By St. John Maximovitch,
Archbishop of Shanghai and San Francisco
CONTENTS
I. The Veneration of the Mother of God during Her Earthly Life
II. The First Enemies of the Veneration of the Mother of God
III. Attempts of Jews and Heretics to Dishonor the Ever-Virginity of Mary
IV. The Nestorian Heresy and the Third Ecumenical Council
V. Attempts of Iconoclasts to Lessen the Glory of the Queen of Heaven: They are put to shame.
VI. “Zeal not According to Knowledge”: The “Immaculate Conception”
VII. The Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God
It is truly meet to call thee blessed, the Theotokos.
The ever-blessed and all-immaculate and Mother of our God.
More honorable than the Cherubim
and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim.
Thee who without corruption gavest birth to God the Word,
the very Theotokos, Thee do we magnify.
I.
THE VENERATION OF THE MOTHER OF GOD DURING HER EARTHLY LIFE.
FROM APOSTOLIC TIMES and to our days all who truly love Christ give
veneration to Her Who gave birth to Him, raised Him and protected Him in
the days of His youth. If God the Father chose Her, God the Holy Spirit
descended upon Her, and God the Son dwelt in Her, submitted to Her in
the days of His youth, was concerned for Her when hanging on the Cross -
then should not everyone who confesses the Holy Trinity venerate Her?
Still in the days of Her earthly life, the friends of Christ, the
Apostles, manifested a great concern and devotion for the Mother of the
Lord, especially the Evangelist John the Theologian, who, fulfilling the
will of Her Divine Son, took Her to himself and took care for Her as
for a mother from the time when the Lord uttered to him from the Cross
the words: “Behold thy mother.”
The Evangelist Luke painted a number of images of Her, some together
with the Pre-eternal Child, others without Him. When, he brought them
and showed them to the Most Holy Virgin, She approved them and said:
“The grace of My Son shall be with them,” and repeated the hymn She had
once sung in the house of Elizabeth: “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and
My spirit hath rejoiced in God My Saviour.”
However, the Virgin Mary during Her earthly life avoided the glory
which belonged to Her as the Mother of the Lord. She preferred to live
in quiet and prepare Herself for the departure into eternal life. To the
last day of Her earthly life She took care to prove worthy of the
Kingdom of Her Son, and before death She prayed that He might deliver
Her soul from the malicious spirits that meet human souls on the way to
heaven and strive to seize them so as to take them away with them to
Hades. The Lord fulfilled the prayer of His Mother and in the hour of
Her death Himself came from heaven with a multitude of angels to receive
Her soul.
Since the Mother of God had also prayed that She might bid farewell
to the Apostles, the Lord gathered for Her death all the Apostles,
except Thomas, and they were brought by an invisible power on that day
to Jerusalem from all the ends of the inhabited world, where they were
preaching, and they were present at Her blessed translation into eternal
life.
The Apostles gave Her most pure body over to burial with sacred
hymns, and on the third day they opened the tomb so as once more to
venerate the remains of the Mother of God together with the Apostle
Thomas, who had arrived then in Jerusalem. But they did not find the
body in the tomb and in perplexity they returned to their own place; and
then, during their meal, the Mother of God Herself appeared to them in
the air, shining with heavenly light, and informed them that Her Son had
glorified Her body also, and She, resurrected, stood before His Throne.
At the same time She promised to be with them always.
The Apostles greeted the Mother of God with great joy and began to
venerate Her not only as the Mother of their beloved Teacher and Lord,
but also as their heavenly helper, as a protector of Christians and
intercessor for the whole human race before the Righteous Judge. And
everywhere the Gospel of Christ was preached, His Most Pure Mother also
began to be glorified.
II.
THE FIRST ENEMIES OF THE VENERATION OF THE MOTHER OF GOD.
THE MORE the faith of Christ spread and the Name of the Saviour of
the world was glorified on earth, and together with Him also She Who was
vouchsafed to be the Mother of the God-man, - the more did the hatred
of the enemies of Christ increase towards Her. Mary was the Mother of
Jesus. She manifested a hitherto unheard-of example of purity and
righteousness, and furthermore, now departed from this life, She was a
mighty support for Christians, even though invisible to bodily eyes.
Therefore all who hated Jesus Christ and did not believe in Him, who did
not understand his teaching, or to be more precise, did not wish to
understand as the Church understood, who wished to replace the preaching
of Christ with their own human reasoning all of these transferred their
hatred for Christ, for the Gospel and the Church, to the Most Pure
Virgin Mary. They wished to belittle the Mother, so as thereby to
destroy faith also in Her Son, to create a false picture of Her among
men in order to have the opportunity to rebuild the whole Christian
teaching on a different foundation. In the womb of Mary, God and man
were joined. She was the One Who served as it were as the ladder for the
Son of God, Who descended from heaven. To strike a blow at Her
veneration means to strike Christianity at the root, to destroy it in
its very foundation.
And the very beginning of Her heavenly glory was marked on earth by
an outburst of malice and hatred toward Her by unbelievers. When, after
Her holy repose, the Apostles were carrying Her body for burial in
Gethsemane, to the place chosen by Her, John the Theologian went ahead
carrying the branch from paradise which the Archangel Gabriel had
brought to the Holy Virgin three days before this when he came from
heaven to announce to Her approaching departure to the heavenly
mansions.
“When Israel went out of Egypt, and the house of Jacob from among a
barbarous people,” Peter began Psalm 113; “Alleluia,” sang the whole
assembly of the Apostles together with their disciples, as for example,
Dionysius the Areopagite, who likewise had been miraculously transported
at that time to Jerusalem. And while this sacred hymn was being sung,
which was tallied by the Jews the “Great Alleluia,” that is, the great
“Praise ye the Lord,” one Jewish priest, Athonius, leaped up to the bier
and wished to overturn it and throw to the ground the body of the
Mother of God.
The brazenness of Athonius was immediately punished: the Archangel
Michael with an invisible sword cut off his hand, which remained hanging
on the bier. The thunderstruck Athonius, experiencing a tormenting
pain, in awareness of his sin turned in prayer to the Jesus Whom he had
hated up to then, and he was immediately healed. He did not delay in
accepting Christianity and confessing it before his former
co-religionists, for which he received from them a martyr’s death. Thus,
the attempt to offend the honor of the Mother of God served for Her
greater glorification.
The enemies of Christ resolved not to manifest their lack of
veneration for the body of the Most Pure One further at that time by
crude violence, but their malice did not cease. Seeing that Christianity
was spreading everywhere, they began to spread various vile slanders
about Christians. They did not spare the name of the Mother of Christ
either, and they invented the story that Jesus of Nazareth had come from
a base and immoral environment, and that His Mother had associated with
a certain Roman soldier.
But here the lie was too evident for this fiction to attract serious
attention. The whole family of Joseph the Betrothed and Mary Herself
were known well by the inhabitants of Nazareth and the surrounding
countryside in their time. Whence bath this man this wisdom and these
mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called
Mary, and his brethren! James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And his
sisters, are they not all with: us? (Matt. 13:54-55; Mark 6:3; Luke
4:22.) So said His fellow-countrymen in Nazareth when Christ revealed
before them in the Synagogue His otherworldly wisdom. In small towns the
family matters of everyone are well known; very strict watch was kept
then over the purity of married life.
Would people really have behaved with respect towards Jesus, called
Him to preach in the synagogue, if He had been born of illegitimate
cohabitation? To Mary the law of Moses would have been applied, which
commanded that such persons be stoned to death; and the Pharisees would
have taken the opportunity many times to reproach Christ for the conduct
of His Mother. But just the contrary was the case. Mary enjoyed great
respect; at Cana She was an honored guest at the wedding, and even when
Her Son was condemned, no one allowed himself to ridicule or censure His
Mother.
III.
ATTEMPTS OF JEWS AND HERETICS TO DISHONOR THE EVER-VIRGINITY OF MARY.
THE JEWISH SLANDERERS soon became convinced that it was almost
impossible to dishonor the Mother of testis, and on the basis of the
information which they themselves possessed it was much easier to prove
Her praiseworthy life. Therefore, they abandoned this slander of theirs,
which had already been taken up by the pagans (Origen, Against Celsus,
I), and strove to prove at least that Mary was not a virgin when She
gave birth to Christ. They even said that the prophecies concerning the
birth-giving of the Messiah by a virgin had never existed, and that
therefore it was entirely in vain that Christians thought to exalt Jesus
by the fact that a prophecy was supposedly being fulfilled in Him.
Jewish translators were found (Aquila, Symachus, Theodotion) who made
new translations of the Old Testament into Greek and in these
translated the well-known prophecy of Isaiah (Is.7:14) thus: “Behold, a
young woman will conceive.” They affirmed that the Hebrew word Aalma
signified “young woman” and not “virgin,” as stood in the sacred
translation of the Seventy Translators [Septuagint], where this passage
had been translated “Behold, a virgin shall conceive.”
By this new translation they wished to prove that Christians, on the
basis of an incorrect translation of the word Aalma, thought to ascribe
to Mary something completely impossible - a birth-giving without a man,
while in actuality the birth of Christ was not in the least different
from other human births.
However, the evil intention of the new translators was clearly
revealed because by a comparison of various passages in the Bible it
became clear that the word Aalma signified precisely “virgin.” And
indeed, not only the Jews, but even the pagans, on the basis of their
own traditions and various prophecies, expected the Redeemer of the
world to be born of a Virgin. The Gospels clearly stated that the Lord
Jesus had been born of a Virgin.
How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? asked Mary, Who had given
a vow of virginity, of the Archangel Gabriel, who had informed Her of
the birth of Christ.
And the Angel replied: The Holy Spirit shall come upon Thee, and the
power of the Most High shall overshadow Thee; wherefore also that which
is to be born shall be holy, and shall be called the Son of God (Luke
1:34-35).
Later the Angel appeared also to righteous Joseph, who had wished to
put away Mary from his house, seeing that She had conceived without
entering into conjugal cohabitation with him. To Joseph the Archangel
Gabriel said: Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which
is begotten in Her is of the Holy Spirit, and reminded him of the
prophecy of Isaiah that a virgin would conceive (Matt. 1:18-25).
The rod of Aaron that budded, the rock tom away from the mountain
without hands, seen by Nebuchadnezzar in a dream and interpreted by the
Prophet Daniel, the closed gate seen by the Prophet Ezekiel, and much
else in the Old Testament, prefigured the birth-giving of the Virgin.
Just as Adam had been created by the Word of God from the un-worked and
virgin earth, so also the Word of God created flesh for himself from a
virgin womb when the Son of God became the new Adam so as to correct the
fall into sin of the first Adam (St. Ireneaus of Lyons, book III).
The seedless birth of Christ can and could be denied only by those
who deny the Gospel, whereas the Church of Christ from of old confesses
Christ “incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.” But the birth
of God from the Ever-Virgin was a stumbling-stone for those who wished
to call themselves Christians but did not wish to humble themselves in
mind and be zealous for purity of life. The pure life of Mary was a
reproach for those who were impure also in their thoughts. So as to show
themselves Christians, they did not dare to deny that Christ was born
of a Virgin, but they began to affirm that Mary remained a Virgin only
“until She brought forth Her first-born son, Jesus” (Matt. 1:25).
“After the birth of Jesus,” said the false teacher Helvidius in the
4th century, and likewise many others before and after him, “Mary
entered into conjugal life with Joseph and had from him children, who
are called in the Gospels the brothers and sisters of Christ.” But the
word “until” does not signify that Mary remained a virgin only until a
certain time. The word “until” and words similar to it often signify
eternity. In the Sacred Scripture it is said of Christ: “In His days
shall shine forth righteousness and an abundance of peace, until the
moon be taken away” (Ps., 71:7), but this does not mean that when there
shall no longer be a moon at the end of the world, God’s righteousness
shall no longer be; precisely then, rather, will it triumph. And what
does it mean when it says: “For He must reign, until He hath put all
enemies under His feet?” (I Cor. 15:25). Is the Lord then to reign only
for the time until His enemies shall be under His feet?! And David, in
the fourth Psalm of the Ascents says: “As the eyes of the handmaid look
unto the hands of her mistress, so do our eyes look unto the Lord our
God, until He take pity on us” (Ps. 122:2). Thus, the Prophet will have
his eyes toward the Lord until he obtains mercy, but having obtained it
he will direct them to the earth? (Blessed Jerome, “On the
Ever-Virginity of Blessed Mary.”) The Saviour in the Gospel says to the
Apostles (Matt. 28:20) :” Lo, I am with you always, even auto the end of
the world.” Thus, after the end of the world the Lord will step away
from His disciples, and then, when they shall judge the twelve tribes of
Israel upon twelve thrones, they will not have the promised communion
with the Lord? (Blessed Jerome, op. cit.)
It is likewise incorrect to think that the brothers and sisters of
Christ were the children of His Most Holy Mother. The names of “brother”
and “sister” have several distinct meanings. Signifying a certain
kinship between people or their spiritual closeness, these words are
used sometimes in a broader, and sometimes in a narrower sense. In any
case, people are called brothers or sisters if they have a common father
or mother, or only a common father or mother; or even if they have
different fathers and mothers, if their parents later (having become
widowed) have entered into marriage (step-brothers); or if their parents
are bound by close degrees of kinship.
In the Gospel it can nowhere be seen that those who are called there
the brothers of Jesus were or were considered the children of His
Mother. On the contrary, it was known that James and others were the
sons of Joseph, the Betrothed of Mary, who was a widower with children
from his first wife. (St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, Panarion, 78.) Likewise,
the sister of His Mother, Mary the wife of Cleophas, who stood with Her
at the Cross of the Lord (John 19:25), also had children, who in view
of such close kinship with full right could be called brothers of the
Lord. That the so-called brothers and sisters of the Lord were not the
children of His Mother is clearly evident from the fact that the Lord
entrusted His Mother before His death to His beloved disciple John. Why
should he do this if She had other children besides Him? They themselves
would have taken care of Her. The sons of Joseph, the supposed father
of Jesus, did not consider themselves obliged to take care of one they
regarded as their stepmother, or at least did not have for Her such love
as blood children have for parents, and such as the adopted John had
for Her.
Thus, a careful study of Sacred Scripture reveals with complete
clarity the insubstantiality of the objections against the
Ever-Virginity of Mary and puts to shame those who teach differently.
IV.
THE NESTORIAN HERESY AND THE THIRD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL.
WHEN ALL THOSE who had dared to speak against the sanctity and purity
of the Most Holy Virgin Mary had been reduced to silence, an attempt
was made to destroy Her veneration as Mother of God. In the 5th century
the Archbishop of Constantinople, Nestorius, began to preach that of
Mary had been born only the man Jesus, in Whom the Divinity had taken
abode and dwelt in Him as in a temple. At first he allowed his presbyter
Anastasius and then he himself began to teach openly in church that one
should not call Mary Theotokos, since She had not given birth to the
God-man. He considered it demeaning for himself to worship a child
wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.
Such sermons evoked a universal disturbance and unease over the
purity of faith, at first in Constantinople and then everywhere else
where rumors of the new teaching spread. St. Proclus, the disciple of
St. John Chrysostom, who, was then Bishop of Cyzicus and later became
Archbishop of Constantinople, in the presence of Nestorius gave in
church a sermon in which he confessed the Son of God born in the flesh
of the Virgin, Who in truth is the Theotokos (Birth-giver of God), for
already in the womb of the Most Pure One, at the time of Her conception,
the Divinity was united with the Child conceived of the Holy Spirit;
and this Child, even though He was born of the Virgin Mary only in His
human nature, still was born already true God and true man.
Nestorius stubbornly refused to change his teaching, saying that one
must distinguish between Jesus and the Son of God, that Mary should not
be called Theotokos, but Christotokos (Birth-giver of Christ), since the
Jesus Who was born of Mary was only the man Christ (which signifies
Messiah, anointed one), like to God’s anointed ones of old, the
prophets, only surpassing them in fullness of communion with God. The
teaching of Nestorius thus constituted a denial of the whole economy of
God, for if from Mary only a man was born, then it was not God Who
suffered for us, but a man.
St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, finding out about the teaching
of Nestorius and about the church disorders evoked by this teaching in
Constantinople, wrote a letter to Nestorius, in which he tried to
persuade him to hold the teaching which the Church had confessed from
its foundation, and not to introduce anything novel into this teaching.
In addition, St. Cyril wrote to the clergy and people of Constantinople
that they should be firm in the Orthodox faith and not fear the
persecutions by Nestorius against those who were not in agreement with
him. St. Cyril also wrote informing of everything to Rome, to the holy
Pope Celestine, who with all his flock was then firm in Orthodoxy.
St. Celestine for his part wrote to Nestorius and called upon him to
preach the Orthodox faith, and not his own. But Nestorius remained deaf
to all persuasion and replied that what he was preaching was the
Orthodox faith, while his opponents were heretics. St. Cyril wrote
Nestorius again and composed twelve anathemas, that is, set forth in
twelve paragraphs the chief differences of the Orthodox teaching from
the teaching preached by Nestorius, acknowledging as excommunicated from
the Church everyone who, should reject even a single one of the
paragraphs he had composed.
Nestorius rejected the whole of the text composed by St. Cyril and
wrote his own exposition of the teaching which he preached, likewise in
twelve paragraphs, giving over to anathema (that is, excommunication
from the Church) everyone who did not accept it. ?he danger to purity of
faith was, increasing all the time. St. Cyril wrote a letter to
Theodosius the Younger, who was then reigning, to his wife Eudocia and
to the Emperor’s sister Pulcheria, entreating them likewise to concern
themselves with ecclesiastical maters and restrain the heresy.
It was decided to convene an Ecumenical Council, at which hierarchs
gathered from the ends of the world should decide whether the faith
preached by Nestorius were Orthodox. As the place for the council, which
was to be the Third Ecumenical Council, they chose the city of Ephesus,
in which the Most Holy Virgin Mary had once dwelt together with the
Apostle John the Theologian. St. Cyril gathered his fellow bishops in
Egypt and together with them traveled by sea to Ephesus. From Antioch
overland came john, Archbishop of Antioch, with the Eastern bishops. The
Bishop of Rome, St. Celestine, could not go himself and asked St. Cyril
to defend the Orthodox faith, and in addition he sent from himself two
bishops and the presbyter of the Roman Church Philip, to whom he also
gave instructions as to what to say. To Ephesus there came likewise
Nestorius and the bishops of the Constantinople region, and the bishops
of Palestine, Asia Minor, and Cyprus.
On the 10th of the calends of July according to the Roman reckoning,
that is, June 22, 431, in the Ephesian Church of the Virgin Mary, the
bishops assembled, headed by the Bishop of Alexandria, Cyril, and the
Bishop of Ephesus, Memnon, and took their places. In their midst was
placed a Gospel as a sign of the invisible headship of the Ecumenical
Council by Christ Himself. At first the Symbol of Faith which had been
composed by the First and Second Ecumenical Councils was read; then
there was read to the Council the Imperial Proclamation which was
brought by the representatives of the Emperors Theodosius and
Valentinian, Emperors of the Eastern and Western parts of the Empire.
The Imperial Proclamation having been heard, the reading of documents
began, and there were read the Epistles of Cyril and Celestine to
Nestorius, as well as the replies of Nestorius. The Council, by the lips
of its members, acknowledged the teaching of Nestorius to be impious
and condemned it, acknowledging Nestorius as deprived of his See and of
the priesthood. A decree was composed concerning this which was signed
by about 160 participants of the Council; and since some of them
represented also other bishops who did not have the opportunity to be
personally at the Council. the decree of the Council was actually the
decision of more than 200 bishops, who had their Sees in the various
regions of the Church at that time, and they testified that they
confessed the Faith which from all antiquity had been: kept in their
localities.
Thus the decree of the Council was the voice of the Ecumenical
Church, which clearly expressed its faith that Christ, born of the
Virgin, is the true God Who became man; and inasmuch as Mary gave birth
to the perfect Man Who was at the same time perfect God, She rightly
should be revered as THEOTOKOS.
At the end of the session its decree was immediately communicated to
the waiting people. The whole of Ephesus rejoiced when it found out that
the veneration of the Holy Virgin had been defended, for She was
especially revered in this city, of which She had been a resident during
Her earthly life and a Patroness after Her departure into eternal life.
The people greeted the Fathers ecstatically when in the evening they
returned home after The session. They accompanied them to their homes
with lighted torches and burned incense in the streets. Everywhere were
to be heard joyful greetings, the glorification of the Ever-Virgin, and
the praises of the Fathers who had defended Her name against the
heretics. The decree of the Council was displayed in the streets of
Ephesus.
The Council had five more sessions, on June 10 and 11, July 16,
17,and 22, and August 31. At these sessions there were set forth, in six
canons, measures for action against those who would dare to spread the
teaching of Nestorius and change the decree of the Council of Ephesus.
At the complaint of the bishops of Cyprus against the pretensions of
the Bishop of Antioch, the Council decreed that the Church of Cyprus
should preserve its independence in Church government, which it had
possessed from the Apostles, and that in general none of the bishops
should subject To themselves regions which had been previously
independent from them, “lest under the pretext of priesthood the pride
of earthly power should steal in, and lest we lose, ruining it little by
little, the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all
men, has given us by His blood.”
The Council likewise confirmed the condemnation of the Pelagian
heresy, which taught that man can be saved by his own powers without the
necessity of having the grace of God. It also decided certain matters
of church government, and addressed epistles to the bishops who had not
attended the Council, announcing its decrees and calling upon all to
stand on guard for the Orthodox Faith and the peace of the Church. At
the same time the Council acknowledged that the teaching of the Orthodox
Ecumenical Church had been fully and clearly enough set forth in the
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith, which is why it itself did
not compose a new Symbol of Faith and forbade in future “to compose
another Faith,”“that is, to compose other Symbols of Faith or make
changes in the Symbol which had been confirmed at the Second Ecumenical
Council.
This latter decree was violated several centuries later by Western
Christians when, at first in separate places, and then throughout the
whole Roman Church, there was made to the Symbol the addition that the
Holy Spirit proceeds “and from the Son,” which addition has been
approved by the Roman Popes from the 11th century, even though up until
that time their predecessors, beginning with St. Celestine, firmly kept
to the decision of the Council of Ephesus, which was the Third
Ecumenical Council, and fulfilled it.
Thus the peace which had been destroyed by Nestorius settled once
more in the Church. The true Faith had been defended and false teaching
accused.
The Council of Ephesus is rightly venerated as Ecumenical, on the
same level as the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople which proceeded
it. At it there were present representatives of the whole Church. Its
decisions were accepted by the whole Church “from one end of the
universe to the other.” At it there was confessed the teaching which had
been held from Apostolic times. The Council did not create a new
teaching, but it loudly testified of the truth which some had tried to
replace by an invention. It precisely set forth the confession of the
Divinity of Christ Who was born of the Virgin. The belief of the Church
and its judgment. on this question were now so clearly expressed that no
one could any longer ascribe to the Church his own false reasoning. In
the future there could arise other questions demanding the decision of
the whole Church, but not the question whether Jesus Christ were God.
Subsequent Councils based themselves in their decisions on the
decrees of the Councils which had proceeded them. They did not compose a
new Symbol-of Faith, but only gave an explanation of it. At the Third
Ecumenical Council there was firmly and clearly confessed the teaching
of the Church concerning the Mother of God. Previously the Holy Fathers
had accused those who had slandered the immaculate life of the Virgin
Mary; and now concerning those who tried to lessen Her honor it was
proclaimed to all: “He who does not confess Immanuel to be true God and
therefore the Holy Virgin to be Theotokos, because She gave birth in the
flesh to the Word Who is from God the Father and Who became flesh, let
him be anathema (separated from the Church) “(First Anathema of St.
Cyril of Alexandria).
V.
ATTEMPTS OF ICONOCLASTS TO LESSEN THE GLORY OF THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN; THEY ARE PUT TO SHAME.
AFTER THE Third Ecumenical Council, Christians began yet more
fervently, both in Constantinople and in other places, to hasten to The
intercession of the Mother of God and their hopes in Her intercession
were not vain. She manifested Her help to innumerable sick people,
helpless people, and those in misfortune. Many times She appeared as
defender of Constantinople against outward enemies, once even showing in
visible fashion to St. Andrew the Fool for Christ Her wondrous
Protection over the people who were praying at night in the Temple of
Blacherna.
The Queen of Heaven gave victory in battles to the Byzantine
Emperors, which is why they had the custom to take with them in their
campaigns Her Icon of Hodigitria (Guide). She strengthened ascetics and
zealots of Christian life in their battle against human passions and
weaknesses. She enlightened and instructed the Fathers and Teachers of
the Church, including St. Cyril of Alexandria himself when he was
hesitating to acknowledge the innocence and sanctity of St. John
Chrysostom.
The Most Pure Virgin placed hymns in the mouths of the composers of
church hymns, sometimes making renowned singers out of the untalented
who had no gift of song, but who were pious laborers, such as St.
Romanus the Sweet-Singer. Is it therefore surprising that Christians
strove to magnify the name of their constant Intercessor? In Her honor
feasts were established, to Her were dedicated wondrous songs, and Her
Images were revered.
The malice of the prince of this world armed the sons of apostasy
once more to raise battle against Immanuel and His Mother in this same
Constantinople, which revered now, as Ephesus had previously, the Mother
of God as its Intercessor. Not daring at first to speak openly against
the Champion General, they wished to lessen Her glorification by
forbidding the veneration of the Icons of Christ and His saints, calling
this idol-worship. The Mother of God now also strengthened zealots of
piety in the battle for the veneration of Images, manifesting many signs
from Her Icons and healing the severed
The persecution against the venerators of Icons and Saints ended
again in the victory and triumph of Orthodoxy, for the veneration given
to the Icons ascends to those who are depicted in them; and the holy
ones of God are venerated as friends of God for the sake of the Divine
grace which dwelt in them, in accordance with the words of the Psalm:
“Most precious to me are Thy friends.” The Most Pure Mother of God was
glorified with special honor in Heaven and on earth, and She, even in
the days of the mocking of the holy Icons, manifested through them so
many wondrous miracles that even today we remember them with contrition.
The hymn “In Thee All Creation Rejoices, 0 Thou Who Art Full of Grace,”
and the Icon of the Three Hands remind us of the healing of St. John
Damascene before this Icon; the depiction of the Iviron Icon of the
Mother of God reminds us of the miraculous deliverance from enemies by
this Icon, which had been thrown in the sea by a widow who was unable to
save it.
No persecutions against those who venerated the Mother of God and all
that is bound up with the memory of Her could lessen the love of
Christians for their Intercessor. The rule was established that every
series of hymns in the Divine Services should end with a hymn or verse
in honor of the Mother of God (the so-called “Theotokia”) . Many times
in the year Christians in all corners of the world gather together in
church, as before they gathered together, to praise Her, to thank Her
for the benefactions She has shown, and to beg mercy.
But could the adversary of Christians, the devil, who goeth about
roaring like a lion, seeking whom he may devour (I Peter 5:8), remain an
indifferent spectator to the glory of the Immaculate One? Could he
acknowledge himself as defeated, and cease to wage warfare against the
truth through men who do his will? And so, when all the universe
resounded with the good news of the Faith of Christ, when everywhere the
name of the Most Holy One was invoked, when the earth was filled with
churches, when the houses of Christians were adorned with Icons
depicting Her-then there appeared and began to spread a new false
teaching about the Mother of God. This false teaching is dangerous in
that many cannot immediately understand to what degree it undermines the
true veneration of the Mother of God.
VI.
“ZEAL NOT ACCORDING TO KNOWLEDGE”
(Rom. 10:2) The
corruption by the Latins, in the newly-invented dogma of the
“Immaculate Conception,” of the true veneration of the Most Holy Mother
of God and Ever-Virgin Mary.
WHEN THOSE WHO censured the immaculate life of the Most Holy Virgin
had been accused, as well as those who denied Her Ever-virginity, those
who denied Her dignity as the Mother of God, and those who disdained Her
icons - then, when the glory of the Mother of God had illuminated the
whole universe, there appeared a teaching which seemingly exalted highly
the Virgin Mary, but in reality denied all Her virtues.
This teaching is called that of the Immaculate Conception of the
Virgin Mary, and it was accepted by the followers of the Papal throne of
Rome. The teaching is this: that “the All-blessed Virgin Mary in the.
first instant of Her Conception, by the special grace of Almighty God
and by a special privilege, for the sake of the future merits of Jesus
Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain
of original sin” (Bull of Pope Pius IX concerning the new dogma). In
other words, the Mother of God at Her very Conception was preserved from
original sin and, by the grace of God, was placed in a state where it
was impossible for Her to have personal sins.
Christians had not heard of this before the pith century, when for
the first time the Abbot of Corvey, Paschasius Radbertus, expressed the
opinion that the Holy Virgin was conceived without original sin.
Beginning from the 12th century, this idea begins to spread among the
clergy and flock of the Western church, which had already fallen away
from the Universal Church and thereby lost the grace of the Holy Spirit.
However, by no means all of the members of the Roman church agreed
with the new teaching. There was a difference of opinion even among the
most renowned theologians of the West, the pillars, so to speak, of the
Latin church. Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux decisively
censured it, while Duns Scotus defended it. From the teachers this
division carried over to their disciples: the Latin Dominican monks,
after their teacher Thomas Aquinas, preached against the teaching of the
Immaculate Conception, while the followers of Duns Scotus, the
Franciscans, strove to implant it everywhere. The battle between these
two currents continued for the course of several centuries. Both on the
one and on the other side there were those who were considered among the
Catholics as the greatest authorities.
There was no help in deciding the question in the fact that several
people declared that they had had a revelation from above concerning it.
The nun Bridget, renowned in the 14th century among the Catholics spoke
in her writings about the appearances to her of the Mother of God, Who
Herself told her that She had been conceived immaculately, without
original sin. But her contemporary, the yet more renowned ascetic
Catherine of Sienna, affirmed that in Her conception the Holy Virgin
participated in original sin, concerning which she had received a
revelation from Christ Himself. (See the book of Archpriest A. Lebedev, Differences in the Teaching on the Most Holy Mother of God in the Churches of East and West.)
Thus, neither on the foundation of theological writings, nor on the
foundation of miraculous manifestations which contradicted each other,
could the Latin flock distinguish for a long time where the truth was..
Roman Popes until Sixtus IV (end of the 15th century) remained apart
from these disputes, and only this Pope in 1475 approved a service in
which the teaching of the Immaculate Conception was dearly expressed;
and several years later he forbade a condemnation of those who believed
in the Immaculate Conception. However, even Sixtus IV did not yet decide
to affirm that such was the unwavering reaching of the church; and
therefore, having forbidden the condemnation of those who believed in
the Immaculate Conception, he also did not condemn those who believed
otherwise.
Meanwhile, the teaching of the Immaculate Conception obtained more
and more partisans among the members of the Roman-Papist church. The
reason for this was the fact that it seemed more pious and pleasing to
the Mother of God to give Her as much glory as possible. The striving of
the people to glorify the Heavenly Intercessor, on the one hand, and on
the other hand, the deviation of Western theologians into abstract
speculations which led only to a seeming truth (Scholasticism), and
finally, the patronage of the Roman Popes after Sixtus IV - all this led
to the fact that the opinion concerning the Immaculate Conception which
had been expressed by Paschasius Radbertus in the 9th century was
already the general belief of the Latin church in the 19th century.
There remained only to proclaim this definitely as the church’s
teaching, which was done by the Roman Pope Pius IX during a solemn
service on December 8, 1854, when he declared that the Immaculate
Conception of the Most Holy Virgin was a dogma of the Roman church.
Thus the Roman church added yet another deviation from the teaching
which it had confessed while it was a member of the Catholic, Apostolic
Church, which faith has been held up to now unaltered and unchanged by
the Orthodox Church. The proclamation of the new dogma satisfied the
broad masses of people who belonged to the Roman church, who in
simplicity of heart thought that the proclamation of the new teaching in
the church would serve for the greater glory of the Mother of God, to
Whom by this they were making a gift, as it were. There was also
satisfied the vainglory of the Western theologians who had defended and
worked it out. But most of all the proclamation of the new dogma was
profitable for the Roman throne itself, since, having proclaimed the new
dogma by his own authority, even though he did listen to the opinions
of the bishops of the Catholic church, the Roman Pope by this very fact
openly appropriated to himself the right to change the teaching of the
Roman church and placed his own voice above the testimony of Sacred
Scripture and Tradition. A direct deduction from this was the fact that
the Roman Popes were infallible in matters of faith, which indeed this
very same Pope Pius IX likewise proclaimed as a dogma of the Catholic
church in 1870.
Thus was the teaching of the Western church changed after it had
fallen away from communion with the True Church. It has introduced into
itself newer and newer teachings, thinking by this to glorify the Truth
yet more, but in reality distorting it. While the Orthodox Church humbly
confesses what it has received from Christ and the Apostles, the Roman
church dares to add to it, sometimes from “zeal not according to
knowledge” (Rom. 10:2), and sometimes by deviating into superstitions
and into the “contradictions of knowledge falsely so-called” (I Tim.
6:20). It could not be otherwise. That “the gates of hell shall not
prevail” against the Church (Matt. 16:18) is promised only to the True,
Universal Church; but upon those who have fallen away from it are
fulfilled the words, “As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except
it abide in the vine; so neither can ye, except ye abide in Me.” (John
15:4).
It is true that in the very definition of the new dogma it is said
that a new teaching is not being established, but that there is only
being proclaimed as the church’s that which always existed in the church
and which has been held by many Holy Fathers, excerpts from whose
writings are cited. However, all the cited references speak only of the
exalted sanctity of the Virgin Mary and of Her immaculateness, and give
Her various names which define Her purity and spiritual might; but
nowhere is there any word of the immaculateness of Her conception.
Meanwhile, these same Holy Fathers in other places say that only Jesus
Christ is completely pure of every sin, while all men, being born of
Adam, have borne a flesh subject to the law of sin.
None of the ancient Holy Fathers say that God in miraculous fashion
.purified the Virgin Mary while yet in the womb; and many directly
indicate that the Virgin Mary, just as all men, endured a battle with
sinfulness, but was victorious over temptations and was saved by Her
Divine Son.
Commentators of the Latin confession likewise say that the Virgin
Mary was saved by Christ. But they understand this in the sense that
Mary was preserved from the taint of original sin in view of the future
merits of Christ (Bull on the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception). The
Virgin Mary, according to their teaching, received in advance, as it
were, the gift which Christ brought to men by His sufferings and death
on the Cross. Moreover, speaking of the torments of the Mother of God
which She endured standing at the Cross of Her Beloved Son, and in
general of the sorrows with which the life of the Mother of God was
filled, they consider them an addition to the sufferings of Christ and
consider Mary to be our Co-Redemptress. According to the commentary of
the Latin theologians, “Mary is an associate with our Redeemer as
Co-Redemptress” (see Lebedev, op. cit., p. 273). “In the act of
Redemption, She, in a certain way, helped Christ” (Catechism of Dr.
Weimar). “The Mother of God,” writes Dr. Lentz, “bore the burden of Her
martyrdom not merely courageously, but also joyfully, even though with a
broken heart” (Mariology of Dr. Lentz). For this reason, She is “a
complement of the Holy Trinity,”and “just as Her Son is the only
Intermediary chosen by God between His offended majesty and sinful men,
so also, precisely, the chief Mediatress placed by Him between His Son
and us is the Blessed Virgin.”“In three respects - as Daughter, as
Mother, and as Spouse of God –the Holy Virgin is exalted to a certain
equality with the Father, to a certain superiority over the Son, to a
certain nearness to the Holy Spirit” (“The Immaculate Conception,”
Malou, Bishop of Brouges).
Thus, according to the teaching of the representatives of Latin
theology, the Virgin Mary in the work of Redemption is placed side by
side with Christ Himself and is exalted to an equality with God. One
cannot go farther than this. If all this has not been definitively
formulated as a dogma of the Roman church as yet, still the Roman Pope
Pius IX, having made the first step in this direction, has shown the
direction for the further development of the generally recognized
teaching of his church, and has indirectly confirmed the above-cited
teaching about the Virgin Mary.
Thus the Roman church, in its strivings to exalt the Most Holy
Virgin, is going on the path of complete deification of Her. And if even
now its authorities call Mary a complement of the Holy Trinity, one may
soon expect that the Virgin will be revered like God.
There have entered on this same path a group of thinkers who for the
time being belong to the Orthodox Church, but who are building a new
theological system having as its foundation the philosophical teaching
of Sophia, Wisdom, as a special power binding the Divinity and the
creation. Likewise developing the teaching of the dignity of the Mother
of God, they wish to see in Her an essence which is some kind of
mid-point between God and man. In some questions they are more moderate
than the Latin theologians, but in others, if you please, they have
already left them behind. While denying the teaching of the Immaculate
Conception and the freedom from original sin, they still teach Her full
freedom from any personal sins, seeing in Her an Intermediary between
men and God, like Christ: in the person of Christ there has appeared on
earth the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Pre-eternal Word, the
Son of God; while the Holy Spirit is manifest through the Virgin Mary.
In the words of one of the representatives of this tendency, when the
Holy Spirit came to dwell in the Virgin Mary, she acquired “a dyadic
life, human and divine; that is, She was completely deified, because in
Her hypostatic being was manifest the living, creative revelation of the
Holy Spirit” (Archpriest Sergei Bulgakov, The Unburnt Bush, 1927, p.
154). “She is a perfect manifestation of the Third Hypostasis” (Ibid.,
p. 175), “a creature, but also no longer a creature” (p. 191). This
striving towards the deification of the Mother of God is to be observed
primarily in the West, where at the same time, on the other hand,
various sects of a Protestant character are having great success,
together with the chief branches of Protestantism, Lutheranism and
Galvanism, which in general deny the veneration of the Mother of God and
the calling upon Her in prayer.
But we can say with the words of St. Epiphanius of Cyprus: “There is
an equal harm in both these heresies, both when men demean the Virgin
and when, on the contrary, they glorify Her beyond what is proper”
(Panarion, “Against the Collyridians”). This Holy Father accuses those
who give Her an almost divine worship: “Let Mary be in honor, but let
worship be given to the Lord” (same source). “Although Mary is a chosen
vessel, still She was a woman by nature, not to be distinguished at all
from others. Although the history of Mary and Tradition relate that it
was said to Her father Joachim in the desert, “Thy wife hath conceived,’
still this was done not without marital union and not without the seed
of man” (same source). “One should not revere the saints above what is
proper, but should revere their Master. Mary is not God, and did not
receive a body from heaven, but from the joining of man and woman; and
according to the promise, like Isaac, She was prepared to take part in
the Divine Economy. But, on the other hand, let none dare foolishly to
offend the Holy Virgin” (St. Epiphanius, “Against the
Antidikomarionites”).
The Orthodox Church, highly exalting the Mother of God in its hymns
of praise, does not dare to ascribe to Her that which has not been
communicated about Her by Sacred Scripture or Tradition. “Truth is
foreign to all overstatements as well as to all understatements. It
gives to everything a fitting measure and fitting place” (Bishop
Ignatius Brianchaninov). Glorifying the immaculateness of the Virgin
Mary and the manful bearing of sorrows in Her earthly life, the Fathers
of the Church, on the other hand, reject the idea that She was an
intermediary between God and men in the sense of the joint Redemption by
Them of the human race. Speaking of Her preparedness to die together
with her Son and to suffer together with Him for the sake of the
salvation of all, the renowned Father of the Western Church, Saint
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, adds: “But the sufferings of Christ did hot
need any help, as the Lord Himself prophesied concerning this long
before: I looked about, and there was none to help; I sought and there
was none to give aid (Is. 63:5)” (St. Ambrose, “Concerning the
Upbringing of the Virgin and the Ever-Virginity of Holy Mary,” ch. 7).
The same Holy Father teaches concerning the universality of original
sin, from which Christ alone is an exception. “Of all those born of
women, there is not a single one who is perfectly holy, apart from the
Lord Jesus Christ, Who in a special new way of immaculate birth-giving,
did not experience earthly taint” (St. Ambrose, Commentary on Luke, ch.
2). “God alone is without sin. All born in the usual manner of woman and
man, that is, of fleshly union, become guilty of sin. Consequently, He
Who does not have sin was not conceived in this manner” (St. Ambrose,
Ap. Aug. “Concerning Marriage and Conception”). “One Man alone, the
Intermediary between God and man, is free from the bonds of sinful
birth, because He was born of a Virgin, and because in being born He did
not experience the touch of sin” (St. Ambrose, Against Julian, Book 2).
Another of the Church, Augustine, writes: “As for other men,
excluding Him Who is the cornerstone, I do not see for them any other
means to become temples of God and to be dwellings for God apart from
spiritual rebirth, which must absolutely be preceded by fleshly birth.
Thus, no matter how much we might think about children who are in the
womb of the mother, and even though the word of the holy Evangelist who
says of John the Baptist that he leaped for joy in the womb of his
mother (which occurred not otherwise than by the action of the Holy
Spirit), or the word of the Lord Himself spoken to Jeremiah: I have
sanctified thee before thou didst leave the womb of thy mother - no
matter how much these might or might not give us a basis for thinking
that children in this condition are capable of a certain sanctification,
still in any case it cannot be doubted that the sanctification by which
all of us together and each of us separately become the temple of God
is possibly only for those who are reborn, and rebirth always
presupposes birth. Only those who have already been born can be united
with Christ and be in union with this Divine Body which makes His Church
the living temple of the majesty of God” (Augustine, Letter 187).
The above-cited words of the ancient teachers of the Church testify
that in the West’ itself the teaching which is now spread there was
earlier rejected there. Even after the falling away of the Western
church, Bernard, who is acknowledged there as a great authority, wrote,
“I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change
the condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown
to the Church, unapproved by the reason, unjustified by ancient
tradition. Are we really more learned and more pious than our fathers?
You will say, ‘One must glorify the Mother of God as much as possible.’
This is true; but the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands
discernment. This Royal Virgin does not have need of false
glorifications, possessing as She does true crowns of glory and signs of
dignity. Glorify the purity of her flesh and the sanctity of Her life.
Marvel at the abundance of the gifts of this Virgin; venerate Her Divine
Son; exalt Her Who conceived without knowing concupiscence and gave
VII.
THE ORTHODOX VENERATION OF THE MOTHER OF GOD
THE ORTHODOX CHURCH teaches about the Mother of God that which Sacred
Tradition and Sacred Scripture have informed concerning Her, and daily
it glorifies Her in its temples, asking Her help and defense. Knowing
that She is pleased only by those praises which correspond to Her actual
glory, the Holy Fathers and hymn-writers have entreated Her and Her Son
to teach them how to hymn Her. “Set a rampart about my mind, 0 my
Christ, for I make bold to sing the praise of Thy pure Mother” (Ikos of
the Dormition). “The Church teaches that Christ was truly born of Mary
Ever-Virgin” (St. Epiphanius, “True Word Concerning the Faith”). “It is
essential for us to confess that the holy Ever-Virgin Mary is actually
Theotokos (Birth-giver of God), so as not to fall into blasphemy. For
those who deny that the Holy Virgin is actually Theotokos are no longer
believers, but disciples of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (St. Ephraim
the Syrian, “To John the Monk”).
From Tradition it is known that Mary was the daughter of the aged
Joachim and Anna, and that Joachim descended from the royal line of
David, and Anna from the priestly line. Notwithstanding such a noble
origin, they were poor. However, it was not this that saddened these
righteous ones, but rather the fact that they did not have children and
could not hope that their descendents would see the Messiah. And behold,
when once, being disdained by the Hebrews for their barrenness, they
both in grief of soul were offering up prayers to God - Joachim on a
mountain to which he had retired after the priest did not want to offer
his sacrifice in the Temple, and Anna in her own garden weeping over her
barrenness -there appeared to them an angel who informed them that they
would bring forth a daughter. Overjoyed, they promised to consecrate
their child to God.
In nine months a daughter was born to them, called Mary, Who from Her
early childhood manifested the best qualities of soul. When She was
three years old, her parents, fulfilling -their promise, solemnly led
the little Mary to the Temple of Jerusalem; She Herself ascended the
high steps and, by revelation from God, She was led in to the very Holy
of Holies, by the High Priest who met Her, taking with Her the grace of
God which rested upon Her into the Temple which until then had been
without grace. (See the Kontakion of the Entry into the Temple. This was
the newly-built Temple into which the glory of God had not descended as
it had upon the Ark or upon the Temple of Solomon.) She was settled in
the quarters for virgins which existed in the Temple, but She spent so
much time in prayer in the Holy of Holies that one might say that She
lived in it. (Service to the Entry, second stitcheron on “Lord, I have
cried,” and the “Glory, Both Now . . .”) Being adorned with all virtues,
She manifested an example of extraordinarily pure life. Being
submissive and obedieat to all, She offended no one, said no crude word
to anyone, was friendly to all, and did not allow any unclean thought
(abridged from St. Ambrose of Milan, “Concerning the Ever-Virginity of
the Virgin Mary”).
“Despite the righteousness and the immaculateness of life which the
Mother of God led, sin and eternal death manifested their presence in
Her. They could not but be manifested: Such is the precise and faithful
teaching of the Orthodox Church concerning the Mother of God with
relation to ancestral sin and death” (Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov,
“Exposition’ of the Teaching of the Orthodox Church on the Mother of
God”). “A stranger to any fall into sin” (St. Ambrose of Milan,
Commentary on the 118th Psalm), She was not a stranger to sinful
temptations. “God alone is without sin” (St. Ambrose, same source),
while man will always have in himself something yet needing correction
and perfection in order to fulfill the commandment of God; Be ye holy as
I the Lord your God am Holy (Leviticus 19:2). The more pure and perfect
one is, the more he notices his imperfections and considers himself all
the more unworthy.
The Virgin Mary, having given Herself entirely up to God, even though
She repulsed from herself every impulse to sin, still felt the weakness
of human nature more powerfully than others and ardently desired the
coming of the Saviour. In Her humility She considered Herself unworthy
to be even the servant-girl of the Virgin Who was to give Him birth. So
that nothing might distract Her from prayer and heedfulness to Herself,
Mary gave to God a vow not to become married, in order to please only
Him Her whole life long. Being betrothed to the elderly Joseph when Her
age no longer allowed Her to remain in the Temple, She settled in his
house in Nazareth. Here the Virgin was vouchsafed the coming of the
Archangel Gabriel, who brought Her the good “tidings of the birth from
Her of the Son of the Most High. Hail, Thou that art full of grace, the
Lord is with Thee. Blessed art Thou among women... The Holy Spirit shall
come upon Thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow Thee:
wherefore also that which is to be born shall be holy, and shall be
called the Son of God (Luke 1:28-35).
Mary received the angelic good tidings humbly and submissively. “Then
the Word, in a way known to Himself, descended and, as He Himself
willed, came and entered into Mary and abode in Her” (St. Ephraim the
Syrian, “Praise of the Mother of God”). “As lightning illuminates what
is hidden, so also Christ purifies what is hidden in the nature of
things. He purified the Virgin also and then was born, so as to show
that where Christ is, there is manifest purity in all its power. He
purified the Virgin, having prepared Her by the Holy Spirit, and then
the womb, having become pure, conceived Him. He purified the Virgin
while She was inviolate; wherefore, having been born, He left Her
virgin. I do not say that Mary became immortal, but that being
illuminated by grace, She was not disturbed by sinful desires” (St.
Ephraim the Syrian, Homily Against Heretics, 41). The Light abode in
Her, cleansed Her mind, made Her thoughts pure, made chaste Her
concerns, sanctified Her virginity” (St. Ephraim the Syrian, “Mary and
Eve”). “One who was pure according to, human understanding, He made pure
by grace” (Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, “Exposition of the Teaching
of the Orthodox Church on the Mother of God”).
Mary told no one of the appearance of the angel, but the angel
himself revealed to Joseph concerning Mary’s miraculous conception from
the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18-25); and after the Nativity of Christ, with
a. multitude of the heavenly host, he announced it to the shepherds. The
shepherds, coming to worship the new-born one, said that they had heard
of Him. Having previously endured suspicion in silence, Mary now also
listened in silence and .kept in her heart the sayings concerning the
greatness of Her Son (Luke 2:8-19). She heard forty days later Symeon’s
prayer of praise and the prophecy concerning the weapon which would
pierce Her soul. Later She saw how Jesus advanced in wisdom; She heard
Him at the age of twelve teaching in the Temple, and everything She kept
in Her heart (Luke 2:21-51).
Even though full of grace, She did not yet fully understand in what
the service. and the greatness of Her Son would consist. The Hebrew
conceptions of the Messiah were still close to Her, and natural feelings
forced Her to be concerned for Him, preserving Him from labors and
dangers which it might seem, were excessive. Therefore She favored Her
Son involuntarily at first, which evoked His indication of the
superiority of spiritual to bodily kinship (Matt._ 12:46-49). “He had
concern, also over the honor of His Mother, but much, more over the
salvation of Her soul and the good of men, for which He had become
clothed in flesh” (St. John Chrysostom, Commentary on John, Homily 21).
Mary understood this and heard the word of God and kept it (Luke 11:27,
28). As no other person, She had the same feelings as Christ (Phil.
2:5), unmurmuring bearing the grief of a mother when She saw Her Son
persecuted and suffering. Rejoicing in the day of the Resurrection, on
the day of Pentecost She was clothed with power from on high (Luke
24:49). The Holy Spirit Who descended upon Her taught (Her).–all things
(John 14:26), and instructed (Her) in all truth (John 16:13). Being
enlightened, She began to labor all the more zealously to perform what
She had heard from Her Son and Redeemer, so as to ascend to Him and be
with Him.
The end of the earthly life of the Most Holy Mother of God was the
beginning of Her greatness. “Being adorned with Divine glory” (Irmos of
the Canon of the Dormition), She stands and will stand, both in the day
of the Last judgment and in the future age, at the right hand of the
throne of Her Son. She reigns wih Him and has boldness towards Him as
His Mother according to the flesh, and as one in spirit with Him, as one
who performed the will of God and instructed others (Matt. 5:19).
Merciful and full of love, She manifests Her love towards Her Son and
God in love for the human race. She intercedes for it before the
Merciful One, and, going about the earth, She helps men.
Having experienced all the difficulties of earthly life, the
Intercessor of the Christian race sees every tear, hears every groan and
entreaty directed to Her. Especially near to Her are those who labor in
the battle with the passions and are zealous for a God-pleasing life.
But even in worldly cares She is an irreplaceable helper. “Joy of all
who sorrow, and intercessor for the offended, and feeder of the hungry,
consolation of travelers, harbor of the storm-tossed; visitation of the
sick, protection and intercessor for the infirm, staff of old age, Thou
are the Mother of God on high, 0 Most Pure One” (Sticheron of the
Service to the Hodigitria). “The hope and intercession and refuge of
Christians,”“The Mother of God unceasing in prayers” (Theotokion of the
Third Tone). “She day and night doth pray for us, and the scepters of-
kingdoms are confirmed by Her prayers” (daily Nocturne).
There is no intellect or words to express the greatness of Her Who
was born in the sinful human race but became “more honorable than the
Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim.”“Seeing the
grace of the secret mysteries of God made manifest and clearly
fulfilled in the Virgin, I rejoice; and I know not how to understand the
strange and secret manner whereby the Undefiled has been revealed as
alone chosen above all creation, visible and spiritual. Therefore,
wishing to praise Her, I am struck dumb with amazement in both mind and
speech. Yet still I dare to proclaim and magnify Her: She is indeed the
heavenly Tabernacle” (Ikos of the Entry into the Temple). “Every tongue
is at a loss to praise Thee as is due; even a spirit from the world
above is filled with dizziness, when it seeks to sing Thy praises, 0
Theotokos. But since Thou art good, accept our faith. Thou knowest well
our love inspired by God, for Thou art the Protector of Christians, and
we magnify Thee” (Irmos of the 9th Canticle, Service of the Theophany).
The End...
Glory be to God for all things!
Text provided courtesy of ~ http://www.stmaryofegypt.org/library/st_john_maximovich/on_veneration_of_the_theotokos.htm
|
