The
living and the dead: The Mother of God
In God and in His Church
there is no division between the living and the departed, but all
are one in the love of
the Father. Whether we are alive or whether we are dead, as members of
the Church we still
belong to the same family, and still have a duty to bear one another’s burdens.
Therefore just as
Orthodox Christians here on earth pray for one another and ask for one
another’s prayers, so
they pray also for the faithful departed and ask the faithful departed to pray
for them. Death cannot
sever the bond of mutual love which links the members of the Church
together.
Prayers for the Departed. ‘With the saints give
rest, O Christ, to the souls of thy servants,
where there is neither
sickness, nor sorrow, nor sighing, but life everlasting.’ So the Orthodox
Church prays for the
faithful departed; and again: ‘O God of spirits and of all flesh, who hast
trampled down death and
overthrown the Devil, and given life unto Thy world: Do thou, the
same Lord, give rest to
the souls of Thy departed servants, in a place of light, refreshment, and
repose, whence all pain,
sorrow, and sighing have fled away. Pardon every transgression which
they have committed,
whether by word or deed or thought.’
Orthodox are convinced
that Christians here on earth have a duty to pray for the departed,
and they are confident
that the dead are helped by such prayers. But precisely in what way do our
prayers help the dead?
What exactly is the condition of souls in the period between death and the
Resurrection of the Body
at the Last Day? Here Orthodox teaching is not entirely clear, and has
varied somewhat at
different times. In the seventeenth century a number of Orthodox writers —
most notably Peter of
Moghila and Dositheus in his Confession — upheld the Roman Catholic
doctrine of Purgatory,
or something very close to it (According to the normal Roman teaching,
souls in
Purgatory
undergo expiatory suffering, and so render ‘satisfaction’ or ‘atonement’ for
their sins. It should be remarked,
however,
that even in the seventeenth century there were many Orthodox who rejected the
Roman teaching
on
Purgatory. The statements on the departed in Moghila’s Orthodox Confession were
carefully changed by Meletius
Syrigos,
while in later life Dositheus specifically retracted what he had written on the
subject in his Confession).
Today most if not all
Orthodox theologians reject the idea of Purgatory, at any rate in this
form. The majority would
be inclined to say that the faithful departed do not suffer at all. Another
school holds that
perhaps they suffer, but, if so, their suffering is of a purificatory but not
an expiatory character;
for when a man dies in the grace of God, then God freely forgives him all
his sins and demands no
expiatory penalties: Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of
the world, is our only
atonement and satisfaction. Yet a third group would prefer to leave the
whole question entirely
open: let us avoid detailed formulation about the life after death, they
say, and preserve
instead a reverent and agnostic reticence. When Saint Antony of Egypt was
31
once worrying about
divine providence, a voice came to him, saying: ‘Antony, attend to yourself;
for these are the
judgments of God, and it is not for you to know them’ (Apophthegmata (P.G.
65),
Antony, 2).
The Saints. Symeon the New
Theologian describes the saints as forming a golden chain: ‘The
Holy Trinity, pervading
all men from first to last, from head to foot, binds them all together ...
The saints in each
generation, joined to those who have gone before, and filled like them with
light, become a golden
chain, in which each saint is a separate link, united to the next by faith,
works, and love. So in
the One God they form a single chain which cannot quickly be broken’
(Centuries,
3, 2-4). Such
is the Orthodox idea of the communion of saints. This chain is a chain of
mutual love and prayer;
and in this loving prayer the members of the Church on earth, ‘called to
be saints,’ have their
place.
In private an Orthodox
Christian is free to ask for the prayers of any member of the Church,
whether canonized or
not. It would be perfectly normal for an Orthodox child, if orphaned, to
end his evening prayers
by asking for the intercessions not only of the Mother of God and the
saints, but of his own
mother and father. In its public worship, however, the Church usually
prays only to those whom
it has officially proclaimed as saints; but in exceptional circumstances
a public cult may become
established without any formal act of canonization. The Greek Church
under the Ottoman Empire
soon began to commemorate the New Martyrs in its worship, but to
avoid the notice of the
Turks there was usually no official act of proclamation: the cult of the
New Martyrs was in most
cases something that arose spontaneously under popular initiative. The
same thing has happened
in recent years with the New Martyrs of Russia: in certain places, both
within and outside the
Soviet Union, they have begun to be honoured as saints in the Church’s
worship, but present
conditions in the Russian Church make a formal canonization impossible.
Reverence for the saints
is closely bound up with the veneration of icons. These are placed
by Orthodox not only in
their churches, but in each room of their homes, and even in cars and
buses. These
ever-present icons act as a point of meeting between the living members of the
Church and those who
have gone before. Icons help Orthodox to look on the saints not as remote
and legendary figures
from the past, but as contemporaries and personal friends.
At Baptism an Orthodox
is given the name of a saint, ‘as a symbol of his entry into the unity
of the Church which is
not only the earthly Church, but also the Church in heaven’ (P.
Kovalevsky,
Exposé
de la foi catholique orthodoxe, Paris, 1957, p. 16). An Orthodox has a
special devotion to the saint
whose name he bears; he
usually keeps an icon of his patron saint in his room, and prays daily to
him. The festival of his
patron saint he keeps as his Name Day, and to most Orthodox (as to most
Roman Catholics in
continental Europe) this is a date far more important than one’s actual
birthday.
An Orthodox Christian
prays not only to the saints but to the angels, and in particular to his
guardian angel. The
angels ‘fence us around with their intercessions and shelter us under their
protecting wings of
immaterial glory’ (From the Dismissal Hymn for the Feast of the
Archangels (8 November)).
The Mother of God. Among the saints a
special position belongs to the Blessed Virgin Mary,
whom Orthodox reverence
as the most exalted among God’s creatures, ‘more honourable than
the cherubim and
incomparably more glorious than the seraphim’ (From the hymn
Meet it is, sung at
the
Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom). Note that we have termed her ‘most exalted among God’s
creatures:’
Orthodox, like Roman
Catholics, venerate or honour the Mother of God, but in no sense
do the members of either
Church regard her as a fourth person of the Trinity, nor do they assign
32
to her the worship due
to God alone. In Greek theology the distinction is very clearly marked:
there is a special word,
latreia, reserved for the worship of God, while for the veneration of
the
Virgin entirely
different terms are employed (duleia, hyperduleia, proskynesis).
In Orthodox services
Mary is often mentioned, and on each occasion she is usually given
her full title: ‘Our
All-Holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorified Lady, Mother of God and
Ever-Virgin Mary.’ Here
are included the three chief epithets applied to Our Lady by the Orthodox
Church: Tkeotokos (Mother
of God), Aeiparthenos (Ever-Virgin), and Panagia (All-Holy).
The first of these
titles was assigned to her by the third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431), the
second by the fifth
Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 553). (Belief in the
Perpetual Virginity of
Mary
may seem at first sight contrary to Scripture, since Mark 3:31 mentions the
‘brothers’ of Christ. But the word
used
here in Greek can mean half-brother, cousin, or near relative, as well as
brother in the strict sense). The title
Panagia, although never a
subject of dogmatic definition, is accepted and used by all Orthodox.
The appellation Theotokos
is of particular importance, for it provides the key to the Orthodox
cult of the Virgin. We
honour Mary because she is the Mother of our God. We do not venerate
her in isolation, but
because of her relation to Christ. Thus the reverence shown to Mary, so
far from eclipsing the
worship of God, has exactly the opposite effect: the more we esteem Mary,
the more vivid is our
awareness of the majesty of her Son, for it is precisely on account of the
Son that we venerate the
Mother.
We honour the Mother on
account of the Son: Mariology is simply an extension of Christology.
The Fathers of the
Council of Ephesus insisted on calling Mary Theotokos, not because
they desired to glorify
her as an end in herself, apart from her Son, but because only by honouring
Mary could they
safeguard a right doctrine of Christ’s person. Anyone who thinks out the
implications of that
great phrase, The Word was made flesh, cannot but feel a certain awe for
her
who was chosen as the
instrument of so surpassing a mystery. When men refuse to honour Mary,
only too often it is
because they do not really believe in the Incarnation.
But Orthodox honour
Mary, not only because she is Theotokos, but because she is Panagia,
All-Holy. Among all
God’s Creatures, she is the supreme example of synergy or cooperation between
the purpose of the deity
and the free will of man. God, who always respects human liberty,
did not wish to become
incarnate without the free consent of His Mother. He Waited for her voluntary
response: “Behold the
handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word”
(Luke 1:38). Mary could
have refused; she was not merely passive, but an active participant in
the mystery. As Nicholas
Cabasilas said: ‘The Incarnation was not only the work of the Father,
of His Power and His
Spirit ... but it was also the work of the will and faith of the Virgin ...
Just
as God became incarnate
voluntarily, so He wished that His Mother should bear Him freely and
with her full consent’ (On
the Annunciation, 4-5 (Patrologia Orientalis, vol, 19, Paris, 1926,
p. 488)).
If Christ is the New
Adam, Mary is the New Eve, whose went submission to the will of God
counterbalanced Eve’s
disobedience in Paradise. ‘So the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed
through the obedience of
Mary; for what Eve, a Virgin, bound by her unbelief, that Mary, a virgin,
unloosed by her faith’ (Irenaeus,
Against the Heresies, 3, 22, 4). ‘Death by Eve, life by Mary’
(Jerome,
Letter 22, 21).
The Orthodox Church
calls Mary ‘All-Holy;’ it calls her ‘immaculate’ or ‘spotless’ (in
Greek, achrantos);
and all Orthodox are agreed in believing that Our Lady was free from actual
sin. But was she also
free from original sin? In other words, does Orthodoxy agree with the Roman
Catholic doctrine of the
Immaculate Conception, proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius the
Ninth in 1854, according
to which Mary, from the moment she was conceived by her mother
Saint Anne, was by God’s
special decree delivered from ‘all stain of original sin?’ The Orthodox
Church has never in fact
made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter. In the
33
past individual Orthodox
have made statements which, if not definitely affirming the doctrine of
the Immaculate
Conception, at any rate approach close to it; but since 1854 the great majority
of
Orthodox have rejected
the doctrine, for several reasons. They feel it to be unnecessary; they feel
that, at any rate as
defined by the Roman Catholic Church, it implies a false understanding of
original sin; they
suspect the doctrine because it seems to separate Mary from the rest of the
descendants
of Adam, putting her in
a completely different class from all the other righteous men
and women of the Old
Testament. From the Orthodox point of view, however, the whole question
belongs to the realm of
theological opinion; and if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled
to believe in the
Immaculate Conception, he could not be termed a heretic for so doing.
But Orthodoxy, while for
the most part denying the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
of Mary, firmly believes
in her Bodily Assumption (Immediately after the Pope proclaimed the
Assumption
as a
dogma in 1950, a few Orthodox (by way of reaction against the Roman Catholic
Church) began to express
doubts
about the Bodily Assumption and even explicitly to deny it; but they are
certainly not representative of the
Orthodox
Church as a whole). Like the rest of mankind, Our Lady underwent physical death, but in
her case the
Resurrection of the Body has been anticipated: after death her body was taken
up or
‘assumed’ into heaven
and her tomb was found to be empty. She has passed beyond death and
judgement, and lives
already in the Age to Come. Yet she is not thereby utterly separated from
the rest of humanity,
for that same bodily glory which Mary enjoys now, all of us hope one day
to share.
Belief in the Assumption
of the Mother of God is clearly and unambiguously affirmed in the
hymns sung by the Church
on 15 August, the Feast of the ‘Dormition’ or ‘Falling Asleep.’ But
Orthodoxy, unlike Rome,
has never proclaimed the Assumption as a dogma, nor would it ever
wish to do so. The
doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation have been proclaimed as dogmas,
for they belong to the
public preaching of the Church; but the glorification of Our Lady belongs
to the Church’s inner
Tradition: ‘It is hard to speak and not less hard to think about the mysteries
which the Church keeps
in the hidden depths of her inner consciousness ... The Mother of God
was never a theme of the
public preaching of the Apostles; while Christ was preached on the
housetops, and
proclaimed for all to know in an initiatory teaching addressed to the whole
world,
the mystery of his
Mother was revealed only to those who were within the Church … It is not so
much an object of faith
as a foundation of our hope, a fruit of faith, ripened in Tradition. Let us
therefore keep silence,
and let us not try to dogmatize about the supreme glory of the Mother of
God’ (V.
Lossky, ‘Panagia,’ in The Mother of God, edited by E. L. Mascall, p.
35).
|