The Saturday of the Akathist Hymn

In the modern Greek tradition, the Akathist Hymn to the Mother of God, thought to the composition of St. Romanos the Melodist is sung in its entirety on the Fifth Saturday of Great Lent (or, in parish practice, at Compline on Friday night).

As we have just come out of the Feast of the Annunciation (at least those of us on the Revised Julian Calendar), this Saturday gives closure to the greatest gift God has given: His Son, born of the Virgin for us and for our salvation, humbled to become that which was lower to elevate us to that which is higher. It is a glorious hymn and it is little wonder that this hymn is often sung in monasteries daily before the noon meal.

A prince of the angels was sent from heaven, to say to the Theotokos, "Hail!" And seeing Thee, O Lord, take bodily form at the sound of his bodiless voice, filled with amazement he stood and cried aloud to her:

Hail, for through thee joy shall shine forth:
Hail, for through thee the curse shall cease.
Hail, recalling of fallen Adam:
Hail, deliverance from the tears of Eve.
Hail, height hard to climb for the thoughts of men:
Hail, depth hard to scan even for the eyes of angels.
Hail, for thou art the throne of the King:
Hail, for thou holdest Him who upholds all.
Hail, star causing the Sun to shine:
Hail, womb of the divine Incarnation.
Hail, for through thee the creation is made new:
Hail, for through thee the Creator becomes a newborn child.
Hail, Bride without bridegroom!--First Oikos

"When God so wishes," said the bodiless angel, "the order of nature is overcome and things beyond man's power come to pass. Believe that my words are true, all-holy Lady, utterly without spot." And she cried aloud, "Let it now be unto me according to thy word and I shall bear Him that is without flesh, who shall borrow flesh from me, that through this union of natures He may lead man up unto his ancient glory, for He alone has power to do so."--Third Sticheron at Psalm 140 of Vespers for the Saturday of the Akathist Hymn

The marvels of the Incarnation are not put forth so profoundly anywhere else. What a perfect hymn as we ever draw closer to our Lord's Passion and Resurrection which was to make man as God.

Cyril and the Christological Controversy

Today, June 9 (New Calendar), the Holy Orthodox Church commemorates St. Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Sometimes considered a controversial figure, especially in context of the Christological debates which were going on at the same time, Cyril was an ardent defender of Orthodoxy and foe of the Nestorians who believed, wrongly, that Mary should only be venerated as "Christotokos" (Mother of Christ) as opposed to "Theotokos" (Mother of God), which is the title that the Holy Orthodox Church proclaims as the Truth since Mary gave birth to the Theanthropos (God-Man), Jesus Christ. To say otherwise, as the Nestorians contended, suggests that Jesus and the Logos were two distinct persons (hypostases) rather than one person in two natures which is the formula that was adopted at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451. Nestorius was condemned and Cyril vindicated following the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 which codified and confirmed the title "Theotokos."

Though considered a staunch bulwark of Christian Orthodoxy, Cyril is sometimes attacked as being a crypto-Monophysite. Such is unfair if only because Cyril's acquittal of himself on one issue made him open to attack on another. For instance, Cyril when expressing his Christology used the formula "one nature [physis] of God the Word assumed flesh" which was not from St. Athanasius, as he had believed but from Apollinarius. The Apollinarian party believed that Christ had take on only a human body, not the full human nature; that the Logos had "taken the place of the rational and mimmaterial elements in the human body" (Meyendorff, 1975, 20). Cyril's lack of precise theological category should not be grounds enough for leaving him open to modern attack as a heretic, though this is often done.

Cyril, like Augustine, who is often attacked (and somewhat rightly) for overemphasizing the grace of God in man's salvation to the point that man becomes a puppet (Augustine, at the end of his life, made many clarifications and revisions of his earlier theological works which were compiled in his famous Retractationes, Retractations, NOT Retractions; Augustine was still working on this until he died in 430), does embrace the Christology which was upheld at Chalcedon in 451. Though he would not demand that the Antiochians adopt his terminology (Meyendorff, 1975, 21) and Chalcedon served as a necessary corrective for his defective vocabulary, Cyril clearly believes that the two natures of Jesus are not complements to each other, as the Apollinarians suggested, but united hypostatically in the person of Jesus Christ.

Now, why does this matter? Why do the arguments of calling Mary "Theotokos" as opposed to "Christotokos" matter? Why does the Chalcedonian Christology of Christ matter for us lowly, non-academic, non-theological people? They matter because the crux of the issue is theosis, which is where Man becomes God, not in substance, but by participation in his energies. The Athanasian and Irenaen dictum of "God became man so that man might become God" is really misunderstood by those outside of the Eastern Churches.

Western Christendom has been anchored in the Anselmian idea of redemption through the "penal satisfaction" of Christ on the cross for the sins of mankind. What happens through this strictly juridical interpretation of Christ's saving work on earth is that Christology becomes a separated category from both anthropology and pneumatology which the East strives to maintain. Whereas Western Christendom is so driven by a need to have theology nicely sorted and separated into respective categories, the East sees theology holistically. If Christ's redemptive work is separated to a category all its own, then theosis is out the window with it. Fr. John Meyendorff writes: ...[t]he true nature of man means life in God [theosis], realized once and for all, through the Holy Spirit, in the hypostatic union of the man Jesus with the Logos and made accessible to all men[emphasis mine], through the same Holy Spirit, in the humanity of Christ, in His body, the Church, Christology acquires a new and universal dimension. (Meyendorrf, 1979, 32).

Thus, the Christological controversy cannot be separated anthropology or life in the Spirit and it cannot be separated from soteriology. Christ's humanity, wholly human, wholly "appropriated" by the Logos creates in reality the destiny we seek (Meyendorff, 1975, 21). To call Mary only "Christotokos" rather than "Theotokos" is to say that Christ's flesh was independent of Him that was incarnate. It was in the flesh, as we confess, that Christ died, suffered and rose again. It was in that flesh that we find ourselves redeemed for communion with the Holy Spirit. And that is what theosis is--true communion with God! Thosis is how we become truly human! To be human is to dwell with the divine as Adam was.

The Anselmian juridical model provides no framework for this communion with God nor did the Antiochene Christology which Cyril opposed. More categories only divide and conquer the holistic nature of Eastern Christian thought; such is why the Eastern Churches are so apprehensive about adopting Western Christian definitions and categories and systems. The Cappadocian Fathers and other early Greek Christians were not opposed to using Greek philosophical problematics but were determined not to be imprisoned by strict systems (Meyendorff, 1979, 25).

Such a need for systems even spoiled over to debates regarding the Eucharist. If the East viewed the Eucharist from only one action of Christ's Life--the Crucifixion--then there would still be no room for theosis. As we confess in the Synodikon from the Sunday of Orthodoxy, Christ "reconciled us to Himself by means of the whole mystery of the economy, and by Himself in Himself, reconciled us also to his God and Father, and, of course, to the most holy and life-giving Spirit."

Why fear Mary?

Last night, I went to the mid week Advent service at Hope Lutheran Church with my parents. My reasons for going were many. After being there on Monday night to help my mom decorate the church (she needed my long legs and strong frame) for the season, I was reminded that a good portion of my life growing up in this area was shaped by being a member of this church. I was confirmed in this church. In fact, in the narthex, I saw the picture of my confirmation class back in 1990. A lot of my friends whom I still connect with I met through this church and I got to see and catch up with a few of them last night at the dinner given prior to the Advent Service. Unfortunately, most of my memories of the worship of this church were clouded with my complaints (not undeserved) that it was ahistorical, novel and more about outreach than worshipping the One God in purity and in truth.

The order of service used was from the Lutheran Service Book (LSB) which was recently published. It has 5 settings of the Divine Liturgy, a Matins, Vespers, Compline and several other services as well. The one used last night was Evening Prayer. Prior to the service starting, Pr. Harries (whom I don't know well since he came after I became Orthodox) explained the order of the service for the congregants. It never fails to amaze me how often Lutheran pastors have to explain the liturgies in place to the congregation; it just shows how impoverished liturgically much of modern Lutheranism has become. Fewer and fewer Lutheran churches prefer the traditional Liturgy and prefer an "whatever the pastor feels like doing" mentality...but, I digress. Anyway, the Evening Prayer service in the LSB is, in its framework, the Order of Great Vespers from the Eastern Rite Churches of which the Orthodox are included. The hymn "O Gladsome Light" is sung as well as Psalm 140 (though they begin with verse 2 and don't use incense), but the thing that floored me was the use of the Eastern Rite Great Ektenia (Litany). Word for word, it was exactly like the Litany that Orthodox use at Vespers, Orthros and Divine Liturgy. What floored me was the very end where the pastor says "Rejoicing in the fellowship of all the saints, let us commend ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ, our Lord." We say "Christ our God." But in the Orthodox version of this ending, we say "Calling to mind our most pure, most blessed, Lady Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary with all the saints, let us commend...etc."

The ending of this prayer is not a prayer to Mary or the saints. But why is Mary excised from this ending? I think that Romaphobia (at least in this respect) infiltrated the committee on worship and excised it. "We can't call Mary by name so we'll just cover her up by just mentioning all the saints. If we mention Mary people will think that we are worshipping her like those Catholics." Even if I'm not spot on with the words, I'm next to certain that such was the sentiment to justify their rewording of this petition.

Why are Lutherans so afraid to mention Mary's name? The reason we Orthodox call to mind Mary at the end of these litanies is because of Christology. Lutherans confess, rightly, that Christ is both God and man, has two natures, not commingled but united in His person. We Orthodox confess that as well. Our remembrance of Mary is to remember Christ's emptying of himself to become a servant, i.e. His incarnation. I'm sure people would object to this saying that we can remember Christ's incarnation without mentioning Mary. Really? How? If Mary is removed then there is no incarnation. Christ assumed everything we have (excepting sin) so that we may be entirely healed and that was done through Mary. Removing Mary from the incarnation is to deny one of the basic tenets of the faith. Even in the Nicene Creed which Lutherans and Orthodox alike confess (minus the filioque), we say that Christ was incarnate of the Holy Spirit AND the Virgin Mary. If we confess Mary in the Nicene Creed then what is the possible harm in remembering he incarnation of Christ, because of which our prayers are set before God the Father, through mentioning His mother at the end of the litany? I'm sure the response would be that mentioning her could possibly lead to worshipping Mary rather than God and that's what Catholics and Orthodox do. Of course, nothing can be further from the truth, since we commemorate and honor and commemorate her. Because Lutherans and other Protestants can't recognize the difference is their problem, not ours.

But still, why fear her? I've even noticed that in a lot of Lutheran circles, Mary is called not Mother of God (Thetokos in Greek as codified by the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 AD) but, instead, Mother of Jesus, which is to make a near Nestorian distinction. If Mary is not Mother of God, then the Logos did not become man. IF you don't want to pray to her, fine (it's your loss, in my opinion), but we're not praying to her in that petition; we are honoring her because it was through her that Christ became incarnate and thus saved us from sin and death.

The point I am trying to make: Mentioning Mary is not the first step to idolatry.

Thoughts on the Dormition

Orthodox Christians often talk a lot about icons. And why shouldn't they? Most Orthodox Christians, practicing Orthodox Christians, that is, have one or maybe several icons in their home of Christ, the Theotokos, various saints as well as scenes from Scriptures. When they go to their church, they see even more on the walls, in the dome of the Church (if they have one), on the icon screen which separates the nave from the sanctuary, during processions. In short, icons are very much a very visual representation of the Orthodox faith. For the most part, I think, a great many of other confessions of Christianity who do not actually have or use icons in their own liturgical/prayer life will not see anything wrong with them, but will limit their praise to regarding them simply as works of art. For us they are so much more.

An icon, from the Greek, means image. We depict Christ and the saints in icons not only for visual stimulation (since why shouldn't worship of God make use of all of our senses?) but icons are also how we (should) regard each and every person. We are obligated by Christ's commands to see in each and every person, even if that person wrongs us, an image of Christ Himself. After all, did not Christ say that "whatsoever you do to the least of these, my brethren, you also do unto me?" Thus, we are all living icons of our Lord and God and Saviour and Creator. And, as such, we honor icons. We do not show reverence to the wood or the paints but to that who is depicted. When dealing with our fellow men, we show respect not to their clothes, their hair, their flesh, but to the fact that the whole is created in the image of God.

Today, in the Holy Orthodox Church (new revised Julian Calendar) we observe the Dormition of the Theotokos. Catholics also celebrate this day and call it the Assumption. Some Protestant traditions, such as some Lutherans, celebrate this day as St. Mary's Day when they honor her generally. Of course, the feast itself and what it celebrates has no Scriptural basis. That is why Protestants overwhelmingly shudder at the possibility of honoring her. No Scriptural basis=no celebration. Of course, Scriptural proof or lack thereof, did not stop St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, St. Augustine, St. John Damascene and a whole host of other great thinkers and theologians of the Church, who are shared between the Eastern Church and the various western confessions, from celebrating and honoring Mary's falling asleep. Now, there are particulars which even the Catholics and Orthodox disagree on. I do not wish to go into that here because that would require much more time to write. However, I will simply say that the Orthdox do not regard Mary as having been immaculately conceived (a dogma which was first promulgated back in 1854). Mary inherited the same mortal corruption which all of us do and thus was in need of Christ's cross and resurrection as the rest of us as well and was subject to death as the rest of us are. Whether she actually sinned is another matter and will not touch that here.

Now, what does this have to do with icons? Simply this. Mary is the icon of creation, but not the creation which was corrupted by sin, but the icon of creation that has been renewed by Christ and His saving work. After all, she carried Christ in her womb, she carried the uncontainable God in her. And though, despite all of this, she died, that was not the end. She merely fell asleep. According to Holy Tradition, her tomb was opened by Christ's Apostles just as they had opened Christ's tomb three days after his Crucifixion. And just as they found Christ's tomb empty, Mary's tomb was also empty. Mary also arose from the dead, just as her son. As an icon of creation renewed, so she is also an icon of the Resurrection, the same Resurrection which we all wish to participate in. She is the first fruits of Christ's saving work. Celebrating Mary's falling asleep is a celebration of Christ's triumph over death. It is important to remember and remember well that Mary did not rise from the dead on her own. She does not have that power, only God does. But what has been given to Mary has also been given to us.

The late Protopresbyther, Fr. Alexander Schmemann once remarked that Mary is not the great exception as the Catholics describe her but the great example which we should all emulate. Her life on earth was blessed to be sure from her carrying of Christ Himself in herself, but we are called to carry Christ in ourselves. Mary is the icon of a good, true and faithful Christian with trust in God. Her hymn, the Magnificat, should also be our hymn. Her obedient response to Gabriel's announcement that she would bear the Saviour of the world, "Let it be unto me as you have said" should be our obedience to all of God's commands.

Thus, let us all honor Mary, on this day and every day, not because she saves us (For only God can do that), but because she is the icon of the saved.

In giving birth thou didst preserve virginity and in thy dormition thou didst not forsake the world, O Theotokos. For thou wast translated unto life, for thou art the mother of Life. By thine intercessions, deliver our souls from death."--Troparion of Dormition in Tone 1

Patristic Quote of the Day

'The strips of linen and the burial clothes afford the apostles a demonstration of the Theotokos' resurrection from the dead, since they remained alone in the tomb and at the 'scrutiny they were found there, even as it had been with the Master. There was no necessity for her body to delay yet a little while in the earth, as was the case with her Son and God, and so it was taken up straightway from the tomb to a super-celestial realm, from whence she flashes forth most brilliant and divine illuminations and graces, irradiating earth's region.'

St. Greogry Palamas, Archbishop of Thessaloniki

Blessed feast of Dormition to all the faithful!

Patristic quote of the day

In thee, O spotless Virgin, the laws of nature were suspended; for thy virginity was preserved in thy childbearing, and Life is joined with death. Thou, O Theotokos, didst remain a virgin after child-birth, and after death art still alive and dost ever deliver thy heritage.--St. Cozma the Anchorite, 9th ode of the Canon for Dormition.