgical prayers supersedes the Fathers.

    So, if you see a conflict between the two especially with one of the greatest Fathers like St. Sawiros or St. Cyril, I would most eagerly like to learn.
  • [quote author=imikhail link=topic=12907.msg151899#msg151899 date=1329245537]
    [quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12907.msg151898#msg151898 date=1329245240]
    Well I dont want to argue with you so ill leave it there



    Please, continue the discussion, if not for me, at least for the benefit of others.

    What the Church of Alexandria teaches, at least that what I was taught, is that the liturgical prayers supersedes the Fathers.

    So, if you see a conflict between the two especially with one of the greatest Fathers like St. Sawiros or St. Cyril, I would most eagerly like to learn.


    Fr. Peter will probably reply with these quotes. I saved him the trouble so he can rethink giving out multiple choice exams instead of essays ;)

    St Severus

    The reason for which we are said to have become heirs of the curse and of condemnation and of death is not that the sin and condemnation and death passed to us, as if these fell to our nature by lot, for man's nature was from the beginning free from all these things..

    We therefore were in consequence born mortal from a mortal father.

    Indeed, if it is from the corruption of sin that the bodies are formed of those who have been born, the procreation of children would rather have increased the evil, which would have been formed at the same time as our nature.

    The one who is born from the womb of his mother and who loved only one day on the earth does not come to judgement....Indeed it is completely ridiculous to think that God will present such a one in judgement before Him.

    It becomes clear then from all this, that the sin of those by which we are begotten, meaning the sin of Adam and Eve, is NOT mixed naturally with our substance....but it is because THEY lost the grace of immortality, because of the sin and the transgression, that the terms of the condemnation and of the sentence extended to us, seeing that, following a natural disposition, we are born MORTAL as we are born of mortal parents, and NOT SINNERS as we will be born of sinful parents.

    Sin is not a reality and does not pass naturally by procreation, for parents to their children.

    We are no more sinners, as issued from a sinful father, Adam, even though we are mortal, having issued from a mortal.

    It is NOT that we are born of Adam in sin, ... but rather mortal as born of mortals.

    We have NOT been associated with our first father in sin.

    St John Chrysostom

    That by the disobedience of Adam another becomes a sinner, HOW IS THAT NATURAL? For whoever is in this situation is NOT found liable to judgement, if he has not, in his own right, become sinful.

    St Cyril

    It is not in any manner because of having disobeyed with him the divine commandment that he received that we have been condemned, but because, as I have said, becoming mortal he transmitted to his seed the curse. We are indeed born mortal of a mortal.

    On the other hand, I think that they only indulge their own ignorance in this matter, to suppose the sins of fathers to be really brought upon children, and the Divine anger to be stretched so far that it may even reach to the third and fourth generation, exacting unjustly from innocent persons the penalties of others' crimes.
  • Thanks TTL.

    I am glad that the quotes you posted agree with the liturgical prayers of the Church.
  • Thank you TTL for the post.

    There problem here, I believe, lies in the semantics. Both of you seem to have a different connotation with regards to the word "corruption."

    imikhail--you seem to imply that "corruption" is inherited because of sin. However, you should be careful when using this word, because it not only implies defect but perversion within our nature (which is most likely why the fathers reject the use of it). Instead it is better to say that we inherited the effect of his sin. Thats it--period!

    Fr. Peter--- Since sin does not become part of the nature, which is very clear from the fathers as you stated before, then would it be incorrect to say that we have become more susceptible to sin because of this inherited condition?
  • mikhail--you seem to imply that "corruption" is inherited because of sin. However, you should be careful when using this word, because it not only implies defect but perversion within our nature (which is most likely why the fathers reject the use of it). Instead it is better to say that we inherited the effect of his sin

    We inherited the corruption that came about through the sin. I agree with you that we do not inherit the sin. However, the nature that we are born with is corrupted and is in need of restoration.

    Following, our nature that we are born with is defective. The Fathers do not reject this idea because it at the heart of our faith.
  • Imikhail,

    When you say corruption, you seem to be implying our nature in it of itself is sinful--this is not true, nor is it orthodox. It is not perverted with sin. Christ took our nature, but  committed no sin since He is God. To say that He had a different nature is to claim He is not human. He came as a man to put to death our sins and restore our nature (this is the reason why Christ took our fallen nature---so that He can renew it).

    I would also like to add that Adam was made in incorruption. If sin was linked to our fallen nature, how would that explain Adam's sin (since God made him incorrupt)? This is a rhetorical question.
  • [quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12907.msg151895#msg151895 date=1329243909]
    But have you studied any of the Fathers on this subject?

    If a person lived a sinless life it would not put them right with God. We are all born separated from God. We are reborn in baptism so that we are united to the renewed and restored humanity of Christ. This old humanity has to die in the waters of baptism.

    I won't keep going back and forth on this as the teachings of the Fathers are so very clear. If you are able to study them and still have doubts about what they teach then I am happy to discuss them, but I do not believe their teachings can be ignored. You are placing your own spin on the subject, but the Fathers are so very clear that they must be our first reference point.

    The Fathers are also clear that when a child is born it is sinless and when it is baptised it is not because it needs to have any sins forgiven, but it is so that it can be reborn in unity with the renewed humanity of Christ, the Second Adam.


    Amen, this is the Orthodox faith.

  • When you say corruption, you seem to be implying our nature in it of itself is sinful--this is not true, nor is it orthodox.

    Our nature was corrupted with sin. We inherited the corruption. Christ took the human nature without the corruption.


    To say that He had a different nature is to claim He is not human.

    To say that He had a different nature is to claim He is not human.

    You are confusing corruption, through sin, with the human nature that is soul, spirit and flesh. Our Lord took our nature without the corruption; the nature He took was free of corruption.


    He came as a man to put to death our sins and restore our nature

    This is correct.

    If our nature was not polluted and was not corrupt, then there was no need for the incarnation and the restoration of our nature that came as a result.
  • Imikhail

    Are you implying that Christ's humanity was immortal? If not then He must have had the fallen nature. When you say our nature became corrupted with sin then you are dead wrong. If you say that our nature became corruptible by sin then you are correct.

    You are saying that

    Corruption = mortality + sinful nature. This is wrong. Instead, it should be

    Corruption = mortality

    We should therefore not use the word corruption but fallen nature as Previously mentioned.
  • [quote author=Amoussa01 link=topic=12907.msg151964#msg151964 date=1329329450]
    Imikhail

    Are you implying that Christ's humanity was immortal? If not then He must have had the fallen nature. When you say our nature became corrupted with sin then you are dead wrong. If you say that our nature became corruptible by sin then you are correct.

    You are saying that

    Corruption = mortality + sinful nature. This is wrong. Instead, it should be

    Corruption = mortality

    We should therefore not use the word corruption but fallen nature as Previously mentioned.


    Again, you are confusing corruption with the mortality of the flesh. These are two different issues.

    The corruption the liturgical prayers refer to deals with the mortality of the soul. This is the one that the Lord saved us from. The human nature that the Lord took was immortal in the sense that it was not under the curse of death that all the descendants of Adam fell under.

    Through baptism, we are saved from eternal damnation as our nature is renewed, restored, regenerated. However, the body is mortal and will die.

    Let me emphasize again that the corruption that the liturgical prayers focus on is the corruption of the soul which is eternal death suffered because of the Fall.
  • Maybe you should give us reference of liturgical prayers that you speak of. None of the liturgical prayers I am aware of even suggest such thing.

    Your statement, "The human nature that the Lord took was immortal in the sense that it was not under the curse of death that all the descendants of Adam fell under", is awfully close to Eutychism or monophysitism. Eutychus stated the Christ's human nature was consumed into the divine nature. This isn't exactly what you said but to state Christ's human nature is different than our own implies His divine nature changed His human nature.

    I don't know what the "corruption of the soul" means exactly. It implies that an immortal soul that sins is no longer immortal. If this is true, then the soul goes into oblivion at some point, presumably when the soul departs the body at death. That isn't true.
  • [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12907.msg151977#msg151977 date=1329338094]
    Maybe you should give us reference of liturgical prayers that you speak of. None of the liturgical prayers I am aware of even suggest such thing.

    The Reconciliation prayer of St Basil,
    The litany of the deceased,
    The bathing prayer.


    Your statement, "The human nature that the Lord took was immortal in the sense that it was not under the curse of death that all the descendants of Adam fell under", is awfully close to Eutychism or monophysitism. Eutychus stated the Christ's human nature was consumed into the divine nature. This isn't exactly what you said but to state Christ's human nature is different than our own implies His divine nature changed His human nature.

    So if it is not Eutychism why do you bring it up?

    We inherited corruption, our Lord did not. Do you have a problem with that statement? 


    I don't know what the "corruption of the soul" means exactly.

    You are taking one phrase  out of context. The curse that we fell under was eternal death. Not sure where you are confused.


    It implies that an immortal soul that sins is no longer immortal. If this is true, then the soul goes into oblivion at some point, presumably when the soul departs the body at death. That isn't true.

    Where did I ever implied that?
  • Imikhail,

    You are so very confused my friend. I will let Fr. Peter give his response.

    By the way, to say that Christ had an immortal human nature is to say He could not die in the flesh which is heresy. The curse of sin is death. Christ bore all of our sins in His flesh and presented Himself as a perfect sacrifice to restore us in Him. End of story.

    Fr. Peter...waiting for you now.
Sign In or Register to comment.