I was not aware that Orthodoxy now submits its liturgical texts to the critical historical method before deciding on whether or not it stands up to lex orandi....good to know. Does anyone know if that how they set up their Scriptural exegesis as well?
Must something correspond to history in order to be true? Is the truth of the Entry of the Theotokos or of the Dormition to be found in their historical accuracy?
If something is true, and is said to have occurred in human history, how can there *not* be some kind of historical correspondence?
For all the historical evidence we have there may never have been a Virgin Mother of God. I am missing your point.
I don't believe J Michael's statement was in regard to historical evidence.
Indeed. That is why I explicitly said that I was missing his point. I'm sure he'll get back to me as he has time.
Wow--the conversation's moved on somewhat since yesterday, and much of it I find somewhat difficult to digest intellectually. Meaning, it's a little over my head. Oh well.
So, I'll address your post, Mary, and add a few random thoughts sparked by what I've read here and hopefully understood.
I think my question above *was* somewhat unclear, reflecting my own lack of clarity. It came out awkwardly and I understand how you missed my point--looking back I'm not entirely sure just what my point *was*
. What I do know is that I wasn't equating truth to historical accuracy or historical evidence
. Let me try to put it by way of one or more of the "random thoughts" I had, and hopefully that'll make more sense.
Here goes nuttin': With regard to the Immaculate Conception, and the quotes provided from the Orthodox liturgical services, why say the Theotokos was "pure" and "immaculate", if she was not? Why would the Fathers write some of the things quoted here about her that would at the very least intimate as to her being immaculately conceived if they were untrue? Were they and the liturgical composers carried away with religious fervor and ecstasy that resulted in untrue hyperbole? If that's the case, the ramifications of that are, to me, a little frightful. What of what was written can we trust, or is it all ecstatic exaggeration? What does that say about the Faith handed down to us? I'm not looking for *historical evidence*, because faith transcends that. It does not, as far as my little pea-brain knows, however, transcend *truth*.
I hope that's clearer and makes slightly more sense
! (If it isn't and doesn't, I may just have to retire from this discussion for a while and partake of my Stress Reduction Kit and a beer or 4--biro, dear friend, I invite you to join me if you feel so inclined